Category Archives: Culture

Exploitation

Posted on by under Culture

I read comments in a local paper on the subject of possible similarities in people’s lack of regard for both the rights of slaves and the rights of animals. The first article I read was from a couple members of the community who suggested, ‘the mentality required for exploiting animals is similar to the mentality required for exploiting humans (slaves).’ In a later edition of the paper another person disagreed with them and responded ‘those who were enslaved were humans and were treated as if they had no rights, while the animals are ‘just’ animals, and in fact have no rights.’ I agree with part of this response; humans should not have been enslaved and abused. I am not minimizing the atrocities done to humans; I am trying to draw attention to the notion that animals have no rights.

Question, is there any similarity in the mentality required for human exploitation and the mentality required for animal exploitation? The dictionary defines slavery as, ‘subjection to a power, force or influence.’ And exploiting is, ‘selfishly using to one’s own advantage.’

Slaves were and are exploited. People learn and teach that slaves are inferior, they have minimal mental capacity, and they are on this planet for the very purpose for which they are being used. People believed human exploitation (slavery) was condoned and blessed by ‘God.’

Animals were and are exploited. People learn and teach that animals are inferior, they have minimal mental capacity, and they are on this planet for the very purpose for which they are being used. People believe animal exploitation is condoned and blessed by ‘God.’

Did this country willingly give up exploiting humans (slavery)? No! Has this country willingly given up exploiting animals? No! Exploiting animals and humans have given many people the wealth, power and/or pleasures they crave. And most people have been taught, and enjoy indulging in the consumption of animal flesh.

In early America people could force others to work on their property without pay; they could build a large plantation and become quite wealthy—at the expense of others (exploitation). You could go out and kill an animal, sell it or bring it home and cook it and eat it—again, at the expense of others (exploitation).

On the other hand you could get a job or build a business, perhaps with much more work and considerably less potential to become rich and powerful. And you could till the ground, plant a garden and care for it for a time and if all went well, harvest a crop of food. The people of this country did not willingly give up exploiting humans, and the people of this country have not shown signs they will willingly give up exploiting animals.

Many people justify the current treatment of animals by saying animals are inferior, they are not as intelligent and have no feelings. This was justification for slavery in early America. Keep in mind, as recently as 150 years ago, it was common knowledge that ‘women had limited mental capacity and could not be creative.’ And people in the medical community still adhere to the chilling notion that infants don’t suffer from pain ; watch a doctor perform a circumcision on an infant without anesthesia and see what you think.

One of the points in the articles I read had to do with whether animals are equal to humans? Whether animals are equal to humans depends on how you look at it; it depends on what ‘equal’ refers to. In the Declaration of Independence it’s stated that all men are created equal; all men have the right to life and to the pursuits of happiness. While this was being written, proclaiming the ideals of an ‘ideal’ nation, it wasn’t true to many, and this hasn’t changed. The men writing this document and making these claims for equality were the butt of jokes which originated in other countries regarding the abject hypocrisy of a people who claimed equality for all, while possessing slaves. The ones who are referred to as the ‘founding fathers’ were dead serious about being treated as equals by the British, even to the point of war and death, but did not sense the need to extend the same courtesy to others. Again, nothing has changed!

I wonder if some day there will be jokes about the people who claim to be humane and compassionate, but kill animals and then consume them. People will exclaim sadness when spotting a dead baby deer or condemn another for forcing a dog to fight or an elephant to perform and then stop at a restaurant and eat part of a cow or chicken that was brutally victimized. Some people will fight with another person to protect a wounded hawk or to protect the habitat of another animal and then go home and eat a pig. And there are some who will leave the room if an animal is being portrayed in a movie as being hurt and go to the kitchen and put a leg or rib cage from a lamb in the oven. There is a word for this type of contradiction in a person’s behavior!

‘They pity, and they eat the objects of their compassion! ~ Oliver Goldsmith, 1700’s

In exploring the equality of animals to humans you will find some interesting things. Animals have emotions, they show the effects of pain when hurt, they are conspicuously exuberant at times and obviously downhearted at other times and they learn from their experiences. We cannot know if their emotions are of the same intensity and meaning as ours, but does it make a difference in a meaningful way? We cannot know if any or all humans experience the same levels and meanings associated with their emotions, but does this make a difference?

As far as ‘equal’ goes, humans can do some things better than animals and animals can do some things better than humans. Think not? Try to arm wrestle a small chimp or try to beat the reflexes of a cat, try to detect a disease using only your nose. Animals are born into the world with little safety and many are immediately required to take care of themselves in every way. Some animals will defend their young at the risk of their own life and some animals, such as cows, will cry out all night when you take away their babies. And a lot of people know animals can be loyal beyond anything you can expect from the human species. Of course, if you were to test an animal to see if it can learn to solve crossword puzzles or simultaneous linear equations they may come up short. But take a pigeon for a long ride and release it, it will come back without the benefit of a map, compass or breadcrumbs—try that with a human!

Animals have lives similar to ours in many ways, but they are not the same. Because of the fact they are not the same as humans most people believe this makes them unequal with humans in the right to life? Is there real justification for this? Is there justification for using and abusing animals? Is there logical, reasonable justification for wearing and eating animals? Or, are there only the unsatisfactory, rationalizations humans make up to defend their actions? Actually, I have heard it said, ‘humans are rational beings—they can rationalize anything they do.’ We will always encounter people who take advantage when they have the power, but when their power is removed, when they are on the receiving end, they immediately beg for mercy.

All too recently it has been believed women are not equal to men and Chinese and Africans are not equal to Europeans. This is what was believed and many people suffered as a result of this belief; many people died as a result of this ‘truth.’ These myths were believed by many of our ancestors and they are still believed by many today; we are just a little more discrete; a little less blatant. Fortunately, I believe some people have ‘learned’ and believe these old ‘truths’ were incorrect and harmful to humans, just as some people believe the old ‘truths’ regarding animals are incorrect. My hope is these people can demonstrate the new truth they have in their minds, with the way they choose to live.

