The Case of Troy Davis

[eppie]

You, sir, are a racist.

Do you suffer from dementia?

I liked you more when you were just grumpy and could never admit you were wrong, but at least you took part in the discussions.....now it is just the swearing part that remains, together with the cryptic language of course.

[Jester]

If you wish to continue to make racist remarks, I'll be happy to keep calling you on it.

It's a two way street, that racist thing, seeing as it's all about assumptions.

Try learning something for a change. Try, perhaps, grasping the subtlety of what I said to you. When you use cliche and ignorant terms, sloppy terms, like "minority" in your ctirique of this case, you betray some seriously biased assumptions.

Racist.

So, if I'm understanding your argument correctly, I am a racist because I use the term "minority" to describe, well, minorities.

QED. Nothing further to say on the issue, really. I've been completely trounced by your subtle, certainly-not-just-trollish-name-calling argument.

-Jester

[librarian]

Heiho,

for the records:
I'm absolutely against death penalty. And no device, however elaborated, will wash off the blood from the executioner's hands, nor from the hands of those judging someone to death.
Because a technical device will always need an interpretation of its results, and this interpretation will alwys be preoccupied. G.K.Chesterton published a short story of his Father Brown series, 'the Mistake of the Machine', about a hundred years ago describing a lie detector, and everything to say against lie detectors will also apply to every other technical device.
Such a device is a camouflage similar to fake munition given out to shooting executioners, where only a few get the real ammo, and no-one knows who got which. This should put the gunners to ease, but the moral guilt still stays, just no-one wants to take the blame.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm absolutely against death penalty.

Noted. How do you feel about 'retroactive birth control', 'vermin extermination', 'crap to fertilizer conversion', etc.?

And no device, however elaborated, will wash off the blood from the executioner's hands, nor from the hands of those judging someone to death.

Love these rational arguments, free of hyperbole, divorced from blind emotion, and cognizant of their underlying prejudices.

Because a technical device will always need an interpretation of its results, and this interpretation will alwys be preoccupied.

I realize that you are operating under the handicap of not using your native language, but even allowing for that, I can't quite figure out what this means. Consider: I have a videotape from a security camera showing you shooting a clerk. The tape is clear, your features are well recorded. What interpretation does this require?

As for 'preoccupied', I don't think that it means what you think it means.

G.K.Chesterton published a short story of his Father Brown series, 'the Mistake of the Machine', about a hundred years ago describing a lie detector, and everything to say against lie detectors will also apply to every other technical device.

Bull#$%&. Read my earlier posts where I give a bit of the difference between lie detectors and other forensic evidence. If you deny your guilt, and a polygraph indicates that the response is true, is it because you are innocent or because you are a sociopath and have no concept of guilt? But if your DNA does not match, then its claim of your innocent is uncontroversial. Your failure to distinguish the capabilities and limitations of technologies reflects on your ignorance and not their failings.

Such a device is a camouflage similar to fake munition given out to shooting executioners, where only a few get the real ammo, and no-one knows who got which. This should put the gunners to ease, but the moral guilt still stays, just no-one wants to take the blame.

This is muddle headed bull. Evidence is not execution. If you wish to place blame all the way back, then blame the mother of the criminal for having had him, the mother of the victim for creating the occasion of the crime, the ancestors of all involved. Hell, go back to Lucy or Adam and Eve, and blame the whole human race. But why stop there? Curse god or bemoan the big bang.

Opinions are good. Discussion is good. Ignorance is not. Illogic is not. Learn the difference.

--Pete

[librarian]

Heiho,

Noted. How do you feel about 'retroactive birth control', 'vermin extermination', 'crap to fertilizer conversion', etc.?

I think those are completely different matters which would deserve a thread each of their own. So I won't elaborate on these here.
I'm not the flowery [Gutmensch] <edit> seems the only nearly correct term would be a notoriously Good Mind</edit>, lunatically searching for good in anything, and feverishly avoiding harm or even the thought of harm, if that's what you're on about.
Death penalty is a barbarian act. It originates from ideas of revenge, not justice, because it dates back to times where justice meant revenge. Human society should be beyond this eye per eye, tooth per tooth stuff.
Following question to you: How do you think about hacking a thief's hand off?

I realize that you are operating under the handicap of not using your native language, but even allowing for that, I can't quite figure out what this means. Consider: I have a videotape from a security camera showing you shooting a clerk. The tape is clear, your features are well recorded. What interpretation does this require?

