Death Penalty and Executions

[juliod]

Capital punishment frequently comes up as a topic of discussion in this forum. Typically, most people express dissatisfaction with the current system in the US. I'd like some comments on this proposal for reform.

There are usually two objections to the current system. Advocates of the death penalty think there are two many levels of appeal and that it takes too long and is too uncertain. Opponents complain that too many innocent people are convicted and that executions are often unnecessarily cruel.

My proposal is straightforward. It would be implements at the state level, where most executions take place. Basically it is composed to two provisions:

1) Prior to an execution, the Governor of the state must certify that the convict is in fact guilty and that execution is appropriate considering all the facts and compared to similar crimes. This duty would have to be done by the Governor personally and cannot be delegated.

2) The Governor of the state would personally carry out the execution. The Governor would have to personally operate the mechanism, the switch, button, or level than directly leads to death. The Governor must remain in full view of the prisoner until a pronouncement of death.

My goal is to increase the sense of personal responsability in capital cases. That is what I think is lacking, and what leads to all the problems with the death penalty. The governor is the Chief Executive, let them execute. That will be the motto of our movement.

Why are executions too cruel? It's because no one in actual authority is involved in them. They are carried out by anonymous prison officials who may be sadists in the first place. Even lethal injection, once thought to be a humane method, is now suspected of causing extreme pain and suffering in some, perhaps many, cases. If the Governor were doing the execution directly, they would want to be very sure that things were done right, if only for their own conscience.

Why are innocent people still being found on Death Row? It's because no one in actual authority actually cares. Judges, in my view, are a hopeless case. Politicians, OTOH, often need to make a posturing tough-on-crime stance. They would be less likely to ignore evidence of actual innocence if they had to personally and publicly state they they are convinced of the justice in this specific case. No more hiding behind a jury.

My plan would tie the chief executive more directly to the execution, both in decision and action. Since they would have no simple defense in case the convict were later shown to be innocent, the Governors would take these cases much more seriously and give them greater consideration (and not just whether it makes them look "tough").

Opponents of executions often seem frustrated that as the date of an impending execution comes up it is impossible to get anyone in authority to look at evidence of innocence. Governors won't meet with their representatives. Courts won't grant hearings. The problem is that often the evidence of innocence is quite convincing. If there were a high official who must tie his or her personal dignity, reputation, and honor to the guilt of the condemned, we would not have these issues.

I think if my proposal were implimented it would be very helpful in weeding out those miscarriages that plauge our capital system, and lead to a reduction in the need for multiple appeals and repeated rulings.

DanZ

[Cephus]

The death penalty isn't the only problem, but it is a problem and it is after all the topic of this thread. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that we don't want to solve the other problems just because we happen to be discussing the problems with the death penalty.

Now wait a minute, are you saying that even if you could be sure that only the guilty were being executed, you'd still consider the death penalty a problem? So it isn't the possibility of innocents being executed, you really just have a problem with the penalty in general?

Also, I wouldn't classify what any of the death penalty opponents are saying here as whining. We have brought up what we think are legitimate and documented problems with the death penalty, and pointed out that the death penalty does not provide any benefit to society vis-a-vis other forms of punishment. No whining here.

I certainly would. Have you listened to a lot of the people going on and on about Tookie Williams in the media? A lot of it is very much whining.

An unjustified assumption on your part.

Considering that every death penalty debate I've ever taken part in, the only thing anyone wants to talk about is getting rid of the death penalty, not fixing the legal system, it seems pretty justified to me.

You are the only one I have seen here that has said that you don't care if the innocent get punished.

I'm a realist. I recognize that as humans, we can and do make mistakes. The fact that we might make a mistake cannot paralyze us into complete inaction, just in case we might do something in error. If we did that, we'd never do *ANYTHING* worthwhile.

If we never allowed ourselves the possibility to fail, even when the outcome might be the death of innocents, we'd never go into space, we'd never explore and we'd never take the risks necessary to advance as a species. We cannot quake in our boots just because the slim possibility exists that we might be wrong a tiny percentage of the time, all we can do is strive to improve and better the odds.

It is predominantly about advocating for what is perceived to be a more just and civilized society, where violence, vengeance, and retribution are less a part of our interactions with each other. THus, your contention that . . . .

