Death and Taxes and Eric Garner

The death of Eric Garner has struck a chord in a way that Michael Brown's did not.  For one thing, there is video evidence lacking in the Michael Brown.



The outrage over the tactics used to arrest a man for selling untaxed cigarettes has provoked outrage.  Further outrage ensued when a Grand Jury failed to indict, just as in the Michael Brown case.  But there are some big differences in these two cases.  Michael Brown credibly committed a crime against persons before his encounter with the police.  Further, there is evidence that Brown put the life of officer Wilson in danger.  From this video, we see that Garner was no such threat to the police.

We also have to ask why the police feel that they have to enforce tax policy?  Even if Garner was in fact selling smokes illegally, why can't you give him a ticket and a fine?  Why the arrest?  What the hell is going on that the police have literally become the health police in New York.

The answer is that this the ultimate enforcement power of government.  We should be careful about what we make illegal, because government has the force of arms to kill us to comply.  This is why the individual mandate in Obamacare is so pernicious.  I can easily imagine a scenario where someone dies as federal agents attempt to seize assets for non-payment of the health care penalty.  Gives new meaning to the term "Death Panels."

tea party Opposition to the Death Penalty

An issue that had completely disappeared from my view was thrust in front of me this morning when I opened the U-T to find that a repeal of the death penalty had qualified as a California ballot initiative for November. I am not in the mainstream of conservative thought in my opposition to the death penalty; but my reasons that should resonate with tea party and conservative thought.

The tea party is nothing if not skeptical of government. Yet through the death penalty, we entrust to government the ultimate power of deciding the life or death of American citizens. I do not trust that our institutions of justice can apply the penalty fairly or without error. The thought of a man (and it is usually men) who would be wrongfully put to death is too horrible to contemplate. Yet, we have any number of cases where those on death row have been exonerated. My skepticism of government leads me to conclude that it cannot be trusted with a task such as deciding life and death, even of criminals.

The death penalty is expensive to carry out, surely a factor for fiscal conservatives. One might argue that part of the reason it is so expensive is that the appeals process can be abused or over used. However, given that some on death row have been later exonerated and given the finality of the sentence, can one blame defense attorneys for using all available means to prevent the execution of their clients? Of necessity, the process will be costly in our system of justice.

I do not believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to murder. The studies are mixed but reputable scholars who have good pedigree in statistical methods assert that the studies do not show high correlation with deterrence. From Jeffrey Fagan's testimony.

These studies fail to reach the demanding standards of social science to make such strong claims, standards such as replication and basic comparisons with other scenarios. Some simple examples and contrasts, including a careful analysis of the experience in New York State compared to others, lead to a rejection of the idea that either death sentences or executions deter murder.

I am pro-life, and I am sure many of my readers would identify themselves as such. I cannot condone the state sponsored killing of any human being. Euthenasia, abortion and the death penalty have this in common, they take human life based on the judgement of other human beings under government approval. We have seen earlier where argument for "after-birth" abortion based on the same logic that leads to allowing abortion. Similarly, it seems inconsistent to be pro-life and in favor of the death penalty. We should be against "death panels" and the death penalty, because only by respecting the sanctity of all human life can we restore a moral foundation for our society that has been lost through the widespread acceptance of abortion.

Further, there is evidence that the race of the victim is highly correlated with whether the death penalty is applied. Even if we find causal factors other than race for this outcome, it is not acceptable in our desire for a color blind society. This disparate outcome gives rise to great moral passions that undermine respect for the rule of law.

As a Christian, though not a Catholic, I still look to the Pope for moral inspiration and guidance. Here is some of what Pope John Paul said in 1995.

Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) says that punishment "ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity," that is, only when it would be otherwise impossible to defend society. And the pope teaches that such cases of absolute necessity where society cannot be defended in any other way are "very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (#56) That view is echoed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which applies the principle of self-defense to the protection of society, and states:

"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

"If however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (#2267)

I would ask fellow conservatives to consider voting to abolish the death penalty this November.

About Those Death Panels - More Overreach

The left is on the defensive over federal funding to incentive doctors to counsel patients to forgo aggressive end of life treatment, aka "death panels." I am not arguing that doctors shouldn't have a discussion about end of life treatment and patients make their wishes known ahead of time rather than in extremis. Good planning is good planning. But here is why I object to the regulations: (For a full explanation of the issues see the BWD article and read the comments.)

• Under what sane system can the administration impose regulation explicitly rejected in the law by the Congress? (This is why this example gets the coveted dictatorial overreach moniker.)
  
• The regulation provides for unlimited number of discussions, albeit only annually. At some point how does this differ from your doctor bullying you?
• The left argues, as they always seem to when caught in some shenanigans, that this rule was first implemented under Bush. As if George Bush was suddenly elevated to paragon status by the left. I point out that under Bush doctors could only be reimbursed for this once.
  
• Why did Democrat Earl Blumenauer tell supporters of the rule to keep it quiet?
• Those supporting the regulation refuse to admit that the government has a financial interest in encouraging patients to forgo treatment. You can argue the merits of the regulation, but denying the government's financial interest is dishonest. And frankly, that's what gives average Americans the creeps. If the administration can incentivize the discussion, what's to stop them from incentivizing the outcome. What lack of awareness causes the left to be blind to this?
  

If you disagree, please comment.