Death Penalty Question

[marplots]

Did you read this from KDLarsen's link above?

The United States Supreme Court does not apologize for mistakes. In September 2014, Henry Lee McCollum was released from North Carolina’s death row after serving 30 years there for the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl. DNA evidence from a nearby cigarette butt had eventually implicated another man who had been overlooked by law enforcement, even though he lived only a block from where the victim’s body was found and had confessed to a similar rape and murder occurring around the same time.

What made this story even more remarkable was an opinion Justice Antonin Scalia had made in 1994, when the Court refused to hear an appeal from a Texas death row prisoner. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Blackmun famously renounced capital punishment and vowed to no longer “tinker with the machinery of death.” Justice Scalia, concurring with the majority, practically mocked his fellow justice, citing the awful facts of the McCollum case: “Justice Blackmun did not select as the vehicle for his announcement … the case of the 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat,” wrote Scalia, describing the crime for which McCollum had been convicted. “How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!”

Would that not alone make you doubt who those right people are?

I've heard this kind of argument before. It works like this: dredge up instances of science "getting it wrong" to make the claim that I should distrust science. Only now it's the criminal justice system facing the criticism.

So I will ask the same thing I do in those cases. What method to determine guilt would you suggest to replace our existing system to make it better? And, a related question - What level of accuracy would be sufficient for you to support the death penalty?

If there is no level of accuracy which will suffice, then I submit the perfection argument is a red herring, offered up to avoid having to make the moral argument against killing outright.

 

[marplots]

I don't see any reason for employing the death penalty except as a cost-cutting measure (because prisons are expensive), or as an act of vengeance.

Since we know for a fact that some of the people found guilty of murder are actually innocent, and that some of those will later be exonerated, then employing a death-penalty equates to intentionally killing innocent people just to save some money and satisfy an urge for revenge.

But even if we knew that 100% of the people executed were guilty of monstrous crimes, we'd still be killing people just because it's cheaper and more emotionally satisfying than keeping them locked up.

Is that what the legal system really for?

Collateral damage. We often know that some process will kill people we'd rather not have die. The judgement is whether the process is worthwhile, even understanding these unintended consequences.

For example, if I know that a certain number of prisoners will die at the hands of other prisoners, but judge imprisonment worthwhile in spite of that, I'd still put people in jail. Naturally, I want to make it as safe as practically possible - just as I'd want to avoid handing out the death penalty to innocent people. But no one truly expects the process to be error free.

 

[Brian-M]

Collateral damage. We often know that some process will kill people we'd rather not have die.

Killing the person you intended to kill isn't collateral damage.

(In this situation it's more a matter of bad intel in determining who the target should be.)

For example, if I know that a certain number of prisoners will die at the hands of other prisoners, but judge imprisonment worthwhile in spite of that, I'd still put people in jail.

In that situation there's no intent (by the authorities) to kill anyone, and all reasonable precautions are taken to prevent unavoidable death.

But with the death penalty, every death is avoidable and preventable, because there's no need to actually kill anyone. It's just a matter of local custom for authorities to kill people in that situation.

Naturally, I want to make it as safe as practically possible - just as I'd want to avoid handing out the death penalty to innocent people. But no one truly expects the process to be error free.

None of this addresses the part of the post where I wrote:

But even if we knew that 100% of the people executed were guilty of monstrous crimes, we'd still be killing people just because it's cheaper and more emotionally satisfying than keeping them locked up.

Is that what the legal system really for?

 

[Samson]

I've heard this kind of argument before. It works like this: dredge up instances of science "getting it wrong" to make the claim that I should distrust science. Only now it's the criminal justice system facing the criticism.

So I will ask the same thing I do in those cases. What method to determine guilt would you suggest to replace our existing system to make it better? And, a related question - What level of accuracy would be sufficient for you to support the death penalty?

