“互联网+”背景下体育产业融合发展研究

Unit6：DeathandJusticeHowCapitalPunishmentAffirmsLife死亡与司法死刑如何肯定生命LastDecemberamannamedRobertLeeWillie,whohadbeenconvictedofrapingandmurderinganeighteen-year-oldwoman,wasexecutedintheLouisianastateprison.Inastatementissuedseveralminutesbeforehisdeath,Mr.Williesaid:“Killingpeopleiswrong…Itmakesnodifferencewhetherit’scitizens,countries,orgovernments.Killingiswrong.”TwoweekslaterinSouthCarolina,anadmittedkillernamedJosephCarlShawwasputtodeathformurderingtwoteenagers.Inanappealtothegovernorforclemency,Mr.Shawwrote:“KillingwaswrongwhenIdidit.Killingwaswrongwhenyoudoit.Ihopeyouhavethecourageandmoralstrengthtostopthekilling.”去年12月，一个名叫罗伯特.李.威利的罪犯在路易斯安那州的监狱中被处决，罪名是强奸和谋杀一名18岁的女子。在其死亡前几分钟发表的一份声明中，威利先生说：“杀人是错误的......无论是公民、国家，还是政府，都没有区别。杀人是不对的”。两周后在南卡罗来纳州，一个名为约瑟夫.卡尔.肖的杀人犯因为杀害两名青少年被处死。在上诉到州长请求宽恕时，肖先生说：“当我杀人时杀人是错误的。当你杀人时杀人也是错误的。我希望你有勇气和道德力量来阻止杀戮。”.Itisacuriosityofmodernlifethatwefindourselvesbeinglecturedonmoralitybycold-bloodedkillers.Mr.Williepreviouslyhadbeenconvictedofaggravatedrape,aggravatedkidnapping,andthemurdersofaLouisianadeputyandamanfromMissouri.Mr.Shawcommittedanothermurderaweekbeforethetwoforwhichhewasexecuted,andadmittedmutilatingthebodyofthefourteen-year-oldgirlhekilled.Ican’thelpwonderingwhatpromptedthesemurdererstospeakoutagainstkillingastheyenteredthedeath-housedoor.Didtheirnewfoundreverenceforlifestemfromtherealizationthattheywereabouttolosetheirown?冷血的杀人犯对我们进行道德说教，这真是现代社会的一件奇事。威利先生之前已经犯有恶性强奸罪、恶性绑架罪和谋杀一名路易斯安那州副州长和一名密苏里州人的谋杀罪。肖先生在杀害致其被处死的两个人的一周前，还进行了另一起谋杀，他承认肢解了他所杀害的14岁女孩的身体。我不禁要问，是什么原因促使这些凶手在走入鬼门关的时候发表反对杀人的言论。他们重新发现对生命的尊重是源于意识到即将失去自己的生命了吗？.Lifeisindeedprecious,andIbelievethedeathpenaltyhelpstoaffirmthisfact.Hadthedeathpenaltybeenarealpossibilityinthemindsofthesemurderers,theymightwellhavestayedtheirhand.Theymighthaveshownmoralawarenessbeforetheirvictimsdied,andnotafter.ConsiderthetragicdeathofRosaVelez,whohappenedtobehomewhenamannamedLuisVeraburglarizedherapartmentinBrooklyn.“Yeah,Ishother,”Veraadmitted.“Sheknewme,andIknewIwouldn’tgotothechair.”生命无疑是宝贵的，我相信死刑可以肯定这一事实。如果这些杀人犯脑子里真想到过死刑的话，他们就可能会手下留情，就应该会在受害者死亡之前而不是之后表现出道德良知。考虑罗莎.贝莱斯的悲惨死亡，当一个名为路易斯.维拉的人在她布鲁克林的公寓内盗窃时，她碰巧回家。“是的，我射杀了她，”维拉承认。“她认识我，并且我知道我不会被处死刑。”Duringmytwenty-twoyearsinpublicservice,Ihaveheardtheprosandconsofcapitalpunishmentexpressedwithspecialintensity.Asadistrictleader,councilman,congressman,andmayor,Ihaverepresentedconstituenciesgenerallythoughtofasliberal.BecauseIsupportthedeathpenaltyforheinouscrimesofmurder,Ihavesometimesbeenthesubjectofemotionalandoutragedattackedbyvoterswhofindmypositionreprehensibleorworse.Ihavelistenedtotheirideas.Ihaveweighedtheirobjectionscarefully.Istillsupportthedeathpenalty.ThereasonsImaintainmypositioncanbebestunderstoodbyexaminingtheargumentsmostfrequentlyheardinopposition.