I'd say that any society that refuses to punish the wicked is neither just nor civilized. Like it or not, people are going to use violence against others, it is the responsibility of society as a whole to judge those offenders guilty and punish them in an appropriate manner. To give a violent mass-murderer life in prison is simply not appropriate. It's a slap on the wrist. The only appropriate punishment for such individuals, based on their horrific crimes, is death, like it or not. To do less is absolutely uncivilized.

[MagusYanam]

I certainly would. Have you listened to a lot of the people going on and on about Tookie Williams in the media? A lot of it is very much whining.

Ah, but on this site we're not 'going on and on about Tookie Williams in the media', are we now? Once you start addressing the real arguments the abolitionists on this site are making maybe yours will have more validity.

Considering that every death penalty debate I've ever taken part in, the only thing anyone wants to talk about is getting rid of the death penalty, not fixing the legal system, it seems pretty justified to me.

Like it or not, the death penalty's existence is the topic being discussed here. If you want to start a discussion on fixing the legal system, either start another thread or join one related. I believe there is a topic going around about the 'Purpose of the Penal System' or something to that effect.

I'm a realist. I recognize that as humans, we can and do make mistakes. The fact that we might make a mistake cannot paralyze us into complete inaction, just in case we might do something in error. If we did that, we'd never do *ANYTHING* worthwhile.

If we never allowed ourselves the possibility to fail, even when the outcome might be the death of innocents, we'd never go into space, we'd never explore and we'd never take the risks necessary to advance as a species. We cannot quake in our boots just because the slim possibility exists that we might be wrong a tiny percentage of the time, all we can do is strive to improve and better the odds.

Realist or not, you have yet to demonstrate that capital punishment is as worthwhile an expenditure of life and resources as exploration (to use your example), given the risk of failure. Since we do have alternative punishments that are less costly, less risky and less controversial, it seems we don't need capital punishment.

Capital punishment does not advance a comprehensive notion of justice, it fails to recognise the worth of individual rationality and given the state of our justice system today it would have a rate of failure far higher than the conservative estimates previously furnished courtesy micatala.

I'd say that any society that refuses to punish the wicked is neither just nor civilized. Like it or not, people are going to use violence against others, it is the responsibility of society as a whole to judge those offenders guilty and punish them in an appropriate manner. To give a violent mass-murderer life in prison is simply not appropriate. It's a slap on the wrist. The only appropriate punishment for such individuals, based on their horrific crimes, is death, like it or not. To do less is absolutely uncivilized.

The assertion that abolitionists 'refuse to punish the wicked' is patently false and therefore to be discarded. I think where you'll get the most argument from abolitionists is the last part.

Especially considering your argument that life in prison was worse than the death penalty and that you'd choose death over life in prison every time, it becomes particularly telling of your illogic that you would entertain the notion that life in prison is 'a slap on the wrist' for a repeat offender. The only thing the death penalty seems to do that life in prison doesn't is preclude reconciliation for the rightly convicted and preclude exoneration for the wrongly accused. Both of which, to my mind, are unjust.

But then, I'm stipulating a definition of 'justice' that includes such quaint and outmoded notions as 'reconciliation', 'malice toward none' and 'charity for all'.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Please, show some figures to back this claim. The ones that I've seen have shown a statistically insignificant increase in crime with the reinstatement of capital punishment.

Again? Well, okay.

"States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty."
(http://teacher.deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu ... ment1b.htm)

An analyzation by Criminologists:
"To assess expert opinion, we surveyed 67 of the 70
current and former presidents of three professional criminology
organizations: The American Society of Criminology, Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences, and Law and Society Association. Over
80 percent of these experts believe the existing research fails
to support a deterrence justification for capital punishment.
Over three-quarters believe that increasing the frequency of
executions, or decreasing the time spent on death row before
execution, would not produce a general deterrent effect."
(http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dp ... .deterence)


"A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty." (http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/deterrence.html)



Pretty conclusive if you ask me.

Personally, I don't think the deterrence argument works either way, because all it amounts to, ultimately, is speculation.

Not speculation, personal experience. Why don't I drive 100+ to school every day? Because I am afraid of getting a ticket.

I don't exactly have any figures to support prison deterrence, but who really needs them? It's just common sense. Most people are not willing risk jail/fines, especially considering our highly effective police system.

I'm inclined to say that there are quite a few (like Cephus) who would continue to behave morally. They would be preyed upon constantly by the less admirable portions of humanity, however.

