It’s been interesting to consider the Death Penalty from so many angles with all of you this semester.  Your papers were interesting to read – everything from fairy tale death to famous people’s executions.

This blog will stay online, although I will unenroll you as authors.   Your work will continue to be available for others to locate.  It has had nearly 5000 “hits” in the 16 weeks we’ve been working.

The “Blogger of the Semester” prize goes to Sydnee with 7 posts – way to go!

I took the photo at right a few years ago in the church at Subiaco, where St. Benedict lived in a cave for 3 years.  It is supposed to be a moral lesson in the transience of all material things, given for a young person (shown in white on the left).  While the first corpse (on the top) is dressed in fine clothes, the third (on the bottom) is merely a skeleton: all that looked so fine has rotted away.

We have grappled with some difficult topics this semester, and handled them well.  As you can see from the headline below, even the information about the laws has already changed – so keep your eyes open and your thinking caps on!

Related articles by Zemanta

• 
  
• Major Supreme Court Ruling: Kids Who Didn’t Kill Anyone Should Not Have to Die in Prison (alternet.org)
• The Supreme Court rules that juveniles can’t be sentenced to life without parole. (slate.com)

We had 7 great presentations on Friday – bravo! – and the remaining students are scheduled to present on Monday, May 10.  We will also have some refreshments and time for the Student Satisfaction Surveys.

Please do arrive on time, so that each person has an attentive audience.

Solitary at CSP is used as a forum of behavioral modification. If a prisoner in the general populations misbehaves in some way, most commonly acts of violence. They are put into solitary confinement for an average of two years. However, many are there for several years. Currently 80,000+ prisoners serving time in solitary confinement in US prisons. In this report solitary confinement refers to prisoners kept in isolation 23 hours a day. Stays in solitary are determined by prisoner behavior. Contact with people is minimal. Food is delivered by slot, showers are robotically controlled. Physical contact occurs only when moved from cells.
23 hours a day are spent in an 8×10 cell, with one hour a day in a small exercise room. The exercise room has one pull up bar, and is otherwise empty. The cell rooms have a small slit window, and a large florescent lamp, there is a bed and some small bin for clothing and personal effects. Some prisoners use this bin as a chair. They have a small ledge and stool, possible to take the place of a desk or a table. It looks like there is a sink and toilet in each room. Otherwise the room is barren. Prison officials say this reduces violence in the general prison population, and that it is the most effective way to handle disciplinary issues. Many prisoners complain of psychological and physical distress. The Supreme Court has never addressed the constitutionality of solitary. Some lower courts have indicated there may be unpleasant side effects.

Quotes

“Three things happen to people here:
1. They learn to put on blinders.
2. They keep getting madder and madder. Angry about trying to fight a battle they can’t win.
3. They go Crazy”

– Larry Clacy 7 year prison sentence for ID theft. In prison he attacked two guards. Two times placed into solitary confinement, previous sentence was five years.

“The mind is always going and it seems like you just can’t shut it off , sometimes I just felt like I might just crack, man was not made for this. “

“For the people who are still in there? All I can say is that I am going to pray for them and hope that they can make it out og there with all there sanity, cause it’s a mad house in there.”

- Hozen Golzalus recently released from solitary into the general public. He was serving a 5 year term in CSP for car theft and parole violations He was deemed an escape risk with a history of dispensary problems. He also said being in solitary is like being tom hanks character in Castaway.

Solitary confinement prisoners often suffer from “difficulty with thinking concentration, memory, disorientation, its basically a delirium. One of the things we find in solitary confinement is that people become very paranoid.“

- Dr. Stuart Grassian, psychiatrist

“We aren’t cutting them off from physical contact because it’s fun or because we like being cruel. We are cutting them off until we can assume that contact is going to be safe. We believe in what we are doing here, we believe in the ability to modify behavior and to change individuals to make them more productive and more safe.”

- Suzan Joans, a warden at CSP

After this report I am wondering what a life sentence in solitary would do to person? Would they be able to retain sanitary or would they crack after 10 years? On a related note many people state that they wish to inflict pain or physical discomfort on death row inmates, for revenge, justice, retribution, or whatever. So they don’t these people advocate for life in solitary?

