Re: Apple IIe seen in Discovery Channel documentary "2057: The Body"

[mdj <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

On May 15, 4:44 am, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:

> > "Same breeds same" as the saying goes, and it's obvious "who" should
> > be leading by example and breaking the cycle.
>
> I agree with all this, but would like to point out that the state
> (at least over here) is just the expression of what most people
> agree with.

Well, the US, just like Australia, has electoral boundaries with
uneven population distribution along (typically) municipal boundaries,
meaning that the majority view on an issue is not always the
representitive.

> So the ability to move away from capital punishment as a state
> policy means being able to convince most people that it is an
> inappropriate policy.
>
> Different people are convinced by different arguments, so what's
> needed is a suite of consistent arguments supporting a position.
>
> For some, an argument from principle is sufficient, but for many
> the issue is more pragmatic.
>
> Many people who believe in capital punishment do so thinking that it
> is appropriate for those who have committed certain heinous crimes,
> but they would hesitate to apply it if there were a significant risk
> of killing an innocent person.  An increasing body of evidence is
> coming to light that shows that the justice system is, in fact, quite
> capable of finding a significant percentage of innocent people guilty.
>
> For many people, that risk is enough to forgo radically irreversible
> sentences.  (Notwithstanding that "less final" sentences are also
> irreversible to some degree).

I see your point, but I dispute that there's much statistical
significance. How many people when faced with this argument will
simply say "The problem is with the legal system, we should fix
that" ? Additionally such an argument still says "It's acceptable as
long as you are sure", and for the cases where there is no doubt at
all the practice will continue. Indeed, the number of people on death
row for *years* in many US states indicates that the argument you put
forward is being heard, but not changing peoples minds.

You need highly visible and emotive examples for that scenario to
change public opinion. Ironically a great example comes from Australia
where the last person executed was in Melbourne, Victoria, 1967.
Cutting a long story short, a prisoner escaped and a prison guard was
shot dead in the process. It was election time, and one party made it
political issue that they would have this man hung. A month or two
(and a bank robbery) later they caught him, the party won the election
and they very swiftly had him tried, and hung.

Later, it became apparent to most people that the evidence presented
at the trial supported a very different conclusion: the guard had been
shot by another guard who was firing at the prisoner. Justice had been
perverted. Very shortly after the death penalty was abolished in
Victoria.

This is a pretty specific example of the general point you raise. But,
public opinion shifted because the situation was politicised, people
voted on it, and when it became apparent they were wrong, they felt
implicated; the blood was on their hands. The realisation of personal
responsibility is the motivator of the change.

It points the way to a far more powerful secondary argument. How many
supposedly pro capital punishment people could actually walk the last
few yards with the condemned, strap them down, and press the button? I
would guess that the overwhelming majority could not, and would be
sickened by the thought. But whether they like it or not, living in a
democratic nation and supporting executions means that every time
someone is executed, their finger was on the button, and they are by
association a killer.

Matt

(Apologies to all the uninterested for the unwanted digression)