Death Penalty

[sarge]

So, do you think McVeigh should not have been executed?

I don’t have strong feelings either way about McVeigh specifically. There seems to be no reasonable doubt that he was guilty. I would also not have felt strongly about him being sentenced to life without parole. The exact same end would have been achieved either way.

The problem isn’t with the outcome in any specific case. The problem is in how the US administers death penalty sentences generally and in the absolute certainty that some people will be wrongly executed in any death penalty system.

Did you send a sympathy card?

Why in the world would I have done so?

I have already made numerous posts suggesting reform, to improve the efficiency of the process. Others have made numerous posts suggesting that in no instance is the death penalty warranted.

And others have made posts suggesting that your efficiency gains would never be realized.

It is perfectly fine with me that some people categorically oppose the death penalty. It is perfectly fine with me that some people unconditionally support the death penalty. I would prefer that my government eliminate the practice entirely. This would reduce the costs of running prisons and eliminate the possibility of any person being wrongfully killed by the state. Of all the proposed ‘solutions’ for the problems inherent in our current administration of the death penalty, eliminating the death penalty seems to be the most practical.

 

[The Don]

That is not the default. Nobody has provided a compelling reason that these murderers should be allowed to live.

It kinda is.

Most countries do not have the death penalty

For those countries that have the death penalty, it's not the default for all crimes

In the states in the United States that have the death penalty, it's not even the default punishment for the crimes to which the death penalty can be applied.

The default appears to be that murderers should live - application of the death penalty is the very rare exception.

Look, I understand that it's difficult and time consuming to construct an argument and even more difficult to come up with one that stands up to scrutiny. It's far easier simply to reverse the burden on proof (as you have tried to do in the quoted post) or rely on catch phrases (as you have elsewhere in this thread).

 

[Bob001]

....
"How life is better in the states with the death penalty". Lame. Quite frankly, if we had set McVeigh free, it would not likely affect my life in any way. Maybe we should have done that. Think of the money it would have saved.

Not your life. Nobody cares about your life. Again, the criminal justice system represents and serves the community generally. How is a community where the death penalty is imposed better off than one where it is not? What do you think you know that a majority of states and most countries don't know?

And as noted, a death penalty trial with appeals is far more costly than a life sentence. Or maybe you'd like to eliminate appeals, too.

 

[Chanakya]

That is not the default. Nobody has provided a compelling reason that these murderers should be allowed to live.

Surely that's, like, absolutely elementary? Death is final. There's no turning back from death. If afterwards it turns out that the verdict was wrong, and if it is thought fit to change the verdict later on, in light of fresh evidence --- which after all is always a possibility --- then, if the guy's been fried already, there's nothing at all you can do about it. But if they're rotting away in jail, you can always set them free, perhaps even compensate them, something.


Sure, they may die in jail. Can't be helped, except in that you then try, for this reason, as well as the general humanitarian reason, to make sure that people don't literally rot in jail, like they used to in times past, and like they still do in many places. If despite humane if restricted living conditions they still die, well that obviously cannot be helped. But, I mean, that's the (very obvious) "compelling reason" you're looking for, right there, for not murdering murderers, no matter how evil or whatever, by frying them in the chair or filling them with poison or stringing them up or whatever.




------------------------------
eta: Random thought that occurs, and not connected to the above:

Convicts who've got huge long sentences, so long that they have little of hope of ever walking again, I think it might not be a bad idea if these were allowed to volunteer as guinea pigs for medical experiments, if they want to that is. That's kind of a win-win. For some very focused very select research, where testing on humans might help get at a breakthrough, but where you just cannot do it because humans are humans, we might ask for volunteers who, if they make it, might earn some kind of reprieve, maybe even outright freedom, perhaps even some compensation, I don't know.

Like I said, this later portion of what I've posted has nothing to do with the Capital Punishment discussion --- other than maybe suggesting a useful way of killing those on Death Row. But personally I'm against Capital Punishment altogether, so I'm not suggesting that. But I don't see why those who're in prison for like forever, shouldn't have the chance, a select few of them who might be eligible, in medical terms, to do this.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Nope. Eye for an eye.That is the default.