Humans seem to have a need to try to distinguish themselves from all others. Humans think they are better than others based on color, nationality, gender, intelligence, wealth, looks, length of fingernails, species…pretty much anything you can think of. And what this really means is the individual believes they deserve more; they are better than the rest. Or another way of saying it is the others are not equal to them—the others are different, therefore they do not have the same rights.

When people discuss whether animals are equal to humans it is about one thing, just as with slavery—it is about having control over the lives of others for the benefit of oneself—exploitation. Whether it is another color, gender, species or anything else it doesn’t matter. Just as long as it brings benefit to those who want it and are willing to sink low enough, no matter how grotesque, to obtain it. Interestingly, when an entire culture is willing to sink low enough to exploit others, the perception of the egregious behavior is mollified by the sheer number of participants. But the truth is evident in the extent of the damage done to everything and everyone. Like Bertrand Russell says,

“Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity, and fashion will drive them to acquire any custom.”

It seems to me in the people who have been most affected by exploitation, blacks and women particularly, there would be increased sensitivity to all aspects of exploitation. But this doesn’t seem evident to me in the statistics I have seen. This indicates to me that humans do not abhor exploitation; they abhor the exploitation of themselves; their own nationality, their own gender, their own race and so on. Even then it is only because it may impact the individual. Humans don’t really care very much about the exploitation of others . . . any others. We care about ourselves!

It was stated in one of the newspaper comments that animals are just animals. Well yeah, this is what they are. Of course, I don’t mean it in the same way as the person who wrote it. They are horrifically animal like at times and they are very human like at times. But you can say the same thing about humans. The significant difference is the animals cannot choose how they will be—humans can! And animals cannot speak in their own defense—and most humans won’t. People can choose, but not enough do. Many just continue to do whatever they were taught as children, whatever is most comfortable. Sadly, most people use a level of thinking which is not rational when it comes to morality. They just do what makes them feel best, getting away with what they can, regardless of the consequences to anything else. It seems the human trend is to submit to desire rather than conscience.

Much of what people believe to be ‘truth’ in any particular culture is not necessarily based in fact or rational thinking; it is rooted in tradition, it is learned from family and has a huge emotional component. I have found, over many decades, it may be impossible to reason with anyone regarding anything which is learned in this way. This is why we are admonished regarding talking politics and religion in mixed company. Sports and diet can easily be added to this list also. And certainly, to discuss morality regarding animals is treacherous territory, just as was discussing the morality of slavery. President Lincoln, in one of his speeches, asked why it was, regarding slavery, they could not call a wrong thing wrong. He stated if slavery wasn’t wrong, nothing was wrong. I think an intelligent, compassionate individual can make the same claim regarding the exploitation of animals. We should ask the same question today, a century and a half later. Why can we not call a wrong thing wrong?

One of my favorite sayings comes from Thomas Paine ‘A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial illusion of being right . . . ’

People develop belief systems based on what they learn in the early years of their life. Anything learned during the early developmental stages may be very difficult to change, perhaps impossible for most people. And the enigma is whatever you learned to be ‘truth’ is the reference you use throughout your life to determine what is right and wrong. Question—how do you make right choices with incorrect information? It is a loop, and very difficult, nearly impossible to break out of—only a small percentage of people do. It reminds me of some experiments in which they put flying insects into a jar and cover it for awhile. When they remove the lid most of the insects stay inside. They are conditioned, so they continue to do the same thing even though they don’t have to. When I heard one speaker citing this type of experiment he commented that a few pioneers do escape, but most are captive to their own minds. They, like humans, have their reality defined for them and then they live with it, doesn’t matter if it is correct or not.

History reveals that the race, class, gender or species with the power will take advantage of all others in all cases. This is even a problem in a pure democracy in that the majority will always take advantage of the minority, unless checked through a system of protection. But this has been the way of life always. The abuse and use of people and animals for the pleasure of the more powerful has been the norm for the human species. It is all about who has the power at the time, and then who is willing to follow along, doesn’t matter if it is right or wrong. What puzzles me is even when people are aware that what they believe and do may not be right, they tend not to face it if it may create discomfort for them. Those with the power to do so, prey on those who have less power—just look anywhere. And then those who are preyed on—prey on those they can. Sounds like I’m describing the animal kingdom; I’m not!

One person wrote in and responded, ‘Animals are just animals’! By what authority can anyone say this? The answer is ‘arbitrary authority’, arbitrary—human—authority! The same authority which is responsible for atrocities throughout history; the slaughter of Christians and Jews, genocide throughout the world, the suffocation of infants which aren’t boys, the testing of radioactive materials on unsuspecting citizens, the constant stream of lies we are told by governments and corporations—and the list goes on. Who gave the humans the right to do this? The answer is ‘humans’! Just as the new settlers on the North American continent in the seventeenth century gave themselves the right to say the Native Americans, Africans and Chinese were not equal to them. Just as men have said women are not equal to them. Why do they do this? Because they can—it’s just that simple.

The ruling class of people in all nations, including the United States, at all times believes themselves to be better people than the ruled. Just as the man gave himself the right to claim women are inferior to men; not rational, not creative and not strong; people give themselves the right to say animals are not equal and have no rights. Even in the leadership levels of society, the top government officials will refer to the working class Americans, as ‘them.’ We are not quite equal; they think they are superior—and—we keep voting for them.

On the surface most people need to believe the myths; it is necessary to try to justify the incorrect belief of superiority over others; people, animals and the earth. It is necessary so people can live with these warped morals. But, in my lifetime I have come to understand there are some people who feel we need to do better. But societal pressures and family are enough to keep most of them from doing what is right.

Another person once eloquently stated a very revealing truth about humans. He said, “Humans can reconcile themselves to any atrocity.”