If there is no level of accuracy which will suffice, then I submit the perfection argument is a red herring, offered up to avoid having to make the moral argument against killing outright.

Without wishing to sound extreme, in cases where there is serious doubt amongst the common citizenry, I would remove people who have only legal training from the process, and find a very large group of volunteers from the scientific, medical and engineering fields to go through the evidence and logical pathways with a fine tooth comb, and be remunerated at modest levels.
They would be operating on the basis that the suspect might very well be their own daughter or son.

 

[marplots]

But even if we knew that 100% of the people executed were guilty of monstrous crimes, we'd still be killing people just because it's cheaper and more emotionally satisfying than keeping them locked up.

Is that what the legal system really for?

Maybe. How about a different reason though? Justice. If you take a life, you forfeit your own as a consequence. It's the only coin in the same currency - the value of a life.

The idea certainly isn't foreign to those who would advocate for life in prison without parole - a repayment of the life taken in a day-by-day, year-by-year manner until natural death. There's always a taking and penalty, all the way down to a fine I pay for parking in the wrong spot. The legal system is, in a sense, about retribution and paying the price for illegal behavior.

I don't think we are arguing so much about whether retribution is just, but what constitutes the proper penalty - not no penalty at all.

 

[Brian-M]

Maybe. How about a different reason though? Justice. If you take a life, you forfeit your own as a consequence. It's the only coin in the same currency - the value of a life.

So you advocate a tit-for-tat judicial system?

If someone pokes out another person's eye, the state should poke out their eye.
If someone breaks another person's arm, the state should break their arm.
If someone takes another person's life, the state should take their life.

Or are you saying that we should make a special exception for murder just because it's customary?

The idea certainly isn't foreign to those who would advocate for life in prison without parole - a repayment of the life taken in a day-by-day, year-by-year manner until natural death.

That's funny. I thought the idea of life in prison without parole was a combination of providing a significant disincentive against murder for those whose actions might be swayed by consideration of the likely consequences of those actions, as well as to protect the general public from known killers by keeping the killers away from the general public.

Nothing about taking a life for a life involved.

The legal system is, in a sense, about retribution and paying the price for illegal behavior.

I don't see it that way. I see the legal system as being about enforcing and encouraging (or preventing and discouraging) certain behaviours, not about retribution.

Imprisoning offenders is just one way of achieving this. Many people will intentionally avoid taking certain actions if they think those actions might cause them to be imprisoned.

And imprisoned people have fewer opportunities to take those actions. (If someone is locked up for five years for stealing cars, that's a five year period with one fewer car-thief going around stealing cars.)

 

[Gork]

There are many good reasons to oppose the death penalty, but only one reason to support it: People want to kill the person responsible for a crime.

The problem with that is:

1. It is far more expensive to execute someone than to keep him in jail for life.

2. There is never a way to be absolutely certain that the person being killed is guilty.

3. The death penalty does not deter violent crimes (nor should it, as most violent crimes are poorly planned or undertaken by people too sick to be reasoned with).

4. The death penalty robs society of a critical database of offenders from whom psychological and neurological information could be gained.

5. Government, as constituting the will of the people, lacks the right to kill its constituents.

1. True.

2. False. Although our current system is beyond a reasonable doubt, there are many cases where there is no doubt.

3. True.

4. False, Death Row inmates get interviewed all the time.

5. Says who? In survey after survey, most people support the death penalty, i.e. the will of the people - hence its continuing existence. Is this a moral stance? A legal stance? If its moral, I disagree, but respect it. Its certainly not true legally.



As a military person, I have no moral qualms about 'justified' killing. (I know 'justified' is what we are arguing about, but I wanted to differentiate myself from all killing) As a prosecutor, I have no problem morally or legally with the DP. However, I don't care if it goes away - I don't have a fervent desire to seek death or revenge. My issue though, is that this is a legislative debate. Abolish it by statute. Get the will of the people to do away with it. But right now, I have families of murder victims who want justice. Who I'm I to say that I'm morally opposed to the Death penalty when it is a lawful sentence? If the crime fits, I will seek it. If it doesn't, I won't and a certainly can explain that families.