For all crimes? Only for murder? Only for a particular subset of murders?

Your argument, so far as I understand it, is that it is axiomatic that people who kill should be killed. I can see why you refuse to engage with people who don't agree with you, because an axiom is no argument.

Dave

 

[Suddenly]

It seems that you are trying to suggest that people can't be against the death penalty if they are not against the the inherent cruelty of it, but you don't get to tell other people what their positions should be.

I get to critique opinions. If you do not hold those opinions then the critique does not apply.

Just that thinking that the death penalty is bad because executing the innocent is not at all acceptable while also thinking life in prison is worse than being executed is a heck of a combo. The result is innocent people are suffering more.

Add to that objections about the death penalty being more expensive and it gets worse. Why? The reason that death penalty case cost so much is that the defense is given way more resources and there is way more scrutiny in general. Facts establishing innocence are going to be way more likely to come to light in a trial where the defense has way more resources.

So at that point we have a system that, in order to save money, wants to avoid killing innocent people by making it more likely they suffer a fate worse than death. Which, holy crap.

Really, in a lot of these cases where evidence comes to light decades later that evidence might have been discovered at trial were the defense to be better resourced and better review required. The defendant would be spared spending most of a life wrongfully imprisoned and labeled a killer. If society is only willing to expend those kinds of resources if the potential penalty is death an innocent person is way better off facing the death penalty. Yeah, they might be killed, but that seems a pretty solid trade for a much better chance they don't spend the rest of their life in prison.

 

[Thermal]

Not your life. Nobody cares about your life. Again, the criminal justice system represents and serves the community generally.

Eeeennhh... kinda disagreed? The criminal justice system protects an individual, like a stalker victim, battered spouse or single murder victim without relying on the idea that the convicted might pose a threat to the community as a whole.

How is a community where the death penalty is imposed better off than one where it is not?

Recidivism. Also frees up room and board funds, and prison space for lesser offenders who will be rejoining society. More directly, it allows the community to rest assured that it's tax dollars are serving the community, and not providing tv and snacks for murderers. Money better spent and all.

And as noted, a death penalty trial with appeals is far more costly than a life sentence. Or maybe you'd like to eliminate appeals, too.

The trial happens one way or another, and we don't cry about the expense of that as an argument against trials, do we?

The appeals and execution processes are not expensive by nature. They are very artificially made to be very slow and expensive. That is actually fixable. The lawyers, being on the receiving end of virtually all the unnecessary expenses, may not like it, however.

Bloated and inefficient waste in the appeals process is not an argument against the death penalty. It's an argument for appeal process reform. When Saddam Hussein was convicted, the cost of his appeal process was a hood and length of rope from the hardware store. There is a certain tier of criminal where this treatment is warranted.

 

[Thermal]

Nope. Eye for an eye.That is the default.

Draconian default. So what do we do with a judge that sentences to death, and it is found later that he was wrong? Does the judge owe his life, on that default? Jurors? Attorneys?

 

[Suddenly]

The trial happens one way or another, and we don't cry about the expense of that as an argument against trials, do we?

Yes. This is why so many things get pled out and why so many sentences are draconian as to make pleas easier to coerce.

The appeals and execution processes are not expensive by nature. They are very artificially made to be very slow and expensive. That is actually fixable. The lawyers, being on the receiving end of virtually all the unnecessary expenses, may not like it, however.

Everything in this paragraph is wrong. Impressive, really.

Bloated and inefficient waste in the appeals process is not an argument against the death penalty. It's an argument for appeal process reform. When Saddam Hussein was convicted, the cost of his appeal process was a hood and length of rope from the hardware store. There is a certain tier of criminal where this treatment is warranted.

Who is deciding on the tier of criminal that gets less due process? You?

I mean, saying the US system should be more like wartime Iraq is a pretty wild take. I saw the video of Saddam being executed. It looked like a mob hit.

 

[Thermal]

Yes. This is why so many things get pled out and why so many sentences are draconian as to make pleas easier to coerce.

That would be a fair point, but then you say the sentence is draconian as a punishment for not copping a plea? That is downright criminal.

Everything in this paragraph is wrong. Impressive, really.

