All right...I don't even know where to begin on this one. First, a little background. There is a guy who goes by the name Rev. Aneb Jah Rasta Sensas-Utcha Nefer I, Ph.D. AKA Rev. Dr. Billy Jo Perry, Ph.D. His REAL name is William Perry (sans an actual, regionally accredited Ph.D., of course), and he first came to my attention about seven years ago when I read about a charter school that he founded. Sort of. There was no building, and there were no classes, though money did exchange hands. Apparently he told the parents that their kids could stay home and he would not mark them absent, since they were technically present in an existential kind of way. Yes, people actually bought into this. More details here: http://www2.jsonline.com/news/metro/sep00/choice23092200a.asp
Not long after that, in 2004, this joker applied to run for governor of Wisconsin, and actually got on the statewide ballot. And got over 900 votes. I guess these were the 900 some-odd folks who decided to get stoned on election day. Details: http://www.classicwisconsin.com/features/aneb.html
It's been a few years, but I was wondering what old Sensas-Utcha was up to, so I Googled him. I found a phone number for him and called him to ask if he had a Web site. Sure enough, this charlatan is still in business. Now he has published (literally he himself, through a vanity press) several books, each retailing for well over $100 each. After reading his Web site (listed below), I began to wonder how much I could make if I had no scruples. This guy borders on illiteracy, using big words because he thinks they sound pretty, yet likely not knowing what many of them mean. And yet he's "written" several books, and sold who knows how many copies of them at over $100 apiece. Apparently both L. Ron Hubbard and P.T. Barnum were right in their cynical attitudes about the gullibility of people. Sad, and yet oh so funny at the same time...
Details: http://www.50595.authorworld.com/
23 May 2008
06 December 2007
Should the Death Penalty be Abolished?
First of all, in principle, I support the idea of the death penalty for heinous crimes. Contrary to what many abolitionists say, it in no way violates the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill," as the Hebrew word used for "kill" here actually referred to murder and not legitimate killing (as in self-defense or in just capital punishment or in a just war). Also, the Law of Moses, which was incumbent only upon the Israelites/Jews, did not merely suggest, but actually demanded the death penalty for many sins against God and His Laws.
That said, I find it hard to support the death penalty in our modern world. Not because I think God was in any way wrong in His support of the death penalty, or because morality changes, but because the modern court systems are so corrupt that guilt is not always proven beyond any reasonable doubt, despite what the juries and judges may decide in their official verdicts.
Even though I think that most people (maybe 95%+) of those executed in the USA are guilty and deserving of the death penalty, what of those who are killed unjustly, essentially murdered by the State? I brought this up to a relative who flippantly said in response, "To make an omelet you have to break a few eggs." Not only is this an asinine and heartless attitude toward innocent victims of the death penalty, it is unfortunately not an uncommon attitude here (both in Texas and in the USA). It is also evident in the moronic comments made by others here who would see the death penalty almost as entertainment rather than an alleged execution of justice. Realize that if someone can excuse the execution of an innocent person, that person would be morally equivalent to Pontius Pilate, who, despite his knowledge of Christ's innocence, "washed his hands" of His blood, and allowed Him to be crucified. After all, you can release an exonerated prisoner who was only incarcerated, but you cannot un-kill an executed one.
I also see how the death penalty is not applied to those who have clearly deserved it, such as Charles Manson, because of legal technicalities that trump real justice. If an unremorseful murderer like Manson can be sentenced to die, be given a reprieve due to the previous SCOTUS moratorium on the DP, and then NOT be resentenced to death once that moratorium has lapsed, where is the justice there? Manson escaped the gas chamber because he was convicted ten years too early, and still imprisoned at the pleasure of the State of California. Again, I ask, is that justice?
I do not accept the utilitarian arguments for the death penalty, such as "it's cheaper to kill them than to lock them up". With that logic, you can also rationalize euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and all other forms of killing and experimenting on "undesirables" as Nazi Germany did. I also reject the idea that no one deserves to be killed no matter what their crime. However, unless the death penalty is applied fairly, consistently, and relatively swiftly to those whose guilt is absolutely ascertained, it cannot be considered a just punishment.
The issue of brutality in the death penalty is also to be considered, though I believe that it should be considered as a last concern, in that the issues of guilt and fairness should be solved first. I do not know what would constitute the most humane method of execution, though I think that the current method of lethal injection (sodium pentothal, followed by a curare-type drug, followed by potassium chloride) is ridiculous. An opiate overdose would surely be more humane than that. Also, involving doctors in the legal injection process is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, and thus erodes the already shaky foundation of medical ethics in this country.
What is to be done? While I think that the abolition of the death penalty may not be the ideal solution, but it may currently be the only moral one. The continuation of the current system will only continue to do grave evil to all those who are unjustly killed as well as their families, and on a lesser note, not bring swift death to those who truly deserve to perish.
That said, I find it hard to support the death penalty in our modern world. Not because I think God was in any way wrong in His support of the death penalty, or because morality changes, but because the modern court systems are so corrupt that guilt is not always proven beyond any reasonable doubt, despite what the juries and judges may decide in their official verdicts.
Even though I think that most people (maybe 95%+) of those executed in the USA are guilty and deserving of the death penalty, what of those who are killed unjustly, essentially murdered by the State? I brought this up to a relative who flippantly said in response, "To make an omelet you have to break a few eggs." Not only is this an asinine and heartless attitude toward innocent victims of the death penalty, it is unfortunately not an uncommon attitude here (both in Texas and in the USA). It is also evident in the moronic comments made by others here who would see the death penalty almost as entertainment rather than an alleged execution of justice. Realize that if someone can excuse the execution of an innocent person, that person would be morally equivalent to Pontius Pilate, who, despite his knowledge of Christ's innocence, "washed his hands" of His blood, and allowed Him to be crucified. After all, you can release an exonerated prisoner who was only incarcerated, but you cannot un-kill an executed one.
I also see how the death penalty is not applied to those who have clearly deserved it, such as Charles Manson, because of legal technicalities that trump real justice. If an unremorseful murderer like Manson can be sentenced to die, be given a reprieve due to the previous SCOTUS moratorium on the DP, and then NOT be resentenced to death once that moratorium has lapsed, where is the justice there? Manson escaped the gas chamber because he was convicted ten years too early, and still imprisoned at the pleasure of the State of California. Again, I ask, is that justice?
I do not accept the utilitarian arguments for the death penalty, such as "it's cheaper to kill them than to lock them up". With that logic, you can also rationalize euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and all other forms of killing and experimenting on "undesirables" as Nazi Germany did. I also reject the idea that no one deserves to be killed no matter what their crime. However, unless the death penalty is applied fairly, consistently, and relatively swiftly to those whose guilt is absolutely ascertained, it cannot be considered a just punishment.
The issue of brutality in the death penalty is also to be considered, though I believe that it should be considered as a last concern, in that the issues of guilt and fairness should be solved first. I do not know what would constitute the most humane method of execution, though I think that the current method of lethal injection (sodium pentothal, followed by a curare-type drug, followed by potassium chloride) is ridiculous. An opiate overdose would surely be more humane than that. Also, involving doctors in the legal injection process is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, and thus erodes the already shaky foundation of medical ethics in this country.
What is to be done? While I think that the abolition of the death penalty may not be the ideal solution, but it may currently be the only moral one. The continuation of the current system will only continue to do grave evil to all those who are unjustly killed as well as their families, and on a lesser note, not bring swift death to those who truly deserve to perish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
