h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This post has been removed.

Uhm... USA is a democracy. It has failed, but it's still a democracy...
100% of the ones allowed to vote, voted. Unfortunalty 58% said "I accept anything that might come from this election. My vote goes to whomever gets the most votes." Not casting a vote is the same as accepting whatever happens. This is something not everone understands. In a democracy everyone has something to say (the vote) and saying nothing is the same as accepting.

I agree - but the key to getting a majority is to ask the question carefully ... ask the Australian republicans!

>I notice, two bit etc, that you have yet to comment on the issue of innocent people being executed.<

I thought I made my views fairly clear. It may have been in the 'Pragmatic vs. moral arguments' thread.

Those accused of capital crimes should have the access to excellent legal representation. The prosecution's case needs to be thoroughly explored by the defense. This business is too serious to leave to some of the morons who have represented defendants in capital cases.

I believe in the long run that this will save money because ineffective representation is a commonly used appeal on death row.

>When the crime was committed they were legally children, and not responsible for their actions. Just because the trial took so long to come to court, one was tried as an adult. Does this affect the fact that *when the crime was committed* he was a child in law? No. The girl who actually pulled the trigger was sixteen at trial, so was not executed. Is this right?<

17 year olds can be adults. It depends on the jurisdiction. I'm fairly certain that the state did not allow someone who was a child at the time of the offense to be executed.

If this crime occurred in Georgia, the 17 year old would be considered an adult because in this state 17 year olds ARE adults. It doesn't matter how old they are when they are tried. The only concern is their age at the time of the offense. In this state, the same thing would probably happen.

Where did this crime occur?

>(This is hearsay I have been led to belive that it is every americans right to own a gun to defend him or herself from the ongoing indian raids at the frontier.<

The reason for the Second Amendment is so that the federal government is not the only entity in the country with arms. We were able to rebel against England because we had militias. I don't care to get into an argument about whether the amendment applies to a state's right to organize a militia or an individual's right to own guns. That's a debate for another thread.

>Incidentally, both support the death penalty. One just happens to be actively involved enforcing it.<

Governor Bush can't claim credit or take blame for the executions in his state. The governor of Texas can only grant one 30-day reprieve. He's powerless to enforce or prevent the death penalty.

I'd say that America is the best fake-democracy... I've been told there's an internet-site where you can sell your vote to the most-offering politician; call that democracy?
Have you ever read '1984', written by George Orwell? I have, and I couldn't help thinking of the US; but then, the US have more 'subtle' approach: it's still a democracy(, but a fake one). The countries in 1984 aren't. The thing that really made me think of US is the eternal warfare: Orwell states that winning doesn't matter, what really matters is fighting: these eternal wars in some distant place are meant to give the people a sense of nationalism and patriotism: instead of wondering about power, they keep shouting at their enemy (Goldberg, I think). (See why they're involved in every war and revolution?)
With that kind of people, power isn't difficult: they would do anything for you... And you can do everything you want with them, and even kill them.

"I accept anything that might come from this election. My vote goes to whomever gets the most votes."

More likely to be:

"I don't have a choice in the election as neither of the two candidates represent the issues with which I'm concerned."

The poor voter turn out is only an indication of the poor choice the voters are faced with. The NOT A DEMOCRACY cry comes from the poor choice, not the voter turn out.

Also the US is not alone in this. It does represent one extreme however. The other being the multi-paty caos of the likes of Italy and Israel, far from a "working" democracy! I'd like to see some examples of something in between that works.

I'm afraid I'm going to be laughed at by other Belgians but I hope our democracy works more or less, but then it's such a 'unexplainable' one... For the moment, there are two times (flemish and walloon) 4-5 big parties (liberals, christians, socialists, ecologists and extreme right... I'd prefer this last one wouldn't exist) plus a lot of little ones. But how long will this last? It's also becoming 'polarized': flemish against walloon, or eveyone against extreme-right...

I'd also be interested in seeing how many people who are arguing in favour of execution have grown up in countries where execution occures?

I've missed the last few days' worth so I'll just throw in a few comments for critical mauling...

Someone suggested I watch "Shawshank Redemption". I have, many times. Aside from the fact that using a work of fiction to illustrate a philosophical/moral argument doesn't add much weight to an argument, it's worth thinking about those scenes where some of the prisoners share a beer, or where Tim Robbins plays the Mozart record. These are simple acts in the "outside world", and that is what imprisonment does: it takes away the simple freedoms. OK, so prisoners can get institutionalized... that doesn't stop imprisonment from being a punishment.

Also, note the word "redemption". Considering the number of Americans who count themselves as Christians, it is remarkable how popular the death penalty is. Is there a brand of Christianity I don't know about in which forgiveness doesn't figure?

As regards the USA being a democracy, a few people have mentioned the "two" candidates for the presidency. There are of course more than two, but the idea of a third party candidate seems almost unthinkable to many Americans. A democracy in theory but not in practice? Gore Vidal remarked once that America does indeed have two parties - the party of those who vote and the party of those who don't.