If the realities of animal exploitation were to be judged openly and fairly, the support of this practice could be seriously reconsidered by many—especially those who are young enough to not have been brainwashed yet. But it is an integral part of our culture and our economy, as was slavery. A lot of people would surely not want things to change, as they know it would be less comfortable or less profitable for them.

The people of early America, the ancestors of many here today, did not stop slavery. Slavery was sacrificed to this nation’s war to preserve its union. If such a hideous institution as slavery was able to exist in a nation full of so-called religious, freedom-seeking people, how does ‘animal rights’ have any chance at all today? We are emotional beings and we like to be comfortable, and it seems as though it is easier to sacrifice integrity and compassion before comfort. For too many people, in their quest for comfort, the concepts of right and wrong are not as important as are the concepts of legal and acceptable.

Science has informed us the production and consumption of animals is destructive. It is destructive to the animals, the environment and to humans. Fact is at least half of the suffering and death of the American population is related to the production and consumption of animals. And much of environmental degradation is from the production of these animals.

Humans have an almost unalterable tendency to believe, without question, what they were taught as children. Later, these ‘truths’ become the basis from which most adults make their decisions. Everything, every bit of information that stimulates an individual’s nervous system, is then internally modified so it will fit into the individual’s established belief system. This helps me to understand why so many people cannot accept truth when it is presented to them, no matter how well it is supported. But, it makes me wonder how we will ever be able to know the truth when we are not taught it from the beginning, and most cannot overcome what we were taught.

The human species has always been on a roller coaster existence of abusing and being abused. It has been this way and it appears it is going to continue this way. Today we are a little more sophisticated in this country, but here and throughout the world terrible things are happening all the time. I just bring this up to point out we need to change and nothing important will change until we do. I do not believe the human species will ever be able to evolve past its dark tendencies; aggression, anger, conflict, fear, greed and selfishness, until we overcomes the belief we are better and more deserving than anyone or anything else. It is impossible for an individual to be truly compassionate and caring about some things while causing suffering and death to others.

We need to change to become the humans we should be. If we cannot understand and make the right decisions about things as simple and conspicuous as the subject matter here, we don’t have a chance with the complicated stuff.

I feel some sadness for anyone who believes animals are just animals—but even more so—I feel sorry for the animals!

 

Upgrading Civilization

Posted on by under Culture

When dealing with traffic-law enforcement there are times when one gets no sense of President Lincoln’s notion that the government is ‘by the people and for the people’. It’s time to make traffic laws more fair, just and democratic, and we have the technology to do so. In a fair and equitable system if one breaks the law and is penalized then everyone breaking the law would be penalized as well—or none would be. This is surely impossible to accomplish, but giving this notion credence raises the bar considerably, giving us a worthy mark to shoot for. The system we have is unfair in many respects and insufficiently democratic for this age. Being of a democratic society, the will of the majority must dictate our laws; and just as important, the majority should determine how the laws are applied.

The basis for this idea is simple; traffic law should apply to all people equally, not just those unlucky enough to get caught. If we drive over the speed limit we break the law, thereby we become criminals, but most are not punished. This system fails us. As it stands it’s grossly unfair, not sufficiently effective and makes us all criminals, prosecuted or not.

Traffic law is for the protection of those using, and those affected by others using, our roadways. But we are penalized arbitrarily by it. Furthermore a good, contributing citizen can be treated the same as those who regularly abuse the system.

With our current system there is no consideration for the conscientious driver and no slack for the occasional misdeed, other than the discretion a police officer may choose to use. Even the police officers must be hurt by this system as it it likely they experience some cognitive dissonance because they are tasked with citing others for what they are guilty of doing themselves.

The most careful and considerate of us  may drive for a decade with no citations then inadvertently drive five miles over the limit and be cited and fined. This is not a just system as it doesn’t discriminate sufficiently between abusive behavior and honest mistakes. There is a difference you know!

Two vehicles may be speeding past the same point one minute apart and only one is cited. Car after car can make Calif. stops and arbitrarily a police officer sees ‘one’ and one is penalized. A rich person and a poor person fined the same for an infraction will experience a different effect from the penalty. In other words, a fine which could buy groceries for the month for a single mother and baby may be pocket change for another. A police officer can choose which people to cite and which not to, which undermines fairness. The legal system gives no credit to the good driver with the clean driving record; one small infraction and you can find yourself being sucked into the system—at least far enough to end up in court. And if you end up in court you are most likely going to pay a fine.

I pulled out of a store parking lot and crossed the street to park at another store. A policeman saw me and cited me for not fastening my seatbelt. My habit was to use my seatbelts as the law requires, but I didn’t think it would be important that time. Putting this into context, I had driven about 300 feet not exceeding ten miles an hour. Considering the relative insignificance of the infraction and my good driving record, along with the fact that I lived in and employed people in the community—made no difference. When I called the police station they told me they gave no preference to anyone—I had violated the law. There was a couple hundred dollar fine in court. The whole thing has a ‘Kill them all; let God sort them out’ quality to it.

I am not suggesting we do away with the laws or even change them at this time, but that we change the way the law is administered. This is not about making the traffic law better this is about treating humans fairly. We must keep in mind that most of the laws are made for us by law makers, not by a popular vote. It is clear in this case, based on the facts of our driving, that the law is not reflecting the will of the majority.

At some point I concluded there must be much better ways of administering traffic law, and this is why I chose to write this. The chance for an improved system to emerge someday strictly depends on how much we desire to live in a world which is more fair and equitable—a world less apt to exploit our good citizens. If we are going to have a chance at improving we must create and support improved institutions.

If you travel the highway regularly you see traffic laws violated and personal safety jeopardized. It is common to see vehicles tail-gating, speeding or changing lanes in a dangerous manner. At times there are multiple vehicles, which seem to be playing risky games. There is a minority which put themselves and others at unnecessary risk, and these need to be dealt with—harshly. But my focus for this essay is for those operating within the context of normal driving, albeit outside the strict letter of the law, while conforming with the majority.

