Always Look on the Bright Side...of Death

There has been a lot written on the death penalty, both for and against it. Personally, I think little of it really gets at the underlying issue. Here's our problem: we have people we don't want in society. We want to kill them. Good, I say, but if we're going to do it, let's do it right, and not fuck it up like we're currently doing. There's statistics that say that more minorities are being killed than white people, and some that say that 30% of the people are innocent, etc. While statistics do lie, in this case, they begin to illustrate the fact that our death penalty is poorly implemented.

What are the problems? Well, for one thing, those that support the death penalty usually oppose abortion, calling themselves "pro-life", which I think is completely hypocritical if they support the death penalty. But I digress. The main problem with those that support the death penalty is that they tout it as being a 'deterrent' for people to not commit capital crimes, their reasoning being the one may think to him or herself 'Hmm, if I commit this crime, I may be convicted and sentenced to death for it.' Well, the problem is, most people don't think when they do these things, or there's something in the back of their mind that says 'I'll never get caught'. So, the 'fear of the death penalty' reasoning is bullshit. At that, some super-left wingers may say "If it's bullshit, then the death penalty must be abolished." I say that's a load of crap, too. The death penalty, if used correctly, does work; just not in the way that it is touted to. How does it work? It prevents those who are executed from ever comitting any crime again. As a matter of fact, it prevents them from doing anything at all--they're dead. You don't see John Wayne Gacey killing any teenage boys anymore. You don't see Ted Bundy stalking sorority girls. Why? They're fucking dead. They can never have their conviction overturned on technicalities; they can't be released to a mental hospital; they can't escape from prison; they can't sell their memoirs for loads of money. They're dead. I say good--let's make sure the serial killers are where they can never hurt anyone again--six feet underground. The finality of the death penalty does beg the question of the evidence used against the accused, which brings me to my next point.

Our courts don't require enough evidence to convict someone of this crime. Sure, there has to be 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt', but you can convince a jury of that without any physical evidence. Hell, look at the OJ trial. He killed Nicole without any doubt. Look at Robert DeCaro. Look at any number of rich motherfuckers, and you'll see the same thing: they got off. Why? Because their lawyer was a better storyteller than the other. If you're poor, then you get convicted because most pro-bono DAs can't even tell a joke at a bar much less convince a jury that their client is innocent. Well, that shit needs to stop. If there is no physical or irrefutable evidence (like a videotape of the crime), then the death penalty can't be applied. Let's say that you raped a woman, then strangled her to death, leaving your DNA all over the place. OK, you get to die. What if you shot someone to death and there was only ballistic evidence and nothing else? Then they might be able to send you to life in prison, but they can't use the death penalty--not irrefutable evidence. This keeps the few innocents off death row that don't belong there. For those that do get sentenced to death, it allows us to do one thing that we really need, my next point:

It takes entirely too long to kill someone. If you're sentenced to die, it should be as soon as possible after the pronouncement. Two weeks should be about max. You get sentenced, then you die. Big deal. Since you need irrefutable evidence of your crime to be sentencted to death, you can't cry over it. You did it. Now society deems you unworthy of breathing. Bye.

The fourth major problem is that the methods of killing, with one exception, suck. Most are cruel and unusual, and they all cost too much. Gas chamber? Horrible way to die. All of your muscles contract at the same time as you suffocate internally from having the iron ripped out of your blood by the cyanide. Electric chair? Who thought that shit up? Dr. Frankenstein? Seriously, that's very cruel and incredibly unusual. Lethal injection is the only humane way to go, but it's expensive. So, what do we need to do? Shoot people. It's not cruel or unusual at all. Look at how often it happens every day. It's what we train our soldiers to do. Our country has killed far more people with bullets than by all kinds of execution combined. It's fast, it's cheap, and it's much less cruel than anything we have except lethal injection, which is too expensive. I'm not talking firing squad--no, each state needs to pay a full-time executioner, whose job it is to shoot people at point blank range with a 12-ga. 00-buckshot nitro-express load in the head. Sounds bad, but it's quick and painless. Strap the bastard down in the chair and let 'er rip. If you don't want an executioner, you can have a computer fire the gun. It makes no difference. You won't miss at point blank range, and with such a hot load, even though you may be spending as much as $0.80 per round, it's guaranteed to kill instantaneously.