You try to suggest I'm against judging people for murder in general? That's missing my point. I refer to any means earlier mentioned here, like those 'mind-reading' stuff, which will be under same prejudices similar to lie detectors. Like the chronoscope thing you've mentioned yourself. Shortly before the general habit of this thread slipped away to more flaming, less argumenting.
I don't have a problem with any devices in general. But relying on those to skip someone to the afterlife is simply putting the blame away.
<edit>To be clear again: not the blame of the convicted, _your_ blame to kill someone. No need to involve mothers here.</edit>

Your failure to distinguish the capabilities and limitations of technologies reflects on your ignorance and not their failings.

Sorry, but to me the discussion seemed to be about someone on the Green Mile. He's there because he was judged, and the judges were under the impression that he's guilty. The main point is so far that he is _maybe_ innocent, and by which means this could be cleared.
In this special case evidence is indeed execution, sooner or later.
And if evidence is gained in a perfectly safe way, some think death penalty is ok.
I wonder if any thread discussing someone who's imprisoned for theft would rise the same heat in argument. If not, why here? And here it is, just because some people feel bad about punishing someone to death who may be innocent.
Now, in this context, suddenly it becomes important to rely on far-fetched devices for gaining evidence in perfectly safe ways. Finger prints and DNA seem not reliable enough anymore.
And I tell you that there's no perfectly safe way. You just want to close your eyes and sleep well, because a machine told you it's ok to kill someone. Or, more precisely, your interpretation of the output of a device similar to a lie detector told you so.
Now speak again about ignorance.

[kandrathe]

Death penalty is a barbarian act. It originates from ideas of revenge, not justice, because it dates back to times where justice meant revenge. Human society should be beyond this eye per eye, tooth per tooth stuff.

I would disagree with that point. I think the death penalty might also be the efficient form of permanently removing a dangerous person from society. The inefficient form is life imprison without parole.

I am approaching the problem more from a government empowerment issue. Do you want to grant the government the power to kill its own citizens, especially in the US where we are supposed to be granted the inalienable "Natural Law" rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness/prosperity? Secondarily, if the nature of the justice system is one of frequent error, and in the cases of the poor a substandard defense, then the equality of "justice" is in question.

[Occhidiangela]

So, if I'm understanding your argument correctly, I am a racist because I use the term "minority" to describe, well, minorities. QED. Nothing further to say on the issue, really. I've been completely trounced by your subtle, certainly-not-just-trollish-name-calling argument.

-Jester

No.

Go back to your assumptions, which is where you pull that silly little cliche from. Assumpitons you have borrowed from another era. You don't even know what a minority is.

Here is a clue.

There are more women than men in my country, so each man is a member of a minority. Likewise, white males and black males are minorities here, as are Asian and Latino males. You, on the other hand, use that ancient canard, the lie as a cliche, as a short hand for your social prejudices.

You probably don't even understand why you do it reflexively.

Jester? Not really. More like a little puppet.

Get out of the shallow end of the pool, will ya?

Occhi

[librarian]

Heiho,

I think the death penalty might also be the efficient form of permanently removing a dangerous person from society. The inefficient form is life imprison without parole.

Here I can't imagine another definition of 'efficiency' than the economic one.
So feel also adressed about the hacked-off hands. Cheap and effective. And of the same termination.

<edit>
on a second thought:
your connotation about the government may work for you, because it is an inside point of view. It doesn't work for me, because I'm against death penalty in any country. If I'd accept it for the US because the citizens there would trust their government about death sentences I'd have to accept it for every government. Because formally this is declared everywhere else. This tastes too much of 'it's ok when we're doing it'.
</edit>

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think those are completely different matters which would deserve a thread each of their own. So I won't elaborate on these here.

Sorry, it's that language thing again. Each of the terms I used means 'death penalty' (just like 'capital punishment' does). What I was trying to point out is that how you think of it in a great degree determines what you think of it. Do we kill a dangerous dog to punish it? To keep other dogs from emulating it? Or simply to protect ourselves from a danger? 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.

So don't think of it as punishment, or as a penalty. Such thinking allows arguments with loaded terms like 'barbarian' or 'right' or 'unusual' or 'sanctity'. Old time thinking (torture, crucifixion) and old time arguments. Think of it as correcting a mistake ('retroactive birth control), or self protection ('vermin extermination').

