Needling Public Safety in San Francisco (updated)
→ The Out-Lawyer’s Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog1
→The Bridge to Being Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog2
→ The Human conspiracy Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog3And
The Policy Think Site: http://www.jaygaskill.com
All contents, unless otherwise indicated are
Copyright © 2005, 2006 and 2007 by Jay B. Gaskill
Please contact Jay B. Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail at law@jaygaskill.com
Monday, October 29, 2007 UpDate:
THE OUT-LAWYER REPLIES ABOUT NEEDLES AND DEATH
My last piece on the Human Conspiracy Blog - http://jaygaskill.com/blog3/ , elicited some responses. I had defended the death penalty, lethal injection, and expressed my dismay at San Francisco’s proposed ‘needle’ room for addicts. I’m cross referencing that article and the recent replies on both blogs.
For my recent "needle exchange, go to the Out-Lawyer's blog http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog1
Needling Public Safety
Let me be clear. I don’t like the death penalty; I spent the better part of my legal career striving to prevent its application to any of my clients. But the evidence is now unambiguous and – I submit – beyond reasonable dispute: The death penalty has a deterrent effect; it saves innocent lives.
Many of my liberal friends are in the same state of denial about this effect as some of my conservative friends are about global warming. [My own view on the latter is nuanced. See http://jaygaskill.com/InconvenientChoice.htm .]
I’ve written about the death penalty in print and on the web extensively. [ See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060309/ai_n16158247 .] Let me just refer the deterrence skeptics to the Brookings Institute / A.E.I. joint study, an abstract of which is still available on the web: http://aei-brookings.org/publications/abstract.php?pid=922 .
Yes, there are studies and reports that oppose the conclusion that the prospect of execution deters would-be murderers; but these focus on older studies. And death penalty opponents obscure the deterrence question by filling the policy discussion with ideological bromides -- like the concern for “evolving standards of decency”. But as one of the Brookings Study authors put it, “Capital punishment thus presents a life-life tradeoff, and a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment.”
At the moment, two things are happening: There is an upsurge in murders in urban California and there is a de facto death penalty moratorium in place as a result of the 9th Circuit’s decision that lethal injection is a forbidden from of punishment. [So is the torture murder of rape and child molest victims, I am constrained to point out.]
While this issue is being decided, the U. S. Supreme court has not only agreed to take up the matter, but it has issued a stay that halts all lethal injection executions on a national basis. The California de facto moratorium has become national. If this state of affairs goes on much longer, I believe that we will begin to see an increase in the murder rate everywhere.
In this context, you might imagine my reaction to the following AP story:
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer, October 19, 2007.
San Francsico. “City health officials took steps Thursday toward opening the nation’s first legal safe-injection room, where addicts could shoot up heroin, cocaine and other drugs under the supervision of nurses.”
Drug addiction is a pernicious form of chemical slavery; indeed addicts are responsible for a disproportionate number of homicides as compared with the general population. Profound drug addiction, particularly to cocaine, is a character poison. But really successful treatment models actually exist; most of them are linked to the very successful “drug court” program. This a therapeutic system with sanctions that originated in Oakland, California in the early 90’s when I was the county Public Defender. Drug addiction is chemical slavery that affects the volitional centers of the brain such that the enslaved person initially resists liberation. This is why the successful treatment models include therapeutic sanctions.
Facilitating the continuation of a serious narcotics addiction with nurses in a sterile setting is analogous to supporting continuing slavery by providing “more humane” chains.
I count myself among the “real world” liberals. Apparently the species of liberal that runs that beautiful city on the San Francsico Bay can only agree to an injection program that facilitates slavery but not one that liberates potential murder victims.
If you agree or disagree, email me at The Policy Think Site and I’ll post a sample of the responses.
