Verdict - Death Penalty/Capital Punishment

[jimmy two hands]

Tom,

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. I'm against the death penalty for all cases because it's barbaric and based on a stone age mentailty of blood atonement where it doesn't matter whose blood is spilled, just as long as some blood is spilled. I realize it's also based on the universal concept of revenge, but revenge is not justice, and a state execution ceremony isn't even real revenge and doesn't solve anything or bring the victim back to life. But the public is in general a bloodthirsty lot who are not going to be persuaded by a well-reasoned moral argument against any taking of a life. Even though I find the Brewer execution disgusting, I have a hard time in general feeling bad that he is dead.

[krs]

Tom,

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.

Yup. Death penalty proponents do not care about the emotional or philosophical argument. If you don't believe in the death penalty (period), they will probably just agree to disagree. The conversation ends. We have to highlight flaws in the system and instances where innocent men and women have been killed by the state. A Republican governor from Illinois did not institute a moratorium on the death penalty here based on emotion. It happened because instances of mishandled cases came to light.

[Tom]

Tom,

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.

[jimmy two hands]

Tom,

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.

Understood, but an argument that carries little weight with one frame of mind can carry a lot of weight in a different minded group of people. For example, the argument of barabrity is what made my grandmother against the death penalty, whereas the argument of the potential for executing an innocent person is what made my parents against the death penalty.

[krs]

Tom,

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.

In my experience, "barbarism" is not an opinion that carries much weight with death penalty advocates. It's a fundamental difference in worldview that is not likely to change with appeals to emotion. I have never had any success in discussion. Have you? The key to abolishing death as a punishment, is to point out the inherent structural flaws of the system.

[Tom]

Tom,

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.

Understood, but an argument that carries little weight with one frame of mind can carry a lot of weight in a different minded group of people. For example, the argument of barabrity is what made my grandmother against the death penalty, whereas the argument of the potential for executing an innocent person is what made my parents against the death penalty.

If you're trying to persuade someone on the grounds of barbarism, then you're argument is not credible when you "have a hard time feeling bad that he's dead." That can be a completely honest sentiment, but at that point, you have to rethink whether or not you truly think it's barbaric.

[Tom]

In my experience, "barbarism" is not an opinion that carries much weight with death penalty advocates. It's a fundamental difference in worldview that is not likely to change with appeals to emotion. I have never had any success in discussion. Have you? The key to abolishing death as a punishment, is to point out the inherent structural flaws of the system.

I don't know if it does or doesn't carry a lot of weight with death penalty advocates. I do know that it's an argument that is thrown around here all the time to compare the US to Iran and China - and it's nonsense when it's applied selectively to cases that one can "feel good about supporting."

[jimmy two hands]

If you're trying to persuade someone on the grounds of barbarism, then you're argument is not credible when you "have a hard time feeling bad that he's dead." That can be a completely honest sentiment, but at that point, you have to rethink whether or not you truly think it's barbaric.

Only if you have a black and white worldview. To take an extreme example, the execution of Tim McVeigh. Am I sad that he's dead? No. Am I upset that the government executed him? Yes. Would I prefer him to be alive and rotting away in a jail cell instead? Yes. Does it weaken my argument to have nuanced feelings about things? Probably, but I don't care. I still think it's barbaric.

[tmidgett]

I used to think you have to start with innocent people etc. etc., but more and more I agree with Tom.

I think the argument that is barbaric 100% of the time is powerful when you put it into practice, and in any case it's the argument most worth making morally.

No one is saying a motherfucker like Lawrence Brewer shouldn't have been punished severely. Like left to stew in a small cell for the rest of his life.

But you don't kill people who aren't both trying to kill you and in a position to do something about it. It shouldn't be something we do as a species.

[Tom]

If you're trying to persuade someone on the grounds of barbarism, then you're argument is not credible when you "have a hard time feeling bad that he's dead." That can be a completely honest sentiment, but at that point, you have to rethink whether or not you truly think it's barbaric.

Only if you have a black and white worldview. To take an extreme example, the execution of Tim McVeigh. Am I sad that he's dead? No. Am I upset that the government executed him? Yes. Would I prefer him to be alive and rotting away in a jail cell instead? Yes. Does it weaken my argument to have nuanced feelings about things? Probably, but I don't care. I still think it's barbaric.

