The Violin and the Death Penalty

violin

USA If these low-IQ murderers don't know that it is wrong to kill, why do they usually do it where no one can see them? Thomas Sowell - being a bit silly here - but a good read

Many people love to delude themselves with the over-simplified notion that because a man 'knows' that what he is doing is wrong (e.g. as evidenced by the fact that he runs away from the scene of the crime) then it assuredly follows that he is both morally and fully responsible for his actions.

But when it comes to those who are pretty retarded, mentally speaking, it's a bit like me claiming that I 'know' how to play the violin!

Sure I do.

I know that to play a violin, you stick the big end under your chin, and then you rub this stick with some horsehair on it over the tops of the strings, while pressing down on the pressy bits with the fingers of your other hand, sometimes here and sometimes there.

Piece of cake!

Oh yes, according to many folk, I 'know' how to play the violin all right.

................

Of course, this would be a silly notion.

But the serious point is this.

Knowing right from wrong is not that easy.

And what is right for some people is wrong for other people.

It's a mess!

Is it surprising, therefore, that low-IQ people often don't get a decent handle on what is right or wrong?

Throw in a lousy upbringing, stupid parents, no education and, for example, a chance to make good money by selling drugs and, Hey, What do you expect?

Shot and killed a policeman.

USA Suarez was convicted of gunning down Dallas police Officer Lawrence Cadena, 43, during an undercover drug sting. He was 19 at the time. link now defunct

Ah yes. Caught up in a drug sting.

Shot and killed a policeman.

Aged 19.

Fully responsible, even though he chose neither his genes nor the environment in which he grew up.

Who created that environment one wonders?

Who was in charge, eh?

Why, it's the very same people who executed him today!

I would just love to know how a growing boy is supposed to be entirely responsible for not having drummed into his own head the fact that dealing in drugs, carrying a gun and shooting a police officer (who was disguised as a drugs dealer) are very bad things to do.

How is a boy supposed to know these things while growing up, eh?

Whose job is it to ensure that he grows up to be a reasonable person?

Oh yes, I remember now.

It's the job of his parents, his teachers, his social workers, his government - and others.

So, tell me.

Whose fault, exactly, is it that he ended up being what he became?

Dear AH

In last weeks tickertape you were talking about Suarez who killed a cop when he was 19. ...

How old does someone have to be

How old does someone have to be before you will say that they are responsible!?

Dear G

I don't know the answer to that question But it seems to me that for the past three decades or so children have been taught very clearly that they are not responsible for very much.

For example, they are deemed not to be able to 'consent' to anything - which is not the case. They might not be able to understand well enough complex issues, and so cannot give any legitimate consent to matters that arise from them, but they can most certainly give legitimate consent in simpler and more immediate circumstances e.g. whether or not to steal the apple.

And yet I could not possibly recount the number of times that I have heard parents and 'experts' deny that children should take responsibility for their actions. For example, they often seem reluctant to restrict poor behaviour on the grounds that this would somehow 'repress' children and unfairly limit their freedom of action.

Children are also often led to believe that they are victims - often of their parents - and that they are 'entitled' to pass the buck in matters of their own behaviour. And what rings constantly in their ears is that the adult world must always consider their welfare as paramount - 'the best interests of the child' etc.

Children therefore often grow up feeling that the world revolves around them, that they are responsible for nothing, and that respect and consideration for others are not part of their curriculum.

Why should they suddenly believe any differently when they become young adults?

Why should they suddenly believe any differently when they become young adults? There is no Responsibility Switch that automatically flicks itself on at the age of 16!

Today we hear a lot about rights, but very little about responsibility.

I am all for disciplining children when they are young, and for teaching them to take responsibility and to be considerate to others at a very early age.

But if, by the age of 19, many young adults have not managed to be taught these things successfully, then it must be the society in which they grew up that has failed them.

I am now 58. I was well brought up and I had a good education. And I'm quite bright!

I was still a boy at the age of 24.

Nevertheless, I can assure you that, as far as this complex world is concerned, I was still a boy at the age of 24.

Unless children are taught how to behave properly and to take responsibility for their actions, adults can blame no-one but themselves when things go badly wrong.

By executing criminals like Suarez - and calling them 'evil' - people are just really closing their eyes to where most of the blame lies.

Suarez could not have been fully responsible for where he ended up

In my view, particularly at age 19, Suarez could not have been fully responsible for where he ended up. Maybe he was 50% responsible. Maybe 70%. But maybe only 10% if he was as thick as two short planks.

I just don't know.

But the death penalty suggests that he was close to 100% responsible, and I just cannot accept this.

His genes were not of his making, that is clear; but neither was his environment.

A growing boy does not choose his parents, his home, his house, his teachers, his classmates, his neighbours, his neighbourhood, his brothers, his sisters, his aunts, his uncles, his abusers, his religion, his beliefs, his values, his attitudes, his perceptions, his gender, his language, his history, his brain structure, his education, his hormones, his dysfunctions, his anatomy, his chemistry, his physique, his face, his intelligence, his empathic ability, his country, his emotions, his food, his allergies, his 'damage'.

He doesn't even get to choose his own name!

So how can he be 100% responsible for what he does at age 19?

It is very convenient for governments to try to pass the buck on crime and to put all the blame on the offenders themselves. But given that it is governments and their officials that are largely responsible for the environments in which children develop, it is governments and their officials that need to take most of the blame for crimes.

This is not to say that they are necessarily to blame for individual crimes, but they are most definitely to blame for the levels of crime.

any government that promotes single motherhood probably also promotes violent crime.

For example, fatherlessness is a major factor when it comes to violent crime. As such, any government that promotes single motherhood probably also promotes violent crime.

And I do not think that we should let governments escape their responsibilities in this area by allowing them to pin all the blame automatically on to whoever ends up being a criminal - particularly a young criminal.

Also see, ...

The Death Penalty - Pros and Cons

Death Penalty For Cop Killers?

Finally, does anyone here seriously believe that the death penalty would still be in operation if it was women, rather than men, who were the ones mostly being executed?

See Women Who Kill Too Much - The Twelve 'Female-Only' Defences to Murder