I Am Troy Davis

[ruckman101]

Violence harms both victims and perpetrators, and the harm isn't limited to the active parties. Communities suffer, as does the state. Often victims cry out against the death penalty, but the state turns a deaf ear.

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

Everything old is new again.



neal

[steve74baywin]

Every circumstance is different, but I lean towards no need for a death penalty. In fact if it was my decision, or if my vote would make it okay or not, I'd have to say no. I am not going to be party to killing someone. I just don't think I could ever "know" something so much so that I would be for it.
I don't fear things that much that I feel someone must die, no matter what crime they did. I probably would be for much less jail time than most too.
Something I have thought about posting but never quite saw the time, or posted enough already.
My political stance, even though it seems I think I "know" alot, it is a stance people who don't think they know it all go for.
In other words, it takes someone having to really think they know what is right or correct to want to make it a law, such as abortion. I think it shows a high level of arrogance if someone things they know something so much so that they want to make it illegal to do. Do they really "know" it is wrong to kill an unborn? Do they really know medical plan X is so right that they want to force everyone to pay? Being Libertarian allows each person to choose, we don't want to rule your life partly because we realize we can't KNOW what is the correct thing. We don't like playing the "all knowing".
So because I could not know if something is worthy of the death penalty, or because I can't know how wrong it would be to sanction the death penalty, I'm not for it.

[RSorak 71Westy]

The whole idea of the death penalty is for preventative effect. I personally think that gov't shouldn't have the right to kill. Troy Davis was probably innocent, but if there;s a way found to prove that now it's a moot point. Except to show that the death penalty is wrong.

[RussellK]

Life without parole is no cakewalk either. Just saying.

[Lanval]

FWIW, I argue the "safety valve" issue myself; we kill the most dangerous to protect the herd] which is essentially biological?
Mike

We get convictions wrong. How are you sure we are killing the most dangerous?

You're worried about one guy. While we let thousands die from preventable disease like dysentery. Your scale is broken.

My point was about how people think about these problems. We use the death penalty too often where it's not warranted (convictions that are circumstantially based) and not enough where it is (clear, incontrovertible evidence, coupled with a reluctance to kill).

It's a defense pure and simple ~ yes, we'll kill a few innocent people, but that's the price we pay for the overall safety of the group. It works the same way with vaccines. Every year, a few kids have serious reactions to vaccines; occasionally, one dies. We accept the loss of this life as the price we pay for avoiding the more substantial deaths associated with the disease. The death penalty should work the same way.

How do you feel about someone who murdered multiple people getting out, or at least living on in captivity. What will you say if that person gets out and kills again (as they too often do, because 1. We don't try to fix the problem in prison; 2. some people can't be fixed)? What will you say to that family who suffered at the hands of a known killer? Probably the same insufficient words you'll say to the family of a man killed in innocence.

Do we use the death penalty too much? Yes; does that warrant doing away with the death penalty? Nope.

Mike

Mike

[Velokid1]

Whether the death penalty can be part of a civilized society or not is debatable but the fact of the matter is that this man's guilt was questionable at best and still he was put to death. The people responsible, and the people who defend it, have more than a little bit of evil and willful ignorance in them.

[ruckman101]

A society that uses the death penalty is not civilized.


neal

[RussellK]

FWIW, I argue the "safety valve" issue myself; we kill the most dangerous to protect the herd] which is essentially biological?
Mike

We get convictions wrong. How are you sure we are killing the most dangerous?

You're worried about one guy. While we let thousands die from preventable disease like dysentery. Your scale is broken.

The discussion is about capital punishment. Not preventable disease, also something a civilized society should be concerned about. So thank you but I think my scale is fine.

I'm not so cavalier as you about the innocent. As long as the judicial system is politicized, as long as juries are populated by humans we will get some convictions wrong. I won't accept your collateral damage argument as an acceptable fee to keep us safe.

If you're okay with executions what moral litmus test do you use to draw the line between executions and say castration or severing a limb?

Mike, I have to be honest with you. I'm opposed to the death penalty for purely moral reasons so I haven't anywhere I can go with this discussion.

[steve74baywin]

FWIW, I argue the "safety valve" issue myself; we kill the most dangerous to protect the herd] which is essentially biological?
Mike

We get convictions wrong. How are you sure we are killing the most dangerous?

You're worried about one guy. While we let thousands die from preventable disease like dysentery. Your scale is broken.

The discussion is about capital punishment. Not preventable disease, also something a civilized society should be concerned about. So thank you but I think my scale is fine.

