![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
camwynI realise that a lot of y'all reading this are of different religious persuasion from myself, or consider yourselves to be of no religious persuasion whatsoever. That's fine, but that's you. By my lights it's Advent, the liturgical season in which the faithful are supposed to be joyfully anticipating the birth of Jesus and obeying the exhortation of John the Baptist to 'prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths'. That takes a lot of forms, depending on where you are and who you talk to. After some consideration, most particularly of the stuff I posted on Friday, 4 December, I think I'd like to try something: once per day until Christmas I'm going to write up a spiel on some group of people doing what I consider to be Good Things, and where you can find information on them. Not soliciting, mind you. Just talking about organizations of people doing good, for information's sake. (Look, if the Lubavitchers can prepare for the coming of Moshiach with acts of goodness and kindness, the least I can do is blither about people doing things I like.)
I'm going to have to go retroactive on this one to cover a few days of the month thus far, so bear with me.
In honour of the part of Biblical tradition saying that the Messiah will liberate captives and end oppression, we'll start with one of my old-time faves, Amnesty International. Right now they're in the news mostly because of their report on tasers, but what they do best is bring public opinion to bear as a weapon. What distinguishes them from other pressure groups is that they use it on people who never thought their deeds would be brought to light: dictators, torturers, and other people who abuse the power of government. Amnesty doesn't just make noise in the news media to expose people. They call on their members to write letters and send emails and faxes to the officials in question, and to officials in their own governments, stating politely, civilly, and plainly exactly what's come to light and why it should be stopped. And it works, too, even with dictators who you'd think wouldn't be particularly interested in what the world knows about them. Not all the time, but often enough that people get freed who would otherwise have ended their days as desaparecidos, or been tortured to death.
It should be noted that Amnesty opposes the death penalty. This may not sit well with some of you, and I can understand that. I feel that their other work, such as exposing the bloody, inhuman nature of much of the diamond trade in Africa, their campaign to bring Dow Chemical to justice for what happened in Bhopal, and their current campaign on violence against women (and gender violence in general), is vitally important. The death penalty issue is one I'm a bit up in the air about myself. I don't like it being used, especially since there's such a massive chance of it being used unjustly, but I also don't like the fact that some people commit truly heinous crimes repeatedly. If they can't be rehabilitated, then what's the point of locking them up forever? Punishing them that way only makes them worse. . . anyway, as I said I’m up in the air about that, and I consider the rest of what Amnesty does to be vitally important. Decide for yourself, of course. They'll be happy to explain.
NB: I am aware that the diamond industry went to self-regulation in 2003 with the Kimberly Process in an effort to show that their stones weren't being used to fuel civil war, or being mined by people forced into the trade on pain of death and dismemberment. It's not helping. The public needs to get involved in this if the blood of the innocent is ever to be cleansed from the world's diamond supply.
I'm going to have to go retroactive on this one to cover a few days of the month thus far, so bear with me.
In honour of the part of Biblical tradition saying that the Messiah will liberate captives and end oppression, we'll start with one of my old-time faves, Amnesty International. Right now they're in the news mostly because of their report on tasers, but what they do best is bring public opinion to bear as a weapon. What distinguishes them from other pressure groups is that they use it on people who never thought their deeds would be brought to light: dictators, torturers, and other people who abuse the power of government. Amnesty doesn't just make noise in the news media to expose people. They call on their members to write letters and send emails and faxes to the officials in question, and to officials in their own governments, stating politely, civilly, and plainly exactly what's come to light and why it should be stopped. And it works, too, even with dictators who you'd think wouldn't be particularly interested in what the world knows about them. Not all the time, but often enough that people get freed who would otherwise have ended their days as desaparecidos, or been tortured to death.
