The Death Penalty

 Posted by  Judicial System, Legal Reform, U.S. Politics  4 Responses »
Feb 242005
 

Capital punishment is wrong. It is immoral, it goes against the basic principals upon which our judicial system was founded, it is cruel, it is bad for society, it is bad for victims’ families, and it should have no place in a society that claims to be modern, civil, or Christian.

First of all, capital punishment violates the spirit of our entire judicial system. William Blackstone once said “Better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer”. This statement is the underlying philosophy behind virtually our entire judicial system. This is why we have jury trials with unanimous verdicts, why we insist on giving defendants the benefit of all doubt, and why we force prosecutors and police to follow strict procedures in collecting and presenting evidence. It is also a Christian sentiment; God said that he would spare an entire city full of the worst kinds of sinners if only ten righteous men could be found within it. The idea is that society should be more concerned with protecting the innocent that punishing the guilty. God is perfect, but humans, and human institutions, are not, and that means that even with all of these prosecutorial checks, innocent men will still be found guilty. When that happens, society must rectify that error, something that it cannot do if the criminal is dead. Being sure beyond a reasonable doubt is still not the same as knowing with absolute certainty; and in my way of thinking the latter should be the standard for whether or not society has the right to punish someone in an absolutely irreversible manner.

Second, capital punishment is not a substantial deterrent. The statistics and studies I have seen have mostly been inconclusive, but think about it for a minute. Put yourself in the place of someone considering ending a life. So, Bob has wronged you horribly and you have decided that he deserves to die. The concept of capital punishment as a deterrent indicates that you will go through some kind of cost-benefit analysis before deciding to take justice into your own hands and kill Bob, so lets run through this analysis. On the benefit side, Bob is dead, making the world a better place, and hey, maybe even making you better off too (emotionally, financially, etc.). On the cost side, well, first of all you have to live with the fact that you took a human life. Easy for some, hard for others, but I’d imagine that no one really knows how they will react to that until it happens, so it is hard to quantify. There is also some probability that you get caught. So, we multiply that probability times the following bad things that happen to you should you get caught: the costs of the trial, the loss of countless friendships and family relationships, the stigma associated with being a felon, the loss of your job and career, the inability to vote, and the costs of whatever punishment that the state puts on you. Lets imagine that the choices are between life in prison without parole (some states do not actually have this punishment available, which is absolutely moronic) or death. I am sure that if you polled Americans, you would find that most people would rather spend the rest of their lives in prison rather than spend the next 3-15 years in prison (depending on the quality of your legal council) and be executed. Most, but not all, and I’d imagine that many people would be pretty much indifferent. But if capital punishment is going to be this huge deterrent against committing terrible crimes, then it also needs to be significantly worse than the alternative punishment. And especially given all of the other costs of simply being identified and convicted as a murderer, I am absolutely not convinced that the death penalty is deterring anyone who wouldn’t already have been deterred by life without parole.

Third, capital punishment is seen as “justice” or “vindication” or as “providing closure”. All of those things are really just code words for vengeance. Families want revenge on those that killed their loved ones. But revenge is not healthy, either for families or for society. It leads to anger, hatred, and violence, and it gets in the way of acceptance. Furthermore, society should not be promoting itself as a tool for getting vengeance, especially a society that claims to be Christian. God tells us both that we should love those who persecute us, and that vengeance belongs to Him.

Fourth, from a purely Christian perspective I don’t understand how we can go about killing each other for the sins we have committed. The Bible tells us that God’s love and repentance are available to everyone, and it is our Christian duty to make sure that everyone has full opportunity to repent and come to God. How can we believe that, and yet also be eager to cut the time of repentance short for some people by killing them?

Finally, capital punishment is not necessary to protect society. Again, every state should have a life without parole punishment, and I have no problem giving that punishment to murders and rapists. Some people just can’t be trusted to live in normal society, and we have to protect ourselves and our children. But there are ways to protect each other that don’t involve execution.

Bonds, Steroids, and the Fine Art of Hitting

 Posted by  Baseball  3 Responses »
Feb 232005
 

The press and the public have been pretty rough on Barry Bonds lately over his alleged steroid use. There have been suggestions that he make his test results public, that he take lie detector tests, that he do all sorts of things to finally answer the question about whether or not he has used or is using steroids. But you know what? None of that matters, even if Bonds has been on steroids his entire career. Love him or hate him, steroids or no, Bonds is one of the greatest hitters the game has ever seen, so lets lay off of him a little bit.

Look, I think that steroids ought to be banned. Besides being illegal, they represent a terrible trade-off that athletes should not be forced to make: health vs. Performance. And we shouldn’t punish athletes who don’t ruin their health, and that means leveling the playing field by banning unhealthy performance enhancers. But the fact of the matter remains that until recently, steroid use has not been against the rules in baseball. That means that even if Bonds had been using steroids his entire career, he still would not have broken any of the rules of the game. Now, if he uses them this year, that is a different matter entirely, but there has been not one shred of evidence that he continues to use steroids. And in this country we are innocent until proven guilty.

