The Case of Troy Davis

[--Pete]

Hi,

I perceive that your hope is in vain.

I'm a cynical optimistic realist. I have hopes. I suspect they are all in vain. I find a lot of humor in that. :whistling:

Yes, I was weaned on a pickle. :P

But a least you *were* weaned. So many are not.:P

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
I'm a cynical optimistic realist. I have hopes. I suspect they are all in vain. I find a lot of humor in that. :whistling:
But a least you *were* weaned. So many are not.:P

--Pete

I've seen a Chesterton quote here and there about how the greatest quality of God (Jesus?) that was too much for mortals to bear was his sense of humor. Something tells me you'd find it amusing.

I'll see if I can find it.

Occhi

[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 But you maybe won't find it that easy on a False Friends collection, because it's outdated.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.

[kandrathe]

... '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.

I'll grab that one, because it sounds like my position. A synonym for "Evil" or its moral equivalent exists whether you are theistic, or atheistic. You might choose a different word with less religious connotation, such as "morally reprehensible", "horrible" or my favorite "heinous". I would define certain especially horrible crimes as possibly divorcing a person from their right to exist. They would include people like Larry Singleton, the serial killing rapist who snatched the 14 year old Las Vegas girl, raped her, chopped off her arms with an axe and left her for dead. I'm particularly angered by crimes against children, serial killers, and those that torture or mutilate their victims (esp. while alive).

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.

While I have an opinion about what is right for other nations, I respect the rights of other nation's citizens to establish their own form of government. Just as within the republic of the US, each state has a different constitution and a different set of community standard on what is or is not permitted. It is that whole "consent of the governed" idea again.

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'.

That is entirely true. I find middle eastern justice barbaric, but then I have little to say about it unless they want to lead the human rights commission at the UN. It matters very little, unless our societies must commingle.

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.

You've stated you believe you have the right to live. Why? Are you alive by the good graces of your nations leaders? Natural law, and rights are a mechanism of thought brought to us by ancient Greek philosophy (Socrates, Aristotle). Natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the world. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals we are. The true basis of law is derived from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

[Jester]

Natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the world. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals we are. The true basis of law is derived from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

If we were to genetically engineer ourselves into different kinds of animals, would that give us different natural rights?

I don't think this argument has kept up with advances in biology very well.

-Jester

[librarian]

Heiho,

I find middle eastern justice barbaric, but then I have little to say about it unless they want to lead the human rights commission at the UN. It matters very little, unless our societies must commingle.

this position becomes fatal at the moment when a relative/friend of yours, or in general terms a member of your society, is captured there for crime. You'll demand justice in your terms, they'll do justice in theirs. What then?
In fact I think societies have to commingle. It is surely a slow and painful process, but it is inevitable.

Establishing the ideas of basic human rights worldwide, so they're as common as the seven days week, is one step. Denying them even in your own country is stasis.

You've stated you believe you have the right to live. Why? Are you alive by the good graces of your nations leaders? Natural law, and rights are a mechanism of thought brought to us by ancient Greek philosophy (Socrates, Aristotle). Natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the world. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals we are. The true basis of law is derived from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

Pete mentioned that the idea of 'rights' is always made up by some men regarding power.
The idea of human rights should have evolved in succession of Enlightenment. Especially because the ancient greeks also had only their oligarchical little village in mind, not the 'Barbarians' far away. And not, for that matter, women, the poor, the mental ill, the slaves. So citing them as source without the latter re-thinking of Enlightenment is citing another archaic society's thinking. And Enlightenment itself is pretty old by now, given the progress made in natural sciences we should indeed all be bleeding heart liberals by now, if human society would have evolved with same velocity.

[kandrathe]

This position becomes fatal at the moment when a relative/friend of yours, or in general terms a member of your society, is captured there for crime. You'll demand justice in your terms, they'll do justice in theirs. What then? In fact I think societies have to commingle. It is surely a slow and painful process, but it is inevitable.

It is no different than it ever has been. Even here in North America you will experience a different sort of (in)justice when you pass south of the Mexican border, in just the simple difference of a basis on Napoleonic law. "When in Rome..." as the saying goes, you need to heed Rome's laws. Why would I expect the juris prudence of my nation when I violate the law in another country? I would ask for intercession by my countries ambassadors, but if I'm guilty it would be considered just for me to pay my penance. Correct?