It should be noted that Amnesty opposes the death penalty. This may not sit well with some of you, and I can understand that. I feel that their other work, such as exposing the bloody, inhuman nature of much of the diamond trade in Africa, their campaign to bring Dow Chemical to justice for what happened in Bhopal, and their current campaign on violence against women (and gender violence in general), is vitally important. The death penalty issue is one I'm a bit up in the air about myself. I don't like it being used, especially since there's such a massive chance of it being used unjustly, but I also don't like the fact that some people commit truly heinous crimes repeatedly. If they can't be rehabilitated, then what's the point of locking them up forever? Punishing them that way only makes them worse. . . anyway, as I said I’m up in the air about that, and I consider the rest of what Amnesty does to be vitally important. Decide for yourself, of course. They'll be happy to explain.
NB: I am aware that the diamond industry went to self-regulation in 2003 with the Kimberly Process in an effort to show that their stones weren't being used to fuel civil war, or being mined by people forced into the trade on pain of death and dismemberment. It's not helping. The public needs to get involved in this if the blood of the innocent is ever to be cleansed from the world's diamond supply.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 07:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 07:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 07:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 08:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 09:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 10:03 am (UTC)I know it's a lot more complicated than this, but it just seems silly: murder in cold blood is a crime that gets the death penalty in most places that have it, right? So what about the person who pushes the button marked 'power on' or injects the person, or whatever it is that one does to kill someone. It was done in cold blood; no argument, battle, whatever, going on. So by that logic the 'button-pusher' should be given the death penalty too, right? And then also the person who killed he original 'button-pusher'? And so on. So it makes no sense. To me, anyway.
I do know it's way more complicated than that. I do. It just seems, I dunno, illogical, I suppose, to me.
That was way too many commas in one sentence.
Anyway, am I completely off track here and is my logic crappity? It'd kinda be good to know so I don't make a fool of myself somewhere public. lol.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 10:16 am (UTC)Understandable. I think, however...
Okay, this next part is going to sound very cold and extremely callous. Bear with me.
John Wayne Gacy. Charlie Ng. Harold Shipman. These were men who committed multiple murders in the belief that they would never get caught, and that if they did, they wound find a way never to be punished. None of them, to my knowledge, showed any signs of either repentance or the ability to be rehabilitated. If they were released, even after lengthy prison terms and/or psychiatric treatment, they would in all likelihood kill again- or commit other heinous crimes, in the case of such men as Ng.
An intractable serial killer or repeat rapist, and here I mean truly intractable, is not much better than a mad dog. There is no cure for those who do not want to be cured. There is only the option to protect the public from them, and that must be done by confinement, or death.
Is it a crime to kill a mad dog in cold blood?
... As I said, cold and callous. But those men... those men are what come to mind when I try to bring myself down 100% on the side of 'no death penalty'. I believe, as a Catholic and a Christian, that 'there is time for repentance even between the bridge and the water'- but I also believe that there is no point in punishing someone who refuses to learn, refuses to change.
It's a damned hard thing and there is no easy litmus test or break-point that I can see.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 10:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 10:32 am (UTC)Some reasons not to use the death penalty
Date: 2004-12-06 12:12 pm (UTC)1) Even if I emotionally want to see people dead such as Charlie Ng, I am ADAMANTLY opposed to giving the state the right to take human life (excluding times of war, in active combat), because it will always, always be abused. Which it has been. One innocent person being put to death is enough.
2) Putting people to death winds up costing more money than not putting them to death.
3) Serial killers, pedophiles, etc., cannot be rehabilitated. You are absolutely right - our understanding of the pathology of the brain that produces these aberrant behaviors is almost nil. There is evidence that these people have abnormalities in their brains - tons of them, whether brought about by physical trauma or developmental abnormality. So, one reason to keep them alive? Do research on them. I am serious. Take tissue samples. Record scans of their brains and compare them to non-murderers. Identify patterns. All with the intent of, when we get to the point (if ever), of early recognition and intervention for people like this, we have the data to back it up. Research them to death (figuratively). This is one kind of animal research that I am for.
4) You cannot effectively punish people who are sociopaths - they have not the moral compass to ever respond to it.
I can think of more, but I'll stop at that for now.
Re: Some reasons not to use the death penalty
Date: 2004-12-06 12:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 11:31 am (UTC)Anyway. I'm glad you like the posts. I'll be writing up some more when I get home tonight, I think. I'd like to get caught up to the calendar if I can.