Politics Archive

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Thoughts on the Death Penalty

Scales of Justice with NoosesWith the uproar over the execution of Troy Davis, it's gotten me thinking of capital punishment. In short, I oppose it.

I suppose there are several arguments surrounding the death penalty and its justifications. And I guess there are a few distinct ways of looking at sentences (though not mutually exclusive). One is as punishment - justice for a crime. If a criminal did something bad to somebody, then something bad is done to them in return. Another is deterrence. If somebody knows that they'll be punished for a crime, then they'll be less likely to commit the crime in the first place. A third is simply eliminating dangerous criminals so that they can't harm anybody else. To repeat something I heard the other day, 100% of executed criminals never commit another crime.

To be honest, I'm kind of ambivalent on the death penalty being used for vengeance. This may make me look barbaric, but I really don't have a whole lot of sympathy for some people. For example, just reading about the murder of James Byrd makes me not lose sleep over the recent execution of one of his killers. But I also don't feel strongly that people should be put to death out of vengeance.

So, what about using the death penalty as a deterrent? Well, it doesn't really make much of a difference. Here's an excerpt from an article from the Columbia Law School:

When we apply contemporary social science standards, the new deterrence studies fall well short of this high scientific bar. Consider the following: Most of the studies fail to account for incarceration rates or life sentences, factors that may drive down crime rates via deterrence or incapacitation; one study that does so finds no effects of execution and a significant effect of prison conditions on crime rates. Another report shows incarceration effects that dwarf the deterrent effects of execution. Most fail to account for complex social factors such as drug epidemics that are reliable predictors of fluctuations in the murder rate over time. The studies don't look separately at the subset of murders that are eligible for the death penalty, instead lumping all homicides together.

According to a study that polled criminologists on the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent:

There is overwhelming consensus among America’s top criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question fails to support the threat or use of the death penalty.

So, it doesn't appear that the death penalty acts as a deterrent.

What about eliminating criminals to make society safer? Well, I think simple life sentences with no possibility of parole are enough to keep violent criminals away from society at large. And once you factor in the appeals process and other costs associated with an execution (each execution costs the state between $2.5 and $5 million), life in prison is actually the more economical way to keep those criminals off the streets.

So, from what I see, the only valid justification for executing criminals is vengeance (and of course, valid there depends on your opinion - there's no objective answer). The other justifications I've heard people use just don't hold up to scrutiny.


In my opinion, the strongest argument against the death penalty is that our justice system isn't perfect. Innocent people are sometimes found guilty, and as bad as it is to lock up innocent people, it's horrific to put them to death. Just consider Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for a crime he didn't commit. The state has now become the murderer.

And it's not as if false convictions are rare. Take a look at The Innocence Project for a sampling of convictions that have been overturned. According to their site, there have been 273 exonerations based on DNA evidence (since 1989). 17 of those people were on death row before being released.


So, considering that the death penalty does nothing to keep society safer, and that it carries the very real risk of killing innocent people, I don't see any reason why it should continue to be practiced.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Gary Hubbell

Well, I guess I've gone and pissed somebody off. An article I wrote back in April of 2010 has apparently just become noticed by the person I was criticizing. My blog entry was, Response to Anti-Liberal Article by Gary Hubbell, and it was in response to an article that Hubbell had written for the Aspen Times Weekly, Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation.

I've just been threatened with a lawsuit over this entry, because I included the full text of Hubbell's article. I thought the manner in which I was using it would have fallen under fair use, so I didn't think I was doing anything illegal. But, since this blog is just a hobby of mine, I don't feel like getting caught up in a legal battle over it, especially since I'm not an expert on copyright law. So, for the time being, I've modified the entry to remove most of Hubbell's content.

For reference, here's the e-mailed threat that I received. I suppose I should mention that it's possible to spoof e-mails, so there's no guarantee this is actually from Hubbell.

From: Gary Hubbell [e-mail address redacted]
To:
Date: 24 Sep 2011, 10:21:29 PM
Subject: You have one day to remove my copyrighted content from your website

I will sue your stupid liberal ass for more than you ever knew you possessed if you don't remove my copyrighted content from your website at once.

If you don't believe me, contact your copyright attorney and see who's right and who is wrong. I know the law and you don't, you ignoramus.

It would be fun to go through with this, because you have defamed me, I can prove it, and you have violated my copyright.

tick...tick...tick...

