The Case of Troy Davis

[--Pete]

Hi,

First of all, the language thing is indeed more misleading than you may think.

I doubt it. I've lived with it all my life -- or at least since age six.

More so, blah blah blah Godwin's Law.

Of course, a person of reasonable intelligence would see a difference between executing a small number for what they've done and exterminating many thousands for who they are. One has to wonder about the underlying character of a person who would use an innuendo of this type to make his argument. Not to mention the bankruptcy of an argument that requires such tactics.

. . . exactly because ending up dead is not the successful kind of improvement.

Again, your logic is suspect. The question is not "death penalty or ten hours of community service." The question is not even death versus life in prison, for a person executed in prison is indeed in prison for the remainder of his life. That person is never again going to be at liberty to demonstrate his 'improvement'. Rehabilitation is thus a red herring -- it means nothing in this discussion.

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.

Does the Nobel committee know where to send your prize? For it sounds like you've answered some questions about how genetics works and how how the brain functions that have been baffling the experts for years. And you've finally solved the free will dispute.

. . . top-10-modern-methods-of-execution . . .

So what? Personally, I'm for public crucifixion. Some scumbag wants to hold up a convenience store, watching his buddy spend a week dieing in agony may help change his mind. But there are many ways to die. There are humane ways to put down pets, to euthanize terminal patients. "Death penalty, yes or no?" is a different discussion from "Which form of execution?" and to mix the two is a sign of flawed logic.

Indeed last week New Mexico has abandoned it; and you're aware that it isn't accepted in all of the US either.

Again, so what? Some places have it, some don't. Places that had it have abandoned it. Places that had abandoned it have reinstated it. Shows that the issue is still in question, not that it has been settled as you somehow imply.

- every human has the right to live.

Tell that to the 1513 people who died in the Titanic disaster. Or, better yet, tell it to the North Atlantic. And ask it to stop killing people.

- if someone is sentenced to death you'll have to face the problem that you're denying his individual right here.

Depends on why he is sentenced to death. If it is because he happens to be of the wrong tribe in a primitive society, then you are right and that society should be examined to determine why it is so depraved. If it is because he kidnapped, tortured and killed a child, then that person has, at least in my opinion, given up *all* rights.

- this leads to guilt/blame, and someone has to take the blame of violating this fundamental right

Incorrect logic. This is based on a person having rights in the abstract (which is debatable) and those rights not being forfeit by one's actions, which is clearly nonsense. A person's 'right' to drive is often revoked for driving offenses, including drinking. A person's 'right' to freedom is often revoked, at least temporarily, for criminal offenses or mental conditions which could endanger others. A person's 'right' to property is often revoked for failure to pay taxes. The list goes on.

The remainder of your bullets are meaningless crap, since they follow from the above.

. . . 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.

I favor the death penalty for a number of reasons. The first of these is purely economic. A prisoner in jail for life costs a fair bit to maintain, especially as he gets older. There have been cases where prisoners have received medical procedures which cost well in excess of 1.5 million US dollars. I'd rather that that money went elsewhere.

The second is that dead people are not released with a change of law or some politically inspired pardon. They do not escape. And they don't continue to commit crimes while in prison, either against their fellow inmates or through their connections to those outside of jail against whom they have a grudge. Consider the huge case the Italians brought against the Mafia some decades ago. Because of the power those in jail still wielded, most of those involved in the case, from the judges, to the lawyers, to the jurists and witnesses have had to live in a special, high security village. Of those that have left that village, a number have been murdered. To be sure a snake is dead, it is best to cut off its head.

The third reason is that I believe that the death penalty would be an incentive in preventing crime. Not the present death penalty, used in a tiny fraction of crimes, applied to a tiny number of criminals, extended for years after the offense, and performed in the dead of night behind high walls. For a punishment to be a deterrent, it has to be swift, sure, and public. Those contemplating crime should have it at the forefront of their little, defective, minds that if they do, they will be caught, they will be condemned, and they will die -- and soon.

And, finally, I'll admit that I am a vengeance seeking Neanderthal. Those that hurt others, either through self centered greed or through gross indifference, should be made to suffer a thousandfold. I do not believe in god, thus I do not believe in hell. I don't believe in letting evil go unpunished, and here and now is all there is.

--Pete