Fundamentally, the question comes down to what to do with someone who either has performed an act that justifies his permanent removal from society or is so indifferent to others that he is a permanent threat to society. There is no real choice, that person needs to be sequestered from society for the remainder of his life. So the question comes down to what determines the length of this life, natural causes or society. Do we let that person linger for years in jail (and a high security jail at that -- anyone dangerous enough to merit that treatment is dangerous enough to merit strict confinement) or do we spare them the long punishment and give them a peaceful death? Yes, that sentence was intentionally loaded. But if you were to ask the person involved, after a few years of imprisonment and facing many more of the same, I suspect at least a few would as for the 'stroke of mercy'.

The only real problem is in determining guilt. The system is imperfect, and the more evidence we have, the worse it looks. To take an irrevocable action on the basis of an highly imperfect system, especially when there is a viable alternative, is foolish, even wrong. If the uncertainty of the determination of guilt could be removed, then the only arguments left would be Christo-centric, Euro-centric, emotional nonsense.

I'm not the flowery [Gutmensch] <edit> seems the only nearly correct term would be a notoriously Good Mind</edit>, lunatically searching for good in anything, and feverishly avoiding harm or even the thought of harm, if that's what you're on about.

The American term is 'bleeding heart liberal'. And, yes, based on the "if it walks like a duck" test, you are. No offense, some of my best friends are, too. Makes drinking parties especially fun:)

Death penalty is a barbarian act.

No. Crucifixion is a barbaric act (and in some cases, I would support it). Putting a criminal down in the same manner and with the same techniques that I would put a beloved but terminal pet down is a kindness. Kinder than many of those criminals deserve.

It originates from ideas of revenge, not justice, because it dates back to times where justice meant revenge. Human society should be beyond this eye per eye, tooth per tooth stuff.

Which is why I warn against old time thinking. 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?

Following question to you: How do you think about hacking a thief's hand off?

I think only a moron would ask such a question.

You try to suggest I'm against judging people for murder in general? That's missing my point. I refer to any means earlier mentioned here, like those 'mind-reading' stuff, which will be under same prejudices similar to lie detectors. Like the chronoscope thing you've mentioned yourself.

I get your point completely. You summarized it clearly when you stated that you are unequivocally opposed to the death penalty. That is your opinion, you are entitled to it. I respect both your opinion (though I disagree) and your right to have it. It is with the emotional, illogical, nonsensical arguments supporting your opinion that I disagree. There are valid reasons to be against killing people. You've used none of them.

I don't have a problem with any devices in general. But relying on those to skip someone to the afterlife is simply putting the blame away.

But you are the one introducing 'blame'. You assume that executing someone generates some blame and use that assumption to claim that executing someone generates some blame. If you don't see the problem with that, then you need to learn something about logical thinking.

And if evidence is gained in a perfectly safe way, some think death penalty is ok.

Exactly. You seem to think there are only two choices, pro or against the death penalty. There is a whole spectrum, and many of the positions are based on rational thought and pragmatic arguments. As is often the case. Bob Dylan had it right:
" . . . those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don't hate nothing at all
Except hatred."
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.

I wonder if any thread discussing someone who's imprisoned for theft would rise the same heat in argument. If not, why here?

Again, a moronic question. Moronic because there is no comparison. Now, if you want to compare (life imprisonment vs. death) to (jail sentence vs. hacking off a hand), then say so. That would be slightly less moronic. But only slightly less so: let's do a reductio and see how absurdum this argument is. Add a third case for comparison -- (standing in a corner vs. a spanking). 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?

And I tell you that there's no perfectly safe way.

I hypothesized about a perfectly safe way to make the point that the uncertainty is just an element of the discussion. Like Occhi, I am willing to accept some error rate in the system. Until recently, I thought the error was within my comfort zone. I think that right now it is not. I believe that a fair and impartial system is overall possible. And if we return to (or achieve for the first time) such a system (as far as practically possible) then I would have no objection to killing scumbags.

You just want to close your eyes and sleep well, because a machine told you it's ok to kill someone. Or, more precisely, your interpretation of the output of a device similar to a lie detector told you so.