The video wont embed so here is a direct link.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/solitary–10337804

Here is what I hope your class presentations will be like:

1. Begin with a clear, concise, statement of the question or thesis of the paper.
   (“I wanted to consider the presentation of executions in songs across the centuries”)
2. State a plan or outline
   (“There are so many different types of music that I chose to look at just two: opera and folk ballads.  I chose these two  because …”)
3. Present the core elements of each part of your plan
   (“Executions often occur in the final act of operas, as the culmination of the plot line…. Women taking the place of their beloved on the day of execution was a surprising theme in the folk ballads.”
4. State a conclusion
5. Bonus points:  Have an excellent question prepared for the class to contribute.
   (“After completing this paper, I wondered why executions were so popular in plot lines. What do they add that an accidental death, or a departure, does not add?”)

This style of presentation, in the business world, is called an Elevator Speech.  The idea is this:  You find yourself in an elevator with a rich person who might fund your new business / promote your event – bu you will never see her/him again.  If you don’t have a speech prepared, you’ll just stumble around and be ineffective.  So: have a short speech prepared that does not SOUND canned – it sounds natural.

Here’s a short video on making an elevator speech:

watch?v=KMFFZ0lj41I

Related articles by Zemanta

• How to write an elevator speech (ismckenzie.com)
• Elevator Speech Creation Tool – 15SecondPitch.com (build-grow.com)
• The Art of the Elevator Pitch: 10 Great Tips (readwriteweb.com)
• What’s Your Elevator Speech? (kevinwmccarthy.com)

1994 support was 80%
1966 support was 42%

Why American Death Penalty Opinion is important

American death penalty opinion is the one of the main reasons the death penalty is still used.
Five related reasons
1. Political capital for legislators.
2. High support leads prosecutors to seek more death plenty convections
3. Judicial job securely. Judges fear being removed if public not appeased
4. Governors fear political backlash if they veto death penalty cases
5. Public opinion used to judge the evolving standers of society

The History of American Death Penalty Opinion

First survey in 1936 of 2,201 adults showed 61% supported the death penalty for murder.
In 2006 65% of Americans supported the death penalty for murder.
Overtime there was a V-trend with the bottom of the V hitting in 1966 when support was at 42%.
There has been a move in polls to have higher support, and lower “no opinion/I don’t know”
Its thought this has something to do with the Furman decision as support was at 50% pre-furmen, and 57% post-furmen.

Newser polls have more accurately accounted for demographic variations based on gender, race, age, politics, education, income, occupation, religion, city size and region.
It was found that

“whites, wealthy people, males, republicans and westerners tended to support the death penalty more then blacks, poorer peoples, females democrats, and southerners. “

in each demagogic group showed greater then 50% support for the death penalty. Race was the only exception where nonwhites only had 49% support.

The Present
The Marshall hypothesis: public opinion must be taken into account for a legal punishment can be stopped if the public outcry agesnt it is too high. The option of the informed electorate must be taken into account. Given this Marshall thinks the public would conclude that the death penalty is immoral and thus unconstitutional.

Social scientists have studied this idea and found some support for this, however the studies suffer from methodological problems defining an “informed individual”. Marshall’s definition is on page 372. There is uncertainty about how much information is required to be informed.

Further study has been done to show that becoming informed about the death penalty has a polarizing effect. That is people become more firmly rooted in their support or opposition to capital punishment. The overall numbers where comparable to current national data.

Other studies were conducted that showed a large more away from the death penalty. But have a serious like of objective controls that undermined the studies validity.

Bohm did his own study to investigate this issue and found signifagent increase (~20%) in death penalty opposition. The main factors included the specificity of questions “all” or “some” of the convicts, and the survey methodology. Bohm also found evidence for a polarizing effect, and that when retribution was involved information had no little to no impact on death plenty support. Follow up studies showed a return to original positions after being informed on the issues.

Asking about alternatives

Bohm states that a large problem with option polls is how the questions are asked. Ambiguous questions can lead individuals to interpret them in unrealistic ways. Many people think that life in prison will result in less than 10 years being served before release.

When give the chose between LWOP and the death penalty the spilt was ~50/50. When LWOP+ (the + being restitution) support drops to 19-43%. Some murder victim’s family are uncomfterbal with accepting reparations money.

In polls people express secptasism that local authorities will keep convicts in prisons.

Opinion on death eligibly based on crime is all over the place. From 13 would execute all murderers to 95% we who would execute one.

Bohm ends the chapter by talking about the evolving standards of society and moral regression as death penalty cases increase, and that European nations abolished the death penalty despite high lives of public support for the death penalty. After sometime supported went down to almost nothing. Regardless it seems overall death penalty policy will remained tired to American public opinion.

