Lying Through His Teeth?

I'm taking this cue from BTA.

ת"ש רבי יוחנן חש בצפדינא אזל לגבה דההיא מטרוניתא עבדה חמשא ומעלי שבתא א"ל למחר מאי אמרה ליה לא צריכת אי צריכנא מאי אמרה אשתבע לי דלא מגלית אישתבע לה לאלהא ישראל לא מגלינא גלייה ליה למחר נפק דרשה בפירקא והא
אישתבע לה לאלהא דישראל לא מגלינא אבל לעמיה ישראל מגלינא והאיכא חילול השם דגלי לה מעיקרא

Talmud, Avodah Zara 28a:

"Rabbi Yochanan suffered from tzafdina [a dangerous disease of the gums or teeth] and went to a certain heathen lady who made a remedy for him to use on Thursday and Friday. He said to her: "What should I do tomorrow [the Sabbath]"? She replied: "You will not need the treatment." Rabbi Yochanan said: "But what if I do need it?" She replied: "Swear to me that you will not reveal the remedy to anyone." Rabbi Yochanan swore to her: "To the God of Israel I will not reveal it." She then disclosed the remedy to him and the next day he taught it in his public lecture.The Talmud asks: But did he not swear to her not to reveal it? The Talmud answers: He swore that he would not reveal it to the God of Israel, but to His people, Israel, he would reveal it. The Talmud asks: But is this not a profanation of the name of God? [when a Jew commits a misdeed, especially something as serious as swearing falsely, it causes people to denigrate Judaism and the Torah]. The Talmud answers: That from the beginning he revealed to her that his oath was not binding [and that he wanted to help the public]."

The overall question of the Gemara is whether or not and under what circumstances is one permitted to take healings or medicines on Shabbos. The Talmud makes distinctions between internal, external, and potentially mortal wounds. On the way to answering this question, we run across some really troubling ethical problems concerning goyim, truth telling, and theft.

Re: "The Talmud asks: But did he not swear to her not to reveal it? The Talmud answers: He swore that he would not reveal it to the God of Israel…..”

Funny that. I remember the first time I breezed through this wondering how could be possible that an old shikza would know more about medicine than HaShem. I am also wondering why Rabi Yochanan would even go to a shikza for treatment, unless there were no Jews studying medicine in those days.

The healer felt that she had a valid proprietary claim on this remedy, and kept it safekeep to ensure her steady income. This is not unlike any other artisan of the day who sought to protect his or her trade from being undercut by too much competition. Never give away your trade secrets for free. Rabi Yochanan did not only LIE to her (outright chilul hashem), but doubly violated her trust by publicizing the formula. He ended up stealing much of the potential income she would derive from offering her services in the future.

The answer of course is that Rabi Yochanan could swear not to reveal it to HaShem because HaShem already knew of it. So the oath was, at least to Rabi Yochanan, an innocuous formality designed to weasel what he needed from the old woman. The Gemara doesn’t even call it G’neyvas da’as or Gezel (which it most obviously is) because lying to goyim or stealing from them is not ossur (except for “when a Jew commits a misdeed, especially something as serious as swearing falsely, it causes people to denigrate Judaism and the Torah”.) It is permitted to swear falsely to and cheat from goyim, getting caught is the problem. It never occurs to Rabi Yochanan that lying in and of itself might be problematic, which is typical of ‘ends justify the means’ mentality.

(The only question raised is whether or not using HaShem's name in an obviously false oath is justified under those circumstances.)

Re: “That from the beginning he revealed to her that his oath was not binding”

Let me get this straight now. A moment ago the Gemara told us that the woman and Rabi Yochanan agreed to this deal solely on the condition that he swears not to reveal to anyone how it is made. Now the Gemara backpedals saying that Rabi Yochanan told her from the beginning that his oath wasn’t binding which, when translated into plain English means “Listen Lady! I am not to be trusted!” Now if this were true, then why would she then reveal this remedy to him or treat him at all? It doesn’t make any sense.

This woman could certainly have treated Rabi Yochanan without revealing the formula for the remedy. I happen to know what aspirin contains, but even without that knowledge the aspirin works just as effectively. Why did Rabi Yochanan insist upon knowing the ingredients? The answer might have to do with Kashrus. Really? I didn’t think that Kashrus was important when it came to refuah, because medicine isn’t considered a ma’achal (food.) So why did Rabi Yochanan need to know what was in it? Was he afraid perhaps of being poisoned? Why would he think that? I would think this woman would not poison her clients deliberately since that would really hurt her business. It is ironic that Rabi Yochanan, intent upon deceiving this gentile woman, would himself be suspicious of her actions or intents regarding him. It is typical of a criminal to suspect criminal intent because they project their own thoughts and motives onto the actions of others.

