Back in February, I came across an interesting post about how most bloggers post about the life alternating issues in life rather than the light & easy going stuff. He calls it bricks & mortar respectively. I've observed that in my own blog I apparently do not fit into most bloggers. I mean, how life altering are my Friday Shuffles, right?
But yesterday's post was definitely more heady than the norm for me and today's post is just as "bricky"
To that end, today's post is about taking another life; more specifically taking the lives of those members of society that have proven they are no longer a viable part of our communities, no not Jerry Springer & Rikki Lake, I am talking about inmates who are sentenced to life in prison or are sitting on death row. I am talking about the people that are proven guilty with unmistakable proof (e.g. DNA) of heinous crimes.
Those of you that know me, you know that I am very liberal. But on this topic...not so much. I feel that these individuals should have their organs harvested and donated to those that are waiting for organs. Then we pull the plug and let the inmates go to sleep forever. I'm sorry if this sounds cruel but it makes more sense than paying to house, feed, and care for these people just waiting for them to die anyway. Also, if you had a choice to see them perish or to see innocent people in need of kidneys, livers, lungs, etc., well, it's a no brainer, is it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I don't think I post anything life altering.
As for the inmates, well, I think it sucks that we as a society pay for them to continue to live on in prison and be fed, clothed and sheltered (to an extent) but I'm not high enough up on the Higher Power chain to be the one to decide that they're going to live or die.
I'm not sure that whether they live or not is up to a higher power. If a person gets hit by lightening, okay, that's a reality outside the control of the mortal man, but whether or not an inmates life should be taken, well I think the inmate makes that choice for himself when he takes another life or commits some other unspeakable crime. I'm just thinking that it would save us money and we could help those in need.
I would be completely anti-death penalty if I could be certain that life in prison meant just that.
I recall the awful spectacle of increasingly elderly parents, then siblings, of murder victims going to parole hearings, trying to keep the person responsible for their loved one's death behind bars. This only serves to punish the victims' families.
What you've posited is a Star Trek Utopian situation where you know -- with absolute certainty and confidence -- who is guilty and who is not. While reliable DNA evidence helps close the gap between where we've been and what you want... well, as in anything human, it's not 100% reliable. Not yet.
But if it were possible, I still don't think this would be a wise idea.
Even if you don't particularly think that human life is sacred, I think there are grounds to be concerned about the State having the power to take human life, especially for "good" purposes.
Which "heinous crimes" will qualify for the organ harvest? Your drug-addled murderer who kills to steal money for his next fix may have so thoroughly corrupted his organs that they'd be useless for transplant. So... murderers alone might not fill our harvest quotas. What about manslaughter -- killing your spouse in a jealous rage because you are confronted with proof positive that she's been cheating on you? Usually, in the law, the killing of another in a fit of passion was deemed less heinous than a premeditated crime: Poisoning one's spouse to collect on the insurance. Lying in wait for that rotten boss to walk to his car. Kidnapping the rich man for a ransom and then killing him anyway to dispose of any witnesses.
But -- what if this month we need more kidneys? Do we lower our standards and make more prisoners 'eligible'? I'm not saying it would ever get down to the level of three or more parking tickets... but, still, the potential for abuse is surely there.
It has become a cliché that, as a society, we would rather see a guilty man freed than jail an innocent one -- and, because it has become trite and overused, I fear that too many have forgotten why this principle was hard-wired into American culture: The Founding Fathers feared the power of the State. They feared that the awesome power of the State could be used to frame men for crimes. That this power could be used to classify as crimes conduct -- or speech -- that the Founders believed, as freeborn Englishmen, they had the right to do and say.
Nor were these fears irrational or the products of mere speculation. These fears were the product of harsh experience, as the Crown tried to clamp down on the rebellious Colonies.
The Founders could identify with the person accused of a crime -- even a heinous, criminal act -- and see how that same power of the State might be used to prosecute one of them for something they believed to be no crime at all.
You'll recall the Boston Massacre of 1770. John Adams defended the British soldiers who fired into the Patriot mob -- not because he was pro-British, but because he believed that any accused was entitled to a fair trial.
You may say -- well, there's no reason not to have fair trials, especially because we must be absolutely sure that we are in the right before we harvest a prisoner's organs.
