Re: Death Penalty: vision 2020: Eric E./Bruce Livingston

[Eric Engerbretson <votive@earthlink.net>]

Bruce,

Thank you for your amazingly well-informed reply to my post.  I obviously
need to study the issue further (as I do with all issues).

In reference to your description of life in jail-- the living conditions for
*death-row* inmates is a bit of a moot point, because they shouldn't be
living on death-row, they should be, um.... dead. How long it takes for that
to happen is another problem with that system.

I was talking about LWOPers. And I never said that life on the inside was
warm-fuzzy and comfy-cozy. But you cannot deny that when you look at how
many of America's poor live, as I have personally witnessed in places like
Little Haiti (Miami), Chicago, New York, Arkansas, Nashville, LA, St. Louis,
Kansas City, Minneapolis, and many other cities, that life in prison would
certainly be more comfortable than what they are used to.

And yes, OF COURSE, "most of the inmates at Idaho Maximum Security
Institution are there because we want them to be, not because they purposely
got caught"-- I'm not saying that jail is a DESIRABLE place for most
criminals (even though it was for that one man I met). I am simply saying
that if the punishment for crime was harsher, less crime would be commited.
My point was that when it comes to the moment when a person has to decide
whether or not to commit a crime, I believe, in our country, it is likely
that a person will think "why not go ahead and take a chance on this crime--
worst case scenario, I get caught, which isn't that bad anyway, chill for
awhile, play the good boy and I'll be out early anyway-- so I'll take a
chance."   

Please don't patronize me by saying I only know what life is like for
fat-cat inmates. I've counseled inmates, performed music programs in many
prisons in many countries, corresponded with inmates, known well a number of
prison chaplains, I've listened as a few inmates poured out their stories to
me and commited their lives to God.  I may be naive about the written law
and the intricacies of the system, but I know what I have seen, and I've
seen both sides of the fence and been around the block a few times.

You wrote:
>When you recognize that DNA is not present to exonerate someone in the vast
majority of cases, you should realize that >the system is and will remain a
long way from "air tight."

By 'air-tight', I didn't mean completely air-tight (we are human), I simply
meant more air-tight than the current system.

Bruce, you made a marvelous point about mistaken eye-witness testimony with
wonderfully good references.  Yes, this is a horrible thing that is very
real. But, since both sides of the over-all argument will necessarily
include human error I still feel that I need to vote for the system which
provides the least amount of suffering for the smallest number of innocents.

You wrote:
> "I don't quite understand this fixation of yours on parole."

My apparent fixation probably stems from my lack of understanding of parole
and its workings. But I have seen inmates interviewed, I have personally
heard them talking about it, and I know this:  far too many inmates get out
far too early.  Some are let out simply for no other reason than that there
isn't enough room in prison.  For many of them, their time served is
enrollment in crime school, and then they are out.  Of course, there are
many examples of criminals who are totally rehabilitated and go on to
fruitful lives, thank Goodness.  But there are far too many for which the
system fails, justice is NOT served, and the public is put at risk. For the
same amount of money that we spend on one ridiculously priced
"rehabilitation" facility we could build a number of cheaper, less
comfortable prisons AND put more money into social work  to keep people from
making that wrong choice in the first place.

In the midst of your cogent and precise arguments, Bruce, you made a few
statements that are as silly as you think mine are. For example "Are you
suggesting that we should lock up a juvenile delinquent for life, because he
did something wrong, or might?"  Of course not-- but I am suggesting that he
serve the full time that the judge determined was best, and I am suggesting
that if he intentionally took a human life he should pay with his. Anything
less cheapens and is disrespectful of human life. God determined that human
life was so valuable that there could only be one payment for stealing it.
To let a first-degree murderer live trivializes the life of his victim.  As
with most things in the world, if something costs less, it is less valuable.

Again, thank you for your impressive letter, Bruce, but I still hold to a
few dogmas:  

€ In the grand view, more innocent people are caused to suffer by a nation
not having captial punishment than if the death penalty was nation-wide,
consistent, speedy, and consequently,  feared by the public. (of course,
this is assuming that there will be case error on both sides)

On the issue of crime & punishment, as with every issue, I believe that
human wisdom and humanistically concieved methods may appear wise on the
surface but they will ultimately have undesirable consequences. Both in my
own life, and from what I see on every other scale, when things are done
God's way they will reap good fruit, and when they are done by men playing
God, they will reap bad fruit.

Which leads to the obvious question "who is to say what 'God's way' is?"
That is clearly one of the greatest debates ever, so I won't venture into it
here, but briefly-- I think it can be proved that the Bible is a text that
is itself a miracle, that could have only been communicated and compiled by
the True God, where other scriptures fail.  If this is true, than God has
communicated clearly to us how to bear good fruit in our personal lives, our
families, and our nations. The fact is, the only reason that the United
States is currently the "greatest" country on earth is because it was
founded by men who believed in and founded the country on basic
Judeo-Christian principles which were established by God. While most of the
founding fathers had all sorts of personal hypocrasies, and huge doctrinal
differences, the basic principles were there.  If our country had been
founded on the current pop American religion of "everything is true if it
feels good to you-- real truth offends no one--all things are relative--
absolutes are presumptuous" we would have gone the way of Rome by now.

So while I, being relatively uneducated and uninformed, may have trouble
debating some issues which I haven't studied sufficiently, I know some
simple truths that always ring true.  God is good, people are selfish, and
human wisdom will lead to folly unless it is born of the one true God.
These truths will guide me as I consider every issue-- including the
death-penalty debate.

Sincerely, 

Eric Engerbretson