One of these things is not like the other one

[David Morris]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Joe Allonby <joeallonby at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not "eye for eye" at all. Government should be concerned with justice, not vengeance.

Eye-for-Eye is a very logical (albeit primitive) form of justice.
Justice according to Websters is "the maintenance or administration of
what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting
claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments."  So
justice can include punishment, which is not the same as vengeance.

> Some people are irredeemable.

Redeemability is something separate from justice, and is a potential
component of the application of Mercy, defined as "compassion or
forbearance shown especially to an offender."  Mercy may temper
justice, but is not required.

> Putting them in a prison population endangers the other prisoners. Enduring that threat is not part of their sentence. Capital punishment permanently removes a threat to society.

Removing threats to society is justice in the sense that it is crime
prevention, avoidance of a predictable danger.  Thus it fits the
"impartial adjustment of conflicting claims" part of the definition
above:  the claim of freedom for the criminal versus the claim for
safety of Society.

> But so many people have gone through the process and been found "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" only to be exonerated. Some of these people have been sentenced to death and released (particularly in Illinois). The threshold of no doubt about the identity of the perpetrator was assumed to have been met.

Reasonable doubt versus no doubt.  I'll admit It could be argued that
"no doubt" is an impossible standard.  But DNA, the technology by
which exonerations are becoming commonplace these days, might
"reasonably" get us closer to "no doubt."  Other instance would be
"caught in the act," as well os other circumstances.

>Race and socioeconomic factors (victims and suspects) are definitely involved in the sentencing

Right, and this brings up abuse of the system.  And since such abuse
may be unavoidable, it is also the reason that appeals for capital
punishment cases should be automatic.  This may be the issue that tips
the scale against any application of the death penalty.

David Morris