Consider the facts of our situation; many people make Calif. stops and many drive the freeway at 70 or more, instead of 65. So penalizing for this is at least questionable, and most likely—not rational. To be able to recognize this as a mistake in our system requires that we accept that in a democratic society the ‘people’ make the choices, even if by demonstrating what we choose by the way we drive—this is a ‘vote’. It should be up to the bureaucracy to keep up with the people, not the other way around. If we can understand this we can move on to the implementation of a better system. We need a system which accounts for how most of our citizens drive. If most of us drive safely at 70 then some should not be penalized for doing so. If almost all of our citizens make rolling stops then we surely cannot penalize anyone for doing so. But the system does.

In an ideal system any violation of the law would be recorded. But here is where we must begin to discriminate. Whether violations occur within the context and range of normal driving (including driving moderately outside the limits of the law), or in the range of abnormal driving (including driving far outside the average and far outside the limits of the law), would determine how to deal with violations.

The overall change would include more automation and less enforcement personnel. A change of this sort should be relatively easy because cars already have computers. And as long as the vehicle computer system can recognize and record the driver and the relevant aspects of how the vehicle is used, the records would be valid. These records would provide the data for determining which are normal behaviors and which are abnormal. In this system all infractions are noted, but only those which merit such are penalized. And most of this could be done without enforcement personnel because of technology.

As it is, a grandmother driving home from the nursery on a quiet road on Sunday morning will be dragged into court, embarrassed and fined for allowing her car to roll an inch per second at a stop sign. Even changing the stops signs to yield signs would be a vast improvement.

It is readily evident that the system we use misses most violations of the law. We have the technology to improve this institution. Do we have the will?

Death Penalty

Posted on by under Culture, Social Obligation

I oppose the death penalty. But I don’t oppose it in principle; there are behaviors for which it seems some should be put to death. I do oppose it in practice though; for three reasons. First, it costs more to use the death penalty than life without parole. Second, there is the well known chance of error. We surely don’t want to punish an innocent person and even more don’t want to execute anyone who doesn’t deserve it. Third, something that doesn’t get attention; even in the most ideal circumstance where there would be no chance of error, we should not use the death penalty. In a case in which everyone knows the accused is guilty, the accused admits it, there are no unanswered questions and the criminal is competent and completely responsible for his/her actions, there is a problem . . . and this problem may be insurmountable. It is the effect that implementing the death penalty has on the non-criminal members of society. So hypothetically, there could be circumstances in which I would say a person should be put to death. In principle I would admit it’s right, but in practice I could not support its implementation because of the damaging effects to those participating in the deed.

I want to preface this exploration by saying, I respect the fact that a person who has personally experienced the trauma of crime will have a view that others will not, and cannot, have. I am not trying to take away from or diminish the feelings of any victim of crime or any desire for retribution. I would just like to present some points for consideration as our society has and will continue to wrestle with the ethics of this matter. How we collectively deal with the death penalty has a direct bearing on people’s lives, both the ethical and the criminal in our society. And if it’s not obvious in my writing, I’m not trying to defend the properly convicted criminal. I am trying to defend the innocent—on both sides of the law. The bottom line being, wrong choices in this matter are disastrous. As it stands now, when errors are made, innocent lives may be ruined. And even if there were no errors in convicting and punishing criminals, innocent lives would still be damaged.

I am strongly convinced, based on justice, fairness and cost, we can reach and maintain the goal of the justice system without the death penalty; therefore without the risk of executing an innocent person and without burdening the good people in society with such an egregious task. Furthermore, eliminating capital punishment would eliminate the additional expense of billions of dollars as the conviction process is even more critical.

Maimonides said “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death.” I think we can take that one notch higher by not requiring the good citizens of our communities to participate in the death penalty process.

Most likely we all agree on one thing, the horrible crimes some people commit are beyond our capacity to comprehend. The thought of these revolt and sicken a normal person. Just hearing about them has scarred some of us for life. Consequently, to consider the elimination of the death penalty is asking a lot, from anyone. But this is one of those things we really need to get right.

Emotion plays a big part in our reaction to violent crime; as retribution does to our judgment of what should be done about it. To rationally examine such an emotional subject is difficult. To do this we must consider, detached from the emotional component of violent crime, the goal of the penal system. I hope to explore this subject with sufficient objectivity to determine if we are doing the right thing when executing another. In light of the fact, innocent fellow humans are convicted and executed; we must continue to address this flaw in our society until it is corrected. Lives depend on it!

This is a complex issue. In fact so much so that only recently are we able to begin to grasp the complexity. Even now in the 21st century the factors affecting the commission of a crime and those affecting the proper resolution of a conviction are just barely on the radar screen. Once upon a time it was easy. If someone did something the majority, or those in power didn’t like . . . they were killed. In fact you could kill them any way you chose. As ‘fair’ punishment for crimes people have been: skinned, flayed, burned, boiled, drawn, pressed, drowned, eaten, beheaded . . . you get the idea. There seems no end to what humans will think up and inflict on others in the quest for justice, perhaps more to the point—retribution.

Also beyond my capacity to understand is the way people have historically acted about executions, and gruesome sights in general. Exactly what is being revealed about the minds of some people when you consider the ambiance created by complete strangers gathering to see someone executed? Or what should we think of those who choose to be and are executioners? It may be very revealing for psychologists to study some of these aspects of human nature.

It wasn’t until well into the Age of Reason that our attitudes regarding the death penalty started changing significantly. And it is only in the last few hundred years that the idea of long term incarceration in prison as punishment developed. Prior to this development, jails were more of a temporary holding area where people were detained until trial or execution. In those days not only was it easy, it was cheap. Exorbitant cost in the justice system is relatively new.

The changes in attitude in the last couple centuries toward criminals and punishment have realized improvements in the penal system. There is a lot to do yet, but we have climbed up from what appears to me to have been a cesspool of demented, superstitious, black-hearted pseudo-humans. Incidentally this string of adjectives isn’t describing the criminals, but those exacting horrible atrocities under the guise of justice, law and religion.

