Harry and Bess Truman

 

Sanibel Florida Sunset

 

Freddieplato, on the right, and Mrs. Freddieplato

 

Spring Into Action

 

Eliminate the Death Penalty

     People tend to be ambivalent about the death penalty.  The gruesome details of an execution, its ghoulish ritual and antiseptic thoroughness are revolting, yet every time we read about another heinous crime committed with the exquisite cruelty of some hellish monster it is almost impossible not to wish him to be put out of his misery and gone from this earth.

     Regardless of one's emotions either way, there are good reasons to eliminate the death penalty, and it should be remembered  that a criminal does not go free simply because he isn't killed.  Imprisonment for life, being regimented to the last detail as the decades drone on, is hardly a picnic.  Is that not really worse than death?

     The question whether the death penalty acts as a net deterrence to crime will probably always be debated  but one factor which is not always considered throws doubt on it.  As an execution can be delayed almost indefinitely with appeals, writs and whatnot, it does not appear imminent until near the end of the line.  John Wayne Gacy said on the way to his execution that he did not believe it would happen.  He had had so many delays and reprieves that final doom had become unreal.  Probably no one commits a crime with the expectation of being caught and executed.

     The greatest price we pay for the death penalty is the execution of innocent men, and sometimes women. (There is serious doubt to this day about the guilt of Barbara Graham, about whom the movie "I Want to Live" was made).  This is true not simply in some rare instance, but with horrifying frequency.  Not long ago in Illinois alone 13 men were released from death row on the strength of DNA evidence showing their innocence.  Since then that number has increased by seven.  Nationwide, since 1973, about 150 prisoners under the death sentence have been exonerated and released by virtue of DNA proof of innocence. There are probably many more who would be exonerated if the right steps to do so were to be taken.

     But DNA exoneration is not the whole of the matter. How many other innocent men are executed for crimes wherein DNA could neither prove nor disprove guilt?  For example, what would DNA have had to do with the terrible assassination of President Kennedy, when murder was committed with a rifle fired from a substantial distance from the victim?  There are almost certainly many  innocent men on death row who were convicted of crimes with no relevance to DNA.  And the guilty ones remain loose, free to work their murderous horors on new victims.  Just recently a mad man shot and severely wounded a member of Congress in Arizona and at this time she is in a hospital in critical condition, yet DNA would appear to be able to prove nothing in the matter one way or the other.   

     The death penalty certainly does deter the dead convict, but does it deter others who do not expect to be caught and therefore do not consider what might happen to them if they are?  Some statistics appear to show that the death penalty has little or no effect on the crime rate. 

     One effect of the death penalty is the refusal by countries around the world to extradite persons to the United States if they might face the death penalty. They should not be criticized for that.  Just as we have our social and legal policies, they have theirs.  But here, too, as in the cases of wrongful convictions, the guilty go free.

     Execution is brutal and cannot be made into anything less.  It puts life into the hands of sometimes corrupt and excessively ambitious prosecutors and, yes, sometimes even the police themselves, who have been known to withhold or even falsify evidence.  Add to that the defective work of some defense counsel.  When all the pros and cons are sifted out the death penalty should be eliminated.

    