I'm not so cavalier as you about the innocent. As long as the judicial system is politicized, as long as juries are populated by humans we will get some convictions wrong. I won't accept your collateral damage argument as an acceptable fee to keep us safe.

If you're okay with executions what moral litmus test do you use to draw the line between executions and say castration or severing a limb?

Mike, I have to be honest with you. I'm opposed to the death penalty for purely moral reasons so I haven't anywhere I can go with this discussion.

Protecting the herd is something perhaps seen in many animals, and lord knows I compare humans to sheep all the time, I guess I would like to see us do better.

I'm finding it quite interesting because some of the same things that have come up in other conversations is coming up here, in an underlying way.
To allow humans to do a proactive action to cause one person to die, even if in error, and not be concerned about it for the good of furthering this society, and the whole notion that we should do whatever in the area of diseases to insure the thriving society continues brings some very big questions and concerns to me, once again.
To me these questions come up. Who has the main plan for society? Where is it etched in stone? What is the plan? Do those stirring us have the right? etc, etc. Is the plan valid? It is right to sacrifice some lives for this plan? Is it a God ordained plan? If so whose God?

Not to hijack, it just troubles me, this greater good Collectivism over Individualism. The Individual can be shit on for the group, cause the group is following some supposed ordained plan or something. Sounds like a cult.

[Lanval]

Mike, I have to be honest with you. I'm opposed to the death penalty for purely moral reasons so I haven't anywhere I can go with this discussion.

Fair enough; that's why I love democracy, though. If enough people are against it, we get rid of it (whatever "it" is). An elegant response to the complexity of the human condition.

I applaud your honesty and your having the courage of your convictions.

Mike

/edit: I should add that we could probably talk about whether preventable disease is irrelevant here, but that's for another thread/day.

[ruckman101]

"Retributive justice began to replace such* (*Restorative) systems following the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066 A.D. William the Conqueror's son, Henry I, detailed offenses against the “king’s peace.” By the end of the 11th century, crime was no longer perceived as injurious to persons, but rather was seen as an offense against the state.[9]"

A selection from the wikilink I posted earlier in the thread. Retributive vs Restorative justice. British Imperialism as an oppressive model that every crime is against the state. Retributive.

The history of Restorative justice finds it's roots in indigenous cultures. Community circles resolving conflicts, minimizing negative impacts, working towards solutions on all sides that such crime doesn't perpetuate, with respect for all involved.

I'm sorry, that's a model I can live with. "Hang 'em high!" is not.

The death penalty seems a state sanctioned lynching to me.


neal
* asterisks and parentheses along with the word within those parentheses within the wikilink quote are mine.

[Lanval]

"Retributive justice began to replace such* (*Restorative) systems following the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066 A.D. William the Conqueror's son, Henry I, detailed offenses against the “king’s peace.” By the end of the 11th century, crime was no longer perceived as injurious to persons, but rather was seen as an offense against the state.[9]"

A selection from the wikilink I posted earlier in the thread. Retributive vs Restorative justice. British Imperialism as an oppressive model that every crime is against the state. Retributive.

The history of Restorative justice finds it's roots in indigenous cultures. Community circles resolving conflicts, minimizing negative impacts, working towards solutions on all sides that such crime doesn't perpetuate, with respect for all involved.

I'm sorry, that's a model I can live with. "Hang 'em high!" is not.

The death penalty seems a state sanctioned lynching to me.


neal
* asterisks and parentheses along with the word within those parentheses within the wikilink quote are mine.

Neal,

Which "indigenous cultures" are you referring to? I'm unaware of any that operated with a sense of life as sacrosanct; the NW tribes used to banish people (still do, when given a chance) which was an opportunity to starve to death/die alone, over a long period of time. The ancient Celts were in the habit of blood sacrifice, the Aztecs killed their own at a goodly rate. Which indigenous culture is it specifically that you're referring to here? I can't think of one that operates with a respect for life which even remotely approximates our own. Every culture of the type you seem to be referring to that I'm aware of killed whenever and however they thought necessary. Don't even get me started on the Romans, Anglo-Saxons and so on. They were just cruel... So I'm wondering if you have a specific culture, or cultural group in mind?

Mike

Mike

[ruckman101]

"Retributive justice began to replace such* (*Restorative) systems following the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066 A.D. William the Conqueror's son, Henry I, detailed offenses against the “king’s peace.” By the end of the 11th century, crime was no longer perceived as injurious to persons, but rather was seen as an offense against the state.[9]"

A selection from the wikilink I posted earlier in the thread. Retributive vs Restorative justice. British Imperialism as an oppressive model that every crime is against the state. Retributive.

