As several commenters pointed out, the problem with the death penalty is bigger than the death penalty. It’s the justice system, which is broken.
Because of stories like Cory Maye’s, I will never support the idea that sentencing a man to death is as simple as two credible witnesses (credible like… police officers?), or that we should execute someone before they can run the gamut of appeals (through appeals, Cory was removed from death row and granted a new trial).
The Case of Cory Maye – read it (again), please.
I believe to the core of my soul that it is better to let undeniably guilty men languish in prison for life, instead of facing death, than it is to execute even one innocent man. And, so long as the definition of murder can bend based on the last name of the person you kill or the color of your jury, I don’t see how it’s possible to have that sort of perfection.
So, what does this have to do with the case of the guy in Utah, who was a repeat offender, obviously guilty? Give the state the power to kill him, and you give the state the power to kill Cory.
27 comments ↓
As I mentioned in the other thread, every argument I've heard against the death penalty is really a selective application of a much broader argument against having any criminal justice system at all. If it's better to let all obviously guilty murderers live out their natural lifespan than to wrongly execute even one, how is that any different from saying we can't imprison people, either, since inevitably, *some* will rot in prison for crimes they did not in fact commit, and in fact, a smaller subset of these innocents will end up being murdered by other inmates. And with studies showing that every execution prevents roughly 18 murderers, what about the 18 innocents who have to die so that one obviously guilty murderer can live? Shouldn't we care at least as much about them as we do about the one hypothetical individual who might end up wrongly executed (even though there is no evidence a single individual has been since the DP was reinstated in the 1970s)?
The notion that we can't give the state the power to do X because X can be misused is every bit as illogical, and for precisely the same reason, as it is for liberals to argue that citizens should not be allowed to own guns because guns can be misused and invariably, sometimes are. Abusus non tollit usum.
I thought it was in the comments on my other post, but I guess it was on someone else's blog, where I read:
You can let an innocent man out of prison. You can't let him out of a grave.
Is it a horrible thing for someone to spend their life in prison for a crime they didn't commit? Of course. But, at least they have the chance to appeal, to seek new counsel, even to wait for new technology to develop that can prove their innocence.
Specific to Cory Maye: What's your solution? He absolutely shot and killed that cop, nobody is disputing that. He's obviously "guilty" of taking life. So, do you take the first jury's verdict and the death sentence to be the right answer, call it good, and kill him?
If the "save the money, end the appeals" crowd had their way, Cory Maye would still be on death row. If the "try 'em on Friday, hang 'em on Monday" crowd had their way, he'd be dead.
As for the analogy to citizens and guns, I see it as somewhat of a non-starter since the state and the individual are such different entities, and I believe we should always err in the interest of individual liberty and pretty much never in the interest of government power.
True, you can let an innocent man out of prison, but how often does that happen? The only reason Cory got those countless appeals is because he was originally sentenced to death. Lord only knows how many innocents are rotting in prison and never will have a realistic chance to prove their innocence.
As to Cory specifically, of course he should have gotten a chance to appeal, and he did, and is now off death row. That's my solution, and in his case, it worked. Will it work every single time? Not necessarily. But absolute perfection is not a realistic expectation for anyone or anything, be they private citizens or the government. The best we can do is whatever results in the fewest innocents dying, whether we're talking about the rare case where the state inadvertently kills them directly, or the much more common case where it allows a murder it could have prevented. Dead is dead either way.
The fact that the state and the individual are different was beside the point, which was that both have legitimate and illegitimate roles, both have the potential to abuse their legitimate roles in some cases. If you prefer, we could make the same argument about cops, who are arms of the state. Give a cop the tools to arrest a felon at gunpoint, and you've given him the tools to murder Kathryn Johnston. Therefore, disarm all cops?
Something I didn't mention in the other post, but I'm sure will come up in The Inconvenience's studies: eyewitness testimony is FAR less reliable than we wish to believe.
The human memory is a strange and complicated thing. The two most competent, intelligent, ethical human beings on the planet may believe with all their hearts and minds that they saw Joe Schmo kill Jack Straw, yet it still may not have happened. Justice is just not as simple as we wish it were.
I'm by no means some squishy postmodernist. A is A. That's not the point. There IS such thing as true and false, fact and fiction. That does not mean that the justice system, nor any conceivable justice system, could ferret out truth, 100% of the time.
