Sterlize, or execute?
Todd Culbertson
Jun 11, 2008
Gov. Time Kaine recently commuting the death sentence of an inmate he considered to lack the mental competence to be executed. Many years ago, the eugenics movement urged compulsory sterilization of individuals deemed unfit. In a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Virginia’s sterilzation law, Oliver Wendell Holmes (one of America’s most admired jurists) said, “It is better for the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their line.“ Jean Bethke Elshtain, professor of social and political ethics at the University of Chicago, tells the story in her new book, Sovereignty: God, State, and Self. It’s a tough read that requires intellectual commitment but a rewarding one. A final point: One hundred years ago enlightened opinion embraced compulsory sterilization for the feeble; this week a governor cite mental illness as a reason to spare a murderer’s life. That’s progress. Yes, or no?
Has society come along way since the eugenics movement?
An excellent resource. You have posted very interesting information. I hope that your site will be developed. Let us more new articles =).
Accupril of USA
Sep. 22, 2008 at 08:45 AM
I was looking for this information a long time. Thank you very much. I think that will be your constant reader.
Gudzon
Sep. 15, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I think there is evidence from studies suggesting that capital punishment is not a good deterrent to crime.
Pharmacy of USA
Aug. 1, 2008 at 01:13 AM
1) I agree with Larry that the predominate issue facing all of us is the crime itself and the need to protect society.
2) The morality of when to or not to sterilize is an ethical and moral issue all right, but I think our playing God is a dangerous game. I don’t fault either decision because I would hope there were circumstances that dictated or at least facilitated the outcomes.
This is difficult to explain. For most people morality trumps pragmatism. Fine. I just don’t want to argue hyper-moral distinctions because we are not God-like beings, just flawed humans trying to protect society as best we know how.
Am I saying I don’t trust your/our/their moral judgment? Yes.
Why do we need people from the Univ. of Chicago to explain the finer points of morality to us ? Isn’t that akin to medieval exercises in determining just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?
3) To address Larry’s 2 points - I think there is evidence from studies suggesting that capital punishment is not a good deterrent to crime.
The problem I have with such arguments is that folks get fixated on the deterrent value of crime when in fact they should recognize the value to society of protection.
Executing a criminal provides a sense of closure to the victim’s family. Sure, we have potentially trampled on the murderer’s rights, but really, if you kill someone, you can never repay that debt to society. You can not redeem that act. If you commit ritual state sponsored suicide to appease the family, then do it please.
Criminals who do get out commit more crimes, sometimes heinous crimes. Do they deserve the right or privilege to do this ? If we can rehabilitate an ax murderer, does that mean he earned this privilege ? Do we really want to risk our family that he was in fact rehabilitated ?
Can we afford the cost of endless appeals ? More lawyers. Can we truthfully state that warehousing a criminal in a max facility is either humane to him or fair to us ? Some would say that, but I dunno. Most max facilities are not really my idea of either humane or inexpensive.
*I do support reforming the jury and criminal justice system so that we don’t execute the wrong man. Staff juries with technical experts and utilize DNA databases.
*I support better mental health facilities - instead of our guilt over how the man never received adequate treatment, he should have had fewer opportunities to go off his meds and do the damage - more oversight and followup - less concern for his “privacy”.
*I support humane execution. I see little value in a civilized society in causing the perp pain. Any execution is a tragedy, even that of a monster.
*I support alternative jails, once again, to head off possible ax murderers before they reach the point of no return or keep them locked up, but locked up humanely, not warehoused like an animal.
*I support a limited appeal process, so they don’t bankrupt society in order for us to “prove” we were fair and equitable and just.
*I support 3 strike laws.
*I support lighter sentences for non-violent drug related crimes if there are extenuating circumstances. Dealers get hard time.
Ed of undisclosed location
Jun. 12, 2008 at 03:43 PM
Well not really Mr. Culbertson. I don’t think its genuine progress because I don’t think the mental issue is where the ‘true test’ of progress really lies. The bottom-line issue is that we have violent crime in society. The problem to solve is what can we do to stop violent crime.
The real deep question to examine is: What does an execution actually accomplish toward lowering crime?
On this, a couple of points to ponder:
(1.) The death penalty likely would lower violent crime drastically IF we had a lot of executions. I.e., you murder you get the death penalty. No considerations.
(2.) Executing just one murderer every 2 years (out of 1000 murderers)—is that really doing anything toward the goal of lowering violent crime? HAS that really helped lower the crime rate?
Would love to hear others address those 2 points, specifically.
Larry Lanberg of VCU
Jun. 11, 2008 at 04:11 PM