I accept the challenge of Nathan Koozer
and have come up with the following list of books that meet this
criteria: "List 10 books that have stayed with you in some way... Don't
over think it."
These books all came to me at critical moments
in my life and have made me who I am. Though telling an academic not to
"over think it" is like telling a baby to stop crying.
1. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Catholic Church, and United States Catholic Conference. The New American
Bible: Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All
the Ancient Sources Including the Revised Psalms and the Revised New
Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
2. Sagan, Carl. Cosmos. New York: Random House, 1980.
3. Merton, Thomas. Zen and the Birds of Appetite. [New York]: [New Directions], 1968.
4. Harland, Richard. Superstructuralism: The Philosophy of Structuralism and Post-Structuralism. London: Methuen, 1987.
5. Tolkien, J. R. R. The Fellowship of the Ring: Being the First Part
of The Lord of the Rings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1993.
6. Eckert, Allan W. The Frontiersman. Little, 1967.
7. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. Laboratory Life: The Construction
of Scientific Facts. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986.
8. Cohen, I. Bernard. Revolution in Science. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1985.
9. Manchester, William. American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, 1880-1964. Boston: Little, Brown, 1978.
10. Hesse, Hermann, and Hilda Rosner. Siddhartha.
The History Feed...
This is the blog site for Mark Bowles, Professor of History at American Military University. Follow him on Twitter @TheHistoryFeed and on the web at HistoryFeed.org for all the news about history and the profession that you need to know. The views here are his own and do not represent American Public University System in any way.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Crisis in the Humanities? Ask the Organization Man.
There is a great deal of talk about the so-called crisis in the humanities today.This is nothing new as the perceived value of the humanities has risen and fallen over time. There are some fascinating periods of time in which the
humanities were greatly valued, and it is instructive to understand them, especially in times of crisis.
I am a Professor of
History at American Public University System, and I have researched and
published on one such case in the 1950s when many considered the humanities a
savior to counteract the threats of the Cold War.
Many technical and business experts believed that the liberal
arts could compensate for the scientific and technical lead that the Soviet
Union appeared to hold over the United States during the 1950s. Humanistic
studies also appeared as the best way to broaden the minds of American managers
who spent their entire lives in a narrow, specialized field of work. I wrote an
article on this and called the phenomenon “The Organization Man Goes to
College.”
The rationale went something like this: The key to
countering Soviet technical superiority, suggested Clarence B. Randall, former
chairman of the board of Inland Steel Company, was the liberal arts. In the
1950s he said, the Soviets could not compete with the United States in
humanistic scholarship. As Randall argued, “No where have I heard Russia boast
about the number of graduates she is turning out in the liberal arts.” He was
confident that the liberal arts would “prove to be the Achilles heel of the
Communist dynasty,” counteracting the problems of automation, helping to
balance overspecialized training, and in the end preserving democracy and the
free enterprise system during the Cold War.
Many business leaders across the nation agreed and used the
liberal arts as the way to broaden overspecialized managers and offset
America’s apparent technical disadvantage in the early years of the 1950s.
AT&T took the lead. In September 1953, a small group of
promising young middle managers received a job reassignment from their AT&T
corporate headquarters. Their relocation was not to another AT&T division
but to the University of Pennsylvania, where they spent nine months in an
“unusual and exciting education experience.”’ They did not study new accounting
methods, telephone technology, or managerial techniques; instead, they learned
philosophy, history, and literature during the day, and went to concerts,
museums, and other cultural events at night. Educators called this the AT&T
“Institute of Humanistic Studies for Executives,” and its goal was nothing
short of preparing a new generation of business leaders to continue America’s
economic prosperity.
Sadly the program ended by the early 1960s, not because it
was a failure, but because the next generation of AT&T leadership simply
did not value the humanities.
I would suggest we need to get back to seeing the ways that
a humanities education is of broad value in an increasingly complex and global
society. My hope, and current research, is that the Digital Humanities can
breathe new life in to the “perception” of an antiquated discipline. I firmly
believe that the growing vigor and sophistication of Digital Humanities will
serve as an antidote to the persistent rumors that the humanities are in
crisis. To end with a literary allusion, as
Mark Twain famously said in 1897, “The report of my death was an exaggeration.”
