Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[Matteo Martini]

Well, (obviously) everyone doesn't agree with you.

Now what?

Basically, I do.

If only one wrongful execution happens, nothing differentiates the state from a cold blood, premedidate, murderer..

 

[Matteo Martini]

You can be. Of that there is no doubt. I'm saying he would not have been.

On which basis, you say that the husband who performed an intentional, premeditated, not-under-menace murder of a guy who. by the law, is 100% innocent, would not have been sent to death?

And yes, under US law, OJ is innocent, and that law should be followed to the letter in every aspect. And, in my not very humble opinion, OJ killed Ron Goldman. That's why I used that case as an example. It's similar to your OP, in that a man who was obviously guilty was acquitted. If the family of the victims killed him, I would say they should be prosecuted, but I would have a difficult time calling their actions immoral.

OK.
Then, the husband, if found guilty, he could also be sent to death ( see above ).
Do we agree??

 

[Matteo Martini]

(Emphasis added.)
No, I don't. You made the claim, not me. You need to prove the death penalty is wrong, per your OP title, not cross examine everyone else here.

You wrote:
" Since the OP title claims you can prove to all of us the death penalty is wrong, why do you restrict your attention to just the subset who think the husband's hypothetical act was moral?

I feel so left out. "

I assumed you meant that the husband hypothetical act was, in your opinion, immoral.

Therefore, if you are pro-death penalty, why, had the jury sent the burglar to die, that act was moral?

Why the jury yes and the husband no?

 

[Yiab]

Why do you think food companies take samples of a production line?

Food companies take samples from their production lines since they know that the chance of a given product being bad is independent of whether or not that product is chosen for sampling, hence they can assume that their small sample is representative of the whole.
On the other hand with the death penalty whether a person is later exonerated is most definitely not independent of whether or not they are executed. We don't know what the relationship is, really, but we know that there is one so we cannot say that the statistics for the entire group (1/9 later found innocent) will apply to a smaller portion of that group (the number actually executed) - that smaller portion is not randomly selected.

 

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini
Ron Goldman, by the U.S. law, was not killed by O.J. Simpson.nocent, you can be sent to death ( by the law )

And yes, under US law, OJ is innocent, and that law should be followed to the letter in every aspect. And, in my not very humble opinion, OJ killed Ron Goldman.

And for what it's worth, while OJ was found not guilty (not "innocent") under criminal law, he was found to be responsible for the death(s) under civil law.

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini
Ron Goldman, by the U.S. law, was not killed by O.J. Simpson.nocent, you can be sent to death ( by the law )

That's not really correct either. Under US criminal law, O.J. was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He (like most other defendants found not guilty) was not found "innocent".

I'm sure that seems like nitpicking, but when you're talking about criminal law it often comes down to nitpicking. If it didn't there wouldn't be years of appeals to resolve all the nitpicks.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You get nowhere even close to addressing the point of my post.

I am talking about pest control, the same way one puts down a rabid dog.

As for the death penalty being applied differently in different states and for different ethnic or socio-economic groups, that's a problem with the system, not the penalty itself.

Agreed, it is an inconsistency, but then, the states reserve all powers, etc.

And as for the amount of time it takes to get the death penalty through the appeals process, is this not a good thing?

No, other than to remedy the problem of the checks and balances in the system not filtering the cases that warrant capital punishment better.

It allows time for new evidence to come to light, increasing the chances of exoneration for the wrongfully convicted.

You seem to presume the wrongfully convicted as the norm.

The question is whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent. If you can't show that it is, then why would you be in favour of it?

Did you read and digest my reply to Tricky a few pages back? It was short and concise.

To both you and Last of Fraggles: it is apparent that in the case of both Illinois and Texas, there is room to improve the process and standards, in terms of tightening them, the evidentiary standards in particular, that underly the criterion under which the death penalty becomes an option as a punishment/sentence. Your concerns about wrongful application are heard, and are concerns worth hearing, and exploring remedy to. Tightening up those standards would increase confidence in the system and reduce to "near zero" wrongful convictions, and thus answer your original complaint: the core problem of the death penalty is in the chance of wrongful application.

Rather than take an absolutist, throw up one's hands approach, process improvement is another option to explore. One worth taking, IMO, as I believe the collateral effects will be a benefit to evidentiary standards in other cases as well.