Gary Hubbell, Broker/Owner
United Country Colorado Brokers
Hotchkiss, CO 81419

[contact info redacted]

It's also worth mentioning that I'm far from the only person who has reprinted Hubbell's article in its entirety. If you just google "Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation", you'll find many, many pages which have simply reprinted his article, with minimal commentary. Like I wrote above, I would have thought that the manner in which I inserted commentary throughout would have made my blog entry fall under fair use, while those other reprints I see are clear copyright violations. I wonder if Hubbell is going after all of them, or just me, because I happen to disagree with him.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Thoughts from a Retired Republican

Republican ElephantOkay, I've been blogging an awful lot about politics recently, but here's one more. I'm going to mention an article titled Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult, written by Mike Lofgren for the website, Truthout. This article has already made the rounds on many liberal and progressive websites, but I'm guessing I have a few readers who don't frequent those sites, and who might not have seen this yet.

What prompted Lofgren to leave after nearly 30 years of service? Here's how he put it.

I left because I was appalled at the headlong rush of Republicans, like Gadarene swine, to embrace policies that are deeply damaging to this country's future; and contemptuous of the feckless, craven incompetence of Democrats in their half-hearted attempts to stop them.

Here are a few more quotes to give a taste of the article.

To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics.
The debt ceiling extension is not the only example of this sort of political terrorism. Republicans were willing to lay off 4,000 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees, 70,000 private construction workers and let FAA safety inspectors work without pay, in fact, forcing them to pay for their own work-related travel - how prudent is that? - in order to strong arm some union-busting provisions into the FAA reauthorization.
Everyone knows that in a hostage situation, the reckless and amoral actor has the negotiating upper hand over the cautious and responsible actor because the latter is actually concerned about the life of the hostage, while the former does not care. This fact, which ought to be obvious, has nevertheless caused confusion among the professional pundit class, which is mostly still stuck in the Bob Dole era in terms of its orientation. For instance, Ezra Klein wrote of his puzzlement over the fact that while House Republicans essentially won the debt ceiling fight, enough of them were sufficiently dissatisfied that they might still scuttle the deal. Of course they might - the attitude of many freshman Republicans to national default was "bring it on!"
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.
Thus, the modern GOP; it hardly seems conceivable that a Republican could have written the following:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." (That was President Eisenhower, writing to his brother Edgar in 1954.)

It is this broad and ever-widening gulf between the traditional Republicanism of an Eisenhower and the quasi-totalitarian cult of a Michele Bachmann that impelled my departure from Capitol Hill.

There's much more. Even if you don't agree, at least go read it to see a view different from the typical right wing e-mail forwards.

Friday, September 2, 2011

Thoughts on Gun Control

Gun ControlGun control is a somewhat controversial issue. For some reason that I don't understand, it tends to follow party affiliation, with Republicans being more apt to oppose gun control laws, with Democrats more likely to favor gun control laws, and in even more extreme case, gun bans. I'd always been a bit torn on the issue, so I figured what better opportunity to research it than to write a blog entry about it.

Let me start by saying that I'm not going to consider the Constitution at all. After all, the Constitution is just a piece of paper that's only worth how it's interpreted and enforced. The Supreme Court could suddenly decide that the clause about "a well regulated Militia" is fulfilled by the National Guard and doesn't protect private gun ownership, or they could go back to a pre-1920s interpretation where the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, or the House and Senate could even pass a Constitutional amendment repealing the second amendment. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are documents I like, but they're not scripture. They were still written by fallible men. So, I'm more interested in the underlying justification for gun ownership.

I'm also going to try to avoid some of the sillier arguments people use. For example, I've heard people bring up isolated cases of gun control, such as D.C.'s handgun ban, and pointing out how ineffective they are in reducing crime. But of course, when you can hop on the Metro and in 20 minutes be in a location where you can legally purchase a gun, the ban's not going to be very effective. Any cases worth considering have to be widespread enough to have a real impact.


The main issues to me seem to be:


  1. Just how dangerous are guns?
  2. Do gun control laws make society safer?
  3. If gun control laws do work, is it a trade-off in personal freedom vs. safety that we're willing to make?


So, how dangerous are guns? I guess it's time to start looking at the statistics.

I went to the CDC Deaths and Mortality section for some overall mortality stats, and was able to find stats for 2005-2007. I also went to the CDC Injury Mortality Reports site for firearm and other injury specific stats, which I found for the years 1999-2007.

