Gav's View

Oh dear, oh dear Gav

Can’t go with you on this one, Gav – have a read throught the “medical” protocols for killing Americans on death row on http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2005/12/lethal-injections.html
and then look at some of the backround on Cory Maye who is on death row in circumstances that make you shiver.

The Maye case seems to singly show the poor judicial system that the US struggles with which relies so heavily on having a jury of the same ethnic colouring to hope for a ‘win’. Whether Cory Maye was on Death Row or facing life in prison it would be, as the facts are presented, a gross miscarriage of justice.

But that the death penalty is being used as the method of ‘solving’ the ‘problem’ doesn’t change anything. Instead of his daughter being an orphan, she would just know that her father was imprisoned for the rest of his natural life (in the US).

I wander wide-eyed and innocent into this discussion, but I would suggest that miscarriages of justice, while they do happen here, happen less often. I would suggest, too, that a one-time conviction should not be enough to obtain a death sentence unless the evidence is overwhelming and the crime can be shown to be premeditated (or grossly more likely due to the actions of the offender).

In the Maye case, again assuming the evidence is as stark as illustrated, self-defence should have been the obvious “reasonable doubt” judgement and I would guess that the case would have an acceptable result on Appeal here…

And is, in the most callous terms, the death of Maye acceptable if the death sentence as a deterrent saves more than one person for each Maye? Is, in fact, the death sentence the villain in this case, or is it the judicial system?

Finally, I am a social liberal so I do not make these posts lightly and I would much rather see the logic of having no death penalty.

The death penalty is both appropriate in certain cases and Biblical in foundation. I would like to see it brought back, after all, it IS the will of the people.

Since when has the will of the people mattered? The EU too!

I’m not sure that the death penalty is a deterrant per se. A crime of passion or the actions of a drug addict are hardly influenced by the law, after all. I believe it did, however, act as a deterrant on professional criminals (armed robbery rates increased markedly once the death penalty was abolished for killing a police officer).

I personally think the Death Penalty is wrong in any case, even when the defendant’s guilt can be proved scientifically. I agree that life in prison is a better punishment. It’s true that although death is not very plesent, afterwards you don’t know a thing. So it can be seen as an easy way out from a lifetime of imprisonment. Furthermore, I think it’s quite brutish for the State to agree with murder. An eye-for-an-eye is a pretty base and uncivilised way to deal with people who have committed murder or other equally punishable fellonies.

That’s an odd take Daniel, if you don’t mind me saying so.

You are simultaneously saying that death is not a great punishment as it is too easy (which befits the beliefs of an agnostic or atheist) and that the state murdering would be intolerable on moral grounds.

Either death is a severe punishment which the state should be loathe to involve itself in, or death is not a severe punishment. I cannot see both being reconciled together.

On the other hand I don’t agree that the state is involving itself in murder when administering the death penalty. It is a punishment for an action freely entered into. If this is murder then a shop-keeper asking you to pay for goods that you chose to purchase is stealing from you.

Finally, if you want the punishment to be unpleasant and death’s too easy are you advocating torture or physical punishment by implication? I certainly would not.

Well I do consider myself an atheist as it happens, and I do think that death is an easy way out for criminals who otherwise would have to sepnd a life-time in prison.

Death is a lot cheaper for the poor old tax payer though.

Daniel, I have to say I guessed that and, while it’s not a prerequisite, it does seem to be useful to be atheist in order to be pragmatic and/or absolutely logically consistent; as — I like to think — I am!

James, Very true, so long as it’s not done like the US system again.

If the death sentence is truly an easy way out then surely we should have it. Only the truly inncoent (who had a realistic chance of getting their convictions overturned) would appeal it while the guilty would accept it. The US experience suggests this to not be the case (unless you argue that a guilty person has a good chance of being released).

For the record (as it came up) I’m an aetheist too. I can support the death penalty on principle but I wouldn’t trust our current justice system with it.

I don’t know if I can go along with the will of the people being unchallenged – down that road lies a dictatorship of the majority.

I am smiling as I type this – you’re drawing on Rousseau’s General Will in a cunning way.

