Did you read anything other than Malkin's discription of Rideau?

Malkin describes Rideau as an "unrepentant murderer." She tells his story as basically "Rideau robbed and murdered ... then Rideau walked free. Be terrified! Murderers are walking the streets!"

The fact is Rideau at *age 19* robbed and killed people. Rideau then spent 40-plus years in prison doing what he wasn't able to do on the outside -- he learned how to be a decent human being. He spent a significant portion of his time in prison outreach trying to help kids who were in danger of turning to crime. He became a writer.

If you truly believe that a person can't be changed over time, then why be opposed to the death penalty? Why not just kill them -- after all, a killer is a killer. Keeping them in prison won't change them.

But Rideau did change. That's what makes him an anti-death-penalty story -- because he went from being an evil killer to a good person. That means that we're killing people we call "evil" instead of finding the good person in them and helping it come out. That's the true tragedy of the death penalty.

Malkin tries to cover up that change by calling him an "unrepentant murderer." Rideau today is a 60-year-old man with a resume of public service a mile long, and she wants to treat him like a 19-year-old ignorant murderer.

Because treating him any other way would be admitting that executing 19-year-old murderers kills the 60-year-old public servant they could become with the right help. That's the true tragedy of the death penalty.

To reach someone like me -- who opposes the death penalty on principle, but doesn't really want Wilbur Rideau wandering the streets -- addressing the issue isn't about making me feel sympathetic to the criminals or the executioners.

This is why the label of "bleeding heart" is so apt for people like Gonnerman, with all the implied contempt that label carries. Theirs is a cheap substitute for compassion -- designed not to inform decisions about what kinds of powers the state should or should not have, founded in a legitimate concern for those who might be wronged by that power, but rather to manipulate the emotions in hopes they could make the opposing position on that issue viscerally distasteful to contemplate honestly.

And one can only wonder why they prefer to discourage honest contemplation of the issue from both sides.

Gonnermn would have done far better to approach the argument as Aaron did above.

McGehee, agreed, that would be a much better way to approach the argument.

Araron, yes I have read other things about Rideau--although I doubt that you'd approve of the source. I started reading about him last week on National Review in the Corner.

Here's my problem with your argument, though: I don't support the death penalty for the practical reasons I stated and because I think it's wrong to kill when you don't absolutely have to. That doesn't mean that I think that prison, for someone who would otherwise be on death row, exists primarily to rehabilitate that person. I think prison exists to keep the rest of us safe from the worst of society (in these specific cases).

I don't believe that there's a good person just waiting to come out in everyone, I don't believe that everyone who says that they've changed truly has, and I don't believe that sorry is good enough to forgive some crimes. The fact that he was 19 when he committed the crimes doesn't make me think that he was less wrong when he did it or that it was somehow forgivable that someone died.

His resume of public service and his writing doesn't change the fact that he selfishly murdered another human being, and when someone steps that far outside the bounds of our society's rules I don't know that I believe he should ever get to be truly free again.

I think life imprisonment, as horrible as that might be, is a far kinder sentence than killing the inmate.

Who knows how many lives Mr. Rideau has saved by his 40 years of efforts to get jail-bound kids on the right track, and to reform the prison system? Had we executed him, how many of those kids he's turned around would have gone on to be killers like he was?

Clearly the 19-year-old who killed a helpess hostage 40 years ago had something inside him besides pure evil. That "good" part came out when he went to prison -- had we killed him, we'd have killed that "good" part. He has spent much of his life since then trying to help others get out of the situation that caused him to be a killer.

Further, the idea that we should just lock up such people arbitrarily for life every time also destroys the good in them. This idea that people who commit evil acts are always, or even mostly irredeemable ends up throwing away the good parts in people. The death penalty, and any type of punishment that just throws wrongdooers in jail and throws away the key, just heaps destructive acts on top of other destructive acts.

That's what bothers me about the fact that some people want this clearly good, harmless 60-year-old man to be treated like a 19-year-old killer. When you want a 60-year-old man who has dedicated the past 40 years of his life to helping people to pay for the acts of a 19-year-old, you're not punishing the 19-year-old anymore. You're causing pain to a different person in the hopes of making you and society feel better. Especially in this case.