I have always theorised that humans are generally good on an individual basis, but collectively will revert to savagery in the effort to prosper. Government helps balance the power. Without it, chaos is inevitable.

I'm a realist. I recognize that as humans, we can and do make mistakes. The fact that we might make a mistake cannot paralyze us into complete inaction, just in case we might do something in error. If we did that, we'd never do *ANYTHING* worthwhile.

If we never allowed ourselves the possibility to fail, even when the outcome might be the death of innocents, we'd never go into space, we'd never explore and we'd never take the risks necessary to advance as a species. We cannot quake in our boots just because the slim possibility exists that we might be wrong a tiny percentage of the time, all we can do is strive to improve and better the odds.

People will embrace that idealogy to the point of apathy. "It's never going to be perfect, so this faulty system will just have to do".

Of course we make mistakes. But to embrace that fallability to the point of disregarding conspicuous flaws is irrational. The Death Penalty is conspicuously flawed; there are better systems to invest in.

If we never allowed ourselves the possibility to fail, we could often develop inherently superior entities. "Failure is not an option" has been the philosophy of countless successful endeavors.

I cannot accept mediocrity under the guise that "we are not perfect".

[Excel]

Lets say that convict A is a convicted murderer. We know that A is guilty.

A is therefore on death row. Why does A deserve to die? How does killing

him benefit the family of the deceased? How is society benefited? Whats

the difference if A is killed or spends his life in prison ? The only

difference is that A gets a chance to make amends, to better himself or to

at least enjoy whats left of his life. Why does anyone deserve life?

Cephus, what did you do to deserve to exist? What is it that justifies your

life but not that of a murderer? Why is the philosophy of an eye for an

eye just? Does it not make the victim no different then the one who

committed the act?

[/quote]

[Cephus]

Ah, but on this site we're not 'going on and on about Tookie Williams in the media', are we now? Once you start addressing the real arguments the abolitionists on this site are making maybe yours will have more validity.

Considering that Tookie Williams is the anti-death penalty poster child at the moment, I'd say it's perfectly valid.

Of course, the only things the abolutionists have said on this site is they don't like the death penalty and since it isn't a perfect system, they don't like it. Not much to answer there, is there?

Like it or not, the death penalty's existence is the topic being discussed here. If you want to start a discussion on fixing the legal system, either start another thread or join one related. I believe there is a topic going around about the 'Purpose of the Penal System' or something to that effect.

But the biggest complaint that I hear about the death penalty is directly related to the legal system. Or are you not serious about that?

Realist or not, you have yet to demonstrate that capital punishment is as worthwhile an expenditure of life and resources as exploration (to use your example), given the risk of failure. Since we do have alternative punishments that are less costly, less risky and less controversial, it seems we don't need capital punishment.

It does what it's designed to do, like it or not. You're the one that keeps sticking additional requirements onto it. You're the one making emotional statements about it.

Capital punishment does not advance a comprehensive notion of justice, it fails to recognise the worth of individual rationality and given the state of our justice system today it would have a rate of failure far higher than the conservative estimates previously furnished courtesy micatala.

And there you go again. Knock it off.

[MagusYanam]

Considering that Tookie Williams is the anti-death penalty poster child at the moment, I'd say it's perfectly valid.

No, it isn't. Judging the worth of abolitionism by the moral value of one man tangentially associated with abolitionism is called 'ad hominem' and is, I should hardly have to point out to you, a logical fallacy.

Of course, the only things the abolutionists have said on this site is they don't like the death penalty and since it isn't a perfect system, they don't like it. Not much to answer there, is there?

We're not exactly saying 'capital punishment - yuck' here. You're being presented with all sorts of moral (moral, not emotivist) arguments against the death penalty which you're not addressing. There's plenty to answer there, isn't there?

But the biggest complaint that I hear about the death penalty is directly related to the legal system. Or are you not serious about that?

Of course I'm serious about it. Our legal system makes demonstrable mistakes and should allow itself the opportunity to correct them. But using the argument as a red herring when other issues are being discussed is counterproductive, though you're welcome to join the other threads I mentioned with these issues (when they have relevance).

It does what it's designed to do, like it or not. You're the one that keeps sticking additional requirements onto it. You're the one making emotional statements about it.

Hydrogen bombs 'do what they're designed to do, like them or not'. Does that mean we should make use of them? Does that mean we aren't to make moral considerations that might 'stick additional requirements onto it'? Why just use conventional warfare? Using nuclear arms would be a lot more efficient and destroy our enemies all the quicker. Can't let any namby-pamby moralists restrict our using them, can we?

