The Case of Troy Davis

[kandrathe]

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?

While I'm against it for the reasons I stated, I'm supportive of the rights of the people in Georgia, or Texas to make up their own minds. I'm not calling for any special changes in laws to be made because of the inadequacies I'm seeing, only that the people in those locals should reconsider what they are doing. As for the Federal level, I'm opposed to a death penalty (at least for citizens) and you are right that it is strange that it exists given the citizenry's majority position on the issue.

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."?

In essence what they are saying is that your inalienable rights are inseparable from your being. You have the right to breath, be warmed by the sun, or to eat food to sustain your life. For many people throughout history, their natural rights were repressed from birth. It was that very idea that framed our nation, that these rights are not ceded by the powerful to the weak.

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

We might just have to accept that within the animal kingdom, there is no justice for beasts or cannibals.

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.;)

If the cases were air tight, then the number of opportunities for appeal, zeal, and thereby cost would diminish.

Interesting. If the majority is indeed opposed to capital punishment, why does it exist?

Because our elected officials are afraid to appear to be soft on criminals.

The question is what does 'adequate' mean?

There should be a minimum standard available for review by the appeals court. Allegations of malpractice should be investigated as a part of the appeal process. The biggest issue that I see is the money needed to hire expert witnesses to cross examine the prosecutions case. Perhaps, fair would be that whatever to state spends on the prosecution, should also be available for the defense. Or, set the fair price of the trial at X, then divide by 2.