 

[zooterkin]

I don't see any reason for employing the death penalty except as a cost-cutting measure (because prisons are expensive),

I thought it was more expensive to execute someone, anyway.

 

[Puppycow]

I don't see any reason for employing the death penalty except as a cost-cutting measure (because prisons are expensive), or as an act of vengeance.

I thought it was more expensive to execute someone, anyway.

Correct. It costs more on average, not less. This is from the Jodi Arias case:

Nearly $3 million of taxpayer money was spent during both trials. Arias' court-appointed attorneys billed the state for $2.7 million. Prosecutors say they spent more than $132,000 on expert witnesses, transcripts, travel expense and other costs, though that figure doesn't include the salary of the prosecutor.

I'm not exactly sure how different it would be if not tried as a capital case. But there wouldn't have been a mistrial at least (they all agreed she was guilty, just not the death penalty). As I understand it, there are much more legal procedures to go through for a capital trial, which makes it more expensive even considering the cost of a lifetime prison sentence.

 

[marplots]

So you advocate a tit-for-tat judicial system?

If someone pokes out another person's eye, the state should poke out their eye.
If someone breaks another person's arm, the state should break their arm.
If someone takes another person's life, the state should take their life.

Or are you saying that we should make a special exception for murder just because it's customary?

There's a certain simplicity about it I find appealing, a sense of balance restored and equality of outcome.

That's funny. I thought the idea of life in prison without parole was a combination of providing a significant disincentive against murder for those whose actions might be swayed by consideration of the likely consequences of those actions, as well as to protect the general public from known killers by keeping the killers away from the general public.

Nothing about taking a life for a life involved.

If certain punishment by way of imprisonment is a disincentive, wouldn't the death penalty also be a disincentive?

I don't see it that way. I see the legal system as being about enforcing and encouraging (or preventing and discouraging) certain behaviours, not about retribution.

Imprisoning offenders is just one way of achieving this. Many people will intentionally avoid taking certain actions if they think those actions might cause them to be imprisoned.

And imprisoned people have fewer opportunities to take those actions. (If someone is locked up for five years for stealing cars, that's a five year period with one fewer car-thief going around stealing cars.)

I don't see why the death penalty wouldn't also meet these criteria - although I disagree that preventing crime is the main purpose.

 

[The Atheist]

If they let those one in twenty-five go, can we kill the rest?

I only ask because I don't see that as an argument against the death penalty, only an argument to kill the right people, which I figure death penalty supporters already agree with anyhow.

Surely the scientific-minded skeptics understand the fallacy of perfect certainty outside of mathematics?

Fallacies and skepticism are irrelevant when the outcome is a dead, innocent person.

Like this guy: fitted up for a crime and executed.

I don't really care what other opponents of death penalty think, that is my prime reason for being against it. Humans make mistakes and as above, are capable of crimes to get convictions.

Killing an innocent person is a worse crime than murder.

Maybe. How about a different reason though? Justice. If you take a life, you forfeit your own as a consequence. It's the only coin in the same currency - the value of a life.

How thoroughly biblical.

So, if we take that approach, the prosecuting attorney, witnesses, the judge and jury from the case above are put to death, I'll call that justice.

Thankfully, it's only an issue in developing countries - China, Iran, Botswana, USA...

 

[marplots]

Fallacies and skepticism are irrelevant when the outcome is a dead, innocent person.

Like this guy: fitted up for a crime and executed.

I don't really care what other opponents of death penalty think, that is my prime reason for being against it. Humans make mistakes and as above, are capable of crimes to get convictions.

Killing an innocent person is a worse crime than murder.

That's why we should strive to only kill the guilty. Is there no one on death row you would be convinced enough was guilty to take action?