Before taking a logic course, perhaps a reading comprehension course would help. I'm the one that distinguished between disputable and indisputable evidence and clumped the potential memory reader with the polygraph as disputable and barely evidence. The hypothetical machine I 'introduced' (actually stole, but that's another story) would be impartial, factual, indisputable. The question of guilt would be resolved, changed from a probability to a certainty. The question of punishment would still remain. But, as long as you do not or cannot separate these two issues, then your thinking will be muddled and your arguments confused.

Now speak again about ignorance.

No need to. It speaks for itself.

--Pete

[Jester]

Can it, Occhi. I'm done being nice with you. I've tried to handle the last seven-or-so times this has happened with pleasant PMs about how we used to have only semi-belligerent discussions.

That time has passed. You're just pointlessly trolling, and I'm simply not interested. If anyone else wants to follow your line of argumentation here, maybe I'll discuss it with them.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Heiho,
Here I can't imagine another definition of 'efficiency' than the economic one.
So feel also addressed about the hacked-off hands. Cheap and effective. And of the same termination.

<edit>
on a second thought:
your connotation about the government may work for you, because it is an inside point of view. It doesn't work for me, because I'm against death penalty in any country. If I'd accept it for the US because the citizens there would trust their government about death sentences I'd have to accept it for every government. Because formally this is declared everywhere else. This tastes too much of 'it's ok when we're doing it'.
</edit>

You misunderstand. I'm saying that citizenry of any government should be hesitant to give over the power of life and death to a government. This would be doubly so in the US, since our basis of rights are bestowed upon us by Lockian natural law.

Or in other words, we have the inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of prosperity given to us by "our Creator", or for the atheists by the reasoned discovery of the laws governing natural events and then applying them to thinking about human action. Actions in accord with such natural law are morally correct. Those that go against such natural laws are morally wrong. The question then is when does a collection of people whether you call them a "government" or a "society" have the right to deny another human being (or any living creature for that matter) their right to life?

The argument for the death penalty would be that the person convicted is too dangerous to be allowed to commingle with "society", and so must be restrained or killed to protect "society". I'm not in support of that line of argument for the reasons I stated earlier; a) I don't want to give government that power, b) they often do a bad job convicting people on flimsy evidence, and c) the poor often do not get adequate representation in capital cases. I'm still thinking about what my position would be relating to non-citizens.

To answer your question about "hacking off hands"; The function of incarceration may be manifold, among the ideas are punishment, rehabilitation, justice, etc. Unless the person is serving a life sentence, a primary concern should be to prevent recidivism. To that end, hacking off a persons hands, besides the obvious cruelty, may prevent them from stealing, but it would also prevent them from being a useful member of society. Statistically, I'm not sure any studies would support that hacking off hands reduces crime. It is 100% clear though that death prevents recidivism.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm saying that citizenry of any government should be hesitant to give over the power of life and death to a government.

But you are not denying, I take it, that said citizenry has the right to give over that power in certain circumstances? Such as the military, which may be asked to kill or die in the defense of the country. Even if that defense is against an insurrection within that country, thus making all the victims citizens. Or in the case of the police, who are given more liberty (and more responsibility) in the use of lethal force than is the common citizen.

So, if with all due 'hesitancy' the citizens give the government the right and responsibility to execute people for certain behavior, does the government then indeed have that right? It's a complex question, made little less so when you consider that (at least in principle) the 'government' and the 'people' are one and the same in a republican democracy. Sometimes it is phrased as to whether society has the right to do things individuals don't. We've pretty well settled that. A police force is legal, vigilantism is not. War is legal, feuds are not. Jails are legal, private incarceration is not.

So, the underpinnings of our society, of our culture, of our government don't really answer the question. One factor does address the issue, the common vote. And in many places, it seems to be in favor of executions. Should (the government) we adopt the 'vox populi, vox dei' attitude of Jefferson or the 'buffer of the base instincts' of Madison? What would Locke have us do?

Or in other words, we have the inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of prosperity given to us by "our Creator", or for the atheists by the reasoned discovery of the laws governing natural events and then applying them to thinking about human action.

Actually, great oratory but poor logic. If, indeed, those rights were inherent (avoiding 'unalienable', are you?:)) then why would the people endorsing that document need to ". . . pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Why was a revolution necessary? Because might does make right, and the rights of all are only those that might can buy and share.

Actions in accord with such natural law are morally correct. Those that go against such natural laws are morally wrong.