General Mortality Statistics
Stat Total Deaths, 2005-2007 Age-Adjusted Rate Avg. per Year
All Deaths 7,297,993 not calc'd 2,432,664
 
 
General Injury Mortality Statistics
Stat Total Deaths, 1999-2007 Age-Adjusted Rate Avg. per Year
All Injury Related Deaths 1,481,325 56.28 164,592
Motor Vehicle, Overall 400,993 15.24 44,555
Homicide - All Causes 161,747 6.14 17,972
Homicide - non Firearm 55,622 2.12 6,180
Homicide - Firearm 106,125 4.02 11,792
 
 
Firearm Specific Injury Mortality Statistics
Stat Total Deaths, 1999-2007 Age-Adjusted Rate Avg. per Year
Firearm - All 269,871 10.24 29,986
Firearm - Suicide 152,056 5.77 16,895
Firearm - Unintentional 6,587 0.25 732
Firearm - Homicide 106,125 4.02 11,792
Firearm - Legal Intervention 2,891 0.11 321
Firearm - Undetermined 2,212 0.08 246

Okay, so what does that tell us? First of all, I think it's important to separate out the suicides from other gun related deaths, since someone wanting to commit suicide will find a way to do so, and the method of choice isn't much of a deterrent. So, once you do that, there are around 13,091 gun related deaths per year, with 11,792 of those being homicides, and only 732 being accidents.

To start, let's just look at that 732 accidental deaths per year due to guns, since those are the deaths of innocent people that can be attributed to people using their guns legally. Given that the U.S. population is around 300 million, that's a really small number. It's much smaller than the deaths due to motor vehicles. Perhaps an even better comparison is that in the year 2000, 567 people died from drowning in pools (source).

So, at least from that standpoint, I don't think it's worth banning guns. I'd put that in the category of acceptable risk. However, I wouldn't be against reasonable legislation that would help reduce that risk (i.e. gun safes, trigger guards, etc. - though I don't know enough about those methods to comment on them). Going back to the pool comparison, it's like the legislation that requires you to have a fence around a pool - not a big deal.


However, there are still nearly 12,000 homicides committed each year with guns. That's not huge, but it's still big enough to be troubling. It's roughly 7% of the injury related deaths in the U.S. per year, but only around 0.5% of the total deaths. One interesting point is that there are roughly 6,200 homicides each year that don't involve guns. Now, it's important to remember that most guns are purpose built killing machines*, and they're really damn good at it (or else we'd equip soldiers with some other type of weapon), but in close quarters one on one confrontations - the type likely to be involved in assaults or home burglaries - weapons such as knives can also be used. So currently, gun related homicides are double those of non-gun related homicides, but if guns were to magically disappear tomorrow, you can bet that quite a few criminals would switch to carrying around other weapons, and that the non-gun related homicides would increase.

Also, a common point made by gun rights advocates is that it's criminals committing murders, not law abiding citizens, and that criminals won't respect gun control laws. And for a certain segment of criminals, that's certainly the case, especially those involved in organized crime. However, for petty thieves or crimes of passion, a hypothetical gun ban may have some effect in keeping guns out of their hands, reducing those criminals' danger by forcing them to use less effective weapons.


But all that's starting to get a little too hypothetical. Are there any stats on this? Unfortunately, it's hard to find. The biggest problem is that compared to other prosperous democracies, the U.S. is just so violent. For example, in 2004, the intentional homicide rate in the U.S. was 5.5 per 100,000 people. In our neighbor to the North, Canada, it was only 1.95. In the United Kingdom, it was only 1.75. In Australia, it was only 1.5. And in Austria, it was only 0.72**. Obviously, not all of those murders can be attributed to guns, especially considering my discussion above where around 1/3 of homicides in the U.S. currently don't involve firearms, and where non-gun homicides would likely increase if guns were to disappear. But it shows that the U.S. isn't comparable to other prosperous democracies when it comes to homicides.

Australia is often cited in discussions on gun control laws due to their gun buy back program from a few years ago. The problem is, Australia's situation wasn't analogous to the U.S. prior to the program, since they already had more restrictive gun control laws, and the buy back program wasn't a full ban - it only banned certain types of guns. And there's still the point that violence in Australia wasn't as bad as in the U.S., so it's not an apples to apples comparison. So, whether you listen to the people cherry picking data to try to make it look like violent crime has increased dramatically in Australia after the program, or the people who point out that in the longer term that violent crime has decreased in Australia since the program, it still doesn't tell you what would happen in the U.S. if very strict gun control laws were passed.