It sounds to me, not like an argument against the death penalty, but an argument against the current p value.

How thoroughly biblical.

Yeah. "Thou shalt not steal" is in there too. "Biblical" isn't an argument for something, but neither is it an argument against something. We may agree or disagree with the authors in any particular.

So, if we take that approach, the prosecuting attorney, witnesses, the judge and jury from the case above are put to death, I'll call that justice.

Unless those people are innocent. But again, that's not an argument against the death penalty, since the same system can put an innocent person in prison for life, and those same people would be subject to paying for another type of injustice.

What is it, other than moral outrage, which can logically differentiate the death penalty from all other forms of punishment? As soon as you set out to punish anyone at all for anything at all, it's merely a matter of where the dial will be set. Death is not a separate button on the justice machine, it's just a click away from the other stuff.

 

[Rat]

That's why we should strive to only kill the guilty. Is there no one on death row you would be convinced enough was guilty to take action?

It sounds to me, not like an argument against the death penalty, but an argument against the current p value.

Quite aside from my revulsion at the death penalty, if you're saying that there are some about whom we can be certain, it follows that there must be some about whom we can't be certain, unless you're going to have a new category of certain. If that is the case, they should not only not be on death row, they should be free.

 

[marplots]

Quite aside from my revulsion at the death penalty, if you're saying that there are some about whom we can be certain, it follows that there must be some about whom we can't be certain, unless you're going to have a new category of certain. If that is the case, they should not only not be on death row, they should be free.

Seems logical. The innocent should be free and the guilty dead. Make it so Mr. Scott.

 

[The Atheist]

That's why we should strive to only kill the guilty.

A 4% failure rate resulting in death in vaccines would see nobody vaccinate their children.

A 4% failure rate in brakes in a certain type of car would see nobody drive one of them.

Is there no one on death row you would be convinced enough was guilty to take action?

Not that I know of.

It sounds to me, not like an argument against the death penalty, but an argument against the current p value.

Brilliant! People's lives become p values. Take a look at USA - the death penalty is so costly because of the automatic appeal system, determined to ensure only the guilty get chopped.

Still wrong 4% of the time.

Instead of discussing a fairyland where we know for sure a person is guilty, let's talk about the actual world, where that does not happen.

Unless those people are innocent. But again, that's not an argument against the death penalty, since the same system can put an innocent person in prison for life, and those same people would be subject to paying for another type of injustice.

At least that type of injustice can be reversed and partly compensated for. I can guarantee if you asked Teina Pora (exonerated after 21 years in jail) which system he supports, I'm picking he'd rather have served the 21 years and look forward to 40 years of life than be dust and sludge in a box.

What is it, other than moral outrage, which can logically differentiate the death penalty from all other forms of punishment?

You really don't see it? See above. You can let people out of jail, but you can't bring them back to life.

 

[marplots]

You really don't see it? See above. You can let people out of jail, but you can't bring them back to life.

Which is a good reason to only kill the guilty, which we all support.

Let me ask directly. Those 94% of people who were put to death who were guilty (or 90% or whatever figure you accept): are you OK with that? Because if you are, you support the death penalty. But if not, if you wouldn't even kill the known guilty, that's a separate argument from accuracy.

I really do want to know. Is it the sentence of death which so offends, or the fact that there are errors in the system? For if we know there are innocents being killed, we must know, at least to the same level of certainty, there are guilty being killed.

 

[Desert Fox]

Which is a good reason to only kill the guilty, which we all support.

Let me ask directly. Those 94% of people who were put to death who were guilty (or 90% or whatever figure you accept): are you OK with that? Because if you are, you support the death penalty. But if not, if you wouldn't even kill the known guilty, that's a separate argument from accuracy.

I really do want to know. Is it the sentence of death which so offends, or the fact that there are errors in the system? For if we know there are innocents being killed, we must know, at least to the same level of certainty, there are guilty being killed.

