An Imperfect World

WARNING:
Subject matter in this blog is not for the faint of heart. Some expressive description will be used.

When I first created my blog, I wanted to keep things light.  Give my slight askew vision of social commentary or observations of shear kookiness, but as time has wore on, I'm finding that some subject matters need serious commentaries.  One such subject was discussed on a program I watched on CNN, last night, recorded from one week ago.  It discussed the inhumanity of Capital Punishment.  The program investigated the claims that the execution of violent criminals was unjust.  In my opinion, if a person is convicted of a crime so heinous that they're served with a death sentence, chances are, they deserved it.

In a moment, I will provide two examples of people identified in the television documentary who were sentenced to death.  I will give the crimes that they were convicted of committing, and you tell me, if lethal injection is too inhumane.  Be forewarned, though, the crimes are not for the faint of heart and may infuriate you every bit as much as they did myself, as I sat in the dark with my eyes glued to the television.  However, before I do that, I should address those naysayers who suggest the wrongfully convicted.

Justice is fleeting sometimes.  It's an imperfect world that we live in and it's a sad truth that sometimes the wrong person falls through the cracks of justice.  All the evidence in the world may point at someone's absolute guilt, only to have one piece of evidence down the road of time, free them of any wrong-doing.  A prime example in Canada, is the wrongful prosecution and incarceration of David Milgaard, who as a young teen was convicted of raping and murdering a young nursing student, despite witnesses providing a legitimate alibi.  Law enforcement and prosecution chose to take the word of a delusional man, suffering from mental illness, over the witness' testimony.  As a result, Milgaard, age 17 at the time of his conviction, spent 23 years in a Federal Penitentiary.  After many appeals and finally DNA testing, David Milgaard, then forty years of age, was released and the real culprit, Larry Fisher, was brought to justice.

Canada no longer has Capital Punishment, it being abolished after 217 years.  It was first used when we were still a British colony and was continued until it's abolishment in 1976, after 1481 people were sentenced to death, a total of 697 men and 13 women were executed.  The method of execution was hanging.  In the documentary I watched, it described hanging as a science.  That if the fall was too short, the convicted may not expire immediately or if the fall were too far, there were instances where the head of the accused would pop right off the body, completely.  I would agree that getting this form of execution just right, would be preferred, both for those sentenced to die and those present to bear witness.

The preferred method, today, in the U.S. is Lethal Injection, a method which is still under some debate as to whether it's a valid and humane method to execute.  The drug used initially, is no longer in production, so states that still practicing the capital executions, have resorted to using untested concoctions of drugs to promote the expiration of death row inmates.  The resulting deaths have been described as extremely painful and disturbing to watch.  One example of this is the death of Clayton Lockett, a man used as an example in the documentary.

Clayton Lockett was convicted of the kidnapping, beating and violent murder of a young nineteen year old woman, Stephanie Neiman, who was just two weeks past her high school graduation.  Lockett's friends subdued, raped and beat Neiman's friends, including a nine month old baby, but Neiman was shot because of her refusal to tell Lockett that she would not alert the authorities.  Lockett shot her with a single shotgun blast.  He tried to shoot a second time, but the gun jammed.  While bleeding profusely and begging for her life, Stephanie watched as Lockett cleared the rifle before turning it on her a second time.  In his confession, Lockett describes seeing puffs of dirt as the still breathing Neiman was buried in a shallow grave.

Now think about this image for a moment.  Lockett was unjustly Neiman's "judge and executioner" forcing her to die a most horrendous death in a shallow grave.  It's told that Lockett's death took just short of  forty-five minutes, during which time he violently writhed in agony, desperately gasping for air.  Given the method he used to murder Stephanie Neiman, why should he not be punished in a similar fashion?  

Charles Warner was the monster who was initially scheduled to die the same night that Clayton Lockett was put to death, but his execution was postponed due to Lockett's painful expiration.  His case would be argued in court for some time before the facts of his heinous act was finally given the go ahead to commence.

Charles Warner was convicted to death for the rape and murder of his live-in girlfriend's 11 month old baby.  Think about that for a moment...  I'll wait.  When you consider how horrific rape is for a fully grown adult woman, mortal words cannot describe with any sort of accuracy how brutally savage the act is when committed on a baby.  A fucking baby.  I am still in disbelief that mankind ever produced an individual so vile that he felt compelled to rape a baby.

Subsequently, Warner was put to death a few months later.  During his execution, claims state that Warner exaggerated his pain, screaming in agony, "My body is on fire!"  It's theorized that Warner was being overly dramatic to help his death row brethren with their appeal cases.  Whatever the case, given his reprehensible acts (he was also accused of raping a 5 year old little girl, then beating her with an extension cord), I hope his execution truly was excruciating.  Little Arianna Waller didn't deserve the pain she endured in the last moments of her infant life.

Does Capital Punishment work as a deterrent?  It's doubtful.  Variations of executions have existed for over a thousand years.  If it worked no one would commit the violent act that they do today.  Is it a viable punishment for monsters like Lockett and Warner?  You're god damned right it is.  Granted, like the Milgaard case that I described above, there are some innocent people through obscured facts fall between the cracks of justice and are incarcerated, but due justice grants these people appeals.  Any new information that surfaces can be introduced, like DNA, that can lead to the exoneration of wrongful convictions.