JBG
Many of my liberal friends are in the same state of denial about this effect as some of my conservative friends are about global warming. [My own view on the latter is nuanced.See .]Yes, there are studies and reports that oppose the conclusion that the prospect of execution deters would-be murderers; but these focus on older studies. And death penalty opponents obscure the deterrence question by filling the policy discussion with ideological bromides -- like the concern for “evolving standards of decency”.But as one of the Brookings Study authors put it, “.”In this context, you might imagine my reaction to the following AP story:JBG Many of my liberal friends are in the same state of denial about this effect as some of my conservative friends are about global warming. [My own view on the latter is nuanced.See .]Yes, there are studies and reports that oppose the conclusion that the prospect of execution deters would-be murderers; but these focus on older studies. And death penalty opponents obscure the deterrence question by filling the policy discussion with ideological bromides -- like the concern for “evolving standards of decency”.But as one of the Brookings Study authors put it, “.”In this context, you might imagine my reaction to the following AP story:JBG
Comments
I disagree with you on two points. First, you equate drug use to slavery (so if we somehow allow people to use drugs, should they and their posterity be entitled to reparations? Ok, bad joke.) It's certainly a bad behavior, but it's different than slavery in that people choose it, they have chosen it for the history of mankind, and they will continue to choose it forever. It's a bad metaphor, because violence against your masters will liberate you from slavery, but only self-determination will liberate you from drug addiction. I am NOT endorsing the safe-injection room. San Francisco is a weird place. I'm just saying that we can't, haven't, and won't truly prevent people from subjecting themselves drug addiction. But we can sure spend a lot of money and kill and imprison a lot of people trying. I have never taken any illegal drugs myself, but it’s not the law that stopped me.
Second, you claim, "Lethal injection liberates potential murder victims". This is a misleading statement, and the use of the word “liberate” is a serious poetic hyperbole. Assuming that the threat of the death penalty really deters people from getting caught at murder (note: these numbers only consider the statistics in official murder cases) doesn't mean that it is moral or that it’s really effective over the long term. And this study in no way shows that it is the only or the most effective solution.
What you appear to grudgingly conclude is that refusing to threaten the general population with being tied up and executed in a premeditated fashion somehow makes us culpable for the murders committed by sociopathic criminals. That's farce, especially after such a shallow investigation. As an attorney, maybe you are thinking too much about liability (i.e.: you accept the premise that society is to blame because we knew or should have known that threatening to shoot people would have potentially saved murder victim X). But in the real world outside of the nuttiness of civil courts, you have no automatic obligation to do something morally wrong or questionable because an unscientific and inconclusive study suggests it might save someone’s life in the long run. As moral actors, we should seek to know a good thing or the best thing to do to save lives, not just any old thing, especially not a thing that is so clearly abhorrent to humans.
Furthermore, our government does not have a responsibility to commit morally questionable acts to protect us from potential internal threats. In fact, the government should be and generally is prohibited from such acts. There are many possibilities that can be explored in dealing with crime, but this study (and our society in general) doesn’t explore any of them. The criminal justice system we use is based on the traditions of kings, dictators, and cowards, and then watered down by lawyers and liberals for several centuries.
What we have now in America is a system that randomly punishes people for various acts, some of which are harmful and some of which are relatively innocent, imprisons people for outrageously and ineffectively long periods of time, makes little or no attempt to change the fundamental character of its wards in any positive way, and usually leaves the victims of real crimes without recompense. And every once in a while it randomly executes someone chosen from among the more sinister dregs of one of its dungeons. Usually it’s someone appropriately guilty-looking. And according to this one study there was a correlation between no death penalty and a rise in murder cases.
Did anyone do a comparative study to find out how effective other deterrents are compared to the death penalty with a control group and two side-by side experiments? Was there a control group that DID have the death penalty with similar demographics (preferably in the same geographic area)? What other deterrents were studied besides besides killing and prison? Because some real science might lead to some actual scientific conclusions, as opposed to just speculation. People, both voters and politicians, have little or no interest in really examining solutions to the problem. It is a more nuanced and complicated problem that will probably require innovation in our thinking and actions to solve.
But people generally want simple solutions that don’t require change or effort. That’s why “diet pills” and lotteries are so popular with humans. Arguing that a government-imposed death penalty will really solve our social problems and protect us from evil is just wishful thinking. People like it because they like to think that a legislative change will protect them. It’s a comforting delusion to feel like you have voted for something that will make you safe.
Posted by: Joshua | October 19, 2007 07:52 PM