Troy Davis and the death penalty

If you are one of the many who frequent Twitter, or simply keep a beady eye on the news, you will no doubt have heard about a man named Troy Davis.

In 1989, Troy Davis was convicted of murdering police officer, Mark MacPhail. At the time, there were nine witnesses who said they saw him beating up a homeless man, which led to MacPhail to stop the first and ended in his death. However, seven of those nine witnesses have recanted their statements, saying that the evidence they gave was wrong. Davis was originally implicated by a man named Sylvester Coles, who would later be named by some of the witnesses as the shooter. Despite all this lack of evidence and doubt surrounding his guilt, Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles – who had earlier stated that he would never be put to death unless there was no doubt about his guilt – decided that he would be executed.

Shockingly enough, one of the witnesses to the crime Davis was convicted of, later stated that he was actually illiterate, and as such could not read the police statements that he signed. Another said she heard Sylvester Coles admit to the murder (although he was rather inebriated). You would think that in a nation priding itself on ‘Justice for All’ would see this mountain of doubt and scraps of tainted evidence as proof that not only was he wrongly convicted but wrongly jailed too. Now we can add wrongly executed to that list of wrongs.

All this appears to show is that not everyone can have justice, not everyone is equal in the law, and I think that those in power in America didnot want this to be the case.

________

I have several problems with the death penalty for several reasons, my main being that I find it abhorrent in civilised society. We pride ourselves on liberty, on placing the Rule of Law above anything else in the legal system, yet it is apparently acceptable to take away someone else’s life, because if it’s been sanctioned by the government then it means we can get away with encouraging someone else’s murder guilt-free.

Another major qualm I have with capital punishment is that it is goes against a major right we all have. The right to life. The death penalty exists under the pretence that we currently have the privilege of living, but should I behaviour become too illegal we should expect our life to be forfeit. It is also linked to the “an eye for an eye” mentality that I so despise. As the saying goes “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” and this is certainly true.

Those who advocate capital punishment often speak of justice for those who were wronged, as if seeing the death of one who deeply wronged them makes their pain lessen. This ‘justice’ they feel is not justice, but vengeance. Vengeance masquerading as justice. This sense of revenge playing dress-up is apparently an acceptable form of justice, in which we are allowed, encouraged even, to rejoice in the death of a fellow human being.

Once again, the Daily Mail falls short of the mark.

A few days prior to my writing this blog, an article was published in the Daily Mail, which was written by one Melanie Phillips, entitled "Yes, gays have often been the victims of prejudice. But they risk becoming the new McCartyites". In this article, Phillips is arguing that those in the LGBT community and the lobbyists therein, are going too far in their quest for equality, and it is having a detrimental effect on society. Unfortunately, this argument is hidden behind what appears to be thinly veiled homophobia and it has the tendency to (in my opinion) undervalue the very thing people are trying to achieve.

"Expressing what used to be the moral norm of Western civilisation is now not just socially impermissible, but even turns upstanding people into law breakers" - This quote, is of course referring to a case in which a Christian couple, who own a B&B, turning away a gay couple as it went against their views. Phillips argues that this couple are not allowed to have a dissenting opinion from the many, and that their opinions had landed them in court, as a consequence of being sued by the couple. She neglects to remember however, that discrimination, on the basis of sexuality, is illegal and the couple had indeed broken the law. Thus, it is perfectly fine for them to have been taken to court over it. Had discrimination based on sexuality not been against the law, Phillips would have been perfectly right in her judgements.

On the tricky subject of morals however, there is no such clear cut answer. Morals are too subjective and as such cannot be a good measure upon which to base the rules of a society. Arguing that, as it was a 'moral norm' in the past, it should be a 'moral norm' now, makes little, if any sense. Just because something was 'the done thing' does not make it 'morally' superior to any other act. My case in point would be The Slave Trade. Now, I know what you're thinking here, but go with me on this one, I am comparing the two in terms of the way in which the morality on the subject changed, nothing else.