I can assure you, the humanities are alive, well, and
thriving in the digital world of the 21st century. We just need to convince
others of this reality.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
You Lost Me at Bruno: Review of Cosmos 2.0
Carl Sagan inspired my love
for science as a kid. I eagerly followed everything he did from Cosmos, to
Contact, to Carson. I eventually earned a Ph.D. in the history of science from
Case Western Reserve University. And now as a Professor of History, I show a
few of the Cosmos episodes in my history of science graduate course that I
teach.
However, I was very disappointed that in episode 1 of Cosmos 2.0, of all the things that could and should have been the focus, it was the story of Bruno that got the most airtime. It was very clear that in showcasing Bruno, Seth MacFarlane (executive producer) and Neil deGrasse Tyson (host) were transparently advancing an agenda. This overemphasis of an event in the history of religion is far removed from Sagan's beautiful and poetic wonderment of the mystery of the universe and our story within it.
However, I was very disappointed that in episode 1 of Cosmos 2.0, of all the things that could and should have been the focus, it was the story of Bruno that got the most airtime. It was very clear that in showcasing Bruno, Seth MacFarlane (executive producer) and Neil deGrasse Tyson (host) were transparently advancing an agenda. This overemphasis of an event in the history of religion is far removed from Sagan's beautiful and poetic wonderment of the mystery of the universe and our story within it.
The tragic tale of Bruno's
burning at the stake at the hands of the Catholic Inquisition also had very
little in reality to do with science, though that seemingly "small"
point was lost in Cosmos 2.0.
Consider what Sheila Rabin
wrote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "in 1600 there was no
official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a
heresy. When Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) was burned at the stake as a heretic,
it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology, and
this is clearly shown in Finocchiaro's reconstruction of the accusations
against Bruno." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/
That Cosmos 2.0 gives so much attention to a tale more appropriately told in the history of religion is further perplexing because Bruno lived between Copernicus and Newton, and Bruno was the one that received the most airtime. Galileo also garnered little more than a mention in the first episode.
That Cosmos 2.0 gives so much attention to a tale more appropriately told in the history of religion is further perplexing because Bruno lived between Copernicus and Newton, and Bruno was the one that received the most airtime. Galileo also garnered little more than a mention in the first episode.
The history of the
relationship between science and religion is so much more interesting and
complex than the naive "thought police" comment Neil deGrasse Tyson
made in the first episode of Cosmos 2.0. Professional historians of science and
religion have long moved past the simplistic "conflict model" that
this series seems to want to promote. And that is unfortunate.
To learn more from scholars
who actually spend their lives studying the relationship between science and
religion in an intelligent way, consider someone like David Lindberg, the
Hilldale Professor Emeritus of History of Science at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Writing a chapter in in Gary Ferngren's book Science and Religion: A Historical
Introduction (Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2002) he said, "There was no warfare between science and
the church. The story of science and Christianity in the Middle Ages is not a
story of suppression not one of its polar opposite, support and encouragement.
What we find is an interaction exhibiting all of the variety and complexity
with which we are familiar in other realms of human endeavor: conflict,
compromise, understanding, misunderstanding, accommodation, dialogue,
alienation, the making of a common cause, and the going of separate ways."
Or consider what Lindberg
had to say in his book The
Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in
Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450
(University of Chicago Press, 2007.) He wrote that the interpretation of the
conflict between science and religion historically "depends largely on the
attitudes and expectations that one brings to the question." He further
described it like this: "If we compare the early church with a modern
research university or the National Science Foundation, the church will prove
to have failed abysmally as a supporter of science and natural philosophy. But
such comparison is obviously unfair. If, instead, we compare the support
available from any other contemporary social institution, it will become
apparent that the church was one of the major patrons—perhaps the major
patron—of scientific learning."
There was much more blending
between science and religion than we see now. Newton, who died in 1727, spent a
significant portion of his life thinking about God. As Karen Armstrong wrote in
her A History of God (A.A. Knoph, 1993): "Newton began
with an attempt to explain the physical universe, with God as an essential part
of the system. In Newton's physics, nature was entirely passive: God was the
sole source of activity." In Gale Christianson said in Isaac Newton (Oxford University Press, 2005)
that throughout his life Newton would "write an estimated 1,400,000 words
on religion, more than alchemy, more than mathematics, more even than the
physics and astronomy that made him immortal...Unlike many thinkers today, he
saw no conflict between science and religion and wrote that the world could not
operate without God being present."