The Talmud doesn't actually tell us this healer was a shikza. It uses the word " matronisa", which means Matron, and could mean any woman of skill or means. It is possible that this woman was a Jew, perhaps even a non-religious one. If the woman were religious, then the entire story makes even less sense than it did when we assumed her to be a gentile, although at this point I woundn't put it past Rabi Yochanan to run some line on her either. I checked about a dozen places in Shass where the word "matronisa" is used and in some cases it is a gentile and others it might not be. Some instances have qualifiers, some do not.

Lastly, if Rabi Yochanan intended to share this medicine with the community, as it seemed to him to be an epidemic of sorts, then why didn’t he offer to buy the formula from her fairly and honestly? Why the deception? Certainly, if there was a communal need for such a cure, the kehilla would have gladly paid her for the knowledge. Or maybe not? Maybe she just wasn’t selling which, last I checked, was her right to do, and still doesn't justify his lying to her.

The conclusion I draw is that Rabi Yochanan, bleeding gums and all, had set out from the beginning to defraud this woman of her knowledge and proprietary claim to the product, by creating a subterfuge for seeing the remedy produced.

This little spin that the Gemara puts on Rabi Yochanan's ruse reminds me of modern day lawyers and politicians who 'parse' their words so carefully that actual definitions and meanings become essentially useless. They can say what they wish and then 'shuck and jive' around it to later have it mean something entirely different. I don't know about anyone else, but where I'm from, an honest person is something to be emulated and admired. Rabi Yochanan isn't one of those.

Remember to floss regularly! It might just keep you from falsehoods.

Once again, I have been caught thinking for myself. When will I ever learn?

Death Penalty (2)

Some of the objections to capital punishment were dealt with in the first post, and I will do my best to avoid being redundant. I will present here just a few of the many objections and some brief explanation.

Effect on society

Many, though certainly not all, feel that permitting premeditated murder is totally unacceptable, even if done under the laws and process of state institutions. Capital punishment, they claim, lowers the value of human life as seen by the general population and brutalizes society. It is based on a need for revenge. It violates our belief in the human capacity for change, and powerfully reinforces the idea that killing can be a proper way of responding to those who have wronged society.

(I think this is perhaps the strongest reason not to have a death penalty. As we become desensitized to one sort of violence, we may, as human nature and history attest, fall into permitting or endorsing a wider scope of acceptable violent behavior. Humanity needs to put these impulses in check. Once humanity becomes accustomed to a certain behavior, it becomes easier with repetition and experience to continue in that pattern and expand beyond it.

When does it become proper or purposeful, outside of immediate response in self-defense, to continue the cycle of killing? How do we tell a man not to murder and then, with a straight face, murder another? This sort of reminds me of hypocritical parents who tell their children that violence is naughty and solves nothing yet, when themselves faced with handling the child’s misbehavior, seek to correct it through the very sort of violence they, just yesterday, eschewed. Welcome to the wonderful world of ‘mixed messages’.

The issue comes down to what we consider ‘violence’ to be. Some will undoubtedly point out that there is a difference between spanking a child to correct their behavior and meting out punishment to a convicted criminal. In the same manner, some would define the sport of boxing as ‘violent’, rather than being another form of controlled aggression, regulated by rules and participation is not imposed upon the participants by the physical force of another. Imposition of a capital sentence might be misconstrued as a form of ‘controlled aggression’, but it’s clearly not. At least one of the participants in an execution doesn’t choose to be there, and it is this issue of ‘forcing it upon another’ which is the deciding factor in what defines violence as violence.

To look at the problem in terms of its immediate effects is short-sighted and dangerous. I may stop the child each time I spank him or her from their current pattern of behavior and even, all things going as planned, encourage the child to never act that way again. Yet, the child doesn’t process things the same way that adults do (or should do anyhow.) Eventually a child learns that violence is a justifiable means to get what he or she desires. The abused become abusers themselves and in the same pattern, seeking the vulnerable and undefended as objects of their violent tendencies. The only thing limiting this effect is the chance that a force greater than their own would intervene, similar to the parent who fears the scorn of neighbors or the scrutiny of police agencies. This ingrained tendency toward the use of ‘justified’ violence remains latent when not mitigated by stronger factors.

Even the worst of murderers create ‘justifications’ or have rationale for their killings. Making up a rationale in your mind doesn’t change the act or the effects of it. We falsely believe that our justification for killing, or the pomp and circumstance around it, somehow causes the act of killing to magically transform into something innocuous or even beneficial to the society that performs it. It reminds me of the ancient Aztecs, who ritually sacrificed their captives to gain favor with the gods.

By using the death penalty, we make a statement as to our national attitude, that we will answer killing with more killing; that the goals of peace, compassion, and non-violence are only what we ask for ourselves, but not for those who have earned our scorn. It is easy to live by principle when everything is going good and everyone is in agreement. It is only when those principles meet the test of our innate barbarism that our national pathos become truly tested.)