Society at that time had no moral qualms concerning slavery, yet people would condemn it now as positively barbaric. Yet at the time, when it was originally banned, I highly doubt that society as a whole suddenly gained access to a completely new moral compass as it were, and saw the errors of their ways. Following on from this, the use of derogatory homophobic words, do not have the same effect or reaction as derogatory racist words. This is what I think is a big issue in tackling most forms of homophobia. Both actions (of calling someone a nigger or calling someone a faggot) are ultimately doing the same thing, via different channels; they are both isolate or ostracise someone based on who they are. In this respect, they should be treated in the same manner, as something to be heavily frowned upon.

"Penalising religious people for speaking and acting in accordance with their beliefs is neither liberal nor tolerant. It is behaviour more commonly associated with totalitarian dictatorships" - Unfortunately, Mrs Phillips, another thing that is neither liberal nor tolerant is denying an entire group in society the same rights that the rest of society has enjoyed for centuries. Furthermore, if someone's religious views are in contradiction with the law, the law trumps religion. Not the other way around. Religion is not above the law, and cannot be used as a get out clause. Phillips is under the delusion that religious beliefs are above and beyond the law, unfortunately for her, for us to live in a fully functioning democracy, one in which everyone is equal everyone needs to be subject to the same laws, and YES Melanie, that includes you too.

"The obsession with equality has now reached ludicrous, as well as oppressive, proportions" -Once again, Phillips seems to be under some sort of delusion, only this time it is one in which she seems to think that equality is not worth fighting for. She belittles their quest for equality and calls it an obsession, as though it is something that is as trivial as a walk in the park. The rights people are asking for are rights that she was born with, and a right she enjoys everyday, yet she takes for granted the fact that not everyone is able to live in the same luxury as her. No one told her that her marriage to her husband would be frowned upon or illegal, and why on Earth should they? If only she could reciprocate.

Phillips goes on to talk about the "gay agenda" which she mentions profusely as though she is using the phrase as a life-raft, upon which she clings to so as to stop herself from falling to the ways of acceptance and tolerance. She mistakes the LGBT community's endeavour for equality in all spheres of society for having dark and sinister intentions and using this search for equality as a stage for something a lot more ominous in reality.

__

However poorly she may argue for various issues, I feel that these are not what she was attempting to put forward. She made a fleeting comment about the B&B owners who were as she put it "merely upholding Christian values" and while they may certainly have been true, she almost touched upon something vital. Just not quite.

She is, I think, trying to suggest that the ways in which minority views are treated are not indicative of a liberal democracy. She argues (poorly in my opinion) that being able to hold and declare opinions that are not of the majority is something which has become condemned. Following on from this is that these dissenting opinions are met with waves of intolerance asking those against whom they are arguing, to be more tolerant. In this respect, I can see what she's trying to get at. However, her article does little more than suggest that homosexuals should not be striving for equality, and should not be acknowledged fully in society as a result.

Despite these ideas, which may hold some merit, her article does little more than feed the frenzy of Daily Mail readers who like nothing more than to cling to the past as though they are clinging to their mother's apron strings for dear life and comfort. It would be refreshing if a writer in the Daily Mail would write an article outlining the need for LGBT rights, but I don't think I'll be holding my breath.

A state sanctioned invasion of privacy.

It has come to the attention of my Hawk-like eyes, that in a country already split on many social issues ranging from gun control to gay marriage, the state of Oklahoma in the USA has taken the issue of abortion to dizzying new heights.

