On Andy Dean; Lessons in Self Contradiction
California may become the 18th state to abolish death penalty
California will vote on eliminating the death penalty in the November election. If the ballot measure passes, California will become the 18th state to abolish the death penalty. One of the most interesting aspects of this development is that there appears to be significant bi-partisan support for this ballot measure. The Los Angeles Times reports:
Growing numbers of conservatives in California have joined the effort to repeal the state's capital punishment law, expressing frustration with its price tag and the rarity of executions. California has executed 13 inmates in 23 years, and prisoners are far more likely to die of old age on death row than by the executioner's needle.
On Andy Dean’s April 24, 2012 radio show, Mr. Dean exhibited precisely the kind of self-righteous, self-contradictory thinking that conservatives generally demonstrate in leading America over the cliff as they have done in recent years. During the 3rd hour of his 3-hour radio show (make sure you select the 04/24/2012 3rd hour segement) he had a guest named Mitch Langberg, a constitutional attorney, first amendment specialist. Introducing the topics they would discuss, Andy listed California’s November vote on whether or not to abolish the death penalty. Andy is a hard-core right-wing conservative and proclaims himself “very pro-death-penalty” and describes Mitch as a leftist, hyperbolically calling him a socialist. (For those who wish to listen to the broadcast, it can be found at the above link and the death penalty discussion starts at approximately 15:20 into the segment.)
Andy starts the death penalty segment by saying that the idea of abolishing the death penalty makes him “physically ill” and that he’s a “big believer in the death penalty”. When asked for his opinion, Mitch immediately says, “The death penalty should be a thing of the past”. Mitch goes on to explain that he has “no moral issue with […] the state executing a person who has willfully intentionally murdered another human being without cause.” Mitch presents the realist argument that we have innocent people sentenced to death in prison because the system for trial and conviction is not infallible.
Mitch says, “It just nauseates me to think of someone I know and care about being wrongfully convicted and executed …and, to me, that’s the end of the story.”
Obviously, Mitch views the killing of an innocent highly immoral and recognizes that a system that can’t guarantee the guilt of those convicted, should not involve a “justice” that realistically ends in the killing of an innocent – the very crime for which the convicted is being executed. To me, that seems clear enough, but not to Andy Dean.
Andy interrupts Mitch with a logical fallacy while accusing Mitch of two logical fallacies; straw man and red herring arguments. In fact, Andy is erecting a straw man argument by arguing against something that Mitch did not say. Andy interjects that Mitch objects to the system “with these decades of appeals”, which is, obviously, NOT what Mitch said, at all. In fact, Mitch never mentioned the issue of “decades of appeals” as charged by Andy.
Mitch clarifies that it is the fact that innocents are sentenced to death because the system that convicts them makes mistakes. In Andy’s mind, that argument is a “straw man”, which makes no sense at all logically, since it is presented as the supporting reason for why we should abolish the death penalty. Also, Andy charges that the argument about the “decades of appeals” (that Mitch did not present) is a “red herring”. Andy states that if it is the appeals process Mitch objects to, “…we should fix the appeals process, not get rid of the death penalty”. I’ll return to this statement further down the page.
The most striking thing that transpires between Andy and Mitch is that Andy clearly states he sees it more important that hundreds of families get some kind of “justice” by having someone killed than to be concerned about an innocent being executed by the state. Andy says to Mitch, “It’s really sad when that one [innocent] person dies but what about the hundreds of families who are waiting for justice and you’re weighing that one person against hundreds of families?” Andy’s version of “justice” is killing an innocent, wrongly convicted, to satisfy the bloodlust of “hundreds of families”. That’s Andy’s clear declaration. But, wait …the reasoning gets worse.
Recall Andy’s statement, “…we should fix the appeals process, not get rid of the death penalty”. Starting at about 27:05 in the segment, Andy is talking to a phone-in listener, Travis, and the idea of fixing the system arises. In speaking to this particular caller, who has said we need to fix the system, Andy states clearly, “Yeah, but, Travis, you and I both know there’s never going to be a perfect system where innocent people don’t go in, I’m just saying, yeah, one out of every whatever …, it’s a risk we take to make the families of victims feel better …”.
Just to make it clear:
Andy’s argument is this: the argument that we need to stop executing people because the system is flawed and innocents might be (probably have been) executed is a straw man because all we need to do is “fix the system” even though, as Andy says, “you and I both know there’s never going to be a perfect system where innocent people don’t go in, I’m just saying, yeah, one out of every whatever …, it’s a risk we take to make the families of victims feel better …”.
Andy thinks killing somebody who is innocent is wrong, unless that person has been wrongly convicted by a system that he knows will never be perfectly capable of NOT convicting an innocent person. And there are many who agree with Andy. Need I say more?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
libbyliberalnyc
Beth Winegarner
SnippytheGrammarDog
Paul Nevins
Chauncey DeVega
Belinda T.
Salon.com
Comments
;-)
Thanks for commenting.
Oh, and Andy is an ass, and what makes it worse is there are so many who "think" just like him.
