The Case Against Death

I've blogged before about how much of a prat Michael Laws is. And he really is a complete and total failure of an individual, a poisonous blight on New Zealand's journalistic traditions. In New Zealand's marketplace of ideas, he's the deep fried Cicada in our McDonald's french fries, turning the already putrid stinking remains of the discredited carcass that is right-wing populism into a monstrosity of bigoted psycho-babble that is morally repugnant to all but the most bigoted echelons of New Zealand 'society'. By comparison, Travis the Chimpanzee is an eloquent, principled and reasoned individual. I'm always disgusted that apparently rational, right-thinking people gave him a newspaper column, a talkback radio show and err...the mayoralty of Whanganui. But there is some good to come from the columns of the Whanganui Whanker, in that just when I think that he has hit rock bottom, he comes up with a way of smashing his way to new, previously unplumbed depths. Recently however, he may have come up with his 'Mona Lisa'.

It's called, 'So this is Justice', and it follows much of Laws's traditional formulae. (A spoonful of assertion of the inherent violence within Maoridom, stirred with 2 cups of advocating for forced sterlisation, with a pinch of 'all criminals were born evil and brown' for seasoning.) But this particular display of self-righteous petulance had an extra-special sweetener, in the form of Laws's new shibboleth, advocating the return of the death penalty (or in his words 'the ultimate retribution'). And what were his arguments in favour of the courts (and presumably juries) having the right to end lives? There were twofold, 1) THAT it's what the public wants, and 2) It's justice on the cheap. Both these arguments are laughable, but that shouldn't detract from their repugnance.

With response to his first argument,lets assume that the people really do overwhelmingly support the reintroduction of the death penalty. Although we should be no means accept this as true, Laws bases his evidence on the fact many people have rung up and expressed this view on his talkback radio show. While talkback radio is the last refuge of the lonely, bigoted and stupid, 'an eye for an eye' remains an instinctively understandable response to a gruesome and wanton destruction of an innocent person's life. But regardless of the level of popular support, populist appeals to the wisdom of the voting masses, aka 'The 'people' want it, so lets give it to them' is never a good basis by which to conduct policy. Of course, in any good system of governance the general will of the public should be a highly relevant factor, but the general whims of a populace that at most will have a read of couple of newspaper articles on an issue should never become the overriding consideration. Governments have a duty to create a case for a policy based on both political philosophy (what ought to be done) and a pragmatic assessment of the socio-economic conditions (what can be done), not enact the tyranny of the majority. Just because everyone thinks something is good, it doesn't neccessarily entail that that thing is good.

Laws's defence of the death penalty as the most fiscally prudent approach is not only bizzarre, its truly cuntactular. He's actually talking about ending someone's fucking life with the same matter of fact attitude delivered by people who think government ownership of rail networks is financially improper. Sure, the prison system may cost a tonne of money for a system of punishment that creates more redictivist offenders than it does morally-upright candidates for sainthood, but surely that's an argument against incarceration in favour of more rehabilitive approaches to justice, not an argument for the electric chair. We're talking about the right to life here, it transcends fiscal boundaries. An attempt to take away the right to life from anyone requires a better argument than 'it's cheap'. (As an aside, the endless appeals that would be required under a system of capital punishment would in all probability balloon the cost of the justice system, beyond that which currently exists)

In order to justify the reintroduction of the death penalty, Laws (or the 'Sensible' Sentencing Trust) has to justify why the state should be the ultimate arbiter of who deserves to live, and who deserves to die. And that, to my mind, is an insurmountable obstacle. We expect that the state should keep us safe, but the right to life is inviolate, and an appeal to the safety of the greater good cannot be a justification for the killing of the few in any liberal democracy. Neither, should the state be prepared to slake a public thirst for 'vengeance'. It is one of the great shames of our time that a rehabilitive approach to justice has been wholly abandoned in a favour of an all-out emphasis on the punitive aspects. ( I blame Dukkakis) This creates nothing beyond a sadistic watercooler-discussion of how long was 'criminal X's sentence'. The state should ensure that the mentally ill criminal recieves adequate treatment, and that there is an attempt to rehabiliate the sociopath, not just 'be seen to be doing justice' by locking that sociopath away and forgetting about them. Finally, pro-deather's should be prepared to defend their systems of capital punishment as foolproof. Any justice system places a high burden on the prosecution to ensure that innocent people are not deprived of any rights. However, errors remain and innocent people have been (wrongly) found guilty and (wrongly) deprived of their liberty. But it is a different and dangerous ball-game to wrongly deprive people of their life. Again this is an insurmountable obstactle, as a foolproof system is impossible.