The government in Oklahoma has introduced a set of bills concerning the issue of abortion, and have made the already traumatising experience worse. The bills have been targeted by pro-choice groups for being physically intrusive and for breaches of privacy. The bill that has caught the attention of the media both in America and abroad, is one that carries the requirement for an ultrasound less than an hour before the abortion. It would transpire, that this is no ordinary abdominal ultrasound. The woman is required to be given a vaginal rather than abdominal ultrasound, which will give a better quality of picture. This would mean that the woman who is in the clinic for the abortion, already under large amounts of stress and emotional pain, is undergoing a procedure that is medically useless. In addition to this, the doctor performing this ultrasound, must tell the woman what he can see including number of fingers and toes. The bill also makes no exception for women who have been raped or were victims of incest. No provisions have been made and it seems they were simply forgotten.

I will mention at this juncture, that this description of what the doctor can see, does no purpose and will only make the woman feel worse about the decision she has made. Not all women having abortions will be those who have accidentally got pregnant. There will be many women who have wanted a child for many years, however the health of the child and/or the mother is in question. This description of the child's attributes would serve no purpose but to traumatise the mother further.

A more worrying bill is one in which the woman must answer a questionnaire of thirty-eight questions. These include questions asking the age, race, marital status, education, number of previous pregnancies including any miscarriages and terminations and the reason for the termination of the foetus she is currently carrying. These may not sounds much on their own, however the information given will be published on a website. Whilst the name of the woman will not be given, many critics of the bill suggest that in small towns, the identity of a woman could be found out rather easily.
______
You may be able to tell where I stand on the whole issue of abortion. I am wholeheartedly pro-choice. I also feel it is the government's job not to chose a side and to give women the choice whether or not they should have an abortion or. What I mean to say is, making abortions legal and not imposing particular requirements on an already troubled mind. The government, whether it be at a federal or national level should not impose restrictions on certain rights.

I will confirm that you read the word right there. Abortion should be available as a choice so that women are not forced into the decision to have a baby by the state. That is not the state's job.
/controversial statement.
_____

It was mentioned by Democrat Senator Jim Wilson that "The legislature and the senate are acting like an amateur gynaecologist. This is not about abortion. This is about the Bible". Religious views of certain members of government should never be used to form laws, especially seeing as not everyone in the state or country will follow that religion nor will many want to live their lives according to something written in a 2000 year old book. One which has questionable origin.

Back on track to the issue at hand, you'd think that there would have been many who opposed the bills due to one of them breaking the confidentiality that doctors are supposed to observe. Patients expect their doctors to behave impartially of private beliefs and they want to live safe in the knowledge that their medical history will not be published on the internet. I was under the impression that this expectation was a given but it may be something that the Oklahoma government (and the doctors in Oklahoma) need to be told until the message gets through.

Luckily, these bills have been subject to large amounts of criticism and have been temporarily blocked. Those in favour of the bill suggest that women should have "all of the information available before she makes the irrevocable decision to terminate her pregnancy". This includes the National Right to Life Committee, who also believe that the bills are constitutional.

However, the bill was passed after six days due to large amounts of criticism and legal battles. Many anti-abortion campaigners say that the bill humanises the process, allowing the mother to connect. What they probably mean is, it acts as an emotional weapon against the mother. By focusing on the foetus due to be aborted and giving it a face, we forget the mother. The mother who has a life already and is making a concious decision. This bill, by it's very nature assumes that all women who seek abortions are simply women who got pregnant accidentally and can't follow through with what they've gotten themselves into. Abortion cannot be legal in a state while it demonises the women seeking them. Women in this situation are caught in a catch-22, where if they have the abortion, pro-life campaigners will demonise them further, whereas if they keep the baby and need state support, people will look on them unfavourably, especially if they are young.

I hope that in time, it becomes apparent that if a woman is seeking abortion, she will do better to not be demonised by her own state. A woman with a whole life of her own, should not be made to feel inferior to a potential life.

It's about time we grew up.

I am basing this on a quote I read (see below).

"There is little to know about homosexuality except that people with hair that spirals in one direction (i forget which) and left handed people have a higher chance to be gay with statistical significance. So it might be biological.. And? They're still gay and people will just say stuff like it's an illness or a biological mental problem (which I personally believe it is). But I think some homosexuals are just confused." - Link.