Establishing the ideas of basic human rights worldwide, so they're as common as the seven days week, is one step. Denying them even in your own country is stasis.

You can set your own standards on what "Human Rights" entail, but again, without the consent of the governed you would be enforcing it through violence or coercion. Perhaps the same applies by trying to force a nation to become democratic at gun point.

Pete mentioned that the idea of 'rights' is always made up by some men regarding power.

If might makes right, then as Hobbes wrote, life is the state of perpetual war with each of us against the other. If on the other hand we establish it to be a fundamental "inherent" right that each of us is entitled to defend our lives, our liberty (free from slavery) and our property, then we might negotiate together a free society. In Leviathan, Hobbes only argued for the right to life.

The idea of human rights should have evolved in succession of Enlightenment. Especially because the ancient greeks also had only their oligarchical little village in mind, not the 'Barbarians' far away. And not, for that matter, women, the poor, the mental ill, the slaves. So citing them as source without the latter re-thinking of Enlightenment is citing another archaic society's thinking. And Enlightenment itself is pretty old by now, given the progress made in natural sciences we should indeed all be bleeding heart liberals by now, if human society would have evolved with same velocity.

I think the sciences offer us little in advice for how to structure a free society, whereas philosophy at least frames the discussion. As backward as the Greeks in Plato's Republic might have been, they offer a better logic than the fang and claw of barbarian society. Also, I hope I don't burst your bubble here, but the 20th century has been the most brutal in all history. Modern enlightenment? My left buttock.

[librarian]

Heiho,

It is no different than it ever has been. ... Correct?

yep, and I call this a stasis.

As backward as the Greeks in Plato's Republic might have been, they offer a better logic than the fang and claw of barbarian society.

This is valid as long as you pretend barbarian society to be even more backwards ('fang and claw' ...). You're aware that in ancient Greek 'barbarian' means literally 'non-Greek', ie 'everyone but us'?
The problem here is that common western societies' writing of history claims the Greek as shining example, and first 'educated' form of society. Which denies other cultures' merits. Example given, there's historical evidence that the Persians had no concept of slavery, though they're claimed to have been the more backward ones.
Political science still sticks to the Greek model, replacing the Greek 'us' with the individual 'us' of given country. This works as long as you're in a small village, with some similar villages in neighbourhood, and travel speed restricted to horses at best. It won't work in the long term, when the world is just one - admittedly huge - place.

Also, I hope I don't burst your bubble here, but the 20th century has been the most brutal in all history. Modern enlightenment? My left buttock.

That's not bursting my bubble, it's exactly my point.
Ideas of Enlightenment have not evolved since Kant with same speed than natural science.

[--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

[--Pete]

Hi,

If might makes right, then as Hobbes wrote, life is the state of perpetual war with each of us against the other.

Because Hobbes assumes, incorrectly I think, that without some inherent rights it becomes every man for himself. He joins the throng that think that the golden rule comes from god or from some other higher authority (call it 'nature').

But, ultimately, it is the golden rule, in a self serving way, that generates the concept of 'rights'. The self serving realization that to get part of the royal power for yourself, the easiest route is to get it for all the barons. That to keep your affairs from being investigated on a whim, the best course is to require a warrant to investigate anyone's affairs. Why Runnymede? Because it only took a few (say four, or so) English barons to equal the strength of John. Why was there no French Runnymede? Because the power of the king was much greater, that of each noble much smaller -- it took the power of the multitude.

And, though the vote isn't in, studies in game theory, and especially in the prisoner's dilemma game, are beginning to show that the self serving version of the golden rule may be best strategy for a society.

Might does make right, but what Hobbes failed to consider is that that might may be spread over a handful of barons, or a few hundred Sons of Liberty, or a full nation of downtrodden peasants. And in every case, the group gains and defends its rights by granting them to each member of the group.

--Pete

[librarian]

Heiho,

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.

nice. I've avoided characterizing you as a moron for comparing humans to vermin, instead giving you an example why this comparison may be seen as moronic from another context, and you turn it against me. I've seen such trickery in discussions before, and it doesn't suddenly become valid.

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.

I'll shorten your quotes as well from now on, so they'll suit my answers better. It's fine to mock me for my reading comprehension, but you should follow the standard you expect from others.

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.

