aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
Not very relevant. The article doesn't talk about punishing vs. not punishing. It's about punishing with the death penalty and not punishing with the death penalty.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
We already had the discussion about how many innocent, executed people would one be comfartable with.
However, the numbers in the article are based on opinion and nothing concrete. Statements like "may not have commited the crime" is nothing to go wild over.
However, the numbers in the article are based on opinion and nothing concrete. Statements like "may not have commited the crime" is nothing to go wild over.
I don't remember participating in that.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Well, what is your opinion since I did not see you offer one.
I personally find the point to be moot. Why institute a non-reversible consequence (capital punishment) for crimes when a reversible one (life in prison) is readily available. As I have stated before, a goverment should not be in the practice of executing its citizens, ever, at all. If, however, it feels it must execute some number if said citizens, then it had damn well be certain the correct persons are executed.
Right now of court system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a person of a capital offense. One can make a very compelling argument that the final and ultimate punishment is death. Why then, do we not demand ultimate proof before we enforce the ultimate price? Can absolute proof be provided? Can someone prove beyond ANY and ALL doubt a particular someone committed a crime? Perhaps we cannot be so certain; perhaps we should not be taking lives then either.
Death cannot be undone, release fryears in prison, while they cannot be given back, still mean you are alive.
There is no number of guilty lives worth the taking of just one innocent life.
Santa
Right now of court system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a person of a capital offense. One can make a very compelling argument that the final and ultimate punishment is death. Why then, do we not demand ultimate proof before we enforce the ultimate price? Can absolute proof be provided? Can someone prove beyond ANY and ALL doubt a particular someone committed a crime? Perhaps we cannot be so certain; perhaps we should not be taking lives then either.
Death cannot be undone, release fryears in prison, while they cannot be given back, still mean you are alive.
There is no number of guilty lives worth the taking of just one innocent life.
Santa
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
In what way is life in prison reversible?
If they find you innocent, do they put you in the Rejuvenation Box? Do you get those years back? Do you get those friends and lovers back? What about children? Do you get those back as well? And if you have AIDS from being raped in prison, do they give you the ultra-secret cure?
Do you even get a pension?
Let's see...
You are dead. Cannot be reversed. You cannot be made alive again
You are in prison. Can be reversed. You are released from prison.
No, you cannot be given back the time that was lost while in prison, but you ARE STILL ALIVE. Perhaps no punishment at all should be meted out because whatever has been issued cannot be retrieved. The person being punished might be innocent, so, let's not punish them. What I am saying that you are not DEAD if you are in prison.
Also, do you have some evidence indicating you will definitely lose friends and family and lovers if you are in prison? Do you have some evidence that one will get AIDS or even raped while in prison? Perhaps you can supply some.
Santa
Grammie, I thought it was implicit around these here parts that if you offer a link with a quote and you don't comment, then you are essentially endorsing what you're quoting. You also have debated with me enough times to know that, in all probability, I'm not a supporter of the death penalty.
One of the reasons why I don't support the death penalty is the fact that a death sentence is not reversible.
AmateurScientist
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2001
- Messages
- 5,268
In my opinion, the whole "how many innocent men or women" argument misses the point regarding the death penalty. If you are against the death penalty for moral or principled reasons, it doesn't matter how many innocent persons might be executed. Those morals or principles remain inviolate, despite any empirical or theoretical numbers.
Personally, I'm against the death penalty due to my strongly held belief that it should never be within the state's (or the people's) authority to decide whether or not to take the life of its citizens or those under its lawful jurisdiction. Never.
It does not matter how reprehensible a person may be (e.g., Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer). The state should not have the authority to take their lives.
Execution is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder.
AS
Personally, I'm against the death penalty due to my strongly held belief that it should never be within the state's (or the people's) authority to decide whether or not to take the life of its citizens or those under its lawful jurisdiction. Never.
It does not matter how reprehensible a person may be (e.g., Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer). The state should not have the authority to take their lives.
Execution is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder.
AS
See, I have leapt to the oh-so-wonderful high ground and I oppose capital punishment for non-reversible principle and the "state-sanctioned" murder principle.