I have one last bit of discussion before wrapping this all up - anecdotes. I know, anecdotes aren't data, but this is a blog, so I think they're permissible. I've known of two people who have had to defend themselves with guns. One was the father of a friend. The other was the neighbor of a relative. So, I haven't heard the stories first hand, but I'm not too far removed.

In one case, a criminal was trying to break into a home by attempting to knock down the front door. The man of the house heard what was going on, got his shotgun (or rifle - I can't quite remember), and shouted a warning. The criminal continued to try to break in. So, the homeowner shot through the door, shooting the criminal. It turned out to be an addict high on something. I think the homeowner did the right thing, especially in retrospect. If someone was acting violently, and didn't heed a warning, who knows what they would have done once they were in the house?

In the second case, a young man somehow got crossways with a local gang. I've only heard a one-sided second hand version, but he claims he was just attempting to buy some pot when the dealers tried to mug him, and he embarrassed them by actually stealing their guns and getting away. Whatever the case, several of the gang members showed up at his house at night, and broke in through the front door. The young man was shot several times, and one of the gang members was shot with a shot gun. Had he not shot back with a shot gun, what would have happened?

So, those are two examples I know of where guns were used in self defense. The first example, especially, is a legitimate example of a law abiding citizen who very likely might have been harmed had he not had a gun.


Okay, so let me go back to my three original questions.

1. Just how dangerous are guns?

As far as legal uses - not too bad. The number of people killed accidentally by guns is about the same as people who die accidentally in swimming pools. That's a level of risk I'm willing to live with.

As far as murders - guns are used to commit homicides twice as often as other methods, but those homicides account for less than 1% of the deaths in the U.S. per year.


2. Do gun control laws make society safer?

Honestly, I don't know. I haven't seen any good examples to point one way or the other. I'm sure some types of gun control laws work to reduce accidents, but I don't know about strict gun control laws or bans. My gut feel is that in the absence of guns, certain criminals would switch to other weapons and still commit murders, but it's probable that the murder rate would go down at least somewhat.


3. If gun control laws do work, is it a trade-off in personal freedom vs. safety that we're willing to make?

Without being able to quantify the first part of that, it's hard to define what that trade-off would be. As I've mentioned, I think there would be some small decrease in violence. Certain types of criminals (petty thieves, crimes of passion) would be without guns to carry out their crimes, but that would be partially offset by some of those switching to other, though less effective, weapons. Other types of criminals, especially those in organized crime, wouldn't be as affected by gun control laws. And all this must be balanced against law abiding citizens losing a freedom, and the potential ability to protect themselves.


I haven't seen enough data to indicate that gun bans or strict gun control laws would markedly reduce violent crime, and I would hate to take away people's freedoms out of fear. That's not to say I'm against gun control laws entirely. Things like gun safes, trigger guards, etc., while I can't comment on the individual methods, seem like reasonable precautions that don't unduly affect people's freedom.

So, all in all, I would prefer to err on the side of freedom in this, and only pass minimal gun control laws that keep society safer, but not go so far as to ban guns or anything close to that extreme.


*I know, I know. Many people like to go target shooting. But most of my personal acquaintances go target shooting mainly to stay in practice for hunting or self defense - the primary function of their guns is still to kill something.

**I chose 2004 because the data is available for many countries for that year - the rates have fluctuated slightly since then. Also, to put that into worldwide perspective, the highest rate in 2004 was Jamaica at 54, and the highest rate listed on that Wikipedia page was 71 for El Salvador in 2009. Though Jamaica and El Salvador aren't prosperous democracies, and not the societies I'd think the U.S. should emulate.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Republican Candidates' Bigotry

Defend EqualityI realize this makes for three political posts in a row (I try not to focus too much on politics), but here's one more issue that makes it hard to seriously consider some of the leading Republican candidates - their bigotry towards homosexuals. As reported in Reuters:

Texas Governor and Republican presidential contender Rick Perry has signed a pledge vowing to support a Constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be a union of one man and one woman, the group sponsoring the pledge said on Friday.
Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, among those competing with Perry for Republican presidential nomination, have also signed the pledge, the group said.

Not that public opinion polls should be used to defend civil rights, but just to be clear, according to Gallup, a majority of Americans do support marriage equality, and the trend has been towards further and further support. When are Republican politicians going to get the memo that their bigotry doesn't represent Americans' views?


I first heard of this story from The Digital Cuttlefish. Go check out his site for his poetic take on the issue.

Archives

Selling Out