Capital Punishment & Kathleen Parker
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist and writes for The Orlando [Fla.] Sentinel. Her columns have appeared regularly for some time in the Columbus Dispatch. Based on those columns, I would characterize her perspective as that of a middle class, suburban, conservative Republican, sympathetic to authority, and fond of the conventional wisdom.
Needless to say, I was overjoyed by her new, anti-capital-punishment position. Below is the letter I sent her and an essay posted here in April of 2005; first, here are some excerpts from her column (it can be read in its entirety at: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-parker0405dec04,0,4116392.column ) :
“I’m a relatively recent convert from the slow-gas-leak solution to Death Row crowding to a reluctant capital-punishment opponent. I oppose the death penalty for one reason: The state makes mistakes, and one innocent murdered by the state is too many.”
* * *
“The painful part of this position is that we who oppose capital punishment on these grounds have to breathe the same air as the celebrities, political panderers and other hankie-twisters who materialize every time a person such as Williams runs out of options and faces a far more humane death than that which he delivered to others.”
* * *
Dear Ms. Parker,
I’d like to thank you for your public stand on the death penalty. I could not agree more that “The state makes mistakes, and one innocent murdered by the state is too many.”
There ARE those who try to argue that no innocent ever was or ever will be executed – I don’t know how they could possibly believe that, but that’s what they say. Then, I have also read and heard the position that accepting the execution of an occasional innocent is necessary to protect everyone else – which conveniently overlooks the option of “life without parole” – not to mention that it seems heartless and cruel to many of us.
So, again, thank you.
If I may, I’d like to suggest another reason for opposing the death penalty. A very good argument can be made that the death penalty, far from suppressing murder and violence, actually enables it.
Some time ago I wrote an essay that expresses this idea. It can be found below. I hope you find it sensible and reinforcing of your recent conversion.
Yours – Tom Harker
* * *
Natural Raised Killers
A while back some angry kids went on a killing spree at their school, and the nation went on an hysterical binge. How could children - "good," wealthy, white children for-God's-sake - go on a violent rampage? It was un-American, unthinkable!! Everyone wanted an explanation of the inexplicable. About the best they could do was to lean on the “Goths” and other "misfits" who "obviously" suffered prominence-envy in comparison with their social betters. Here and there around the country diligent up-scale school officials imposed “zero tolerance” and took advantage of the immediately available psychological profiling programs so as to identify and label the potential “killers” and, thereby, provide a sense of security, responsibility, and hope.
Well, forget that. Let's face facts. Americans kill because Americans love to kill. "Columbine" was devastating not because it involved killing, but because it broke the rules. In America proper killing, is more than acceptable; it is honorable. Some of our greatest role models are killers, directly or indirectly. They are the ones (cops, vigilantes, CIA agents, the military)who kill people that "need" to be killed and those (prosecutors, judges, legislators, governors, presidents) who put the “hit” out on those among us who “need” to be killed.
We killed the indigenous people of this continent by the rules. We killed immigrant and native-born workers - by the rules - when they tried to unionize. We killed black Americans - by the rules - whenever they "needed" lynching. Around the world we have killed and continue to kill foreigners - by the rules - whenever it is said to advance American "interests" (regardless of the foreigners' interests); and Americans still kill "criminals" - by the rules - whenever we get the chance.
Heroes? Role models? There are plenty of natural-born killers in our Pantheon. Historically, the list of honored killers is lengthy, as is the list of those who "honorably" ordered killings: the "great" explorers, "kindly" Puritans, "valiant" Indian fighters, “sturdy” pioneers, "romantic" plantation owners, Manifest Destiny politicians, Rockefeller, Carnegie, the B&O Railroad, Pinkerton agents, coal companies, and a myriad of officially "honorable" presidents, congressmen, governors, judges, and mayors - just to mention a few.
Ronald Reagan killed a baby with a missile. George Bush the Elder gratuitously annihilated helpless, fleeing Iraqi troops. Ohio's Governor James Rhodes allowed protesting students to be killed. Bill Clinton ordered bombings that killed foreign civilians. Pat Robertson publicly supported assassination of America’s “enemies.” The current president, George Bush the Younger, proudly defends his home state's record use of capital punishment. Long ago, before any talk of attacking Iraq, ABC News big-wig/bad-wig Sam Donaldson demanded on his ABC Sunday-morning “news” program that Saddam Hussein be killed.Now hardly a day goes by without some talking head calling for, promising, or congratulating the killing of someone.
None of this even raises a mainstream eyebrow because it is all “by the rules.” We are allowed to kill those who “need” killing. Moreover, it is our duty to kill them, and our stature is increased by doing so. Those few who may argue otherwise are ignored, overwhelmed, or – if necessary – silenced.
