Saturday, October 01, 2005
To More Inmates, Life Term Means Dying Behind Bars
This is the headline for a story in the NYT this morning. The gist is that sentences of life without parole are being carried out. The hidden message seems to me to be that this is not right or at least not "fair". Question: Are those who are against the death penalty also against life without parole? If so, what do they suggest for the individuals who, but for abolition of the death penalty, would typically receive that sentence?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well, it is the NYT. Their writers have to prove inability to handle any process involving logic prior to being employed. This is the same paper that prints articles expressing surprise that while the number of incarcerations increase the crime rate actually falls. I can acknowledge that the premise that a higher rate of incarceration can't be proven causative wrt a lower crime rate but I can't say that I'm surprised at the apparent correlation.
The philosophical well from which the NYT draws its brackish water never changes. There are no "bad" people, only "disadvantaged" people who can be "improved" through the application of "sufficient resources". That's the line of thinking that changed the Bureau of Prisons to the Department of Corrections. If the NYT had control of nomencalture I'm sure we would resort to the Corrective Code rather than the Penal Code when determining the nature of a particular crime (although it would be called an infraction).
As to what they would have done with those who exchanged life without possibility of parole for a death sentence - why, the NYT would just refer you to Father Flanagan's dictum - "There are no bad boys". Repeat it 'til you believe it. Or perhaps you require correction?
The arguments used against the death penalty are all applicable against the justice system as a whole. It can be summed up as "It's better for all the guilty to go free than for one innocent man to go to jail."
Post a Comment