Again, improve your own reading comprehension. I wrote they don't work that way in first and second place, and this is scientific proven. This doesn't mean that I know _how_ they work, which at te moment no-one knows. Irony is good. Twisting a sentence's semantics around until you can find a way to mock about it is bad.
As for the third matter, I explicitly wrote 'I think'. 'I think' has other meaning than 'I know'. Seems this needs to be explained to you, who has at least lived since age six with the language, by someone like me, who is no native English speaker and works with it mainly in context of technical documentations.

"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.

It was you who brought the matter of peaceful death versus life-long lingering in jail. To show you and any lurking reader that 'peaceful death' is quite misleading makes me the illogical one?

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.

You've tried that stuff already with kandrathe, this doesn't become any better with repetition. It is in no way logical to compare nature's forces with willingful violence of human versus human. It just makes good for semi-witty remarks.
Besides, nowadays the Titanic's captain would probably go to trial for [fahrlaessige Toetung] negligent homicide, because he's the one responsible for colliding (don't know if he survived or if he died, following the 'the captain sinks with his ship' tradition); furthermore the company would go to trial for carelessly advertising unsinkability.

Depends on why he is sentenced to death.

I've adressed this before. You should know.

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.

You mix up the 'right' to drive with the right to live. This renders the whole paragraph into meaningless insignificance, even with the right of freedom involved.
As for the right of freedom hurt by incarceration, maybe it would be worth a second thought about rehabilitation and resocialization.

I favor the death penalty for a number of reasons. The first of these is purely economic.

A society which happily burns money by billions should regard this as 'peanuts'.

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.

This is a reason for better jails, and, more important, more efficiency in fighting corruptness.

The third reason is that I believe that the death penalty would be an incentive in preventing crime.

To use your kind of argumentation: tell this the victims of Jack the Ripper.

The last paragraph is emotional crap, and still lacks the definition of 'evil - who and how'.

[--Pete]

Hi,

This is valid as long as you pretend barbarian society to be even more backwards ('fang and claw' ...).

Of course, we're lacking information on the barbarian society since they left neither writing nor monuments to inform us. Other than in the art of enameling, their technology (what little we've found) seems rather primitive; their customs (at least the little we know of them from non-barbaric societies that did leave us records) were pretty basic, centering on the tribe, a small armed core of warrior freemen, and a serf-like remainder of the population.

You're aware that in ancient Greek 'barbarian' means literally 'non-Greek', ie 'everyone but us'?

Actually, it meant those who did not speak Greek and whose language sounded like the bleating (baa baa) of a sheep. Although it can be used to mean all non-Greek speakers, usually the Mediterranean peoples were referred to individually by nation or cultural group.

Example given, there's historical evidence that the Persians had no concept of slavery, though they're claimed to have been the more backward ones.

I'd love to see this 'example'. The expressions of slavery differ greatly from culture to culture. At least at times, the Persian empire and everything and everyone in it belonged to the king. A form of feudalism, if not of slavery, with no apparent demand on the king to his subordinates.

Political science still sticks to the Greek model, replacing the Greek 'us' with the individual 'us' of given country. This works as long as you're in a small village, with some similar villages in neighbourhood, and travel speed restricted to horses at best. It won't work in the long term, when the world is just one - admittedly huge - place.

Yes, it is clear that the unification of the world is just a short time away. Look at how rapidly the Balkans are becoming one political entity; how the growing nationalist movements in Wales, Scotland, Ireland, even Wessex are strengthening the English federation; how Pakistan's separation from India, Bangladesh's separation from Pakistan, and Sri Lanka's independence movement are uniting that sub continent. And let's not forget the spirit of oneness that exists throughout sub Sahara Africa, where the tribes have joined in gleeful mutual extermination.

Why, just the continued unity in the republics of the former Soviet Union leads me to believe we'll have a unified world government in no time.

--Pete

[librarian]

Heiho,

Of course, we're lacking information on the barbarian society since they left neither writing nor monuments to inform us.

you never heard of China and India, to name just two other ancient societies?
Persian scripts are known at least as old as 1000 B.C.
Just because history classes focus on Greek historians doesn't mean there wasn't anyone else.

Yes, it is clear that the unification of the world is just a short time away.

your reading English ability lacks recognizing 'slow and painful'

[--Pete]

Hi,

your reading English ability lacks recognizing 'slow and painful'

Perhaps, but it does recognize "Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level and beats you with experience."