Lack of Deterrence

The death penalty has not been shown to be effective in the reduction of the homicide rate. There are some indications that executions actually increase the murder rate.

(The deterrent issue has been discussed in previous posts so I won’t linger on it here. There are a couple of salient points to add, however, that reflect back on ‘justification’ and how it shapes the behavior of the killer.

Deterrence only works on those who aren’t going to commit the crime anyhow or on those who are not in a position where murder becomes a viable option. You could even say that having a death penalty as a deterrent is overall useless because most of our society that doesn’t engage in murder wouldn’t be murdering anyway because their deterrent is morally based and socialized. It never occurs to me to murder people for any reason. I wasn’t raised that way.

The murderer always justifies his killing. We seldom agree with his version of events, but he still insists that he had no choice but to murder, either out of inflamed passions or from practical considerations (i.e. leaving no witnesses or avoiding capture.) To hear the murderer tell it, one would think that each and every murder is an act of self-defense! The murderer has fooled himself into believing that his killing is justified. We, in accepting the death penalty as a solution, punishment, or deterrent, make the same horrific miscalculation. We also proclaim loudly and boldly our desire to ‘protect society’, but these claims of self-defense are equally bogus and without real purpose.)

Unfairness

The mentally ill, poor, males, and racial minorities are over-represented among those executed.

(There is no doubt that members of these groups are disproportionately represented among that ranks of death row inmates, and for good reason. It’s not just a problem with our legal system. There are also factors of poverty, mental illness, or of being a male raised in a violent society that act as powerful influences on behavior. That Blacks and Hispanics seem to be sentenced to death more than others might just be because they murder more than others due to the circumstances they are raised within. It is not, however, a case of minorities being inherently prone to violence, but a few becoming prone to violence due to social pressures. It’s kill or be killed sometimes. We treat it as murder because it is, but because we also don’t live within the world that created that scenario, we are at a disadvantage when it comes to passing a definitive judgment.

This doesn’t mean to imply that we should excuse the crime. Far from it! Once a man has proved himself capable of murder, the best possible action we could take is to separate him from society lest those same circumstances arise again and he chooses to act out in the same violent manner. If we send that same man back into same situation and expect him not to kill again, we are fooling ourselves.

Fairness is a matter that can be addressed by court reform.)

Uselessness

Killing a murderer does not bring his victim back to life. It achieves nothing but the death of still another person.

(This requires no explanation, I’m hoping. Some victims and their families speak about finding 'closure' upon the death of a killer. Is revenge the only way, or the healthiest way, to overcome a tragedy? If your psyche cannot be soothed by any other means than murder, then what does that say about you? And what now differentiates between you and the killer?)

Prosecutorial & Police Misconduct

(If you don’t think that prosecutors and police don’t lie, you are living in a dream world and likely don’t know what your own spouse or children are doing when you are away from home.

Our system of justice is adversarial. We offer a prosecution and a defense, and nowhere along the line is truth really ever considered. Prosecutors have careers to advance and getting convictions is the goal. The search for ‘justice’ preempts the quest for truth. This is why many prosecutors still insist upon relying upon shady eyewitness testimony, even when such testimony has been proven in many studies to be ‘iffy’ at best. The reluctance of prosecutors to use DNA testing or provide the defense with exculpatory factors is proof enough of their real intent. If you Google ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct’, you will see what I’m talking about here.

Truth is a scientific matter. The technology is available to us. The cost of real justice should not deter us from seeking it. Justice is served when finding the guilty party, not by creating a most probable scapegoat to assuage our seemingly unstoppable urge for revenge. Truth and evidence should be the determining factor in guilt or innocence. DNA testing must be done immediately on available suspects. Forensics has come a long way since Sherlock Holmes. We should be able to do away with prosecutorial histrionics in our courtrooms and seek reasonable, if not absolute, evidentiary truths.

Our legislators are reluctant to put laws on the books that would punish malfeasant or corrupt prosecutors. I can recall no cases where over zealous district attorneys were charged with crimes or jailed as a result of misconduct.)

In the end, there are too many ‘ifs’, too many uncontrolled variables and interests in capital cases. Death is final. There is no fixing that mistake should a mistake arise. I also fear the government’s capacity to expand its definition of ‘capital’ crime to include political dissent or tax evasion, by creating vague cause and effect scenarios of national security to justify state execution for minor infractions or constitutionally protected actions that fall out of political favor.

Kol Tuv

Death Penalty (1):Responses to the Comments

I was thinking that since there remains much to be said and lots of words needed to do it, that rather than leaving this all in the comment section of the last post, I’d leave it as a post of its own. My rebuttals are in pine green and in parantheses.

Re: That is why juries are screened to eliminate those who have some connection to the case or who have some strong bias that can affect their judgment. (Tamara)

(I’m not even sure that you are correct about this in theory. Juries are instructed by the judges to follow the law, not to speak to anyone outside the courtroom, and abide by the judge’s rules. Some jurors are even told about nullification.

