You and I definately agree on that.
Number Six
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 5,016
I'm not saying that the death penalty should exist. In fact I'd prefer it didn't. But I'm saying that using a criteria of "prevent innocent deaths" is fallacious because that's never a choice anyway. And even taking the path of "prevent as many innocent deaths as possible" isn't really feasible because our whole society would grind to a halt if people started to try to do that (which ironically would probably lead to innocent deaths in ways they hadn't previously thought of).
Taking the "don't kill anyone" approach is just an easy way out of making the hard choices. It reminds me of that one religion where the adherents are so conscious of trying to not to kill any other creature that they carry a broom with them and sweep the ground in front of them as they walk so they don't step on any bugs. Of course they kill stuff anyway because it's impossble to live without killing something else either directly or indirectly. They're just using an absolutist approach to avoid having to face reality and make touch decisions.
However, saying "We shouldn't execute people because the amount gained in that particular case isn't as great as the amount lost" is a valid argument. In other words, "It's not worth it" can be made into an argument. But "It's not worth it" implies that an assessment of value has been made and a decision has been made on that assessment, rather than a blanket position of "Kill nothing and therefore innocents won't die," which is unrealistic.
While I don't have an issue with the idea of putting to death those that deserve it, I oppose the death penalty purely on economic grounds.
This site might be biased, but it appears we're wasting millions putting people to death:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7
There can be a concerted effort to bring the costs down and speed up the process, but I have almost no faith that doing so would improve the errors in conviction and execution highlighted by WildCat.
Jocko and Nyarlathotep seem fairly reasonable in accepting that proving guilt should probably be improved, but since there appears to already be more money spent on death penalty cases instead of life imprisonment, I can't really believe that doing so is going to make the process cheaper.
If it costs millions more to put a man to death than it is to keep him in prison for life, is that an affordable price to pay for justice and peace of mind for the victim's families?
I propose that it does not.
EDIT: Yep, site is very much anti-death penalty. However, they source most of their claims so feel free to tear the information apart.
This site might be biased, but it appears we're wasting millions putting people to death:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7
There can be a concerted effort to bring the costs down and speed up the process, but I have almost no faith that doing so would improve the errors in conviction and execution highlighted by WildCat.
Jocko and Nyarlathotep seem fairly reasonable in accepting that proving guilt should probably be improved, but since there appears to already be more money spent on death penalty cases instead of life imprisonment, I can't really believe that doing so is going to make the process cheaper.
If it costs millions more to put a man to death than it is to keep him in prison for life, is that an affordable price to pay for justice and peace of mind for the victim's families?
I propose that it does not.
EDIT: Yep, site is very much anti-death penalty. However, they source most of their claims so feel free to tear the information apart.
Last edited:
This argument works when you are applying it to something like whether or not to drive a car, or wear your seatbelt, or play football..etc... It does not work when applied to the death penalty. As I have stated before, innocent people die all the time due to everyday acts, random weather phenomenon, or goverment policies. What all these things have in common is that they the intended end result is not to kill someone. If someone dies, then something has gone wrong. This is exact opposite case for capital punishment. Death is the INTENDED result for the DEATH penalty. When a policy is in effect that intends to end with the death of someone (i.e. the guilty party who actually commited the crime worthy of capital punishment), then the goverment must be absolutely sure it has the right man. Right now, we are not doing that, we are only sure, "beyond a reasonable doubt", and that simply is not enough. I personally do not believe in the death penalty. I do not support the idea of a government executing its citizens. I am willing, however, to stipulate that, IF, the government must execute its citizens, then it had best be ABSOLUTELY sure it only executes the right ones. Right now, we cannot make such a statement of assurance.
Santa
Last edited:
punchdrunk
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,003
But that's not really my position. What I understand rikzilla to say is that the perception of a benefit of CP to society justifies the death of innocent people due to CP. I'm saying that the benefit has to be real before I would even consider it a worthy argument. What are the real benefits of CP that life imprisonment doesn't gain? Give me a real benefit, then I will consider that against the cost of innocent people being put to death and re-evaluate my position. So far, the only real benefit I've seen put forth by those in favor of CP is that there is zero chance of recidivism, but IMO that should be remedied by better life imprisonment sentencing standards or better prison security; accepting instead that innocent people will be put to death is too drastic.
No system is perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to mitigate the imperfections wherever reasonable. From my point of view, I find no argument from CP proponents that makes the abolition of CP unreasonable.
Number Six
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 5,016
I think this applies to the death penalty too because if you don't execute people then someone that doesn't deserve to die will be killed as a result because the person spared the execution will eventually either kill another prisoner or escape and kill a civilian. (I don't mean every spared person, rather I mean that if you executed no one then some of those spared would kill others.)