I've heard a lot of retentionist arguments in my time; some have been actually very good. This one to me seems more than just a little weak. That it 'does what it's designed to do' doesn't make capital punishment either good or right.

Capital punishment does not advance a comprehensive notion of justice, it fails to recognise the worth of individual rationality and given the state of our justice system today it would have a rate of failure far higher than the conservative estimates previously furnished courtesy micatala.

And there you go again. Knock it off.

And there I go again... what? Exactly how was that emotional? Is the demand for real justice an emotional issue? What about that of recognition of individual moral worth? These are not the demands of emotion, these are the demands (to paraphrase Kant) of duty from reason.

[micatala]

micatala wrote:
The death penalty isn't the only problem, but it is a problem and it is after all the topic of this thread. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that we don't want to solve the other problems just because we happen to be discussing the problems with the death penalty.

Now wait a minute, are you saying that even if you could be sure that only the guilty were being executed, you'd still consider the death penalty a problem? So it isn't the possibility of innocents being executed, you really just have a problem with the penalty in general?

Yes, even if we could guarantee no innocents were executed, there are still other problems with the death penalty to be considered. This does not mean that it is 'not about innocents' it just means that the execution of innocents isn't the only problem.

You seem to be always wanting to oversimplify the argument down to a single rationale. You seem to think that there can be only one reason for opposition to the death penalty, and if that one reason can be addressed, than everyone should agree the death penalty is OK. I think we have already discussed in this thread multiple reasons for opposing the death penalty. Not all of us who oppose the death penalty are agreed on the rationale for doing so, or the purpose of the penal system, or the validity or lack thereof in the arguments for the death penalty.

Of course, the only things the abolutionists have said on this site is they don't like the death penalty and since it isn't a perfect system, they don't like it. Not much to answer there, is there?

??????????

I'd suggest re-reading the thread, as this comment seems to completely ignore the many and varied arguments that have been forwarded in opposition to the death penalty. Again, this is gross over-simplification.

"A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty." (http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/deterrence.html)

Yes, I have seen these stats and your accompanying charts before. I will take issue a bit with your conclusions, though. There are potentially a number of other reasons why states with the death penalty have higher murder rates, etc. One possibility is that these states decided to re-implement the death penalty because of their higher murder or violent crime rates. This would need further investigation. Another explanation is that there is another underlying 'cultural cause' that exists in these states that leads both to more violence and to more support for the death penalty.

I don't have the graphs with me, but it is interesting to look at how murder rates have changed over time, state by state. For example, both Michigan and Texas show a steep rise in murder rates from the mid-1960's through the 1970's, then a general flattening through the 80's, and a gradual decrease through the 90's. However, Michigan has NEVER had a death penalty in its entire history as a state. Only 13 peopl have been executed, all except one under territorial jurisdiction, and the remaining one in 1938 under Federal jurisdiction.
(see http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... =8&did=269)

Texas, of course, is in some sense currently the death penalty capital of the U.S., although it did experience a hiatus in executions in the late 60's and through at least most of the 70's.

This data indicates that one cannot explain the steep rise in murder rates nationally that occurred in the 60's and 70's, nor the subsequent decline in the 90's to the 'death penalty moratorium' that we experienced in the 70's.

I have always theorised that humans are generally good on an individual basis, but collectively will revert to savagery in the effort to prosper. Government helps balance the power. Without it, chaos is inevitable.

I think this is a good point. It seems to me that a civil society functions through both the 'internal moral compasses' of its citizens and prudent and effective societal systems. Without any government there is likely to be chaos. However, even a powerful government will have trouble maintaining the desired degree of order if the citizens are generally unruly and uncivilized, at least without resorting to draconian measures which drastically curtail freedoms. A society can encourage its citizens to develop the necessary 'moral compasses' in a number of ways, including through the idea of a 'social contract' whereby government agrees to provide additional benefits and freedoms if the citizens will agree to act more responsibly of their own free will than they would otherwise.

Arguably, the reason we had rioting in New Orleans, and even moreso in Los Angeles after the Rodney King beatings, and in other instances, is that many citizens in these locations at these times felt the 'social contract' was violated.