Can you honestly tell me there are people out there so ambivalent or ignorant of the matter that they would qualify, by your standard, to actually sit on a jury? And if such a person were to be found, would you want your fate as a defendant to be decided by anyone that dim? In fact, lawyers who screen jurors look for a partiality of one kind of the other to assist their cause. Jury screening is science in the legal world. Lawyers don’t want the best and the brightest; they seek the easier manipulated and those who, at worst, won’t appear as biased either way. It’s a game that lawyers play and I wouldn’t base my argument on it.

A jury is never expected to be impartial to the crime itself, rather their impartiality applies to their ability to evaluate the defendant, the evidence, and the lawyer’s presentations. Potential jurors who don’t think the crime is a crime won’t get picked for juries.

Jurors don’t have the discretion to choose a sentence. The sentencing guidelines available are set by the legislatures, proposed case by case by the prosecutors, and sometimes reset by judges under specific circumstances. Jurors only decide the innocence or guilt or a defendant; they do not choose the sentence. If a jury thinks that a lesser charge may be applicable, they must first ask the judge. Overall, juries offer little protection or safety from wrongful convictions. I know of cases where judges overruled jury decisions as well.)

Re: I support it because certain crimes are so heinous that those who commit them forfeit their right to remain on the planet. (Tamara)

(What do you consider heinous? And are you comfortable allowing another to be murdered because your find their behavior detestable?

A story. A group of men lie in wait for another man and at gunpoint, overpower him, chain him, and place him in a small restricted area under armed guard, allowing him few amenities and almost no liberty. He is then hauled in shackles before a group of complete strangers and after a short debate over his fate, he finds himself in yet another cell awaiting his death. He is taken from his cell, also in chains, and summarily executed.

The only thing that differentiates this little story from the imposition of a state sanctioned death penalty is that the guys working for the state all have titles, salaries, and wear uniforms. Had they been gang members, frat boys, or Klansmen you would consider the act itself to be ‘heinous’, yet that very same act, when done in a ‘publicly approved manner’, all of the sudden becomes justified as something else; be it self defense, cost cutting, or our vehement indignation. Just because we put on big show of it, apply a few checks and balances along the way, and buy the guy a dinner beforehand doesn’t make it any better.)

Re: Once these individuals are dead, they cease to be a threat, not only to society, but to the prison population (including corrections officers). (Tamara)

(This may come as a shock to some, but every inmate is considered a threat to and by corrections officers with few exceptions. Thus the constant searches and 100s of procedural and structural efforts in place to rigidly control the prison population. Not every inmate is a murderer, but every inmate is still capable of becoming one and is treated as such.

Now one could make the case for treating murderers more severely than others by assuming that once someone murders, their willingness to do so again increases manifold. I would agree that killers become desensitized and that allows their behavior to continue and even escalate. Yet, every killer was not a killer at one time, and even those convicted of lesser crimes and imprisoned are apt, especially in a prison environment and under the tutelage of other criminals, to become desensitized to harsher crimes as well.

The issues of protecting society from escapees or protecting corrections officer or other inmates is a concern for the corrections department and has nothing to do with sentencing. Sentencing guidelines may in fact be contributing to the problem! Logic tells me that a death row inmate stands nothing to gain by good behavior; his fate is sealed and the damage he may inflict while in prison earns him no more or less benefit or harm. Given a life sentence, there is still the chance that a ‘carrot-stick’ approach would work well and the inmate, anxious to live out his days with a few amenities, would respond positively and not be a further problem to officers and other inmates.

Lastly, the worst killers we think of when we think of killers are serial murders like Gacy or Bundy. Interesting enough, a study done of their behaviors while behind bars comes up with some interesting results. These men were model prisoners! Not all killers, even the worst of them it seems, make much trouble while incarcerated.)

Re: Additionally, some people are not well intentioned at all, and will go to all sorts of lengths to 'get a conviction'. (Guzik)

(Absolutely right! Being a prosecutor is intended as a trusted position within society, but is not always treated as such. As an elected position holder, a prosecutor has to run for office again when his term is up. He earns his ‘bones’ by winning cases and being ‘tough on crime’. This pretty much forces a prosecutor to seek harsher sentences, lobby for harsher penalties, apply a good deal of histrionics to his trial technique, and even subvert the process for his own benefit.

If anyone believes this is a rare occurrence, they should Google the words ‘prosecutorial misconduct’ and see what you get. There are literally 1000s of cases where innocent people are railroaded into taking pleas or are outright wrongly convicted by overzealous prosecutors that ignore exculpatory evidence, manipulate witness and victims, or create evidence where none exists.

Barry Scheck is my hero.)

