The Case of Troy Davis

[--Pete]

Hi,

Some of Hobbes 19 identified natural laws are; . . .

And thus the somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment, "Anarchy only works if everyone follows the rules."

. . . from their thoughts we've derived one of the best forms of social contract yet, . . .

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Churchill in the House of Commons Nov. 11, 1947.

. . . I think it would be beneficial for pre-adults and immigrants to earn their citizenship by performing 2 or 3 years of service for their nation, with no exceptions.

I think I agree with you, but there is an ambiguity here. If "with no exceptions" means that no one can become a citizen without such service, then I do agree. But if it means that everyone must serve, then I disagree. I think any person should have the freedom to chose not to serve and thus not be a citizen, simply a legal resident (presently, that's the status of a person who immigrated legally but has not received citizenship). Citizenship is both a privilege and a heavy responsibility. It should not be forced on anyone.

They are not what you nor I would call "a fair trial" by any stretch of the imagination.

Where are you finding the data to back up the contentions of drunkenness and incompetence? I can find nothing that I would consider reliable on either side of this issue. Yes, a number of anecdotes (mostly on sites that are clearly biased), but no real evidence. As I've said before, the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

There are usually some forensics, psychological evaluations, private investigators to also interrogate any witnesses, etc.

Except for the private investigators, the others are the usual prosecution expert witnesses, and in nearly every case their findings (but not necessarily their conclusions) are accepted without challenge. As to the private investigators, they are not normally used by he prosecution. The prosecution has the police departments as well as their own specialized investigators, they hardly need to turn to private firms.

The prosecutor has the advantage of a state apparatus (police, labs, etc) funded by the people at their disposal, while the defense has to either rely on the state's evidence or pay to discover their own.

So? The state must make the case, thus needs to have the ability to do so. The defense needs only to cast doubt on the state's case, they don't need to present opposing forensic evidence. Only in literature, TV, and the movies does the defense need to solve the case for the, usually, stupid and wrong-headed establishment.

We are primarily talking about people who cannot afford to pay for their own defense. It actually might be more fair to restrict the amount of money that a rich person can devote to their own defense, similar to why it makes us queasy to allow politicians to spend an unlimited amount of their own money.

So, the solution to injustice for some is equal injustice for all? ;) Sorry. I hope we the people can do better than that.

--Pete