Split Thread Why Capital punishment?

[Olmstead]

Not neuter. Streamline. Too many capital cases arrive at an execution verdict on sketchy evidence. One overriding independent review is all that is needed, to determine if there is any doubt about the verdict left. Much like what we have now, without the lower processes redundantly sucking up resources and throwing money away left and right.

So, if everyone was more competent, the process would be cheaper, and by making the process cheaper from the get go ... everyone will be more competent? Something about that math feels off.

 

[theprestige]

Not neuter. Streamline. Too many capital cases arrive at an execution verdict on sketchy evidence. One overriding independent review is all that is needed, to determine if there is any doubt about the verdict left. Much like what we have now, without the lower processes redundantly sucking up resources and throwing money away left and right.

Appeals are usually about due process, not about re-litigating the facts and arguments put before the jury. It's up to that jury to decide if the case is strong enough to support their verdict. That is the actual overriding independent review you're looking for. It's front-loaded in the process, and usually ends all debate on the question. What the appeals court does is review whether the process by which the case was made was proper. The prosecution did not cut any corners. The defense did not fail to seek every legal means to secure their client's acquittal. Etc.

So I don't think appeals work the way you seem to believe, nor that they will provide the remedy you envision.

---

Anyway, I'm one of those that think that capital crimes are a valid moral category, but that our society is too incompetent in matters of crime and punishment to have any business putting crimes in that category.

 

[Thermal]

Appeals are usually about due process, not about re-litigating the facts and arguments put before the jury. It's up to that jury to decide if the case is strong enough to support their verdict. That is the actual overriding independent review you're looking for. It's front-loaded in the process, and usually ends all debate on the question. What the appeals court does is review whether the process by which the case was made was proper. The prosecution did not cut any corners. The defense did not fail to seek every legal means to secure their client's acquittal. Etc.

So I don't think appeals work the way you seem to believe, nor that they will provide the remedy you envision.

I'm not proposing more of the same. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm thinking a unique Capital Review, with one objective as stated, not a relitigation or process review.

As an aside, I'd also rather not see 12 randos off the street determining a capital case. I think it's a powerhouse argument for professional jurors. But the argument for another thread.

 

[theprestige]

I'm not proposing more of the same. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm thinking a unique Capital Review, with one objective as stated, not a relitigation or process review.

That first trial is the Capital Review you're looking for. That's the entire point of that trial. If we can't make that trial rigorous enough for you, we won't be able to make the do-over rigorous enough either.

 

[Thermal]

That first trial is the Capital Review you're looking for. That's the entire point of that trial. If we can't make that trial rigorous enough for you, we won't be able to make the do-over rigorous enough either.

Sure we can. Have only legally trained professionals reviewing the evidence during Capital Review, with the power only to overturn execution and commute to Life based on standing doubt.

 

[theprestige]

Sure we can. Have only legally trained professionals reviewing the evidence during Capital Review, with the power only to overturn execution and commute to Life based on standing doubt.

That's just a do-over of a perfectly cromulent Capital Review. You're already putting all the evidence in front of a qualified panel*, and they've already reached a conclusion. Re-litigating a case already decided is perverse. Which is why we don't use the appeals process to re-litigate.

Either the trial process works, or it doesn't. If it works, there's no need to make a redundant process. If it doesn't, it should be made to work, not shored up with jury-rigged "corrective" processes.

---
*The exact qualifications are, as you say, a topic for another thread. Let's stipulate that the panel in the original trial meets whatever arbitrary standard of qualification you require.

 

[Thermal]

That's just a do-over of a perfectly cromulent Capital Review. You're already putting all the evidence in front of a qualified panel*, and they've already reached a conclusion. Re-litigating a case already decided is perverse. Which is why we don't use the appeals process to re-litigate.

Either the trial process works, or it doesn't. If it works, there's no need to make a redundant process. If it doesn't, it should be made to work, not shored up with jury-rigged "corrective" processes.

---
*The exact qualifications are, as you say, a topic for another thread. Let's stipulate that the panel in the original trial meets whatever arbitrary standard of qualification you require.

Let's not. That's my main requirement, that the review board/court be legal pros, much like an appellate court, not 12 off the street, whether professional peers or amateurs.

 

[theprestige]

Let's not. That's my main requirement, that the review board/court be legal pros, much like an appellate court, not 12 off the street, whether professional peers or amateurs.

