« Blawg Tsunami Charity Drive | Main | Say Hello to MultiBlog! »

This guy confessed to raping and slaughtering eight young girls, and now has begged the state to end his life. The courts won't let him because elite values in Greenwich are offended by the death penalty regardless of what the people of connecticut, the jury, the victims' family, and the defendant himself want. There is no such think as "death row syndrome" -- it was made up by the lawyers. Isn't there something a little sad about Greenwich elites letting their pet causes trump the law? Or is it okay if you share the pet causes of the Greenwich elites?

Posted by: Kathy P. at February 2, 2005 12:59 AM

My first answer is that it's ok when the pet causes of Greenwich elites trump the law when those causes include refusing to participate in barbarism. Michael Ross has been convicted of doing horrible things; why does that give us the right to kill him? He killed; by what logic must we kill him? If you abhor him for being a murderer, why would you want to become a murderer yourself by killing him?

So I guess if standing against the death penalty is an elite value, I'm for the elites on this one. However, opposition to the death penalty is widespread among all levels of society. And remember, it really wasn't that long ago (in the big scheme of things) that one of the "pet causes" of "elites" was putting an end to human slavery in the U.S. The death penalty is somewhere around the same level of human barbarism as slavery, so I do hope the day comes soon when the death penalty no longer exists in the U.S.

Posted by: ambimb at February 2, 2005 05:54 AM

Oh, a second answer could be that opposition to the death penalty is not trumping the law -- it is the law. Murder is illegal, the death penalty is murder (by the state, you and me); therefore, the death penalty is illegal.

Posted by: ambimb at February 2, 2005 05:56 AM

C'mon, ambimb, you can do better than that.

1) Most people are in favor of the death penalty. That is why states have the death penalty. This form of government generally is known as "democracy." You apparently favor government by elites, at least when your views happen to coincide with the views of the elites. (I assume you switch to being a populist when your views are differernt from those of elites?)

2) In my view, it is pretty unconvincing to suggest that we should defer to elites because they tend to be right. At the same time that elites in the Northeast were against slavery, the elites in the South were the leading *proponents* of slavery. Elites were also the leading forces behind the eugenics movement. Are you sure that elites are always right? I'll stick with rule by the people, thanks.

3) Ross obviously does not value human life; if he did, he wouldn't have killed all those young girls. If he thinks life isn't such a big deal, and actually wants to die, why is it so barbaric to do what he himself doesn't see as so important? You're just imposing your views on him, wanting your personal values to trump everyone else's.

3) Re your second post, no, I don't think ath works. All homicide isn't a crime; rather, only homicide without defenses are crimes. Committing a homicide to carry out a death sentence is like committing a homicide under self-defense. Under your theory, all punishment would be illegal; prison guards would be punished for kidnapping and false imprisonment. (Although ironically, they could not be punished, I suppose, as that would be a crime.)

Posted by: Kathy P. at February 2, 2005 12:39 PM

I don't have much time for this and many other people have preceded me in making great arguments against the death penalty so I'll just refer you to google if that's what you're looking for. However:

To your points 1 & 2: I do agree that we should *not* defer to elites generally, because generally they only want to protect the status quo that made them elite in the first place, and I think the status quo is pretty broken. That would suggest that real "elite" opinion is actually on your side -- in support of the death penalty. If it didn't serve some interest of the status quo, it likely would have been found unconstitutional sometime in the death penalty hiatus in the 1960s/70s.

3: If murder is barbaric and wrong when Ross does it, why is it less so if we do it? I don't see it as wanting my "personal" values to trump everyone else's. Does everyone else really value becoming a murderer? There's lots of evidence that the vast majority of humans value human life and think taking it is very wrong. Is Michael Ross no longer human?

4: I humbly submit that I never suggested that all punishment should be illegal. I said murder is illegal, and the death penalty is murder, therefore it's illegal. Granted it's a very simplistic argument, but there you go. I think your attempt to compare the death penalty to killing in self-defense is rather strained. What are we defending ourselves against by killing Michael Ross when, if he lives, he'll spend the rest of his life behind bars?

Posted by: ambimb at February 2, 2005 09:45 PM

Sorry if I'm being annoying, but one last round for me:

1. The argument that elites want the status quo, so whatever is the status quo must be elite, seems so plainly wrong that stating it is to point out its flaws. In any event, the death penalty hiatus from 1972 to 1976 was of course created entirely by the elites on the Supreme Court, urged on by the elites of the academic class and the New York Times. The elites tried, but eventually failed. It doesn't make it any less elite because they lacked a single vote on the Supreme Court.

2. I don't see why it is barbaric to kill Ross. It seems to me that a truly just society should recognize the value of innocent life by being willing to impose the ultimate punishment on serial murderers like Ross. You choose to see the issue as killing vs. not killing, but I think the more relevant line is killing innocent people and killing the very guilty. It doesn't mean that one of us is "right", of course: just that there isn't one right answer that the elites see that the people don't.

No more, I promise.

Posted by: Kathy P. at February 3, 2005 12:28 AM

1. I'm not sure who/what counts as "elite" to you, but it's true that it would be overly simplistic to say that "whatever is the status quo must be elite." I didn't really mean to suggest that; however, I do think the death penalty (along with our shockingly excessive rates of incarceration) serve the status quo by containing dissidents and chilling alternatives. However, one aspect of social change is that, to some extent, it's often carried forward by those whose basic needs are secure; it's much easier to join the struggle against the death penalty, for example, if you have the bills paid and have enough personal resources to become involved. There may even be some aspect of responsibility involved -- if you've been lucky enough to get to a place in life where you can afford it, shouldn't you give back to society in some way by trying to make it better? What "better" means will obviously differ; you would apparently say it means "kill Ross," I would disagree.

2. Are you innocent? And if you're innocent now, if we killed Ross today, would you be innocent then? I believe we're all in this together, meaning we share responsibility for these things and I simply don't want to be responsible for helping to kill anyone. It seems to me that a truly just society would recognize its not perfect and that killing more people is not going to change that. Killing begets killing. I do agree with this: "there isn't one right answer that the elites see that the people don't." However, since there's little to no evidence of any value to the death penalty (it's not a deterent and it does nothing that life imprisonment doesn't do already), I just don't see how collective murder can be "right."

Finally, I welcome your comments; please don't feel you have to stop just b/c we disagree. I may not be able to respond, but perhaps someone else will. (Although, if you have a blog, please link to it so I can read it!)

Posted by: ambimb at February 3, 2005 07:15 AM

I'll take that as an invitation to go one more round.

Now I think we're getting closer to the truth: as I read your last post, you see opposition to the death penalty as sort of a mix of noblesse oblige (in which the enlightened lead the people who are too busy to think 'correctly' to a better answer) and also a way of making yourself feel better about yourself ("I simply don't want to be responsible for helping to kill anyone."). If I'm reading your post correctly, this is the kind of classic limousine liberalism that conservatives rightly dismiss. It's why modern liberalism will never make the Democracts a majority party: while there is lots of talk about fighting injustice, the real goal is mostly about making the elites feel good about how generous and wise they are. Why the fixation on the left with the death penalty? Because the death penalty is used so rarely, and essenetially never in the blue states, that it's essentially just a symbol.

I don't have my own blog, but if i start one I'll be sure to send a link. Thanks!

--Kathy

Posted by: Kathy P. at February 3, 2005 09:37 AM