James

A few folks have posted news stories that, on quick reading, have the appearance of being primarily cut-and-paste of existing news stories.  In blogging, as in other forms of publication, the use of an entire piece of writing by another person is neither ethical nor legal.

How does one blog about a news story, then?

1. You must include a link to the original story, not just the title and source.  It’s basic web-etiquette.
   

2. Have something to say about it.
   
   • Compare something in this news story to other stories  with which it contrasts
   • Describe a general theme or principle of interest to you, and show how this story is an example of that theme.
   • Analyze the news story in terms of one or more theories or perspectives that we have studied.
   • If the news story takes one perspective, imagine what a person with an opposing viewpoint would say.  Build that argument, briefly, and state your own view
   • If the news item relates to something outside our death penalty class, you can make that connection

   No matter which approach you take, your blog post should be in your own voice, sharing your thoughts.

3. Use short quotes from the original story to illustrate your point or let a particular style of voice speak for itself. If you are contrasting viewpoints, you might have links to two articles and quote dueling or corroborating voices.
4. Be sure that all the information about the original source is available, at least through the link and, better yet, also by mentioning the newspaper and author by name.

If you have posted a “news” post that is entirely a re-post of other writing, please go back and do one of the following:

• Write a real blog post (using the guidelines above) in which you interact with the item

• Remove it from this blog and, if you were assigned “News” for that week, replace it with something that meets the guidelines.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Writing unique content for your blog (igeek.co.za)
• Tips on Finding the Best Blog Topics (best-tutorial.net)
• 11 Ways to Add to the Conversation of the Blogosphere and Stand Out from the Crowd (problogger.net)

KOHLBERG’S METHOD

Kohlberg’s (1958a) core sample was comprised of 72 boys, from both middle- and lower-class families in Chicago. They were ages 10, 13, and 16. He later added to his sample younger children, delinquents, and boys and girls from other American cities and from other countries (1963, 1970).

The basic interview consists of a series of dilemmas such as the following:

Heinz Steals the Drug

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that? (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 19)

Kohlberg is not really interested in whether the subject says “yes” or “no” to this dilemma but in the reasoning behind the answer. [Click to read more]The interviewer wants to know why the subject thinks Heinz should or should not have stolen the drug. The interview schedule then asks new questions which help one understand the child’s reasoning. For example, children are asked if Heinz had a right to steal the drug, if he was violating the druggist’s rights, and what sentence the judge should give him once he was caught. Once again, the main concern is with the reasoning behind the answers. The interview then goes on to give more dilemmas in order to get a good sampling of a subject’s moral thinking.

Once Kohlberg had classified the various responses into stages, he wanted to know whether his classification was reliable. In particular, he. wanted to know if others would score the protocols in the same way. Other judges independently scored a sample of responses, and he calculated the degree to which all raters agreed. This procedure is called interrater reliability. Kohlberg found these agreements to be high, as he has in his subsequent work, but whenever investigators use Kohlberg’s interview, they also should check for interrater reliability before scoring the entire sample.

KOHLBERG’S SIX STAGES

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. Kohlberg’s stage 1 is similar to Piaget’s first stage of moral thought. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey. To the Heinz dilemma, the child typically says that Heinz was wrong to steal the drug because “It’s against the law,” or “It’s bad to steal,” as if this were all there were to it. When asked to elaborate, the child usually responds in terms of the consequences involved, explaining that stealing is bad “because you’ll get punished” (Kohlberg, 1958b).

Although the vast majority of children at stage 1 oppose Heinz’s theft, it is still possible for a child to support the action and still employ stage 1 reasoning. For example, a child might say, “Heinz can steal it because he asked first and it’s not like he stole something big; he won’t get punished” (see Rest, 1973). Even though the child agrees with Heinz’s action, the reasoning is still stage 1; the concern is with what authorities permit and punish.

Kohlberg calls stage 1 thinking “preconventional” because children do not yet speak as members of society. Instead, they see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints. “Heinz,” they might point out, “might think it’s right to take the drug, the druggist would not.” Since everything is relative, each person is free to pursue his or her individual interests. One boy said that Heinz might steal the drug if he wanted his wife to live, but that he doesn’t have to if he wants to marry someone younger and better-looking (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 24). Another boy said Heinz might steal it because

maybe they had children and he might need someone at home to look after them. But maybe he shouldn’t steal it because they might put him in prison for more years than he could stand. (Colby and Kauffman. 1983, p. 300)

What is right for Heinz, then, is what meets his own self-interests.