在我二十多年的公共服务期间，我听过关于死刑利弊的种种表达。作为一个选区的领导人、议会议员、国会议员和市长，我代表了普遍被认为是自由派的选民。因为我支持对十恶不赦的谋杀判处死刑，我有时是选民情绪和愤怒的攻击对象，他们觉得我的立场应该受到攻击或者更糟。我听取了他们的想法，仔细权衡了他们的反对意见，但仍然支持死刑。我坚持自己立场的原因，可以通过剖析最常听到的反对观点来解释。Reason1.Thedeathpenaltyis“barbaric.”Sometimesopponentsofcapitalpunishmenthorrifywithtalesoflingeringdeathonthegallows,offaultyelectricchairs,orofagonyinthegaschamber.Partlyinresponsetosuchprotests,severalstatessuchasNorthCarolinaandTexasswitchedtoexecutionbylethalinjection.Thecondemnedpersonisputtodeathpainlessly,withoutropes,voltage,bullets,orgas.Didthisanswertheobjectionsofdeathpenaltyopponents?Ofcoursenot.OnJune22,1984,theNewYorkTimespublishedaneditorialthatsarcasticallyattackedthenew“hygienic”methodofdeathbyinjection,andstatedthat“executioncanneverbemadehumanethroughscience.”Soit’snotthemethodthatreallytroublesopponents.It’sthedeathitselftheyconsiderbarbaric.原因1：死刑是“野蛮的”。有时候，绞刑架上凌迟的讲述、故障死刑电椅上的讲述、或在毒气室中临死挣扎的讲述使得死刑反对者更害怕。在一定程度上是为了响应这样的抗议，北卡罗莱纳州和得克萨斯州等几个州改为注射毒针来执行死刑。判刑的人被无痛苦地杀死，没有绳索、电压、子弹或气体。这就回答了死刑反对者的异议了吗？当然没有。1984年6月22日，纽约时报发表了一篇社论，讽刺性地攻击了新的“卫生”的注射死亡方法，并指出“科学从来不能使死刑变得仁慈”。所以真正困扰反对者的不是方法，而是他们认为死亡本身是野蛮的。Admittedly,capitalpunishmentisnotapleasanttopic.However,onedoesnothavetolikethedeathpenaltyinordertosupportitanymorethanonemustlikeradicalsurgery,radiation,orchemotherapyinordertofindnecessarytheseattemptsatcuringcancer.Ultimately,wemaylearnhowtocurecancerwithasimplepill.Unfortunately,thedayhasnotyetarrived.Todaywearefacedwiththechoiceoflettingthecancerspreadortryingtocureitwiththemethodsavailable,methodsthatonedaywillalmostcertainlybeconsideredbarbaric.Buttogiveupanddonothingwouldbefarmorebarbaricandwouldcertainlydelaythediscoveryofaneventualcure.Theanalogybetweencancerandmurderisimperfect,becausemurderisnotthe“disease”wearetryingtocure.Thediseaseisinjustice.Wemaynotlikethedeathpenalty,butitmustbeavailabletopunishcrimesofcold-bloodedmurder,casesinwhichanyotherformofpunishmentwouldbeinadequateand,therefore,unjust.Ifwecreateasocietyinwhichinjusticeisnottolerated,incidentsofmurder—themostflagrantformofinjustice—willdiminish.诚然，死刑是不愉快的话题。然而，正如一个人不必喜欢根治性手术、放疗或化疗，以便找到治疗癌症的必要尝试；一个人也没必要为了支持死刑而喜欢死刑。最终，我们可能学会如何用简单的药丸治愈癌症。不幸的是，这一天还没有来到。现在，我们面临着选择让癌细胞扩散，还是选择试图用现有的方法治愈它。现有方法最终几乎肯定会被认为是野蛮的。但放弃，或什么也不做将更为野蛮，肯定会延迟最终治愈方法的发现。癌症和谋杀之间的比喻是不完美的，因为谋杀不是我们试图治愈的“疾病”。这种疾病是不公正。因此，我们可能不喜欢