Can a Civilized Society Impose Death Penalty?

Do you oppose the death penalty? In all situations> What if accused Las Vegas murderer, Stephen Paddock, had lived? As a juror, what penalty would you impose?

The Washington Post story headlined, "At least 59 killed in Las Vegas shooting rampage, more than 500 others injured," notes:

"Perched in his suite at a high-rise hotel overlooking the Vegas Strip, a 64-year-old retiree with no real criminal history and no known affiliations with terror groups rained bullets down into a crowd at a country music festival Sunday, killing at least 59 people and injuring [five hundred] more in the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.


"Law enforcement officials said they could not immediately tell what drove Stephen Paddock to fire at thousands of unsuspecting concertgoers from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay ... before killing himself."

Had Paddock not committed suicide, would the death penalty be an appropriate disposition pursuant to his conviction for murdering 59 human beings? The only appropriate disposition?

When our founding fathers wrote our Constitution and added the Bill of Rights, they decided our liberties would be better secured if 12 citizens, not government functionaries, not judges, decided the guilt of defendants charged with murder. And in murder cases, it was juries who decided whether or not to impose the death penalty.

Unless, the defendant waives jury trial, the jury still decides these issues today.

Among issues considered by a jury in whether or not to impose the death penalty are:
Were these murders, premeditated?

Paddock rented an hotel room overlooking the concert venue - an open field with no places to hide. He arrived there several days prior to the murders. He carefully set up. He brought some 23 guns [calibers ranging from .223 to .308]. Some had scopes. One weapon, apparently used in the massacre, was an AK-47-type rifle, with a tripod. Paddock set up cameras to observe the hallway outside his room.

To increase his rate of fire - to mimic a fully automatic illegal weapon - he apparently used "bump stocks." Twelve were found in his room. Have you any doubt whatsoever that these murders were premeditated?
Would the death penalty be "proportionate" to the offense(s)?

When somebody, with premeditation, murders 59 innocent people, is any term in the penitentiary "proportionate?" What penalty other than death even approaches being "proportionate" to 59 premeditated murders?

Would you impose a sentence to encourage Paddock to "rehabilitate" himself?

Paddock was 64. Assuming he's a model prisoner, would you parole him, if your rehabilitation goal is met? When? After 5 years? 10 years ? 15?

You can find the names and ages of Paddock's victims at msn.com/en-us/news/us/here-are-all-the-victims-of-the-las-vegas-shootingar-AAsY6V9

Paddock's victims ranged in age from 20 to 67. They were mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, grandparents and grandchildren. Are 59 concurrent 20-year sentences adequate punishment? 59 concurrent life sentences? Were Paddock to die in prison at age 80, would his 16-year sentence be proportionate punishment for killing people in their 20s and 30s? And are 59 concurrent life sentences any more punitive than a single life sentence?
Then, there is the matter of deterrence.

Would you argue that imposition of the death penalty on one defendant will not deter others from committing similar crimes?

But it is not certain that Paddock would have been absolutely and permanently deterred from ever murdering 60 innocent? Does any executed murderer ever engage in recidivism?

Would you argue, "only God can take a life?" If so, would you have objected to a policeman killing Paddock to terminate his murder spree? If a policeman can kill without trial, why can't society impose a death sentence after considering all issues as fully and fairly as possible? You argue, a policeman acts out of necessity. Why can't a jury find that death is necessary if the sentence is to be proportionate, and the only punishment that can guarantee deterrence?

Due to word limitations, the question of "randomness" must be the subject of a future op-ed.


Posted: QCOline.com October 17, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

New Citizens Should Share Benefits, Burdens

Those in favor of a broad amnesty for illegal aliens argue immigrants work, pay taxes and contribute billions to the U.S. economy. Those against amnesty tell us too many immigrants don’t work, live off welfare and are a drain on our nation’s resources. You can go online and find lots of numbers to support either position.

Benjamin Disraeli, one of Britain’s great prime ministers, once said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” So, how can the average American citizen determine which set of “statistics” are truthful? Sadly, I’m not sure we can.

Two things are clear, however, to most Americans who take time to look. Many of the illegals work darn hard (that would include serving in the military) and pay federal income and Social Security taxes. Others don’t work and live off welfare.



President Trump has proposed we legally admit immigrants who will work, pay taxes and benefit our country. He would not welcome those who become “public charges.” Speaking recently in Iowa, President Trump said, “The time has come for new immigration rules that say ... those seeking immigration into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years.”

Fox News added, “Mr. Trump’s proposal would build on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which allows federal authorities to deport immigrants who become public dependents within five years of their arrival. It would also prevent the admission of people who are likely to become so-called public charges within five years of their arrival.”

Fox points out, “The concept of ‘public charge’ has been part of U.S. immigration law for over a century. It allows the government to bar entry to individuals who are likely to seek public assistance. Trump is expected to propose toughening up the rules regarding ‘public charges’ and ensuring that they are enforced.”

Such was the law when my mother came to this country. Until she married, she worked. She was never a public charge. She never felt the requirement not to be a public charge was onerous or unfair.