You might have noticed that children at both stages 1 and 2 talk about punishment. However, they perceive it differently. At stage 1 punishment is tied up in the child’s mind with wrongness; punishment “proves” that disobedience is wrong. At stage 2, in contrast, punishment is simply a risk that one naturally wants to avoid.

Although stage 2 respondents sometimes sound amoral, they do have some sense of right action. This is a notion of fair exchange or fair deals. The philosophy is one of returning favors–”If you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” To the Heinz story, subjects often say that Heinz was right to steal the drug because the druggist was unwilling to make a fair deal; he was “trying to rip Heinz off,” Or they might say that he should steal for his wife “because she might return the favor some day” (Gibbs et al., 1983, p. 19).

Respondents at stage 2 are still said to reason at the preconventional level because they speak as isolated individuals rather than as members of society. They see individuals exchanging favors, but there is still no identification with the values of the family or community.

Level II. Conventional Morality

Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. At this stage children–who are by now usually entering their teens–see morality as more than simple deals. They believe that people should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in “good” ways. Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others. Heinz, they typically argue, was right to steal the drug because “He was a good man for wanting to save her,” and “His intentions were good, that of saving the life of someone he loves.” Even if Heinz doesn’t love his wife, these subjects often say, he should steal the drug because “I don’t think any husband should sit back and watch his wife die” (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 36-42; Kohlberg, 1958b).

If Heinz’s motives were good, the druggist’s were bad. The druggist, stage 3 subjects emphasize, was “selfish,” “greedy,” and “only interested in himself, not another life.” Sometimes the respondents become so angry with the druggist that they say that he ought to be put in jail (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 26-29, 40-42). A typical stage 3 response is that of Don, age 13:

It was really the druggist’s fault, he was unfair, trying to overcharge and letting someone die. Heinz loved his wife and wanted to save her. I think anyone would. I don’t think they would put him in jail. The judge would look at all sides, and see that the druggist was charging too much. (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 25)

We see that Don defines the issue in terms of the actors’ character traits and motives. He talks about the loving husband, the unfair druggist, and the understanding judge. His answer deserves the label “conventional “morality” because it assumes that the attitude expressed would be shared by the entire community—”anyone” would be right to do what Heinz did (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 25).

As mentioned earlier, there are similarities between Kohlberg’s first three stages and Piaget’s two stages. In both sequences there is a shift from unquestioning obedience to a relativistic outlook and to a concern for good motives. For Kohlberg, however, these shifts occur in three stages rather than two.

Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. Stage 3 reasoning works best in two-person relationships with family members or close friends, where one can make a real effort to get to know the other’s feelings and needs and try to help. At stage 4, in contrast, the respondent becomes more broadly concerned with society as a whole. Now the emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one’s duties so that the social order is maintained. In response to the Heinz story, many subjects say they understand that Heinz’s motives were good, but they cannot condone the theft. What would happen if we all started breaking the laws whenever we felt we had a good reason? The result would be chaos; society couldn’t function. As one subject explained,

I don’t want to sound like Spiro Agnew, law and order and wave the flag, but if everybody did as he wanted to do, set up his own beliefs as to right and wrong, then I think you would have chaos. The only thing I think we have in civilization nowadays is some sort of legal structure which people are sort of bound to follow. [Society needs] a centralizing framework. (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 140-41)

Because stage 4, subjects make moral decisions from the perspective of society as a whole, they think from a full-fledged member-of-society perspective (Colby and Kohlberg, 1983, p. 27).

You will recall that stage 1 children also generally oppose stealing because it breaks the law. Superficially, stage 1 and stage 4 subjects are giving the same response, so we see here why Kohlberg insists that we must probe into the reasoning behind the overt response. Stage 1 children say, “It’s wrong to steal” and “It’s against the law,” but they cannot elaborate any further, except to say that stealing can get a person jailed. Stage 4 respondents, in contrast, have a conception of the function of laws for society as a whole–a conception which far exceeds the grasp of the younger child.

