Issodhos @aol.com wrote:
[...]
> To claim a distinction between executions that are just and unjust is to
>accept the rightness of some executions. Your consistency is slipping.
Yes, very good point. Though I wasn't making any such distinctions, just
discussing the general phenomenon of martydom.
> I execution
>would also like to know how you can make a comparison between the
>of a murderer and someone who was martyred for adhering to a spiritual or
>philosophical principle.
Sometimes people kill other people for spiritual and/or philosophical
reasons. In fact it is one of the most common motives for murder. I'm not
defending it, merely discussing the phenomenon. The death penalty is of
course the particular instance of that motive that we are discussing, I
should direct your original question back at you.
What is the distinction between murder by the state, for political reasons,
and murder for any other motive?
[...]
> 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.)
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
Bill bartlett
Bracknell tas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*UN calls for action on Aboriginal equality issues*
The head of the United Nations Committee of Human Rights has urged
the Federal Government to take measures beyond the ordinary to
address the inequalities still endured by indigenous Australians.
The committee is examining 21 questions relating to human rights
issues in Australia, ranging from women's rights to the treatment
of asylum seekers.
However, the issue of mandatory sentencing dominated the final day
of hearings in Geneva.
Almost every member found some difficulty with the Australian
delegation's assertion that the laws were not discriminatory.
In her concluding statements, the chairwoman said that while
Australia had made progress on human rights, she detected a
violation of the principle of equality.
She said measures beyond the ordinary should be taken to address
the past injustices suffered by indigenous Australians.
The committee will issue its concluding report next week, but the
tenure of the questions and concern over mandatory sentencing
suggests the report will include some strongly critical findings.
|