But if Mr. Trump is right, then it’s a rational second step to give preferred treatment to illegal immigrants who have continuously worked (including serving in the military) and paid their taxes -- for (perhaps) five consecutive years. I see no serious argument against granting them amnesty and citizenship. Their conduct demonstrates they are the kind of immigrants Mr. Trump says he wants.

But why should we grant amnesty and citizenship to parasites -- people who have illegally entered our country and milk our welfare system? Citizenship is partnership. Citizens share the benefits, but they also need to share the burdens.

As such, I would suggest three rules in reference to “illegal immigrants:


• First: Federal welfare -- whether direct or indirect -- should not be available to any illegal immigrant. The promise of welfare is a magnet that draws illegals across our borders.

• Second: Illegal immigrants who have become public dependents for five years or more should be liable to deportation.

• Third: No illegal immigrants who have accepted federal welfare money should be eligible for citizenship for themselves or any child they have brought across the border, until they have repaid all the federal welfare benefits they have taken, and paid federal income and Social Security taxes for (perhaps) five years.

For the president, there is an obvious deal to be made. In return for his wall to stop this mess from re-occurring, prompt citizenship for all the illegal immigrants here (or in the military) who have paid more in federal income and Social Security taxes than they have drawn in federal welfare benefit for (perhaps) five consecutive years, and who have no felony or crime of violence convictions.

You will notice I have talked only about federal taxes and federal welfare benefits. The federal government knows what federal income taxes and Social Security taxes all of us have paid. It also knows what federal welfare benefits we have been given. The question should be whether federal taxes paid are more or less than welfare benefits granted. If federal taxes paid exceed federal welfare benefits accepted, the numbers fairly suggest that the immigrant’s presence has benefited the nation.

Posted: QCOline.com October 9, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

In Praise of Some Old Friends

More than 60 years ago, when I was a fifth-grader, Sister Mary Philomene sent our class to the school library to pick out books to read. In the process of selection, I came across a series of books dealing with American history that have been my lifelong companions: Landmark Books by Random House.

That day, I selected two, "The Monitor and the Merrimac" and "The Explorations of Pere Marquette." I read them, was fascinated by them and looked for more. During the years, I have read "Ben Franklin of Old Philadelphia," "The Barbary Pirates," "The Erie Canal" (one of my favorites), "Peter Stuyvesant of Old New York," "John Paul Jones, Fighting Sailor" and many others. I have re-read a number of them more than once -- three this last week while I was on vacation. I still look for them in resale shops and at rummage sales. I like their 177-page format, their large print, their occasional drawings and the quality of the writing. It moves.

As a boy, I didn't know many of the Landmark selections (and later companion World Landmark selections, a complimentary set dealing with world history) actually were abridged versions of works by prominent authors, including Sterling North, Pearl S. Buck, John Gunther, Quentin Reynolds, Van Wyck Mason, C.S. Forrester, Richard Trevaskis and William L. Shirer.


What I particularly liked about the books, is they seemed to bring to life the great Americans we had met in our history classes. The printed names on the page of the history book became real people, as I came to know the Wright Brothers as they, through trial and error, flew at Kitty Hawk, as Custer met his fate at Little Big Horn and as Lincoln and Douglas debated for a seat in the U.S. Senate. I came to see the men who made our country not merely as references on a printed page but as people who worked and fought for their goals.

Today, the Landmark books are being discarded by libraries. About five years ago, while directing a play at Edison Junior High, I walked into the library and found a half dozen of the series in the "discard pile."

Nevertheless, the series has found great favor with the home-schoolers. It is argued, that were a student to read all 122 books in the series, "he would obtain a better education in U.S. History than 95 percent of students graduating from high school."

Others would disagree, arguing each book deals with only one topic or one person. A good school history book, they correctly point out, does a better job of dealing with trends and causes and effects -- of tying loose ends together. It also deals with a myriad of other incidents and historical personages not touched by the 122 books in the Landmark series.

But to the extent the Landmark books deal with a subject or a person, I think the proponents' argument clearly accurate.


As regards the voyages of Columbus, the landing of the Pilgrims, Paul Revere and the Minutemen, our independence and Constitution, the California Gold Rush, the Pony Express, Lee and Grant at Appomattox, the first trans-continental railroad, the Lewis and Clark Expedition and 112 other topics, I think the claim is clearly true. If our history books dedicate a page to Jimmy Doolittle's attack on Japan or the story of our marines on Guadalcanal, each book in the series devotes about 177 pages.

Both the Landmark and World Landmark series still are available. Oftentimes, you can buy them very reasonably on eBay in bunches or individually.

If you are wondering what prompted this op-ed, it's the razing of our historical statues, the cries to remove the names of Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington from the facades of our schools and the demand for removal of certain great books from our schools. (E.g., "Tom Sawyer," "Huckleberry Finn," "To Kill a Mockingbird.")

No rational person could make such a demand after reading and understanding the Landmark books, "Robert E. Lee and the Road of Honor," or "Thomas Jefferson, Father of Democracy."

But then, burning books always has been quicker and easier than reading and understanding them.


Posted: QCOline.com October 2, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea