Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 << He mentioned a case where a guy raped and killed a seven-year-old girl. He was a crack head. To try to understand the guy’s head, Mark spoke with another crack head under arrest at the time. The other guy said, with a rush of apparent exuberance, “Oh yeah! Seven-year-olds are great!†Somehow the stuff we talk about doesn’t seem to apply to these guys. >> Just a thought for reflective purposes. When we send a beautiful, innocent young man to war, such as my 6'3 " straight A, class President, dimpled son to war and an innocent young seven year old comes at him with a hand grenade to protect her parents lives whom she loves deeply and one of them dies, who is the culprit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 I enjoyed the exchange about moral responsibily. I was trying to think of something pithy that I could add, but I'm coming up dry this morning. So I'll say something not so pithy rather than just keep quiet. Last night, Lynn and I were host to my brother and his umteenth brand new girlfriend since his separation from his wife a couple of years ago. The girl du jour is a bit of a mystery. She divides her living between a pricey Upper East Side Manhattan apartment and a huge property in Columbia County, where she enjoys working in her seven-acre garden. She doesn’t seem to work or otherwise do anything, although she is somehow connected with a gourmet society. She stands 5’10”, so that in her heals she was at eye level with me. I thought it would be cool not to ask her anything about what she did or where she got her money, and she didn’t volunteer anything, and didn’t ask me a single question about what Lynn or I do, etc. She asked me if I liked Chateau Neuf de Pape, and I asked her if she knew where the name came from. She knew about Pape Clement and his other winery. I used this as a signal to bring up from the cellar a couple of excellent wines, but she didn’t seem to really appreciate them and ended up giving me her last glass. Anyway, my brother has an interesting job. He is head of the Capital Defender’s office in Albany. His job is to oversee a team of trial attorneys whose job it is to defend anybody who is brought up on capital charges in one of three regions in New York State. This coterie was instated to make sure that no indigent would be railroaded to death row for lack of resources to hire a capable attorney. It was a stipulation that the liberals insisted upon in order to allow the conservatives to reinstate the death penalty in New York State. Every member of the team had proven himself or herself to be an expert and effective murder trial lawyer prior to their appointment to the team. Consequently, every murderer in this state essentially gets a dream team for their defense. The goal of the team is usually to obtain jail sentences for the murderers, rather than to get them off free, because most of them clearly did the crime. I’m typical in liking to brag about family members occasionally. Mark is really special in his ability to process reams of information very rapidly. He can read a document or book and memorize the material almost as fast as someone else could turn the pages. Using this gift, Mark’s forte is diving into the science of a case, even if he has to learn from scratch everything about some arcane subject. Recently, he studied entomology to understand how certain fly larvae play in the determination of when and where a person died, and how fast and where he might have been moved. He takes on expert scientific witnesses in their respective areas of expertise and blows them away on the witness stand. This is especially effective because lawyers are taught never to try this for obvious reasons. Consequently, the witnesses are never ready for it and get all discombobulated as soon as their credibility is being effectively questioned. I’m lucky that my brother does this kind of work, because he always has interesting stuff to talk about regarding his case du jure (stet). I am sometimes taken by how moral responsibility does not seem to be a part of the actions of many of the criminals. Last night, Mark talked a little about how drugs seem to play a heavy causal role (or a person’s personal decision to use drugs does, if you will). He mentioned a case where a guy raped and killed a seven-year-old girl. He was a crack head. To try to understand the guy’s head, Mark spoke with another crack head under arrest at the time. The other guy said, with a rush of apparent exuberance, “Oh yeah! Seven-year-olds are great!” Somehow the stuff we talk about doesn’t seem to apply to these guys. - > >Brita44@... wrote: >> >> In a message dated 03/24/2001 5:47:22 PM Atlantic Standard Time, >> dwatkins5@... writes: >> >> > For anyone to say, for example, that McVeigh >> > does not richly deserve to die for his crime is to deny McVeigh his >> > self-determination and moral responsibility, isn't it? >> >> McVeigh will deal for many life times with the consequences of his >> actions, as will we all. To kill him only adds to the suffering and hatred. >> Nobody except God has the right to take a human life. Capital Punishment only >> serves the desire for vengeance. It has absolutely nothing to do with moral >> responsibility. >> > >You make several assertions here - including even metaphysical >assertions - without any apparent attempt to show that they are true. >You say, for example, that McVeigh " will deal for many lifetimes " with >the consequences of his crime. I assume this means that he will be >reincarnated repeatedly and have to deal with the karma, etc. OK, but >how do you know that this is true, such that a categorical statement >like this is justified? Similarly, how do we know that only God has the >right to take a human life? These appear to me to be metaphysical >assertions, if not outright pieties. > >I disagree that executing McVeigh will only add to the suffering - I >expect that many of the loved ones of those who died will feel some >measure of comfort in knowing that he has paid. That is, their suffering >will be mitigated. I know mine would be. Revenge? Sure. Sometimes >vengeance and justice coincide. I agree that capital punishment serves >the desire for vengeance, although that does not seem to be its only >purpose. I think this desire for vengeance is justified, and its >satisfaction a necessity for a healthy society. > >As to the question of whether or not execution has anything to do with >moral responsibility, I can only repeat my previous argument - to say >that a criminal can deliberately take a human life without deserving to >lose his own seems to me to suggest that he is not in fact fully >accountable, or morally responsible, for his own action. In other words, >the only way I can see that he really doesn't deserve a punishment >equivalent to the crime is if he is somehow not fully responsible for >his action in the first place. We don't, for example, always hold madmen >accountable for their actions. Otherwise, fair's fair. If I steal >$100.00, don't I owe $100.00? In German, to " owe " and to " be guilty " are >basically the same word - I like that. > >Regards, > >Dan Watkins > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.