The last major problem with the death penalty is that it's not applied fairly. It is not applied in 'mitigating circumstances' and it's not applied to crimes that definitely warrant it. The death penalty is not applied to those who are deemed to be 'insane' or 'not in control of themselves'. What? They were on drugs when they did it? What the fuck? They did it, there's irrefutable evidence that points to them as the killer, and they freely admit it? Kill the fucker. I don't give a shit if he's retarded, insane, or was just fucked up on drugs and alcohol at the time--WE DON'T NEED THEM IN OUR SOCIETY. You shoot someone who breaks into your house, or if you accidentally kill someone, you're excused to a lesser charge, if any. You are on drugs and fire a gun or operate a motor vehicle, it was your own damn fault and bad decision, so sorry, but you don't get to make any ever again, because you will be dead. You're insane you say? It was a chemical imbalance in your brain that led you to rape and murder 8 year old girls? You definitely need to get a 12-ga. slug through the brain. If you did it, and there is no question about it, you go. I mean this to apply to rich bastards, too. No more white-collar prison for politicians that break the law. You are a senator that hires a hitman to kill your wife? You drive drunk and kill someone? You get the shotgun treatment, too. No mercy for the rich.

To further this last point, the death penalty needs to be applied to more crimes than murder. What about rape? This is a sticky subject, and it wouldn't be able to be applied in a 'he said-she said' situation, but for the small percentage where the rapist doesn't know the accuser and there's physical evidence pointing to the rapist... I mean, really--think about it--you can think up a few reasons to kill someone, from good ones (like self-defense) to poor ones (accidental, revenge). Can you honestly tell me that you can think of any reason to rape someone? That's right, there's not. You die, too. You molest children? Boom. Want to torture animals? How about cut down trees? Confiscate fireworks? (Well, maybe the last two are a little harsh...) We need to take a good look at what we need to get rid of people. There are those criminals that are unreformable. We either need to separate these prisoners and hold them for life, or kill them. I'm not sure which I'd prefer, honestly. It seems a bit harsh to kill someone for armed robbery, but if they've been doing armed robbery for 10 years, maybe they need to go. Of course, this is all to do with irrefutable evidence as well. For criminals that can be reformed, we need to educate them and send them back out into society as productive members. If you're unreformable, then you need to spend the rest of your life in a 9x12 room. No daylight. No exercise. No TV. You never leave. You are unreformable. You therefore get punishment, not reform. Humane treatment is reserved for those who act like humans. If you get out, you'll just spread more misery. If you believe bullshit statistics, 80% of crime is comitted by only 30% of the population, meaning that there are some very unreformable people out there.

One last option that we might consider is to give criminals a choice for the death penalty. If they are of the non-reformable group and won't ever be getting out of prison, then they should be given the choice of whether or not they want to spend the rest of their days in a cell or if they want to die quickly. Although many may choose to live, they may start to lose interest after 15 years of darkness in a cell eating cold grits and hotdogs.

Segways, Horses and Police Bears

Today our school had its annual open house, where all the different organizations on campus come and have a booth or table set up so that they can show off their wares. Well, our city police were here, too, and they had their own little demonstration area. Now, you have to understand, the police department here scrapped their mounted police unit in favor of Segways. The officers were letting the kids ride around on the Segways (if they were wearing a helmet, of course). I asked one of the officers how fast they could go. She said "About 12.5 mph, but you can't really sustain that for long." I also inquired as to if they had any mounted police left to which she gracefully replied "Horses? They're too messy and smell bad."

I no longer have any faith whatsoever in my city's police force. Nevermind that they had a shootout with a bank robber and since their officers were such wimps that they had to call a neighboring jurisdiction to come and shoot it out with the bankrobbers. Nevermind that their officers are busy writing parking tickets when robbries and burglaries are occurring, but when it comes time for the big games at the football stadium, the officers are nowhere to be seen in writing tickets for people illegally parked who are blocking in residents. The mere fact that we have even one police officer that thinks Segways are better than horses is pathetic. Let me put a small list together for you to compare their advantages for the police force:

Horse:
1. Can gallop at nearly 40 mph. You aren't going to outrun it.
2. Can take rough terrain, including hills, creeks, curbs, rocks, mud, etc.
3. Mounted officer has a high vantage point to look out over a crowd.
4. Can side-step large crowds back if they are creating problems.
5. Is large and intimidating.
6. If officer becomes disarmed, can trample assailant.
7. Does not require batteries.
8. Generally has a service life of 20 years.
9. Doesn't cost $50,000 per vehicle.

Segway:
1. Does not shit on the street.
2. Does not require food.
3. Has no detectable odor.

Well, there you have it. An officer on a Segway is unlikely to intimidate anyone, can't chase anyone who chooses to flee on foot over grass, up a hill, or through a rough area, or even on paved surfaces for that matter, considering that the average human can run 20 mph at a dead sprint. In additon, the Segway has a notably shorter service life, and is absolutely useless for crowd control. I submit that the only way a Segway is useful for crowd control is if it is swung overhead in a fashion not unlike Conan the Barbarian with his two-handed sword. Perhaps our Governator should take up crowd control with a Segway.

