Anarchy X: The Eighth Amendment

Posted: September 5, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Anarchy X, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Of all the amendments to be interpreted and re-interpreted over the history of our nation, it may be the eighth amendment that has seen the most action, and is still in the greatest contention to date. Even the first and second amendments haven’t evolved as much, since they do not touch so deeply on the basic principles of what make us a society and what makes us human.

It is the specific clause of “cruel and unusual punishment” that seems to be the sticking point in most cases, and it is the one that has given me the greatest personal turmoil. In my youth I was a hardliner in many ways, for while I believed very much in the idea of a justice system that gave every possible benefit to potential defendants, I also believed that prisons were places of punishment, not rehabilitation. I also was very strongly in favor of the death penalty, in particular in cases of the most heinous crimes. I was convinced that there were some people the world would be better off without, and it was the right and the duty of society to deal with those people in the most straightforward manner possible.

I do not write these words with glee, nor do I write them with contrition. Rather I write them so as to set a basis of understanding of my own personal journey of discovery for those who may feel as I did then, or who feel differently than I do now. My hope is that by understanding the path that I have taken you may in some way understand why I believe as I now do, and even if you still disagree you may at least take some time to consider why you believe what you believe.

In terms of the treatment of prisoners, I used to believe they should be treated no better than the minimum necessary for survival. Food, shelter, and clothing were sufficient; after all, they had already proven they were not willing to contribute sufficiently to society to be a part of it, so why should society pay to keep them in any better style than the least necessary? I saw nothing cruel in this, although it might seem vindictive; after all, if I had to work to support myself, they were at least better off than I was. I have come to realize I at least have something they do not; I have the freedom to choose what I want, and if my choices are constrained by my circumstances, then so are theirs, and theirs are even more artificially constrained by having their liberty taken, even if that is the result of their own actions.

Further, it is a short-sighted thing to suggest that we should reduce humans to the level of nothing but animals, with nothing to fill their days but food, shelter, and the barest of covering. If they have nothing to strive for, no hope that tomorrow will be if not better than today than at least different, that is a cruelty and inhumanity all its own. It also breeds anger and contempt toward society among those who will someday rejoin that society; even if you do not believe prison is a place for rehabilitation, you must at least recognize the potential to create better or worse citizens among those who come out. Providing even simple things like books, athletic equipment, and exercise space allows prisoners a chance to engage body and mind. Television and internet access, even if it is monitored and controlled, provides a connection to the outside world that keeps them engaged and may even keep ennui and desperation from setting in. If nothing else, it shows in us a level of humanity that we condemn others for lacking.

The final hurdle for me was the death penalty. Setting aside the numerous studies showing the uneven and unjust applications and use of the death penalty, which no rational or honest person should, as well as the studies showing the economic unfeasibility of it, which counter any argument on those grounds; I feel there is an ethical case to be made for the elimination of the death penalty. It is not a simple case, nor is it an absolute one, but I believe it needs to be made.

The justification for the death penalty, if there is one, is that it is the ultimate penalty, and it is only handed out for the most heinous of offences, those for which there can be no lesser price. Even if one were to accept that premise, there are other factors to consider which make that untenable. I do accept that the death penalty is the ultimate penalty, for no matter how many years you spend in prison, there is always the hope for redemption, and there is always the chance of parole. There is no coming back from the grave.

In a truly fair justice system, we would ensure two things: first, that the penalty matches the crime; and second, that the bar for a guilty verdict matches the potential sentence. Obviously this would make for a convoluted and difficult system, as we would have many different potential hurdles for prosecutors to reach depending on the severity of a crime, so instead we settled on one that seems to work in most cases and that, at least at first blush, favors defendants: “beyond a reasonable doubt”. But is this enough when a person’s life is on the line? Is “a reasonable doubt” sufficient to make a person pay the ultimate price?

Absolute justice calls for absolute certainty. That is the conclusion I finally came to. Regardless of how you might feel about the morality of the death penalty in the abstract, or even in specific cases where you are absolutely sure someone is guilty, is it enough? Extraordinary cases make for bad law. Or to put it another way, are you unable to think of a single time in your life when you were absolutely sure about something, only to find out you were wrong? Care to bet your life on it?

Care to bet someone else’s?

I don’t. Not anymore.

This Is Just My Opinion

Posted: August 27, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Culture | Tags: , , , , | 3 Comments

This is going to seem like an extremely petty post to some, perhaps most people, but I really need to get this out there. If I hear one more person conflate “opinion” with “belief” I am going to scream. I have very little rational basis for this; after all, if one relies on the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the two words (and I often do), they are almost functionally identical. OED, you have failed me for the last time. AGAIN!