Good point. That's why I always cringe when people say, in a disparaging tone, "meh, the evidence against so-and-so is all circumstantial." Some circumstantial evidence – DNA, for instance – is waaaaaayyyyyy more conclusive than direct evidence (i.e., eyewitness testimony).
You raise a valid point about the police officers.
There are good cops out there, but many cops are cynical toward the average citizen and will protect a fellow cop above the truth.
when i was in the first grade one of my best friends lost her Mom to a bank robber, he killed both tellers in the bank because it was his bank and he did not want to be identified. He was sentenced to death, and then managed to eat his way out of the death sentence, even after he admitted to the crime, on many occasions. He was as guilty as you could get and still was able to put pain on people that he hurt for many years! My friend lost Her Mom in '81 and every time he was in the news, it would re-open the wound in Her heart. She never got the justice that was due Her! More info on this slime bag here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Rupe
In 1995 I lost both my wife and my unborn son to a drunk driver, his 7th accident, he only got 3 years for vehicular manslaughter. My life is forever weakened and lessen because this slime is still allowed to breath. I still carry the rage that eats at my soul, and the hate-rage i feel can not be good for me. But I am still denied my vengeance and after he got out, less then one week, he was involved in another accident that this time did not kill anyone, but put a 4 year old boy in a chair for life. At what point are we allowed to remove this from society? at what point would we be allowed to Kill this person? I know its not because of lack of people willing to do it, I know of 5 people that would "throw the switch" or 'pull the trigger' on this slime, one a Cop, another a Pastor. I don't think either would loss any sleep over it, and I might get my first good nights sleep in almost 15 years. I will not provide a link to his name out of respect for his kids.
At some point and you could set the bar to it very high, at some point you have to just removed people that keep showing that they dont want to be a part of society.
I fail to see how locking someone up for the rest of their life doesn't remove them from society.
Incidentally, your mindset of vengeance and bloodlust motivates a good proportion of murders as well. You should work on your own problems before throwing the first stone.
Philip, I agree wholeheartedly with the first two words of your post, "I fail." If you can't tell the difference between sentencing Ronnie Lee Gardner to life without parole (1995) and removing him from society (2010) then you have failed indeed, big time. You might want to ask Michael Burdell's relatives if they know the difference; the smart money says they do.
I will give you props, however, for saying openly what all death penalty opponents really mean. It's not about ensuring perfectly (and therefore unattainably) evenhanded administration of the death penalty. It's not about making sure we never execute one single, solitary innocent. It's certainly not about limiting the power of Our Enemy The State (TM); if that were the issue we'd be debating whether to privatize the death penalty rather than abolish it. No, it's really about one thing and one thing only: a vocal minority has a soft spot in their hearts for people who do vicious things to other people, but recognizes that the majority of us do not. The rest is window dressing.
You are right, you do fail. Because people that are locked up never write books, give interviews, sell stories, to the rest of society, as long as they are alive they are a part of society, and often are a corrupting influence on it.
I was not the first to cast any stone, or are you implying that my issues, and yes I have them, caused me to still walk with a limp? Was it some how my fault that this Drunk is allowed to walk free? Its my actions or lack there of, that caused him to drink and then drive while 3 times the legal limit? It is some how my actions or lack there of that allowed him on his release, after severing less then half his sentence with time off for good behavior, to again drive drunk and cripple a young boy? I ask you at what point do we say enough is enough and remove him from society? How much pain must he cause before we treat him like the cancer that he is and remove him from our group?
And I must ask you to support your statement that a 'good proportion' of murders are done as a result of both "vengeance and bloodlust," I don't think you will be able to. because if you think that anything I have posted is me some how supporting the wanton killing of convicted criminals you are wrong. I dont think that the punishment for speeding should be death, nor do I think that petty theft should qualify for death, but I do think that murder should. I have not gone out and hurt this Drunk in any way, I have not contacted him, nor have I hunted him down. My thirst for vengeance and bloodlust should be quenched legally and justly. Not by my actions alone, but by Us as a group that refuse to allow these sort of people the live free. I have no problem with a life without possibility of parole, for some crimes, but we must be willing to remove/end criminals that willfully attack our society, something that way too often we are un-willing to do. I have no problem with setting the bar to this very high, but we must have that as an option, failing to have that as an option will weaken us as a society. Yes I do think that a society is just by how well it treats not just its criminals but the weak of the group. But way to often now days we allow being weak and misplaced compassion to drive us to coddle both criminals and the weak, making us weak as a whole. You never will raise people up by bringing down the successful. You dont treat cancer by making the rest of the body stronger, you treat it by removing and killing the cancer. And just like with cancer you have to do it to make the body of Our society better/stronger you have to be willing and able to remove the cancer from our body. And the death penalty is one of the ways of doing this.
