The reason for a death penalty

[Tricky]

Claus - laws very rarely manage to provide 100% clear listed distinctions and definitions, mainly because the world of human interactions and behaviour can not be described in such ways.

Many laws in all countries require the judgment of the legal system to determine whether someone falls under a certain piece of legislation or not. Someone not being able to provide a definitive list of all people to be covered by a law cannot be used as a strong argument against the a law since in many instances such a list is simply not possible.

So let me get this straight. Are you trying to tell me that every case is different?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Claus - laws very rarely manage to provide 100% clear listed distinctions and definitions, mainly because the world of human interactions and behaviour can not be described in such ways.

Many laws in all countries require the judgment of the legal system to determine whether someone falls under a certain piece of legislation or not. Someone not being able to provide a definitive list of all people to be covered by a law cannot be used as a strong argument against the a law since in many instances such a list is simply not possible.

Darat:

I have found, over the years, that pedants and pin dancing angels like to exercise the fallacy of the perfect rule. It shows me a profound insecurity with life as it is, and a mania for control, or at least a wish for it, that I consider unbalanced.

The demands for 'perfect' laws is a similar matter.

This is what makes computer programming so seductive to some: the imperfections in rule and syntax have rational explanations, in a program not running or running at cross purposes with the intent formed in the imperfect human mind using pure rules to create something.

DR

 

[bigred]

If I convict someone unjustly, and they're in jail, I can correct it, albeit after the fact.

You can't correct the time they've already spent in jail. Kind of a slippery slope.....

And there's the rub. Again, I think we should be willing to err to the excessive side.

I don't disagree. We just draw our lines in diff places, I think.

So, what do you think about the Cowboy's chances this year?

The same as our chances of completely agreeing on this subject.

This is what makes computer programming so seductive to some: the imperfections in rule and syntax have rational explanations, in a program not running or running at cross purposes with the intent formed in the imperfect human mind using pure rules to create something.

A most astute observation. I think I'll show it to the more obnoxious techie dorks around here just to get a rise out of em.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus - laws very rarely manage to provide 100% clear listed distinctions and definitions, mainly because the world of human interactions and behaviour can not be described in such ways.

Many laws in all countries require the judgment of the legal system to determine whether someone falls under a certain piece of legislation or not. Someone not being able to provide a definitive list of all people to be covered by a law cannot be used as a strong argument against the a law since in many instances such a list is simply not possible.

Oh, I'm perfectly aware of that. But justice is not "every case is different", period. Justice is treating similar crimes the same way - precedent. You commit crime X, the precedent is that you get punishment f(X). It's the principles of justice.

Then, there can be circumstances that weigh either way, either getting you a more strict sentence, or maybe let you off easier.

But: We are not just talking about throwing people in jail here. We are talking about people who Tricky wants to see killed. That ups the ante quite a bit.

Tricky has gotten himself entangled in a web of flimsy demands of exterminations of groups of people he simply cannot distinguish from those groups he doesn't want to kill. There's no principle of justice behind Tricky's demand, just a lust for blood.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky has gotten himself entangled in a web of flimsy demands of exterminations of groups of people he simply cannot distinguish from those groups he doesn't want to kill. There's no principle of justice behind Tricky's demand, just a lust for blood.

I'll provide you a list of exactly who I would execute as soon as you provide me the exact names of all the sky marshalls you would kill.

 

[bigred]

Please do not feed the trolls.

 

[D'rok]

Oh, I'm perfectly aware of that. But justice is not "every case is different", period. Justice is treating similar crimes the same way - precedent. You commit crime X, the precedent is that you get punishment f(X). It's the principles of justice.

No. That's the principle of stare decisis. Sometimes, in fact quite often, stare decisis is antithetical to Justice. That's why judges (in common law jurisdictions) are allowed to deviate from precedent.

 

[Darat]

Oh, I'm perfectly aware of that. But justice is not "every case is different", period. Justice is treating similar crimes the same way - precedent. You commit crime X, the precedent is that you get punishment f(X). It's the principles of justice.