Level III. Postconventional Morality

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. At stage 4, people want to keep society functioning. However, a smoothly functioning society is not necessarily a good one. A totalitarian society might be well-organized, but it is hardly the moral ideal. At stage 5, people begin to ask, “What makes for a good society?” They begin to think about society in a very theoretical way, stepping back from their own society and considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold. They then evaluate existing societies in terms of these prior considerations. They are said to take a “prior-to-society” perspective (Colby and Kohlberg, 1983, p. 22).

Stage 5 respondents basically believe that a good society is best conceived as a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of all They recognize that different social groups within a society will have different values, but they believe that all rational people would agree on two points. First they would all want certain basic rights, such as liberty and life, to be protected Second, they would want some democratic procedures for changing unfair law and for improving society.

In response to the Heinz dilemma, stage 5 respondents make it clear that they do not generally favor breaking laws; laws are social contracts that we agree to uphold until we can change them by democratic means. Nevertheless, the wife’s right to live is a moral right that must be protected. Thus, stage 5 respondent sometimes defend Heinz’s theft in strong language:

It is the husband’s duty to save his wife. The fact that her life is in danger transcends every other standard you might use to judge his action. Life is more important than property.

This young man went on to say that “from a moral standpoint” Heinz should save the life of even a stranger, since to be consistent, the value of a life means any life. When asked if the judge should punish Heinz, he replied:

Usually the moral and legal standpoints coincide. Here they conflict. The judge should weight the moral standpoint more heavily but preserve the legal law in punishing Heinz lightly. (Kohlberg, 1976, p. 38)

Stage 5 subjects,- then, talk about “morality” and “rights” that take some priority over particular laws. Kohlberg insists, however, that we do not judge people to be at stage 5 merely from their verbal labels. We need to look at their social perspective and mode of reasoning. At stage 4, too, subjects frequently talk about the “right to life,” but for them this right is legitimized by the authority of their social or religious group (e.g., by the Bible). Presumably, if their group valued property over life, they would too. At stage 5, in contrast, people are making more of an independent effort to think out what any society ought to value. They often reason, for example, that property has little meaning without life. They are trying to determine logically what a society ought to be like (Kohlberg, 1981, pp. 21-22; Gibbs et al., 1983, p. 83).

Stage 6: Universal Principles. Stage 5 respondents are working toward a conception of the good society. They suggest that we need to (a) protect certain individual rights and (b) settle disputes through democratic processes. However, democratic processes alone do not always result in outcomes that we intuitively sense are just. A majority, for example, may vote for a law that hinders a minority. Thus, Kohlberg believes that there must be a higher stage–stage 6–which defines the principles by which we achieve justice.

Kohlberg’s conception of justice follows that of the philosophers Kant and Rawls, as well as great moral leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. According to these people, the principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity, of all people as individuals. The principles of justice are therefore universal; they apply to all. Thus, for example, we would not vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others. The principles of justice guide us toward decisions based on an equal respect for all.

In actual practice, Kohlberg says, we can reach just decisions by looking at a situation through one another’s eyes. In the Heinz dilemma, this would mean that all parties–the druggist, Heinz, and his wife–take the roles of the others. To do this in an impartial manner, people can assume a “veil of ignorance” (Rawls, 1971), acting as if they do not know which role they will eventually occupy. If the druggist did this, even he would recognize that life must take priority over property; for he wouldn’t want to risk finding himself in the wife’s shoes with property valued over life. Thus, they would all agree that the wife must be saved–this would be the fair solution. Such a solution, we must note, requires not only impartiality, but the principle that everyone is given full and equal respect. If the wife were considered of less value than the others, a just solution could not be reached.

Until recently, Kohlberg had been scoring some of his subjects at stage 6, but he has temporarily stopped doing so, For one thing, he and other researchers had not been finding subjects who consistently reasoned at this stage. Also, Kohlberg has concluded that his interview dilemmas are not useful for distinguishing between stage 5 and stage 6 thinking. He believes that stage 6 has a clearer and broader conception of universal principles (which include justice as well as individual rights), but feels that his interview fails to draw out this broader understanding. Consequently, he has temporarily dropped stage 6 from his scoring manual, calling it a “theoretical stage” and scoring all postconventional responses as stage 5 (Colby and Kohlberg, 1983, p. 28).