At the same time, killing outside the rules is not only illegal but “wrong.” If a foreign head of state killed an American baby (not to mention, a president’s adopted grandchild as was the case in Reagan’s Libyan adventure), it would be unspeakably “evil.” Blowing up American soldiers is called “terrorism.” If some foreign leader advocated the assassination of Pat Robertson or Sam Donaldson, there would be a moral outrage (except, perhaps, on the part of Robertson’s understudy and ABC’s advertising executives ).
One American, the president, can “justifiably” blow up any building in the foreign world, thereby killing the folks who work there and still get his pension. The man who blew up a building in Oklahoma (America), killing numerous people, has been executed.
Clearly, the question of “violence in America” suffers from the old “do as I say, not as I do” syndrome. The obvious reality is that America is not against violence and killing. America sanctions killing, essentially licensing certain people, groups, organizations, and institutions to kill under certain circumstances and in accordance with various rules and procedures.
As a result, the message America sends its children (as well as its adults) is not “violence and killing are wrong,” but “killing without permission is wrong.” The message is not that human life is sacred, but that killing is commendable if the killer is sanctioned, but wrong if he is not. This is a low standard.
As a result, “unsanctioned” killers such as those at Columbine need not wrestle with the question “Is killing wrong?” ; obviously (and officially) it is not. No, the question is, “Am I, somehow, sanctioned to kill?” It seems the latter question is much more subject to rationalization than the former – especially in a nation awash with notions of individuality, self-determination, “intrusive/unresponsive” government, vigilantism, and revenge (as in “I’d pull the switch myself!”).
If America truly valued life, young people and others would have to face a real moral dilemma: breaking a taboo, but as it is, they can emulate presidents, judges, prosecutors, policemen, ministers, and TV “celebrities” by deciding for themselves who should live and die.
In his inaugural speech, George Bush the Younger said, that “no insignificant person was ever born,” but he did not address the relative significance of the 135 people he executed as governor of Texas, nor the significance of those innocent persons who most certainly have died over the years at the hands of sanctioned state executions. Talk is cheap, and cheap talk combined with “zero tolerance,” “outrage,” and “psychological profiling” will not end or even seriously reduce killing in schools, federal buildings, or anywhere else. Only a true respect for life can do that. As long as America has rules that sanction killing, many Americans, when faced with difficulties – real or imagined - will follow their own rules and kill. It’s the American way.
- Uke Man
Needless to say, I was overjoyed by her new, anti-capital-punishment position. Below is the letter I sent her and an essay posted here in April of 2005; first, here are some excerpts from her column (it can be read in its entirety at: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-parker0405dec04,0,4116392.column ) :
“I’m a relatively recent convert from the slow-gas-leak solution to Death Row crowding to a reluctant capital-punishment opponent. I oppose the death penalty for one reason: The state makes mistakes, and one innocent murdered by the state is too many.”
* * *
“The painful part of this position is that we who oppose capital punishment on these grounds have to breathe the same air as the celebrities, political panderers and other hankie-twisters who materialize every time a person such as Williams runs out of options and faces a far more humane death than that which he delivered to others.”
* * *
Dear Ms. Parker,
I’d like to thank you for your public stand on the death penalty. I could not agree more that “The state makes mistakes, and one innocent murdered by the state is too many.”
There ARE those who try to argue that no innocent ever was or ever will be executed – I don’t know how they could possibly believe that, but that’s what they say. Then, I have also read and heard the position that accepting the execution of an occasional innocent is necessary to protect everyone else – which conveniently overlooks the option of “life without parole” – not to mention that it seems heartless and cruel to many of us.
So, again, thank you.
If I may, I’d like to suggest another reason for opposing the death penalty. A very good argument can be made that the death penalty, far from suppressing murder and violence, actually enables it.
Some time ago I wrote an essay that expresses this idea. It can be found below. I hope you find it sensible and reinforcing of your recent conversion.
Yours – Tom Harker
* * *
Natural Raised Killers
A while back some angry kids went on a killing spree at their school, and the nation went on an hysterical binge. How could children - "good," wealthy, white children for-God's-sake - go on a violent rampage? It was un-American, unthinkable!! Everyone wanted an explanation of the inexplicable. About the best they could do was to lean on the “Goths” and other "misfits" who "obviously" suffered prominence-envy in comparison with their social betters. Here and there around the country diligent up-scale school officials imposed “zero tolerance” and took advantage of the immediately available psychological profiling programs so as to identify and label the potential “killers” and, thereby, provide a sense of security, responsibility, and hope.
