Penn & Teller — Bullshit
So this little Showtime show is rank pretty high up on my list of shows to watch. After 3 seasons, they finally found a topic I disagree with them on. The death penalty. While I would say it was a pretty fair and balanced show, their main obejection to the death penalty is that we are killing another human being. Well yea, that is kinda the point of it all.
I wrote this not necessarily to argue the death penalty, but more that I was happy I finally disagreed with them about something.
April 19th, 2006
If you cannot work and play with others without killing them, then it’s time for you to move on… ;-)
April 20th, 2006
What do you mean by, “then it’s time for you to move on…”? I have not seen the show in question but get the impression from your post that they objected to the death penalty as a violation of the commonly stated moral imperative that it is wrong to take the life a fellow human. They took this approach rather than specifically taking on the rationale for having and practicing a death penalty within our justice system? If I understand you, this is indeed strange, but not unique in my experience.
April 20th, 2006
I have not yet watched the episode in question. I was just making my common statement regarding capital punishment. I will however check back in just as soon as I see it… ;-)
April 20th, 2006
My favorite bumper sticker…..”I am against the death penalty…look what happened to Jesus”.
April 25th, 2006
Ok, I saw the death penalty episode. I like their point about DNA evidence making us 100% certain that someone we executed is innocent. On the other side of the coin it also can make us 100% certain that someone is guilty too…
Neat huh? Those zany investigators and their “Evidence”.
Since most all men who commit violent/sexual crimes are men I’m in favor of a NON-chemical castration alternative too…. I’m betting the Amnesty International representative from the episode is not going to be happy with that one either… ;-)
April 25th, 2006
Not only would they not be happy but those types have opposed even when the convict says they want and so much as need it.
Yes it is true that we probably will execute someone that is innocent and dna evidence to prevent this, so ok, I will support killing only those that dna evidence proves they did it. But I wanna broaden the scope. I really think we execute people for the wrong crimes. A single murderer, especially heat of passion type crimes, is much less likely to commit again than the serial rapist.
April 25th, 2006
Damn that was some horrible typing by me. Shouldn’t have drank all that this evening. How so I edit my comments oh evil one.
April 26th, 2006
My reading indicates that what Rooster said is accurate. Amnesty International and similar intended groups tend to advocate against chemical castration, even if the felon in question requests it.
I am of the opinion that chemical castration is unlikely to change violent behavior. If someone is sufficiently disturbed to act out psychotic fantasies against another person, it probably won’t matter if their genitals are functional or not when considering this acting out.
As for the death penalty in the US, it is clear that its application should be changed considerably in order for it to have any fairness. This assumes that state sanction of murder can be fair. I have a problem with that, but that is not the basis of this conversation. A good start to improving application might be to make changes to the crimes to which it is applied, as Rooster suggests. A multiple offending violent felon, even if their crime doesn’t result in deaths, seems more suited to receiving the death penalty. If guilt is certain, the other certainty is that the felon executed will never offend again.
April 26th, 2006
The numbers that I have seen seem to bear out that castration drastically drops the recidivism rate for sexual and violent crime.
I think we should offer a package deal to the best suited groups:
1. Short Jail Term
2. Counseling
3. One year probationary period, with some form of location monitoring.
All you need to do to get in on the plan is donate the family jewels.
April 27th, 2006
You should be able to edit your comments if you are logged in
April 27th, 2006
If there is good data that contradicts my infererence, then I am willing to forego objections to chemical castration for those felons who give their informed consent for it to be done as a means of helping to control their impulses. I look to better trained and read ethicists than myself to determine whether or not this idea meets the current Constitutional standard for cruel and unusual punishment. I am inclined to think it isn’t so long as informed consent is given. I’d also want to be able to revisit their agreement should they offend after undergoing castration. Such a person gives me every indication that they remain a danger to society and should be isolated from it in some fashion, be it prison or a psyciatric institution.
April 27th, 2006
There are a number of sources on the web. I searched on “chemical castration recidivism” and found many sources referring to eourpean and scandanavian studies showing recidivism rates of 5% for castrated offenders as opposed to their non castrated 50% rate. There is also a supporting New England Journal report out there.
I am a little less satisfied with the chemical castration as it leave the risk of treatment avoidance. I prefer the idea of actual castration….
I do however entertain the idea of chemical castration for violent prisioners while instutionalized for their crimes. I wonder what effect that would have on prison violence…
April 28th, 2006
I didn’t realize you were suggesting physical removal of genitalia. I suspect that might not pass the “cruel and unusual” test, but it would be voluntary as I understand our conversation. It is certainly something that should be openly discussed and considered.
The idea of chemically altering prisoners sounds even more fraught with ethical peril, though the goal of reducing prison violence is highly desirable, at least by me. It is interesting to ponder.