The Case of Troy Davis

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm saying that citizenry of any government should be hesitant to give over the power of life and death to a government.

But you are not denying, I take it, that said citizenry has the right to give over that power in certain circumstances? Such as the military, which may be asked to kill or die in the defense of the country. Even if that defense is against an insurrection within that country, thus making all the victims citizens. Or in the case of the police, who are given more liberty (and more responsibility) in the use of lethal force than is the common citizen.

So, if with all due 'hesitancy' the citizens give the government the right and responsibility to execute people for certain behavior, does the government then indeed have that right? It's a complex question, made little less so when you consider that (at least in principle) the 'government' and the 'people' are one and the same in a republican democracy. Sometimes it is phrased as to whether society has the right to do things individuals don't. We've pretty well settled that. A police force is legal, vigilantism is not. War is legal, feuds are not. Jails are legal, private incarceration is not.

So, the underpinnings of our society, of our culture, of our government don't really answer the question. One factor does address the issue, the common vote. And in many places, it seems to be in favor of executions. Should (the government) we adopt the 'vox populi, vox dei' attitude of Jefferson or the 'buffer of the base instincts' of Madison? What would Locke have us do?

Or in other words, we have the inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of prosperity given to us by "our Creator", or for the atheists by the reasoned discovery of the laws governing natural events and then applying them to thinking about human action.

Actually, great oratory but poor logic. If, indeed, those rights were inherent (avoiding 'unalienable', are you?:)) then why would the people endorsing that document need to ". . . pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Why was a revolution necessary? Because might does make right, and the rights of all are only those that might can buy and share.

Actions in accord with such natural law are morally correct. Those that go against such natural laws are morally wrong.

A Canaanite might disagree, and tell you that sacrifice of a firstborn is morally correct and a natural law. That is, if any Canaanites had survived the Israeli invasion. But the might of Israel made the right of Mosaic law superior to the superstitions of the Canaanites.

Do you think that if Washington had failed in his gamble at Trenton, we would be studying and quoting that document? Or would we be thankful for whatever freedoms king and parliament gave us?

The question then is when does a collection of people whether you call them a "government" or a "society" have the right to deny another human being (or any living creature for that matter) their right to life?

In an absolute sense? Whenever they can -- i.e., whenever they have the might to do so. Somehow we've (the people of the USA, and it is spreading to the rest of the world) made an icon of the concept of 'rights'. We think that rights exist and are permanent, fundamental, indestructible and absolute. We overlook, perhaps because we've forgotten or never learned, that 'rights' are abstract concepts, made concrete by the drive, blood, and lives of those that bought them. That 'rights' only exist when coupled with responsibility and each of us only have the rights that we are willing to fight for, or that others are willing to fight for and give to us. Our 'rights' are not the endowments by a creator that Jefferson claims. They are the gift of the toil, and often death, of those who wanted them, for themselves, for their neighbors, and for their posterity.

The argument for the death penalty would be that the person convicted is too dangerous to be allowed to commingle with "society", and so must be restrained or killed to protect "society".

That's a flawed argument in respect to the death penalty since it is an argument for life in prison as well. Are you opposed to both, or are you using the same argument against execution and for life imprisonment? Also, I wonder why you put 'society' in quotes -- did you have another unit of humanity in mind?

I'm not in support of that line of argument for the reasons I stated earlier; a) I don't want to give government that power, . . .

Not a reason for not supporting the death penalty argument. Simply a reiteration. "I don't want to give the government that power because I don't want to give the government that power." Say it one more time and, at least according to the Bellman, it will be true. :whistling:

. . .B)they often do a bad job convicting people on flimsy evidence, . . .

Not an argument against the death penalty in principle, but a valid argument for not using the death penalty unless and until the flaws in the system are fixed.

. . . and c) the poor often do not get adequate representation in capital cases.

The poor always get screwed -- problem with the death penalty or problem with the judicial system? You've spoken against the progressive income tax, are you in favor of progressive punishment? "The defendant is in the bottom quintile in income, thus he gets five years off his sentence for poverty."????

I'm still thinking about what my position would be relating to non-citizens.

Hmmm? What happened to that ". . . all men . . ." philosophy?

It is 100% clear though that death prevents recidivism.

Yep. Unfortunately, sometimes it even prevents a first offense.

--Pete