Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> > Let's see if I get this: you declare that you know, using an
> arbitrary
> equation, who "deserves to die". You also support the
> premeditated
> murder of a defenseless human being. Ergo, you naturally extend
> this privilege to others, who can also determine who "deserves to
> die", and
> who shall therefore be murdered in cold blood.>>
>
> I think judges and juries are capable of deciding, if that's what
> you mean, though perhaps not as well as I could.
But deciding on what basis?
(1) The number of death penalty sentences in any year is only a small fraction of the murders.
(2) Prosecutors are the main force in deciding outcomes, since they are the ones who decided what to charge. (Prosecutors are the main force in the whole criminal justice system, this is just a special case that's particularly notable and heinous.)
(3) Systemic racial prejudice has already been demonstrated -- in McClesky v. Kemp -- and the Supreme Court said this was not a problem unless one could prove SPECIFIC intent in the case being appealed -- a clearly impossible burden to meet.
This is prima facia evidence that the system as a whole is subject to bias that no judge or jury, no matter how fair or just, can correct.
(4) Systemic wealth prejudice has not been argued to my knowledge, but is certainly quite evident. There are countless cases of drastically inadequate representation. Even defense lawyers who feel asleep during trial.
Again, this is prima facia evidence that the system as a whole is subject to bias that no judge or jury, no matter how fair or just, can correct.
> I don't get some of your adjectives here. For instance,
> "premeditated." Would you prefer 'spur of the moment' executions?
> Or how about "defenseless." Would it be better if the murder was
> obliged to go into the arena against Hulk Hogan or somebody?
>
> > This is a descent into barbarism, as I claimed, as now we
> simply murder those who "deserve to die", a flexible formula . .
> . >>
>
> It need not be "flexible."
Unless we're willing to execute tens of thousands of prisoners a year it must indeed be flexible. No one is willing to have that much blood on our hands as a nation. That level of executions would clearly get to people and sharply erode support for the death penalty. "Flexibility" aka extreme selectivity and capriciousness are absolutely essential elements of the system.
> > that suits heretics, Indians, slaves, adulterers, disobedient
> wives, drug dealers, thiefs, lazy workers, murderers, and whoever
> else shall not be deemed "deserving" of life.>
>
> There you go again! Equating heinous crimes with minor ones, or
> with none at all. How barbaric.
Except, of course, that prosecutorial misconduct is endemic, and heinous crimes are all too often defacto equated not just with minor crimes, but with no crimes at all.
> > . . .
> Premeditated murder of someone who is defenseless is cowardly.
> There
> is no other word for it. It is a lack of humanity and strength
> when other options are available, as they always are. >
>
> Would it be better if I volunteered to dispatch Timothy McVeigh
> with my one-iron?
It would be better if you considered how hard Blackmunn tried to make the death penalty work, operating from philosophic position similar to yours, before he finally gave it up as an impossible task.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"