You don't want to stipulate your main requirement, which I was already willing to stipulate?

I'm not going to argue about the optimal requirements for a jury panel in this thread. I'm just going to assume that the jury in question is whatever your ideal jury is supposed to look like.

And, again, the original trial is the independent capital review you're looking for. The entire point of that trial is to review the state's case, and reach an independent conclusion about whether the state is justified in taking someone's life. There doesn't need to be a second independent capital review of the original capital review. The original capital review is already that review. Anything more would just be do-overs until you get the result you want.

 

[Thermal]

You don't want to stipulate your main requirement, which I was already willing to stipulate?

The simple fact that there *is no" ideal jury is precisely why I would want an independent professional review. Changing the paradigm to "let's start with the perfect jury that needs no review pretty much by definition" is not a practical test, IMO.

I'm not going to argue about the optimal requirements for a jury panel in this thread. I'm just going to assume that the jury in question is whatever your ideal jury is supposed to look like.

Ideally, not jurors of peers, but we have a constitutional thingy in the way.

And, again, the original trial is the independent capital review you're looking for. The entire point of that trial is to review the state's case, and reach an independent conclusion about whether the state is justified in taking someone's life. There doesn't need to be a second independent capital review of the original capital review. The original capital review is already that review. Anything more would just be do-overs until you get the result you want.

The review I am proposing is a one-time check and balance against a bad jury call, which happens day and night in these United States. How many stories do we see of the condemned being exonerated after decades, then you read the trial and wonder how on earth 12 screwed the pooch so badly?

 

[theprestige]

The simple fact that there *is no" ideal jury is precisely why I would want an independent professional review. Changing the paradigm to "let's start with the perfect jury that needs no review pretty much by definition" is not a practical test, IMO.

This ends up being turtles all the way down.

"Let's start with a perfect prosecutor that needs no review" isn't a practical test either. Which is why the prosecution's case is reviewed by an independent panel - exactly what you are calling for.

You just don't like the current makeup of the independent panel. So you propose a second panel with your ideal makeup. I'm saying, just make your ideal panel the first panel, and that solves your problem without having an endless series of ever-more-expert panels re-litigating the same case over and over again just in case the predecessors got it wrong.

If your ideal panel is fit for purpose, then let that be the first panel to review the prosecution's case. What could be more streamlined than that?

ETA: Defendants already have the option of waiving their right to jury trial, and having a legal expert review the prosecutor's case instead. So your problem is already solved, and your preferred solution is already available to any defendant that wants it.

 

[Puppycow]

The second argument is that the system is error prone, and an incorrect execution is of such a greater injustice than a lesser penalty for someone who deserves death that we must err on the side of lesser penalties to avoid an unjustified execution.

Sometimes I wonder why it is that wrongful convictions sometimes occur under a system in which "beyond a reasonable doubt" is supposed to be the standard for reaching a guilty verdict.

If it does happen, even once, then clearly there was some room for "reasonable doubt".

Is it possible to formulate an even higher standard, like "absolute certainty" for example? Apparently there is some difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "absolute certainty". The fact that wrongful convictions have happened shows that this is the case.

 

[catsmate]

Cost is the only reason I have to oppose death penalty. And even then, it's with recognition that those costs are driven by 1) the large number of repeat appeals allowed to the condemned and 2) the ridiculous costs associated with our current inefficient and borderline inhumane methods of execution.

I have no moral opposition to executions; I have a pragmatic opposition to needless costs. Years ago I changed my policy position (not my principles) to support LWOP rather than death penalty, only because of the excessive costs.

So you have no problem with killing the wrong person?

 

[Darat]

Sometimes I wonder why it is that wrongful convictions sometimes occur under a system in which "beyond a reasonable doubt" is supposed to be the standard for reaching a guilty verdict.

If it does happen, even once, then clearly there was some room for "reasonable doubt".

Is it possible to formulate an even higher standard, like "absolute certainty" for example? Apparently there is some difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "absolute certainty". The fact that wrongful convictions have happened shows that this is the case.

"reasonable doubt" is about the case before the jury or judge, not about the justice system. Juries nor judges are not asked to make a determination based on the fact that juries and judges have made wrong decisions in the past.

Your standard would mean no one could ever be convicted of any crime.

