jimmy two hands wrote: Tom wrote:
I can see the tactical and moral advantages of such a position but I think justice was certainly done in the case of Lawrence Brewer. By justice I mean that Brewer got his desert which was death by execution.
That's precisely my point. Your point of view is sound, but it is saying that capital punishment is acceptable sometimes. The predominate chorus here is that capital punishment is never acceptable. For that argument, I believe that Lawrence Brewers case makes a strong point, and that is where the focus should be this day after two people were executed by their government.
The Davis case I think is a better arguement with the general public towards abolishing the death penalty because it demonstrates the flaws in the justice system that would allow prosecutors to railroad an innocent man through badgering of witnesses and ignoring evidence to the contrary, just so they have someone to punish.
As clearly as I can make it:
If at least one reason you are against the death penalty is because it is barbaric, it doesn't matter what the person did or "how guilty" they are. It is wrong. If this is part of your argument, and you only use people like Davis or Mumia, or Willingham, your argument is hollow and carries little weight.
If barbarism is at least one aspect of your argument, then you are obliged to give people like Brewer at least
as much concern and advocacy as Davis because the "don't execute cause he's innocent" group isn't shedding a tear for him.