The "principle of justice" as opposed to legality is very much that each case should be judged on its merits not on what has gone on in the past. However most countries develop a legal system that is a pragmatic balance between precedent and the court judging a case entirely on its own merit.

You have tried to argue that Tricky's opinion, that the death sentence should be the appropriate sentence for certain crimes, is wrong by stating that if he can't supply a definitive list of all such people or rather the crimes they would have had to have committed his opinion is shown to be valueless.

However since we have the real world evidence that the legal system in the USA (and most of the world) does not in fact legislate in such a manner your argument is shown to be flawed - remember facts trump mere opinions every-time. This is especially so since he has already given you an example of the type of crimes he thinks the death penalty should apply to. It is not more difficult in principle to enter that into legalisation than any other law that distinguishes between different types or degree of crime.

It is the argument you are trying to use to demonstrate that Tricky's opinion is wrong that is in fact wrong.

I personally don't agree with Tricky's opinion as it does not address my primary objections to the death sentence.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Aww buggery, I pressed 'quote' instead of 'nominate'

 

[richardm]

You can't correct the time they've already spent in jail.

Maybe not literally, but you can restore their liberty and compensate them for your mistake. You can't bring them back from the dead.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'll provide you a list of exactly who I would execute as soon as you provide me the exact names of all the sky marshalls you would kill.

None. But you knew that already.

Your call.

No. That's the principle of stare decisis. Sometimes, in fact quite often, stare decisis is antithetical to Justice. That's why judges (in common law jurisdictions) are allowed to deviate from precedent.

I said:

Justice is treating similar crimes the same way - precedent. You commit crime X, the precedent is that you get punishment f(X).

Precedent
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.
Source

Stare decisis (Latin: ['sta?re de?'ki?si?s], Anglicisation: ['ste?? di'sa?s?s], "to stand by things decided") is a Latin legal term, used in common law systems to express the notion that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents, according to case law.
Source

You are the first one who killed someone (hello, Cain!). What to do? Mumbling in the corners. Off with your head! Better do that with other killers, too.

The "principle of justice" as opposed to legality is very much that each case should be judged on its merits not on what has gone on in the past. However most countries develop a legal system that is a pragmatic balance between precedent and the court judging a case entirely on its own merit.

You have tried to argue that Tricky's opinion, that the death sentence should be the appropriate sentence for certain crimes, is wrong by stating that if he can't supply a definitive list of all such people or rather the crimes they would have had to have committed his opinion is shown to be valueless.

However since we have the real world evidence that the legal system in the USA (and most of the world) does not in fact legislate in such a manner your argument is shown to be flawed - remember facts trump mere opinions every-time. This is especially so since he has already given you an example of the type of crimes he thinks the death penalty should apply to. It is not more difficult in principle to enter that into legalisation than any other law that distinguishes between different types or degree of crime.

It is the argument you are trying to use to demonstrate that Tricky's opinion is wrong that is in fact wrong.

Oh, no. I'm not saying that his argument is wrong because he can't name the groups. I'm saying that his argument is worthless.

I personally don't agree with Tricky's opinion as it does not address my primary objections to the death sentence.

His opinion only adds to the problems already there. It doesn't solve anything, on the contrary.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Oh, no. I'm not saying that his argument is wrong because he can't name the groups. I'm saying that his argument is worthless.

...snip...

I suggest you re-read my post and actually respond to the reasons I've given that show your argument is wrong.

 

[D'rok]

I said:
"Justice is treating similar crimes the same way - precedent. You commit crime X, the precedent is that you get punishment f(X)."

And I said, no that is not Justice, that is stare decisis. You then followed with a legal definition of stare decisis. Do you understand how they are not the same concept?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

You are the first one who killed someone (hello, Cain!). What to do? Mumbling in the corners. Off with your head! Better do that with other killers, too.

...snip...

Which would be the very antithesis of justice.

 

[Tricky]

I personally don't agree with Tricky's opinion as it does not address my primary objections to the death sentence.

Let me pause in my lust for blood to try to clarify some things.