There is no evidence that executions deter murder and does executing a guilty person have any advantages to society. I consider that a person can still benefit society even after committing murder and I actually think that they should (in most cases) be allowed. Of course I do not support parole for people like the Green River Killer but I am not sure if Jodi Arias (for example) never deserves parole. I might have missed some issues but seems like there was at least some domestic abuse involved in the case.

 

[Rat]

Let me ask directly. Those 94% of people who were put to death who were guilty (or 90% or whatever figure you accept): are you OK with that? Because if you are, you support the death penalty. But if not, if you wouldn't even kill the known guilty, that's a separate argument from accuracy.

Not that the question was put to me, but no. I am not OK with killing people.

 

[Desert Fox]

As a military person, I have no moral qualms about 'justified' killing. (I know 'justified' is what we are arguing about, but I wanted to differentiate myself from all killing) As a prosecutor, I have no problem morally or legally with the DP. However, I don't care if it goes away - I don't have a fervent desire to seek death or revenge. My issue though, is that this is a legislative debate. Abolish it by statute. Get the will of the people to do away with it. But right now, I have families of murder victims who want justice. Who I'm I to say that I'm morally opposed to the Death penalty when it is a lawful sentence? If the crime fits, I will seek it. If it doesn't, I won't and a certainly can explain that families.

In a military setting, killing is generally a means to an end not a specific goal. That is why captured soldiers are suppose to have rights. That is why it is unlawful in most cases to kill captured POWs.

 

[Aepervius]

I have trouble posting this in a title. . . . This is primarily for people who are against the death penalty

I am against the death penalty because I am too afraid of executing the wrong person but if Washington State was to have executed Gary Ridgway, I would not have been very broken up about it.

Curious how other people feel?

Killing innocent is only one part of the problem (the huge one). I view the penal system as reformative, not punitive. Furthermore people with mental illness should be consigned to hospital, not prison. And if somebody is un-reformable, and the rare case of somebody so far beyond but still not mentally ill, then prison for life is there. Which is not much different than death penalty in the USA really, where they stay 10, 15, 20 year in prison exhausting all appeal really.

Finally there is the ethical moral aspect of treating the member of a society. A society can be judged on how well it treats whichever member it took the guard of, or are vulnerable. So handicapped, (mental or physical) and prisoner. A society with death penalty hasd far less leg to stand on and judge than a society without IMNSHO.

All combined make death penalty an untenable proposition.

Naturally if you view prison as retributive, msot of what is above is not valid anymore.

 

[epepke]

An innocent person who is locked up can be released. Death is final. Even if you discover that you've killed an innocent, there's nothing you can do about it.

Of course. Lock up someone until, oh, say, six months before they die of old age or something. Then let them free! Wow, you've released them and realized your mistake. No harm done! It's like a magic Star Trek reset button.

I made my objection very clear. I think you've made the fact that you don't even perceive it. This plus the fact that you think I need it explained as if I were a 3-year-old is what is behind my distrust, and which entitles me to say this. It's a sop for you.

The majority of anti-death-penalty crusaders are quite happy to take away 99.5% of an innocent person's life. They just don't want to take away the last bit, because that might make them feel all bad and guilty. So they let the guy go after 30 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. They give him a few bucks and a dinner, during which he isn't supposed to say that he's pissed off or anything like that. Besides, he's probably too old to retaliate anyway.

 

[Aepervius]

Which is a good reason to only kill the guilty, which we all support.

People were 100% sure of the guilt of people put on death row. Beyond reasonable doubt.

And still 4% were innocent.

Let me ask you directly : HOW in the hell do you determine that the guilt is 100% sure ?

Let me ask directly. Those 94% of people who were put to death who were guilty (or 90% or whatever figure you accept): are you OK with that? Because if you are, you support the death penalty. But if not, if you wouldn't even kill the known guilty, that's a separate argument from accuracy.