The history of Restorative justice finds it's roots in indigenous cultures. Community circles resolving conflicts, minimizing negative impacts, working towards solutions on all sides that such crime doesn't perpetuate, with respect for all involved.

I'm sorry, that's a model I can live with. "Hang 'em high!" is not.

The death penalty seems a state sanctioned lynching to me.


neal
* asterisks and parentheses along with the word within those parentheses within the wikilink quote are mine.

Neal,

Which "indigenous cultures" are you referring to? I'm unaware of any that operated with a sense of life as sacrosanct; the NW tribes used to banish people (still do, when given a chance) which was an opportunity to starve to death/die alone, over a long period of time. The ancient Celts were in the habit of blood sacrifice, the Aztecs killed their own at a goodly rate. Which indigenous culture is it specifically that you're referring to here? I can't think of one that operates with a respect for life which even remotely approximates our own. Every culture of the type you seem to be referring to that I'm aware of killed whenever and however they thought necessary. Don't even get me started on the Romans, Anglo-Saxons and so on. They were just cruel... So I'm wondering if you have a specific culture, or cultural group in mind?

Mike

Mike

Sigh.

From the Wikilink posted earlier, History of the Restorative Justice tradition.


"Restorative approaches to crime date back thousands of years:
In North America, justice in First Nations and Native American communities have had aspects of restorative justice.
In Israel, the Pentateuch specified restitution for property crimes.
In Sumer, the Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2060 BC) required restitution for violent offenses.
In Babylon, the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1700 BC) prescribed restitution for property offenses.
In Rome, the Twelve Tables (449 BC) compelled convicted thieves to pay double the value of stolen goods.
In Ireland, under the Brehon Laws (first recorded in the Old Irish period) compensation was the mode of justice for most crimes.
In Germany, tribal laws promulgated by King Clovis I (496 AD) called for restitutive sanctions for both violent and nonviolent offenses.
In England, the Laws of Ethelbert of Kent (c. 600 AD) included detailed restitution schedules.
In New Zealand/Aotearoa, prior to European contact, the Maori had a well-developed system that protected individuals, social stability and the integrity of the group."

Many others cited in the same article.

Methinks you may have swallowed some rewritten history foisted by imperialists about all those "primitive" and "savage" cultures we have enlightened. And obviously, you missed the wikilink.



for your enlightenment,
neal

[Lanval]

"Retributive justice began to replace such* (*Restorative) systems following the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066 A.D. William the Conqueror's son, Henry I, detailed offenses against the “king’s peace.” By the end of the 11th century, crime was no longer perceived as injurious to persons, but rather was seen as an offense against the state.[9]"

A selection from the wikilink I posted earlier in the thread. Retributive vs Restorative justice. British Imperialism as an oppressive model that every crime is against the state. Retributive.

The history of Restorative justice finds it's roots in indigenous cultures. Community circles resolving conflicts, minimizing negative impacts, working towards solutions on all sides that such crime doesn't perpetuate, with respect for all involved.

I'm sorry, that's a model I can live with. "Hang 'em high!" is not.

The death penalty seems a state sanctioned lynching to me.


neal
* asterisks and parentheses along with the word within those parentheses within the wikilink quote are mine.

Neal,

Which "indigenous cultures" are you referring to? I'm unaware of any that operated with a sense of life as sacrosanct; the NW tribes used to banish people (still do, when given a chance) which was an opportunity to starve to death/die alone, over a long period of time. The ancient Celts were in the habit of blood sacrifice, the Aztecs killed their own at a goodly rate. Which indigenous culture is it specifically that you're referring to here? I can't think of one that operates with a respect for life which even remotely approximates our own. Every culture of the type you seem to be referring to that I'm aware of killed whenever and however they thought necessary. Don't even get me started on the Romans, Anglo-Saxons and so on. They were just cruel... So I'm wondering if you have a specific culture, or cultural group in mind?

Mike

Mike

Sigh.

From the Wikilink posted earlier, History of the Restorative Justice tradition.


"Restorative approaches to crime date back thousands of years:
In North America, justice in First Nations and Native American communities have had aspects of restorative justice.
In Israel, the Pentateuch specified restitution for property crimes.
In Sumer, the Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2060 BC) required restitution for violent offenses.
In Babylon, the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1700 BC) prescribed restitution for property offenses.
In Rome, the Twelve Tables (449 BC) compelled convicted thieves to pay double the value of stolen goods.
In Ireland, under the Brehon Laws (first recorded in the Old Irish period) compensation was the mode of justice for most crimes.
In Germany, tribal laws promulgated by King Clovis I (496 AD) called for restitutive sanctions for both violent and nonviolent offenses.
In England, the Laws of Ethelbert of Kent (c. 600 AD) included detailed restitution schedules.
In New Zealand/Aotearoa, prior to European contact, the Maori had a well-developed system that protected individuals, social stability and the integrity of the group."