Unless you are capable of either giving me both my Wife and my Son back, or are willing to guaranty that he is unable to ever hurt anyone else like he has Me and others. I want, and ask, nothing else from you.
"And I must ask you to support your statement that a ‘good proportion’ of murders are done as a result of both “vengeance and bloodlust,” I don’t think you will be able to."
I'll look into this–are you seriously saying revenge *isn't* a common motive for murder?
"Unless you are capable of either giving me both my Wife and my Son back, or are willing to guaranty that he is unable to ever hurt anyone else like he has Me and others. I want, and ask, nothing else from you."
Yeah, look up the statistics for successful escapes from supermax sometime. But you don't really care about whether he hurts anyone else–you want bloody vengeance. How you see this as anything but a personal failing on your part is not my problem.
"No, it’s really about one thing and one thing only: a vocal minority has a soft spot in their hearts for people who do vicious things to other people, but recognizes that the majority of us do not."
Wanting to imprison someone for live instead of killing them in cold blood is a "soft spot" in one's heart?
"if that were the issue we’d be debating whether to privatize the death penalty rather than abolish it"
OK, that's just idiotic. "Privatizing the death penalty" means blood feuds and vendettas. The entire reason we have laws and government is to avoid that shit. This is ancient knowledge and you're a fucking dumbass for not realizing it.
How's desiring vengeance a failing? Seems like a very natural and reasonable emotions.
There are lots of emotions which are perfectly natural and reasonable–jealousy, rage, vengeance, desperation. I don't blame anyone for having them at all. But they are *emotions*, not moral justifications for taking someone else's life.
Philip you continue to ignore and fail to answer the main question that i have been asking, at what point do we remove this cancer from our society? How many lives must be taken? How many have to be destroyed before we are forced to remove them from our group?
You can continue to label it in 'cold blood' but that would be wrong, there is a massive difference between murder, such as was done to my Wife, and an execution of someone that repeatably shows that they dont want to be a part of our society.
You dont cure cancer by being nice to it, you dont cure cancer by making the rest of the body stronger, you cure cancer by cutting it out and killing it.
Just keep in mind that you sleep soundly in your bed because people like me are able and willing to stand at the wall and protect the gates of our society from the evil in this world, even from the evil that is already in side the gate. There is evil in this world, and for it to win all it needs is for good people to do nothing.
If supermax worked, and truly kept the inmates completely out of our society in every way, then i would support that, but they dont, and most killers, even self confessed murderers never see a supermax, and they are a corrupting influence on our society. Or do you truly believe that "Pookie" Williams was just a writer child book, and John Wayne Gacy was just a clown that painted?
I struggle to see how I have a soft spot for vicious people. My continued issue with the death penalty is that it degrades the executioner. Whether a man deserves it is immaterial. It's still killing a defenseless person. Like I said, if you want to put a red flag on the guy and send him out into the world a marked man, go for it. But you can't strap a person to a chair and kill him.
Dag, sorry man, that's really awful. Frankly, I'm equally angry at the judge/lawyer/legislator for allowing him his freedom.
"You are right, you do fail. Because people that are locked up never write books, give interviews, sell stories, to the rest of society, as long as they are alive they are a part of society, and often are a corrupting influence on it."
That's a really good point. Perhaps we should remove these people's ability to communicate to the outside world. I'm not sure what the answer here is. This is why I'm occasionally weak on the Death Penalty, allowing it for men like Saddam whose continued existence imperils others.
But my only question in this is should we then whisk away the Muslim cleric who breaks no laws, but gets others to commit evil? What of the "evil" "Tea-Partier" who "incites revolution" against the government? Should we take them away from the outside world?