Re: I find it interesting how you refer to emotion and morality throughout, yet fail to realize it in your own rebuttal. Specifically, I am referring to the part where you disregard the conversion of lives into dollars and cents. (Hrafnkel)

(If I told you that I wasn’t emotional about this issue I’d be a damned liar. Yet, don’t you find it also interesting that anyone who disagrees with your position is by default considered ‘too emotional’ or irrational? As I’m sure I said before, this is about trying to reduce the emotional response as much as possible before taking drastic action.

Now as far as translating human lives into dollars and cents, how can you affirmatively support such action? And where would you draw the line at cost? I doubt your devotion to capitalism is so devout as to cause you to label family members and friends as either cost-effective or not. It is important to consider the financial prospects of a marriage or perhaps whether or not one can support a family, but once alive, are those children discarded simply because they become too expensive? Of course not. So why, in the case of capital crimes, do we all of the sudden consider cost as an issue? The answer goes back to BSpinoza’s comment “it satisfies peoples emotional need for revenge/Justice. This is the real reason; the rest is just a fig leaf.”

You do bring up a good issue that serves as a backdrop to any debate like this one. Is reason work with emotion, can emotion mimic reason, or are the two mutually exclusive functions? I hear many right wing pundits mistakenly announce that reason and emotion are two diametrically opposed functions and that the problem with liberal is that they use their ‘hearts’ and not their brains. That notion is scientifically false, not only from a psychological standpoint, but from the physiological as well. Emotion is not heart function; it’s brain function expressing itself as a biochemical reaction in the body.

Think about it this way. We all have emotional attachment to the idea we think are right or are best suited for us. Sometimes old and comfortable ideas are stubbornly clung to because they have served a practical purpose and fit into our existing paradigm. Now, when new information comes along that either improves on that ideas or disrupts it entirely, we tend to cling to the outdated and perhaps wrong minded ways of old. This is a normal, biological response created to ensure the stability that any organism seeks. Nature doesn’t necessarily seek to fix something it doesn’t consider broken.

Now those organisms that demonstrate a greater flexibility or adaptability tend to survive in greater numbers. Our flexibility, in one sense, is the ability we have to overcome initial emotional or instinctual responses and think about what we are doing, so much so that we can develop intricate strategies to deal with challenges we face, even distant and future ones. Flexibility also means that we evaluate and consider new ideas, which requires man to put his instinctual sense of ‘conservativism’ aside.

Next time you hear someone call Progressives and Liberals ‘emotional’, think about what I’ve just said.)

Re: It seems that this refusal to even consider such a practice is more emotional than the pro-Death penalty position. (Hrafnkel)

(It seems that I have considered it quite carefully, in fact. I’m not finished yet either.)

Re: life imprisonment and mandatory grunt work might be acceptable as well. The long and short of it is that I am personally uncomfortable with the idea of capital punishment in a modern society.(Hrafnkel)

(I agree with you on this one. My major concern with prison labor is not so much that it may be subtly or not so subtly coerced, but that prison labor ends up competing with honest, law-abiding citizens for contracts and jobs. I’m not so sure that putting my neighbor out of work to keep an inmate productive is such a good idea.)

Re: but on the other hand it is definitely wrong that tax dollars go to putting these criminals up for life. (Hrafnkel)

(No one wants to spend more money than is needed, but the fact is that if we don’t separate those who pose a danger to the rest of us out from the population, then what’s our alternative? If we consider the actual dollar cost to society with their being freed, then it’s a no-brainer. You can’t leave potentially dangerous people on the loose.

Your objection in terms of taxation is an overall greater issue. In a civilized society, in order to maintain that civility, especially with a growing population, more manpower, technology, and time are going to be required to get the job done. Every step of the way costs money to do and jobs that are done well usually end up costing a bit more. You get what you pay for.)

Thanks for all your comments!

Kol Tuv

Death Penalty (1)

In response to some of the comments to my previous post, I will address the issue of Capital Punishment and the reasons for my absolute opposition to it. To be fair, however, I will put forth both sides and offer my comments on each. Those who advocate for the death penalty do make a compelling case and they most certainly deserve an honest and comprehensive discussion of those views. We will talk about the ‘pros’ first.

(My rebuttal will be in parentheses and colored blue.)

Justice/Vengeance: Many people feel that killing convicted murderers will satisfy their need for justice and/or vengeance. They feel that certain crimes are so heinous that executing the criminal is the only reasonable response.

(I think it is indeed reasonable to feel a strong sense of outrage when an innocent member of society is murdered. In some cases, these brutal and horrific crimes rattle the most stoic of characters into fear and utter shock. Images of torture and insatiable cruelty become commonplace in our minds and we want, rightly so, to banish each and every form of it from our midst. There is probably something wrong with a person who feels absolutely no empathy for the victim or their loved ones.