Firstly, the objection that so many have to the death penalty is that it is irreversible. It is impossible to correct an execution if it is found later that it was in error. That is a legitimate objection, but my response is that no error in a false conviction is correctable. You can try to make amends, but that is not really a correction. Also, it should be noted that errors can go both ways. I do not doubt that there have been countless numbers of cases where an actually guilty person has been declared innocent. (Yeah, I'm lookin' at you, OJ.) Furthermore, in the US, the "double jeopardy" rule means that this error is also uncorrectable. Sometimes, these people go out and commit other crimes (Yeah, I'm looking at you again, OJ), yet the level of outrage at this injustice doesn't seem to be as nearly as high in those who are 100% against the death penalty.

It is true that killing someone wrongly is one of the most terrible things that can happen. I don't mean to sound as if I am cavalier about this. But it is not the only terrible thing that can happen, and the consequences of rendering the wrong verdict by releasing a killer may be just as bad or worse. Is it because if one of these people kills again, at least our hands are clean? Don't kid yourself. A court that a court that frees a man who later kills someone else, or commits any number of lesser crimes has no cleaner hands than one that sentences a man to death wrongly. I would be willing to bet that any or all of you can think of a scenario that is worse than killing one person.

Secondly let me say that I am not at all satisfied with the way the US administers the death penalty. As the OJ case proves, wealthy murderers are much more likely to walk than poor murderers. Juries are more likely to convict a member of a minority ethnic group than a Caucasian. These are legitimate problems that need to be fixed. But in spite of this, there are still clear-cut cases where the death penalty is justifiable and, in my opinion, the correct option. In spite of every attempt to nail me down to a specific set of circumstances, my position is a general one, not a specific one. If there is even one case where the death penalty is more beneficial to society than life imprisonment (and statistically, this is almost a certainty), then the courts should have the ability to use it.

Thirdly, as my example of Ira Einhorn shows, I am not one of those "Fry 'em all" kind of supporters of the death penalty. I'm a liberal on most issues, but not mindlessly so. What I mostly object to is blanket statements of what is right or wrong. For every question I can think of, there should be the option to say, "It depends on the circumstances." This one should be no different.

 

[D'rok]

Let me pause in my lust for blood to try to clarify some things.

Firstly, the objection that so many have to the death penalty is that it is irreversible. It is impossible to correct an execution if it is found later that it was in error. That is a legitimate objection, but my response is that no error in a false conviction is correctable. You can try to make amends, but that is not really a correction. Also, it should be noted that errors can go both ways. I do not doubt that there have been countless numbers of cases where an actually guilty person has been declared innocent. (Yeah, I'm lookin' at you, OJ.) Furthermore, in the US, the "double jeopardy" rule means that this error is also uncorrectable. Sometimes, these people go out and commit other crimes (Yeah, I'm looking at you again, OJ), yet the level of outrage at this injustice doesn't seem to be as nearly as high in those who are 100% against the death penalty.

Those wrongly convicted can be compensated; those wrongly executed cannot. Correction is irrelevant - we don't do time travel yet.

OJ is a red herring. The fact that errors occur at trial is no argument for executing those that actually do get convicted. Rather, it emphasizes the point that Justice is a difficult and error-prone ideal when systematized.

It is true that killing someone wrongly is one of the most terrible things that can happen. I don't mean to sound as if I am cavalier about this. But it is not the only terrible thing that can happen, and the consequences of rendering the wrong verdict by releasing a killer may be just as bad or worse. Is it because if one of these people kills again, at least our hands are clean? Don't kid yourself. A court that a court that frees a man who later kills someone else, or commits any number of lesser crimes has no cleaner hands than one that sentences a man to death wrongly. I would be willing to bet that any or all of you can think of a scenario that is worse than killing one person.

More red herrings. Guilty people going free happens regardless of the presence or absence of capital punishment. Those that would get capital punishment in the US system generally get life without possibility of parole in others. Rendering the wrong verdict has nothing to do with sentencing practices.