A Canaanite might disagree, and tell you that sacrifice of a firstborn is morally correct and a natural law. That is, if any Canaanites had survived the Israeli invasion. But the might of Israel made the right of Mosaic law superior to the superstitions of the Canaanites.

Do you think that if Washington had failed in his gamble at Trenton, we would be studying and quoting that document? Or would we be thankful for whatever freedoms king and parliament gave us?

The question then is when does a collection of people whether you call them a "government" or a "society" have the right to deny another human being (or any living creature for that matter) their right to life?

In an absolute sense? Whenever they can -- i.e., whenever they have the might to do so. Somehow we've (the people of the USA, and it is spreading to the rest of the world) made an icon of the concept of 'rights'. We think that rights exist and are permanent, fundamental, indestructible and absolute. We overlook, perhaps because we've forgotten or never learned, that 'rights' are abstract concepts, made concrete by the drive, blood, and lives of those that bought them. That 'rights' only exist when coupled with responsibility and each of us only have the rights that we are willing to fight for, or that others are willing to fight for and give to us. Our 'rights' are not the endowments by a creator that Jefferson claims. They are the gift of the toil, and often death, of those who wanted them, for themselves, for their neighbors, and for their posterity.

The argument for the death penalty would be that the person convicted is too dangerous to be allowed to commingle with "society", and so must be restrained or killed to protect "society".

That's a flawed argument in respect to the death penalty since it is an argument for life in prison as well. Are you opposed to both, or are you using the same argument against execution and for life imprisonment? Also, I wonder why you put 'society' in quotes -- did you have another unit of humanity in mind?

I'm not in support of that line of argument for the reasons I stated earlier; a) I don't want to give government that power, . . .

Not a reason for not supporting the death penalty argument. Simply a reiteration. "I don't want to give the government that power because I don't want to give the government that power." Say it one more time and, at least according to the Bellman, it will be true. :whistling:

. . .B)they often do a bad job convicting people on flimsy evidence, . . .

Not an argument against the death penalty in principle, but a valid argument for not using the death penalty unless and until the flaws in the system are fixed.

. . . and c) the poor often do not get adequate representation in capital cases.

The poor always get screwed -- problem with the death penalty or problem with the judicial system? You've spoken against the progressive income tax, are you in favor of progressive punishment? "The defendant is in the bottom quintile in income, thus he gets five years off his sentence for poverty."????

I'm still thinking about what my position would be relating to non-citizens.

Hmmm? What happened to that ". . . all men . . ." philosophy?

It is 100% clear though that death prevents recidivism.

Yep. Unfortunately, sometimes it even prevents a first offense.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

But you are not denying, I take it, that said citizenry has the right to give over that power in certain circumstances? Such as the military, which may be asked to kill or die in the defense of the country. Even if that defense is against an insurrection within that country, thus making all the victims citizens. Or in the case of the police, who are given more liberty (and more responsibility) in the use of lethal force than is the common citizen.

Well, right, this is the Lockian extension of the Hobbsian argument resulting in the concept, "only by the consent of the governed". Thereby, republican democracy is a fair way for allowing every citizen a voice in the actions of the government. Using Locke then, if we agree that violence is needed for our nations defense (of our rights), then that violence is lawful and correct. That could be extended to a death penalty as well, although if other means exist, then I believe they would be preferable.

So, if with all due 'hesitancy' the citizens give the government the right and responsibility to execute people for certain behavior, does the government then indeed have that right? It's a complex question, made little less so when you consider that (at least in principle) the 'government' and the 'people' are one and the same in a republican democracy. Sometimes it is phrased as to whether society has the right to do things individuals don't. We've pretty well settled that. A police force is legal, vigilantism is not. War is legal, feuds are not. Jails are legal, private incarceration is not.

Agreed.

So, the underpinnings of our society, of our culture, of our government don't really answer the question. One factor does address the issue, the common vote. And in many places, it seems to be in favor of executions. Should (the government) we adopt the 'vox populi, vox dei' attitude of Jefferson or the 'buffer of the base instincts' of Madison?

I would advocate local decisions made by each State. I wouldn't want DC to dictate to Texas what they should or should not do. I think it is fair, however, that the Supreme Court has the option of providing a court of last resort if only to prevent overly large kangaroos, or the use of the mechanism for unjust purposes. Unfortunately, due to the ever growing number of people, and thereby case law, it is less and less likely that the Supremes have enough time to meet out justice. This leads to upholding lower court decisions. I wouldn't say that people spend years on death row because of a hesitancy on the part of the state to administer death, but more the inadequacy of prosecutors to meet the conditions of fair justice, meaning "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

What would Locke have us do?

