The Case of Troy Davis

[--Pete]

Hi,

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.

Isn't that pretty much what we have right now, at least as far as the death penalty is concerned? Each state is free to use or avoid capital punishment as its citizens desire in crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of that state. The federal government has the same option in those cases that fall under its jurisdiction.

Or am I misreading you? Did you mean that you would be opposed to a federal ban on capital punishment that would override state laws?

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.

I think that this is an unacceptable extension of the court's and federal government's power. Beyond determining if the laws under which the arrest, trial, conviction, and proposed punishment conflict with constitutional law, I do not believe the Supreme Court has any right to interfere. However, I do realize that, pragmatically, taking a case to the Supreme Court is the only way to rectify injustices that may be tangential to the nominal issue of a case.

. . . "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

We're humans, thus fallible. Which is why the legal requirement is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The only perfection we can achieve is perfect stasis from fear of error.

The philosophical argument predated the revolution by a century or so. Whether or not you have natural rights would not insure they are inviolate.

I've never like these arguments, because I've always felt that they start with a false premise. That premise is the existence of rights in the abstract. Which is more correct; "The Russian serf had no rights." or "All of the Russians serf's rights were violated."?

This is why, in the secular sense, you could make the natural law argument for the rights of all living things to remain unmolested.

You might sell that to the gazelle, but I think the cheetah might only agree after lunch.

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?

Given that it seems to cost more to kill someone than to board them for life, the economic argument is weak. Then again, the death penalty does seem to increase the probability of justice. Non capital cases generate fewer appeals and reviews, and are given less consideration. So, in the interest of fairness, we should make all cases capital.;)

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.

Interesting. If the majority is indeed opposed to capital punishment, why does it exist? Jefferson's 'vox populi' would have it gone, Madison's 'moderation of base drives' would not instate it against the people's wishes. So, either we do not have a republican democracy, or the majority (at least where it exists) do want it.

When the case is a capital case, then I believe the state should bear the burden for an adequate defense.

I believe that that is already the law. The question is what does 'adequate' mean? F. Lee Bailey? Someone who just graduated last in his class from Podunk U law school? You know the old joke, Q: "What do you call someone who graduated last in his medical class?", A: "Doctor." The same holds true for lawyers, some are better, some are worse. But a law degree and having passed the bar is, by definition, adequate. Yeah, the rich do better. What can you do about it? There is only one 'best' lawyer, and he (or she) can't handle all the cases.

. . . did he really do his job?) . . .

Clearly not, or you wouldn't be in jail. The problem is that doing his job is a vague and ill defined concept. Appeals on the basis of inadequate representation are almost routine and are almost universally rejected. People might expect a Perry Mason who not only vindicates the client, but exposes the true criminal. In reality what they get is a hack who knows (most of the time) when to enter an objection to generate grounds for appeal. No courtroom drama, no subtle twists of logic, no obscure precedents. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit." cost a lot extra.

--Pete