And to conclude this point on the interesting blending between science and religion, J.L. Heilbron states in The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories (Harvard University Press, 1999) that historically the "Roman Catholic church gave more support to astronomy…than did any other institution."
And to conclude this point on the interesting blending between science and religion, J.L. Heilbron states in The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories (Harvard University Press, 1999) that historically the "Roman Catholic church gave more support to astronomy…than did any other institution."
Back to Cosmos 2.0 now. It should be clear that the horrible Bruno episode by itself really sheds little to no light at all on anything related to the history of science. Unless of course one wanted to advance an atheist position (which both Tyson and MacFarlane both are). Everyone has a right to their beliefs, but in making an arguments for said belief, one should not manipulate the past to make an inaccurate point in the present.
Certainly it is quite clear that the Inquisition was a terrible thing. It is a sad testimony that any great mind is silenced. It is a period that even Catholic Popes have apologized for. If Cosmos 2.0 is making their point to sway religious Fundamentalists against their militant position against science and the teaching of evolution, then once again Cosmos 2.0 is attacking the wrong branch of Christianity. Catholics are not the ones that oppose teaching of evolution. As Pope John Paul II wrote, "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation…"
What the Cosmos 2.0's first episode
fails to note (and this would have been an interesting aside as to how far the
Catholic church has come from that time) is that the Vatican Observatory is one
of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. http://www.vaticanobservatory.org/.
Furthermore The Vatican Observatory Research Group operates the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (VATT). This is done in partnership with the University of Arizona (and other universities). Real science is done here, and no one is being put to death for it. Remarkably they have not even threatened to burn any of the astronomers at the stake.
As a brilliant astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson surely knows this. But somehow to him this seems insignificant to the much more compelling story of the horrors of the church and its supposed silencing of scientific genius.
Furthermore The Vatican Observatory Research Group operates the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (VATT). This is done in partnership with the University of Arizona (and other universities). Real science is done here, and no one is being put to death for it. Remarkably they have not even threatened to burn any of the astronomers at the stake.
As a brilliant astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson surely knows this. But somehow to him this seems insignificant to the much more compelling story of the horrors of the church and its supposed silencing of scientific genius.
My hope is that the
remainder of the Cosmos 2.0 episodes can stick to the wonders of science and
refrain from espousing the anti-religious agenda of its creators.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
The Bowles Debate at RateMyProfessor.com....
The following is a deeply insightful pedagogical debate about my teaching skills excerpted from the online site RateMyProfessors.com. I can usually predict when one of these anonymous posts will appear...after a disgruntled student gets a bad grade or an enthusiastic student completes an excellent MA thesis. The truth, as always in life, is somewhere in the middle. Except of course for the last comment, which is completely accurate.
The Detractors: Professor Bowles is a “poor teacher.”
The Supporters: Just wait a minute, he is an “outstanding professor.” He "provides feedback ASAP."
The Detractors: But his knowledge is “limited to personal interest.”
The Supporters: That is wrong. Bowles really "knows his stuff" and is “extremely knowledgeable in American history.” He was "one of the best professors I have had."
The Detractors: How can you say that? He does not “provide much guidance” for his students.
The Supporters: Are you kidding me? Bowles is “always willing to help out.” He “communicates quite a bit,” and he is “very involved” in his classes.
The Detractors: You know “He can’t handle being corrected.”
The Supporters: I agree with you there, I mean "Don't disagree with him!!!" But he is “patient,” “extremely helpful” and “one of the best professors I have had.” The bottom line is "I highly recommend him."
The Detractors: No way. "I would not recommend him." Have you noticed the "typos common in his instructions."
The Supporters: Who cares! He has a "great sense of humor," he is "engaging," and "makes the class a whole lot of fun with interesting written lectures and videos."
The Detractors: Maybe so, but I can tell he has a “conservative bias.” He is just "not a great teacher."
The Supporters: Yeah, but "based on his photo, he's hot!"
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1385823
The Detractors: Professor Bowles is a “poor teacher.”
The Supporters: Just wait a minute, he is an “outstanding professor.” He "provides feedback ASAP."
The Detractors: But his knowledge is “limited to personal interest.”
The Supporters: That is wrong. Bowles really "knows his stuff" and is “extremely knowledgeable in American history.” He was "one of the best professors I have had."
The Detractors: How can you say that? He does not “provide much guidance” for his students.