Theoretically, one issue that distinguishes stage 5 from stage 6 is civil disobedience. Stage 5 would be more hesitant to endorse civil disobedience because of its commitment to the social contract and to changing laws through democratic agreements. Only when an individual right is clearly at stake does violating the law seem justified. At stage 6, in contrast, a commitment to justice makes the rationale for civil disobedience stronger and broader. Martin Luther King, for example, argued that laws are only valid insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. King also recognized, of course, the general need for laws and democratic processes (stages 4 and 5), and he was therefore willing to accept the penalities for his actions. Nevertheless, he believed that the higher principle of justice required civil disobedience (Kohlberg, 198 1, p. 43).

Summary

At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one’s own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others.

At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole.

At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just.

2. Does it surprise you that the there is such a strong support for the death penalty in America? Why or why not?

3. Many people do not support the idea of LWOP because they feel that correctional authorities are not able enough to keep capital murderers in prison. What are some ways to ensure that a prison sentenced with LWOP stays in jail?

4. Why do you think there is an increase in public support for the death penalty since 1936, especially after the Furman case?

5. After learning about the death penalty, where do you stand? Are you for it or against it?

http://www.courant.com/community/new-haven/hc-ap-ct-deathpenalty-homeapr18,0,2042412.story

Associated Press Associated Press Writers

April 18, 2010

NEW HAVEN, Conn.

An attorney for a Connecticut man charged with killing a woman and her two daughters in a home invasion is hoping a new governor will abolish the death penalty.

As it happens, the state legislature will most likely revive an effort to ban capital punishment and two leading Democrats running for governor in November say they would not have vetoed a bill to ban executions as Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell did.

On the other hand, leading Republican candidates favor the death penalty and a political expert says the criminal case is so notorious, it could strengthen support for a candidate who favors capital punishment.

Still, Thomas Ullmann, attorney for Steven Hayes, says in a letter to prosecutors that there’s a “realistic probability” the next governor will sign a law banning executions.

Hayes, 46, and co-defendant Joshua Komisarjevsky, 29, are accused of breaking into a Cheshire home in 2007, beating Dr. William Petit, tying his two girls to their beds and holding the family hostage before strangling Jennifer Hawke-Petit and setting the house on fire. Eleven-year-old Michaela and 17-year-old Hayley died of smoke inhalation.

Hayes and Komisarjevsky have repeatedly offered to plead guilty in exchange for life sentences, but prosecutors have rejected the offers, their attorneys say. New Haven State’s Attorney Michael Dearington has declined to comment.

Gary Rose, a politics professor at Sacred Heart University who lives one mile from the crime scene, predicts Hayes’ trial in September will be a stark reminder to voters of the horror of the crime and could wind up swaying some undecided voters to vote for a candidate who supports the death penalty.

“I think it could actually be a deciding issue,” Rose said. “The Petit murders, I think, are going to have in a certain way an impact on the outcome of this election.”

Among the candidates, Democrat Dannel Malloy said he would have signed the law Rell vetoed. He noted that Connecticut has had four cases in recent years in which convicted felons were found innocent after spending years in prison, though not on death row.

“I don’t believe government should be putting people to death,” Malloy said. “I believe that it’s time for Connecticut to join ranks with the overwhelming majority of the industrialized world and outlaw the death penalty.”

Ned Lamont, a Democrat who led Malloy 28 percent to 18 percent in a recent Quinnipiac poll, also would not have vetoed the death penalty ban, according to a spokeswoman Justine Sessions. And Mary Glassman, another Democrat for governor, said she also supports repeal.

On the opposing side, Republican candidates Oz Griebel, Lt. Gov. Mike Fedele, and Tom Foley, who led in a poll among Republicans, said they support the death penalty.

2. Does the public’s opinion about the death penalty matter? Should it mater?

3. Is the chance of executing an innocent person minimal in a highly developed legal system, with the right of appeal and high standards of proof?

4. Is death penalty cruel and unusual punishment for people convicted of first-degree murder, or is it a penalty that fits the crime? Why or why not?

5. Technically in some way criminals are abnormal and their thought process is not like those of the rest of us. Are criminals evil or sick? Will we ever find an answer to the “mad or evil” question and be able to find effective treatment for those who turn out to be “mad”?