Santa
Which is a great example of why I respect your opinion, AS. I disagree with it, but I respect it.
You come right out and say what it is you have a problem with. You aren't trying to hide behind a "someone innocent might get executed" excuse, while in reality not wanting ANYONE executed.
If someone is against the death penalty because they consider it murder, that's an opinion I can respect. But if someone instead talks around the issue, and is always falling back on the "someone innocent might get executed" line, because they think that they can get more sympathy to their cause, I consider that to be a bit deceptive.
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
Wow! Thanks for hettin' me up, daddy-o.
Your straw man is noted and disregarded.
My points are as follows:
First, the happy-happy joy-joyness of letting someone who is innocent out of prison after a long time is mostly for the benefit of the average Joe, who can go back to being complacent about Justice, and not so much for the benefit of the convict.
Second, I am quite worried that the effects of imprisonment inure the average Joe against the wrongness of punishing an innocent person, and I am not quite comfortable with the trivialization of this on the grounds that it can be "reversed."
Third, you should stop saying "reversed." It isn't reversed. Life imprisonment can be meliorated or ended, but not reversed. The fact that you use the word "reversed" indicated to me that I'm likely right about my first and second points.
Fourth, because of the aforementioned points, I think there's a real danger of jurors considering life imprisonment as trivial compared to execution and so applying poor standards of judgement of evidence, either because they think it takes the pressure off them, or because they're pissed that they can't hang him.
There are others, but I'll save them.
Because of this, I don't think that this argument against capital punishment is particularly good.
No, of course it will not definitely happen. And if you are shot in the head, it is not true that you will definitely die, but that's the way to bet.
Are you asserting that this does not happen? If so, you might start with Stephen Donaldson.
Or do you just consider it irrelevant, if it is not definite? In this case, perhaps we should scrap imprisonment altogether. Just make someone pick a tablet from a bowl of tablets. A certain percentage are poison and will cause death. The percentage is based on the severity of the crime.
I would personally rather be killed right this moment than spend decades in prison and released later for a crime I didn't commit. Prison isn't always preferable to death. Not for me, at least.
I do not see why it is deceptive but I am not sure of your use of the word "sympathy". I would use the phrase "bolster my argument."
I am not morally opposed to the death penalty, however I do oppose the death penalty.
Here is my moral position in a nutshell. If the person has committed enough heinous crimes I would morally support the death penalty. If a properly convicted lifer commits a murder in jail, I think the death penalty is the appropriate punishment. If a person has committed a murder, gone to jail, gotten released and commits another murder, I think the death penalty is appropriate. I would never give the death penalty for the first serious crime.
However, through family experience and some research, I am convinced that the US legal system is fundamentally flawed. In the case I am most familiar with, I saw illegal actions by police (in two states), judges (in two states), probation officers and prosecutors. I also saw so called "expert" witnesses who make a living by giving misleading to police and jurors. I saw an appeals court decide that one of two counts of conviction was improper but refused to reconsider the sentence. In this case, I started with some doubt as to the defendants innocence, however reading the transcript proved the defendant was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Neverless, this man was convicted. (BTW, this man was quite intelligent, had a good lawyer and no previous convictions)
In Illinois approximately 10% of the people on death row, were later found not guilty (which I understand is different from innocent) on the charges they were convicted on. Illinois is probably worse than average but there probably were more who were wrongly convicted. I think a 10% mistake rate is a reasonable estimate for capital cases. Since capital defendants are more likely to get decent lawyers, I would imagine the overall mistake rate is much higher.
From a pragmatic POV, I can no longer support the death penalty. I think the false conviction rate is too high. There are certainly cases where the defendant clearly deserves to die but I do not think are legal system is capable of sorting these people from the innocent.
CBL
No, but it does say something about the people making the argument. I like to know WHY people are arguing for what they are. Motivation is an extremely important part of human existence. I tend to look down on people when they try to hide their motivations, which leads me to tuning out their argument. But then, I admit to being quite a bit on the untrusting and paranoid side.