[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 21



GLOBAL:

Time to give death penalty idea the hook


On the island of San Lorenzo, it seemed, they had it all figured out. The
local dictator, Papa Monzano, had justice down to a science.

Monzano used 'The Hook' to mete out punishment. In fact, it was the only
punishment: a giant meathook that was indelicately thrust between the
shoulder blades of anyone stupid enough to break the law. Kill someone?
The Hook. Jaywalked? The Hook. Stole a bicycle? The Hook.

Voila. No more crime. They had to use it for everything, of course,
because they needed to eliminate disputes over the level of crime
committed and the appropriate response.They created an easy answer. In
fact, they only had to use the hook once every couple of years, because
everyone knew what would happen if they broke the law.

The island of San Lorenzo isn't real, and neither is The Hook. It was an
invention of the great American writer Kurt Vonnegut, in his novel Cat's
Cradle.

But when I was a kid, I thought The Hook was brilliant. No fuzzy logic,
just black-and-white justice. No more crime. Think you should punch that
guy? The Hook. Want to speed in traffic? The Hook. Don't be bad, and you
won't end up on the hook.

Then I grew up and realized people, on both sides of the law, make
mistakes. Not everyone who does something wrong does so because they're a
bad person. And sometimes we're the ones who make the mistake, by
convicting the wrong guy. But you can't haul a mistake down off a
meathook, apologize and send it home.

The willingness to use science to try and make simple answers out of
complex problems was the book's theme, and the hook just a nice
sledgehammer-like point of clarification. But it's a valid and important
one for those who think Canada -- or any nation, for that matter -- should
reconsider the death penalty.

As long as humans are fallible, a decision by the state to kill someone
could be the wrong decision. It is exponentially easier to prove
reasonable doubt than guilt beyond a doubt, even in the age of DNA
testing. And as long as systemic flaws lead to wrongful convictions, the
decision to kill someone is too risky.

Even if you assume there is no way that you have the wrong guy, you open
the door for people who are willing to stretch that assumption when they
should challenge it. In the last two weeks, the Sun received letters from
four separate readers -- seemingly normal folk who loathe killers and
rapists -- who think it's acceptable to risk killing the odd innocent in
exchange for the arguable deterrent benefits of the death penalty.

It's one thing to see vengeance as justice, to say an eye-for-an-eye
should in some way be an underlying component of our rehabilitation-based
system. It's quite another to advocate state-sanctioned murder.

I fear crime. But I fear the inability of both the justice system and the
government to get it right even more.

We cannot assume that bringing back the death penalty would lead to
radical shifts in the criminal mindset and suddenly deter miscreants.
Anyone who thinks the vague possibility of death as the worst possible
punishment is enough to deter a criminal needs to sit in court sometime --
or check the crime rates in Texas.

We need to separate the repeat, chronic offenders from the remaining
majority of one- or two-time criminals, and figure out how to stop them.
In the meantime, we could try jailing them for their entire sentence and
even using the option of consecutive sentencing.

It may not be The Hook. But we won't have to look back and wonder if we're
as bad as those we fear.

(source: Edmonton Sun)