Proponents falsely assume that those who disagree with the death penalty have no such empathy for victims. I know about this sort of outrage first hand, and although it wasn’t over a crime against persons, it was perhaps the most severe sense of it I have ever experienced. At that moment, I actually wished death upon another human being. The notion that we are bereft of feeling is wholly false. Our contention is not with feeling outrage, rather how that outrage is expressed and what practical advantage will be gained by venting even reasonable, understandable outrage with more violence, even when that killing is sanctioned and performed under the auspices of a systematic government process. I feel no sympathy for the murderer whatsoever.

The question becomes whether or not we allow our collective indignation to lead us into reactions that we normally would not consider? In my personal life I am very careful not to make decisions or take action when under any strong emotional influence, even where I feel justified. Gut reactions and powerful emotions tend to cloud one’s better judgment. I believe we should utilize sober analysis when confronting communal and social issues.

Now we move onto those practical concerns.)

Deterrence: Many people feel that the death penalty will deter criminals from killing. This does not seem to be confirmed by an analysis of the available data. However, it feels intuitively correct for many people.

(If the death penalty was proven to be a deterrent to murder, I would be at least 50% in favor of its implementation, if for no other reason than as a matter of practical efficiency. China and the US apply capital punishment, and nevertheless, there still seem to be no lack of fresh volunteers stepping forth to test the power of a state imposed death sentence. If the threats of imprisonment, fines, or death cannot stop certain criminal acts, then why do we insist that they do?

The flaw is a psychological error that non-criminals make when projecting their own sense of right, wrong, pain, pleasure, or cost-benefit analysis onto the criminal or homicidal mindset. As much as we would like them to, the criminal does not operate from the same set of principles that we do, and things that influence or determine our actions (outside of pleasure, pain, hunger, or cold) have literally no relevance hardcore criminals.

I am one who is generally law abiding. I avoid playing my stereo too loud or driving without a seat belt simply because I don’t wish to be hassled by law enforcement, don’t wish to pay any kind of fine, and I do understand the importance of social order and my part in it. For those who naturally empathize with others or treat their fellows with common decency and respect, even a small fine deters those fine citizens from law-breaking. For the person so out of touch with reason or empathy, so far gone as to murder another, the reasonable expectation of deterrence we assume will result is of no matter at all. It doesn’t even register.

To say that the threat of death works as a deterrent is accurate. The problem is that it doesn’t operate on the people we intend it to effect. )

Value of human life: "It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life." (Edward Koch).

(This is a very interesting and well put sentiment, yet it remains nothing more than a platitude. It sums up well the emotional and moral attachment we place upon life and well-being, but it doesn’t do anything more than attempt to add another psychological element to the deterrent argument. It is just another collective projection of outrage, that doesn’t rationally evaluate the necessity to society of taking a life in premeditated fashion.

How do we establish this value of human life? If the mere result of biological function, that which defines us as living, is enough, then it matters little whether the holder of that life is a saint or sinner. It remains a life nonetheless. If the value we place upon life becomes a matter of moral measurement, however, then such a standard would allow for some lives to be worth less than others, and in the case of capital punishment, this seems to be the overriding sentiment of its supporter; the murderer loses his life’s value through not valuing the value of the victim’s life.

What we are implying, in effect, is that our murderer is not worthy of living by virtue of his immoral action, and that his biological function is no longer any concern to us. The danger is that we only apply it in one direction. If the standard of life’s value or worth is based upon some moral or ethical criteria, then one would also have to check the moral background of the victim to determine if they would even be considered worthy of our sentiments. If a man we deem unworthy of living kills another, equally undeserving of life, why should we care?)

Cost: Once a convicted murder is executed and buried, there are no further maintenance costs to the state.

(I would like to think that when it comes to people’s lives that we don’t think just about how much it will cost. There are costs to society that go beyond dollars spent on incarceration and appeals. There is a system in place to protect the civil liberties of everyone, not just those on death row, and those rights might not seem important to us in our offices and living rooms, but should you find yourself accused of a crime you did not commit (there are 1000s of people wrongly accused with crimes they did not commit), you would be very happy that the system is not one that rushes things along just to save money.

Expediting a speedy trial is matter of practicality in terms of evidentiary process and availability of witnesses. The right to a speedy trial is also there to protect defendants from long periods of incarceration prior to conviction and sentencing. It’s not about saving money. A speedy trial can be revisited upon appeal. A speedy execution cannot.)

Safety: Once a convicted murderer is executed, there is no chance that he will break out of jail and kill or injure someone.

(This is a real concern, but the issue isn’t a death penalty problem. It’s an issue within a corrections industry that is severely understaffed, often overburdened, and usually under-funded. The issue is moot anyhow. The overwhelming majority of escapees are from minimum security facilities where they are serving time for lesser crimes or, as in some cases, a prisoner in county lock-up escaping prior to transfer to a maximum security prison.