As I stated, we live in an imperfect world.  Mistakes happen and I'm sure there are examples throughout history of innocents being wrongfully executed (Salem Witch Trials), as well as in recent memory and I feel bad for them.  I really do.  Nowadays, however, with the advent of DNA testing, wrongful convictions are proven more difficult and executions of innocent parties, I'm sure is unheard of.  Almost everyone in prison, whether on death row or general population, are going to claim innocence.  I see it on television, all the time.  The most violent of murders are always tough guys on the streets, but when they're alone in the interrogation room, facing off against their accusers, they always crack, bursting into tears.  Not tears of guilt, but tears of "oh shit, I'm caught".

In a perfect utopia, violence would only be the subject of the movies, never spilling into the streets.  However, like I've pointed out so many times in this blog, today; We live in an imperfect world.

What's The Matter, Slugger?

There's another story in the news about some kid, who after feeling bullied, brought a 12-gauge shotgun to school and shot a kid.  Thankfully, he was stopped by a teacher and a school counselor before he had a chance to turn the gun on two more intended targets.

After tragedies like this, the movie theater catastrophe last summer and the slaughter of twenty school children before Christmas, I don't understand why people, gun enthusiasts included, don't see that there's an obvious problem with firearms.  "It's our right to own guns!" they say, "The Second Amendment* says so..."

(*Second Amendment of the United States Constitution)

Isn't it funny how there's 27 amendments in the U.S. Constitution, but people seem to only remember that one, or the first when they want to shoot their mouths off, or the fifth when they wish not to incriminate themselves in a court of law.

When these tragedies occur and all the zealots are exclaiming there Second Amendment rights, I'm a little confused as to why NO ONE HAS REALIZED that the Second Amendment was proposed in 1789 and enacted in 1791, when a gun consisted of loading a lead ball into a barrel packed with batten and gun powder.  Of course it would've made sense to own more than one rifle.  Especially with the threat of foreign invasion looming over your head.  If the suggestion would've been made to the forefathers of the great nation of the United States, that one day there would be guns made that could shoot off 25 bullets within two seconds* of time, their unusually small and narrow minds would've strung you up for heresy.  I guarantee, however, that if there were a time machine available and any one of the founding fathers were brought to modern day America, that Second Amendment would read a little differently.

(*I just watched an episode of Mythbusters, where a Tech 9's magazine (25 bullets) was emptied in just 2 seconds...)

In previous blogs, I've stated how I was bullied in school growing up.  I never once considered grabbing a shotgun from home and blowing those kids away.  Of course, I lived on a farm and rode a school bus into the city, where I was schooled, so it would've been quite an ordeal to smuggle a rifle to school unbeknownst.  That or the fact that, even to this day, I have no idea how to load a shotgun with shells.  I believe my dad kept the shells up on a shelf and I was too short to reach them anyway.  But I digress.  The thought of blowing them away, never even entered my highly imaginative mind.

As I recall, one time, while cornered by a bully, I did grab a large stick that was close by.  That seemed to fend them off long enough to escape to safety.  This memory prompts me to wonder why these troubled kids, don't just resort to bringing a Louisville Slugger to school to take care of business.  A baseball bat would prove to be much more personal when attacking their attackers.  Shooting them from a distance, seems like the cowardly way out.  

Of course, we live in a world that needs to direct blame on someone else, rather than owning up to our own gaffes.  Just as guns get the blame for school shootings, so would pro wrestling or baseball be blamed for a kids whacking off kids with a Louisville Slugger and not the fact that the social cliques in our schools are seriously fractured.

I realize that these statements make it sound like I'm condoning school violence.  I'm NOT!!!  Really!!  Believe me, the whole premise of using "vigilante justice" to get even with school bullies, is completely alien and retarded, in my opinion.  Especially in an era where "anti-bullying" is very trendy.  All a troubled student need do, nowadays, is go to a school counselor or teacher and report the bullying incident.  If the school official fails to take the problem seriously, the bullied teen can simply add the words, "I'm feeling 'shooty'...!"  That ought to grab someone's attention.

I've always thought communication was malformed and unreliable.  In most cases, referring to my own experience, the reports go unresolved and lost in the jumble of everyday lives.  These days, communication is a vital necessity.  Whether it be with a teacher, a parent, or whomever.

The student, that I mentioned at the top of this page, who was shot by that kid with the shotgun, is in hospital recovering.  Hopefully they will survive this ordeal and won't be permanently affected by the ordeal.  The teacher and counselor who distracted and disarmed the shooter are, today, understandably shaken.  At the time they didn't know if he would add them to the list of casualties (or worse), but knew something had to be done to stop him.  They don't want to be referred to as "heroes", although their acts were heroic.  And as for the kid who brought his shotgun to school, officials say he will be tried as an adult.

Ironically, he felt victimized and bullied, hence his acting out so violently.  If convicted, he will go to prison where he's going to really be bullied by fellow inmates, bullied up his ass.  That boy's going to be someone's bitch, this much is certain...