Philip:
Yes, although "wanting to imprison someone for live" isn't exactly an honest characterization of the issue, since we all know that once the death penalty is off the table, fewer will get LWP, either. [OK, I lied - "we all" probably don't know this, just the large subset of "we all" who aren't complete retards.] The fact that you care so much about keeping alive the worst of the worst, despite the statistical certainty that far more innocents will die this way than ever would as a result of wrongful convictions, clearly shows a soft spot in your heart for people who do vicious things to others, and an appallingly callous one for everyone else.
Either that, or your a fucking dumbass who can't read. I never said a private death penalty was a good idea, only that it would be the libertarian argument if this really were a debate about limiting the power of the state rather than coddling criminals, as libertarian-leaning DP opponents are wont to suggest. I agree that allowing private individuals to take revenge on the perps is a terrible idea, for the reasons you gave. That's why we need ordered revenge, after due process of law, rather than allowing private citizens to take revenge on their own. But smarmy, self-righteous punks like you won't allow ordered revenge, either, because your real sympathy lies with the killer, not his actual or potential victims.
Inconvenience:
That's a great reason not to work as an executioner yourself, but it's a really crappy argument against having a death penalty at all. Plenty of others are willing to do that job for you, don't feel degraded as a result, and certainly don't care a whit that you consider them degraded for doing a hard job that few want to do themselves, but an overwhelming majority wants someone to do. Some of us think posing in Playboy degrades women; should we ban that, too?
I actually have no problem whatsoever with the death penalty for someone in political power, when appropriate. I don't care if that's Saddam Hussein or an American Senator.
There's no problem with identity. Their actions can kill far more people and destroy far more lives than any individual ever could. The need for very powerful disincentives seems clear enough to me. Politicians tend to be rational actors, also, so they respond to incentives in ways that common killers may not.
"Philip you continue to ignore and fail to answer the main question that i have been asking, at what point do we remove this cancer from our society? "
Imprisonment is a means of removing someone from society. It's reasonably effective at that task and (as Inconvenience noted) "perhaps we should remove these people’s ability to communicate to the outside world".
"Or do you truly believe that “Pookie” Williams was just a writer child book, and John Wayne Gacy was just a clown that painted?"
I think Gacy and "Tookie" Williams were both violent criminals who, for the safety of others, needed to be locked away for the rest of their lives. There's no need to actually kill them anymore.
"since we all know that once the death penalty is off the table, fewer will get LWP, either. [OK, I lied - "we all" probably don't know this, just the large subset of "we all" who aren't complete retards.] "
You actually have to argue your point, not just assert it and insult people for disagreeing.
"I never said a private death penalty was a good idea, only that it would be the libertarian argument if this really were a debate about limiting the power of the state rather than coddling criminals, as libertarian-leaning DP opponents are wont to suggest."
No, it would be the anarchist/mafiosi argument. The classical liberal argument revolves around civil liberties and a fair appeals process. Since there's always a possibility that new evidence will become available, partially reversible means of removing people from society (such as imprisonment) are generally favored over execution.
"But smarmy, self-righteous punks like you won’t allow ordered revenge, either, because your real sympathy lies with the killer, not his actual or potential victims."
The reason you have laws instead of private revenge is because revenge tears apart society. That doesn't mean the law has to be vicious or vengeful in its own right. Countries which lack a death penalty do not, by and large, have a problem with blood feuds and vendettas.
It's not a matter of sympathy in the slightest, it's a matter of what's right. The US comes the closest of any country in the world at administering the death penalty as fairly as possible. The result? Prisoners on death row are still exonerated at times, the appeals process is more expensive than life imprisonment, and executions are stunningly rare. Having a fair and just death penalty is more trouble than it's worth. And solving any of these problems (shortening the appeals process for instance) would make the system less fair, less just, and more likely to kill innocent people.
And what's your counterargument against that? Something in your guts that feels like sympathy for people who want bloody revenge? That's not an argument at all, that's an emotion.
This argument is a complete non-starter.
Using deadly force to stop the commission of a crime and using deadly force as retribution for a crime are two totally different things.
There's a reason you can shoot someone trying to rape you, but you can't hunt a rapist down a week later and shoot him.
You use deadly force when there are no other options to address an immediate threat – not so much to "deal justice," but to prevent harm to yourself or others. Once the immediate threat has passed, we turn to other systems for our justice.
The justice system can address the issue a citizen or police officer might address with deadly force (stopping a threat) by removing criminals from society permanently. If you believe, as I do, the justice system should go further, and actually punish offenders for their crimes, well – which is more punishment? A long life of hard labor in an austere prison, or a swift death?