Basically, I've had enough of homophobia. We live in the 21st century, an age where each year more countries giving rights to the LGBT community, yet some people insist on living in the Dark Ages. So now I plan on dissecting this argument piece by piece. "There is little to know about homosexuality except that people with hair that spirals in one direction (i forget which) and left handed people have a higher chance to be gay with statistical significance" Obvious ridiculousness aside for a moment, lets think about this. Considering the brand new advances in hair styling you can have one hair style one day, and a different style the next. Thus it is now unlikely that a straight person will be 'gay for a day' and straight the next. It's not a choice. Secondly, writing with your left hand, shows your propensity to write using your left hand, rather than your affection for someone of the same sex. Concerning the 'statistics', I would very much like to see these statistics, and if they are true, what Fundamentalist Christian/any other religious fundamentalist society backed it I wonder?

"They're still gay and people will just say stuff like it's an illness or a biological mental problem (which I personally believe it is)" Lack of objectivity aside, having an attraction to someone cannot be a mental illnes, otherwise homosexuals and heterosexuals would all be thrown into the rubber room together. In Ancient Greece soldiers were encouraged to have relationships with other men, seeing as they were fighting alongside men for a long time, homosexuality was not frowned upon but encouraged for a close bond with their fellow soldiers. So thus we see, homosexuality is not seen as something to frown upon but something good.

Suddenly, somewhere in the timeline of world history, something changes and then homophobia only seems to encroach upon society. Coincidentally when modern monotheistic religion becomes a main part of society.

Having had this argument many times, it seems that when religion comes into play, people stop thinking for themselves, and let a book of questionable origin do the thinking for them. It seem that once someone says "well the reason I'm against gays is my religion" it seems perfectly ok to stop arguing and give them the benefit of the doubt. STOP THIS. If you honestly can't read a book saying hateful things about a group of people who will not affect you and realise it's lying then there's no point having an argument. This person clearly has no skills when it comes to discussions otherwise they wouldn't hide behind a book. A book that was written by men thousands of years ago.

Another thing that has baffled me over the years, is the constant idea which seems quite prominent in all religions, which to love each other as you love yourself. However, at the first sight of someone a little bit different, that person then becomes exempt from this rule, and becomes the target of religious persecution for having a belief different to their own. Remember folks, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Religion should never be used as a basis for someones views on other people. Athough I may go as far as to say, I wouldn't want anyone to live thier life following the rules of a book of questionable origin. Not everyone follows the same religion so, for someone to say "I don't like homosexuals because my God tell me to" may interfere with someone elses view on homosexuals. So for laws to be passed banning same sex marriages based on a religon is undermining other peopled religons, sort of saying one is better than another. This will only cause friction.

"Illness or a biological mental problem" The idea that homosexuality is a mental illness has been widely discouraged and it has since then been discovered that homosexuality is biological. Not psychological. Not to mention that the medical community does not hold with this view one bit, this claim is little more than an unfounded and badly thought out jibe. - Link.

"But I think some homosexuals are just confused." I will of course, ignore this persons inability to end an argument. I see this argument a lot. When faced with a different lifestyle to them, people say ''ah well you're just confused''. Wrong. It takes a confused person to say ''I am unsure of my sexuality'', but someone who tells you what sexuality they are, are clearly not confused. It is not nice of course that when you state your sexuality, the person you are talking to says ''that's not a sexuality, it's confusion''. There is no confusion! Apart from of course wondering why you bothered to have this conversation with said person who is obviously too small minded to cope with such a revelation.

In my opinion, homophobia does not have a place in todays society (if any societies at all) because all it does is deny humans their basic and fundamental right of being able to love one another. Isn't that what all religions try to set about? We are all human beings, governed by our own free will, which is what most religions like talking about. If we really had free will we'd be able to love who ever we want free of persecution and stigma.

P.E.T.A. - I am irked.

