The Troy Davis Execution

[Kalalau]

Re: The Troy Davis Execution

Its interesting watching the change in the human race, what is accepted in how we deal with crime over time. Good old civilized Merrie Olde England used to draw and quarter people and stick their decomposing heads on poles for public display only a few centuries ago. That was the social norm, it was accepted. Of course so many contemporaries screamed for the brutal crucifixion of Jesus, and others, nailing them on crosses then breaking their legs, that too was an accepted social norm. Rome, a citadel of civilization, feeding people to wild animals for the amusement of the masses. Again the social norm. You see where this is going, right? In the US public hangings were evidently considered good family entertainment, bring the kids and a picnic basket and enjoy the show. Lots of people consider bull fighting inhumane brutal cruelty, but its the norm for millions of civilized people, whatever squeamish Americans think of it. The gas chamber, electrocution, not very pleasant ways to go, and now lethal injection. Social norms are so relative, they change over time. It is never a good idea to start going backwards, we really do not want to have dead heads staring at us on light posts, do we?

How to fit the killing of Osama bin Laden into this? Or execution of Nazi & Japanese war criminals? File under "act of war", that disposes of the question neatly. Maybe too neatly. Anyway, with changing social norms it is possible anything we take for granted today will be considered hopelessly primitively brutal and cruel by our grandchildren, or theirs. That will probably include executing people. But I do admit the emotional lift knowing that murderous Texas bigot whose name I am not even going to bother looking up is no longer among the living.

[Kaonohi]

Re: The Troy Davis Execution

I knew a prof who said basically that, that biology influenced the race to kill off surplus males with wars (...)

Biology vs. culture.
Biology 'may' have an influence on creating mechanisms to cull surplus males, but there is no evidence this is true. There is some evidence to support male-male homicide with generational survival, but to apply this to warfare is distant, if not tenuous.
We all die, eventually, so death is a non-issue. Death before the passing-on of one’s genes is genetic homicide; killing a criminal does several things:
1) It removes from the state the obligation of preserving the life (at considerable cost - taxed to you!) of a retro-productive member of society for an undetermined number of years.
2) It is more humane than extended incarceration. (I have a former friend in prison for LIFE for the 'crime' of possessing prohibited weapons - he is depressed and miserable!)
3) It permanently removes a criminal/potential criminal from the population so that they cannot repeat their crime (which many do).
4) It may also remove their genes from the population, which is of questionable benefit.
Is it fair? Perhaps sometimes, but not always. It is more efficient. As long as equitable trial procedures are observed, with reasonable possibility of review and reconsideration, it is the best we can do at present.
Even trial and prosecution in a murder case is a burden on society, expensive, and difficult to prosecute fairly. Mistakes have been and can be made. Life imprisonment may mitigate this to a degree, but the numbers do not support it economically. Few life prisoners get reprieves.
There are some who say that "one innocent saved is worth the cost," but I ask them to consider the innocents we send off to war at considerable cost to the taxpayer in dollars and lives, a significant percentage of whom are "executed" for the needs of the State. Over 58,000 'innocents,' i.e., non-criminals, died in Vietnam; why should we cry over the death of convicted murderers?
Some say that males are a surplus in our society. I contend that females are as equal a surplus, as females determine the reproductive rate, which is in excess. We are overpopulated, which adds to the factors which influence wars and homicides.
Males are considered to be more aggressive and competitive, which may or may not be true, but the reproductive future of our species is held in the wombs of the females. One male can restore a civilization, producing thousands of offspring from numerous females, but a single female can produce, at best, about one child per year.
That said: Do we have a surplus of males? Or Do we have a surplus of females? *

*(Do NOT pose this question to single males!)