Pray.:) There happens to be an analysis of Locke by various scholars, "From Noose to Needle: Capital Punishment and the Late Liberal State". One view might be, " All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. ". Yet, some would argue over the meaning of "consent of the governed". Does my consent mean in all cases, of just certain cases? I believe Locke would permit the use of death as a remedy only when the society could not be otherwise secured from a threat.

Actually, great oratory but poor logic. If, indeed, those rights were inherent (avoiding 'unalienable', are you?:)) then why would the people endorsing that document need to ". . . pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Why was a revolution necessary? Because might does make right, and the rights of all are only those that might can buy and share.

The philosophical argument predated the revolution by a century or so. Whether or not you have natural rights would not insure they are inviolate. Or, according to Locke, society is a response to the need to protect life and property and a just society would do that in the fairest manner possible. The revolution was necessary because King George was a Hobbsian.

A Canaanite might disagree, and tell you that sacrifice of a firstborn is morally correct and a natural law. That is, if any Canaanites had survived the Israeli invasion. But the might of Israel made the right of Mosaic law superior to the superstitions of the Canaanites.

Well, technically, the Canaanite would be misinterpreting "Natural Law" for supposedly his own laws. Natural law in a secular sense is based on the normality of life, reproduction, and natural death. This is why, in the secular sense, you could make the natural law argument for the rights of all living things to remain unmolested. It would be considered (unlawful) against nature for any animal to kill its own young (and yet it does happen sometimes). It is a more a question of aggression, and our right to be protected from the unjust use of it.

Do you think that if Washington had failed in his gamble at Trenton, we would be studying and quoting that document? Or would we be thankful for whatever freedoms king and parliament gave us?

I guess we'd be Canadians, eh?

In an absolute sense? Whenever they can -- i.e., whenever they have the might to do so. Somehow we've (the people of the USA, and it is spreading to the rest of the world) made an icon of the concept of 'rights'. We think that rights exist and are permanent, fundamental, indestructible and absolute. We overlook, perhaps because we've forgotten or never learned, that 'rights' are abstract concepts, made concrete by the drive, blood, and lives of those that bought them. That 'rights' only exist when coupled with responsibility and each of us only have the rights that we are willing to fight for, or that others are willing to fight for and give to us. Our 'rights' are not the endowments by a creator that Jefferson claims. They are the gift of the toil, and often death, of those who wanted them, for themselves, for their neighbors, and for their posterity.

If there is a Creator, then they might be a gift. Or, if not, then as a living breathing creature, you have the right to protect your life and property from all aggressors. That our rights were secured, and preserved with blood is very, very true.

That's a flawed argument in respect to the death penalty since it is an argument for life in prison as well. Are you opposed to both, or are you using the same argument against execution and for life imprisonment? Also, I wonder why you put 'society' in quotes -- did you have another unit of humanity in mind?

Let me rephrase it then to; "One justification for the death penalty would be to permanently and irrevocably remove a threat to our society". But, as you point out, life long imprisonment would also achieve the same goal barring escape. Is death preferred then as a punishment, or only to reduce costs? I used "society" in quotes, because we are talking about certain subsections and not the majority view. Only a few states use capital punishment, and also the federal government uses it rarely.

Not a reason for not supporting the death penalty argument. Simply a reiteration. "I don't want to give the government that power because I don't want to give the government that power." Say it one more time and, at least according to the Bellman, it will be true. :whistling:

Ok! :lol: ... because I fear they would misuse that power to kill innocent people.

Not an argument against the death penalty in principle, but a valid argument for not using the death penalty unless and until the flaws in the system are fixed.

Yes, and I would support it for particularly heinous criminals that are sufficiently proven to be guilty. For those particularly heinous crimes that insufficiently proven, then life imprisonment would suffice and perhaps innocence can be proven if the evidence exists.

The poor always get screwed -- problem with the death penalty or problem with the judicial system? You've spoken against the progressive income tax, are you in favor of progressive punishment? "The defendant is in the bottom quintile in income, thus he gets five years off his sentence for poverty."????