Thank you for that productive critique.

Who is deciding on the tier of criminal that gets less due process? You?

No. Thank you for asking. As I said earlier, figuring where that line is drawn is a trouble point. We don't wring out hands much when we instruct the military to go out and summarily execute in quantity. Not sure why an individual, with specific and we'll-proven evidence against him suddenly becomes a pining for the value of an individual life. You have those concerns about foreign civilians or conscripts, or do you feel more ok with greasing them?

I mean, saying the US system should be more like wartime Iraq is a pretty wild take. I saw the video of Saddam being executed. It looked like a mob hit.

Ya and we didn't raise much of a finger, despite essentially taking over the joint. It was an American execution via thumb-twiddling.

 

[Suddenly]

That would be a fair point, but then you say the sentence is draconian as a punishment for not copping a plea? That is downright criminal.

The system as it operates might not work the way you imagine.

Thank you for that productive critique.

Honestly that's the best I can do. I wouldn't even know where to start. It's just all wrong. If anything, the criminal system in most states is run on the cheap and that's where all these problems happen. We should be spending like 10x what we do. It is a scandal in the exact opposite direction you think it is.

No. Thank you for asking. As I said earlier, figuring where that line is drawn is a trouble point. We don't wring out hands much when we instruct the military to go out and summarily execute in quantity. Not sure why an individual, with specific and we'll-proven evidence against him suddenly becomes a pining for the value of an individual life. You have those concerns about foreign civilians or conscripts, or do you feel more ok with greasing them?

The point of being careful in the criminal justice system is not so much for the benefit of the accused in a vacuum as it is to check the state. If the state can just snatch people up those in charge of the system will inevitably turn towards political opponents.

The US engaging in a lot of deplorable foreign policy is a whole different thing. Same as people dying because they can't afford healthcare.

 

[Thermal]

The system as it operates might not work the way you imagine.

We are not talking about my imagination. We are talking about your words. As a refresher, your claim that "draconian sentences are handed down to make pleas easier to coerce." The operative words being draconian and coerce.

Honestly that's the best I can do. I wouldn't even know where to start. It's just all wrong. If anything, the criminal system in most states is run on the cheap and that's where all these problems happen. We should be spending like 10x what we do. It is a scandal in the exact opposite direction you think it is.

I'd agree that the funds should be better spent. From the court jazz I have been directly involved in, as a juror, defendant, and witness, 95% of the time in litigation is pure slow-mo soft-shoe. Which, oddly, thickly pads the wallets of lawyers and does not a damn thing for anyone else.

The point of being careful in the criminal justice system is not so much for the benefit of the accused in a vacuum as it is to check the state. If the state can just snatch people up those in charge of the system will inevitably turn towards political opponents.

The US engaging in a lot of deplorable foreign policy is a whole different thing. Same as people dying because they can't afford healthcare.

My point is that "oh but what if we are wrong and execute an innocent" tends to be bleated by those who have no problem with "collateral damage" done to foreigners. The specific excuses don't really matter.

 

[Suddenly]

We are not talking about my imagination. We are talking about your words. As a refresher, your claim that "draconian sentences are handed down to make pleas easier to coerce." The operative words being draconian and coerce.

Did I misspell something? I mean, you have my words wrong as the "handed down" part is something you put in there. The sentences being on the books are mostly what helps coerce plea deals, although you aren't far off in that those sentences are occasionally handed down and that gives the implied threat more credibility.

I'd agree that the funds should be better spent. From the court jazz I have been directly involved in, as a juror, defendant, and witness, 95% of the time in litigation is pure slow-mo soft-shoe. Which, oddly, thickly pads the wallets of lawyers and does not a damn thing for anyone else.

In the criminal system? Prosecutors and most public defenders are on salary. Trust me, we aren't stringing things out and if we were it isn't to make more money.

The civil system is a whole different world that I fled long ago.

My point is that "oh but what if we are wrong and execute an innocent" tends to be bleated by those who have no problem with "collateral damage" done to foreigners. The specific excuses don't really matter.