There can be no case for the death penalty in a liberal democracy. In reaching this conclusion, I have no doubt that Laws (unto) himself would deride me as 'swingeing namby-pamby PC homo' who just 'doesn't get it'. And maybe I don't get it. Maybe I am putting too much faith in the powers of restorative justice. But I'd rather be an idealist than a murderer.

Alex

(Just realised when I finished writing this, that this was our 50th post. Yey, go us.)

Wear it their way?

Every now and then an issue presents itself which is totally, completely, monumentally insignificant in the context of world history, but where the parties concerned are so enthusiastic about the principles of the thing they are fighting for that it appeals to my ornery and embittered heart. So this blog post is not, as I first intended it would be, a comment on the EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINETEEN BILLION DOLLAR stimulus package that Barack Obama and friends are trying to get passed in the US Congress. Therefore, it's not possessed with the title 'That Boehner sure don't stimulate MY package', which made me giggle for at my own peurile humour for a full thirty seconds. Instead, this post is gifted with easily the lamest title of my short blogging career, and is about two schoolkids that wouldn't get served at Burger King.

You can find the story by clicking on this link. Trust me, it's worth doing just for the sheer stupidity of the reader comments. But, if you can't be arsed or live in Somalia, Myanmar or South Epsom (and therefore have dial-up internets), then basically the story is about two 14 year-old kids who turned up to a Burger King in Christchurch after school. They were turned away because of a policy that banned people in school uniform (on the grounds that some children had been abusive, and thrown Coke at the store's employees). Denied their sacred inalienable right to Whoppery goodness, they complained to their mummies. Who then complained to the Human Rights Commission. Who then said it was discrimination.

While at first glance, this looks like a case of two fat housewives needing a break from their EastEnders marathon who decided to make life hell for a poor business that was just trying to protect its staff from racial abuse. But these women deserve to be applauded. A store, or any other place should not be able to deny service to a certain group of people, simply because members of that group have shown themselves to be more likely to engage in disruptive behaviour than others. Just because all coke-throwing racists in that Burger King have, so far, worn school uniform, it does not follow that all people wearing school uniform will throw coke and be racist in that Burger King. Essentially what a blanket ban does, is automatically presume that all members of that group are guilty, and denies them a service thats wrong.

Of course, the obvious argument against this is 'yeah, but if one group is more likely than others to commit crime, surely the business owner is just being pragmatic, and preventing damage, by excluding that group.' Pragmatic maybe, but woefully wrong-headed regardless. Imagine, if you will, the 'pragmatic' domestic airline in America that denies Muslims the right to fly on their airline on the grounds that 'All terrorists on domestic airlines this decade have been Muslims. Therefore, Muslims are more likely to engage in terrorist takeovers of domestic aircraft, so by excluding all Muslims from flying our airline will be safer.' I appreciate that I've made a bit of a leap in scale, from sticky little retards in Burger King being denied the right to childhood obesity, to a religion being placed on a no-fly zone. But I think its a logical 'next step', and it does show the ability for the reasoning exhibited by Burger King to have severe impacts on the freedoms innocent, morally forthright members of the community.