I won't invoke the "all or nothing fallacy" counter since I understand the principles behind the sentiment that the death penalty has more wrong with it, under some world views, than only the chance of wrongful application. I do not share that view. Some dogs need putting down.

DR

 

[Meadmaker]

On which basis, you say that the husband who performed an intentional, premeditated, not-under-menace murder of a guy who. by the law, is 100% innocent, would not have been sent to death?



OK.
Then, the husband, if found guilty, he could also be sent to death ( see above ).
Do we agree??

Certainly the law would allow the death penalty in such a case.*

The question is whether it would be sought and, if sought, whether it would be assigned.

In the United States, the administration of the death penalty in notoriously uneven. That's one of the problems with it, and the reason it was briefly declared unconstitutional in 1973. It was decided that the system was horribly unfair. Generally, if the prosecutor seeks the death penalty, it is because he thinks the jury will have little sympathy for the defendant.

In this case, what you have presented us with is a case in which the accused (the husband) has had his wife and son murdered. The accused firmly believes that the victim was in fact the murderer. As presented, there is also good reason to believe that the accused is correct, and that a jury might be persuaded that he was merely doing a job that the courts failed to do. That generates a lot of sympathy for the victim. In such a case a prosecutor in America would have reason to fear that he could get a conviction at all, because he knows that all it takes is one person out of 12 to say "not guilty". If the prosecutor goes all the way and asks for the death penalty, he knows that that one person might hold out and refuse to convict, regardless of the evidence.

One thing you haven't told us about in the hypothetical example is anything about the public lives of the husband or of the (original) murderer. Whether or not it ought to make a difference, if the husband was a crack addicted unemployed loser who was living off his wife's income, he would be much more likely to be executed than if he were an investment banker who voluteered at the local food bank. Likewise, if the newly deceased had reformed his life in the 10 years since the original murders, and was now a model citizen, that would play a role. If he was still a ne'er do well suspected of breaking into peoples' homes, you might manage a conviction for disorderly conduct on the guy who shot him.

*Actually, in the United States, there must be "special circumstances" to qualify for the death penalty, and I don't know whether the case you have presented would qualify in every state where the death penalty is allowed. Here in Michigan, you just don't hear about that sort of thing, because we don't have the death penalty. Our state was one of the first to abolish it, way back in the early 19th century.

 

[jsfisher]

You wrote:
" Since the OP title claims you can prove to all of us the death penalty is wrong, why do you restrict your attention to just the subset who think the husband's hypothetical act was moral?

I feel so left out. "

I assumed you meant that the husband hypothetical act was, in your opinion, immoral.

Don't assume that.

Therefore, if you are pro-death penalty, why, had the jury sent the burglar to die, that act was moral?

Why the jury yes and the husband no?

Again, you are making unwarranted assumptions. That aside, though, it was not I who made the claim in the OP title. You did. It is for you to present your arguments defending your position. You have not done that, yet.

 

[wollery]

No, I am arguing that a man who committed premeditated murder IN THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE should not be found guilty and I would, if possible, aid toward that end. Specifically since if he is found guilty the judge cannot be trusted to let him off with time served and the thanks of the court.

So, let me get this straight.

You're on the jury for a man charged with premeditated murder. He claims that the victim killed his wife and daughter, a charge of which the victim was acquitted. There is no doubt about the guilt of the man now on trial, there were several witnesses, he still had the gun, powder residue on his hands, he'd talked about killing the victim before he did it. He offers no alibi, actually admits he did it, but claims mitigating circumstances, because he claims that 18 months ago the victim killed his wife and daughter. He is utterly certain of that, but the jury that tried the victim weren't.

You would vote not guilty in the above scenario?

Remember, you can have no actual knowledge of whether or not the victim really did kill the man's wife and daughter, you just have his word for it.

 

[wollery]

I am talking about pest control, the same way one puts down a rabid dog.

You can test for rabies and get a definitive result. How do you do that with acts of crime?

Agreed, it is an inconsistency, but then, the states reserve all powers, etc.

So can we please limit the discussion to problems/benefits of the death penalty itself.

No, other than to remedy the problem of the checks and balances in the system not filtering the cases that warrant capital punishment better.