The Supporters: Are you kidding me? Bowles is “always willing to help out.” He “communicates quite a bit,” and he is “very involved” in his classes.
The Detractors: You know “He can’t handle being corrected.”
The Supporters: I agree with you there, I mean "Don't disagree with him!!!" But he is “patient,” “extremely helpful” and “one of the best professors I have had.” The bottom line is "I highly recommend him."
The Detractors: No way. "I would not recommend him." Have you noticed the "typos common in his instructions."
The Supporters: Who cares! He has a "great sense of humor," he is "engaging," and "makes the class a whole lot of fun with interesting written lectures and videos."
The Detractors: Maybe so, but I can tell he has a “conservative bias.” He is just "not a great teacher."
The Supporters: Yeah, but "based on his photo, he's hot!"
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1385823
Friday, October 18, 2013
Becoming a Footnote in History...
When I first considered going to graduate school in 1991 I set a seemingly small goal for myself—to be footnoted just
once. I shared this odd idea with my father, and while it seemed insignificant, I explained it to him like this. To be
footnoted I would have to: enjoy moderate success in grad school,
conduct work in an archives, compose a scholarly article or book based on that research, find a publisher to accept my work, pass a peer review process by experts in my field, hold one of
my published works in my hand, convince (or force) other people to read my article or book, and
impress (or infuriate) people enough to actually cite my work in their own
publication.
Therefore a single footnote of my work, from my
vantage
point of just entering graduate school, seemed like a monumental
achievement and a way to secure my legacy of literally becoming a
footnote in history.
I was fortunate to pass my way though grad school and earn a
Ph.D. in history in 1999 from Case Western Reserve University. It was in that
year that my first footnote appeared in a book (pictured below).
Zachary, Gregg Pascal. Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999. |
The author cited me twice and even reproduced a drawing that
I made of an early computing device. Here are the two footnotes...the first of my career.
The footnotes (numbers 26 and 28 above) were to an article I published three years earlier, in 1996, in the Annals of the History of Computing entitled “The Age of the Analog Brain.”
Since Zachary asked my permission to use my drawing, I knew that I was going to appear in his book and anticipated the release of his book more than I did my first published article. I remember anxiously
going to Border’s Book Store (back in the day when one actually went to a store to buy a book), pulling it from the shelves, and scanning the book not for scholarly content, but for my name. Indeed, it was purely an exercise in vanity, but it meant a great deal.
My drawings reproduced in Zachary's book. |
Since that time I have managed to publish a number of books, and I
have also enjoyed serendipitously running across footnotes to that
scholarship. It is one of the many pleasures of my career. Each time I do, I think about that promise to my father long ago, who passed away in 2001.
So my message to aspiring graduate students is “Dream big…become
a footnote.”
____________________________
Here are the covers of my top ten favorite books that I appear in, not in an overtly significant way, but as a footnote to history.
Bibliography:
1.
Black, Alistair, Dave Muddiman, and Helen Plant.
The Early Information Society Information Management in Britain Before the
Computer. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2007.
Creager, Angela N. H. Life Atomic: A History of
Radioisotopes in Science and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2013.
Dick, Steven J., and Roger D. Launius. Societal Impact of
Spaceflight. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
2007.
Downey, Gregory John. Closed Captioning Subtitling,
Stenography, and the Digital Convergence of Text with Television. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.
Evans, Ben. Tragedy and Triumph in Orbit: The Eighties and
Early Nineties. New York, NY: Springer, 2012.
Hersch, Matthew H. Inventing the American Astronaut. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
Mirowski, Philip. Machine Dreams: Economic Becomes a Cyborg
Science. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002.
Neufeld, Michael J. Von Braun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of
War. New York: Vintage Books, 2008.
Swade, Doron. The Difference Engine: Charles Babbage and the
Quest to Build the First Computer. New York: Viking, 2001.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Lament that the US Government will not let me view a waterfall
In riding my bike along the outskirts of a
closed national park today I was reminded of the Ken Burns documentary
entitled "The National Parks: America's Best Idea."
In it Dayton Duncan said this: "At the heart of the park idea is this notion that by virtue of being an American ... you, you are the owner of some of the best seafront property this nation's got. You own magnificent waterfalls. You own stunning views of mountains and stunning views of gorgeous canyons. They belong to you. They're yours."
Somehow, the American people have lost the right to that ownership.