One reason I oppose the death penalty is because it does nothing more than prison to enhance the ability of government to exert necessary control, while also having the down side of violating the social contract by devaluing the life of its citizens and sending the symbolic message that violence is an appropriate way to deal with problems. This so-called brutalization effect has been studied to some extent. (see http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... 12&did=167)

[Cephus]

No, it isn't. Judging the worth of abolitionism by the moral value of one man tangentially associated with abolitionism is called 'ad hominem' and is, I should hardly have to point out to you, a logical fallacy.

You really don't understand logical fallacies, do you? Besides, there's nothing remotely ad hominem about what I've said, I haven't attacked you as an individual anywhere, have I? I've simply pointed out that the anti-death penalty movement is hard at work to save Tookie, which is factually true, just look at the news. These are the same people who were out holding candlelight vigils for Karla Faye Tucker in Texas, the idiot who killed someone with a pickaxe and claimed to have an orgasm while doing it.

Maybe if the anti-DPers were a little more selective and only tried to save people that might be innocent, they might get somewhere.

We're not exactly saying 'capital punishment - yuck' here. You're being presented with all sorts of moral (moral, not emotivist) arguments against the death penalty which you're not addressing. There's plenty to answer there, isn't there?

Not really. I've already answered those arguments and they keep getting put forward again and again as if they're new. When you simplify it down, it becomes little more than "capital punishment - yuck".

Of course I'm serious about it. Our legal system makes demonstrable mistakes and should allow itself the opportunity to correct them. But using the argument as a red herring when other issues are being discussed is counterproductive, though you're welcome to join the other threads I mentioned with these issues (when they have relevance).

If the legal system was fixed, then it wouldn't make mistakes, would it? Yet I never hear any anti-DPer advocate real change in the legal system, nor do I see anyone calling for a reform of the justice system. You'd think it would make sense, especially since it would mean that people who are 'innocent' wouldn't get the death penalty, but that's not your goal. You don't want to save the innocents, you want to end the death penalty altogether. Therefore, who cares who gets sentenced, right?

Hydrogen bombs 'do what they're designed to do, like them or not'. Does that mean we should make use of them? Does that mean we aren't to make moral considerations that might 'stick additional requirements onto it'? Why just use conventional warfare? Using nuclear arms would be a lot more efficient and destroy our enemies all the quicker. Can't let any namby-pamby moralists restrict our using them, can we?

That's a good analogy. Hydrogen bombs, in and of themselves, aren't right or wrong. They simply exist. It's the decision to use them that needs to be looked at. The death penalty isn't right or wrong, it simply is. It's the decision to send people who may not be guilty of the crime to the electric chair, or whatever, that you should be looking at. The problem is, you're not. You're just not interested. You don't care about the war, you just don't want nukes to be used under any circumstances, whereas the rest of us think that given the right circumstances, using appropriate force is fine.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Not really. I've already answered those arguments and they keep getting put forward again and again as if they're new. When you simplify it down, it becomes little more than "capital punishment - yuck".

You have answered them, but not nearly sufficiently enough.

We say the death penalty does not deter crime. You say it's not supposed to (which is false, according to every criminal justice lawmaker in the nation).

We say justice is not dealt evenly, and many innocents are put to death. You don't care.

We say that capital cases are far more expensive. You say that this would not be the case if they were carried out in a quicker manner. That's fine, but you have not provided any logical scenario in which this can be accomplished while still ensuring equity.


However, your simplified version of our argument is pretty accurate, actually. Innocent people put to death, yuck. Inescapably biased trials, yuck. Zero to negative effect on crime, billions of wasted tax money, yuck.

In my opinon, you have failed to present any beneficial effects of capital punishment. Your argument, simplified down, is no more than "revenge is sweet".

[MagusYanam]

You really don't understand logical fallacies, do you? Besides, there's nothing remotely ad hominem about what I've said, I haven't attacked you as an individual anywhere, have I? I've simply pointed out that the anti-death penalty movement is hard at work to save Tookie, which is factually true, just look at the news. These are the same people who were out holding candlelight vigils for Karla Faye Tucker in Texas, the idiot who killed someone with a pickaxe and claimed to have an orgasm while doing it.

Maybe if the anti-DPers were a little more selective and only tried to save people that might be innocent, they might get somewhere.

I took a course in logic and reasoning and, as I recall, ad hominem occurs when an argument is not judged on its own merits but on the character or behaviour of one of its advocates (not necessarily me). And that seemed from your previous post to be what you were doing (attempting to attack abolitionism by submitting Williams as its 'poster-boy'), although here you have diverged from this.