Here's the problem. You keep trying to bring the crime of the executee into the equation. It has no bearing on the argument because the argument isn't about him. It is a black and white question, (and btw, one can have a nuanced worldview, yet still come to the conclusion that a specific question has an absolute answer). It's about the state, and whether or not its action of execution is barbaric. If your outrage isn't uniform for all people executed, than I don't believe you actually think it is barbaric.

As Tim put it, the barbarism argument is weak because it's not applied universally.

[Zorg]

What I find interesting is that instead of fixing a system that is incapable of being just in prosecuting even parking violations, we accept the laziness and corruption and instead suggest setting random limits to its power. I find nothing inherently wrong with capital punishment, if it was not farcical. As it is, it seems nothing more than an emotional flashpoint that provides people some kind of distraction from the messy machinery driving it. I find it even more obscure when commenting on its use in other countries, for lesser offenses. I can't condone it, but then again..those in glass houses.

[jimmy two hands]

If you're trying to persuade someone on the grounds of barbarism, then you're argument is not credible when you "have a hard time feeling bad that he's dead." That can be a completely honest sentiment, but at that point, you have to rethink whether or not you truly think it's barbaric.

Only if you have a black and white worldview. To take an extreme example, the execution of Tim McVeigh. Am I sad that he's dead? No. Am I upset that the government executed him? Yes. Would I prefer him to be alive and rotting away in a jail cell instead? Yes. Does it weaken my argument to have nuanced feelings about things? Probably, but I don't care. I still think it's barbaric.

Here's the problem. You keep trying to bring the crime of the executee into the equation. It has no bearing on the argument because the argument isn't about him. It is a black and white question, (and btw, one can have a nuanced worldview, yet still come to the conclusion that a specific question has an absolute answer). It's about the state, and whether or not its action of execution is barbaric. If your outrage isn't uniform for all people executed, than I don't believe you actually think it is barbaric.

As Tim put it, the barbarism argument is weak because it's not applied universally.

I think we're in agreement, because I'm of the opinion that it's barbaric at all times, regardless of the crime or its severity, and my outrage is uniform for all people executed. I'm more outraged at the the Troy Davis case overall because (a) he was executed, (b) he was conviceted of a crime that he was more than likely innocent of, and (c) the case was railroaded and full of holes. Also I may be focusing on it more because it's in the news whereas Brewer I just heard about today. None of this changes my opposition to the death penalty.

[tmidgett]

As Tim put it, the barbarism argument is weak because it's not applied universally.

Yes. I have come to realize that you cannot capitulate on it.

A few of you caught onto this a while ago. I'm embarrassed it took me so long.

If you go down the road of 'well, what about this guy, maybe he didn't burn up his wife and kid,' you condemn every other death row inmate, implicitly.

Don't parse barbarism.

[Schadenfreude]

I'm glad this thread existed. It converted me from pro-DP to anti-DP.

[madmanmunt]

It converted me from pro-DP to anti-DP.

That's what she said.

[Antero]

heyo!

[Andrew.]

I have class

Ha ha. Sure.

He didn't post "Strange Fruit".

I thank you, I think we all thank you, for your important intervention into this thread on state executions and the death penalty, monsieur Big Dave.

[Cranius]

This is reason enough against the death penalty:

"I have yet to see a death case among the dozen coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial... People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, US Supreme Court Justice

[Johnny 13]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... hp?ref=fpc

Not worth spawning a thread off I think. My views on the death penalty have swung more or less into line with all of the good people, so don't go berating me. I have always liked "something" about the last meal idea. It is always an interesting thing to discuss with other people, and the meaning behind it has never been clear to me. I have thought it really should be the second to last meal so that there would be a chance of enjoying it.

Is it bad that they are doing away with it? My instinct lurches toward dislike, but I can't see how the ritual is anything other than meaningless, and more lends some measure of respectability to the process. Maybe it is better if the fiction disappears.

[big_dave]

I have class

Ha ha. Sure.

He didn't post "Strange Fruit".

I thank you, I think we all thank you, for your important intervention into this thread on state executions and the death penalty, monsieur Big Dave.

I've already said my piece in this thread.

I don't need to bluff any personal/emotional involvement in a particular case to stress it. Executing a guilty man is as repugnant as executing an innocent.

My positive opinion of the UK's government from 1997-2003 is, if anything, bolstered by the past few years.