Which was precisely my point!

You seem to presume the wrongfully convicted as the norm.

No. I'm certain that far more of those sentenced to death are guilty. But a not insignificant number are innocent. You seem to think it's acceptable to kill a few innocent people in order to kill a lot of guilty people that could be incarcerated and controlled without killing them.

Did you read and digest my reply to Tricky a few pages back? It was short and concise.

It was very concise. All you said was, "pest control". Is that all you have to offer by way of an argument?

Where does that argument end? At the risk of Godwinning this thread, the Nazis considered the extermination of the Jews as "pest control". It's a very weak argument, and leads you to places that I really don't think you want to go.

To both you and Last of Fraggles: it is apparent that in the case of both Illinois and Texas, there is room to improve the process and standards, in terms of tightening them, the evidentiary standards in particular, that underly the criterion under which the death penalty becomes an option as a punishment/sentence. Your concerns about wrongful application are heard, and are concerns worth hearing, and exploring remedy to. Tightening up those standards would increase confidence in the system and reduce to "near zero" wrongful convictions, and thus answer your original complaint: the core problem of the death penalty is in the chance of wrongful application.

Of course, it would be nice if we could reduce the number of wrongful convictions to zero, but it ain't gonna happen!

Rather than take an absolutist, throw up one's hands approach, process improvement is another option to explore. One worth taking, IMO, as I believe the collateral effects will be a benefit to evidentiary standards in other cases as well.

I won't invoke the "all or nothing fallacy" counter since I understand the principles behind the sentiment that the death penalty has more wrong with it, under some world views, than only the chance of wrongful application. I do not share that view. Some dogs need putting down.

DR

In my opinion the evidentiary standards argument is extremely cut and dried. The death sentence should only be applied in cases were the guilt is 100% certain, and this is the problem - there are very few cases where that is true.

And this goes back to the pest control argument. A rabid dog is provably rabid, and you put it down for several reasons. First, so it won't attack people and give them rabies. Second, so it won't spread rabies to other animals which might then attack more people. Third, because it is ill and suffering.

In the case of convicted murderers the second and third points don't apply, and the first is not necessarily provable.

 

[fuelair]

So, let me get this straight.

You're on the jury for a man charged with premeditated murder. He claims that the victim killed his wife and daughter, a charge of which the victim was acquitted. There is no doubt about the guilt of the man now on trial, there were several witnesses, he still had the gun, powder residue on his hands, he'd talked about killing the victim before he did it. He offers no alibi, actually admits he did it, but claims mitigating circumstances, because he claims that 18 months ago the victim killed his wife and daughter. He is utterly certain of that, but the jury that tried the victim weren't.

You would vote not guilty in the above scenario?

Remember, you can have no actual knowledge of whether or not the victim really did kill the man's wife and daughter, you just have his word for it.

You left out a couple of things - his lawyer is (unless totally incompetant) going to bring in the police (who believe the guy is right) and the most upstanding of the friends (who also believe he is) to testify. Since I do not believe in any way that 12 non-randomly selected people are going to be qualified to actually evaluate evidence (I would have to hide my abilities to even get on a jury)(fortunately, I am very good on personality surveys/interviews- have been since I got interested in the topic of evaluations and surveys during the middle of my senior year in high school (it was just an off interest prior to that) and know that more often than not the prosecutor is looking for a promotion not the truth (and obviously similar may be said of the defense), I would trust the testimony and go for innocent. i.e. I would then have gigantic reason to believe the story was correct AND I loathe guilty going free and fully support revenge killing for acts of that type. There is no argument that can sway me on that any more than there is one that could make me support anti-abortionists, PETAfile, Nazis,etc. More directly (and a restatement of what I have said multiple times. If my wife (or a number of other persons of interest) were to be murdered, beaten, raped, etc. (victim of violent crime) if I find the absolutely sure perp first, trial will not matter or be necessary. If not, and they go to jail, I can be patient - they wll be released someday (though I could live with them dying in prison if it was appropriate/ equivalent to my plan for them).
I am a happy and friendly person most of the time, don't have bad dreams, do my best to help people. I just have a problem with violence from others.

 

[balrog666]

Basically, I do.

If only one wrongful execution happens, nothing differentiates the state from a cold blood, premedidate, murderer..