We are guaranteed a fair trial where witnesses against are available for cross examination, and witnesses are produced for defense. When the case is a capital case, then I believe the state should bear the burden for an adequate defense. If the defense is not adequate (in a capital case) which should be reviewed according to general criteria (e.g. was my lawyer drunk the entire trial, and did he really do his job?) then I think "death" should be taken out of the sentence, or the criminal should be given a new trial (and the dead beat lawyer should be disbarred).

Hmmm? What happened to that ". . . all men . . ." philosophy?

I know my Constitution protects the rights of citizens, but I'm not sure how far it extends to defend murderous aliens. Who pays for their defense?

[--Pete]

Hi,

I would advocate local decisions made by each State. I wouldn't want DC to dictate to Texas what they should or should not do.

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?

I think it is fair, however, that the Supreme Court has the option of providing a court of last resort if only to prevent overly large kangaroos, or the use of the mechanism for unjust purposes.

I think that this is an unacceptable extension of the court's and federal government's power. Beyond determining if the laws under which the arrest, trial, conviction, and proposed punishment conflict with constitutional law, I do not believe the Supreme Court has any right to interfere. However, I do realize that, pragmatically, taking a case to the Supreme Court is the only way to rectify injustices that may be tangential to the nominal issue of a case.

. . . "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

We're humans, thus fallible. Which is why the legal requirement is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The only perfection we can achieve is perfect stasis from fear of error.

The philosophical argument predated the revolution by a century or so. Whether or not you have natural rights would not insure they are inviolate.

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."?

This is why, in the secular sense, you could make the natural law argument for the rights of all living things to remain unmolested.

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

Let me rephrase it then to; "One justification for the death penalty would be to permanently and irrevocably remove a threat to our society". But, as you point out, life long imprisonment would also achieve the same goal barring escape. Is death preferred then as a punishment, or only to reduce costs?

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.;)

I used "society" in quotes, because we are talking about certain subsections and not the majority view. Only a few states use capital punishment, and also the federal government uses it rarely.

Interesting. If the majority is indeed opposed to capital punishment, why does it exist? Jefferson's 'vox populi' would have it gone, Madison's 'moderation of base drives' would not instate it against the people's wishes. So, either we do not have a republican democracy, or the majority (at least where it exists) do want it.

When the case is a capital case, then I believe the state should bear the burden for an adequate defense.

I believe that that is already the law. The question is what does 'adequate' mean? F. Lee Bailey? Someone who just graduated last in his class from Podunk U law school? You know the old joke, Q: "What do you call someone who graduated last in his medical class?", A: "Doctor." The same holds true for lawyers, some are better, some are worse. But a law degree and having passed the bar is, by definition, adequate. Yeah, the rich do better. What can you do about it? There is only one 'best' lawyer, and he (or she) can't handle all the cases.

. . . did he really do his job?) . . .

Clearly not, or you wouldn't be in jail. The problem is that doing his job is a vague and ill defined concept. Appeals on the basis of inadequate representation are almost routine and are almost universally rejected. People might expect a Perry Mason who not only vindicates the client, but exposes the true criminal. In reality what they get is a hack who knows (most of the time) when to enter an objection to generate grounds for appeal. No courtroom drama, no subtle twists of logic, no obscure precedents. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit." cost a lot extra.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Can it, Occhi. I'm done being nice with you. I've tried to handle the last seven-or-so times this has happened with pleasant PMs about how we used to have only semi-belligerent discussions.

That time has passed. You're just pointlessly trolling, and I'm simply not interested. If anyone else wants to follow your line of argumentation here, maybe I'll discuss it with them.

-Jester

It's real simple.

If you keep spouting rubbish, you will earn more of the same. If I can moderate the tone to less acidic, it would be good, of course, so that point is taken.



At eppie: No, not dementia. Don't suffer foolisness gladly. Never have. But you should know that already, given our history, you and I.

Occhi

[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.

[--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

[kandrathe]

Does the ocean recognize this right? In a snowstorm in the Canadian Rockies in winter? 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.

Well, yes, philosophers and some theologians extending back to the time of Socrates and Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics) to be exact. I know you know most of this, but I'll summarize quickly for the observers.

Around 1215, Runnymede, at the time of the writing of the Magna Carta, our western society was wrestling with King John over his divine power which resulted in a rebellion by the Barony and one of the most important first social contracts signifying the consent of the governed.