But in many cases language is more about the connotation of words rather than their literal definition. When we speak of opinions the connotation is that there is a connection, however tangential, to the real, provable world of facts. That’s not to say all opinions are supported by facts; “in my opinion, vanilla ice cream is the best ice cream” is a valid opinion. It is not supported by facts, unless you consider the existence of vanilla ice cream to be factual support. But it at least has a direct connection to the world of provable facts (i.e. I can prove that vanilla ice cream exists.) Even professional opinions need to have some connection, no matter how tangential and tenuous (and hear I’m thinking of lawyers) to the world of real, provable facts.

Belief is a different matter. You can believe in anything you want, regardless of its relationship to the world of provable fact. “I believe in Santa Claus” is a valid statement of belief. “I don’t believe in love” is another. Neither has any connection to the world of provable fact (unless you put stock in either the official NORAD Santa tracker or the love tester at your local bar.)

Somewhat like the humble atom, the difference is small yet significant. When you claim it is your opinion that God exists, that is very different from saying you believe God exists. Your belief in the existence or non-existence of God is your own business, same as your belief in any entity that can’t be proven or disproven. But once you move it into the realm of opinion, you are asserting that it has at least a tangential relationship to the realm of provable fact, which it by definition does not. The same holds true for many other things that people state their “opinion” about.

This may seem like I’m “just arguing semantics”, and if you think I am, you’re right. And there’s another phrase I take umbrage with. Let’s see if the Oxford English Dictionary can redeem itself: “the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.” Ah, now that’s the OED I’ve come to depend on to back up my righteous claims to moral superiority. But in all seriousness, saying “you’re just arguing semantics” is like saying “you’re just arguing economics” or “you’re just arguing law.” Words have meaning. Using them incorrectly results in hash brown goes flipped nuclear sauce. When we already have enough trouble communicating even when we use the same word (“Do you like me, or do you, you know, LIKE like me?”), we’ve got to start using the right word at the right time. It won’t save the world, but it will change a small part of it. At least, I believe it will.

Anarchy X: The Third Amendment

Posted: August 1, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Anarchy X, Politics | Tags: , , , , , | 4 Comments

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

You don’t hear much about the Third amendment these days. Everyone is more concerned with the Big Five as I think of them (First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth) to worry too much about the rest except in theory or in extremis. And why should we? After all, when was the last time the U.S. Army knocked on your door and demanded that you put up a couple soldiers for the night? Doesn’t seem like something we really need to worry about in this day and age.

I like to look a little deeper and consider the philosophical and political ramifications of these things. As I have heard the rights of man explained in many courses and in many ways over the years, there are two approaches. The first, which is more popular (and populist) than I am comfortable with, is that as a member of a community and a citizen of a country, you owe something to your community and country simply by virtue of being a part of it. And no, paying taxes doesn’t cover your obligation. There is a presumption of first claim on your person, on your time, and on your livelihood. This would then naturally extend to a first claim on your belongings, including your residence.

The second way of looking at things is that people are born with certain rights (you might even call them inalienable). These rights exist with or without the presence of a community or a government, and in fact supersede any communal or governmental attempts to restrict or circumvent those rights. This does not mean you have no reason to participate in your broader community or government, but it does put very distinct limits on what can and cannot be asked or demanded of you.

It would seem to me that the Third Amendment more fully supports the latter belief than the former. While there is room in it (that clause “but in a manner to be prescribed by law”) for some impinging on an owner’s right to privacy in their own home, even that is restricted to times of war (and no, I don’t think the Wars on Drugs or  Terror count). That being the case, there are several presumptions that flow therefrom quite logically that have a great deal of bearing on our modern lives. Not the least of these is the idea of government restrictions on how we use our own property, whether it is for housing or running a small business out of our own homes. I’m not a fan of zoning laws in general, but so long as there is no material impact on my neighbors that would be distinguishable from any other residential use, why does the government get a say?

While I’m on the subject of businesses, bear in mind that at the time the Constitution was written, for many business owners their business and their home were one and the same, and even now it’s as often a matter of semantics as reality to distinguish between a small business owner’s home and business. So why does the government get to dictate the terms of how that business is run? So long as everyone is there voluntarily, nobody’s rights are being violated. I know, being “forced” to work in an environment that allows smoking is a terrible burden. Far more so than, say, being out of work because the bar you had a job at went out of business when there wasn’t enough trade to support it… or maybe they just had to fire one bartender.

I have heard the counter-argument made, and I think it’s a fair one worth addressing, that if “every man’s home is his castle” you end up in an anarchic state where anytime you set foot on someone else’s property they can simply claim “this is my land, I make the rules, and I say you’re my slave now.” The counter to this is that the right to be secure in one’s home is based on the right of self-ownership, and that right extends to each and every individual. Violating that right in another is to surrender that right for yourself. That is the value I see in having a government in the first place: to defend the rights we each have against all comers, both foreign and domestic. However, the government that strips away those rights is no better than the brigand it is meant to defend against. I for one prefer the brigand; he is easier to bargain with, easier to fool, and if need be, easier to destroy.