“the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment especially in the hereafter” (Webster)

“requital according to merits or deserts, esp. for evil” (Dictionary)

Theological meaning – “punishment or reward distributed in a future life based on performance in this one” (Dictionary)

Years of origin – 1350-1400

From Latin retribuere – to repay, pay back, restore

Revenge:

“an act or instance of retaliating in order to get even”; “an opportunity for getting satisfaction” (Webster)

“an opportunity to retaliate or gain satisfaction”; “the carrying out of a bitter desire to injure another for a wrong done to oneself or to those who are felt to be like oneself”; “implies real hatred as its motivation” (Dictionary)

“a harmful action against a person or group as a response to a real or perceived grievance” (Wikipedia)

Years of origin – 15-16th centuries

From Middle French revengier or revenchier – to take revenge, avenge, punish

Retaliation:

repaying in kind, returning like for like (Webster)

Years of origin – late 1500s-early 1600s

From Latin retaliare – to pay back in kind

To summarize, these findings seem to confirm Bohm’s assertions that “revenge” implies acting based on emotion and that “retribution” and “retaliation” are concerned with payment. And, of course, that they all contain the prefix “re-”.

Sources:

Merriam-Webster Online

Dictionary.com

Wikipedia

www.sbc.net, www.religioustolerance.org, and www.erlc.com

In 1845, the Southern Baptist Convention, or the SBC,  was established. Today, it has over 16 million members in the United States that are all bound by a duty and devotion to the Gospel. In fact, members of the SBC hold the Bible in the highest regard, turning to it for instructions on how to live their lives. The SBC has stated: 

“The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.”- Inserted from www.sbc.net

It is because of this strict devotion to the Gospel that the Southern Baptist Convention is one of the 22 religious organizations sited in our text as groups that officially support capital punishment. In 2000, the SBC’s yearly assembly formulated the following opinion:

“God authorized capital punishment for murder after the Noahic Flood, validating its legitimacy in human society…[messengers (delegates of the SBC)] support the fair and equitable use of capital punishment by civil magistrates as a legitimate form of punishment for those guilty of murder or treasonous acts that result in death.”- Inserted from www.religioustolerance.org

Barrett Duke, of the “Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention,” explains the organization’s beliefs through a Biblical perspective. Specifically, the SBC turns to the passage Genesis 9:6 for their capital punishment stance: “Whoever shed’s man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed.”

Duke further elaborates: “Mankind’s creation in the image of God is what makes all human life sacred and can bring a penalty as severe as death for violations.” He is quick to note, however, that the state, not simply man, is the only body that has the authority to take a life. The determination of this position came from several passages in Romans, one in Genesis, one in Deuteronomy, and one from the 1st book of Peter. 

While the Southern Baptist Convention firmly believes in capital punishment, the organization holds that the administration of capital punishment should follow several guidelines (as quoted from Barrett Duke):

1.  “The accused person must have committed a crime for which death is the appropriate punishment.” When determining what is appropriate, the SBC turns to the often quoted Deuteronomy passage, “life for a life, eye for an eye…”

2.  “Clear evidence of guilt must be provided by two or three witnesses,” as described in both Numbers and Deuteronomy.

3. “Those charged with crimes must be treated in a uniform and impartial manner, regardless of status or class.” A passage from Deuteronomy and two from Leviticus support this guideline.

 The SBC are also sure to note that their capital punishment stance does not violate the Sixth Commandment: thou shalt not kill. According to Barrett Duke, “A different word, harag, often translated kill, occurs in most other passages in the Old Testament. Rather than violating the sixth commandment by its use of capital punishment, the state actually supports the commandment by executing those who murder.”

2. According to the Gallup poll taken in 2006, it should that more christians supported the death penalty than non-religious people, why do you think so many religious people support the death penalty even though their church opposes it? Do you think that religion plays a big role in a person’s stance on the death penalty? Should a person support their church’s stance on the death penalty? The bible both supports and opposes the death penalty, so should church’s use the bible as their basis of opinion on the death penalty?

3. Do you think that the effects on the families of the executed are worse than the effects brought upon the families of the victims? Why do you think there aren’t many studies being done on the families of the executed?

Byron Williams: Helping at-risk youth make better choices

By Byron Williams

Posted: 04/18/2010 12:01:00 AM PDT

Stallworth has sojourned from the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office where he was a proponent of capital punishment to private practice as a criminal defense attorney who opposes the death penalty. Along the way he has become an advocate and activist helping young people make positive choices so that they might avoid utilizing Stallworth’s services later.

As is the case with most of us, Stallworth could see clearer in retrospect than he could in the moment. For Stallworth, it required him trying a capital punishment case to truly ascertain where he stood.

In 2005, Stallworth took his first capital punishment case; it was Demarcus Ralls, who as 21 at the time and one of six individuals who self-identified as the “Nut Cases.” They engaged in a crime spree that terrorized Oakland over a six-week period in late 2002 and early 2003 mainly for thrills.