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/06/top_five_reason.php

As is the general self-righteous attitude of P.E.T.A, they are saying saying, that due to these preposterous reasons we should all turn vegetarian. For the record (so you all don't think I am a dog-kicking whore - I am totally against animal testing and animal cruelty, however I eat meat. Contradiction? I think not. Free range eggs, and meat is the way forward. You can even taste the difference in the meat.

They think that we should not eat meat because it will make us fat.

Meat is good for us as human beings, it's high in protein which will help us to rebuild cells etc. , so you know, its a pretty vital thing in our lives. You can't get the same amount of protein from anything else as far as I am aware, so we aren't just eating meat for the sake if it and because we hate animals and want to kill them all! I doubt people want to eat bags and bag of nuts and lentils when they could have a chicken sandwich and get all the protein they need. Eating meat will not make us fat, because as they seem to have forgotten, we eat other things as well. We don't eat fatty meat non-stop all day. It's called having a balanced diet.


"Real girls don't support animal abuse. Compassion is super sexy, if the huge number of hot celebs ditching meat is any indication. Young women turn vegetarian in droves when they learn that the meat industry cuts the sensitive beaks off newborn chicks and cuts off the tails of baby piglets."

Its true. Places are un-necessarily cruel to animals before they are killed for their meat. However, thats only in the cases of KFC and other fast food chains like it. If you go to Waitrose (a good supermarket in the UK for those from outside the UK) and buy their chicken the only option you'll get is free range, healthy chicken and eggs or organic and you can tell the animal hasn't been subjected to cruelty in its life.

On the television we see many cookery programmes and one chef in particular is Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. His show is set on his farm and he highly endorses local produce and animal rights. When I see his animals on the show, I don't think they could be any happier. They are fed on good grain and feed etc and they aren't chucked into a barn three sizes to small for them. Fearnely-Whittingstall has actually fronted campaigns to raise awareness of animal cruelty within the food business. I think PETA should see these places that are treating animals with the respect they deserve before they get their hemp panties and burlap sack hats in a twist.
______

They believe that if we love animals, we wouldn't eat them. Well, again you would only be a hypocrite if you said you loved animals then turned around and then mutilated an animal. There is nothing wrong with eating meat, we have done so for millions of years and it hasn't done us any harm, so the views of a few crazy vegans isn't going to stop the world from eating meat. If it was indeed so bad for us, I'm sure that by now more people would have mentioned it rather than just a few irate vegans.


Also, PETA have likened eating meat to child abuse, which is totally unjustified and completely different.

“Why do you try to force vegetarianism on others? Isn't it a personal choice?”

From a moral standpoint, actions that harm others are not matters of personal choice. For example, murder, child abuse, and cruelty to animals are immoral acts, not matters of choice. Today, our society encourages meat-eating and factory farming, but at one time, society also encouraged slavery, child labour, and many other practices that are now universally recognized as wrong. " - However, this does not mean that you get to shove your self-righteousness down my throat P.E.T.A.

Picture the scene. A farmer with a few pigs, some chickens a plot of land where he grows some vegetables. He rears these animals knowing they will one day become his food. However, he still feeds them, pets them and treats them with respect. He takes a pig to kill so he and his family can eat. This pig has had a good life and like all things on earth it dies. The family, rather than simply bury the pig, use it for meat and bury the rest. Why do they eat the meat? To survive, simple.

Picture the next scene. A man abusing his children and causing them unnecessary harm and suffering, for nought but the man's 'pleasure'

These two scenes are incomparable.

“Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse or vivisection laboratory?”

No, but enough people have filmed and written about what goes on in these places to paint a very detailed picture.

Hey P.E.T.A, do your own damn research. While these places are indeed vile, you are supposed to be a reputable charity, I would have expected a more professional take to your ideals.

If PETA let us eat what we want, and spend their time campaigning for the rights of animals, so that companies like KFC treat their animals with respect that they do indeed deserve and they'd be surprised how many carnivores like myself would run to join their group.