Perhaps influence by this profound event, the Greco-Roman philosophy of natural law or rights was studied and in essence resurrected by St. Thomas Aquinas (published c. 1274) in describing the notions of "Common Law" within a framework of morality and ethics. He distinctly clarified what he described as divine law, as opposed to secular law. In effect, it was Aquinas that entertained the notion of a separation between State matters and secular matters. He wrote, "Both powers originate in God. Therefore the secular power is subordinate to the spiritual power in matters that concern the salvation of souls. In matters that concern more the civil common good, a person is obliged to obey the secular rather than the spiritual power." It is an interesting side note that Aquinas was also condemned by the church (1277) for his work challenging the absolute authority of the church, and his work did not achieve full acceptance for 600 years (1874).

In Leviathan, 1651, Hobbes writes, "I show in the first place that the state of men without civil society (which state may be called the state of nature) is nothing but a war of all against all; and that in that war, all have a right to all things. " and "The natural state of men, before they were joined in society, was a war, and not simply, but a war of all against all." This then leads into the concept of a social contract (Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke), where we surrender our warring nature in exchange for certain guaranteed liberties. A society that violates this contract would thus revert back to a warring state.

Some of Hobbes 19 identified natural laws are;

1. that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war<>
   
2. that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth, as for peace, and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself<>
   
3. that men perform their covenants made. ...when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust and the definition of injustice is no other than the not performance of covenant<>
   
4. that a man which receiveth benefit from another of mere grace, endeavour that he which giveth it, have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will.<>
   
5. that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest.<>
   
6. that upon caution of the future time, a man ought to pardon the offences past of them that repenting, desire it.<>
   
7. that in revenges, men look not at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow.<>
   
8. that no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred or contempt of another<>
   
9. that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature<>
   
10. that at the entrance into the conditions of peace, no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest.<>
    
11. if a man be trusted to judge between man and man, that he deal equally between them<>
    
12. that such things as cannot be divided, be enjoyed in common, if it can be; and if the quantity of the thing permit, without stint; otherwise proportionably to the number of them that have right.<>
    
13. that those things which cannot be enjoyed in common, nor divided, ought to be adjudged to the first possessor; and in some cases to the first born, as acquired by lot.<>
    
14. that all men that mediate peace be allowed safe conduct.<>
    
15. that they that are at controversy submit their right to the judgment of an arbitrator<>
    
16. that no man is a fit arbitrator in his own cause<>
    [st]Then Hegel says, "The right to what is in essence inalienable is imprescriptible, since the act whereby I take possession of my personality, of my substantive essence, and make myself a responsible being, capable of possessing rights and with a moral and religious life, takes away from these characteristics of mine just that externality which alone made them capable of passing into the possession of someone else. When I have thus annulled their externality, I cannot lose them through lapse of time or from any other reason drawn from my prior consent or willingness to alienate them." The sum of these philosophies, then bring us to this idea of inalienable rights which are in essence the right to life, liberty, and the protection/pursuit of property.

    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.

    So, perhaps these men were effete, and perhaps too weak to defend themselves from brutes, but I think from their thoughts we've derived one of the best forms of social contract yet, at least until the lawyers in DC muck it up for us.

    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.

    We've spoken about this before, but 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.

    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.

    I have to disagree. It is clear, that even if you are enslaved, it would be considered just to seek your own freedom, whether you attempt to seek your freedom or not. Also just then would be to struggle to keep your freedom from those that would seek to enslave you.

    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?

    I think in some cases, they probably are not. For example, excessive cruelty, or the intentional murder of another persons animal. These are treated as criminal offenses now, rather than merely property crimes.

    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. 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.

    My examination of capital cases in writing here, showed me that for a large portion of those cases that delivered a guilty verdict, the defense was clearly substandard. Substandard in that the defense was incompetent in having experience with capital cases, being intoxicated, having prepared no defense, calling no witnesses, and poor cross examination of the prosecution. They are not what you nor I would call "a fair trial" by any stretch of the imagination.

    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.

    Well, actually I have to disagree. There are usually some forensics, psychological evaluations, private investigators to also interrogate any witnesses, etc. 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.

    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.

    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. Eventually, given enough time, they will win.
    
    Edit: some typos.

[--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

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,

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

--Pete

Given that our system is devolving into trial by media incited mob -- not there yet but working that way, see interviews with jurors as the latest assault on the integrity of the system -- I perceive that your hope is in vain.

Yes, I was weaned on a pickle. :P

Occhi