Death Penalty: A gamble with human life, P-value < .001

What odds would you require to gamble with a human life? Our justice system has failed some of our citizens, and the penalty has been a wrongful execution. Dark and macabre questions aside, this is a sincere issue and a real problem. It has been historically documented that people have been put to death and executed in the United States, who have posthumously been exonerated of their crimes due to new evidence.  

In Texas, we allow capital punishment. Tcapd.org, reports the following: "Since 1973, 158 individuals – including 13 people in Texas – have been released from death rows nationwide due to evidence of their wrongful conviction." My question is this: who have we missed? Is it moral to proceed with a system that has wrongfully killed innocent people because in general, we execute the right ones? 

I argue that there is no real reason to continue executions under these conditions. It costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to imprison them for life, and there is a possibility that we condemning an innocent person. We claim to value life, and we protect it with laws, but we are willing to risk a wrongful death every time we use capital punishment. We have an imperfect system, and the statistics are such: You have an imperfect chance to be sentenced correctly in a capital offense. You have a chance of being wrongfully executed. 

We do not have to gamble. We can still keep our most violent criminals away from the public. We can still provide ample punishment by taking away nearly all choices they can ever have. We can reduce them to a 10x10 cell. It costs less eliminates the risk of an innocent life being taken. 

Let us please stop playing a game of dice with human lives.

Response to commentary from TristanSZ :"Lessons for American from my own refuge tale."

Response to commentary from TristanSZ :"Lessons for American from my own refuge tale."

Thank you for the article. I appreciate the perspective.

I also think that it is important to provide opportunities for citizens and immigrants alike. Everyone is technically an immigrant. The majority Caucasian culture is certainly a blend from European immigrants, some of whom migrated early in American history, and some of whom migrated later. 

I do see challenges for immigrants that wish to make a meaningful life in America. Some of the practical issues include language barriers and cultural learning curves. Some of the less clear issues include; immigration policy, work visas, international student polices, and financial aid.

Many of the american policies are difficult for natives to understand. Loans, credit, and academic financing are stressful for seasoned navigators. Imagine doing these things when the language isn't your primary means of communicating, which further increases your risk of borrowing from financial institutions who's policies border on usury. We need to institute policies that safeguard American immigrants who are not accustomed to our financial and banking practices. When we give people reasonable circumstances in which to thrive, they are more likely to choose paths that align with their aspirations and passions. People who are allowed to explore these paths are more likely to generate quality work that they care about. Everyone wins.

I think it is extremely important to help immigrant families set up a reasonable life for themselves. There are some naturally occurring barriers that come along with relocating to different countries. We can however, help ease this transition and recognize that it's actually beneficial to do so. When we give people the opportunities to go after their dreams and ambitions, we let them show up and offer their best-selves back into the community. I would prefer to be surrounded by people who are their best-selves, buying services and goods from those who are also showing up with passion and intrinsic motivation.

What about the rest of our Texas students?

Greetings Texans ,

In a recent post, I illustrated the competitive, unhealthy framework that underlies our educational institutions. Our system is designed to initiate the young into a competitive, unrealistic academic marathon, in which only a few on the far end of a statistical distribution can win. Measures of academic success are tailored to those with specific skill sets, specific interests, and specific resources. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following examples are unfortunately not uncommon.

High reading comprehension?                              
Great job.

Strong written communication?
Fantastic.

High scores on math?
Veneration is in order.

On the other hand.............

You love to dance?
We don't offer anything to help you with that. 

Prefer to draw during your math classes?
Pay attention...draw in your spare time.

And perhaps the most disturbing of all.............

Can't sit still and desperately want to go outside to play?
Sit down and learn patience, and if that doesn't work, take this pill.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are emotionally and cognitively training a large majority of our children to believe that their interests aren't valuable, and that their instincts are wrong. This is a disturbingly flawed and unrealistic system. Any person is going to have hundreds of different qualities, attributes, and interests. I am very tall 6'6''. If I wanted to, I could train to dunk a basketball. However, my mother who is 5'3'', would not be able to do this, despite her best efforts. She can however, beat the hardest Sudoku puzzles around, something that I personally have little natural skill in, or interests for.

No matter what the attribute, there will be a distribution. Some people will be good at some tasks while others will not. Our biggest mistake in education is the stratification of human development, skill and interests. In some schools, curriculum that is natural and innate to many students, is cut from the curriculum due to budgetary restrictions. Art and music are typically the first to go.

Below is a link to Natalie Schwamova, playing Mozart's impromptu version of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. She was 11 years old during this recording. As an aspiring pianist, she was told by her teachers that she simply would not make a good pianist. Fortunately, she practiced furiously regardless of the feedback, and is now an international star.
Natalie Schwamova - Motzart's - Twinkle Twinkle Little Star

Natalie was given the opportunity to grow and explore naturally by her parents, despite her teachers recommendations. It begs the question back home......How many Natalie's are we missing?
We need to stop asking, "How can I help this person prepare for a future who's economy will demand certain jobs.?" We need to start asking, "How can I help this person become exactly who they were meant to be."