Twain being right, I'll leave the floor to you.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I'd love to see this 'example'. The expressions of slavery differ greatly from culture to culture. At least at times, the Persian empire and everything and everyone in it belonged to the king. A form of feudalism, if not of slavery, with no apparent demand on the king to his subordinates.

Well I did a little google-fu and found this article.

"The Neo-Babylonian Text from the Persepolis Fortification," by Matthew W. Stolper. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 43, No. 4. (Oct., 1984), pp. 299-310.
Here is one of the relevant passages from Persepolis: Bel-iddin has received from Marduk-belSunu that silver, two minas and twenty-five shekels, the price of his slave. ("1-5) Bel-iddin assumes guaranty against suits (brought by) improper or proper claimants (to the slave) (and against suits claiming) the status of king's servant, free citizen, temple oblate, (or).... (for the slave)."

I would also point out that after the domination of the Persian Empire in 651 by Islam, that the non-Islam population was subject to the dhimmi system, or put to the sword. Often vast numbers of dhimmi were enslaved if it was determined there was a violation of the dhimmi law, and often they were killed and the women and children were enslaved.

So, with my best Mythbusters bumper slide... I vote "BUSTED". :)

[librarian]

Heiho,

seriously, do you think you're the only one able to google? And able to avoid search results which don't fit your expectations? Quoting some blogger, who doesn't know better than you, is a valid source?
Besides, referring to Persia 600 AC is slightly misleading when Persia 500 BC was discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire

The practice of slavery in Achaemenid Persia was generally banned, although there is evidence that conquered and/or rebellious armies were sold into captivity.[8] Zoroastrianism, the de facto religion of the empire, explicitly forbids slavery,[9] and the kings of Achaemenid Persia followed this ban to varying degrees, as evidenced by the freeing of the Jews at Babylon, and the construction of Persepolis by paid workers.

Anyone heard about the Cyrus Charter? No? Thought so.
http://mohammad.buzznet.com/user/journal/6542/

Now that I put the crown of kingdom of Iran, Babylon, and the nations of the four directions on the head with the help of (Ahura) Mazda, I announce that I will respect the traditions, customs and religions of the nations of my empire and never let any of my governors and subordinates look down on or insult them until I am alive. From now on, till (Ahura) Mazda grants me the kingdom favor, I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it , and if any one of them rejects it , I never resolve on war to reign. Until I am the king of Iran, Babylon, and the nations of the four directions, I never let anyone oppress any others, and if it occurs , I will take his or her right back and penalize the oppressor.

And until I am the monarch, I will never let anyone take possession of movable and landed properties of the others by force or without compensation. Until I am alive, I prevent unpaid, forced labor. To day, I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion. People are free to live in all regions and take up a job provided that they never violate other's rights.

No one could be penalized for his or her relatives' faults. I prevent slavery and my governors and subordinates are obliged to prohibit exchanging men and women as slaves within their own ruling domains. Such a traditions should be exterminated the world over.

Busted, yeah.

<edit>
My part is done here.
I thought misunderstandings were caused by my poor English, but it seems now to me they were caused by poor minds on the other side.
</edit>

[Jester]

Your initial claim was that the ancient Persians had no concept of slavery. This is clearly incorrect.

However, reading through Kandrathe's link, the point is brought up in the comments that the Persians ruled over a large and multi-ethnic empire, and that a transaction between Babylonians under Persian rule is not necessarily good evidence that the Persians allowed or tolerated slavery amongst themselves. From my limited understanding of Persian empire-building, my impression was that they left local religions and customs alone to a large extent. They tended to free slaves, but abolishing the entire cultural practice of buying and selling domestic slaves was probably far beyond their ability to control. This is not the modern world; the reach of the state is much shorter, unless the army is in town.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

seriously, do you think you're the only one able to google? And able to avoid search results which don't fit your expectations? Quoting some blogger, who doesn't know better than you, is a valid source? Besides, referring to Persia 600 AC is slightly misleading when Persia 500 BC was discussed.

Mmmm, referring to the "Persian Empire" is vague. If you meant specifically the time of Cyrus the Great, circe. 539 BCE, it would help to spell that out. I can believe there was a time for a few hundred years when things were humane in Persia, but it was pretty much destroyed by the Macedonians. I would call it sloppy thinking to point at a banana tree and call it a fruit.