But, now, imagine yourself stopped for speeding in a small town. You are brought before the local magistrate. All forms of fairness seem to be observed, and you are shown every courtesy. But -- you discover -- the magistrate's pay is based on a percentage of fines imposed in his court. He has a financial motive to find you guilty. Don't you think that some taint attaches to these proceedings because of this additional incentive?
Now the court that can sentence a prisoner to organ harvesting: Society stands to benefit from the sentence, not the judge personally. But doesn't she have a motive to find the prisoner guilty of the greatest crime possible (as opposed to a lesser included offense) for the "good" of society? Wouldn't -- couldn't -- there be an incentive?
I have read that the Chinese are experimenting with organ harvesting among prison populations. Thank you -- but I prefer not to start down this slippery slope.
I am anti-death penalty, and it is not an easy position to take sometimes. It has been tested many times and I have had to pray through it at times. But ultimately I have a problem with the "eye-for-an-eye" mentality. How can you punish killing with killing? Since when is revenge acceptable?
Nevermind the enourmous amount of research that has proven that the death penalty is not a deterrant to violent crime - in fact there are studies that find the opposite to be true. And the expense that goes into a death sentence due to the mandatory appeals - and often it is in those appeals that mistakes get caught and innocent people are found to be innocent. I *think* I read somewhere that on average it costs more to have a prisoner receive the death penalty than to imprison him or her for life.
And as far as I'm concerned I would rather be killed jumanely than be in prison for the rest of my life. Once I'm dead, I'm dead - but the thought of being in prison until I die, never being free again - talk about a deterrant!
I agree with Curmdgeon that the "life penalty" issue must be resolved. If the crime warrants a life imprisonment than there should be no chance for parole. Period.
Now as to us "paying for them", if the done properly there are plenty of jobs these people can do to "earn their keep", particualrly now with the explosion working remotely.
And as to the matter of organ donation, that is IMO something everyone should be doing anyway - but the thought of taking that into consideration when deciding whether or not someone is killed is unacceptable to me.
well, well, my liberal friend you seem to have punched a hot button with this one.having read some of the comments others have left, i would like to add my two cents in response.
there are some who say, that we should neither allow the government the power, nor the incentive to end human life, regardless of what that person may, or may not have done. i mean after all, doesn't the criminal have rights? in fact, why should the government have the power to punish those found guilty of any crime? especially considering that there is always a slim possibility that they may not be actually be guilty, their conviction the result of human error, or corruption? who does the government think it is anyway? who made them "God"?
we live in something called a "society" ( i'm sure you've heard of it) what makes a society work, is an agreed on set of rules of conduct, called laws. in a good society, the majority of the people governed by those laws have the authority, to alter or revoke these laws, and to create new ones as agreed upon.
furthermore, there must be a penalty for anyone who violates these laws.
a process must be established, through which it can be determined whether or not an individual is really guilty of breaking the law, and to determine the appropriate punishment.
the problem? anytime human beings are involved in this process there will always be some error, and/or corruption. the only possible solution would be to involve more than one person in the process, each person involved would be responsible for monitoring each other person. this is not a perfect solution, but its the best we can do.
the point..(if you're still awake!)
is this.
the system in place is not perfect, it will never be, until perfect people come into being,but it is necessary. if it is determined that the punishment for a crime is to take the life of the criminal, then they must die. is it possible that will result in innocent people dying? yes. the only hope is to minimize this occurring. is that a tragic statement? yes. but it is reality. the great thing about the society we live in is that it is fluid. if we do not like the system in place, we have the option to change that system. and it has been changed, repeatedly. until we have arrived at the system we have now. if you have a better idea, feel free to start the process involved in altering the present system of justice, or else shut the hell up.
simply questioning the present system only serves to weaken that system.
by violating the laws that govern our society, criminals have voluntarily removed themselves from the protection afforded them by those laws. they should not have equal rights with the rest of society. period. if they cannot contribute something to our society, they should be removed from it. (prison) if they have willingly or maliciously taken the life of a member of our society, then yes, their life should be forfeit. and if by harvesting their organs some contribution can be made to society at large, then so be it.
in summary:
kill-em, recycle-em, get over it.
