3 ms·

> And of course there are plenty of other calls on a governor's time: his job was not to spend his entire term reviewing that one sentence. Gosh, this sound in

> And of course there are plenty of other calls on a governor's time: his job was not to spend his entire term reviewing that one sentence. Gosh, this sound in my eyes makes you sound like a monster. You know that a living human being (innocent) life was forcibly stopped, correct? If this doesn't speak to you then imagine this could as well be your child, or parent, or spouse? I mean -- is there anything more important to anyone - whether politician or not - that live of another person, especially if you're in charge of keeping this human alive or putting stop to it. Or maybe I'm simply being too soft. It might be - I know - I've been living in the USA for too long...

jpt4 10y ago
This reply takes advantage of the opportunity of a dialectical opponent, represented by your comment, to address abstract issues alluded to by your words of choice. It is not intended to argue or refute your worldview directly. > is there anything more important to anyone ... [than the life] of another person Behind the veil of ignorance which equates all persons, things which might reasonably be considered more important include: -the lives of more than one other person -severe changes in the quality of life for many people -significant environmental degradation, and other systemic alterations of sufficient scale Allowing for the criteria to include the differences between individuals, the most immediate additions to the above list becomes: -the life of oneself -the preservation of the lives and quality of life of one's family members Further, although our current legal system precludes it, the framework of thought exists for very fine grain gradations in the differing values considered inherent in different people, as expressed by e.g. the German weregild system [0]; under such precepts, allocations of attention would be prioritized following the accepted worth of each object of attention. > maybe I'm simply being too soft The perspective assuming a position of ignorance is often considered "soft" and idealistic, in contrast to the "hard", realistic, non-egalitarian stance here epitomized by the system of man-price. I propose that this is the common interpretation. However, I counter that the former is only effectively realizable by a juridical system of great strength and resources, before which all men can be operationally equated because the marginal burden any one case places on the faculties of the law is negligible. Therefore, perhaps you voice your position not from reasoning aligned with softness, but rather that aligned with awesome and as-yet-non-extant might. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild
wtbob 10y ago
There's more than one person sentenced to death in Texas: it's thus mathematically impossible for the governor to spend 100% of his time on each capital case. There's more than one person in prison in Texas: surely those prisoners deserve some thought too. Is the governor to personally rehear every case? And then there are all of the other things a governor is elected to do on behalf of the other 25 million Texans. It's just not possible to devote oneself 100% to everything. Heck, a system in which the executive rehears every judicial case personally would almost certainly involve quite a bit of injustice as well. Willingham was convicted by a jury (presumably of his peers, although that guarantee has become ever more worthless over time); his conviction was upheld by numerous courts; the techniques which produced evidence against him were supported by the state forensics review board. He wasn't executed by a man: he was executed by an entire system. So, if he was indeed innocent, then we should focus on the entire system. Do forensics techniques need to be improved? Do police investigating techniques need to be improved? Do judicial procedures need to be improved? Do board nomination procedures need to be improved? A commenter upthread notes that Governor Perry's nominees were reflexively pro-prosecution: were they; are there reasons why he felt he ought to nominate those people, or reasons why he felt he ought not nominate other people? Which of these things could be improved? Would those improvements themselves have negative side effects? Would the side effects outweigh the improvements? Some folks say that our adversarial court system has problems, but I can easily see that non-adversarial systems have problems as well. Nothing's perfect, but can we be better?

jpt4 10y ago

This reply takes advantage of the opportunity of a dialectical opponent, represented by your comment, to address abstract issues alluded to by your words of choice. It is not intended to argue or refute your worldview directly. > is there anything more important to anyone ... [than the life] of another person Behind the veil of ignorance which equates all persons, things which might reasonably be considered more important include: -the lives of more than one other person -severe changes in the quality of life for many people -significant environmental degradation, and other systemic alterations of sufficient scale Allowing for the criteria to include the differences between individuals, the most immediate additions to the above list becomes: -the life of oneself -the preservation of the lives and quality of life of one's family members Further, although our current legal system precludes it, the framework of thought exists for very fine grain gradations in the differing values considered inherent in different people, as expressed by e.g. the German weregild system [0]; under such precepts, allocations of attention would be prioritized following the accepted worth of each object of attention. > maybe I'm simply being too soft The perspective assuming a position of ignorance is often considered "soft" and idealistic, in contrast to the "hard", realistic, non-egalitarian stance here epitomized by the system of man-price. I propose that this is the common interpretation. However, I counter that the former is only effectively realizable by a juridical system of great strength and resources, before which all men can be operationally equated because the marginal burden any one case places on the faculties of the law is negligible. Therefore, perhaps you voice your position not from reasoning aligned with softness, but rather that aligned with awesome and as-yet-non-extant might. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild

wtbob 10y ago

There's more than one person sentenced to death in Texas: it's thus mathematically impossible for the governor to spend 100% of his time on each capital case. There's more than one person in prison in Texas: surely those prisoners deserve some thought too. Is the governor to personally rehear every case? And then there are all of the other things a governor is elected to do on behalf of the other 25 million Texans. It's just not possible to devote oneself 100% to everything. Heck, a system in which the executive rehears every judicial case personally would almost certainly involve quite a bit of injustice as well. Willingham was convicted by a jury (presumably of his peers, although that guarantee has become ever more worthless over time); his conviction was upheld by numerous courts; the techniques which produced evidence against him were supported by the state forensics review board. He wasn't executed by a man: he was executed by an entire system. So, if he was indeed innocent, then we should focus on the entire system. Do forensics techniques need to be improved? Do police investigating techniques need to be improved? Do judicial procedures need to be improved? Do board nomination procedures need to be improved? A commenter upthread notes that Governor Perry's nominees were reflexively pro-prosecution: were they; are there reasons why he felt he ought to nominate those people, or reasons why he felt he ought not nominate other people? Which of these things could be improved? Would those improvements themselves have negative side effects? Would the side effects outweigh the improvements? Some folks say that our adversarial court system has problems, but I can easily see that non-adversarial systems have problems as well. Nothing's perfect, but can we be better?