And one more thought as a casual aside to the legal problem of doing away with capital punishment.
If you do away with the death penalty then don’t you also have to do away with any authorization for a police officer to use deadly force?
After all, if you can’t kill them after a jury found them guilt of murder, and they exhausted all the appeals, by what right do you claim to allow one lone officer who knowingly took a dangerous job to walk into a hostile situation to shoot and kill some random person based on a judgment call that may have lasted 0.5 seconds? I mean yeah he may have thought the scared woman running away from the rapist was trying to hill him when she charged in his direction holding something (mace) in her hand, but was that any reason to shot without a full trial? I mean no trial could ever result in death so how can the police casually hand it out on the street?
What kind of justice would that be?
Then we run into a further problem:
If we take it away from the police, then what justification do you have to kill some person in your home? Clearly our stance on prison vs execution says that we are in favor forced endurance of beatings, and rapes, and even the risk of being murdered rather than maybe, possibly, potentially, killing someone who was in the wrong state of mind, who suffered emotional trauma as a child, who was oppressed by society, who was off their medications, whatever, you could now know that that person deserved to die for their actions and that their where no extenuating circumstances.
So to paraphrase an incendiary line “Just lie back and enjoy it” because society will impression the bad person latter, you can’t judge them worthy of death in your home that fast, just because they have beaten you till you can’t move anymore and are talking about moving on to your child once they are done with you.
You No longer have any right to a lethal or potentially lethal defense.
No Guns, no knives (might actually hurt someone you know), no tasers (tisk, tisk people dinging when we use those), no martial arts (you are a weapon now), also no improvised clubs, golf clubs, dogs, etc. Oh, wait, I am describing England these days, and their lovely legal system and we can see by the statistics that works so very well. Oh. Wait. No we can’t.
Because no one ever has the right to kill in this brave new world we created. Well, no one except for the rule breakers, criminal, social deviants, and mothers who would be willing to go to jail (to get raped, and beaten) in order to defend their children.
And that’s the thing. Ultimately some things deserve death, and in the process of doing that some Innocents will die, and that’s sad and something that should be prevented if possible. But not always, a lot of innocents die everyday on our roads because we don’t all drive 22 miles an hour. Innocents die because school busses still don’t have seatbelts. An innocent may die in front of your eyes, because no one in their family or in the restaurant cared enough to set aside 8 hours to go learn CPR. Innocents die in war, when you bomb the munitions depot that the enemy put under the hospital, but that’s the way it is, which is why the Geneva Convention allows such an action.
Sometimes you just can’t separate the wheat from the chaff. Sometimes even after the best effort, and giving it your all, it happens Some Innocents Will Die.
The Innocent Die. We should try to prevent it, but not at all costs, only at reasonable costs, and where we can reasonably be expected to identify innocents. We don’t know who will die each day in a car accident, but we drive. We don’t know when we will get struck by lightening, but we go outside, we don’t know when a person will murder us, but we hope that society will see justice done.
If a society ceases to be willing to kill anyone, every, no mater what they have done, then that society is doomed unless if can find a protector who will do their killing for them at some reasonably well removed, impersonal, and acceptable level. Witness the fact that no country made up only of pacifist still exists. It’s not a sustainable position. Evolution, human nature, calls it what you will, but men who value their personal gain over the society’s values will not let that society exist. They will destroy it from without or within, but they will destroy it for “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”.*
(URL: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_all_that_is_necessary_for_evil_to_triumph_is_good_for_men_to_do_nothing_mean, also very illuminating is the original wording here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_%27Evil_will_prevail_when_good_men_do_nothing%27)
One other thing as a casual aside to the legal problem of doing away with capital punishment.
If you do away with the death penalty then don’t you also do away with any authorization for a police officer to use deadly force?
After all, if you can’t kill them after a jury found them guilt of murder, and they exhausted all the appeals, by what right do you claim to allow one lone officer who knowingly walked into a hostile situation to shoot and kill some random person based on a judgment call that may have lasted 0.5 seconds?
What kind of justice would that be?
Then we run into a further problem:
If we take it away from the police, then what justification do you have to kill some person in your home? Clearly we are saying enduring beatings, and rapes, and even being murdered is better than killing another.
