.JPG)
Executing Elderly Prisoners
The CBS Evening News had a piece last night on the Death Penalty for aging prisoners. Featured was a feeble old inmate due to be executed soon. A uniformed guard explained how he and four others will need to carry him to the gurney (he can’t walk) and then “strap him in” (so he can’t escape?). Another guard pointed to a decrepit, mentally-retarded-looking guy in a wheel chair, also on Death Row. “Look at him,” the guard says, “he’s not gonna hurt anybody.” We can agree on that. Then again, what do you with him, Let him go? (maybe at the top of a hill? Only kidding).
I was hoping the interviewer would stir things up by asking the guard: “But it’s costing us on average $40,000 a year to keep this old guy alive, more with all his medicines. Shouldn’t we kill him and save the state some money?” I'm sure the scripted answer would have been: “But, sir, you can’t put a price on a human life.”
The Death Penalty is one of those issues that both the Right and the Left love to argue about – the “bleeding hearts” on the Left (you gotta give the Right credit for their skill at branding with language) and the “eye-for-an-eye” crowd on the Right. And the more I hear the sillier it gets. Everyone knows that the Death Penalty does not deter crime, sometimes kills the innocent, is arguably uncivilized, and does not save the state money. (It probably costs more with the long appeals process). Besides, isn’t life in prison without parole a stiffer punishment than a needle? It would be to me.
The shrillest advocates of the Death Penalty -- all on the Right of course -- are out for one thing: vengeance. They call it "justice," but it's revenge, and that's the part that bugs me: the state does not belong in the vengeance business. The angry daughter of the man the featured prisoner killed wants him executed “because he killed my father.” Sort of reminds you one of Bush’s justifications for attacking Saddam: “He tried to kill my daddy.” (It’s okay that we tried to kill Saddam, but always “evil” when it’s the other way around).
I don't personally care one way or the other (except for those who are innocent) so I'm sure no bleeding heart. But I'd much rather be a bleeding heart than a member of the retribution crowd!
I was hoping the interviewer would stir things up by asking the guard: “But it’s costing us on average $40,000 a year to keep this old guy alive, more with all his medicines. Shouldn’t we kill him and save the state some money?” I'm sure the scripted answer would have been: “But, sir, you can’t put a price on a human life.”
The Death Penalty is one of those issues that both the Right and the Left love to argue about – the “bleeding hearts” on the Left (you gotta give the Right credit for their skill at branding with language) and the “eye-for-an-eye” crowd on the Right. And the more I hear the sillier it gets. Everyone knows that the Death Penalty does not deter crime, sometimes kills the innocent, is arguably uncivilized, and does not save the state money. (It probably costs more with the long appeals process). Besides, isn’t life in prison without parole a stiffer punishment than a needle? It would be to me.
The shrillest advocates of the Death Penalty -- all on the Right of course -- are out for one thing: vengeance. They call it "justice," but it's revenge, and that's the part that bugs me: the state does not belong in the vengeance business. The angry daughter of the man the featured prisoner killed wants him executed “because he killed my father.” Sort of reminds you one of Bush’s justifications for attacking Saddam: “He tried to kill my daddy.” (It’s okay that we tried to kill Saddam, but always “evil” when it’s the other way around).
I don't personally care one way or the other (except for those who are innocent) so I'm sure no bleeding heart. But I'd much rather be a bleeding heart than a member of the retribution crowd!
posted by Jim Fleming | 11:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home