Secondly let me say that I am not at all satisfied with the way the US administers the death penalty. As the OJ case proves, wealthy murderers are much more likely to walk than poor murderers. Juries are more likely to convict a member of a minority ethnic group than a Caucasian. These are legitimate problems that need to be fixed. But in spite of this, there are still clear-cut cases where the death penalty is justifiable and, in my opinion, the correct option. In spite of every attempt to nail me down to a specific set of circumstances, my position is a general one, not a specific one. If there is even one case where the death penalty is more beneficial to society than life imprisonment (and statistically, this is almost a certainty), then the courts should have the ability to use it.

"If" is right. Good luck proving that particular conditional.

Thirdly, as my example of Ira Einhorn shows, I am not one of those "Fry 'em all" kind of supporters of the death penalty. I'm a liberal on most issues, but not mindlessly so. What I mostly object to is blanket statements of what is right or wrong. For every question I can think of, there should be the option to say, "It depends on the circumstances." This one should be no different.

In these circumstances, there is no way to eliminate error. And the principle of stare decisis means that errors can be repeated. Same goes for codifying bad law. None of these scenarios you have described occur or do not occur as a result of employing or not employing the death penalty.

The error argument cannot be overcome. You have to just be honest and state your preference: You are less morally troubled by killing an innocent person than you are by not executing someone that deserves it.

 

[CFLarsen]

I suggest you re-read my post and actually respond to the reasons I've given that show your argument is wrong.

I did. What am I missing?

And I said, no that is not Justice, that is stare decisis. You then followed with a legal definition of stare decisis. Do you understand how they are not the same concept?

Which would be the very antithesis of justice.

How so?

 

[D'rok]

How so?

The doctrine of precedent is a judicial practice that promotes the virtue of certainty and predictability in judge-created common law. This can occur at the expense of Justice.

If bad law - i.e., a case with an unjust result - becomes binding precedent, then injustice is hardwired into the common law. This happens. Typically, it happens when societal norms change while the law remains statically bound to a precedent that is no longer palatable. The means to change this are twofold: 1)Over-ruling the precedent and thus establishing a new precedent, or 2)Legislation.

Common law countries are trending more and more towards codification, so legislation is frequently the tool of choice. But even legislation can be open to common law interpretation.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Common law countries are trending more and more towards codification, so legislation is frequently the tool of choice. But even legislation can be open to common law interpretation.

The fallacy of the perfect rule book continues to spread.

I'd be tempted to call it woo.

D

 

[Tricky]

Those wrongly convicted can be compensated; those wrongly executed cannot. Correction is irrelevant - we don't do time travel yet.

That is to assume that the only kind of compensation is to the individual who is executed. I reiterate that while the unjust loss of an individual life is a terrible mistake, it is not, a given that it is the worst possible mistake.

OJ is a red herring. The fact that errors occur at trial is no argument for executing those that actually do get convicted. Rather, it emphasizes the point that Justice is a difficult and error-prone ideal when systematized.

No, it shows that errors can have tremendous consequences regardless of the direction of the errors.

More red herrings. Guilty people going free happens regardless of the presence or absence of capital punishment. Those that would get capital punishment in the US system generally get life without possibility of parole in others. Rendering the wrong verdict has nothing to do with sentencing practices.

I disagree. While the trial and sentencing phase of the justice system are separate phases, they are still part of the same case. If you render the wrong verdict, then you have, by definition, rendered the wrong sentence. The goal of the legal system is (or at least should be, IMO) to improve society. Unless you can make the case that keeping a convicted murderer alive always improves society, then I do not believe you can logically make the case that you should always render a sentence that keeps a murderer alive. Such is the problem with absolutes.

"If" is right. Good luck proving that particular conditional.

There is no "proof" of anything outside of math, but it would be statistically staggering to suggest that a single condition (the superior consequences of a life sentence versus a death sentence) has prevailed throughout the entire history of the legal system. The odds against that are astronomical.

The error argument cannot be overcome.

It cannot be overcome as long as you accept the axiom that destroying a human life is the worst possible thing that one can do in a society. I do not accept that axiom. I accept it as usually true, but not always.

You have to just be honest and state your preference: You are less morally troubled by killing an innocent person than you are by not executing someone that deserves it.

I will agree that there are almost certainly cases that I am more morally troubled by allowing very dangerous creatures to live than I am by killing them.