Today it costs a lot more to manage a death penalty homicide case than a non-death penalty case, and this is due to human diligence, within and without the system, trying to eliminate irredeemable errors. The proportionally greater cost for maintaining the death penalty, assuming the needs of the justice system may be met without it, affords sufficient justification for abolishing the death penalty. In researching this part of this subject it appears that 1 to 1.5 million dollars per execution is common, with some going much higher. A death penalty case contrasted with the cost of a LWOP (life without parole) case is as much as 70% more. With over 3200 people on death row in the U.S. this quickly becomes billions of dollars that could be put toward much better use. But this is strictly a financial consideration by which one could reasonably justify abolishing the death penalty. Since some people think that retribution is justifiable regardless of the exorbitant cost, I will explore the question from a moral perspective.

Some of the important questions I hope to answer in this essay are: What is justice in a case of criminal homicide? What does the notion of justice demand of us; and what does ethical propriety allow us? Once we identify the answers to these questions, we can answer the question this essay is concerned with:

Should we abolish the death penalty?

In my quest to find the ‘right’ answers to this question I have read other’s arguments. Some of these are well articulated defenses of the death penalty. They contain the arguments of deterrence, justice and retribution. I understand these terms and had the typical attitude toward the death penalty before I started thinking very much about this subject.

An article that I read most recently was by a judge and it was quite convincing on an emotional level. He gave specific instances of gruesome crimes in meticulous detail. No doubt this works on a lot of people. Unfortunately, it is all the emotion stimulating information many people need to be convinced, even on matters of such importance that errors may cost innocent people their lives. Fact is, this style of argumentation stirs my emotions, but it is most important to try to consider this objectively. His method of argumentation fell mostly on the persuasion end of the argumentation spectrum, its goal to convince the audience. But with persuasion, it doesn’t matter if there is truth or if it is good for humanity. In this mode of argumentation a person is successful when they have convinced their audience of their perspective—period.

Here’s some I thought inadvertently, articulated how much dominion emotion has in this arena. “The rule of law does not eliminate feelings of outrage, but does provide controlled channels for expressing such feelings. As the Supreme Court has recognized, society has withdrawn, both from the victim and the vigilante the enforcement of criminal laws, but [it] cannot erase from people’s consciousness the fundamental, natural yearning to see justice done—or even the urge for retribution.” The urge for retribution is emotional, very emotional. It is the emotion-driven desire that someone be punished for perceived wrong-doing. And it is because of this very strong emotional response that we must use our intellect to properly control our actions regarding the administration of justice. The second one. As Professor Walter Berns has explained: “In a country whose principles forbid it to preach, the criminal law is one of the few available institutions through which it can make a moral statement …. To be successful, what it says—and it makes this moral statement when it punishes—must be appropriate to the offense and, therefore, to what has been offended. If human life is to be held in awe, the law forbidding the taking of it must be held in awe; and the only way it can be made awful or awe inspiring is to entitle it to inflict the penalty of death. This one decries the judgment of the thinkers in this country who choose not to mix religion and law. It seems readily evident that we would not benefit from a Pentecostal government using biblical texts to discern right from wrong to administer justice. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out what the consequences of this could be.

There’s no doubt, if we make our choices from an emotional level we will have the death penalty. And from an emotional position it would then be easy to justify the most horrific techniques for killing violent criminals just as slowly as we can. But there is a problem with this notion; we have the ability to think rationally. And we need to continue to get better at it if we have any hopes of a better culture for ourselves and posterity.

My preferred method of argumentation is nearer the opposite end of the argumentation spectrum—truth seeking. The best goal is always to arrive at the truth. In this mode I am successful when I have tested my beliefs against relevant information. I am not trying to convince anyone . . . except myself. For this reason I encourage argumentation about life’s important issues; it forces me to evaluate my beliefs. I am glad to consider other ‘truths’ in the process of trying to find whatever is closest to the actual truth, and I invite others to do likewise.

The death penalty has been around since the early days. There is record of it from at least Draco’s time, around 621 BCE. Apparently Draco was an ardent fan of the death penalty and applied it to pretty much all crimes, hence the term draconian. Proponents will suggest that the death penalty has some credibility just because it has been around throughout history (appeal to tradition) and most people have supported it. But the fact that it has been around for a long time has absolutely no bearing on whether it is right or whether we should maintain it.

We have responsibility to the present as well as the future. Bad or delayed choices now surely hurt these generations, but will also have detrimental effects on those coming. So, what is our responsibility to justice?

There is a lot to get right in a criminal case, and a lot that can go wrong. In capital cases this is even more so. When considering justice various facets are deemed important: retribution, rehabilitation, restoration, incapacitation and deterrence. Some of these are modern ideas (rehabilitation) and some ancient (retribution). The question before us is whether the death penalty is a legitimate choice for today’s population. So a major theme for this essay is ‘How do we best serve justice?” I want to consider this and more. There are facets of the justice system which aren’t accepted the same way they used to be e.g. retribution. And there are facets which just don’t seem to be considered at all e.g. what capital punishment does to the good people functioning as part of the system; employees, jurors, etc. In order to decide objectively whether the death penalty is right one must consider the goal of the justice system and the best way to accomplish that goal. Justice, by dictionary definition, must be considered from a moral perspective as well as a legal one. ‘Administration of the law; moral rightness.’ My goal, and my plan, is to cover enough of the subject matter to make my point—so I will not try to cover all aspects of justice or all of the facets of the death penalty.

In a death penalty case it must first be determined whether the suspect has committed the crime. And if so, it has to be decided to what degree the suspect would be responsible for his or her actions. Then the appropriate consequence of the crime would have to occur to satisfy the five facets mentioned previously: retribution, rehabilitation, restoration, incapacitation and deterrence, of meeting out justice.

