EU
Killers: Life, death, and the gray paradox in between…
Given that earlier today, I posted my opinion on what I think the criteria of a true “killer” is, I find it ironic that I should run across an article dealing with the ethics of the death penalty for a person who meets the legally circumscribed definition of a “Killer”:
“The European Union notes with great regret the upcoming execution in the State of Texas,” the Portuguese presidency of the 27-nation bloc said in a statement.
Texas is expected to hit the 400 mark on Wednesday — putting it far ahead of any other U.S. state — with the execution of Johnny Ray Conner for the 1998 shooting of a grocery store clerk.
The European Union, which on Tuesday called the death penalty “cruel and inhumane,” is opposed to all capital punishment and has called for its worldwide abolition.
“There is no evidence to suggest that the use of the death penalty serves as a deterrent against violent crime,” the statement said, adding that its irreversibility meant that miscarriages of justice could not be redressed. – [Yahoo/Reuters]
What I find most interesting about this article, is the EUs objection to the death penalty on the grounds that it:
- Has not proven to be a deterrent against violent crime.
- Is cruel and inhumane.
Oh really? I might actually have bought reason one, if the sole purpose of the death penalty was to be a deterrent to violent crime. But most of the people whom I think would think deserve the death penalty are people who could watch someone getting brutally massacred right before their eyes without batting an eye, and proceed to enjoy a steak dinner like nothing happened and then sleep like a baby that night. IMHO The death penalty is not a deterrent. It’s cleanup.
That’s not to say that the death penalty couldn’t be a good deterrent for the more normal types of killers. It’s just that nobody thinks it’s going to happen to them unless they actually see it happen, up close and personal. Humans are visual creatures. If you really want to make an impression on them, you have to show them. How many people you know have actually ever seen an execution occur? I’m willing to bet few to none. So how exactly is it intended to be a deterrent?
And point 2 is laughable at best. Is life in prison supposed to be less cruel than death? Sure you’ll be alive, but it won’t exactly be a picnic either. Many who get life ending up serving a reduced sentence anyway due to bing killed in prison. And inhumane? There are such things as humane executions. Is death by lethal injection inhumane? I don’t think so. If I had to go, what better way than to just fall asleep an never wake up again. Quick and painless. I don’t think it gets any more humane than that.
Now obviously, I have no intrinsic objections to the death penalty. There are some people who will never be able to function in a socially constructive way, and can never be rehabilitated. And I think these people only pose a continuing threat to the well being of everyone else, and can safely (in my opinion anyway) be removed from society. But there are problems.
The biggest problem, is the only valid objection I saw in the article. The fact that the death penalty is irreversible, and if there is a mistake there is no way to rectify it. I can’t argue that, because our legal system has many flaws. Innocent people are found guilty and the guilty walk free. On the basis of that alone, we ought to abolish the death penalty. Not because it’s not a good solution for eliminating incurably violent criminals from society, but because the system too flawed to accurately determine who really deserves that penalty.
The legal system, for all of it’s massive and highly detailed rules and regulations, is still run and decided by living, breathing, human people. Each person has different belief system, different ideas of right and wrong, and different thresholds and tolerances for things. And few cases feature objective and irrefutable evidence like a video camera or an audio tape that tells the whole story in an accurate and objective manner. The judge and jury often has to make assumptions and decisions based on assumptions. It’s just isn’t morally or ethically responsible to base anyones death on human assumptions and feelings.
But even if the system could determine with 100 percent accuracy who should get the chair, we can’t kid ourselves about what we are doing. There is a paradox to this way of thinking. We are, in effect murdering a person in cold blood. Yes, we are doing it to save the lives of others that we know could be killed if the killer is allowed to continue to live. But we are being killers ourselves, simply because do not have, and cannot come up with, a better solution. Imagine that. We have no imagination…
EU urges Texas to halt executions before 400 mark – [Yahoo/Reuters]
This is why I’m Hawt… This is why you’re not…
Today I thought I’d indulge in an interesting study in morality…
A mysterious blonde paid a visit to a petrol station shop in the small eastern German town of Doemitz on Sunday — wearing nothing but a pair of golden stilettos and a thin gold bracelet.
The tall, slender woman strolled into the shop in the town of Doemitz on the warm afternoon and bought cigarettes, petrol station employee Ines Swoboda told Reuters on Monday. – [Yahoo/Reuters]
Now compare that with this story…
A German bus driver threatened to throw a 20-year-old sales clerk off his bus in the southern town of Lindau because he said she was too sexy, a newspaper reported Monday.