Beyond that, Bonds’ hitting accomplishments have very little to do with steroids, even if he had been on them his entire career. Look at the other high-profile cases of alleged steroid abuse: Canseco, Sosa, McGuire, Giambi, Palmeiro. These were all great baseball players in their primes, and all but Canseco might even be Hall of Famers. And yet none of them even come close to having the kind of career, or the kind of peak seasons, that Barry Bonds has had. There is so much more to all of these players than steroids, and that is especially true of Bonds.

After all, as a hitter what does steroids get you? Its primary function is to help make you stronger and build muscle mass. From a hitter’s perspective, that is mostly going to allow them to hit the ball a little bit further. Used properly, it also might make you a bit faster, maybe turning a few doubles into triples. (Although notice that none of the alleged abusers have been speed players; in fact Sosa and Bonds began their careers as base stealers and stopped running after the alleged steroid use began.) There is also some possibility that steroids might help your bat speed (I have heard varying reports about this), in which case it might turn some foul balls into well-hit balls. But the two biggest parts of hitting are knowing when to swing and when to not swing, and knowing how to swing. Bonds is the greatest hitter of the last 30 years (at least) because he has the greatest eye since Babe Ruth and the most efficient swing since Ted Williams. He also has been remarkably free of injury, which can also not be attributed to steroid use. So, imagine that Bonds was on steroids. Maybe he only hits 60 home runs instead of 73 that one year, and maybe he retires after passing Mays instead of having a shot to pass Aaron on the home-run list. But that’s really all you the difference it would have likely made.

Of course, I am leaving out one entire set of arguments: that it sets a bad example for our kids. Well, I have two comments to that. First, Bonds is not exactly a good role-model anyway; all reports are that he is moody, aloof, and just not a real nice guy to hang around with. And he hasn’t exactly gone out of his way to portray himself as a role-model to kids. He isn’t the kind of ball player who does cereal commercials and animated appearances on Saturday morning cartoons. Second, steroids are illegal and are now against the rules. If you’ve got a kid who thinks its ok to break the law or violate the rules in order to get ahead in life, then you shouldn’t be blaming that one on Barry Bonds. There are lots of examples in real life of cheaters getting a leg up on the competition, but good parents and good teachers will make kids understand that there are also real good reasons to play by the rules. And that’s true whether Bonds uses steroids or not.

So give Barry Bonds a break. Boo him because he plays for the Giants or because he doesn’t give interviews to your favorite sports columnist. But when the man comes to bat, sit back in appreciation, because steroids or no, he’s a one in a million hitter.

Bias Wrap-Up

 Posted by  The Media  No Responses »
Feb 222005
 

So, looks like this conversation has petered out for now, although I’ll probably pick it up again at some point. For now, I would encourage all of you to check out Hiren’s comments, if you haven’t already, and to participate in his informal poll about intellectual discrimination.

Next Topic: Military Doctrine

 Posted by  Foreign Policy, U.S. Politics  3 Responses »
Feb 222005
 

During the Cold War, the United States military was designed to deter a Soviet invasion, in conjunction with NATO, and to thwart communist expansion into the third world. Over time, the relative importance of these missions shifted as did the specific concepts of what force makeup would best accomplish those goals, but at least the basic idea was there. President Clinton began to reimagine the military as a tool for guaranteeing peace in war-torn regions; sort of a massive, well organized peace keeping force. This concept was never fully articulated, but it lies behind our excursions into Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. When President Bush was first elected, he rebelled against this concept, wanting to withdraw from some of our international commitments and create a streamlined, efficient military without a lot of permanent duties, but capable of fighting fast wars anywhere in the world at a moment’s notice. And then, of course, came 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and now it seems that we have lost all conception of what our military’s proper role should be. So, the question of the week is this: what should the United States military do, and what should it look like?

First of all, let’s lay out some possibilities, starting with the least controversial:

  • Protection of the United States from foreign invasion. Gotta be wary of those Canadians, ya know…
  • Nuclear Deterrence Keep a few nukes in the shed should the unthinkable happen.
  • Retaliatory Attacks/Conventional Deterrence Think Afghanistan. You bomb us, we blow the crap out of you.
  • Alliance Commitments: Specifically NATO and South Korea. This means maintaining bases in Germany and/or the Korean peninsula to facilitate coordination and training in peacetime, and to serve as a sort of tripwire should an invasion occur (not so worried about the Russians anymore, but the North Koreans perhaps still deserve a wary eye).
  • UN/NATO Peacekeeping assistance: Be ready to guarantee recent ceasefires in civil wars, such as we have done in Bosnia and Kosovo, in tandem with the international community.
  • Preemption: The original justification for Iraq. We think you might bomb us, we blow the crap out of you.
  • Protecting American Interests, Broadly Defined. From a political point of view, might include things like intervening for Israel or Taiwan (neither are allies, but we have some desire to see them prosper as nations). From an economic point of view, might include things like using military power to prevent the nationalization of American industries. Generally speaking, being the world’s only superpower and acting like it.
  • The Right Hand of God: The current justification for Iraq. If you don’t want to make steps towards freedom, democracy and the American way, then we will find someone else in your country who does.

