Here's a bit of good news out of New York State:
Their motivation is financial (death penalty cases cost states far more than lifers) and not moral, but at least they're stopping New York's participation in what is one of America's greatest human rights abuses. Other states will probably be following suit, including our own fair state of Tennessee:
smijer provided us with some death penalty links last week, including a blog from death row in Maryland. Also note our own organization, TCASK, and another couple of anti-death penalty blogs: Abolish the Death Penalty and the Lonely Abolitionist.
In an 11-7 vote, The New York State Assembly Codes Committee rejected a measure to re-authorize the state's death penalty, which was declared unconstitutional last June. This makes New York the first state to dismantle the death penalty since new death penalty laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976.
Their motivation is financial (death penalty cases cost states far more than lifers) and not moral, but at least they're stopping New York's participation in what is one of America's greatest human rights abuses. Other states will probably be following suit, including our own fair state of Tennessee:
On the same day a legislative subcommittee in Tennessee discussed a bill to abolish the death penalty for the first time in 40 years. In 1965 then Governor Clement led a drive to end capital punishment that passed the Senate but fell one vote short in the House.
smijer provided us with some death penalty links last week, including a blog from death row in Maryland. Also note our own organization, TCASK, and another couple of anti-death penalty blogs: Abolish the Death Penalty and the Lonely Abolitionist.
8 comments:
Why do you find the death penalty to be "...one of America's greatest human rights abuses"? Just curious.
Carl
I find the financial angle to be the more rational and, perhaps, saleable. The moral angle is not supported by the major religions' bedrock texts, so it has no legs. Money matters. Sure, I came to my position on capital punishment via the "it's not right" emotion (based in secular humanism), but it can be argued that making fiscal sense has its own "moral" grounding.
I think there's no way to avoid executing innocent people if you have the death penalty. Sooner or later you'll screw up. The pressures and incentives for prosecutors and police often make the screwups (or worse) sooner rather than later. That statistical certainty of wrongful execution qualifies as a human rights abuse in my book. I hope Tennessee does away with the death penalty, and I hope Maryland catches up soon.
And just because major religions "don't support the moral angle" -- in your opinion -- doesn't mean it's not there! The Bible has little of value to say about slavery, either, unless you read between the lines -- where "turn the other cheek" might make you oppose the death penalty too.
Carl,
It's because there are no backsies when it comes to the death penalty and the way it is (unevenly) applied in this country is horribly racist and classist. When you further consider the human error and corruption that laces our justice system, the idea of a punishment as final as death becomes unconscionable.
As far as religions go, there may not be much in the way of anti-death penalty rhetoric in the various scriptures, but certainly many denominations have made strong statements in opposition to the death penalty: http://www.deathpenaltyreligious.org/education.html
Sorry, just one more question. What did you mean by this statement: "...the way it is (unevenly) applied in this country is horribly racist and classist."?
Thanks for the first reply.
Carl
I agree that modern-day Christian denominations have opposed the death penalty, I wasn't disputing that. I also know that there are plenty of Mosaic laws concerning whom it is right to stone to death (for some pretty petty crimes, too), and the Qu'ran isn't soft on it either. That's why I consider the arguments put forth by you, Thomas Nephew and myself, in the comments above: 1) there are no "do-overs" in case of a screw-up, and 2) it costs taxpayers WAY more, to be the stronger bases for opposition.
Sorry about the delay. Comcast internet has been down the past two evenings, so I haven't been able to do much reading/research/responding this week. With regard to the way the death penalty is (unevenly) applied in this country, that is a reference to the simple fact that those who are the most able to pay are the ones who most often get off, and those who cannot afford to hire high-priced legal teams are far more likely to end up on death row.
Post a Comment