This brings me to my next point: I think that police forces should work more closely with animals, not less. For instance, everyone knows the effectiveness of police K-9 units. Suspects who are perfectly willing to shoot at human officers give up very quickly when confronted with a large German Shepherd charging at them. Rather than just dogs, why not use other animals? I have a few suggestions:

1. Police Raptors - Let's train some bald eagles and red-tailed hawks to pursue a suspect from high above, much like a helicoptor, although less noticeable. Then if the suspect is trying to get away, the raptor can be trained to swoop down and tear the scalp off the bastard. A peregrin falcon can dive at 183 mph. At that speed, it could rip your scalp off, have a nice snack, and be back to the officer before the suspect had time to scream. Unfortunately, some of these birds are endangered, so suspects shooting at them or battering them when they were having their eyes clawed out might not be such a good idea. Well, on to the next animal.

2. Police Siberian Tigers - They run fast. They jump high. And they weigh 800 lbs. You give the tiger the go word, and it'll run down that fugitive faster than the German Shepherd. Don't want a tiger chasing you? Don't deal drugs. The only real problem, if it can be called that, is the cat's instinct to immediately eat the suspect. This would be a really great idea for suspects in rural settings. The tiger could climb trees and wait in ambush, pouncing on the suspect and crushing his ribcage in one giant leap. Unfortunately, the Siberian Tiger is also endangered, and we couldn't have any harm to the animal population, right?

3. SWAT Rhinoceroses - So a rhino wouldn't be a good member of the regular force. They tend to charge things and trample all in their path, plus they're pretty darn big to stick in a police cruiser. But they're the perfect size for a SWAT van. Could you imagine being a gang banger loading up your gat when you see the SWAT van pull up? You're expecting those normal SWAT guys with the BPVs and the AR-15s when you see a giant black rhinoceros plod its way out of the van much to the relief of the axles. You will most likely throw up your hands and surrender without a fight. Of course, since the rhino is already out of the van, you may still be trampled if it sees you.

4. Police Bears - This may honestly be the best idea. Imagine using grizzly bears on the force: they can outrun you, they can take bullet hits, then can bash down doors, and damn do they have the intimidation factor down. You could use it for normal routine foot patrols as a sidekick to the officer (the kids would love it), or you could use it for a SWAT entrance. Strap a nice oversized blue BPV onto the bear, maybe a helmet and some black ski-goggles, and presto--you have no more need for a battering ram. The bear simply charges the door and winds up sitting atop it, crushing the bad guy who was waiting behind the door with the loaded gun. And who is going to stand up to the bear? With what? A 9mm? A 12 ga.? No way. You need an extremely high-powered rifle with a large bullet weight, and you're gonna need to shoot that thing at least 10 times--a hell of a lot more if the bear is wearing level IV armor. Not many criminals carry around a .458 Win Mag hunting rifle. They're more concerned about shooting up their buddies with some POS Tec 9. Sorry, but the bear's hide alone will stop that. And then you've pissed off the bear. If you're going into a real nest of bad guys who are out to kill the cops, then you simply don't feed the bear breakfast and instead of shooting tear gas through the window, you fire exploding cannisters of brown gravy.

Think my ideas will ever see fruition in Kalifornia? I don't either.

Terminal Man

A beautiful quote from Michael Crichton, from The Terminal Man.

"The automobile was important to Los Angeles, a city more technology-dependent than any in the world. Los Angeles could not survive without the automobile, as it could not survive without water piped in from hundreds of miles away, and as it could not survive without certain building technologies. This was a fact of the city's existence, and had been true since early in the century.
But in recent years Ross had begun to recognize the subtle psychological effects of living your life inside an automobile. Los Angeles had no sidewalk cafés, because no one walked; the sidewalk café, where you could stare at passing people, was not stationary but mobile. It changed with each traffic light, where people stopped, stared briefly at each other, then drove on. But there was something inhuman about living inside a cocoon of tinted glass and stinless steel, air-conditioned, carpeted, sterepohonic tape-decked, power-optioned, isolated. It thwarted some deep human need to congregate, to be together, to see and be seen.
Local psychiatrists recognized an indigenous depersonalization syndrome. Los Angeles was a town of recent emigrants and therefore strangers; cars kept them strangers, and there were few institutions that served to bring them together. Practically no one went to church, and work groups were not entirely satisfactory. People became lonely; the complained of being cut off, without friends, far from families and old homes. Often they became suicidal--and a common method of suicide was the automobile. The police referred to it euphemistically as "single unit fatalities." You picked your overpass, and hit it at eighty or ninety, foot flat to the floor. Sometimes it took hours to cut the body out of the wreckage.
Moving at sixty-five miles an hour, she shifted across five lanes of traffic and pulled off the freeway at Sunset, heading up into the Hollywood Hills, through an area known locally as the Swish Alps because of the many homosexuals who lived there. People with problems seemed drawn to Los Angeles. The city offered freedom; its price was lack of supports."

The last sentence describes more of Kalifornia than you can know unless you've lived here. Most of the natives are oblivious to it because they never knew anything else. It's pretty sad.