William Blackstone (1760): "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Then there's Genesis 18:23-32, in which God is threatening to destroy everyone in the city of Sodom:
And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
...
And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.
And he said, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.
Basically, the real conservative position is that the innocent should not suffer in the effort to punish the guilty.
Andy Dean's brand of completely idiotic argument is most troubling because so many agree wit him, largely based on these labels. It's a head-shaker.
Superb post.
-R-
If there were a perfect system of "voting into office" those who would serve the electorate, perhaps doing so would work too.
We fall short of perfection in far too many ways.......
;-)
.
Now, we all know that it has been established nearly to a certainty that the death penalty does not deter anyone. However, a little fly in the ointment like that should not give Andy any pause.
Good point, and Andy would probably despise all of those countries. You'd think this "controversy" about the death penalty would not exist, but, as Bill Maher recently pointed out, these people on the Right will even eat shit if it provides an opportunity to disagree with "Liberals". Republicans at war with common sense. Check out the short little video clip.
As one who supports neither the supposed "conservative" viewpoint nor the putative "progressive" one, I find it easy to cherry-pick instances of idiots on both sides of the aisle saying stupid things about their own claimed stance on any subject and what they appear to think the stance is of "those others."
America is proving that it truly is impossible to have good governance when such is left in the hands of a power-hungry few of ANY political persuasion.
;-(
.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. You suggest Andy should “…premise his argument upon society's interest in deterrence …” apparently suggesting this would lend logical validity to his argument. While that may seem like a more logical reason to have the death penalty, it fails equally to dispose of Andy’s illogical premise that it’s reasonable to execute wrongly convicted individuals, if for no other reason than the fact that the preponderance of evidence does not support the premise of the death penalty as “deterrence”. Even his premise of retribution is not definitively supported. Ultimately, the flaw in Andy’s argument does not stem from which premise he uses, it resides in his self-contradictory stance. First he argues the death penalty is fine if we “fix the system”, and then he admits we can’t fix the system in the manner required. But, as you phrased it, “…a little fly in the ointment like that should not give Andy any pause.”
Yeah, there some unreasonable people all across the political spectrum. I don’t agree with your statement, “America is proving that it truly is impossible to have good governance when such is left in the hands of a power-hungry few of ANY political persuasion.”
I agree that governance should not be “left in the hands of a power-hungry few but I also recognize there is a fundamental difference between the two aspects of the conservative/progressive dichotomy. And I can’t honestly say American governance has ever been left in the hands of a power-hungry few PROGRESSIVES. Can you?
You said..... ""And I can’t honestly say American governance has ever been left in the hands of a power-hungry few PROGRESSIVES. Can you?""
Nope. But then I've never met any "progressives" who weren't every bit as power hungry as their "conservative" counterparts whether or not one considers such to have had "governance."
Those who stand with one "side" or the other ALWAYS blame the other side for all the ills of our social/economic/political system(s). Y'all remind me of two old farmers listening to the spluttering engine of an old tractor, with each shouting himself blue-in-the-face in anger because one thinks the number 3 cylinder isn't working right, and one thinks it's the number 2 cylinder that is the problem. Sure, there is a "fundamental difference" in how each does its job - but the job itself nearly identical.
My point is, neither wants to listen to he who says, "Did you put diesel fuel in the tank, or gasoline?!!"
I don't think your assessment is accurate. The difference that exists lies in what the farmers you refer to want to do with the tractor. Progressives want to use it to produce for as many as possible while the Conservatives (those that claim that moniker these days) want to keep it for themselves and horde what it produces saying, "To hell with everybody else." I wonder if you're confusing Democrats with Progressives, and perhaps confusing action with RE-action.
The goals of Progressives seemingly refute your assertion that they are power-hungry since one of they primary goals is to create more equal share of "power" among the greatest number of citizens. And then there is the possibility that you are using the phrase "power-hungry" in a sense with which I'm unfamiliar.
Stepping beyond the issue of the individual to the question of what we should do as a society:
I've got no moral problem with the death penalty applied to a guilty party, but I do agree our system is far from able to crank out “reliable guilt” in all cases. I have come to agree with those who say that the risk of error is high enough to pay serious attention to, and the issue of racial bias in the process is worth paying attention to as well. Plus I agree as well that it doesn't really save any money to do an execution. So I was already teetering as the reasons piled up.
But what I found really compelling is neither of these but the international situation. Consider what happens abroad when there is a death penalty case. We rarely trust that due process has run, but the answer is generally that they've done their process and we weren't there, etc. I'd like to be able to object in many cases to both executing dissidents and American citizens, but it's too easy to point back to the US and say “you guys do it.” We are safest abroad if the rule is simply “no one dies by the hand of the state.” That's a very bright line that is relatively easily testable. Once we say there are some circumstances under which a state may execute people, it's a little hard to tell exactly whether those circumstances have been achieved in good faith. We need an unambiguous moral high ground if we're going to insist on fair treatment of our citizens abroad.