Burger King could have hauled the kid to a police station and charged him with the appropriate offence, be it property damage, disruption of a public place or whatever. Maybe the sight of one kid being punished will act as deterrant to other kids thinking of committing similar actions, while kids who would never consider pouring their drink over a racial minority can continue eating their shoestring fries in peace. Alternatively the Burger King could speak to the school, and demand that action is taken to educate children about appropriate behaviour in a Burger King. (They could for instance, use the Wurtilizer, or marvel at the James Dean memorabilia). This would obviously place a greater onus on the Burger King than simply enforcing a blanket ban on school uniforms. But while its hard, and we can sympathise with the poor business for having to go out of his way to discipline some punk kids, this is what liberty, and the principle of the presumption of innocence in a free, democratic society demands. It may seem trivial, but hey, its principled.

One final point. It's easy to defend the right of ordinary school-uniformed kids to go to Burger King, or the right of Muslims to fly. But the most interesting expression of this argument (and the one most difficult to defend) isn't in the field of burgers, or Muslims or planes (oh my) - its located on the gang patches of the Mongrel Mob and Black Power. It is true that many murder, rape, child abuse etc cases have had their roots in gang culture and gang rivalries. Does that, therefore justify a ban on the wearing of gang patches in public? I would argue, no. While I'm obviously disgusted by cases of murder, rape and child abuse, and share in the general public sentiment that the people that commit these animalistic acts should be bought to justice. But I dont think it follows that banning the signs and symbols surrounding gangs will make a difference. Laws exist to deal with the criminal offending, while a surge in the popularity of gangs could be combated with a wide-spread strategy to deal with the systemic poverty that exists in areas where gangs are most popular. Targeting the dress code of a group, rather than the behaviour of some of its members is backward-looking and doomed to failure.

As I said earlier, the women that brought this case to the Human Rights Commission deserve to be applauded for highlighting the fact that membership of a group, and dress code within that group, cannot be grounds for discrimination - even if that group has shown a propensity for anti-social behaviour. I just wonder if those women would have fought the case with the same fervour if it had have been someone elses kid, decked out in full gang regalia.

Alex

Wrong Laws.

For those of you who are fans of my usual glib approach to life, the universe and everything - I apologise, because this isn't really one of those posts. Every now and then an article appears in a newspaper that not only infuriates me, but makes me physically ill that someone was paid to make racist, debased and dangerous remarks in a format that will be read and considered by hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. Michael Laws, former National MP, current mayor of Whanganui and all-round muppet, wrote an article in last weeks Sunday Star-Times that not only fits that previous description, but may have set a new low for gutter 'columnism' in any newspaper, ever.

The article was entitled 'The Liberal Shame' and if you want to read it, follow this link. But I'd strongly discourage you from reading it, because in reading it you would be giving his views a modicum of legitimacy that they not deserve. Laws's rants about the general inferiority of 'the brown underclass', declares that there were certain types of people who shouldn't breed (and if we cut through Laws's subtext, these people are generally brown and poor) and states, with all the hubris of a man who has spent three years in parliament AND got to be on Celebrity Treasure Island TWICE, that the 'liberal' approach to crime and raising families and building a society has failed. That he holds this opinion and deems fit to air it in the marketplace of ideas is bad enough, but in making his remarks through the prism of Nia Glassie's torture and murder, Laws shows a remarkably twisted propensity for cynical opportunism.

But I realise in making this criticism, particulary with the degree of vehemence, I will be amongst a very small minority of New Zealanders. The sad tale of 3-year old Nia Glassie, beaten, tortured, swung from the clothesline, put in the dryer has haunted and revulsed New Zealanders in a way that I have seen very few high-profile murder cases do. Many New Zealanders feel hatred and contempt for Nia's killers, and Laws in this respect was providing a summary of these views, albeit in a way that is spiteful, racist and socially poisonous.