Apples and oranges. US military policy is a totally different context, and a lot of people who are anti-death penalty are also very critical of US military force anyway.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm too lazy to check is the entire discussion already degraded to one side that is arguing their point and another side arguing everything but their point? I bet it is.

 

[Thermal]

Did I misspell something? I mean, you have my words wrong as the "handed down" part is something you put in there. The sentences being on the books are mostly what helps coerce plea deals, although you aren't far off in that those sentences are occasionally handed down and that gives the implied threat more credibility.

Oh come on. I needed a verb, and "handed down" is fine for expressing a judge handing a verdict down from his position. You're bobbing and weaving now. As I said, your operative words were draconian, as opposed to fair, and coerce, as opposed to...well, anything legal or fair.

In the criminal system? Prosecutors and most public defenders are on salary. Trust me, we aren't stringing things out and if we were it isn't to make more money.

Wait...now all murder defendants are represented by public defenders? You are claiming that everyone from OJ to Kyle didn't have paid counsel who belabored the process? Or are you going to duck behind "oh I didn't say everyone" like you did with "passed down"?

The civil system is a whole different world that I fled long ago.

Which we weren't talking about and no one even mentioned so...ok.

Apples and oranges. US military policy is a totally different context, and a lot of people who are anti-death penalty are also very critical of US military force anyway.

Irrelevant. I'm addressing the argument used. The inviolate sanctity of an individual life and refusing the chance of error is not a valid argument If you freely accept it in any other context, running from self defense to military whoopsies to freaking abortion.

And keep in mind, I'm against the death penalty too, in all but the most extreme cases. What I am arguing is that it may be acceptable in the extremes (Gacy, Dahmer, McVeigh) but not so much when there is a feeble glimmer of doubt. Just like the expense is not an argument (fixable). The issue is when, not if, the State can take human life.

 

[Suddenly]

Oh come on. I needed a verb, and "handed down" is fine for expressing a judge handing a verdict down from his position. You're bobbing and weaving now. As I said, your operative words were draconian, as opposed to fair, and coerce, as opposed to...well, anything legal or fair.

Again, your point being what? I even said I didn't have much problem with your reformulation.

Wait...now all murder defendants are represented by public defenders? You are claiming that everyone from OJ to Kyle didn't have paid counsel who belabored the process? Or are you going to duck behind "oh I didn't say everyone" like you did with "passed down"?

When having systemic discussions people usually look to the bulk of cases rather than a negligible number of high profile situations. I mean, reasonable people anyway.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the threat of long sentences

"Legislators, too, help prosecutors gut the right to a trial by passing new laws with mandatory minimum sentences. Those laws give prosecutors more leverage in plea bargaining because they can offer defendants a deal in which they plead guilty to a lesser charge that doesn’t have a mandatory minimum. In some cases legislators have admitted that they voted for those mandatory minimums in order to give prosecutors greater sway. For example, in 2015, Senator Chuck Grassley successfully blocked efforts to lower the mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug crimes. Grassley opposed changing those sentences, because he thought the harsh drug laws served the “intended goal” of pressuring defendants to cooperate with law enforcement." The Atlantic

Elsewhere in this article it was written that a 2018 report indicated that the trial penalty increased one's sentence by threefold. "The threat of higher sentences puts “enormous pressure [on defendants] to plead,” Mary Pat Brown, a former federal prosecutor and senior official in the Justice Department told us." Human Rights Watch. The threat of the death penalty is something I have discussed in previous comments.

 

[Thor 2]

That is not the default. Nobody has provided a compelling reason that these murderers should be allowed to live.

Ahh ...... the old reverse the burden of truth trick. Always a good standby if you have nothing substantial to offer.

These has been a mountain of arguments presented here by opponents of the death penalty, (which your selective vision can't see), and a dearth of arguments presented by yourself, in spit of repeated requests for same.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Nope. Eye for an eye.That is the default.

If we are going to do the Bible thing..


Matt 5:38
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

 

[Thor 2]

If we are going to do the Bible thing..


Matt 5:38
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

A remarkable balancing act by our Jesus according to Mathew who also attributed the following words to him:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Thus endorsing to "eye for an eye" approach whilst pushing the forgiving line ....... remarkable dexterity.