Justice in the US institutionally racist? Not for me to say but the stats certainly support that hypothesis.

My position is pretty simple, I dont care who you are or what you did, I want no part in taking a life, any life. Too often the wrong person has been found guilty, so using cases where there is no question of guilt does not change that in my mind.

Did killing Saddam Hussain help the greater good? looking at the bloodshed in Iraq in subsequent years I wouldnt like to make that argument.

Im not going to get draged into a wider discussion of morality. Like it or not the state is in the business of being the arbiter of such things. Personally I would say a lot of what goes on in a modern capitalist society is far from where my moral compass points, but we all have to live our own lives as we see fit and live with the consequences.

As for the costs and deterrent aspect, the statistics are all there. Granted, if the appeal system in the US was different, then the cost would be less extreme, but do you want to live in a state where life is taken without all legal avenues being exhausted. Justice China style for example.


Anyway, bottom line is Im a card carrying monthly donor to Amnesty International, and I would urge anyone else who thinks the death penalty is barbaric to seriously consider getting involved with them too.

http://www.amnesty.ca/

The issue with Saddam and Osama would potentially be what action their supporters take to seek their release.

What stats? I would be very interested to see any stats that show that blacks or other non-white races, are convicted more often for the identical crimes as white people across the US.

I appreciate that position and I am not saying that I disagree with you but I suggest that if you look at the statistics, there is not the huge incidence of the wrong person getting convicted as your argument would suggest. Quite clearly, any incorrect conviction is one too many.

That had little to do with his death and you know it.

I don't live in China, nor would I wish to commit the acts that would get me executed in the US.

So what deterrent do you believe would work? Does it cost more to keep an inmate in prison for life than it does to keep an inmate in prison until executed? The legal costs, unfortunately, must be borne by the taxpayers of the jurisdiction. This is the case irrespective of the crime or the sentence.

I am not going to disagree with that.

You like to wind people up don't you. I said nothing about expertise. I just had an awareness of a major case where procedures were not followed correctly, a judge getting into trouble as a result and the rules being changed as a result. So it seemed a fair point to wonder if matters were always conducted as they should be.


No you didn't mention me. But at the time of your comments about how the matters had been discussed in court I was the only one who had actually posted anything about the doubts about what happened in court. You also referred to the "reasons" I linked to. Seemed reasonable you meant me.

As you know a direct comparison is virtually impossible as no two crimes and sets of circumstances are going to be identical, but if the "big picture" doesnt give pause for concern then I dont know what to say to convince you.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital..._United_States

Feel free to check the references thats based on. Google seems to indicate there are also countless learned legal articles that you no doubt have easier access to than I do basically expressing concern over the racial disparity.

As for alternatives, lock em up, for a long time if necessary, even forever.. try and reform and rehabilitate, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so release would have to be carefully weighed and monitored. Its not a cheap solution either.

To be honest I dont think deterrence is really a factor, there is plenty of deterrence now should people stop and think, but the kind of crimes we are talking about are either not planned, or are done in the erroneous expectation that they will get away with it, or are done by people without the intellegence to consider the consequences anyway (The US has a rather deplorable history of executing mentally challenged convicts) so deterrence is a minor factor in the discussion of capital punishment I think. Crime stats in states with and without are largely a wash.


Deterrence and Racism, while factors, are not the central issues.. Whether there is racism or not doesn't change the fact that taking a life is inherently wrong, it certainly doesnt exactly tie in with defending anyones basic fundamental human rights. Human rights apply equally to all, we've no business in picking and choosing who counts and who doesnt, that's the top of a very slippery slope.

I can't work out the point you are trying to make here. I didn't mention expertise, I said knowledge. What I meant by that is that I have no particular knowledge of what did, or didn't happen in this particular case. Therefore, I have no knowledge if a hearing was denied because of the alleged actions of the judge you referred to.

Who knows what the correct solution is? I don't, nor do I profess to. What I do know is that the jury convicts. If you wish to blame it on racism, blame the jurors who, of course, are ultimately, selected by the lawyers acting for the parties.

A country which allows its citizens to be armed to the teeth for no good reason, and which tolerates tens of thousands of firearms deaths each year as a price worth paying in the name of civil liberty surely can't be wringing its hands over the execution of a convicted murderer?

Oh big deal. Quibbling over the word. Your references to the best legal brains, legal procedures, court procedures, avenues of appeal all point to your expertise don't they.

And your "I do, of course, have to defer to your greater knowledge in this particular matter" wasn't the least bit sarcastic, what with you being a lawyer and me not.

Actually, it was genuine. As stated above, I had no idea what happened in this case.

Sorry, I don't buy that. When you added "I know which one I believe is more likely," meaning you didn't believe me hardly matches genuinely deferring to my greater knowledge in that matter does it.

Nice try though.

Lawyer or not, you only have to Google Troy Davis to get a sense of people's outrage at this particular case across the political spectrum (and from those who believe in the death penalty too, I might add). There was no DNA evidence linking this man to the gun or the actual crime and numerous jurors have come forward recounting their judgement. It's totally abhorrent that the Supreme Court of the US didn't pull this down last night, and also that Obama didn't step in. The reason? Politics once again. Perry and the Supreme Court only recently reprieved Duane Buck in Texas, so for the Supreme Court to do so soon again makes the Republican party look soft on crime (the SC is made up of 5 Republican appointed justices and 3 Democrat). Given his approval rating, I don't think Obama had the balls to intervene on this one. Sad, sad man.

At any rate, there is never justification for state executions. I completely agree with IainK and am also a supporter of Amnesty International. It's not about 'cost', it's about morals. I don't believe societies should run these circus sideshows to 'get back at' those who are convicted of such heinous crimes as murder. There's no deterrent, people are wrongfully executed, and the example that's set in society is 'violence to counter violence'. Of course the other disturbing fact is that black people are much more likely of being convicted of serious crimes in the US than white people which puts them in the frame for the death penalty more often. Race and racism is a major issue here as IainK has rightly said.

Other than the flagrant injustice, the biggest issue I have with all of this is the hypocrisy that it sends out to the world about the US's attitude to human rights and the negative impact this has for those who are actively lobbying to bring better human rights to countries with poor records. Clearly, the US is a powerless and meaningless partner in this fight; indeed, we clearly have one more nation to influence now which sets us back quite a few steps.

I refuse to argue with you any more over this point. I really don't care what you buy

It seems everyone is against the death penalty, until an incident rings close to home for them, i.e if a drunk driver or speeding driver ran a member of your family over or broke into their house and killed them, what stance would you take?

As I have stated above, I have no particular knowledge of this case and Googling the "facts" is unlikely to enlighten me sufficiently. I have been involved in too many cases to accept that what is reported about most cases is anything like the truth and I have learned that trying to convince frothing loons any different is pointless.

I accept that you trust the interweb to provide you with the facts you require and, in light of what you have stated above, one can only assume that you believe that the Supreme Court is nothing but useless. I believe it is extremely arrogant and naive of you to state, "It's totally abhorrent that the Supreme Court of the US didn't pull this down last night, and also that Obama didn't step in. The reason? Politics once again." Maybe, having considered the evidence, the actual evidence not something posted online, they reached the appropriate decision. It may not reconcile with what you believe, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Please answer the question that I posed in relation to Mr. Hussein. In fact, please answer another: what would you have done with Hitler? Surely, sending soldiers to kill him is also state murder, is it not?