I really do want to know. Is it the sentence of death which so offends, or the fact that there are errors in the system? For if we know there are innocents being killed, we must know, at least to the same level of certainty, there are guilty being killed.

Both are offensive.

We have an expression in the family : do not expect from other to respect rules that you yourself break. If the state is a killer.... what does that mean ?

 

[Aepervius]

Of course. Lock up someone until, oh, say, six months before they die of old age or something. Then let them free! Wow, you've released them and realized your mistake. No harm done! It's like a magic Star Trek reset button.

I made my objection very clear. I think you've made the fact that you don't even perceive it. This plus the fact that you think I need it explained as if I were a 3-year-old is what is behind my distrust, and which entitles me to say this. It's a sop for you.

The majority of anti-death-penalty crusaders are quite happy to take away 99.5% of an innocent person's life. They just don't want to take away the last bit, because that might make them feel all bad and guilty. So they let the guy go after 30 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. They give him a few bucks and a dinner, during which he isn't supposed to say that he's pissed off or anything like that. Besides, he's probably too old to retaliate anyway.

This is not about the amount of life you give back. This is about being able to correct error even toward the end of someones life and ask for forgiveness or whatever.

If we could we would snap the finger and immediately make sure in fairyland that nobody innocent ever do a day in prison. But we cannot, so at least we can do free them as soon as innocence is shown.

Your reasoning about being happy to free somebody after 30 year of prison 3 day before their death is a strawman of epic proportion. We are in no way happy in any shape form or color to take 99.5% of a man. We would be far more happy if it is less, with the maximum happyness at *zero*. BUT , if it is a choice between death 30 years before, and freeing somebody at the end of their life, then the choice is logically the second one.

I have no idea where you get to think people would be happier killed than freed after a long prison term. The fact that most death penalty has a very high appeal rate seem to belie that completely.

 

[Samson]

1. True.

2. False. Although our current system is beyond a reasonable doubt, there are many cases where there is no doubt.

3. True.

4. False, Death Row inmates get interviewed all the time.

5. Says who? In survey after survey, most people support the death penalty, i.e. the will of the people - hence its continuing existence. Is this a moral stance? A legal stance? If its moral, I disagree, but respect it. Its certainly not true legally.



As a military person, I have no moral qualms about 'justified' killing. (I know 'justified' is what we are arguing about, but I wanted to differentiate myself from all killing) As a prosecutor, I have no problem morally or legally with the DP. However, I don't care if it goes away - I don't have a fervent desire to seek death or revenge. My issue though, is that this is a legislative debate. Abolish it by statute. Get the will of the people to do away with it. But right now, I have families of murder victims who want justice. Who I'm I to say that I'm morally opposed to the Death penalty when it is a lawful sentence? If the crime fits, I will seek it. If it doesn't, I won't and a certainly can explain that families.

Allan Dershowitz regards the crime Amanda Knox is accused of as being a death penalty crime if it had been committed in an American DP state. Would you seek the death penalty for that crime if you were obliged to prosecute it?

 

[Desert Fox]

Allan Dershowitz regards the crime Amanda Knox is accused of as being a death penalty crime if it had been committed in an American DP state. Would you seek the death penalty for that crime if you were obliged to prosecute it?

As well, Death Penalty juries tend to be more conservative and more willing to convict based on bad evidence.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

So you advocate a tit-for-tat judicial system?

If someone pokes out another person's eye, the state should poke out their eye.

But what if the guy is already blind? Do we put his eyes out again? Or do we work out a system of punishment that not only 'fits the crime', but keeps the guy out of circulation for while and perhaps allows him to someday become a productive member of society again?

Then again you might be on to something. What would be the punishment for purchasing illegal drugs or being a prostitute in this tit-for-tat system?

Or are you saying that we should make a special exception for murder just because it's customary?

