The Case of Troy Davis

[--Pete]

Hi,

In essence what they are saying is that your inalienable rights are inseparable from your being. You have the right to breath, . . .

Does the ocean recognize this right?

. . . be warmed by the sun, . . .

In a snowstorm in the Canadian Rockies in winter?

. . . or to eat food to sustain your life.

Even if you've gotten yourself lost in a desert?

Sorry, but I just see this as intellectual crap dreamed up by a bunch of well fed and well coddled effetes.

People who have had little to no experience in the so called natural world dream up things like 'universal rights' and 'noble savages'. Those who've experienced the real natural world know that it is much more about fang and claw, that "sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you." It is only because the line between survival and death moved well into the comfort zone of surplus and leisure that such nonsensical ideas could be entertained. For centuries, in the Western world, the only times people have had to really face the demands of survival have been during war.

I find it telling that neither Locke nor Jefferson ever actually fought for their principles, and those that did fight (<strike>Madison</strike> Hamilton (sorry, bf) comes to mind) mostly have very different opinions about 'rights' and the 'perfectibility of the common man.' It is easier for a person who's never had to pay for his freedoms to think they are free than it is for someone who's paid at least a little. Probably why there are damned few bleeding heart liberals in the military.

It was that very idea that framed our nation, that these rights are not ceded by the powerful to the weak.

Yes, but it is a wrong idea. The historical fact is that for any 'right' and for any group, there was a time before which that group did not have the right and after which it did. You can assume that the rights have an absolute existence and that the strong finally stopped depriving the weak of these rights or you can assume that these rights only came into existence when the strong ceded them to the weak. Either way, the underlying fact is that the strong controlled the rights. Historically, even when a weak group seems to gain rights for itself, you'll find that it was strong leaders in that group, willing to fight for those rights, in conjunction with sympathizers among the 'strong', that obtained those rights.

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

Should a carnivore be brought to justice? And why introduce cannibals into the discussion? Also, except through an exaggerated sense of self importance, how are humans outside of the animal kingdom?

There should be a minimum standard available for review by the appeals court.

There is. Passage of the bar exam and reasonable performance. And, if insufficient defense is claimed, it is reviewed. The fact that the defendant lost isn't prima facia evidence that the defense attorney was incompetent.

Allegations of malpractice should be investigated as a part of the appeal process.

They are. Depending on the circumstances, this could be through either the appeal process or the ethics review boards. Although if the malpractice was in favor of the defense, then there's little to appeal. "We cheated and still lost" is not a basis for verdict reversal, I should hope and think.

The biggest issue that I see is the money needed to hire expert witnesses to cross examine the prosecutions case.

Witnesses don't cross examine, witness testify. If the prosecution does introduce expert witnesses (other than the usual forensic experts, if applicable) the law does require that the state supply funds for rebuttal witnesses if the defender cannot afford them. This is extremely rare. It is much more likely that the defense would introduce controversial expert witnesses to support, for instance, the Twinky defense.

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.

And if the defendant is OJ, should he kick in some quantity for his prosecution?

BTW, OJ is a prime example of what is wrong with the death penalty as it presently applies.

--Pete