Capital Punishment Not a Deterrent?

With the Scott Peterson verdict and subsequent sentencing, those opposite to Capital Punishment have not missed any opportunities to press their case. One argument frequently presented is disingenuous at best: That capital punishment is not a deterrent.

The recidivism rate for the executed is 0%. The executed are deterred permanently. Of course, while awaiting execution they may still commit crimes within the correction facility framework. Murder in prison is rare, but not unheard of.

The justice system predominantly convicts and sentences to death or life in prison the guilty. But not always. Let us set that aside momentarily, and consider the death penalty on a cost benefit basis. It is less expensive to sentence people to death - if swiftly executed - if the appeals process is concise and limited. That is not typical in the current system.

Those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole rarely escape and commit a crime outside of prison. Prisoners of course may commit crimes against other prisoners or staff. Resources ought to be spent ensuring that these “in system” crimes are prevented, instead of on the prolonged death penalty process.

The argument regarding deterrence views the death penalty from the wrong perspective. It is “capital punishment”, not “capital deterrent”. We don’t make examples of people if they are the ones who did not commit the crime, but only belong to the same social group or class as the accused. We attempt to catch and convict those actually guilty of the crime. Similarly the purpose of prison is not reform, but punishment. Those uncomfortable with this are encouraged to change the system by providing alternatives to imprisonment for lesser offenses.

There are social and physical costs to incarcerating people. Imprisoning people is denouncing for both the prison staff and the prisoner. The lost benefits of the resources spent on the convicted are wasted on society in general. Coupled with the current lengthy appeals process the “deterrent effect” cited by critics is limited.

Now that we have determined the "costs" are approximately equal, let us consider the moral dimension. We do from time to time convict innocent people. Unfortunately, at this time, the burden of proof is merely “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This, not deterrence is the best argument against capital punishment.

The just way to impose the death penalty is to use it only when there is “No Doubt” as to guilt, and then swiftly. The standard of proof then should be “No Doubt” (as has been proposed in some states). The swift implementation of the sentence (only allowing a single appeal filed within, say 90 days) would help achieve a better deterrent effect. Failing these reforms, a just person acknowledging human fallibility must prefer life in prison without the possibility of parole for the convicted.

The goal of the death penalty is not to produce a society deterred from crime, but to punish the criminal. For the worst criminals, at this time, prison and death are the only alternatives. The dead don’t commit crimes. However, those put to death are forever denied justice if we make a mistake. Our record on this is not good. Justice demands that in the absence of a higher standard of guilt that the ultimate punishment must be life in prison without the possibility of parole. Anything less is unjust, and un-American.

-G

One War Too Many

By any sane measure the war on drugs has been lost. It never could have been won without taking steps abhorrent to the voters of the United States.

The profit in the sale of illegal narcotics is just too high for people to ignore. I believe that the only rational plan is to concede defeat, legalize narcotics, regulate them, tax them and treat them.

Denmark, France and Canada are heading down this path. None of those countries are in flames, and we can safely conclude that legalization need not result in mass chaos.

Marijuana should be treated much like alcohol. Certainly cocaine and heroin should be treated as heroin is treated in Denmark - a serious problem, but one that can be managed and where once it is out in the daylight is easier to address and treat.

The resources saved in prison sentences, dismantling networks of smugglers and converting peasant growers into ordinary citizens, would at a stroke reduce the US budget, help secure our boarders and help eliminate the unpleasant dichotomy of legislating morality while promoting freedom. Socially, an amnesty for non-violent drug offenders would be a popular measure. If combined with serious efforts at rehabilitation and prevention paid for with taxation we could see real reductions in drug use among the US population.

I suggest we use these resources to make sure we have good outcomes in Iraq and to avoid proliferation in North Korea, Syria and Iran.

Eliminating the collateral damage in the drug war would allow us to conclude that war and focus our efforts on where they are truly needed - defeating emerging threats and protecting ourselves and our allies from fanatic extremists. The civil wars of Columbia and the narco-trafficking in Afghanistan would come to a swift halt, allowing development aid to shore up and stabilize those regions of the planet, promoting industry and commerce in critical regions closely tied to the US's long term strategic interest.

The war on drugs is a war the US can no longer afford.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/statistics.html

Dingbats and Boxters

Dingbats and Boxters

People are idiots, and groups are even more idiotic than people taken singly.

This morning on my commute, I encountered heavy traffic, so I turned on the Radio to listen to the traffic report. What JOY! There are TEN accidents this morning!

OK, so I'm screwed.

Therefore, I sit in traffic and ruminate on the silliness of my current activity.

