In a message dated 7/22/00 7:25:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> What is the distinction between murder by the state, for political reasons,
> and murder for any other motive?
Assuming you are restricting this to the area of dealing with
criminality, and not being sure what you mean by "political reasons", I will
say, in answer to your question, that I can make no distinctions because I do
not think a state has the right to execute a member of the citizenry, because
the state cannot redress its action if it is later found to have acted
erroneously.
> > Black Americans on death row are disproportionately higher than their
> >numbers in the general population because they murder out of all
proportion
> >to their numbers in the general population.
>
> Are you sure? I ask because my understanding is that the reason why
> Aboriginal Australians are imprisoned at such a higher rate compared to the
> general population is that they simply get caught more often. No so much
> offend more often, they just get caught more often. (In some communities,
> such as isolated Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, the cops
> have virtually a 100% clear-up rate apparantly.)
Yes, and I can provide the exact numbers, but that would be tiresome. To
claim that it is because more black murderers are caught than white
murderers, is to claim that the "racist" judicial system places greater
emphasis on solving the murder of black victims than it does on solving the
murder of white victims because 94% of the victims of black murderers are
black while 97% of the victims of white murderers are white (This is for all
murders, not just capital murder). Quite a contradiction.
> Of course this doesn't happen with us white Australians, especially those
> of us descended from convicts. We learn not to put our hand up to anything
> while still at our mothers breast. ;-)
>
> But if Black Americans do actually commit murder more often, rather than
> just get caught more often, why do you think that might be and don't you
> think it is likely to be a symptom of the problem, rather than the cause of
> the problem? That seems obvious to me.
Any such possible underlying 'causes' should be dealt with in other
arenas and remain outside the purview of the judicial system or the system
ceases to be based on due process and the rule of law. To involve itself in
such social matters would cause the judicial system to sink into a cesspool
of arbitrariness, relying on the personal whimsy of black robed jackals.
> > I can't speak for Aussieland but in America judges come in all colors,
> >gender, and ethnicity. So do American prosecutors, defense attorneys,
> >paralegals, cops, and (most importantly) American juries. Why do you
think
> >them racially discriminatory?
>
> That's a very narrow definition of discrimination you are driving at, the
> process doesn't have to be openly discrininatory to be effectively
> discriminatory. I first realised this when aged about 22, after a cop came
> to visit me about my failure to bring my drivers licence down to the
> station after being pulled over for abusing another motorist (who
> unfortunately turned out to be a plain-clothes cop.)
>
> I was unable to bring said drivers licence in to show them, because I
> didn't have one. Of course I didn't admit this, usually they are too slack
> to follow up, but this bloke must have been some kind of zealot.
>
> But the point is this, I was absolutely fascinated by the totally different
> attitude of the cop when he came to see me, I finally realised it was
> because I was sitting behind a desk in an office in Trades Hall (a position
> of apparant authority). Suddenly the cop was deferential, polite, not the
> slightest hint of or threat of violence or arrogance. Which was my usual
> experience with cops (and I had considerable experience going back to
> several burglury convictions as a juvenile.)
>
> The law was the same, the cops were the same. In fact the very same cop had
> been quite surly and offensive after I cut him off in traffic and I abused
> him.
>
> So it follows that socio-economic status has a great bearing on how one
> fares in the justice system. From that observation it is clear any racial
> group which is disproportionately disadvantaged in socio-economic terms
> will suffer proportionately more severe treatment in the legal system.
I think it is quite obvious to anyone with some life experience that
there exists everywhere a two-tiered judicial system that divides itself
along economic or power lines. Of course, the vast majority of all murders
are committed by those in the lower socioeconomic class against others in the
lower socioeconomic class, so most of the murderers will indeed be from the
lower socioeconomic class -- white and black. This is why the class argument
carries so little weight with the mainstream of society -- which includes
many of the lower socioeconomic class. It ain't the Little Lord Fountlaroys
that are cutting their throats, bludgening them to death, or shooting them.
> No use waffling on about the law applying equally in theory, it it doesn't
> in practice. Which is the line the Australian Government is arguing before
> a United Nations committee at this very moment, in defense of mandatory
> sentencing provisions which just happen to result in Aborigines being
> locked up for trivial offenses at a massive rate.
>
> The argument is vacuous. I sense it is the argument you are implying.
See above.
> > The vast majority of the reversal of original convictions in capital
> >murder cases are as a result of legal mistakes or intentional subversion
of
> >the legal process. The top two reasons are 1. a determination that the
> >quality of legal defense was sub standard to the point that it was
> considered
> >to have been a determining factor in the original conviction, and
>
> In other words the person has not been properly convicted. i.e. the person
> is innocent.
>
> > 2. Evidence
> >was suppressed, not made available to the defense, or simply overlooked.
> >There is a third but I do not recall what it was. The vast majority were
> >reconvicted after having been given a new trial, most of whom got a
> sentence
> >less than death and 3 to 7 percent were found not guilty (I use that term
> >because in our judicial system one is not PROVEN innocent because one is
> >supposed to be presumed innocent).
>
> Yes, "not guilty" is innocent.
A small but important point -- a "not guilty" verdict = "legally"
innocent. Actual innocence of the act is not proven in an American court of
law because it is not required.
> > One who supports the use of the death penalty would say this shows that
> the
> >system has safe guards in place to prevent the death of an innocent, but I
> >would point out that the American Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual
> >punishments" (quick death was not considered to be such). I think a
> >legitimate argument can be made that it is "cruel and unusual punishment"
> >>to subject an innocent person (as already evidenced by exoneration and
> >release) to the mental anguish of spending years facing the uncertainty of
> >his or her impending execution.
>
> Yes, a powerful argument. But it stands to reason that if a large number of
> mistaken convictions are happening in the first place, then you can count
> on a few mistaken executions as well. If the system was perfect, there
> would be no faulty convictions to overturn. if the system is not perfect,
> as as no system designed and operated by humans has ever been been, then
> mistakes will happen. A system which can result in capital punishment will
> in inevitably result in fatal mistakes.
>
> But aside from that, it is simply repugnant to kill people for political
> reasons and all executions are politically motivated executions in the
> final analysis.
Actually, executions of murderers, today and in the past, are usually
based on what is considered good for the community. Execution for political,
religious, or social activity is only found in right and left wing
dictatorships, theocracies, and such. And no, that is not the United
States.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos
|