Many others cited in the same article.

Methinks you may have swallowed some rewritten history foisted by imperialists about all those "primitive" and "savage" cultures we have enlightened. And obviously, you missed the wikilink.



for your enlightenment,
neal

Whose enlightenment? Yours maybe. Let me preface this: As an ABD in Anglo-Saxon Medieval studies, I can tell you with absolute certainty (first-hand accounts, literary accounts) that what you describe above, and the details as given in the wikipost are at best myopic and at worst historically inaccurate. The notion of restorative vs. retributive justice as described in the wiki is counter-argued by a range of works, up to and including Beowulf; in the latter, for example, the concept of the individual is attenuated dramatically by the proto-feudal relationship in the pre-medieval society.

The injury of any individual, while ostensibly dealt with in local terms (i.e. weregild) is repeatedly and consistently shown to have a wider social impact; this is due to the complex web of association through relationship (blood) and fealty (oath or bond).

Among other things, it's very clearly stated in the poem that the penalty for death was death, and that it was a clan or social obligation as well as an individual obligation. Further, it's made very clear that in the history as perceived through the poem, the issue of individual "crime" (whether capital or property ~ and I'm using the term "crime" here pretty damn loosely; the Anglo-Saxon concept of crime is substantially foreign to our current modes of thinking which is based on Roman law) repeatedly has socially-wide consequences, up to and including the entire destruction of a people. Indeed, Beowulf the character has an extended comment on just that issue.

Anglo-Saxon law itself was ABSOLUTELY retributive, and on a much wider range of things than you're implying. The Anglo-Saxons didn't think of a state in quite the same way though; the pre-Norman law modality was clan-based, and didn't consider precedent. When a crime was committed, the elders would gather to consider the crime and punishment. One substantive difference is that they didn't necessarily consider previous decisions binding. They could and did kill people, though.

As for Hammarubi, your reference is one-sided; here's from the retributive wiki:

"Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers that punishment, if proportionate, is a morally acceptable response to crime, with an eye to the satisfaction and psychological benefits it can bestow to the aggrieved party, its intimates and society[citation needed].

In ethics and law, "Let the punishment fit the crime" is the principle that the severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportionate to the severity of the infraction.[1] The concept is common to most cultures throughout the world. Its presence in the ancient Jewish culture is shown by its inclusion in the law of Moses, specifically in Deuteronomy 19:17-21, and Exodus 21:23-21:27, which includes the punishments of "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." That phrasing in turn resembles the older Code of Hammurabi. Many other documents reflect this value in the world's cultures. However, the judgment of whether a punishment is appropriately severe can vary greatly between cultures and individuals."

It's dishonest to cite these examples without pointing out that there are in many cases, BOTH retributive and restorative. I can't speak for the others, but it's not hard to guess that those will follow the same model.

Mike

[ruckman101]

I suggested only restorative justice was the model prior to the British embracing and institutionalizing the retributive model and declaring all crimes as against the state? Oops, if that's the case, it certainly wasn't my intent.

Certainly models of justice have been debated from the moment of the first crime committed. My intent was to point out that the restorative model has been around and has a history of application, true, in primarily indigenous, tribal cultures including many original native american cultures of North America. You know, those considered "primitive" by invading "western" cultures who brought a retributive model to bear and all of the other fantastic advantages the the European "advanced" culture.

The restorative model is essentially of the tribal council, or circle model. All parties involved, which included the community, were brought to the circle and how to most appropriately address and resolve the transgressions were brought to discussion.

It strikes me as much more humane, rather than perpetuating violence by state sanctioned lynchings regardless of the wishes of the parties involved, which strikes me as barbaric.

Absolutely there are many barbaric justice models throughout history. To define a crime as against the state grants power from the people to the rulers. What other tipping of the balance of powers do the other retributive models grant, and to who? To what end?

The Restorative Justice model was brought to my attention when a victim interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now cited it as an alternative model that resonated with him as an alternative to the death penalty, a response that satisfied his opposition to the death penalty, despite the murder of his grandfather, and then years later, his daughter.

I'm unclear why an epic poem is cited as an argument of the validity of state sanctioned lynchings. Isn't the "eye for an eye" model obviously an example of the retributive model? We will all be blind. Now that strikes me as a myopic view.


neal