Just as important, we need to consider what society needs to get out of this process. First, we want to know we’re doing the right thing. We also need to feel a sense of safety. And we need to know we’re improving the present and the future for those we want to protect. Then, we would want to get on with our lives.

Finally, we have to ask if society has any responsibility for the behaviors of these criminals—and if so what we need to change. The United States is at the top of the list for homicides in the world. Some claim there are reasons for this: poverty, prejudice, ignorance, violent entertainment, consumerism, drugs, alcohol, diet and many more. Considering this, if we really want to improve, we will need to remedy the flaws in these conditions.

Each of these are important points in a just society. And as we consider whether the death penalty should be abolished, each point, being integral to the success of the process, bears on this question.

WHAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE ACCUSED?

Properly determining a person’s innocence or guilt is paramount. If this can’t be done then any decisions based on this part of the process are suspect, in fact not legitimate. Anything that jeopardizes the integrity of this part of the criminal justice system renders it all ineffective. And there are plenty of obstacles to getting this part right:

  • Mistaken eyewitness testimony
  • Coerced verdicts, false concordance
  • Inadequate legal representation
  • Police and prosecutorial misconduct
  • Perjured testimony
  • Prejudice
  • Suppression and/or misinterpretation of mitigating evidence
  • Community/political pressure to solve a case

At this stage of the criminal justice process errors start costing innocent people their lives. The statistics indicate that the error rate is significant. And when you consider the possibility of executing an innocent person, one mistake is too much. There have been approximately 138 people released from prison since 1973 because of exonerating DNA evidence. This doesn’t bode well for the way people have been prosecuted in the past. This leaves us with another troubling fact—there are a lot of people in prison who can’t be helped because there is no biological evidence in their cases. It also forces us to ask, how many of the cases tried without biological evidence are incorrect? And . . . how many innocent people have died because of errors in the process? DNA tests will no doubt make the results of trials better, but cases which have biological evidence are the small minority.

I realize there is a dilemma here that has to be the source of indescribable frustration, anguish, and anger. That is, when not able to adequately prove guilt—having to release someone who may be guilty. This comes down to trashing the rights of society in favor of the rights of an individual. This is surely one of those ineffable situations—anguish and anger just don’t get it, but the philosophical position which seems to make the most sense is to support the rights of the individual. No reasonable human being wants an innocent person to suffer, so this must be done right.

In a study by Wells (1998) they examined the first 40 cases in which DNA exonerated wrongfully convicted people. Mistaken eyewitness identification played a major role in 90% of these cases. Ninety percent! That is almost every case in this particular sample. Interestingly, as far back as 1896 psychologist Albert Von Schrenk-Notzing claimed that a witness testifying about a crime would not be able to sufficiently distinguish between what they had seen and what had been reported in the press.

Today’s science admits of cognitive errors in the trial process. A study (cited in Loftus and Doyle, 1992) recorded verdicts in mock trials with two separate sets of jurors. They each heard evidence differing only in the presence, or not, of an eyewitness. With no eyewitness, 18% of jurors found guilty verdicts. With an eyewitness the guilty verdicts increased to 72%. From this example it is evident that jurors, and others, give unprecedented credibility to eyewitness accounts. And this is easy to understand when considering the circumstance. A witness, presumed to have pertinent knowledge and sworn to truth, responds to questions . . . albeit questions specifically designed to suit a particular purpose. Whether the line of questioning is designed to clear or designed to condemn the suspect—you can be sure the witness is being steered—just exactly where the questioner wants the witness, and the jurors, to go. Add to this the fact that people don’t naturally want the responsibility of making important decisions and you can be sure the outcome will be somewhat tainted—at least.

Psychologists have demonstrated that even educated people will knowingly answer incorrectly when it is apparent their (correct) response will be rejected in a particular situation. Experiments have shown intelligent people freely giving wrong answers when those before them gave the correct answers, but were told they were incorrect. This was only under the minimal pressure of university experiments, nothing like a criminal trial.

Is it possible to avoid bias when the suspect is accused of criminal activity by people, presumably interested in justice? Is it possible to avoid prejudice when the accused is from a different group: race, nationality or ethnicity? Once someone is charged with a crime can anyone avoid being prejudiced by that charge? It is plain the deck is somewhat stacked to begin with.

I should take a minute here to admit that if I were to have the unfortunate experience of losing someone to a violent crime I suspect I would vote for the death penalty and would want to be the executioner. But this doesn’t take anything away from the argument to abolish the death penalty. In those conditions my desire to slowly torture the criminal would be understandable. But I also suspect that if that were to happen I would, subject to strong emotions, have created my own terrible memories and the experience would have altered me in a way that would not be beneficial to me or society. I think it is reasonable to support this notion with fact that many come home from the military permanently damaged by what they have seen, and most importantly, according to psychologists, by what they have done. But the fact is I would be responding from an emotional place. This response wouldn’t even require thinking as I suspect it would take place at a level of mental processing which does not engage rational, controlled thought.

The fact that I would want to be the executioner is why we need to resolve the controversy over the death penalty. The situation is further complicated by the fact that some people have been scarred by violence and their perception of right and wrong is probably, likewise, scarred regarding decisions about punishment. And there are people making decisions about punishment who have not experienced the indescribable trauma that comes from being a victim. So how can we hope to ever reach a reasonable decision in how to manage this part of living in a world where awful things occur?

If we don’t believe a normal person is capable of beating an old person to death just for fun, then we have to admit, those who do so must be abnormal.

Once a person is convicted of a crime we must know whether the convicted individual was sufficiently, in the sense that a normal person would be, responsible for their action. Perhaps the consensus is that a criminal needs to die for what they did and we just don’t care about why. But if we do care about why, if we realize that it could be someone we care about being tried for a crime, then we need to find the correct answers.  

The general notion has been that everyone, except for the very obvious exceptions, is responsible for their choices. So what about those with abnormal intelligence or abnormal morality? Should they be held to the same standards as those considered normal (the majority)? Environment, genetics and free will are all variables influencing the problems we must overcome regarding crime, particularly violent crime.