Below is a waterfall that I was not allowed to explore today. Well, I could have explored it, but there is a penalty of a monetary fine. There is a maximum penalty of 6 months in prison.
Whose America is this?
http://www.pbs.org/nationalparks/
In it Dayton Duncan said this: "At the heart of the park idea is this notion that by virtue of being an American ... you, you are the owner of some of the best seafront property this nation's got. You own magnificent waterfalls. You own stunning views of mountains and stunning views of gorgeous canyons. They belong to you. They're yours."
Somehow, the American people have lost the right to that ownership.
Below is a waterfall that I was not allowed to explore today. Well, I could have explored it, but there is a penalty of a monetary fine. There is a maximum penalty of 6 months in prison.
Whose America is this?
http://www.pbs.org/nationalparks/
Monday, September 2, 2013
Prof. Bowles Discusses Capital Punishment
I recently started a heated Facebook discussion over Capital Punishment and a recent editorial in the Cleveland Plain Dealer entitled: "Ohio's vanishing stock of execution drugs is yet another sign that it's time to eliminate the death penalty in Ohio." You can read it here: http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/09/ohios_vanishing_stock_of_execu.html#incart_river_default
I strongly agreed with this editorial and while engaging with several people on Facebook who were staunchly in favor of the death penalty, I realized that many opinions about it are simply uninformed by scholarship. As a result, I compiled the following argument for the termination of the death penalty in the United States.
I strongly agreed with this editorial and while engaging with several people on Facebook who were staunchly in favor of the death penalty, I realized that many opinions about it are simply uninformed by scholarship. As a result, I compiled the following argument for the termination of the death penalty in the United States.
What is
true of nearly all debates like this is that often one’s personal beliefs (and life
experiences) shapes the validity ascribed to the facts presented. I promised
some friends of mine who are in favor of the death penalty some quality research and opinions on this subject. And I offer the following
for your consideration. As you might expect, all of what appears below supports
my deep belief that capital punishment in America must end.
Here are some key facts about Capital Punishment from a
collection of scholars writing a book published by Duke University Press. You
can read the book: Garvey, Stephen P. Beyond Repair?: America's Death
Penalty. Durham: Duke University Press, 2003.
1. Public Opinion: Since 2000, more people are seeking the
abolition of the death penalty. This includes Republican Governor George Ryan
from Illinois who halted executions in his state after the THIRTEENTH innocent
man left death row. Read the governor’s address entitled “I Must Act” which he
presented at Northwestern University College of Law. It was reprinted in the
NYTimes here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/11/national/11CND-RTEX.html
In my opinion this alone should convince anyone to rethink the death penalty.
2. Innocence: DNA technology has shown how remarkably flawed
our judicial system has been in sending men to death row. Since the 1970s over
100 men have been set free when DNA technology exonerated them.
3. Capital Juries: Interestingly judges do the sentencing in
noncapital cases, while juries sentence in capital cases. Professors John Blume
and Theodore Eisenberg have asked the question: “How do jurors decide between
life and death?” After extensive research they determined: “The results are disquieting.
Far too many unqualified jurors end up
serving; many capital jurors fail to understand the basic constitutional
principles on which their deliberations should proceed;…and a defendant’s fate
can turn not just on the facts and circumstances of his case but also on the
race of the jurors who sit in judgment of him.”
Let’s look more at race in an article published in New York
University Law Review. Consider this scholarly article entitled “Devaluing
Death: An Empirical Study of Implicit Racial Bias on Jury-Eligible Citizens in
Six Death Penalty States." The law professors simply concluded: “Stark racial
disparities define America’s relationship with the death penalty.” They
further went to explain their findings: “A new study testing internal attitudes
and stereotypes among potential jurors in six death penalty states may help to
explain the racial disparities that persist in the application of capital
punishment. Researchers Justin Levinson (l.), Robert Smith (r.), and Danielle
Young tested 445 jury-eligible individuals and found they harbored two kinds of
racial bias: they maintained racial stereotypes about Blacks and Whites and
made associations between the race of an individual and the value of his or her
life. Those studied tended to associate Whites more with "worth" and
Blacks with "worthless." The study further found that death-qualified jurors held stronger racial biases
than potential jurors who would be excluded from serving in death penalty
cases.”
