?

Log in

No account? Create an account

The Past | The Previous

Execution State

Well, you got to be a proud American when you learn that your country has executed a 76 year old blind, almost deaf wheelchair using man who, by the by, had had his birthday less than an hour before. In case you are still a little proud, consider this: In September, this guy, Clarence Ray Allen, had a heart attack and doctors revived him so he could go on death row and wait out his months for execution.

America, you one classy bitch.

Link snagged from ninebelow

Comments

( 13 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )
ex_hestia
Jan. 17th, 2006 11:32 am (UTC)
While I agree somewhat with what you've said, this guy is a dangerous psychopath. Even when incarcerated he still tries to kill inconvenient people. He is exactly the sort of person who should get the maximum sentence for murder both for the sake of the community and for a sense of justice through punishment due to the victim's loved ones.

Having said that, it is my humble opinion that the maximum sentence for murder shouldn't be murder. It should be loss of freedom and spending the rest of his life kissing his victim's family's arse.
benpeek
Jan. 17th, 2006 11:54 am (UTC)
well, i'm not here saying the guy was innocent, cause, you know, he wasn't, and he deserved his jail time (i don't support capital punishment, obviously). but i do think there comes a point when, no matter the person, the behaviour of the government and the law system it has is just as bad as what that prisoner did, if actually worse, if you can mesure such moments. this is one of those moments where, at the very least, you look at your government and question their morals. of course, i tend to think all executions are wrong, simply because it suggests that prison and the law exists to punish people, rather than to assist in the correction of an individual's behaviour, if possible, or remove them from society if not.

but whatever this guy did, and he did a bit and sounds like a complete waste of space, it's morally disturbing to find that any government would do this, don't you think? that they would, in fact, resusistate him so that they could do this is even worse.
shawn_scarber
Jan. 17th, 2006 02:57 pm (UTC)
Ben, the deal is, the State doesn't have morals, just laws. It shouldn't have morals, it should just be really small so that it doesn't cause any more problems than it will by existing. I agree with you on everything else, but you have to really think about a State with morals, because laws are easily changed to fit with the needs of society--morals tend to be subjective and only followed by the majority. Laws and morals are not the same. Just ask any gay person who wants to marry their life partner how they feel about government having morals and you'll understand what I'm talking about.
shawn_scarber
Jan. 17th, 2006 02:58 pm (UTC)
That should be any gay person in Texas, specifically.
ninebelow
Jan. 17th, 2006 03:53 pm (UTC)
Ben, the deal is, the State doesn't have morals, just laws.

Show me a state that doesn't have laws that are based on morality. I appreciate you would like to see a libertarian state but this is just as much a moral opinion as a political one.
shawn_scarber
Jan. 18th, 2006 03:06 pm (UTC)
Actually, there are quite a few laws that are based on property and rights--these are different than laws based on who should marry who. Your life is your property, and in theory no one else has a right to it, so murder isn't so much a moral issue as a rights issue. However, there does come a point where that is basically arguing symantics, because morality is a broad blanket you can spread over almost anything.
ninebelow
Jan. 18th, 2006 03:31 pm (UTC)
It is disengenious in the extreme to claim laws against murder are based on property rights rather than morality. You seem to believe that morality refers only sort of things beloved by the Moral Majority. It doesn't.A state with morals can just as easily be pro- as anti- gay marriage. The fact that "morality is a broad blanket you can spread over almost anything" is exactly my point.
benpeek
Jan. 17th, 2006 09:50 pm (UTC)
all laws are based off morals, tho. you shouldn't steal, you should pay taxes, you have to pay child support, everything. you pick a law and it has a moral statement based behind it. even the fact that i believe that homosexuals should be able to marry anyone they please and recieve full benefits and recognition--even that is based off a moral belief that everyone is equal, everyone deserves fair treatment and equity.

where you say morals are subjective and only followed by the majority, well, yes, but so are a societies laws. laws are subjective depending on each society to society, and based off the societies morals, imho.
shawn_scarber
Jan. 18th, 2006 03:11 pm (UTC)
where you say morals are subjective and only followed by the majority, well, yes, but so are a societies laws. laws are subjective depending on each society to society, and based off the societies morals, imho Yes, they are. But I don't believe they have to be so subjective. I personally believe there are too many laws that reach into areas of people's lives where laws have no business reaching. Take marriage. It shouldn't be an issue because you shouldn't have to get permission from the State to marry. It's not the State's business who or what you decided to Marry.
ex_hestia
Jan. 17th, 2006 11:51 pm (UTC)
An interesting issue to discuss
Yes, irrespective of the man's crimes he should not be resusitated in order to simply wait for another time to be killed. That is well past the line of inhuman treatment. It is sadism masquerading as impartiality. I just have to say that on a personal level it's hard to empathise with the hardships of someone who has probably has no empathy himself.

I saw an episode of Law & Order last night in which a "perp" says "You can't kill me. I'm dead already." That is why the death penalty doesn't work on a practical level as a deterant. Even if somebody so destructive to others isn't also seeking self-destruction through their actions, they simply don't have a self or life that they think is worth preserving. They look like humans. They mostly behave like humans but their own subjective experience is a sort of madness that makes them nonhuman. Being treated as not human by the state probably makes a certain sort of sense to them, and only reinforces their own diseased point of view.

It's well-known that most people become criminals after traumatic and dehumanising upbringing. So if they were treated as human then perhaps there would be a chance that they would finally get it. Perhaps they could eventually understand and face the tragedy of their own lives and therefore why what they did was wrong.
lyndarama
Jan. 17th, 2006 01:51 pm (UTC)
This is my favourite part: "Allen's heart stopped in September, but doctors revived him and returned him to death row".

Man, that's cold.
(Deleted comment)
benpeek
Jan. 17th, 2006 09:51 pm (UTC)
well, that's a fair statement about the appeals.
( 13 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )