Posted by Jack
For twelve years Robert Blecker, a criminal law professor, wandered freely inside Lorton Central Prison, armed only with cigarettes and a tape recorder. The Death of Punishment tests legal philosophy against the reality and wisdom of street criminals and their guards. Some killers’ poignant circumstances should lead us to mercy; others show clearly why they should die. After thousands of hours over twenty-five years inside maximum security prisons and on death rows in seven states, the history and philosophy professor exposes the perversity of justice: Inside prison, ironically, it’s nobody’s job to punish. Thus the worst criminals often live the best lives.
The Death of Punishment challenges the reader to refine deeply held beliefs on life and death as punishment that flare up with every news story of a heinous crime. It argues that society must redesign life and death in prison to make the punishment more nearly fit the crime. It closes with the final irony: If we make prison the punishment it should be, we may well abolish the very death penalty justice now requires.
Comment by Jack: There are over 700 convicted murderers sitting on CA’s death row waiting for their punishment. Nearly all will die of old age before their execution date. While they wait, they have access to TV with more channels than I have in my home! They have outside yard privileges, visitation privileges, they eat regular inmate meals, they have clean sheets, clean laundry, single showers, and one person cells with solid doors for privacy. In addition to immediate access to any level of quality medical care, they also have mental health counseling. They are allowed writing material, some craft items, games and these are the worst of the worst and yet they have more going for them than many of our poorest who have done no wrong.
Keep in mind their death penalties were lawfully imposed by a legal standard higher than that required for a life conviction. There must be “no lingering doubt” of their guilt, not just the usual standard, “guilty beyond a shadow of doubt.” This means even if you can’t point to some causal reason for your doubt, lets say you just have this “lingering doubt” the law says you can’t vote for the death penalty. Few things in life are this absolute, but if it’s perfection you’re looking for there will always be the exception, it’s inevitable and for this reason alone we have this large death row population.
What is a reasonable ratio of innocent death to guilty death? Most of us can’t or won’t put a number on it, but I can. If we can execute 20,000 guilty before coming up on 1 person not guilty, exactly as charged, then in my world that is an acceptable ratio. Give me 20,000 to 1 odds on anything, flying, driving, poker, or in our case convicting a guy for murder and I’ll call it good enough to take the risk.
Despite the will of the voters who have repeated approved the death penalty in CA, our death row population keeps growing and all the while they are clogging the system with writs and taxpayer funded attorneys. The resources diverted to keep them on death are resources that could be used for a far better purpose. This is why I say either we either carry out the death sentence in a reasonable time or do away with the death penalty altogether.
We can cure your angst, Jack. We’ll bolt and bar you into your house for six years, and then you can tell us how much solace you glean, for the loss of personal liberty, from your clean sheets.
On the other hand, there are times when I think that what this country needs is a revival of a quaint penal device, the stocks. Short sentence, 24 hours, but no bathroom breaks, no food, little water. That’ll teach ’em to pee on the BART platform.
Libby you joke, but which do you think works best for deterrence from would-be criminals? Shorter harsher sentences or longer easier sentences? And which one saves the most in our limited resources? You know the answer, but you are afraid to say it, because that’s how indoctrinated you are. Plenty of evidence to show which way works best, but you don’t want to hear it.
Libby you would bolt me in my house for expressing my opinion? How typically liberal of you! lol (and thanks Tina)
Libby it sounds like you prefer torture to justice, especially if you can dish it out personally. I mean really, bolt Jack in his house for six years to “cure him” for having an opinion?
And the stocks? Didn’t you once lecture me for having such a thought…something about puritan values being so archaic or laughable?
Libby, get yourself an antique ducking stool and go soak your head.
The difference between public peeing and murder should be evident … even to you all.
But you are not deep thinkers … are you?
Libby it seems like you were the first to draw that analogy “public peeing” equating with harsh prison sentences. You own it – don’t try to give it to us.
It takes a liberal lunatic to defend and advocate the murder of innocents, particularly via the horrors of late term, partial birth, and murder after-delivery in botched abortions and then balk at capital punishment for people convicted murderers like this man —
Man who killed Michigan family gets life in prison
http://news.yahoo.com/man-killed-michigan-family-gets-life-prison-174407942.html
Libby we could say the same about you.
#8 – Serves me right for making inferences. You all don’t take inferences. Jack may want to keep the nation’s convicts in conditions a la Dumas, and I may want to go medieval over the public urinators, … but we are civilized (theoretically) and we don’t do things like that.
#9 Sigh. See above. It was supposed to dawn on you that there really isn’t much in the way of creature comforts that will compensate for years of imprisonment. But it didn’t dawn … for some reason.
You bet!
Libby, you missed the part about how the worst of the worst of society often times has more creature comforts than the poorest among us who have done no wrong.
“Libby, you missed the part about how the worst of the worst of society often times has more creature comforts than the poorest among us who have done no wrong.”
So the impoverished and the imprisoned should both be miserable?
How about we institute a nationwide, guaranteed income, a la Saudi Arabia? We can probably afford it. And then nobody has to be miserable, and, I’ll bet, the imprisoned population mysteriously drops.
Guaranteed income. How much? who decides? If it’s generous who works harder so “we” can afford to be so generous? If its inadequate it won’t make us any better off.
But it will “guarantee” that future generations of Americans get the message…don’t worry, somebody else will pay for that for you. guaranteed sloth!
So much idiocy…how far we have fallen.
I’d forever want to be update on new content on this website, bookmarked!
Welcome. Please feel free to comment. Please do comment. We would like to hear from you.
Pie Guevara appears her courtesy ofJack Lee and Tina Grazier, the blog owners. Pie Guevara is an unregistered trademark of David Walton. So there! 😀