4. International Law: Remarkably “Most of the nations with
which the United States prefers to keep company have abolished the death
penalty. Indeed, most of them now see capital punishment as a human rights
violation.” Therefore, this weakens our global stature in fighting against
other human rights violations. You can read more about this in a National
Geographic article which said that only 21 countries in the world executed
someone in 2012. The US had the 5th highest number of executions,
though China keeps its numbers secret. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130412-death-penalty-capital-punishment-culture-amnesty-international/
By the way, in December of last year 111 countries (that is
more than half of the countries in the world) sided with a UN resolution to end
state sponsored executions.
I could suggest that everyone opposed to the death penalty
read Austin Sarat’s book When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the
American Condition. This is an academic book, published by Princeton University
Press with all the peer review and scholarship that goes along with this type
of endeavor. His central argument is that capital punishment “undermines our
democratic society.” He argues that “state executions, once used by monarchs as
symbolic displays of power, gained acceptance among Americans as a sign of the
people's sovereignty. Yet today when the state kills, it does so in a
bureaucratic procedure hidden from view and for which no one in particular
takes responsibility.” There are forces that manage to maintain this culture of
acceptable killing that includes “racial prejudice, and the desire for a world
without moral ambiguity.” Sarat, Austin. When the State Kills: Capital
Punishment and the American Condition. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 2001.
Other academics, this time professors of law published by
Oxford University Press, ask the following important questions: “Why does the
United States continue to employ the death penalty when fifty other developed
democracies have abolished it? Why does capital punishment become more
problematic each year? How can the death penalty conflict be resolved?” They
suggest that the reason that this remains such a divided issue is because it
reveals that “the seemingly insoluble turmoil surrounding the death penalty
reflects a deep and long-standing division in American values.” The division is
this: “On the one hand, execution would seem to violate our nation's highest
legal principles of fairness and due process. It sets us increasingly apart
from our allies and indeed is regarded by European nations as a barbaric and
particularly egregious form of American exceptionalism. On the other hand, the
death penalty represents a deeply held American belief in violent social
justice that sees the hangman as an agent of local control and safeguard of
community values.” The conclusion here is that “the most troubling symptom of
this attraction to vigilante justice in the lynch mob.” Zimring, Franklin E. The
Contradictions of American Capital Punishment. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2004.
These legal and academic studies go on and on and on…I will
list just one more from June 2013. This was from the Center for Constitutional
Rights (CCR) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) who
released their report on the death penalty in California and Louisiana. Their
main conclusion was that the death penalty in these states was “arbitrary and
discriminatory.” The authors wrote, “States must also ensure that all persons
charged with a death-eligible offense have timely-appointed, competent, and
experienced representation at all stages of a capital case, and that appointed
counsel have adequate funding to carry out the tasks necessary to provide
effective representation.” You can read the report here: http://fidh.org/IMG/pdf/2010_6_10_final_executive_summary.pdf
Finally, here are five salient points on why the death penalty does not work from Amnesty International (http://www.amnestyusa.org/.../us-death-penalty-facts)
1. Innocent people are on death row. Republican Governor of Illinois George Ryan said: "I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life... Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate." Since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row.
2. The death penalty is racially unjust. In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office found "a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study concluded that a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the murder victim was white. This has been confirmed by the findings of many other studies that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the victim.
3. It is costly. A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million).
4. It is arbitrary. Almost all death row inmates could not afford their own attorney at trial. Court-appointed attorneys often lack the experience necessary for capital trials and are overworked and underpaid. In the most extreme cases, some have slept through parts of trials or have arrived under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.
5. It is not a deterrent. A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty. FBI data shows that all 14 states without capital punishment in 2008 had homicide rates at or below the national rate.
1. Innocent people are on death row. Republican Governor of Illinois George Ryan said: "I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life... Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate." Since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row.
2. The death penalty is racially unjust. In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office found "a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study concluded that a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the murder victim was white. This has been confirmed by the findings of many other studies that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the victim.
3. It is costly. A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million).
4. It is arbitrary. Almost all death row inmates could not afford their own attorney at trial. Court-appointed attorneys often lack the experience necessary for capital trials and are overworked and underpaid. In the most extreme cases, some have slept through parts of trials or have arrived under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.
5. It is not a deterrent. A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty. FBI data shows that all 14 states without capital punishment in 2008 had homicide rates at or below the national rate.
In conclusion, I sincerely hope that the American public will become more informed about the significant debate surrounding Capital Punishment.
Professor Bowles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)