When dealing with criminal behavior, societies have proceeded from the assumption that people are completely responsible for their actions and deserve to pay for their violations of law and morality and thereby, based their penal systems on this assumption. But science seems to be confirming what some have suggested, that some people are incapable of understanding and controlling their horrific behaviors. If this is true we must decide how to deal with those who don’t fit into a reasonable definition of culpable with regards to their actions.

To avoid any misunderstandings about what I am saying, my position is—I want criminals out of society. I am just arguing that we need to change how we deal with them. As more is learned about the factors affecting a person’s ability or inability to discern, or do right or wrong, it is evident the system needs considerable change. In the areas of genetics, environment and free will a lot is being discovered. But it may be a long time before anything definitive can be said about free will. Consequently, being aware that there is real possibility that extended knowledge into these areas will change how the penal system works, we should be convinced to be cautious and to choose the course least likely to produce the undesired result of punishing innocent people. This is certainly our responsibility to the accused. 

According to the experts genetics and environment are crucial in the proper development of a child’s brain and personality. Genetics go so far, then, the environment works to shape the child’s mind. It is believed that genetic influence reduces some people’s ability to control their emotions and their behaviors. And studies also seem to prove that what a child sees and hears and learns to believe, will have an effect on their decisions later in life. Weak family bonds, as well as financial instability, abuse and neglect are correlated with the development of aggressive and criminal tendencies. Proper environment is important for a child to develop into a normal adult.

Using four separate measures of antisocial behavior, including convictions for violent crime, the research team found that each measure was significantly increased in the group that had both low MAOA activity and a history of severe maltreatment. In contrast, for participants with high levels of MAOA, no significant increase was found in any of the antisocial measures, even when they had experienced the same level of maltreatment. The overall impact of this gene-environment interaction can be judged from the fact that the 12 percent of the cohort that had both low MAOA and maltreatment accounted for 44 percent of the cohort’s convictions for violent crime. Looked at somewhat differently, 85 percent of the males with both risk factors developed some form of antisocial behavior. ~Psychiatry Serv 56:25-27, January 2005
© 2005 American Psychiatric Association

From this research it is obvious that genetics and environment are important components in any argument about punishment. This notion has received attention from thinkers in history at least as far back as Aristotle, but seems to have had little impact on any penal system prior to the modern era. In fact it is only recently that the Supreme Court has taken action that provides some protection for the retarded.

No person shall be convicted, sentenced, or otherwise punished for any crime committed while suffering from a physical or mental disease, disorder or defect such that the disease, disorder or defect prevented that person from knowing the nature of the criminal act or that it was wrong.

Thus, the court said, the objectives of capital punishment – deterring murder and exacting retribution for it – do not apply to persons of well-below-average measured intelligence.

Although the notion of free will has been considered since ancient times it is only just becoming amenable to the scientific method—so even science is working on it. As our sciences improve we will be better able to answer such questions. But in the meantime we still need to avoid making irrevocable mistakes.

In criminal law it is presumed that behavior is a consequence of free will. For this reason it is, as a general rule, believed that severe punishment can deter crime.

With the modern day developments in neuroscience the concept of free will and responsibility for one’s actions have become real variables in the discussion about the death penalty, and punishment in general. It’s only within the last generation that states began to make laws prohibiting the execution of retarded people. Currently the decision on whether a person is retarded is based on I.Q. tests. Evidently it has been decided that a person’s ability to discern right from wrong is proportional to their ability to figure out puzzles in a test. It does raise a question though. Are there factors which adversely affect a person’s moral fitness without affecting their intelligence? There are terms in this argument which may not be familiar, such as moral retardation or moral imbecile, which figure prominently in what is important to this part of our understanding of what’s going on. Is it possible for a person to be intellectually normal and morally retarded? If so testing for intelligence alone isn’t sufficient.

On her view, an agent acts freely only if he had the ability to choose the True and the Good. For an agent who does so choose, the requisite ability is automatically implied. But those who reject the Good choose freely only if they could have acted differently. ~ Susan Wolf 1990

As I stated it may be a long time yet before the notion of free will is understood and we are able to determine whether or not a person acted of their own volition. To compare another’s actions to our own to determine if they are responsible for what they have done is not sufficient. Admittedly, this may have been the only metric available in the past; but now it is understood by science that there are things going on at the level of the mind which dictate different realities for some than for the ‘majority.’ The fact is another person may not understand that torturing someone is wrong or that it is hurtful. Or they may know it is wrong intellectually, but not know it is wrong emotionally. And tests have shown that when brain scans show specific activity for empathy in a normal person, the same test may reveal deficient activity in the brain of a convicted criminal. It seems apparent that the facts reveal an important point; some people may not get as much feedback from their brain regarding incorrect behavior as an animal may get. If some people are devoid of relevant brain functions how can we punish them? Perhaps they don’t know and can’t know—just as a shark can’t know. They absolutely need to be removed from society—permanently, but how can we justify making their life miserable, let alone killing them? This would seem to be the reasonable, rational position for a sophisticated society to take—until we know for sure.

WHAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SOCIETY?

The reality is that we have to deal with crime and criminals. But while dealing with this reality it is our responsibility to protect the good citizens of our communities as much as possible. So throughout the process of apprehending, convicting and punishing criminals we need a process that gives us a high level of assurance we have done what was needed to eliminate the threat to society and deter future crime. And we need to do this without damaging the good citizens of our communities so we can live with a clear conscience.

In all of the cases in which the condemned is to be punished for a crime, someone must apply the punishment. In our society those persons are not the people who are directly affected by the crime. In fact the law does everything it can to keep people who have a direct emotional attachment to the crime uninvolved. So people who are not affected directly by the crime make the decisions and apply the punishment. Ultimately, innocent people are drawn into the world and behaviors of criminals; and paradoxically, if you don’t go willingly, you may find yourself in contempt . . . then prosecuted—as a criminal!