Though your statements are not fallacious, I still think you're misconstruing the abolitionist stance. It's not that we condone actions like Williams' or Tucker's (we don't, so it's a straw man that you keep insisting that abolitionists in fact do), but we don't see any reason why these crimes should merit the forfeiture of the entirety of their rational faculty, rationality being the ultimate moral value according to an ethic of respect for persons.

Not really. I've already answered those arguments and they keep getting put forward again and again as if they're new. When you simplify it down, it becomes little more than "capital punishment - yuck".

I haven't seen any valid response to my arguments. Usually it goes like this: I submit a moral principle ('sentencing a person to death is wrong') and its rationale (cessation of rationality and limits to the principle of forfeiture) based in a moral standard (those actions are right that treat individuals as ends in themselves by virtue of their capacity for reason). You can try to refute my proposed principle by a.) attacking the rationale - saying that the principle of forfeiture is not limited to prevent cessation of rationality, for example - or b.) trying to propose another, alternative standard or convince me of the wrongness of my own by appealing to objective criteria (inconsistencies, non-feasibility, limited usefulness, et cetera).

So far, you've done neither. Stick to yo' guns all you want, but provide some kind of rationale for it using sound ethical logic. I'm open to being convinced that in some cases the death penalty may be warranted. But until I'm presented with something better than abolition - a comprehensive plan of legal reform, for example - I'm sticking to mah own guns.

If the legal system was fixed, then it wouldn't make mistakes, would it? Yet I never hear any anti-DPer advocate real change in the legal system, nor do I see anyone calling for a reform of the justice system. You'd think it would make sense, especially since it would mean that people who are 'innocent' wouldn't get the death penalty, but that's not your goal. You don't want to save the innocents, you want to end the death penalty altogether. Therefore, who cares who gets sentenced, right?

Sounds like you've never heard an abolitionist argue before. One of the most common arguments I hear from my own side is that the legal system is biased (against poor and minorities, primarily), and thus that it should tread more cautiously for the time being (especially with regard to executions). Some realistic retentionists (like the governor of Illinois a while back) decided that, since the death penalty wasn't efficacious in giving criminals what they deserve (a number of convicts having been posthumously exonerated), a moratorium on capital punishment was called for in his state.

Abolitionists do care who gets sentenced. But it's far less likely that a white-collar criminal who is responsible for the deaths of twenty or more people will be tried in a capital case than a blue-collar criminal who shoots one. If our legal system could be reformed to prevent this, then perhaps capital punishment could be more judiciously (pardon the pun) applied.

I'm waiting to hear your plan as regards this.

That's a good analogy. Hydrogen bombs, in and of themselves, aren't right or wrong. They simply exist. It's the decision to use them that needs to be looked at. The death penalty isn't right or wrong, it simply is. It's the decision to send people who may not be guilty of the crime to the electric chair, or whatever, that you should be looking at.

I beg your pardon, but I think that's what we've been arguing all along. If you hadn't noticed, abolitionists aren't trying to argue that the death penalty doesn't exist. That would be just the slightest bit quixotic considering the nature of the arguments we do make, wouldn't you agree?

The problem is, you're not. You're just not interested. You don't care about the war, you just don't want nukes to be used under any circumstances, whereas the rest of us think that given the right circumstances, using appropriate force is fine.

I don't know whether you're old enough to remember or whether your parents or grandparents ever told you about a little event that happened during the early '60's. The Cuban Missile Crisis had everyone in this country scared stiff that nuclear armageddon was going to be unleashed over the entire planet due to the disagreement over the placement of the missiles. No one in their right minds wants to be incinerated horribly or be poisoned even more horribly from radiation, so they didn't care about 'the war' and they certainly didn't think that using nukes on the Russians was 'appropriate'. Luckily, they backed down and retrieved the missiles and the world as we know it still exists.

Now, I'm too young (less than twenty - I was two when the Wall fell), but you ask anyone in my parents' generation or my grandparents' generation - anyone who really experienced the tension of the Cold War - and they'll tell you that there were no circumstances under which using nukes would have been appropriate. The threat of nuclear war was enough to prevent their use.

If you want to step away from using this analogy and say that my using it in the first place was inappropriate, fine and dandy. I can see how nuclear standoff would be a little bit different than the use of the death penalty.