2007 excavation at the Danielson site, Casa Grande AZ.
Alas, A Blog
Angry Black Woman
Half the Sins of Mankind
Never Say Never To Your Traveling Self
Capitalism Bad, Tree Pretty
Women of Color Blog
Noli Irritare Leones
The Debate Link
the evangelical outpost
The Volokh Conspiracy
The Fly Bottle
Arizona Rail Passenger Association
Disturbing Search Requests
Amazon.com Wishlist: Priority of 1 means I want to own it, priority of 3 means someone whose judgement I respect has recommended I read it.
Hover over the links in the Advisory Committee for brief annotations.
Talking about how vegans shouldn't kill plants either is currently in the kiosk.
Sydney Morning Herald
The L.A. Times
The Boston Globe
Christian Science Monitor
The Morning Call
New York Times: Science
Environmental News Network
Indian Country Today
National Geographic News
Yahoo! News: Environment and Nature
Yahoo! News: Anthropology and Archaeology
Yahoo! News: Native Americans
IWPR: Central Asia
Arts & Letters Daily
SciTech Daily Review
Political Theory Daily Review
The American Prospect
The New Republic
In the Hall of Ma'at
Internet Sacred Text Archive
Daryl Cagle's Professional Cartoonists Index
But in doing some background reading for my dissertation, I recently discovered a case in which the military is good for the environment. The case relates to the New Jersey Pine Barrens, an ecosystem that occupies most of the southern part of the state. The Pine Barrens are noted for being fire-adapted, and maintaining the health of the ecosystem requires periodic fires. In contemporary New Jersey, that means controlled burning, since there's too much development in the state to ever allow a wildfire to run free the way they can in, say, Alaska. But as with any fire-adapted ecosystem, all fires are not equal, and the type of fire that is optimal for the ecology is not necessarily the same as the type of fire that would best serve some other objective, such as hazard reduction.
Anika McKessey presents a contrast (pdf) between two types of Pine Barrens land: land owned by the military at Warren Grove Gunnery Range, and land owned by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. One would think that DEP would have the more eco-friendly fire policies -- it's right there in the name! However, DEP is constrained by another environmental goal -- the Clean Air Act. New Jersey is typically in non-attainment for Clean Air Act standards for, among other things, particulate matter (that is, the state's air has more particulates than the law allows). Being in non-attainment puts restrictions on the pollutant-creating activities that you can engage in -- activities like controlled burning, which produces particulate-filled smoke. DEP's interpretation of the law is that as long as the state is in non-attainment, the only kind of controlled burning that is permissible is for hazard reduction (since hazard reduction burning has a major direct safety benefit and also minimizes wildfires, which would produce even more smoke). Ecologically-focused controlled burning is not allowed. (Note, however, that the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, an environmental group that among other things advocates for increased ecological burning, disputes DEP's interpretation of the law.)
Warren Grove, on the other hand, has a longstanding ecological controlled burning program. It's not entirely clear whether the military has a formal exemption from the laws that DEP says tie its hands, or whether they just have an ethos of taking the most generous interpretation of the laws. The result is that McKessey found that the forests at Warren Grove are actually in better shape than those on neighboring State Forest land.
Stentor Danielson, 01:07, |
Abiola Lapite says that, contrary to the claims of anti-death-penalty campaigners, studies have shown that execution is actually pretty good at deterring crime. But he also says that death penalty opponents shouldn't be making that argument in the first place, as their real reasons for their stance are on a moral/philosophical level*. But I don't see why it's "sophistry" to choose arguments based on what you think will connect with your audience rather than what most strongly motivates you yourself, provided the arguments are all valid ones. Indeed, it shows a kind of respect, in that you're accepting that your audience has a different viewpoint and you're trying to set up some intellectual cooperation, rather than demanding that everyone else assimilate to your core values**. (Of course, there are still pragmatic reasons to be careful of using arguments that you accept intellectually but which don't motivate you. You're less able to understand the details and the larger framing, and to argue it passionately. This is why I'm skeptical of secular environmentalists trying to use "creation care" arguments. But deterrence is such a well-understood concept in our society that I don't think these pragmatic concerns carry a great deal of weight in the death penalty case.)