The majority is who the democratically elected politician is there to represent. There’s no sense us pretending that democracy is not that way inclined. If politicians deny the majority their will then we are not governed with consent and that is the basis of all political systems based on the sovereignty of the people. The fact that the public is dismayed, chronically, by their politicians is probably a result of their will not being done.

I have faith in our judicial system in as much as I accept that a repeat-offender is genuinely guilty of a crime. The removal of the requirement to keep previous convictions from the jury has damaged that, however.

The US system, as you suggest, seems full of holes as evidenced by NHS Blog Doctor’s comment.

You’re making me work here Gav, I had to look up Rosseau’s General Will on Google. It sounds like an argument against Voltaire’s view on the rightness of the majority.

I was trying to focus on limitation of government, even if it is democratic. It may be true that the people want ID cards. You could argue that if the majority favour ID cards then we should all have them and they may only be opposed by the democratic process (i.e. changing public opinion). Alternatively you could argue that it is wrong for the majority to impose its will on any minority, even a minority of one. Thus, if one person opposes ID cards then the will of the majority should be defied.

Such constituional restraints on the will of the majority exist in the US system. The majority cannot declare America to be a Christian country, or impose laws against flag-burning. In this way the majority is defied, and in my view, it is a good thing.

As an afterthought, I think that is the difference between Greek democracy (based on the absolute will of the majority) and liberal democracy.

That’s interesting.

I’d only concerned myself, until now, with trying to convince the alternative opinion that there are reasons for my opinion. That ID cards are wanted my the majority does not mean they’re right, only that the majority don’t yet know why they’re wrong!

I have to admit I don’t know enough about the US Constitution to know what limitations there are, but what is to stop the current President (whoever he may be) from tabling a Constitutional amendment abolishing free-speech or separation of Church and state?

The lack of a written constitution in the UK, along with our favoured-majority electoral system suggests to me that our current system is closer to the Will of the Majority system than the US system. You may have noticed, in that vein, my support of an elected Upper House and an elected Head of State.

I like the idea that the minority of one is not imposed upon, but what if imposition on the minority is required by not imposing on the majority (and, of course, vice versa)?

What if, in the modern example, a person in Religion A requires people in Religion B to not work on their holy day? One is imposed upon in their right to free religion and the other is imposed upon in their right to work…

Voltaire, as you mention him, would be most upset at the anti-homophobia, anti-racism and anti-religious-hatred laws that this government has introduced. That, for me, is enough to embrace what he says in that respect!

The president has no power to amend the constitution. Both houses of congress must approve the amendment as must three quarters of states. Even then the supreme court can strike down an amendment in certain circumstances.

In the example you cite, I would say that it should be a matter for private individuals to resolve, not for the state. I quite like Voltaire too. In his day, freedom and democracy were relatively untried so one should not expect everything he says to hold true.

Yet again is highlighted why our virtually omnipotent Prime Minister needs reigning in by constitutional amendments…

“And if the death penalty prevents more murders from occuring through deterrence than the number of innocent ‘murderers’ executed, surely that’s okay?”

Would you be willing to sacrifice a member of your family to help deter more murders if they were wrongfully convicted? (There is no evidence to support deterrence).

Speaking of family members, It is right to consider the victims family members but the criminal also has a family who may be just as innocent as the victim’s family….should they be made to suffer the loss of a family member?

Finally, I am against capital punishment simply because it makes the entire society murderers. (The official cause of death in an execution is “homicide”). An advanced civilization needs to rise above revenge.

Thou shalt not kill. If you are (or claim to be) a christian, then it really is that simple.

Well, Witness, I cannot leave it there now!

“Thou shalt not kill” is an Old Testament element of semite religions — The Old Testament also tells people to kill someone who dares tend his field on the sabbath… Quoting scripture about this subject will get any Christian into very hot water… There are many, many crimes that are punishable by death according to God’s own voice.

And I am vehemently not a Christian. Dawkins and I share a vehement dislike for the nasty parts of religion and a genuine concern that people can find it in themselves to believe unprovable things…