I am facilitating a discussion for freshman tomorrow on the book 'Dead Man Walking', and am trying to brainstorm some questions to ask... I want to shy away from the religious aspects of the book, and even to some extent the ethical questions. Rather than use this as an opportunity to argue or reiterate beliefs people already have, I am hoping we can delve a little deeper and get into some of the common assumptions society makes about the criminal justice system through capital punishment. I hope I can succeed.
Protecting the social order - what does this mean? Are there social or cultural factors that play a role in the death penalty? Ie, does race, education, economics, gender have an affect on people's behavior when it comes to committing crime? Are most of the people behind bars for murder male or female? Are there as many violent deaths in poor urban areas as in white suburban neighborhoods? Does the criminal justice system take into consideration these different factors? Are all people given equal protection under the law? Or do we think that politics, education, color, wealth, family connections, may play a role in how punishments are dolled out? And if so, isn't it equally logical to assume that some of these same factors play a role in why people commit crimes?
Why, then, does the criminal justice system continue to operate in its current manor? Do people really not know or understand that the system could be prejudice? Does the death penalty appear to be irrelevant or a means of resistance to the social order? Or does it help uphold the social order?
If most people can acknowledge that the system itself is flawed, is it fair to continue with capital punishment?
One line of thought suggests that the death penalty is not to blame for the inaccuracies in the criminal justice system, and therefore shouldn't be abolished because of a racist, classist system. Does that provide adequate rationale?
If the philosophy of the criminal justice system is to reform prisoners, is the death penalty in staunch opposition to this goal? Or are there some who are really beyond reform? Did the two prisoners in the book seem to be beyond reform? How do we know when someone is beyond reform? And who should be the person who will make that decision? Does our society believe that some people are beyond reform? Do you think the Harvey's believed that there were no educational, economic, etc. factors that could prevent Robert Willie from murdering again? And if so, does this mean that economic, educational, racial, gender, etc. factors are irrelevant to some people? That they are simply evil or deranged and cannot be stopped (yet still defined as mentally stable, as most states do not allow the execution of people not defined as sane)? Does our culture, in fact, assume that some people are just pure evil, and that there are no environmental factors that help or hinder their ability to co-exist peacefully? Ie, is there an assumption that it is human nature to want to murder? If the answer is no, then we must acknowledge that environmental factors play a role in people's behaviors. Yet, we continue to believe that some people are beyond redemption. How can these two opposing view points be held at the same time?
Is it the responsibility of the warden, the electrician, the guards, etc. to enforce the law, or stand up for what they believe? Is everyone entitled to their own set of morals, or should society define a common set?
What is the point of reading this book? Are there any lessons, unrelated to criminal justice or ethics, that can be extrapolated? How many people had an opinion about capital punishment prior to reading the book? Did reading it make you re-examine your viewpoint? Do you feel more secure or less secure in your opinion now?
Protecting the social order - what does this mean? Are there social or cultural factors that play a role in the death penalty? Ie, does race, education, economics, gender have an affect on people's behavior when it comes to committing crime? Are most of the people behind bars for murder male or female? Are there as many violent deaths in poor urban areas as in white suburban neighborhoods? Does the criminal justice system take into consideration these different factors? Are all people given equal protection under the law? Or do we think that politics, education, color, wealth, family connections, may play a role in how punishments are dolled out? And if so, isn't it equally logical to assume that some of these same factors play a role in why people commit crimes?
Why, then, does the criminal justice system continue to operate in its current manor? Do people really not know or understand that the system could be prejudice? Does the death penalty appear to be irrelevant or a means of resistance to the social order? Or does it help uphold the social order?
If most people can acknowledge that the system itself is flawed, is it fair to continue with capital punishment?
One line of thought suggests that the death penalty is not to blame for the inaccuracies in the criminal justice system, and therefore shouldn't be abolished because of a racist, classist system. Does that provide adequate rationale?
If the philosophy of the criminal justice system is to reform prisoners, is the death penalty in staunch opposition to this goal? Or are there some who are really beyond reform? Did the two prisoners in the book seem to be beyond reform? How do we know when someone is beyond reform? And who should be the person who will make that decision? Does our society believe that some people are beyond reform? Do you think the Harvey's believed that there were no educational, economic, etc. factors that could prevent Robert Willie from murdering again? And if so, does this mean that economic, educational, racial, gender, etc. factors are irrelevant to some people? That they are simply evil or deranged and cannot be stopped (yet still defined as mentally stable, as most states do not allow the execution of people not defined as sane)? Does our culture, in fact, assume that some people are just pure evil, and that there are no environmental factors that help or hinder their ability to co-exist peacefully? Ie, is there an assumption that it is human nature to want to murder? If the answer is no, then we must acknowledge that environmental factors play a role in people's behaviors. Yet, we continue to believe that some people are beyond redemption. How can these two opposing view points be held at the same time?
Is it the responsibility of the warden, the electrician, the guards, etc. to enforce the law, or stand up for what they believe? Is everyone entitled to their own set of morals, or should society define a common set?
What is the point of reading this book? Are there any lessons, unrelated to criminal justice or ethics, that can be extrapolated? How many people had an opinion about capital punishment prior to reading the book? Did reading it make you re-examine your viewpoint? Do you feel more secure or less secure in your opinion now?