Sorry, can't go there with you poultryboy. Not so much on religious grounds (ok, not at ALL on religious grounds), but on my own individual sense of ethics. Taking a life is wrong, period.
Sure, given incontrovertible evidence I'm all for locking 'em up and throwing away the key. But that kind of open-and-shut case is not all that common. Look at the "Innocence Project" and see how many former death row inmates where later found to be innocent. You can only kill a man once, no room for error.
Unless we have two levels of conviction - the "so so" conviction and the "rock solid" conviction, and only apply the death penalty to the latter. But our judicial system doesn't work that way, guilty is guilty.
Having said that, I completely understand the family and friends of a murder victim wanting the (convicted) perpetrator to die. But as a society we have to rise above the level of the scum who commit such acts.
(getting off soap box now).
Marty writes:
"if you have a better idea, feel free to start the process involved in altering the present system of justice, or else shut the hell up. Simply questioning the present system only serves to weaken that system."
Ummm...no.
If "the system" can't withstand some questioning by those that fund it, then it isn't much of a system.
Not only is it our *right* to question the system, it is our responsibility. Otherwise we are simply kool-aid drinkers.
My family gave up everything they had and started from scratch when they came from Cuba in 1961 because like *you* Marty - that government didn't feel "the system" should be questioned.
oh dear hilda, thank you for taking my words and not actually listening to them. i never said that you you shouldn't question government. what i said was that you shouldn't question it simply for the sake of questioning it. if your intention is to promote change, or growth, or even intellectual discourse for the purpose of improving the system, then by all means question away, but to be discontented for discontents sake, to question from the sidelines, and never actually do anything. serves no purpose but to poison the mind against the very government that was established to safeguard your right to question it. we are not cuba. here, you can participate in government if you choose. the reason our government has reached the state it is in is because of too many people talking and not doing anything. i am not a liberal, not even close, i am a conservative and i am a christian reverend but even i have to admit, that the fact that the democrats couldn't find someone that could beat gorge w. in the last election is mind boggling. it was like watching an adult get beaten by a third grader. do you know what happened? liberals and democrats talked a good game, protested, marched, and then THEY DIDN'T VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
self righteous indignation is pointless. it amazes me when people say they things like "violence never solved anything"
they are proving their ignorance. violence, throughout history, has been the only actual permanent solution to anything . they will never understand that there are truly evil people in this world. people who would kill and do things that i won't describe for decencies sake. they do not have the same right to life that is enjoyed by everyone else. period. can you wrap your mind around the fact that it is possible for someone to actually deserve to die. and if you do not believe that those who are in power are of sound enough judgment to decide who those people are, than shut up and do something about it! our country was founded by people that started a war because they didn't like the taxes levied against them on the price of tea. and it has become a country of whining pontificaters, who wouldn't get off their ass if it was on fire. you don't like the system? fine, but until you come up with something better, shut the hell up.
Marty,
Hostil much?
I know Hilda personally. I know that she is a lady of action and has earned her right to kvetch about the current system if she chooses to.
We are all entitled to our opinions, but if you are going to express them here, I ask that you do it without telling others to shut up.
Marty - the fact that your knee-jerk reaction is to tell people to "shut the hell up" indicates that you clearly can't "wrap your mind around" the basic premise of this country - freedom of speech.
As much as I disagree with your reactionary hostility I won't ask *you* to "shut the hell up" - see, I respect your right to be not only wrong, but annoying as well.
As far as I'm concerned, our interaction regarding this matter is over. I'm done with you.
You all need to shut up. No, I'm kidding.. I just felt left out. hehe.
This one is WAY too deep for me to think about at 9:42pm but I like the controversy you are stirring up!
Oh yeah, and unless posting about a 3 yo wearing one sock qualifies as "life altering", I don't do it either. :)
Tracey - You are one my true blogging buddies! Never feel left out, girlfriend!
Troyboy - With all due respect, I disagree with the harvesting idea. However, and I hope you'll still respect me, I don't have concrete reasons other than emotional gut reactions of "it's not my right to kill another". It's food for thought though. And, although Marty was harsh, he made some good points there.
This was a good topic my friend. Thank you.
Post a Comment