Well, I'm going to try once more. Please read carefully, 2bit.

Whatever age someone is when tried, it's the age *at commission of the crime* which is - or should be - the governing factor. You can't say that someone is culpable because at some point in the future they will be capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, that's fundamentally unjust.

At the point the crime was committed, the perpetrators were legally children. You may consider instead the more extreme example of a twelve-year-old involved in a high school shooting: if it takes five years to come to court, do you try them as an adult? Very few countries (USA and Saudi Arabia spring to mind) will execute someone for an offence committed while they were a minor. No other advanced democracy would do this.

As far as pragmatic v moral arguments go, as long as the criminal justice system remains fallible - i.e. for the forseeable future - there is the possibility that somone may be wrongly convicted. Faked evidence, incompetent investigation, political pressure for a quick arrest - many factors. People are jailed unjustly all the time. When the truth comes to light, they can be released and compensated. It's arguable whether any copmpensation would be adequate, but society can make a sincere attempt to make it up to them.

Once you kill someone they generally stay dead, and for that reason - because there is absolutely no way the state can make restitution in case of a mistake - the death penalty is also pragmatically wrong.

So far the main argument put forward by the "Pro Death" brigade seems to be that the death penalty reduces the prison population. Surely such an argument cannot be the basis for the continued political support for the death penalty in the US?
What do the politicians say on the matter?

If you give that argument even a moment's rational thought you would come to the conclusion that investment in anti-crime measures would be a better use of public funds than the endless appeals of death row prisoners. But much less gratfying for state governors, I guess.

>Also, note the word "redemption". Considering the number of Americans who count themselves as Christians, it is remarkable how popular the death penalty is. Is there a brand of Christianity I don't know about in which forgiveness doesn't figure?<

This reminds me of a quote from Garrison Keilor. "They considered forgivness to be devine, so they didn&#8217;t practice it personally."

As far as this 17 year old business goes, does anyone understand what I'm trying to say. I believe we're both being fairly clear about what we're trying to say. Zis Guy is saying that the 17 year old was a child at the time of the offense. I am trying to say that, in some states, 17 year olds are adults. Therefore people who are 17 when they commit captial crimes can be executed because they are not children when they commit the offense.

I would also like to know where this crime took place so I can find the law that makes the 17 year old an adult in that state.

This is clearly where you are misunderstanding. They were both *under* 17 when the crime was committed, but one was *over* 17 when the case came to trial.

Chapter & verse is available on the web when you or I get a minute, but the salient fact is easily remembered, namely that when the crime was committed *both* the perpetrators were of an age when legally they were children, but delays in the justice system meant that one was tried as an adult while the other was not.

The fact that the one who was executed is at least 50% likely not to have been the atual perpetrator, merely an accomplice, is an additional complication (not unique, cf. Derek Bentley).

Although the situation is unusual in that there were two people tried with different outcomes due to the small age differenc ebetween them, the fact of somsone who committed a crime whilst was under the age for capital trial, but who was tried when over that age and subsequently executed, is not, I believe , unique.

The possibility of this happening is, however, unique to the US amongst advanced democracies. Only the US will execute someone for an act committed while they were, *in the eyes of their own state's law*, a minor. It has nothing to do with the specific age - 17, 16, 18, whatever. It has to do with the fact that in most civilised countries a law which states the age at which you can be held ot understand the consequences of your actions applies to the moment the crime was committed, not the time the trial was held - usually several months or even years distant. When you do something, says the law here, you can't be expected to think "in a year's time I'll know that's wrong,"

The legal adulat age business is nothing more than a convention. As already pointed out, some US states consider a person at 17 to be an adult, other 18. Yet all the legal age to purchase and consume alcohol in public places is 21? Go figure!

This convention does not consider the mental age of the person in question. There have been numerous cases, some already discussed, where the person in question was mentally impared through brain damage or mental illness and whose mental age would be considered that of a child.

I'll say again: just because it is law, does not mean it is right.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

Colonel Sellers' numbers are quite impressive, particularly for fans of utilitarianism, but little consolation presumably to the families of the 23 who were wrongly executed. What should be borne in mind is that murderers have families and loved ones also. Executing a murderer may bring relief, justice, and vengeance to the family of those the murderer killed, but the murderer's family has no relief. They are being cruelly punished for a crime in which they were not involved.

Vengeance only, not justice. A society which imprisons murderers is not more unjust as a result.

I am forced to the depressing conclusion that I am not making myself clear.

The actual age is immaterial. It could be set at six or sixty for all I care. The point, and the only salient point, is that *when the act was committed* - which is the only moment the law should take into account when assessing culpability - *both* offenders were legally *below* the selected age, whatever it might be.

One was executed because, by a twist of fate, they had passed a birthday between arrest and trial.

It has nothing to do with the actual age and everything to do with the fact that both were below that age at the time the crime was committed. Do you see? I don't know how to make my point any clearer. help me out here