What do these experiences do to us? What happens to a juror when they stand up in court and set the condemned on the path to their execution? What happens to an individual when they slip a noose over another’s head and pull the lever or push a button to deliver a dose of poison or thousands of volts of electricity? Some can’t forget the smell of burning flesh or the sounds of death. Do these individuals deserve this for some reason? What happens in the minds of police officers who line up five in a row and, from 25 feet away, shoot a condemned person who is securely strapped in a chair? I suspect something happens.

It’s long been accepted that military personnel returning from battle have been negatively altered by the experience of killing and seeing others killed—in fact, to the point that they take their own lives. There is every reason to suspect that normal people required to condemn others to death, and for some, to actually kill them, there is going to be a change—for the worse.

Psychologists offer an explanation for how humans try to deal with this.

The gravest moral predicament if faced by executioners who have to kill. Unless they suspend moral self-sanction for the intentional taking of a human life they would be burdened by a troublesome legacy. Zimbardo, Bandura and Osofsky examined, in three penitentiaries, the pattern of moral disengagement in three subgroups of prison personnel. Prison guards who had no involvement in the execution process exhibited little moral disengagement. Members of the execution team enlisted all the modes of moral disengagement.

‘People ordinarily refrain from behaving in ways that violate their core moral standards because such conduct will bring self-censure. In some institutional role functions, such as military combat and state executions, the taking of human life presents a grave moral predicament. Moral sanctions do not come into play unless activated, and there are a variety of psychosocial mechanisms by which such sanctions can be selectively disengaged from lethal conduct. Psychological mechanisms which allow us to suspend moral sanctions include; biblical imperatives, the notion of deterrence and protecting society. Euphemistic language sanitizes taking life as simply a legal penalty and comparison renders execution merciful when contrasted with heinous crimes.’ ~From Moral Disengagements in Executions, Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law.

I think we have to ask where the immorality is in the death penalty. Is it in putting criminals to death—or is it in requiring non-criminals to participate in the death penalty process? Perhaps both, but for me it is more important to consider the implications to the innocent people in our society. From the language used in the previous statements about moral disengagement it becomes evident that capital punishment is though by some  to be immoral.

If in fact we are scarred by interacting with the violent criminal element in our society we must curtail this activity. Do we want bad people out of society? Yes! Do we want the memories and nightmares associated with killing someone? No! At least I don’t. So the only reasonable answer seems to be to remove the violent criminal from society permanently—without behaving in the way they do. Psychologists have determined that our behaviors modify our attitudes just as our attitudes modify our behaviors. So, if we accept this we don’t want to behave violently as we will be inclined then to think violently.

As Mahatma Gandhi said, “All crime is a kind of disease and should be treated as such.” Crime is a cancer. Increasingly research points to brain disorders in offenders. For instance, Dr. Stuart Yudofsky, Chairman, Department of Psychiatry, Baylor College of Medicine writes, “We view people who are violent in the same way we used to view people who were mentally ill. In the old days, schizophrenics, manic-depressives and others were thought to be bad people who had to be punished. When we reconceptualize violence as involving the brain, then we are really going to start making progress. The brain is left out of the whole paradigm in the criminal justice system. We got nowhere punishing mentally ill people and we’re getting nowhere with our population of criminals. We’re just building more prisons.”

DOES SOCIETY HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OCCURRENCE OF CRIME?

Finally, we have to ask if society has any responsibility for the behaviors of these criminals—and if so what do we need to change. The United States is at the top of the list for homicides in the world. Here is a sampling of some of the many factors that when combined can lead to criminal behavior: poverty, lack of education, genetic deficiencies, the desire for attention and recognition, a society that stresses consumerism and materialism, lack of values, sense of entitlement, lack of empathy and conscience, negative role models, availability of drugs and handguns, childhood neglect and abuse, unemployment, thrill-seeking to numb the pain caused by hopelessness, alienation, single parent home, neurochemical imbalances, physical and head injuries, toxic environment, pesticides in food, heavy metals and bacteria in water, food allergies and intolerances, birth trauma, mental illness, low I.Q., hormonal problems, peer pressure, victim of bullying, mineral and vitamin deficiencies, maternal smoking and drinking, alcohol and drug abuse, paranoia, premature birth, memory and behavior problems, learning disabilities, attention deficits, poor language skills, compulsions, speech and vision problems. If these factors can contribute to crime how many of them can we change? How many should we change? There is little doubt, we have a lot to do, because these are all factors we have to take responsibility for. To add to this list I should mention violent media and in particular violent games.  

PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) seldom results in violent criminal acts, and US Bureau of Justice Statistics research indicates that veterans, including Vietnam veterans, are statistically less likely to be incarcerated than a nonveteran of the same age. The key safeguard in this process appears to be the deeply ingrained discipline which the soldier internalizes with military training. However, with the advent of interactive “point-and-shoot” arcade and video games there is significant concern that society is aping military conditioning, but without the vital safeguard of discipline. There is strong evidence to indicate that the indiscriminate civilian application of combat conditioning techniques as entertainment may be a key factor in worldwide, skyrocketing violent crime rates, including a sevenfold increase in per capita aggravated assaults in America since 1956. Thus, the psychological effects of combat can increasingly be observed on the streets of nations around the world.

In conclusion, this subject is considerably more nuanced and complex than I imagined when I started this essay. And it is obvious that today’s sciences dealing with the mind are insufficient to answer some of the questions which need to be answered, but our knowledge is significantly improved in the last century. Hopefully some day we will have the answers and the wisdom to effect meaningful change. But there is no doubt that we could make vast improvements with the knowledge we have now, if we want to.

I know I haven’t touched on all the important questions, to do so would fill a book. But for the purpose of determining and expressing my position on this matter I think I have broached some of the more obvious points to consider.

Again, I think it is important to reiterate, our lack of change or lack of ability to implement the right solutions will continue to cost people too much—both those falsely accused and those required to participate in an unnecessary part of the legal  system.