I share this contempt for Nia's killers, I do not know how I could not. But I fail to see, as many of my fellow countrymen see, and as Michael Laws saw fit to publish, that the Nia Glassie case is proof that our society (or at least the poor, brown bits of it) has become more violent, and this 'extra violence' is the result of namby-pamby 'liberal' (say the word liberal with an extra helping of contempt for good measure) policy-makers, who have 'mollycoddled' violent youths and Maori society to the point where they share Nia's blood on their hands. Firstly, I maintain, but with an increasingly less secure conviction, that the recent spate of child abuse cases in the media are not inexorable proof of a society that is getting more violent. Of course there are more cases of such abuse appearing in the media in 2008 than in 1968, that's the inevitable result of a total increase in population. But a sudden spate of child abuse cases does not suggest to me that the underclass woke up one morning and decided to get more violent. It suggests that there have been a series of hideous coincidences throughout 2008. Or to be more cynical, it shows that media outlets -realising that stories about child abuse sell more papers - are getting more efficient at rooting these stories out.

But even if I am wrong with my previous point, and I'm not even certain myself as to whether I am correct, I'd argue that if society has 'broken down' in New Zealand's poorest, urban areas this definitely should not be seen as a failure of a system of 'liberal' policies. What seems more likely is that society is getting more violent not because the policies have been too liberal, because they have not been liberal enough. When you have a society that says that it is ok that people who are poor and the children of people who are poor can be denied opportunity because if they are poor, it is possibly a proxy for them being inferior (or worse, lazy) then of course you have widely disproportionate inequalities. And when you have a poorly educated 'underclass', with limited resources and no safety net provided by government to give them a competive go in life, and when you slash funding to groups that dispense advice and monitor first time parents then it follows that people who grew up in a culture of violence as a way of discipline will subject their children to the same abuse they suffered. When lobby groups call for the unfettered ability of parents to raise their children in whatever way they see fit, then it follows that more parents will see that what is unconcsionable abuse in our eyes as just showing loving and necessary discipline to their own children.

If a tendency towards 'more child abuse' in New Zealand society exists, and is not just the result of a few horrific coincidences then the people that have blood on their hands are not those who believe in 'education' and 'being politically correct'. The people who have blood on their hands are people like Ruth Richardson and Jenny Shipley, who slashed social welfare in New Zealand in the early 1990's, or people like Laws himself, who fail to see that screaming 'STERILISE THE POOR, AND DEATH PENALTY TO CHILD KILLERS' misses all sorts of points, most notably that you cannot solve a problem unless you are prepared to adress the underlying causes, rather than just create a media panic when the symptons of wider social failure appear in the cold, hard form of Nia Glassie's dead body.

It would be laughable, if it were not so reprehensible, that Laws attempts to play anthropologist, limiting the problem to that of a brown underclass, and littering his turgid dross of a column with overtones of racism - declaring that we have to stop getting all culturally sensitive and letting Maori think they can solve their own problems. It is true that almost all of the defendants in these cases have surnames like Kahui and Pailegutu, not Smith or Jones. And is true that in some Pacific Island cultures and maybe even in the Maori culture, a greater level of physical discipline is considered more culturally acceptable, which flies in the face of the rights of all children to be protected from harm. But what is not true is the brown parents are worse than white parents. It speaks volumes for the Anglosupremacist attitudes that pervades Laws peice that he begins by describing the underclass as a brown underclass and ends by describing it as feckless and stupid. It seems for Laws, and more sadly for numerous other New Zealand that 'brown' and 'stupid' and 'brown' and 'violent' are interchangeable adjectives. 'Poor' and 'uneducated' is perhaps more fitting, as this is a problem that needs to be solved with changing cultural norms in Pacific Island communities that child violence is not ok, and being willing to pump public resources into ensuring that at-risk families recieve government help.

Laws thinks the answer is forced sterilisation and the death penalty. For a man who spent much of 2008 declaring that the law that says you cannot smack your children for the purposes of correction, or that to save water resources showers were limited to 15 minutes was an overly invasive intrusion into private life by a nanny state , this is a quite remarkable turnaround. But it is a turnaround conducted with a nod to the inherent superiority of white people, and with a nod to the white and wealthy constitutents that elected him mayor of Whanganui. And it is a turnaround that while attempting to adress a very real and very worrying problem in New Zealand, arrives at almost the complete opposite to what is needed. He talks of the liberal shame, but he advocates a cynical, muddle-headed, disgraceful and illiberal sham. Shame on him.

Alex