Again, so what? Why should anybody give a tinker's damn what you think?

 

[jsfisher]

You left out a couple of things - his lawyer is (unless totally incompetant) going to bring in the police (who believe the guy is right) and the most upstanding of the friends (who also believe he is) to testify....

I was under the impression there were legal principles that prohibited that sort of thing...one of the estoppels, perhaps?

 

[Tricky]

You can test for rabies and get a definitive result. How do you do that with acts of crime?

Actually, you normally kill a dog to test it for rabies. For humans, you take the shots if you don't know whether or not the animal was rabid.

No. I'm certain that far more of those sentenced to death are guilty. But a not insignificant number are innocent. You seem to think it's acceptable to kill a few innocent people in order to kill a lot of guilty people that could be incarcerated and controlled without killing them.

Actually, very few people are executed in comparison to how many are convicted of killing someone. Thus, the number of innocent ones that are executed are much smaller than that. Execution (again, IMO) should be reserved for the ones you never expect to release. What is the point of keeping them alive?

It was very concise. All you said was, "pest control". Is that all you have to offer by way of an argument?

That was said in agreement with me, not as an argument to someone disagreeing with him. Of course, it is an oversimplification, but the whole idea is to make things work out for the greater good. Murderers, even those who never leave prison, have been know to try to kill again, with some degree of success. Since they have nothing to lose (if there is no death penalty), why not?

Where does that argument end? At the risk of Godwinning this thread, the Nazis considered the extermination of the Jews as "pest control". It's a very weak argument, and leads you to places that I really don't think you want to go.

Yes, you are at severe risk of Godwinning the thread. The Nazis did not try the Jews in a court of law and sentence them under a criminal code. There is no reasonable comparison to US criminal code. I am all in favor of giving accused murderers reasonable legal protection to try to minimize miscarriages of justice. I am not so naive as to believe it will be foolproof.

Of course, it would be nice if we could reduce the number of wrongful convictions to zero, but it ain't gonna happen!

No, it won't. You're not going to reduce the number of murders in prison to zero either, but it should be something you try to minimize.

In my opinion the evidentiary standards argument is extremely cut and dried. The death sentence should only be applied in cases were the guilt is 100% certain, and this is the problem - there are very few cases where that is true.

And as you know that is an impossible benchmark. As soon as you can provide a system that makes it 100% certain that no murderer will kill again, then I'll agree to that benchmark.

And this goes back to the pest control argument. A rabid dog is provably rabid, and you put it down for several reasons. First, so it won't attack people and give them rabies. Second, so it won't spread rabies to other animals which might then attack more people. Third, because it is ill and suffering.

I didn't make the "rabid dog" argument, but you should recognize that it is a figure of speech. The point is that we sometimes kill things to protect people. I see no reason why humans should be excluded from the things we kill to protect people. Obviously, we should try to make it as reliable as possible that we are killing a human that is a danger to others, but the protection of innocents trumps the chance of miscarriage of justice.

Unless you are arguing that one should never, under any circumstances, kill another human, even if they are attacking you or your family, then you cannot logically say that killing another human is always wrong. You simply draw the lines of protection differently.

In the case of convicted murderers the second and third points don't apply, and the first is not necessarily provable.

The third point could indeed apply. Depending on how you define "ill", murderers could indeed be called "ill". If they are in prison for life, then they are indeed suffering. When you euthanize ill and suffering animals, do you think they are happy to die, even if ill and suffering? Of course not. It is a decision we make because we think we know better than them. The same could be said for euthanizing murderers.

 

[Tricky]

If only one wrongful execution happens, nothing differentiates the state from a cold blood, premedidate, murderer..

That is completely incorrect. If a person is wrongfully put to death even after fair and reasonable legal representation, that that is much more akin to accidental death rather than premeditated murder. It is as if you were aiming a gun at a criminal who was attacking your family and you missed and killed a neighbor. You didn't murder him. You killed the wrong person accidentally while trying to do the right thing.

It is horrible and tragic, but It is not murder, nor would you refuse to protect your family in the future because you had once killed the wrong person.

 

[wollery]

I think people are misunderstanding my position, so let me make it as clear as possible.