Well, forget that. Let's face facts. Americans kill because Americans love to kill. "Columbine" was devastating not because it involved killing, but because it broke the rules. In America proper killing, is more than acceptable; it is honorable. Some of our greatest role models are killers, directly or indirectly. They are the ones (cops, vigilantes, CIA agents, the military)who kill people that "need" to be killed and those (prosecutors, judges, legislators, governors, presidents) who put the “hit” out on those among us who “need” to be killed.
We killed the indigenous people of this continent by the rules. We killed immigrant and native-born workers - by the rules - when they tried to unionize. We killed black Americans - by the rules - whenever they "needed" lynching. Around the world we have killed and continue to kill foreigners - by the rules - whenever it is said to advance American "interests" (regardless of the foreigners' interests); and Americans still kill "criminals" - by the rules - whenever we get the chance.
Heroes? Role models? There are plenty of natural-born killers in our Pantheon. Historically, the list of honored killers is lengthy, as is the list of those who "honorably" ordered killings: the "great" explorers, "kindly" Puritans, "valiant" Indian fighters, “sturdy” pioneers, "romantic" plantation owners, Manifest Destiny politicians, Rockefeller, Carnegie, the B&O Railroad, Pinkerton agents, coal companies, and a myriad of officially "honorable" presidents, congressmen, governors, judges, and mayors - just to mention a few.
Ronald Reagan killed a baby with a missile. George Bush the Elder gratuitously annihilated helpless, fleeing Iraqi troops. Ohio's Governor James Rhodes allowed protesting students to be killed. Bill Clinton ordered bombings that killed foreign civilians. Pat Robertson publicly supported assassination of America’s “enemies.” The current president, George Bush the Younger, proudly defends his home state's record use of capital punishment. Long ago, before any talk of attacking Iraq, ABC News big-wig/bad-wig Sam Donaldson demanded on his ABC Sunday-morning “news” program that Saddam Hussein be killed.Now hardly a day goes by without some talking head calling for, promising, or congratulating the killing of someone.
None of this even raises a mainstream eyebrow because it is all “by the rules.” We are allowed to kill those who “need” killing. Moreover, it is our duty to kill them, and our stature is increased by doing so. Those few who may argue otherwise are ignored, overwhelmed, or – if necessary – silenced.
At the same time, killing outside the rules is not only illegal but “wrong.” If a foreign head of state killed an American baby (not to mention, a president’s adopted grandchild as was the case in Reagan’s Libyan adventure), it would be unspeakably “evil.” Blowing up American soldiers is called “terrorism.” If some foreign leader advocated the assassination of Pat Robertson or Sam Donaldson, there would be a moral outrage (except, perhaps, on the part of Robertson’s understudy and ABC’s advertising executives ).
One American, the president, can “justifiably” blow up any building in the foreign world, thereby killing the folks who work there and still get his pension. The man who blew up a building in Oklahoma (America), killing numerous people, has been executed.
Clearly, the question of “violence in America” suffers from the old “do as I say, not as I do” syndrome. The obvious reality is that America is not against violence and killing. America sanctions killing, essentially licensing certain people, groups, organizations, and institutions to kill under certain circumstances and in accordance with various rules and procedures.
As a result, the message America sends its children (as well as its adults) is not “violence and killing are wrong,” but “killing without permission is wrong.” The message is not that human life is sacred, but that killing is commendable if the killer is sanctioned, but wrong if he is not. This is a low standard.
As a result, “unsanctioned” killers such as those at Columbine need not wrestle with the question “Is killing wrong?” ; obviously (and officially) it is not. No, the question is, “Am I, somehow, sanctioned to kill?” It seems the latter question is much more subject to rationalization than the former – especially in a nation awash with notions of individuality, self-determination, “intrusive/unresponsive” government, vigilantism, and revenge (as in “I’d pull the switch myself!”).
If America truly valued life, young people and others would have to face a real moral dilemma: breaking a taboo, but as it is, they can emulate presidents, judges, prosecutors, policemen, ministers, and TV “celebrities” by deciding for themselves who should live and die.
In his inaugural speech, George Bush the Younger said, that “no insignificant person was ever born,” but he did not address the relative significance of the 135 people he executed as governor of Texas, nor the significance of those innocent persons who most certainly have died over the years at the hands of sanctioned state executions. Talk is cheap, and cheap talk combined with “zero tolerance,” “outrage,” and “psychological profiling” will not end or even seriously reduce killing in schools, federal buildings, or anywhere else. Only a true respect for life can do that. As long as America has rules that sanction killing, many Americans, when faced with difficulties – real or imagined - will follow their own rules and kill. It’s the American way.
- Uke Man
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home