The start of each new year is a time to reassess and plan for the future. The coming year offers many opportunities for change and as we move into 2008, Progressive Nashville authors Jim Grinstead, Rick Lewis and Catherine McTamaney offer the top 10 things we'd like to see come true.
4. An end to the senseless occupation of Iraq. (Jim Grinstead)
5. Despite Mr. Dean's plan to plant more bushes downtown, Nashville has no specific, city-wide plan to decrease our collective influence on the sustainability of our environment. Kudos to the last Council for setting the bar higher for new public buildings, but it's still too low to limbo. (Catherine McTamaney)
6. Rooves and meals. - Nashville has a growing homeless community and a disturbingly intensifying anti-homeless public rhetoric. We need to stop thinking of a safe place to sleep as a luxury and of homelessness as the choice of the lazy. Effective policy and funding would go a long way. (Catherine McTamaney)
7. (a) Chris Dodd for Majority Leader so that Democrats don’t let this happen again. And again. And again. And again. (Rick Lewis)
7. (b) We need a mayor, city council members, school board members, state legislators, members of Congress and a President who put the people and their needs first. We need leaders committed to taking action and a public willing to back up that leadership with support and hard work. Leaders need to value results over who gets credit. (Jim Grinstead)
8. Paper ballots and an end to the electoral college. (Rick Lewis)
9. Equitable urban development. - Not just commercial and luxury high-rises downtown, but real livability in our urban centers, both to combat our suburban sprawl and to rebuild some of the neighborhoods that Nashville's community has lost as a result. (Catherine McTamaney)
10. End to the Death Penalty - I will shed no tears for serial killer Paul Reid when he dies on Jan. 3. He is disgusting and evil. It is beyond my capacity to have sympathy for him. (Rick Lewis)
His death, however, will not accomplish anything other than revenge—which is not and should not be the purpose of our justice system. To drag a person out of a locked cell from which he would never be allowed to leave or escape, then tie that person down and kill him, is wrong. I have to keep reminding myself of that on an intellectual level, because I know the graphic details of the Paul Reid murders and emotionally I can’t get myself to care or mind at all that he is being put to death.
There are several reasons why people support the death penalty:
1. To protect society.- Once someone is locked away in a box for the rest of their life, society is completely safe from them. Since this argument is so quickly and easily refuted, it inevitably leads to…
2. It costs to much taxpayer money to incarcerate someone for life. - This is the most bizarre argument for the death penalty, because it reduces the worth/sacredness of a human life to a dollar amount. If it only cost taxpayers $10 a year to keep a killer behind bars, would that make a difference? What about $1,000? What dollar amount makes you say, “you know what – just kill ‘em”?
The morality of killing someone doesn’t change based on a financial motive. I think people on both sides agree this is a matter of justice, not budget.
3. It’s a deterrent. - There is no evidence the death penalty discourages violent crime. None. Crime stats don’t change one bit when a state or country adopts the death penalty or get rid of it.
Why not? Because killers either don’t care about the consequences or they think they can get away with it. Nobody commits a murder thinking they’re going to get caught and being okay with that because there’s no death penalty. They’re not thinking, “Let’s see. The penalty for this crime is 40 years. Totally worth it.” There’s no careful consideration of the penalties. No thorough analysis of all the benefits and risks. These are killers we’re talking about.The consequences do not enter into the decision. The death penalty is not a deterrent.
4. The Bible says it’s okay. - Only in the Old Testament. Nowhere in the New Testament does it ever say anything about any sin or crime being worthy of death. In fact, it says the opposite over and over again. Every time someone asks Jesus, “shouldn’t we hurt/punish/stone this person,” he says no. Every time.
When Jesus came across a criminal condemned to death by stoning, what did he say? “Let ye without sin cast the first stone.”
What did you think the moral of that story was? That adultery was okay? No. That adultery doesn’t deserve death but other crimes do? No. Jesus is saying you do not get to judge what other people deserve. You don’t get to decide who deserves death, just like you don’t get to decide you deserves hell. That’s God’s job. And He’s got it well under control.
If you want to lock someone away to protect society from them, great. But you do not get to judge who deserves death.
Revenge is not on the list, although it is the only potential justification for the death penalty that is actually accomplished by carrying it out. You can call it “retribution” if the word revenge bothers you, but really that’s just a semantic change. Either way, I can understand the desire for it, on an emotional level. I don’t blame anyone for wanting it.
But the justice system is not set up for emotional satisfaction (as if that could ever be achieved after a murder anyway). Revenge is not justice.
By the way, why the heck did TCASK (Tennessee Coalition Against State Killing) not name itself the Coalition Against State Killing in Tennessee — which would have the anagram CASKIT?? Missed opportunity!
Comments