From: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:24:15 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Apr14.021310.29023@math.ucla.edu> oliver@rhea.math.ucla.edu (Mike Oliver) writes:
>I agree with the anti-death-penalty sentiments of those whose postings
>in this thread I have thus far seen.  I'm curious to hear from those
>who don't.  In particular, I'd like to hear from anyone who wishes to
>defend (in a rational tone) the argument elucidated by Steve Baker,
>the father of one of the boys Harris killed and the officer who arrested
>Harris.  He said (quoting inexactly from memory): "Those who argue
>that the death penalty is not a deterrent miss the point.  The purpose
>of the death penalty is not deterrence, or to send a message, or to
>make a political point.  It is to punish one man for the brutal killing
>of two boys."

I'll make an attempt, though I can't say that I agree with the statement
attributed to the father of the boy who was killed, but I understand 
his feeling. 

I think the purpose of the death penalty is to take the offender completely
off the planet. "Life in Prison without Parole" sounds like much the same
thing, but is not. Both for the reason that a future court may grant parole
and the fact that the individual is still here, and may even continue 
killing and hurting while in prison. 

I think that the death penalty should be used very infrequently. For example,
in cases where the convicted killer is clearly proven to have commited 
the crime, *and does not deny it*. Further, I think the crimes must be 
judged to be of a certain level. This part is quite subjective, but the
process now is extremely subjective in that people sometimes go to their
deaths claiming innocence. If the convict claims innocence of the crime,
then I would commute the sentence to Life without Parole. 

However, in a case like Robt. Alton Harris, who does not deny commiting 
this extraordinarily brutal crime, I'll throw the switch myself. In fact,
I think that throwing the switch should be like a form of jury duty. If
they take a popular vote and the Death Penalty passes, I think all those
(including myself) who vote for it should be in a pool of "jurors" who 
may be called upon to throw the switch. I also support televising the
execution so the people know exactly what is being done in their name,
and then hold the referendum on the death penalty. I also like the idea
of showing a dramatization of the convict's crime before the execution. 
Then let everyone vote on whether the Death Penalty should be maintained. 
It's a brutal thing to do, but at the moment, the public shrinks from the
brutal details in an attempt to hide from the brutality. 

>Now let me say first of all that it is hard to blame Baker for feeling
>this way; perhaps he should not for his maximum spiritual good but that
>is not for me to judge.  My focus is on whether the rest of us ought
>to agree with him.  Because if the purpose is simply to punish, then
>what is the purpose of punishment?  Is the suffering of those who do
>evil an end in itself?  Can anyone explain *why* it is an end in
>itself, or is this simply an axiom?

I don't want to see Harris suffer. Indeed, I would opt for a 
speedy and painless execution. My motive for supporting the 
execution may be in some way based on revenge, but really, it's
the same main motivation that hospitals have when they destroy
used syringes. You want that dangerous thing to be gone completely. 

>I don't guess I'm ready to get quite that detached; I think the
>execution of Harris, if it happens, will be wrong.  But I'd like
>to hear (at a reasonable temperature) from the other side.

I hope I've explained my position well. I'm not a cruel person, and
I don't feel particularly vengeful about this. But I'll be relieved,
not pleased, when he's off this planet. I don't want to send any 
"messages" to anyone. (Sending a message seems to be the in-thing
in 1992...) For one thing, you never know when you say something 
directly to someone if they will understand what you're saying. How
are we to expect that communication will happen by attaching some
unspoken "message" to this execution? I don't know about you, but
I don't take it to mean that the state cares nothing about whether
I live or die, I take it to mean that if you do things that are
this misanthropic, that your fellow humans are going to take you
off the planet. Why should that message be any different to anyone 
else? 

JZ
--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	      One Shift		 ,			   Two Shift
Re d  S   h    i     f      t    ,       B     l      u      e     S    h  i ft