Misplaced Approaches to Religion

     These are thoughts I have wanted to express for a long time but have not done so out of concern that they might be uncharitable, which is not my intent.  There are certain approaches to religion -- specifically Christianity --- which I find misplaced.  I must emphasize that I am a committed Christian, in full acceptance of all the tenets of the Faith.  The word for what I challenge here is "misplaced" not 'morally wrong' or 'theologically objectionable'.  It is for the most part a matter of taste.  These are opinions, not established fact.
     First, is what I submit is the widespread misuse of the word "love".  Jesus said that all of the Faith hangs on love of God and neighbor and He described ones 'neighbor' with the parable of the Good Samaritan.  Unfortunately that illustration is commonly perverted and made into something He did not intend, which is all too frequently a lot of mushy affectatious sentiment.  It is not uncommon, for example, in a church service for some cleric to ask people to hug their neighbor at some point in the service.  I do not.  I will shake hands but hugging strangers spreads germs and anyway, it's just not my cup of tea.  It can go even farther than that.  On one occassion a substitute preacher asked us all to kiss our neighbor.  I did not (until I noticed that the person right in front of me was a very pretty girl.  Then I changed my mind and decided that the request had more merit than I had credited it with). 
     What is going on here?  The cleric is sincerely trying to inculcate the tenets of the Faith in his congregation, and in and of itself the hugging advice is probably harmless.  The reason I don't like it is that  twenty-first Century American society is tending to be too feminine as it is.  Femininity is great in pretty girls, not in men, young or old, and not when it's affectatious in any case.  Jesus accepted some of that sort of thing as customary for the time and place, when and where circumstances were radically different from what they are in contemporary America.  Then there is the 'good fellowship' smile.  I knew a chap who walked around a church Fellowship Hall with his 'good fellowship' smile tatooed on his face and his 'right hand of fellowship' always at the ready for shaking hands.  The problem was that everyone knew, or should have known, that the smile was never intended for the recipient of all this wonderful good fellowship because the guy was in fact a sourpuss.  It was just part of the act as it is with the inevitable nice old lady who keeps saying 'Amen' after every sentence from the pulpit, or thinks that in her screeching out of key she is actually singing one of the many bad hymns which are offered --- bad music, bad lyrics.  There are some wonderful hymns, not many but some, but screeching out of key will still be avoided by those of a charitable disposition.  (I have never changed my opinion that the fellow with the tatooed smile was hyperactive in the church because he had a beautiful wife and he didn't want other men trying to mess around with her because he himself had a face which was remarkably easy to ignore if you couldn't avoid it altogether.  If he could get her to take up religion along with him she would be more likely to rebuff advances).
     What Jesus meant by the Good Samaritan example, illustrating love of neighbor, was perfectly obvious unless you believe that He did not know how to express Himself, a hugely improbable suggestion to say the least.  Remember what happened.  The Good Samaritan was walking along the road minding his own business, the first admirable trait to be exhibited by him.  He came across some guy who had been mugged and beaten up and went to some trouble and expense to help him --- taking him to a nearby inn and paying the innkeeper to take it from there.  The victim had a different religion, and that was the point.  "Love your neighbor" means to behave decently, honorably, sympathetically, and charitably toward  those whose path you cross in life.  That's what the Good Samaritan did and that's why Jesus made an example of him; he didn't sing some third rate hymn off key or hug the victim or put on some phony baloney 'good-fellowship' insincere smile for the innkeeper.  If anything like that had been the point of the story Jesus would have said so.  (First Century Christians went through all that good-fellowship stuff because they lived far apart, travel was slow, and they were genuinely glad to see each other).
     Second is a strangely common habit of believing that one is appointed to decide who is a Christian and who is not.  This pops up in politics.  When John F. Kennedy ran for president a lot of pompous, self-important, "religious" stuffed shirts debated weather a Catholic is really a Christian or at least Christian enough.  Now we are getting the same thing about Mormons even though they say they are Christian and have their famous choir singing Christian hymns.  The practice here should be simple.  If someone says he is a Christian, believe him.  It's an easy one to follow.  If you insist on taking issue with him argue with what you consider to be his erroneous ideas such as getting your very own planet in the after-life, or something like that.  This does not mean that one should have a weak, wishy washy faith.   You stand firmly for what you believe while trying not to be obnoxious about it.  It just means that you and I were not appointed to decide who is a Christian, or Christian enough.  If someone says he is a Christian but goes about torching churches that is a different matter.  There is such a thing as straining credibility too far.  And it certainly does not mean saying that someone is a Christian simply because he does nice things or is 'sincere' or any of that.  Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, even atheists can be nice people but they are not Christians, as even they will tell you.  A Christian believes that Jesus Christ is the Saviour, the only Saviour there is, and that to follow Him is life itself.
     In the law there is a presumption of innocence.  Among those who claim Christ as Saviour there should be a presumption of Christianity --- maybe faulty Christianity, but Christianity nonetheless.  A man at the base of the Mount of Transfiguration asked Jesus to heal his epilectic son.  Jesus asked the man if he 'believed' and the man replied "Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief".  He was saying 'I'm trying.  I'm not quite there yet.  I need help'.  And Jesus accepted that.  God is kind.  He is accepting.  He is not the stern, unpleasant old gentleman often depicted, never happy, never satisfied with anything or anyone.  David was hardly a model of a good citizen but God used Him to His own purposes.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Let Your Mind Wander

. . . and Think

Observe . . . Look Around

Thoughts on Illegal Immigration

     Control of a nation's borders is so clear an attribute of national sovereignty that the elimination of unauthorized crossings is mandatory.  Hardship cases can be addressed by legislation but less than effective enforcement of the nation's laws is simply unacceptable.  I do not personally feel any anger toward the immigrant who seeks employment and a better life for his family by coming here, but Congress and the President must not evade the issue through inadequate enforcement.   

     The more difficult subject is that of children born in the United States to illegal immigrants.  In a recent column George Will tried to develop a persuasive argument that such children are not necessarily American citizens because they may not be considered to be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"  as required by the Fourteenth Amendment.  This view is not sustainable, however.  The Constitution addresses only the circumstances of the person born here, not that of his parents as suggested by Mr. Will.  Should the child later commit a crime or be sued in Federal District Court I defy Mr. Will to show why the United States lacks jurisdiction in the matter.  The 'jurisdiction' exception was inserted to apply to children of persons who enjoy diplomatic immunity which, in turn, immunizes their children, and to American Indians in certain cases.  Conservatives, of whom I am one, cannot rationally insist on literal interpretation of the Constitution only when it suits them. 

     What we can do, in cooperation with other governments, is to provide incentives for people not lawfully in this country to return voluntarily to their homeland with their minor children, and to require those who refuse to return to wait their place in line, and to obey our laws in the meantime.  Newt Gingrich has proposed the deposit of part of the pay of illegals in special accounts to be transferred to those who return voluntarily at the time of their return.  This, or other "voluntary deportment" measures,  could merit consideration.  First we must identify them, of course.  Congress, the current President and his predecessors in both parties have evaded their responsibilities egregiously.  However, the absurdity at this late date of attempting to round up some twelve million people and drive them across the border is too obvious to discuss except that those who commit crimes after coming here should be deported immediately or incarcerated.  Those who suggest that we simply tear children from their mothers' arms and cart them to Mexico in a bus are just not dealing with the situation rationally or, frankly, humanely.  As Newt Gingrich says, deporting a person who has been here a long time, developed relationships here, had gainful employment and in other ways been a good citizen should, in the interest of all concerned, be provided with some way of remaining here under specified conditions without, however, being summarily excused.  That may sound like "amnesty" but thinking in labels is not very useful in this situation.  We have a massive problem on our hands created by politicians in Washington and we must now deal with it fairly, compassionately and constitutionally.