I think there's a desire to simplify life and human beings, to categorize them into "good" and "evil" that ends up hurting everyone and not helping anything. I think it's a big part of why the U.S. has so much crime and so many people in prison -- because society is so quick to alienate the desperate ones who have trouble being "good."

"The problem is that the death penalty can't be administered without error"

There has yet to be one documented case of this in our recent history. If there was, places like the Village Voice would always start their articles with: "John Q. Citizen, an honest man caught in the worng place at the wrong time."

Is there a possibility of it in the future, maybe, but not likely. It is far more likely that we let a killer go, than actually arrest and kill the wrong person.

"Every other state is doing away with the death penalty, Texas is putting in the electric bleachers."

That depends on what you mean by error. If you mean that, following an execution, the prosecutor has come forward and said "we were wrong -- that guy was innocent" then sure. But how often to prosecutors ever do that for anything? And what would be the point? Why in the heck would a prosecutor admit to killing an innocent man?

Many executed prisoners are alleged to have been innocent, with strong evidence to back up the claim; but as long as you let those who kill decide whether or not they've executed an innocent man, they'll always have a 100% record of accuracy.

http://www.capitaldefenseweekly.com/25casesdraft.html
http://www.amosking.com/legal/reprieves.htm
http://www.spectacle.org/0600/death.html
http://www.truthinjustice.org/irreversible.htm

Why is the death penalty the only policy issue which is unacceptable if less than perfect? Its not because of the death. We could all drive tanks at 20 mph max speed limits. 10s of 1000s of completely innocent random deaths and greivous injuries would be prevented. But we don't. You probably will laugh off the example. And then continue to agonize over an imperfect but careful and deliberate decision that results in the death of specific people convicted of capital crimes rather than random slaughter for the sake of getting to work more quickly.

Why is the death penalty the only policy issue which is unacceptable if less than perfect? Its not because of the death. We could all drive tanks at 20 mph max speed limits. 10s of 1000s of completely innocent random deaths and greivous injuries would be prevented. But we don't. You probably will laugh off the example. And then continue to agonize over an imperfect but careful and deliberate decision that results in the death of specific people convicted of capital crimes rather than random slaughter for the sake of getting to work more quickly.

Because there is a distinct difference between an accident and an intentional act. The government can't keep accidents from happening or stupid people from doing stupid things--it can keep itself from killing inmates, though.

You'll also note that I said that even if the system were perfect, I would still be opposed to the death penalty.

I am opposed to the death penalty and that sometimes shocks some of my Protestant friends. A phrase I like to repeat when they begin to quote Old Testament (and thus old law) to me is "If everyone returned an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, we would all be blind and toothless." That's not to say I don't believe defending myself, my family, or my country. I will take up arms, and might have to die by them, in order to protect, but this Christian believes that only God can, in perfect judgment and being perfectly righteous, can take life.

Now, from a practical standpoint, the death penalty is far more costly than life imprisonment. It does absolutely nothing to reform the criminal. It is simply a punishment, and as I a parent I recognize the need to punish, but to a greater extent to help the child rid themselves of an offending habit or personality trait through daily discipline and education. Sometimes I let the reap the natural consequences; other times I intervene. I think that counseling should be required of every public offender, and medications administered if necessary. I realize that the government can't force the inmates to take medication or to be receptive to cognitive therapy, but it can offer it and keep it's own conscience clean by it's honest attempts at reforming and changing criminal mindset and behavior.

Now, don't ask me "what if someone violently murdered your child/spouse?" I haven't experienced that and God-willing, hope I never will. I do believe that principles determine our actions, and by adhering to them now, I will be as conservative with my own wrath and desire for revenge as I expect others to be. I have read studies that show that the families of those who have been murdered or been the victim of a violent crime, show no more long-term resolution when the criminal has been executed than those whose offender has not been. I hope that I can trust God Himself to administer justice when human government cannot or does not.