My own thoughts are that the first three are no-brainers and that I would like to see us do the first five: protection, nuclear deterrence, conventional deterrence, Alliance commitments and peacekeeping. Our current military is about the right size, but we are terribly over-committed, especially in Iraq (and yeah, I think we should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible; not really sure what we are hoping to accomplish by staying, as I don’t see the civil war there ending anytime soon; but that is a discussion for a different day). We also really do need to stream-line our military (it was one of the things I was hopeful about when President Bush took office), and that means closing some bases, both at home and abroad, and re-examining our command structure. It also means cultivating closer ties with the international community, especially Europe, and shifting some focus away from the latest and greatest weapons systems and towards technologies and initiatives more appropriate for peace-keeping and humanitarian functions.

So, what do you think?

Bias in Academia

 Posted by  Education, Issues, The Media  11 Responses »
Feb 212005
 

There has been much discussion in the Warning Track and here regarding the general proposition that academic institutions are not liberally biased despite the uncontroverted evidence that a significant majority of professors vote Democrat.

Two general arguments have been proffered to refute this assertion: 1) proponents of the liberal academia theory cannot provide evidence linking the occurrence of voting Democrat and foreclosing opportunities for those who are Republican, and 2) academic institutions care more about your research in your field and certain other issues specific to the university setting than they do about which candidate you vote for.

1. Lack of Evidence

The lack of evidence argument certainly has merit. Mike is right. When someone articulates a theory, they retain the burden of proof. Without evidence either way, the conservatives who attack academia simply have not met their burden. But it’s kind of like assertions regarding the existence of God. You could say a religious person who asserts that God exists has failed to meet his burden of proof. The religious person could reply by saying that the Athiest who asserts that God does not exist has also failed to meet his burden of proof.

The upshot of all of this is that with a lack of evidence, we cannot make the assertion one way or the other. It is equally unavailing to say, from anecdotal evidence alone, that political affiliations do not affect advancement in academic institutions.

What we are left with is conjecture and theory. And based on that, some conservatives suggest that the Democrat / Republican split in academia is significant. We are all free to disagree, but we should know that our disagreement is not based on anything more substantial than what the conservatives have.

2. What Academic Institutions Really Care About

I think further clarity on this somewhat muddled debate depends on refocusing the issue somewhat. A lot of the commentary on this subject in our posts tends to deal with fields completely unrelated to politics. The lightning rod of the liberal bias in academia assertions has always been aimed at fields where the politics of a student will affect the students work: political science, history, sociology, etc.

I think the more general argument, however, is that academic institutions tend to foster group-think, even in the hard science fields. This is a good read about a Portuguese scientist’s struggle to get his Variable Speed of Light theory (contradicting Einstein, of course) accepted in the academic world. The point is that anytime you directly challenge what is accepted theory, you face an uphill battle to gain acceptance in academia. This will often result in discouraging and dissuading individuals from following through on their aspirations to make it in academia.

On the other hand, if your research supports or reinforces accepted ideas or is completely unrelated to accepted ideas (and thereby does not challenge those ideas), you have a far better chance of being accepted, whether through your work with a graduate advisor or your ability to be published in peer-reviewed journals.

So if you’re a graduate student in a political science department where everyone is a realist, it’s probably not a good idea to not be a realist. If you’re an undergraduate student writing an essay on the merits of affirmative action for a professor who helped design the university’s program, then it’s not a good bet to come out against affirmative action. Who knows, maybe you’ll get lucky, and your professor will be a good teacher who recognizes the merit in opposing viewpoints. But why take that chance, when one bad grade can derail your efforts to get into a good graduate school?

In the end, certain disagreements in every department and field of study pertain to fundamental differences in philosophy. For example, people who differ on affirmative action tend to have fundamentally different valuations of the importance of racial equality and recompense in our society. It’s essentially picking a different set of postulates and working toward their logical conclusions. If the postulates are different enough, the conclusions will be too. A professor who agrees with one set of postulates is likely to surround himself with others that have accepted the same or a similar set of postulates.

I know of no psychology studies supporting or refuting my last statement, so I will defer to our regular commentator Danny to shed some light on whether people tend to surround themselves with others who share a similar set of fundamental beliefs. If this is true, I don’t know if it is because people do not like disagreements or if people just fail to see the intellectual merit in those who disagree.

Regardless, it’s a shame that academia may, indeed, fall victim to the force of intellectual inertia. This is perhaps why a significant chunk of scholarship and innovation do not come from academic settings. And perhaps the advocates of more intellectual diversity in academia – in politics oriented fields and not – are seeking to minimize this inertial force.

3. Random Poll

While our readership is small, I would be interested in whether anyone who reads this can comment (anonymously or not) whether they have ever written a paper in college they did not believe in, but with which they knew their professor would agree, in order to get a better grade. After getting burned my freshman year in college, I quickly learned that this is the way to go if you want to get good grades, which leads to getting into a good law school, which leads to getting a good job. I guess I’m an opportunist because I didn’t really care that much that I had to do it, but I can see why some people are upset when they feel they must cater to the views of their professors.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries
© 2012 leftfielder.org login Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha