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

I wrote my previous message before seeing Blatherskite's...
having "had capital punishment in the US continuously since the country has been founded" doesn't seemed to have worked particularly well

and countries with no death penalty can't say they've solved the problem either.

But then, in my understanding, whether it is "OK to kill someone" wasn't about finding a perfect solution to stop crimes being committed but whether "non criminals" find killing someone OK

I don't think capital punishment could ever be a perfect solution to stop crimes. I don't think it has any value as a deterrent to new crimes. It does, however, provide a very effective means of preventing repeat offenses.

Don't judge the entire nation by the example of Texas. Each state implements capital punishment (or not) in a way they see fit. For example, in California, the Manson family escaped capital punishment when a law cancelling the death penalty was enacted during their trial. Had that law not passed, the district attorney would certainly have pursued the death sentence.

The Manson example was paraded quite a bit in later discussions on the topic, and had a measurable impact on the later reinstatement of the death sentence in California.

Capital punishment will always be an imperfect institution. My state has enacted jury reforms that I believe will eventually help... but to be honest, it seems the juries are erring in the other direction, allowing murderers like OJ Simpson and the Menendez brothers (later retried and convicted) go free in the face of overwhelming evidence of their guilt. Advances in forensic evidence have begun turning wrongly accused citizens to go free. As long as the state is committed to improving the system and reducing the chance of error, as they have done, I'm in favor of capital punishment.

I'm not familiar with the US system (except for via TV programmes) and the state-by-state differences. But it's true that mockeries like the OJ Simpson and the Menendez brothers trials give a terrible idea of the actual application of US "justice". That taken together with some cases of (esp. poor black) people being in prison on the basis of flimsy evidence* doesn't really seem to justify the present court system being "trusted" with the death penalty.



* the ones we hear about in Europe are mainly the ones who were later released because of the poor/lack of reasons for putting them in prison in the first place

But it must be remembered that these are different courts, and different systems. The failure of the California system is that it turns loose killers with very good evidence against them. Those that hold people in prison on flimsy evidence are different systems, with different failings.

It's a common misconception for foreigners to make. The face of government they see at home, and they are presented with by the president of this one, is that of a unified, centralized model of government. The reality is that anything that can be decentralized, is.

Does California "turn loose killers with very good evidence against them" because, despite the good evidence, there is still not 100% certainty or because they are rich.
Obviously "poor" killers might not be so high profile and get such a lot of media attention, but have you heard of any *poor killers with very good evidence against them* being turned loose.
In other words, do you consider that California courts usually apply the same justice to everyone (I mean actual results not intention).

Money does appear to play a part. The ones who slip away tend to be rich, which means they can afford lawyers gifted at manipulating a jury... and that's what a trial is really all about, who can mainpulate the jury the best. Johnny Cochran loaded his jury with black females who weren't particularly well educated for a good reason.

Although many of those jurors, once they got home and got to see that evidence that they were not allowed to see, deeply regretted their acquittal. It wasn't just about the jury... he manipulated the judge much better than his peer, as well.

Things do appear to be getting better, though... we did get Robert Blake.

Would you say people are very rarely locked up in California on flimsy/inexistant evidence? Or do courts tend to give the benefit of reasonable doubt to the person being tried (no matter whether they are rich/poor)

PS. Sorry, I don't know who Robert Blake is.

I would be Chaotic Neutral.

Regards

PPS.
For Blatherskite :
I can't understand that you can think "that's what a trial is really all about, who can mainpulate the jury the best" and think that your system is trying hard to do a good job.

I haven't seen any cases recently where people were locked up in CA based on flimsy or nonexistant evidence. I don't think it happens very often. As I said, CA tends to err in the opposite direction.

One case that has been very high profile for the last several months involves a man who took a fishing trip in San Francisco Bay at the time his pregnant wife disappeared under mysterious circumstances. When he returned he was informed of her disappearance, and he did not seem at all distraught. He immediately sold her car.

Despite other very strong circumstantial evidence, he was not arrested. He was brought in for questioning, and a warrant was obtained to search his home and car, and they impounded many items for examination. But he has not been arrested.

The bodies of a woman and a fetus were discovered washed ashore in the Oakland end of the bay yesterday. If they're identified as those of his wife and child, it will represent the first hard evidence of his involvement in their disappearance and death, and you can expect him to be arrested shortly thereafter.

Robert Blake was an actor who was charged with murdering his wife. He was best known for playing the title character of the Baretta tv cop series. I thought he'd been found guilty, but as I scan the web, I find that the trial is still ongoing. There does appear to be overwhelming evidence in the case against Blake... for instance, he was tested positive for gun powder residue on his hands shortly after.

I guess this case will provide a good test for whether things have gotten any better.

Re: PPS - That's just the reality of any trial by jury system. The alternative is even worse. Just like democracy, trial by jury is an awful system, but it's better than anything that has been tried so far.

Returning to this comment - "McKay - Your disregard of the rights of others is, frankly, frightening. If you have so little regard for their rights, why should they have any for yours? Who decides who deserves rights and who doesn't? And once we start denying rights to people, where to we draw the line?

We protect the rights of the few who will abuse those rights, else we deny them to the many who will not."

The law determines what rights we all have. If we don't like the rights we're allocated then we can campaign to change the law or move somewhere that has a legal system that suits us better.

You seem to be far more concerned about the rights of drug dealers and drunks than you do about the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Why SHOULD I have ANY regard for the rights of people who violate the rights of others ? If you're prepared to suspend the rights of someone attacking you with intent to kill, why are you so concerned about the rights of someone weaving from lane to lane at 50mph in a 2cwt killing machine ?

I remembered R. Blake when you mentioned the Baretta tv cop series.

We'll keep our eyes on it.

I'm off now

Bye

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Have you never violated the posted speed limit? Have you never played your stereo too loudly? Have you never shouted at a service person that didn't deserve it?

Be careful who you would take rights away from... you could be next.

I have exceeded the speed limit - if I'd carried on doing so I would have lost my license and the right to drive. Of course nowadays getting a license is seen as optional in some in quarters.

I've played my streeo too loudly, when I was younger, but I'm not advocating curtailing peoples rights for minor infringements. I'm saying the law is there so someone can complain I am playing my music too loud and send the police round, though why they didn't just knock on the door and ask is beyond me.

The point here is that I do respect the rights of my fellow law-abiding citizens. I'm not trying to shoot someone running away from a grocery store where they've robbed some apples.

I even respect the rights of criminals to be judged fairly, sentanced equally, if necessary incarcerated safely, or if needful executed without undue suffering. I know they don't get that, but neither do I.

I'm sure you're now going to bring up the rights of prisoners locked up without trial for speaking out against the state. That is wrong, I'm talking about rights in a situation where all of us are subject to the same laws. The situation in GB and North America may not be ideal, but niether is it excessively repressive. I am arguing that the state has gone too far in its consideration of the rights of the individual and lost sight of the rights of the violated.

OK I've found my quote (and also one from Voltaire which goes "A witty saying proves nothing" so there!)

"There are many things worth living for, there a few things worth dying for, but there is nothing worth killing for"

Tom Robbins

(he's not that director guy married to Susan Sarandon is he?)

Nobody knocks on your door to complain because politeness is gone. I've had trouble with two different neighbors who occupied the same apartment at different times. Both times I tried the polite approach first. Both times it failed miserably. In the first case I had to resort to calling the police (twice... it's buried in my journal, if you care to look). The second time I had to band together with my other neighbor to threaten to move out if management did nothing.

You say the government has done too much to protect the rights of the individual... I say they have not done enough. If they had, the rights of the violated would not be something we have to discuss... they are individuals as well, aren't they?

>Question 1: Are you in favour of the death penalty?
>Question 2: Do you personally volunteer to be the first/next innocent person killed by the state?

I've just now noticed this post, which led me to wonder:

Question One: Are you in favour of the death penalty for three times convicted violent offenders?

Question Two: Do you personally volunteer for you or your children/ family to be a victim of the next murderer/ rapist/ paedophile/ insert offender of choice who is freed?

Note: Those who answer No to the second question are, obviously, not allowed to answer No to the first.

Now that I have your attention, I would also add that I don't advocate that the death penalty is absolutely necessary - lifetime imprisonment until death would also be acceptable - the choice to be left up to any remaining family members.

A few more thoughts.

What relevence does your question two have? Why does it follow that if you don't volunteer to be a victim, you must be in favour of capital punishment? It isn't at all obvious to me.

well, if you're going to be logical about it...... some people are going to get very annoyed and unsubscribe from the conversation