Can I kick it? No, you can't.

Death Penalty Redux

It's been eight years since I wrote about the death penalty, and my opinion overall really hasn't changed for the most part. The salient points:

It doesn't really serve as a deterrent, because no one seems that concerned about it.
There's good evidence that innocent people were executed, either because of new DNA evidence or malfeasance by police and/or prosecutors.
Even if you can get someone sentenced to death, it's at least 15 years before anyone ever gets around to it. It's really terribly costly, all told.

So, those are my reasons for being being opposed to it, and fine reasons they are, but even so, I don't really object to the principle of the thing. My feeling is not that capital punishment isn't so much wrong or cruel as it is simply misapplied.

I believe that if you have incontrovertible evidence of a crime, video, DNA, more than ten eyewitnesses, I mean really ironclad stuff, then go ahead and kill the guy. If shaky eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence comes into play, then the death penalty is off the table.

To the point of its misapplication, the evidentiary threshold shouldn't only be applied to capital murder cases. It should apply to particularly brutal assaults, major financial crimes, rape, and especially child rape.

What I know of pedophiles is that it seems as though many would, if a therapy was available or a switch could be thrown to stop the urges, would gladly do it. Most pedophiles don't want to be pedophiles. (This isn't to excuse any of the behavior.) My point is that these guys are wired a certain way, and no amount of therapy or threat of prison is going to stop them from doing what they do. If the proof meets the high bar, then execute him. Give him the mandatory appeal, but if he's ruled against, he has 48 hours to get his affairs in order.

If you want to know how high a bar I'm setting for proof, I'll put it this way: Without knowing nearly all the details of the case, and based solely on what I've read, Jerry Sandusky wouldn't qualify for execution. As far as I know, there isn't any proof other than one eyewitness and that of the victims. There's no visual or auditory proof, and no DNA that I'm aware of. If I'm wrong about the scarcity of more ironclad evidence, then I gladly nominate that scumbag for the end of a rope.

The same applies for the other types of crimes I mentioned, and probably a bunch more. A guy who beats the hell out of his wife and kids was probably beaten as a child by his parents, and his own kids are going to end up beating their own children. Just end it. Break the chain, and let's put the defective genes to bed.

There are certain people who cannot be rehabilitated or fixed. Given that even rapists who were "chemically castrated" still found ways to commit sexual crimes, there's just no point to keeping these people around if they've been proven guilty to the degree I've described.

I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative, I'm a rationalist. My views and opinions are based solely on what makes sense. You can argue with me about this if you want, just so you know, you're wrong.

DNA

A very interesting read in the Sunday New York Times, an article about the ethical concerns over the continuing decoding of the very stuff that makes us who we are.

It's probably been over a decade since I first recall hearing about the possible prejudicial misuse of a person's DNA, in this case, having to do with medical records and insurance. If a person had a genetic scan, and was determined to have a high likelihood of developing brain cancer, diabetes, or some other ailment, then what was to stop insurance companies from denying a person coverage based on the almost certain knowledge that the poor bastard would ask for care some day?

This would be an almost uniquely American problem, I have come to understand, knowing now that all other industrialized countries have removed the middleman/vultures from the equation.

But the focus of the Times article focused on an older, more deep-seated way that the better understood nature of genetics could be misused: To reinforce racial stereotypes.

We are, all of us, very nearly identical genetically. 99% is pretty damned similar, and yet, in the remainder, there are differences worth noting. They are visible under a microscope, and quite obviously, visible to the naked eye. Most of us aren't at all burdened by the superficial, cosmetic variations, but there are already some interesting things being noted.

For example, it has been observed that there is a genetic marker in those of Asian descent that causes those persons to sweat less that those of African or European lineage. It's kind of interesting, and I can only assume that there is a sensible climactic reason for why this should be. Some people of West African descent have been noted to be far more resistant to certain diseases than people whose ancestry lies elsewhere. I'm sure as time goes on and science progresses, we will find out about many more racial idiosyncrasies, some merely odd, and perhaps some that won't be too popular.

At this early stage of the science, there has already been some indicators of differences in the IQs of persons with different ancestry. Again, all of this is speculative, and dealing in averages. Further study may disprove this entirely. But what if it doesn't?

What if it turns out that the average IQ of a person of African descent is (let's say) five points lower than those of Asian and European ancestry? And I'm talking about proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What will we do with this information? Will scientists be pressured to bury the findings because we are taught to believe that we are all created equal, and no one wants proof of an actual tangible difference?

I'm sure your various racist and white supremacist groups would suddenly embrace science en masse just to get the maximum value from a finding like this. Of course, the fact that the Klan and Fred Phelps' church exist at all is a pretty fair argument against white superiority, but I'm sure they'd miss the point.

And if this IQ difference was proven true, in the real world, would it matter? Five points isn't much, really. But what if it was ten points, or twenty-five? I can't imagine that there would be any way to prevent a finding like that from having an enormous impact on society at large. I mean, no one wants to hear proof that they might be inferior.

But again, if the science is good, you can't simply pretend that it isn't. The article quotes a Neonatologist named Perry Clark as saying, “To say that such differences aren’t real is to stick your head in the sand and go blah blah blah blah blah until the band marches by. When was the last time a nonblack sprinter won the Olympic 100 meters?”

So, that last bit talks about a physical difference that may be true, and it may be merely anecdotal. I watch sports, so I've heard various theories about why certain groups seem to excel in certain sports or events. But OK, why in the past 30 years hasn't the fastest man in the world in the 100 meters been anything other than a man of African ancestry, no matter how many generations removed? If there is a genetic difference, and one that becomes more marked at the highest levels of athletics, is that a problem?

I don't sense that it is. I don't think people of European or Asian ancestry begrudge this "advantage" that descendants of Africans hold. I imagine I might find it annoying if everyone assumed I was good at basketball just because I was black, but I'm quite positive I wouldn't appreciate scientific proof that I was, on average, mentally inferior to whites and Asians.

Again, the jury is still a long way from being in where this science is concerned. I don't think you can squelch science just because you don't like the results, unless, of course, you're in the Bush White House. But for those of us that value the scientific method, and for truth to be proven out, where would this kind of knowledge leave our society, one that is already so utterly consumed by race?

Friday, October 05, 2012

Sunday, November 11, 2007