The Case of Troy Davis

[librarian]

Heiho,

thanks for the more elaborated version.

First of all, the language thing is indeed more misleading than you may think. I've checked 'liberal', because I was aware of its trap quality, and accidentially stumbled over 'ignorance', of which I wasn't.

More so, because this works also the other way 'round, 'vermin extermination' can indeed be read in german as metaphor. But you maybe won't find it that easy on a False Friends collection, because it's outdated. The metaphor was used about 70 years ago to kill several millions of humans, as they were classified either as 'not worth living, and only a burdon to society', or as kind of 'less worthy humans, if at all' (the whole [Untermensch] non-Aryan thing).
Of course it's mainly my part to make sure I'm using English as lingua franca correctly. Just wanted to add that a bleeding-heart liberal may complain about the comparison of humans and vermin, but someone with just a different background could have ended the discussion instantly by means of Godwin's Law.

That is *my* problem with the words 'punishment' or 'penalty' . Punishments and penalties are things that we impose (ideally) to improve people. We punish a child to instill values or correct bad behavior. We give a player a penalty to improve the sport and to promote sportsmanship. Anyone receiving punishment or a penalty and ending up dead is not, usually, going to improve.

see, this is a very specific point of the judical system here, where the punishment is indeed meant to 'improve' the convicted. It's the kind of 'contemplate your sins' idea which stands behind that. So this may be a 'bleeding heart liberal' judical system, and it surely has flaws of its own, but it is the one I've grown up with.
That's why death penalty doesn't exist here, exactly because ending up dead is not the successful kind of improvement.

Think of it as correcting a mistake ('retroactive birth control), or self protection ('vermin extermination').

No way :c)
The first one describes a human being in a materialist way, which I can't approve. It is the same materialist view which leads to '223rd down the helix' left, eliminate that and you've eliminated the gene for mass murdering' or 'the 67th synaps from left front lower cortex has just flashed a hello to the 5567th synaps of right front upper cortex, so this is a sign of guilt'. Brains don't work that way, DNA doesn't work that way, and I don't think human beings in society context work that way.
Already explained the second one. Not a way to think here, unless you want to enter certain inner circles.

Fundamentally, the question comes down to what to do with someone ... Do we let that person linger for years in jail ... or do we spare them the long punishment and give them a peaceful death?

uhm
http:/stverse.com/crime/top-10-modern-m...s-of-execution/
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/descriptio...ecution-methods
loaded, indeed.

If the uncertainty of the determination of guilt could be removed, then the only arguments left would be Christo-centric, Euro-centric, emotional nonsense.

If your goal was to show the stereotype of the complacent US American, this sentence brought it home.

The seven day week originated with a fairy tale about the universe's creation. Should we abandon a useful and functional concept because its origins are crap?

Seven days a week is an international, worldwide accepted concept, which is established as a common denominator. True, it is established by conquering and more or less violent missionary work, by several major religions and their secular counterparts. But that's not the point.

I'll heartily reflect the term 'moronic' to anyone comparing this to death penalty. Which is no international, worldwide accepted concept. Indeed last week New Mexico has abandoned it; and you're aware that it isn't accepted in all of the US either.

But you are the one introducing 'blame'.

yep, thought 'blame' would be the less emotional-laden variant of 'guilt'. Maybe wrong, dictionary is of no great help here.

Referring in my initial posting to 'human society should be beyond this eye per eye, tooth per tooth' stuff should've made clear that I'm talking about some fundamental ethics stuff. Epic fail, so I'll try a prolonged version.

- every human has the right to live. This is a base concept of at least 'western' modern society. You may track it down to Euro-centrism, Christo-centrism; or the complacent US-centrism, pretending that it's better because some guys also postulated it who initially didn't want to pay taxes to that Empire far away. Doesn't matter.
- if someone is sentenced to death you'll have to face the problem that you're denying his individual right here.
- this leads to guilt/blame, and someone has to take the blame of violating this fundamental right
-> in other words, someone is responsible (if guilt/blame is still too emotional)
- the executioner(s) don't want to take the blame, they just do their job (an often used reason in digesting german past, too)
- the judge doesn't want to take the blame because of jury's decision (and maybe of evidence, I'm really ignorant when it comes to knowledge about the judge's ability to ignore jury's decision in US' legal system)
- the jury won't take the blame because of evidence
- evidence is gained by several means
-> but you can't blame evidence - regardless of its sophisticated appearance - for the death of the accused/convict

This is completely independent from the kind of crime the accused/convict may have commited. Therefore I don't need to separate between his guilt and his punishment. I even don't need to refer to the 'he may be innocent' route.