Again, if safety after imprisonment was our main concern, we would have to execute rapists, child molesters, drug dealers, and anyone else who ends up in prison, a notably dangerous place that none of the aforementioned inmates wish to linger in, and still others actively seek to escape. We could also make the case that many criminals escalate in their level of violence, especially as a result of surviving the harsh prison environment. Upon escape, even a man convicted of pot-smoking could become so desperate not to go back to prison, that he would kill to avoid recapture. Do we want to push the safety argument so far that we begin executing pot smokers?)

Looking forward to your comments.

Kol Tuv

A Mob's Refrain

An eye for an eye we people demand

For justice must be served!

Hang them on high

Or let them just fry

They get what they deserve!

They must receive as they meted out

Measure upon each measure

Please dole death out fast

It’s come time at last!

Retribution brings us such pleasure!

Life for life we must now avenge

Justice soon fulfilled

From the prison cell

And directly to hell

Let the guilty blood be spilled!

Mercy and compassion remain

Nothing more than weak-kneed drivel

Let this dictum ring true

That the revenge we now do

Will keep our nation civil!

Clemencies and pardons never!

So cease this idle talking

Bring them near

So that we may better hear

The sound of dead men walking

(SL)

Not Better Than A Sharp Stick in the Eye

You know, I could go on all day about the Saudis and what’s wrong with their culture, or what’s wrong with our Republican leadership that adores them, but would be redundant in doing so. Let’s face it. The Saudi Arabia is not a bastion of freedom or liberty by any stretch of the imagination, yet I, falsely assuming, thought that at least a few of their barbaric practices finally made it into the ‘chara’ bin. My mistake. Once again I have to check my calendar to remind myself what century I’m living in.

You have to give fundamental Islam credit for being consistent. This religion appeared sometime in the 7^th century and, for the most part, has remained there. The few times I am ‘privileged’ to converse with Moslems on-line, be it Yahoo Chat or some other forum, I am always left with a mental and cultural kind of jet lag. Talking to Moslems is akin to time travel. When finished, you will swear you just visited the Dark Ages.

(This little news blurb comes courtesy of AlertNet. I am not going to reprint the entire article here, but only the salient points I wish to comment upon. My comments appear in normal type and the excerpts in italics. You’ll probably want to read the entire article there.)

Saudi Arabia: Court Orders Eye to Be Gouged Out 09 Dec 2005 23:08:04 GMT

(Source: Human Rights Watch)

The injured Saudi man, Nayif al-'Utaibi, has so far insisted that the sentence be carried out, refusing to pardon Noushad or accept monetary compensation.

I’m well aware that Middle Easterners of all types are assholes. No surprise there. What bothers me more is the insistence, in the 21^st century, to refuse compensation, even when the physical damage done to this plaintiff was negligible. The truth behind this ‘justice’ is the defendant being a non-Saudi who struck a Saudi, even where both men are of the Moslem faith. This is what makes it an unforgivable offense.

One witness to the altercation between the two men told Human Rights Watch that on the morning of April 1, 2003, Noushad told 'Utaibi that he would not be able to obtain a refund once he used the jumper cable he had just purchased. When 'Utaibi demanded a refund after using the cable, Noushad advised him to speak to the shop owner, who was not there at the time. The witness said 'Utaibi replied heatedly that he could not wait that long and lunged at Noushad.

Ok. We have a Saudi man trying to get a full refund for a product that he has already used, and when refused or asked to wait for the manager, this cheap bastard loses his temper and attacks the gas station attendant! This sounds like self-defense to me and in the civilized world, the plaintiff would be laughed out of court. If I were there, I’d have beat on the asshole myself for being so tacky. (You will remember from the 1^st WTC bombing that the terrorists were caught only because the dumb-shits went back to the auto rental for their deposit!)

The witness, also a worker from India, told Human Rights Watch that the court refused to admit his testimony backing up Noushad's account. The judge reportedly said that non-Saudis were barred from testifying in cases involving Saudis.

This needs no embellishment or explanation. If you are not Saudi, even if you are a Moslem, you have no rights in Saudi Arabia. You might now start to get the picture of why so many Moslems hate the Saudis. If you think that is bad, try being a woman, Jew, Hindu, or Christian in that part of the world.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are the only known countries that consider eye-gouging a legitimate judicial punishment.

Isn’t that sweet? If you ever decide to strike a Saudi on his own soil, make sure to hit something you can afford to lose. It could even become an alternative diet plan if aimed properly.

“No punishment of the unrighteous has ever been too severe in the eyes of the righteous.” (Author Unknown)

Stuck Between the Kaaba and A Hard Place

“If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.” (Moshe Dayan, 1915-1981)

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia remains a close personal friend of both GW Bushwacker and his evil robot sidekick Dick Cheney. This fact alone is enough to hate the guy. It gets worse. In this photo, we find him praying to his Invisible Wahabi Anti-Israel Misogynistic Sky Fairy alongside Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Kaabah in Mecca on December 8, 2005. Mr. Ahmadinejad has questioned the Holocaust and has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. GW has called him “evil.” (It takes one to know one, I guess.) I can’t help but wonder what they’re praying for.