Dating Advice from Philosophers

Posted: July 27, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Dating, Humor | Tags: , , , , | 153 Comments

Public domain

Niccolo Machiavelli

Dear Machiavelli,

My friends want to throw me a bachelor party. Knowing them, it will involve strippers, booze, drugs, the works. I promised my fiancée I would stay away from that kind of stuff, but I’m really tempted to go, and I’d hate to let the guys down. What should I do?

Signed,

Tempted

My Liege,

I am unsure how to advise you in this instance, for your status in this world has much bearing on the matter. Are you a common man, or are you a prince? For it is well known that those actions which are considered most virtuous in a common man are in fact a vice in a prince, and that which would be vice for the lowest laborer is in fact raised to holy virtue when undertaken by a prince. Be you of the lower classes, stay true to your course and all will be well. Be you my liege, I pray you, indulge yourself.

Public domain (ironic, isn’t it?)

Adam Smith

Dear Adam Smith,

I’m meeting a girl for a first date, and I’m not sure what I should bring. I know tradition calls for flowers and chocolates, but do modern ladies still go for that sort of thing? Or would I just come across old fashioned?

Signed,

Lonely and Confused

Dear Consumer,

The women of this age are as they have always been and as they shall always be, a part of the broader tapestry of our economic fabric. To deny that is to deny the truth of what makes all nations mighty. If you would impress and woo the lady, I would suggest you show her that you care for your nation by supporting the lifeblood of the nation: commerce. Support the florist, the chocolatier, yea, even the dressmaker and the milliner. In this way you shall prove you are a great philanthropist as well as a mighty provider.

Public domain

Friedrich Nietzsche

Dear Nietzsche,

My girlfriend and I have been together for over two years, and we love each other very much. I’m thinking about proposing, but there’s just one problem. Ever since she was a little girl, she’s had this dream of a big church wedding. I’m agnostic, and both of my parents are atheists. I just don’t see that working out. Can you help?

Signed,

In Love but Not In Church

Dear Superman,

Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. Every church is a stone on the grave of a god-man: it does not want him to rise up again under any circumstances. Is life not a thousand times too short for us to bore ourselves? It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages. Love is blind; friendship closes its eyes.

What I’m saying here is just rent out the local VFW Hall.

© Marie-Lan Nguyen / Wikimedia Commons

Plato

Dear Plato,

My boyfriend cheated on me a few months ago, and I just can’t seem to let it go. I still care about him, but I can’t get past this, and it is ruining our relationship. Should I forgive him or should I move on?

Signed,

Torn

Dear Prisoner,

What you fail to understand is that your concerns are not real. They are simply the shadows of old wounds that you cling to out of fear of losing the illusions you have lived with all your life. Throw off the shackles of your fear, and acknowledge that which torments you is naught but a specter cast by the flickering light of a neon vacancy sign. Do not turn your anger on those who would drag you into the light of truth, but rather on the one who has in truth earned it, and kick him to the curb.

Like the sun, wind, and water, this photo is public domain.

Laozi

Dear Laozi,

I feel as though my life has been spiraling out of control lately, and I just don’t know what to do. I am looking for some sense of balance, but I can’t abandon my wife to withdraw from society and meditate in nature for a lifetime. Is there some weekend course I can take to achieve enlightenment quickly?

Signed,

Seeker of Truth

Dear Ineffable One,

While in days past the search for the Tao could take a lifetime, modern society no longer has the proper respect for the venerable sage. Where the strongest oak will break in a hurricane, the supple reed will simply bend. So too does the Eternal Tao adapt to change. If you seek to understand the Way, simply wear an outfit from JCPenney while eating a sandwich from Chick-Fil-A. In this way you will know balance.

© 663highland / GNU Free Documentation License v. 1.2

Sun Tzu

Dear Sun Tzu,

My name is Jenny and I am eight years old and there’s a boy I really like and I don’t know if he likes me back and I don’t know how to ask him if he likes me and I was wondering if you could tell me how I should ask him. Thank you very much for you help.

Your freind,

Jenny

Dear Jen Ni,

The strong warrior charges in like an ox; the wise warrior is subtle and flows like water. To gauge your opponent’s intentions, send your most trusted lieutenant forward on a scouting mission to determine where he lies. If conditions seem favorable, I would suggest you send a missive of alliance, stating your intentions indirectly yet plainly, constraining your opponent’s choices to those that you would find most favorable: “Do you like me? Yes_ Very Much_”

For more, check out “Dating Advice From Historical Figures“, “Dating Advice From Mythological Creatures“, and “Dating Advice From Classical Deities“.

Newer Entries →