So the choice is between:
1. Executing X murderers while sparing the Y people they'd kill if they weren't executed
2. Executing 0 murderers, which results in the killing by those spared execution of Y people that don't deserve death.
So there is no "no death" option. In the US today Y is a good deal larger than X but the point is that we (collectively) are the ones to decide whether the dealth penalty exists and what we think X and Y are is part of our decision. Pretending Y is 0 is just a way of avoiding the decision of choosing between X deaths and Y deaths and instead pretending the decision is between X deaths and 0 deaths.
It is complete nonsense to imply someone who was not executed will eventually escape and then KILL someone, or kill someone in prison. Perhaps you could provide some evidence for that assertion. You cannot presume a prisoner WILL escape and then WILL kill someone simply because he was not executed. You certainly cannot presume a prisoner will kill someone in prison if he is not executed.
Santa
Number Six
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 5,016
It's true that we can't assume that any individual prisoner that is spared execution will kill someone else later on but OTOH people that are in prison for murder occassionally kill another inmate or else escape and kill a civilian so it's reasonable to assume that some people that are spared execution would do it too.
Also:
A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse
And
A stitch in time saves nine
And
You can lead a Dane to water but you cannot make him drink.
Agreed?
These are all arguments for improving prison security, not for maintaining the death penalty. You have no evidence that those who were spared would be the ones escaping or killing. You have only stated that prisoners in general MIGHT kill each other, that prisoners in general MIGHT escape and then MIGHT kill someone. None of this points to potential death row inmates as the culprits. This is not a valid argument FOR the death penalty.
Santa
Statistically speaking, you don't have to make 'em.
Number Six
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 5,016
I'm not intending to make a valid argument for the death penalty, rather I'm intending to show the "take the approach where no one dies" approach isn't a valid argument against the death penalty because people are going to die no matter what. Yes, improve security in prisons, I'm all for that, but no matter how much you improve it someone is going to die, just like no matter how much you improve road safety or airline safety someone is going to die. You may lessen the number, but the number will still be greater than 0.
It's ultimately a cost-benefit analysis, with regard to this issue and everything else. People don't like to look at it that way because it seems cold hearted and calculating, but it's the way things are.
I see, so you take the approach of "who cares, someone is going to die anyway." This is a horrible way to handle an argument. First, as I have explained, people do die no matter how much you improve the roads, or airlines, or sports, or automobiles. All of the policies involved in the above examples are intended to save lives or improve lives and when innocent people are killed, it is a horrible tragedy. Capital punishment seeks to end lives. When the policy itself is to end a life, then it is imperative not to end the wrong one. This means, if one is determined to utilize the death penalty, then one must be absolutely positive you are executing the right person. You have provided absolutely no evidence that death row inmates would kill addtional people in prison if not executed. You have provided no evidence indicating death row inmates would escape, and if they escaped, they would kill innocent people if they were not executed. You are making ASSUMPTIONS as to what MIGHT happen. Again, your argument only reinforces the need to increase prison security. It does not demonstrate that the death penalty is a positive policy.
Santa
Number Six
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 5,016
No, my approach isn't "Who cares, someone is going to die anyway" nor did I even remotely imply that. My approach is "Let's carefully consider what is best based on all factors and information" instead taking a simplistic, absolutist approach.
The fact that people in prison sometimes kill other inmates and sometimes escape and kill civilians makes a very reasonable conclusion that some prisoners spared execution would do the same. You can't prove that the existence of the death penalty is the only thing preventing the US from plunging into Civil War but that doesn't mean that I can validly say "We'd better keep the death penalty, otherwise the US will plunge into Civil War." We don't **know** what will happen if we get rid of the death penalty or what condemned prisoners will do if spared and we'll never **know** such things until after they've happened but that doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions about the future about which we can be pretty confident.
Just out of curiousity, if we can't safely conclude that stopping executions will results in some of those spared killing othes, what conclusions about the future can we safely make? Anything you name I can say "It might not happen" and I'd be right. We can't speak with absolute certainty about the future. We have to use the past as a guide to give us educated guesses about what might happen. Concluding a few spared prisoners would end up killing others is reasonable given past experience. Saying we can't confidently conclude anything about what spared prisoners would do in the future is just sticking our heads in the sand.
Again, though, your argument has nothing at all to do with the death penalty. You have brought up issues regarding prison security. All you are saying is kill them so they won't have the chance to escape and kill others or so they won't kill other inmates. I am saying this is irrelavent to the existence of the death penalty. I am saying there are many, many, many more inmates who are not on death row AND killed somebody. Perhaps they should just be put to death too, then they will not escape and kill somebody nor will they kill another inmate. Your issue is one for a different thread, one about what prison life should be like and how secure they are.
Santa
Number Six
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 5,016
I'm not saying kill them. As I said in an earlier post I'd like to see the death penalty done away with. I'm just saying that the fact someone dies with the death penalty isn't an argument against it because someone dies no matter what. You obviously disagree. Fine.