 

[Darat]

Not neuter. Streamline. Too many capital cases arrive at an execution verdict on sketchy evidence. One overriding independent review is all that is needed, to determine if there is any doubt about the verdict left. Much like what we have now, without the lower processes redundantly sucking up resources and throwing money away left and right.

Regardless of how you ensure that this body could do such a review, such a body could not deal with evidence that becomes known after their review.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sometimes I wonder why it is that wrongful convictions sometimes occur under a system in which "beyond a reasonable doubt" is supposed to be the standard for reaching a guilty verdict.

No standard can ever be immune to any error. It is always possible to be wrong about how certain you are. You might be able to reduce errors in particular directions, but complete error elimination is impossible as long as humans are making decisions.

 

[Thermal]

This ends up being turtles all the way down.

"Let's start with a perfect prosecutor that needs no review" isn't a practical test either. Which is why the prosecution's case is reviewed by an independent panel - exactly what you are calling for.

You just don't like the current makeup of the independent panel. So you propose a second panel with your ideal makeup. I'm saying, just make your ideal panel the first panel, and that solves your problem without having an endless series of ever-more-expert panels re-litigating the same case over and over again just in case the predecessors got it wrong.

Again, no. What I am proposing is a simple dual panel system, checking and balancing each other. One of the constitutional jury of peers, and the other a review by a judicial board to safeguard against greivous jury error. Each compliments the other, not this rebuilding you are doing where you say I want an "ideal" panel. My model is founded on the idea that there is no ideal panel.

If your ideal panel is fit for purpose, then let that be the first panel to review the prosecution's case. What could be more streamlined than that?

For the reasons above. I don't think either is ideal, but both together are closer.

ETA: Defendants already have the option of waiving their right to jury trial, and having a legal expert review the prosecutor's case instead. So your problem is already solved, and your preferred solution is already available to any defendant that wants it.

A bench trial puts the whole verdict in the hands of one judge. That's as pretty radically far away from the multiple review process involving seperate panels as you can get.

On one point, you are correct. I don't like the current setup. An accused's very life should not be in the hands of a dozen randos off the street, who only get a very cursory questioning during jury selection to determine their suitability. It's like a round of The Bachelor, but instead of marrying a person you basically just met, they can kill you.

But I'm willing to let it drop.

 

[Chanakya]

I'm sure I've said it before but:
I don't oppose the death penalty. There are some folks that just can't be let out into society and its probably more humane than life in prison.

That being said, we get it wrong to often and sentence folks to death for crimes the didn't commit. We probably also kill people for crimes they did not commit.

Also, its very expensive but thats a very low concern relative to killing people.

I would agree with thermal but absolute certainty is just not a realistic goal.

As far as that, if humane is important, then the thing to do is to let them decide, rather than deciding on their behalf.

In the original thread it was suggested that they be given a menu, a range of options, and then allowed to choose which way they'd like to go out. I liked that idea.

Likewise, as far as the humane factor in our decision-making about whether to keep them all life long, or just kill them and put them out of their misery, then the way to decide that would be to let them decide that. As far as the humane angle, that is.

 

[Puppycow]

"reasonable doubt" is about the case before the jury or judge, not about the justice system. Juries nor judges are not asked to make a determination based on the fact that juries and judges have made wrong decisions in the past.

Your standard would mean no one could ever be convicted of any crime.

I don't think I quite understand your point. I was talking about individual cases where a jury apparently thought that there was no "reasonable doubt" that the defendant was guilty, and yet the defendant was not guilty, in fact.

And I was thinking about this higher standard of "absolute certainty" for only capital crimes. Are you saying that "absolute certainty" is unattainable? There must be some cases where there can be no doubt because there's just too much evidence to entertain any other conclusion.

 

[Ziggurat]

And I was thinking about this higher standard of "absolute certainty" for only capital crimes. Are you saying that "absolute certainty" is unattainable?

Not speaking for Darat, but I would say that juries can arrive at "absolute certainty" and still be wrong. Perhaps less often than a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, but it's possible.

 

[bruto]

No standard can ever be immune to any error. It is always possible to be wrong about how certain you are. You might be able to reduce errors in particular directions, but complete error elimination is impossible as long as humans are making decisions.

Indeed. After all, in all walks of life we meet people who are as certain as can be about things we are just as certain are wrong. And that doesn't even begin to address dishonesty. We have to work with what we have, and can always hope to do better, but perfection is a horizon we will never reach.