I have no problem with the death sentence, per se. If you can prove, beyond any doubt, that someone has murdered, and will murder again, then by all means execute them. Hell, I'll pull the switch, I have no problem with that. But only if there is absolutely no doubt.

 

[Tricky]

I think people are misunderstanding my position, so let me make it as clear as possible.

I have no problem with the death sentence, per se. If you can prove, beyond any doubt, that someone has murdered, and will murder again, then by all means execute them. Hell, I'll pull the switch, I have no problem with that. But only if there is absolutely no doubt.

But wollery, as a skeptic you should know that there are no absolutes. You do the things that you think are best for the greatest number. You will be wrong sometimes. You try to learn from it. If you're expecting perfection from any system, much less one as fraught with pitfalls as the legal system, then you simply have unrealistic expectations.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You can test for rabies and get a definitive result. How do you do that with acts of crime?

Evidence. Ya know, corpses, mutilated bodies, fingerprints, DNA.

So can we please limit the discussion to problems/benefits of the death penalty itself.

No. You seem to pretend that if you argue long enough, that surely only your point of view will end up. What makes you think I have any intention of adopting your PoV, your all or nothing stance on human error?
No.

You seem to think it's acceptable to kill a few innocent people in order to kill a lot of guilty people that could be incarcerated and controlled without killing them.

Yes. I'll take the small system errors as within a tightly controlled process. And another turn in error reduction ought to be taken. Narrow the tolerance for error.

It was very concise. All you said was, "pest control". Is that all you have to offer by way of an argument?

No, and if you'd bother to read the whole post, you'd see that. Really, there were three elements that Tricky raised, and I noted my position was a fusion of all three. Ya know, synthesis.

Where does that argument end?

What argument? The one you made up? The one you are having with yourself?

At the risk of Godwinning this thread, the Nazis considered the extermination of the Jews as "pest control".

Inane slippery slope noted, and forgiven, as you tend to make decent points. That wasn't one of them, in fact, it was a pointless derail.

It's a very weak argument, and leads you to places that I really don't think you want to go.

Since I am not advocating genocide of a race, but punishment based on evidence and acts, stop wasting your time on that.

Of course, it would be nice if we could reduce the number of wrongful convictions to zero, but it ain't gonna happen!

You are probably right about that. I again am willing to accept the miniscule percentage of error, particularly if better standards can tighten it down further.

In my opinion the evidentiary standards argument is extremely cut and dried. The death sentence should only be applied in cases were the guilt is 100% certain, and this is the problem.

All or nothing seems to be your position. Utopia is not a real place.
There are, compared to capital crimes committed, very fuew sentences of death assigned.

In the case of convicted murderers the second and third points don't apply, and the first is not necessarily provable.

I see, the dead bodies and blood, parts, and lead fragments can be ignored. ?? I don't think so.

On to your deterrent hang up. The great unknown is how much of a deterrent the death penalty is. The reason that is so tough to wrassle with is that keeping stastics of murders not committed is very tough.

Just this evening, in my neighborhood, no murder was committed. Was any of that due to the death penalty as a deterrent? Don't know, and I don't think we can know. I doubt it.

We do know that it isn't a perfect deterrent, but since I don't subscribe to a standard of perfection, that doesn't bother me too much either.

I don't think life in prison with no chance for parole is a humane punishment, at all. May as well put a bullet to his head. If there is a chance for parole, and a no fooling intent and capacity to rehabilitate, I'd see reasoning to far better support a very different position for some capital offenses.

Some, however, are beyond the pale, way out past six sigma's boundaries of remotely civil behavior.

There is no loss in their feeding plants. The sooner the better.

DR

 

[wollery]

Okay, the Nazi analogy was a very poor one, I apologise.

I think that the entire argument we're having has now come down to personal opinions about what is and isn't acceptable, and I know that, just as you won't change my mind about it I won't change yours. I understand and accept your point of view. It differs from mine, but that's what makes this world interesting. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Okay, the Nazi analogy was a very poor one, I apologise.

I think that the entire argument we're having has now come down to personal opinions about what is and isn't acceptable, and I know that, just as you won't change my mind about it I won't change yours. I understand and accept your point of view. It differs from mine, but that's what makes this world interesting. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Handsomely said, W. I agree that we agree to disagree.

*tips cap*

DR