I do nothing more than move electronic bits from here to there. I could just as easily do this from home. The problem is that apparently management does not trust us to move the bits from here to there on our own. So like bats we fly back and forth to the work cave each day.

You'd think avoiding paying for an office, power, etc would be plenty of economic incentive for a company to get people to work from home, but I guess not. It probably has something to do with promoting the impression that managers are actively managing many people, so they can hire underlings to do real work, get promotions and look busy or something.

*SIGH*

When I do I finally get to work where I learned a jolly friend of mine who drives a Truck - we'll call him "Grizzly" - who incidentally also doesn't need to drive to work to do his job - was involved in one of the accidents.

'Thump!" A cute little minx in a bright red Porsche Boxter drove up under Grizzly's big silver Mopar bumper when he was stopped at a light. The buxom young woman's shapely legs and yellow mini-skirt gave quite a thrill when she got out. Sadly, the commute-time fantasy soured (as the yammering commenced). When the policeman arrived, Ms. mini-skirt accused Grizzly of backing into her! I guess she thought her pert buttocks and ample cleavage would cloud the cops judgment. The officer listened... and then began writing three tickets - to her.

She came unglued.

Our intrepid law enforcer told her she might want to check her makeup.

She had a lipstick smear from lip to ear.

The tow truck arrived. The wounded Boxter was removed from the ass-end of my friend's truck, and was dragged away. Grizzly smiled, said "thanks" to the cop, and "Hey if you don't need me, I'm going to work." Off he went.

All of which could be prevented if we didn't make everyone go to the bat cave to show how important and necessary we all are. Well, at least there was the mini-skirt.

Mismanagement Kills Morale

Mismanagement Kills Morale

Anyone who has ever worked for someone else knows that the person in charge is an idiot. The further up the chain of command you go the more idiotic they become. Let's take a concrete example.

Let's consider what happened at a company X listed by the local city paper as one of the "Top 100 Companies for Working Families". BTW, they weren’t kidding, at this place they'd make your family work if they could.

On Monday at X, SVP & CIO called to task the VP of Application Software Engineering, let's call him "Veep". Some of the people way down in the organization that report to Veep were not readily available (on a weekend) to support a group (not in Veep’s area) whose project was two months late, and looking like it was going to be four months late. If this critical project were late, upper management would be punished. Veep's solution?

To have EVERYONE in his area of responsibility work through the next 2 weekends. The 2 weekends before Christmas!

Would there be comp time later? Nope.
Quick notice to adjust? Nope, some were informed Thursday.

It would take two hands to count the number of children in the office that weekend.

Would there at least be relevant work that pertains to the troubled project to do? Nope.

That’s right! For the vast majority of those forced to give up their weekends to the company – THERE WAS NO WORK TO DO!

Sixty people asked to work on Saturday and Sunday when there in fact was no actual work.

Un-Believe-Able. In an attempt to make this appear to be a rational decision, another group got some ill will from the 60 "wage slaves" when "since they are going to be here anyway" another manager when offered asked the disgruntled to perform testing on an unrelated product. The testing, the only real work that might affect a schedule was completed in four hours.

Was everyone else sent home? Nope.
Was there even a thank you for coming in? Nope.
Was Veep even in the office? Nope.

Why?

His wife was having a baby. His personal time was more important than that of the other 60 people in question.

For at least one of the groups, the demand was presented in the context of "you aren't working hard enough and not working hard enough is stealing from the company". Moreover, some of you are "getting in late", or "not letting us know where you are".

Among the other inspiring things management communicated:

1. You are all overpaid. (I love this one)
2. You're salaried employees and shouldn't complain about unscheduled overtime.
3. Having an "hourly worker" mentality.

So it's OK for company X to steal time off? No mention of the fact that the projects Veep's teams were actually working were all ahead of schedule regardless of the silly hours spent in the office. However, it's easy to count hours and avoid the hard work of actual management. It's easier to blame the workers for their predicament than it is to stand up to upper management. Nowhere in this analysis is the long-term benefit to the organization considered. It was safer and easier for Veep to give a knee jerk response, just as it was safer and easier to pass the edict on instead of challenging it for the Directors. Ditto for the managers and what do you have? Instant organizational Hari-kari.

Resumes started flying off printers and monster.com and dice.com were bookmarked. Recruiters start getting calls and before long, there will be a mass exodus of experienced talent from the organization. There were even rumors of "union" (don't hold your breath; IT workers are notoriously hard to organize).

Eventually sanity shone through and Veep e-mailed (from the hospital?), at 2:30 on Sunday to tell everyone, they could go home.

There's a lesson in here somewhere. I'm just not sure anyone is paying attention.