Log In | Register
Our good friend Super Saiyan will cover the present and future steps necessary to prevent a reoccurrence elsewhere of the death penalty application as in the case of the late Troy Davis. Super Saiyan has a deep level of government understanding, and the role of science in the judicial system. You will profit by his wisdom. I shall deal with the past as it helps us going forward.
SUPER SAIYAN: The recent execution of Troy Davis was carried out, in spite of evidence that brings up more than reasonable doubt about his guilt. There have been other cases in recent decades of death and non-death penalties where people were wrongfully convicted for crimes they did not commit. This suggests there is something fundamentally wrong with our justice system, and society when such sorts of things can occur without any redress. The system seems unwilling to admit mistakes have been made. This is particularly true when there is more than reasonable doubt about the commission of the crime by the convicted.
In the future, in order to prevent such recurrences from happening I believe a few things should be adopted. First, there must be required DNA tests readily available in really serious cases, such as murder. The State of the Art in Criminal Forensics has to be there as evidence to insure the correct person is charged with the crime. Society is never safer when the innocent are punished, and the guilty free to go out and commit the same crimes again.
Similarly, all lawyers involved, but prosecutiors most of all must make all evidence available to the other side, and through the court system to the public in a full disclosure of non-tainted evidence. Anyone not doing this must be held accountable, if necessary under pain of disbarment and prosecution themselves. This should occur if someone convicted is later found innocent due to legal malpractice. The lives of the innocent, whether the initial victims, or those falsely convicted reflect the true value we give to justice in our society. Only giving the falsely imprisoned monetary compensation does nothing to punish those who unjustly punished them.
I believe that while this has been an issue in recent decades, the execution of Troy Davis makes it even more imperative that this be addressed and improved upon. Anything less fails to meet the standard of "And Justice for All".
ENOCH: Our good friend Super Saiyan has done an exemplary job of stating the issues for the present and future in death penalty cases. Here, I will draw on the past for alternatives to the death penalty. Sought are other means which satisfy the need for protection for society from murderers, without the need for execution of the convicted, some of whom to later be found innocent. Specifically, I shall engage concepts from three portions of the Torah (first five Books of the Tanach (Hebrew and Aramaic Scripture), and Middle Eastern Bedouin custom, law and traditions.
There were six Cities of Refuge set aside by the Levi'im (Temple Administrators) to protect those who unintentionally killed a person. Biblically, the distinction between murder and manslaughter is intention. Murder is specifically prohibited in one of the Ten Commandments. What about someone who didn't plan the demise of a fellow human being? There was no intention to kill. In that part of the world, at that time it was customary for a family survivor to avenge the death of a slain family member by taking the life of their relative. The Levi Tribe, as Holy Temple Administrators set aside six cities of refuge from Temple property given them. This provided protection from avengers. It also removed the judgement and punishment of the involuntary manslaughter perpetrator from the family of the slain to a more impartial and objective source. A High Court of Law. Ultimately, in Biblical times, that Supreme Court would be known as the Sanhedrin.
Life spans were different in those days. Seventy years were then two generations. A Sanhedrin which imposed the death penalty even once in seventy years was considered overly strict. Then, as now, the problem with the death penalty is that State of the Art evidence, and improper Court functioning which lead to someone being falsely convicted and executed creates damage which cannot later on be undone.
In ancient Bedouin Society there were sanctuaries for man slaughterers and murders both. Populations in sanctuaries were co-mingled. Bedouin thinking was to get away from the rest of society those who took life for other than reasons of self-defense. This is to protect society. Tribes, like nations do have a moral responsibility to protect their citizens. A proper role of government is to keep its people from harm. If you place someone in a sanctuary for life, without chance of leaving the sanctuary, they cannot again take human life in open society.
Let's see if we can combine the two concepts, and find a way to protect society with no need for the death penalty. If it later turns out that a convicted person is found innocent, they can simply leave the City of Refuge as they walked into it. You don't have to unring a bell if it never rang in the first place. In death penalty case executions, once rung, a bell cannot be unrung.
Cities of Refuge can be set up in places where once you enter, you never leave (unless later on proven innocent). Access to Cities is limited to the military, whose job it is to bring necessary provisions, and to contain the population within the Cities, and restrict access to them from outsiders. Access would presumably be allowed only for Chaplains, supply delivery, and medical personnel. What City residents make of life there is up to them. Standard safeguards of things and people entering and leaving would obtain here, as in any area run by the military. Manslayers go to one set of Cities of Refuge, Murderers to another. This is for the protection of the Manslayers.
This protects society. This also protects those wrongfully convicted from premature loss of life. It is not necessary to take guilty human life to protect innocent other human life. Even as technology improves, people and government do not seem to follow suit. It is not clear in every case up front who is and is not guilty of crimes charged.
Separate Cities of Refuge for manslayers and murderers give us an alternative. I find it an attractive one, for reasons stated. What are your thoughts?