Now some of you will be frantically running for cover over such an event, and others may not see any significance to it at all. The fear mongers will of course say that the Saudis and the Iranians are now forming a coalition against US interests behind our backs. I disagree. As much as I tend to mistrust the Saudis, King Abdullah, believe it or not, is a moderate in relation to some of his Saudi co-religionists. In 2002, he actually suggested an end to the Israeli-Arab conflict through negotiation and concession, and although the conditions were ultimately unacceptable to both parties (no surprise there), it did show some welcome initiative on Abdullah’s part. He does have the power in the Moslem world to broker peace agreements (to some extent anyhow), and I think this is what he will attempt to do with Mr. Ahmadinejad.

The question is ‘Why?’ One might assume the King Abdullah will always take the side of his fellow Moslem, but that isn’t always the case, as was evident by King Abdullah’s open support for two wars against a Moslem neighbor named Saddam Hussein. No, the issue here is, as always, the Almighty Dollar; the real Kaaba that King Abdullah worships in front of. He likes his money as much as he does his deity, and knows that another extended war with yet another and larger Moslem nation will cost him dearly. Should an Israeli-Iranian conflict ensue, the Saudis would be caught between “the Kaaba and a hard place”, struggling between the supporting of American corporate interests that enrich them and their Moslem co-religionists of poorer nations that deal only in ideology. He has his own interests to protect. I wish him luck.

There is also another factor. The Saudis have prided themselves on being the “keepers of the faith” and the powerhouse of the Islamic world. Their oil wealth and international savvy has earned them some right to claim as much. Many Moslems reject the Saudis as sell-outs to the 'Infidel' or as condescending to the rest of the Arab world (it happens to be true.) King Abdullah wants to protect his prestige as Islamic world leader by diffusing the Islamic-populist upstart from the north, someone who is gaining significant ardor from all over Islam. The oil endowed Saudis (and Kuwaitis) need stability to maintain the status quo, knowing that if Israel should no longer exist, the Saudi royalty themselves could become the targets of this growing populist, militant movement. Were it not for the religious conflicts, a class struggle would easily take hold.

Let’s hope that at some point, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is going to try and talk some sense into Mr. Ahmadinejad. A tense and fragile peace, even when founded on personal greed and arrogance, is still much better than open war.

Let’s also hope I’m right about this.

War On Drugs : A Foul Tragedy

(I found this article on AlertNet, and thought is was right on the mark. This war on drugs, cannabis in particular, is not only misguided, but it hurts average people for doing nothing more than wanting to have a good time. Our current legal system is set up to promote long harsh sentences only to benefit the careers of prosecutors, the expense accounts of law enforcers, and the political aspirations of both parties. It is time to end this war and Garrison Keillor puts this madness in down to Earth perspective.)

War on Drugs: A Foul Tragedy

By Garrison Keillor

We Democrats are at our worst when we try to emulate Republicans -- as we did in signing onto the "war" on drugs that has ruined so many young lives.

The cruelty of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 is stark indeed, as are the sentencing guidelines that impose mandatory minimum sentences for minor drug possession -- guidelines in the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act that sailed through Congress without benefit of public hearings, drafted before an election by Democrats afraid to be labeled "soft on drugs."

As a result, a marijuana grower can land in prison for life without parole while a murderer might be in for eight years. No rational person can defend this; it is a Dostoevskian nightmare, and it exists only because politicians fled in the face of danger.

That includes Bill Clinton, under whose administration the prosecution of Americans for marijuana went up hugely, so that now there are more folks in prison for marijuana than for violent crimes. More than for manslaughter or rape. This only makes sense in the fantasy world of Washington, where perception counts for more than reality. To an old Democrat, who takes a ground view of politics -- What is the actual effect of this action on the lives of real people? -- it is a foul tragedy that makes you feel guilty about enjoying your freedom.

If suddenly on a Friday night the red lights flash and the cops yank your teenage son and his little envelope of marijuana into the legal meatgrinder and some bullet-headed prosecutor decides to flex his muscle and charge your teenager -- because he had a .22 rifle in his upstairs bedroom closet -- with a felony involving the use of a firearm, which under our brutal sentencing code means he can be put on ice for 20 years, and the prosecutor goes at him hammer and tong and convinces a passive jury and your boy's life is sacrificed so this creep can run for Congress next year -- this is not your cross alone to bear. If the state cuts off your right hand with a meat cleaver on my account and I don't object, then it is my cleaver and my fingerprints on it.

I don't dare visit Sandstone Federal Prison here in Minnesota for fear of what I'd see there: People who chose marijuana, a more benign drug than alcohol, and got caught in the religious war that we Democrats in a weak moment signed onto. God help us if we form alliance with such bullies as would destroy a kid's life for raising cannabis plants.