Lapite makes a positive mention of concerns about making sure that the death penalty is applied fairly, since it can't be undone if you make a mistake. This is, in my experience, one of the two most common arguments made by death penalty opponents. (The other is that if it's wrong for a murderer to kill someone, then it's wrong for the government to do it too. I find this very unpersuasive -- after all, any punishment involves doing something to the criminal that you would not be allowed to go out and do to an innocent person on the street. Even the most touchy-feely rehabilitative program is something that you couldn't force non-criminals to go into.) I agree that unfairness in applying the death penalty is a serious concern. But I'm often made uncomfortable by the way it's used by most death penalty opponents (not Lapite). The unfairness argument rests on facts that are not just empirically contingent (as the deterrence argument does), but on ones that are historically/institutionally contingent. We're unlikely to make major changes in how much of a deterrent the death penalty is***, since that's a matter of human decisionmaking psychology. But the fairness of applying the death penalty is clearly within our control, through various reforms of the criminal justice process. So while the unfairness argument should certainly lead us to consider an Illinois-style temporary moratorium while the worst abuses get sorted out, it cannot support a permanent ban. Moreover, using the unfairness of the system as a reason to eliminate the death penalty is a blinkered vision in which the argument's utility for the anti-capital-punishment cause is prioritized over its real force. The real force of the fairness argument is toward reforming a system that is unfair to everyone it gets hold of, not just those accused of capital crimes. Ending the death penalty would be just a band-aid over one of the worst effects of the unfair system (and a counterproductive one at that, if Lapite is right about the strong deterrent effect of capital punishment).
In summary, the deterrence argument is a valid and useful argument for eliminating the death penalty (assuming the empirical evidence it's based on holds up). The fairness argument is a weaker argument with respect to the death penalty issue because its real force should point us in the direction of a broader justice system reform.
* Most of them, anyway -- I personally place a great deal of weight on the deterrence question, so I am willing to reconsider my stance in light of new evidence. I remain a bit skeptical of the studies that Lapite cites, however, because in the news report he links to they cite some very exact numbers as to how many homicides are prevented by each execution. That kind of specificity in social science is often an indicator that various factors have either been assumed away or filled in with unreasonably precise guesses (though of course it's possible that these assumptions bias the findings against the effectiveness of the death penalty). My preexisting judgment that the evidence did not support the death penalty came from watching a debate in college between two professors, where the anti-death-penalty professor clearly had stronger evidence, and in fact the pro-death-penalty professor much preferred to focus on non-deterrence arguments such as the intrinsic desirability of revenge and making bad people suffer.
**"Seeking an overlapping consensus," for any Rawlsians in my audience.
***Though trust in the criminal justice institutions -- which is in turn affected by their fairness -- may make some difference as it encourages people to view punishments as following from the criminal's wrongdoing rather than from the punisher's ill will.
Stentor Danielson, 11:56, |
There's a great example of this kind of nature dualism in this post where Rachel S. collects commenters' responses to photos of Maggie Gyllenhaal (who's apparently a celebrity of some sort) breastfeeding. The commenters describe Gyllenhaal as an "animal," "Africa[n]," and a "peasant" -- a trifecta of species, race, and class discrimination applied to reinforce a demand that a woman comply with the ideal of the body-free masculine-style self. The commenters resent having an admittedly "natural" activity popping up in the public sphere without being properly Culture-regulated -- at least by a towel over the baby and breast, but better by keeping breastfeeding hidden away where non-breastfeeding-mothers don't have to think about it. And it's not just her behavior, but even Gyllenhaal's body is brought into it, as her breasts are deemed too "sagging" and ugly to be fit for public viewing (especially since she's a celebrity).
I find it amusingly ironic that people are hauling out the "eww, keep that in private" reaction to pictures taken by papparazzi -- people whose job is to pry into, and publicize, the affairs of others, and whose activities are supported by the audience of people who read celebrity publications like the blog where the photos were posted.
Stentor Danielson, 10:41, |