So to paraphrase an incendiary line “Just lie back and enjoy it” because society will impression the bad person latter, you can’t judge them worthy of death in your home that fast, just because they have beaten you till you can’t move and are molesting your child in front of you.
You
Have
No
Right
Because no one ever has the right to kill in this brave new world we created. Well, no one except for the rule breakers, criminal, social deviants, and mothers who would be willing to go to jail (to get raped, and beaten) in order to defend their children.
And that’s the thing. Ultimately some things deserve death, and in the process of doing that some Innocents will die, and that’s sad and something that should be prevented if possible. But not always, a lot of innocents die everyday on our roads because we don’t all drive 22 miles an hour. Innocents die because school busses still don’t have seatbelts. An innocent may die in front of your eyes, because no one in their family or in the restaurant cared enough to set aside 8 hours to go learn CPR. Innocents die in war, when you bomb the munitions depot that the enemy put under the hospital, but that’s the way it is, which is why the Geneva Convention allows such an action.
Sometimes you just can’t separate the wheat from the chaff. Sometimes even after the best effort, and giving it your all, it happens Some Innocents Will Die.
The Innocent Die. We should try to prevent it, but not at all costs, only at reasonable costs, and where we can reasonably be expected to identify innocents. We don’t know who will die each day in a car accident, but we drive. We don’t know when we will get struck by lightening, but we go outside, we don’t know when a person will murder us, but we hope that society will see justice done.
If a society ceases to be willing to kill anyone, every, no mater what they have done, then that society is doomed unless if can find a protector who will do their killing for them at some reasonably well removed, impersonal, and acceptable level. Witness the fact that no country made up only of pacifist still exists. It’s not a sustainable position. Evolution, human nature, calls it what you will, but men who value their personal gain over the society’s values will not let that society exist. They will destroy it from without or within, but they will destroy it for “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”.*
(URL: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_all_that_is_necessary_for_evil_to_triumph_is_good_for_men_to_do_nothing_mean, also very illuminating is the original wording here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_%27Evil_will_prevail_when_good_men_do_nothing%27)
After rereading this thread, I think I fully support zombie reanimation of wrongfully executed convicts.
Ten guilty should go free for every innocent condemned and any system created by humans will have flaws and make mistakes.
However, we have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in order to ensure our safety and security as a nation and as a people. We've bombed entire cities flat.
The problem with the death penalty is not the possibility of mistakes, it is the uncertainly of the outcome. A shorter process and more certain outcome would serve as a better deterrent than a consequence that may happen, someday… maybe.
Further, I see no reason I should pay to support, house and feed a criminal for the rest of his life. How "austere" do we make it? Do we turn a life sentence into a lifetime of low-grade torture for the convicted? Do we give the give the government the power to place a person into a lifetime of indentured servitude? Frankly, killing them is to me far less moraly repugnant.
"I think Gacy and “Tookie” Williams were both violent criminals who, for the safety of others, needed to be locked away for the rest of their lives. There’s no need to actually kill them anymore."
"Tookie" Williams continued to direct gang activity while in prison; he planned on, if not actually attempted, to take the lives of prison guards in an escape attempt. Are you sure there's no need to kill these people anymore?
I'm actually for "privatizing" the death penalty. I'm also for getting rid of the prison system altogether, and for requiring that NO fine, or confiscation, or ANY penalty ever be paid to the State. We need to have a victim-compensation system, so that any fine would go to the victims of a given crime, either directly or indirectly (a fine for speeding, for example, would go to a "Victims of Hazardous Driving" fund, rather than the State). We should eliminate all temptation for the State to use wrong-doing as a source of income.
In the case of murder or rape, I would support the perpetrator having to support the victim's families for the rest of their lives. I would also support making these people "outlaws", and having certain "revengers of blood" who could legally kill these people at any point.
My desires are a bit of a mix between the Law of Moses system of government, and Medieval Iceland's government. And yes, Medieval Iceland had their feuds, but it was estimated that in the "civil war" that ended their system of government, their death rate (for those fighting the war) was smaller than our murder rate today…yet that was enough violence for them to consider it "extreme" and to desire to seek refuge under the King of Norway (which proved to be worse than they expected).
The issue isn't whether or not we have laws and government. The issue is what kind of laws and government we'll have! I, for one, like the idea of being free–and both Medieval Iceland and Judge-based (ie, pre-king) Law of Moses Israel have elements of freedom I find very attractive.
Leave a Comment