“Suddenly he stopped the bus,” the woman named Debora C. told Bild newspaper. “He opened the door and shouted at me ‘Your cleavage is distracting me every time I look into my mirror and I can’t concentrate on the traffic. If you don’t sit somewhere else, I’m going to have to throw you off the bus.’” – [Reuters]
Now these articles represent, at least to my mind, a interesting illustration of the fundamental differences between American and European views of sexuality in general. I am almost certain that had these same set of circumstances occurred here in the good old U. S. of A., the exact opposite of what happened in Europe would have occurred. The bus driver would have kept his mouth shut for fear of violating a passengers rights, and some random stick-in-the-mud would have phoned the police on the naked blond.
I believe that this behavior in Americans is also indicative of a much deeper issue. In spite of the constant “Support of Personal Freedoms” chant we hear here in the US, the truth is, it seems that we only believe in the concept of individual freedoms and unalienable rights so long as our own individual beliefs have not been offended. Not our individual rights, just our individual beliefs. There is a big difference. The fact that you believe something does not make it a right. Trust me. Or not. That is your right…
As a result of this, I believe we tend to focus too much on the wrong things. Think back to when you read the articles. Which scenario did you find more offensive? A totally nekkid, (save for a pair of gold stilettos, and a gold necklace) 30 year old, Ferrari-driving blond, at a gas station convenience store? Or a fully (relatively) clothed 20 year old on a bus whose plunging neckline was apparently so distracting as to have possibly caused an accident? And when you first answered this question in your head, did your personal moral values/beliefs take precedence, or your humanitarian instinct towards the preservation human life?
It is such irony that we seem to live in a society where, as a typical example, in any given movie, scenes depicting extreme violence, torture, dismemberment and death, are generally considered more acceptable and less socially heinous, than those with explicit sexual content. What does that say about our values as society? Methinks our moral priorities may be just a *wee bit* skewed… But then again that’s just my belief…
Nude blonde, gold stilettos and a Ferrari… – [Yahoo/Reuters]
“Too sexy for my bus,” woman told – [Reuters]
EU Debates 101Mph Speed limit…
The European Union is considering imposing a 101Mph speed limit on all European manufactured cars in an attempt to reduce emissions and increase efficiency:
Chris Davies, a Liberal Democrat Member of European Parliament (MEP) has tabled a set of proposals to the EU Environment Committee that include harsh cuts to CO2 emissions, and a top speed limit of 162km/h for Euro-approved cars.
Mr Davies said: “Cars designed to go at stupid speeds have to be built to withstand the effects of a crash at those speeds. They are heavier than necessary, less fuel efficient and produce too many emissions. At a time when Europe is worried about its energy security it is sheer lunacy to approve the sale of gas guzzling cars designed to travel at dangerous speeds that the law does not permit.” – [GizMag]
Notwithstanding my admitted love of high horsepower engines and breakneck speeds, legislation like these generally seem to me to be the knee-jerk reaction of ignorant and narrow minded thinkers. The relationship between an engines efficiency and a cars top speed is never that simple. The same is doubly so for emissions. It is possible to make highly efficient high speed vehicles, as it is to make low emission, high horsepower engines. It’s all about the technology. Better solutions are found by fostering an environment of innovation, not prohibition.
Capping off arbitrary characteristics like top speed is meaningless, because you can have low speed vehicles that are still inefficient and produce high emissions. They might as well outlaw SUVs in Europe. I’m all about saving the environment, but lets hope people don’t cross the line into prohibition while they’re at it. Just a little bit of objective, scientific thought would go a long way here…
If they are worried about emissions and efficiency, they should just specify what they consider to be an acceptable emissions goal and efficiency rating, and let the manufacturers worry about it. That’s their job. They want to sell cars people like and they are pretty good at it. And I guarantee you they will come up with the technology to deliver that, and high horsepower, all at the same time. That’s how they make their money. And that, my friends, is how innovation works.
Log In
My Thoughts…
Blogroll
General Info
Phyreblades Blogs
Famous Last Words
The Time Machine
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jan | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | ||||
Issues
Pick your Poison:
Easy Eavesdropping.
- Phyreblade on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- dreadrocksean on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- shamelesslyatheist on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…