There are many (and I am one) that feel the death penalty should be used a lot more, a lot sooner, with a lot less red tape. And there are many (and I am one) that feel that the death penalty should not be used at all until the system is fixed. And the two positions are not at all contradictory.

No, they aren't, because in principle you favor death penalty (though, in reverse, I haven't read a single pragmatic reason from you, like you expect it from me). You just want to be sure about evidence.
This is a different peanut to me being in principle against death penalty, where there is indeed only black and white, and no depending on circumstances of evidence, no distinguation between disputable and indisputable evidence.
I'm aware that you've written some thoughts in the thread why you are against death penalty at this time, because it is out of your comfort zone. You are not aware that this doesn't matter in my pro/contra context. I'm indeed clumsy in writing, but I'm not completely illiterate, so thank you very much for the advice about reading comprehension.


I've seen so far only weak reasons pro death sentence

- 'some actions are just too evil to allow a lesser punishment'
My thinking is called 'old time', this reason is 'ancient time'. Archaic. Barbaric. Based on revenge. Based on the efficiency common in ancient times and archaic societies, where punishment was/is terminal, if only for the reason of no available alternative. Further 'just too evil' is in no way logical, and depends heavily on who defines evil, and how. It is emotional nonsense, at best.
- it may 'be the efficient form of permanently removing a dangerous person from society'
This is about economy and safety, but safety could be accomplished otherwise, so it is about mere economy. Even as german [liberal], which is quite close to 'libertarian' in a very economic meaning, no-one would soberly discuss death penalty with the argument of cost-efficiency.
- 'citizenry of any government should be hesitant to give over the power of life and death to a government'
This is, as later on already stated in the thread, not a particular reason pro/contra death penalty. It's more about trust, but this should be of concern regarding all of jurisdiction, if it is questionable.
- 'quality of "justice" is in question'
same as before
- 'death prevents recidivism'
In a terminal way, yes; though there are other ways, but those need a society's ability to handle hysterics ['murdered in affect' is valid English?], people with low social standards, sociopaths, you name it, in different ways equally preventing recidivism.

None of them is valid in modern time ethics.

Nor is the unmentioned deterrence argument, plus this never works.

Do you really need to have someone explain to you why each level in this series of comparisons is more trivial, and thus less worth discussing, that the levels above?

I need someone who explains to me why the more trivial things are abandoned and outlawed, and the most non-trivial, terminal in the series is discussed as a logical solution. Especially when I don't read logical reasons.

side note:

I believe that a fair and impartial system is overall possible.

This would qualify you by the 'if it walks like a duck ...' test as [Gutmensch], and my scepticism and pessimism about it would disqualify me :c)

... our basis of rights are bestowed upon us by Lockian natural law...
I'm still thinking about what my position would be relating to non-citizens.

See, that is the 'inside point of view' I've referred to earlier.
All the 'all men', 'we' and 'us' stuff seems to mean US citizens primarily, or even solely.
This is thinking similar to Ancient Greek democracy.
So far I've seen mentioned (US-)citizens, legal residents, non-citizens (maybe synonym to humans), animals, and property as a ranking of possible targets for crime.
Modern thinking puts 'human' at the ranking's pole position.

Otherwise any other country is entitled to have its own inside point of view, and this may noticeably differ from yours. Starting with, but not restricted to, own definitions of 'all men', 'we', and 'us'. Surely extending to the definition of 'capital crime'.

another side note:
it may be my poor English, but this 'bestowed upon us' sounds pretty much like all other religious we-are-the-chosen-ones brabble, especially when one has 'God's own country' additionally in mind.
Claiming superiority by some 'natural law' is no different to claiming it by any god's will.