The Case of Troy Davis

[kandrathe]

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.

Well, right, this is the Lockian extension of the Hobbsian argument resulting in the concept, "only by the consent of the governed". Thereby, republican democracy is a fair way for allowing every citizen a voice in the actions of the government. Using Locke then, if we agree that violence is needed for our nations defense (of our rights), then that violence is lawful and correct. That could be extended to a death penalty as well, although if other means exist, then I believe they would be preferable.

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.

Agreed.

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?

I would advocate local decisions made by each State. I wouldn't want DC to dictate to Texas what they should or should not do. I think it is fair, however, that the Supreme Court has the option of providing a court of last resort if only to prevent overly large kangaroos, or the use of the mechanism for unjust purposes. Unfortunately, due to the ever growing number of people, and thereby case law, it is less and less likely that the Supremes have enough time to meet out justice. This leads to upholding lower court decisions. I wouldn't say that people spend years on death row because of a hesitancy on the part of the state to administer death, but more the inadequacy of prosecutors to meet the conditions of fair justice, meaning "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

What would Locke have us do?

Pray.:) There happens to be an analysis of Locke by various scholars, "From Noose to Needle: Capital Punishment and the Late Liberal State". One view might be, " All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. ". Yet, some would argue over the meaning of "consent of the governed". Does my consent mean in all cases, of just certain cases? I believe Locke would permit the use of death as a remedy only when the society could not be otherwise secured from a threat.

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.

The philosophical argument predated the revolution by a century or so. Whether or not you have natural rights would not insure they are inviolate. Or, according to Locke, society is a response to the need to protect life and property and a just society would do that in the fairest manner possible. The revolution was necessary because King George was a Hobbsian.

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.

Well, technically, the Canaanite would be misinterpreting "Natural Law" for supposedly his own laws. Natural law in a secular sense is based on the normality of life, reproduction, and natural death. This is why, in the secular sense, you could make the natural law argument for the rights of all living things to remain unmolested. It would be considered (unlawful) against nature for any animal to kill its own young (and yet it does happen sometimes). It is a more a question of aggression, and our right to be protected from the unjust use of it.

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?

I guess we'd be Canadians, eh?

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.

If there is a Creator, then they might be a gift. Or, if not, then as a living breathing creature, you have the right to protect your life and property from all aggressors. That our rights were secured, and preserved with blood is very, very true.

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?

Let me rephrase it then to; "One justification for the death penalty would be to permanently and irrevocably remove a threat to our society". But, as you point out, life long imprisonment would also achieve the same goal barring escape. Is death preferred then as a punishment, or only to reduce costs? I used "society" in quotes, because we are talking about certain subsections and not the majority view. Only a few states use capital punishment, and also the federal government uses it rarely.

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:

Ok! :lol: ... because I fear they would misuse that power to kill innocent people.

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.

Yes, and I would support it for particularly heinous criminals that are sufficiently proven to be guilty. For those particularly heinous crimes that insufficiently proven, then life imprisonment would suffice and perhaps innocence can be proven if the evidence exists.

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."????

We are guaranteed a fair trial where witnesses against are available for cross examination, and witnesses are produced for defense. When the case is a capital case, then I believe the state should bear the burden for an adequate defense. If the defense is not adequate (in a capital case) which should be reviewed according to general criteria (e.g. was my lawyer drunk the entire trial, and did he really do his job?) then I think "death" should be taken out of the sentence, or the criminal should be given a new trial (and the dead beat lawyer should be disbarred).

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

I know my Constitution protects the rights of citizens, but I'm not sure how far it extends to defend murderous aliens. Who pays for their defense?