Advocating for Ralls to receive the death penalty seemed to be a no-brainer. But once the case reached the penalty phase, it began what Stallworth described as, “a journey that opened my eyes about a number of different things.”

“Why we do what we do?” was the question that tormented Stallworth. That particular question was not discussed at length in the District Attorney’s Office nor was it explored in any detail during the rigors of law school, but it had become the unavoidable question for Stallworth.

“I saw in him (Ralls) a cycle that I recognized, young men and women manifesting their anger and violence based on having lived through similar life experience,” Stallworth said. As in the case of Ralls, that life experience began when he was born in jail to a drug-addicted mother.

Another piece to Stallworth’s transformation included what he felt was the futility of suggesting to families of victims that seeking the death penalty would somehow bring them closure.

According to Stallworth, there are lots of services that victims’ families need, but he questions whether sitting in a courtroom repeatedly listening to what is often gruesome details is among them.

In addition to coming to the conclusion that the death penalty does not bring closure, Stallworth also believes it is natural for victims’ families to advocate for the maximum punishment available.

Moreover, it became clear to Stallworth, given that most death penalty defendants are represented by public defenders, taxpayer dollars are inordinately skewed in favor of the district attorney’s office to prosecute.

Source:  http://www.mercurynews.com/columns/ci_14898623

The religion of Islam includes a basic set of rules designed to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals and communities. It is a doctrine concerned with respect, tolerance, justice, and equality. The Islamic concepts of freedom and human rights are imbedded in and guaranteed by the Sharia (Islamic Law). Islam establishes a legal framework, and embodies a code of ethics, designed to protect the rights of an individual including his or her right to live in a secure community.

The Sharia is concerned with preserving five basic rights: the right to practice religion, the protection of life, the safeguarding of the mind or intellect, the preservation of honour and family, and the sanctity of wealth and property. It is a moral and ethical base in which individual rights are upheld but not permitted to overshadow the rights of the community.

Islamic law contains comprehensive principles and general rules that take into consideration the changing circumstances of society, as well as the constancy and permanence of human nature. While the Sharia combines stability, flexibility, and firmness, it has set down immutable punishments for certain crimes, that are not affected by changing conditions and circumstances. One of these punishments is the death penalty.

There are only two categories of crimes for which the death penalty can be applied under Sharia law. One is murder and the other is for crimes against the community (sometimes known as spreading mischief). One of the core principles of Islam is that a cohesive and secure community is absolutely paramount. Crimes that threaten the community include treason, apostasy (when one leaves the religion of Islam and actively turns against it), , piracy, rape, adultery, practising magic and homosexual activity.

“We ordained …that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.” (Quran 5:32)

It is important to understand that there is no place for vigilantism in Islam. A person accused of a crime must be properly convicted in an Islamic court of law before any punishment can be meted out. In the case of the death penalty the severity of the punishment requires that very strict evidence standards must be met before a conviction is found.

There are three categories of punishment in the Sharia. Hadd punishments, for crimes against the community are those that are divinely prescribed in the Quran or the authentic traditions of Prophet Muhammad. They cannot be changed. These punishments can only be carried out by a Muslim ruler or his deputy. It is not permissible for individual Muslims to carry out the hadd punishments (which sometimes include the death penalty) because of the chaos and tribulation it would cause in the community.

The second form of punishment, specifically for murder or serious assault, is called Qisas. Whenever a person causes physical harm or death to another, the injured or family of the deceased has the right to retaliation. A unique aspect of Qisas, is that the victim’s family has the option to insist upon the punishment, accept monetary recompense, or forgive the offender, which could even avert the death penalty. Quran urges families and victims to forgive and show mercy even in the direst of circumstances.

All other crimes fall into the third category, Tazir, which is a discretionary punishment decided by the court.

Islamic law, the Sharia, God’s laws are embed with justice, mercy and forgiveness; it does not involve taking human life unnecessarily. Even on the rare occasions when the death penalty is called for it is carried out under humane conditions and holds the promise of forgiveness and eternal paradise.

“And whoever among you fulfils his pledge, his reward is with God. Whoever commits something of such sins and receives the legal punishment for it, that will be considered as the expiation for that sin. Whoever commits something of such sins and God screens him, it is up to God whether to excuse or punish him.” –Quran