"Progressives", or those who claim that designation, are in the very enviable position of being able to, as each situation or discussion arises, claim to be whatever they doggone well want to claim to be. You, for instance, seem to be saying that, since "progressives" want "to create an equal share of power to be shared among the greatest number of citizens." I presume that you are implying that the purposes to which that shared power would them be put would be better than the purposes to which power is put now.
I see no evidence that this is true. It is lovely that some who label themselves progressives often think that "they'd do it better" if they "owned the power" but - as you have pointed out already - we have not seen this happen.
I would also be overjoyed to have in my lexicon a firm, standard, used-by-all, definition of just what being a "progressive" means. I've never heard any two "progressives" define that outlook, philosophy, goals, means, intentions, methods, etc., etc., in the same manner.
I can think of little that is difficult to understand about the term "power hungry" although "progressives" often pronounce it with a sneering curl of the lip, in order to give it a derogatory meaning that it doesn't really have. I suggest to you that any one person or group of people which wants to hold power is "power hungry". I further suggest that to be power hungry is not any great evil. Progressives, whatever they may be, will need to obtain a large amount of power in order to organize and manage any society according to their concepts.
.
I think you're right; "We are safest abroad if the rule is simply “no one dies by the hand of the state.”
I think we (private citizens) are safest if make that statement the rule, especially when the problem of which crimes bring the death penalty. Your examples are expanded upon also by those who believe rape should be punishable by death.
Government's best role, when government operates properly, is providing protection, which can be accomplished without executions. The government's role is not to engage in vengeance or to provide retribution for its citizens. And the fact that we can too often not guarantee guilt in these death penalty cases demands that the policy becomes a thing of the past, which provides each of us an extra measure of protection.
You’re engaging a straw man, for reasons I cannot discern. I’ve said nothing about the “power” being applied “better”, although, whether I believe that or not is irrelevant to the current discussion about the distinctions between Progressives and Conservatives. I have merely pointed out what I see as the most fundamental distinction between the two aspects. For you to say you have “never met any ‘progressives’ who weren't every bit as power hungry as their ‘conservative’ counterparts” may be true in the sense that you have never met one, but it doesn’t verify your greater assertion that there is no difference that matters between the two groups.
As to your opinion of the phrase “power hungry” I would suggest you look for synonyms of meaning. You say you can see little that is difficult to understand about the phrase, and yet your insistence that there is no difference between Progressives and Conservatives in that matter indicates you don’t have an understanding of the most common usages of the term. But the point here is precisely the difference in the view of how power should exist that sets Progressives apart from Conservatives.
Your assertion that “Progressives […] will need to obtain a large amount of power in order to organize and manage any society according to their concepts” does not equate to a “power hungry” mindset. The basic difference implied by “power hungry” is someone who seeks to garner more power than is “needed”, unless the goal is to acquire complete control over others. If the aim is to “create more equal share of ‘power’ among the greatest number of citizens”, then the concept of “power hungry” does not apply.
I truly hadn't thought you one of those who would stoop to deleting a comment with which you'd disagree - a habit I've found distressingly prevalent among the "true believers" of both major Amerikan political suasions.
Very well, it's your blog. Do as you wish. I'll have no further part of it... or of you.
;-(
.
I didn't delete anything. I never have and never will delete comments on my blog posts. The main reason I post is for comments from others. If you can recreate whatever it was that didn't post, please do. Just know I didn't delete it, and never will delete comments.
BTW, you might not jump to such conclusions about people when we're interacting on a site that is renown for glitches like posts disappearing inexplicably. Just a thought ...
The idea that any innocent should ever be executed is largely viewed as a profound failure by the attorneys who work on cases that could result in the death penalty. Even the most self righteous prosecutors still essentially want the real guilty parties to be convicted and punished.
Fearmongering on the right has led to so many folks checking their mental faculties at the door, it's deeply frustrating any conversation for what the highest, best solution might be.
Personally, I don't think the death penalty serves us in any beneficial way. It's a shameful loss of power to resort to such means and demonstrates the slow creep at which human society actually progresses.
The idea that any innocent should ever be executed is largely viewed as a profound failure by the attorneys who work on cases that could result in the death penalty. Even the most self righteous prosecutors still essentially want the real guilty parties to be convicted and punished.
Fearmongering on the right has led to so many folks checking their mental faculties at the door, it's deeply frustrating any conversation for what the highest, best solution might be.
Personally, I don't think the death penalty serves us in any beneficial way. It's a shameful loss of power to resort to such means and demonstrates the slow creep at which human society actually progresses.
I think the "equal pay" debate is missing a lot of facts on both sides, which is not to say women get paid equally; they don't. Apparently the 77 cents stat is misleading, though.
Hope Stupid California abolishes the death penalty asap. There is no good reason for it considering how bad the justice system is. The chances for wrongful conviction are great.
yeah, just recently a man was exonerated who was sentenced to life in prison. Once someone is executed, the chance of being exonerated is completely eliminated. Anyone who argues that we should retain the death penalty is an idiot. And it would take for one of them to change their argument would be for one of them to be wrongly convicted and sentenced to death.