Many people think rape is worse than murder, quite a few think bankers should be strung up for crashing the economy, and any kid who plays with a pellet gun deserves to get shot. So I say; Don't stop at murder - Death Penalty for ALL crimes! (except any that I might be accused of).

As I understand it, there are much more legal procedures to go through for a capital trial, which makes it more expensive even considering the cost of a lifetime prison sentence.

Correct, the DP is much more expensive than life in prison. However this is only because we make it so. Let's face it, we all know they are guilty (else the State wouldn't be confident enough to ask for the DP) so why spend extra money on more rigorous legal procedures? Hell, why even bother with a trial at all? Bullets are cheap.

 

[luchog]

I am against the death penalty for a number of reasons, which I largely failed to articulate very well in another thread recently.

One reason - and to me the weakest of reasons - is the possibility of wrongful execution. However, it is entirely possible to determine someone's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and I am still against the death penalty in those cases.

My second reason is a moral one. I don't believe that the state should be in the business of killing people. I think only bad people kill other people, and I want the state to be better than them.

Third, there is a very thin line between justice and revenge. Justice is a good thing, revenge is not.

Fourth, when you are dead there can be no consequences. If you do something bad, you ought to remain alive to experience the consequences of your acts. Death completely absolves you of that.

I oppose the death penalty, but for reasons pretty much opposite yours. To me, the chance of wrongful conviction is the strongest reason not to support capital punishment. Life imprisonment allows for the possibility of at least release and partial compensation. Death does not. And there are too many cases where "beyond reasonable doubt" turned out to be little more than prejudice and withholding of exculpatory evidence. Even if there are completely cut and dried cases; having the option available for those cases means having it as an option for all of them. Removing the option entirely eliminates the chance it will be used wrongly.

The moral argument i can understand; though I don't entirely agree with it. For one thing, it eliminates the possibility of defensive wars by the military, or defense of others by the police, when taken to its logical conclusion.

The Justice vs. Revenge issue seems to be a bit of hair-splitting to me, since it is effectively included in the moral argument.

The "consequences" argument is to my mind a red herring; not to mention directly contradicting one of your earlier arguments against capital punishment. A particularly nasty red herring, since it can be, and often is, easily used to justify torture and other acts of inhumanity. It has certainly been the justification for various bloodthirsty fantasies posted on this board in related threads. It is far too similar to the arguments in favour of "extraordinary rendition". What, exactly, are the consequences, and how do you ensure that the perpetrator experiences them to the extent that you would like them to? Is it the results of conscience? Sociopaths certainly don't have one, and some appear to live quite comfortably in prison. In fact, for some, prison is an improvement to their quality of life; what with getting three meals a day, shelter, and free medical care. What about the mentally ill? What are their consequences? In some cases, the consequence is that they will finally get better management of their disorder; since G-D knows it's extremely difficult for them to get help anywhere else in this country unless they have lots of money. Depending on the prison, the environment can be an astounding brutal and dehumanizing place; to the point where "cruel and unusual" most certainly applies. Morally, a society can be judged not only by how it treats its weak, helpless, and damaged members; but also by how it treats the worst of its members. Invoking "consequences" is just a thinly-veiled justification for revenge IME; and to be morally above that is not to care about "consequences" for the guilty; but only about how to protect the innocent.

I oppose capital punishment, for the sole reason that we as a society can never be truly certain, absent perfect information, that we are executing the true perpetrator of a crime; and even if we do, that said person was and is fully cognizant of the nature of his offense and the consequences of it, and not also a victim of an injury or disorder that damaged his or her ability to make the choice.

No, I tell a lie, I also oppose it on the grounds that one cannot really study a dead person to understand the roots and causes of violence, except via gross anatomy. Understanding why the crimes occurred helps us to avoid or remedy causes of violence.

 

[zooterkin]

Which is a good reason to only kill the guilty, which we all support.

Where on earth do you get that idea?

 

[luchog]

I'm against it on libertarian principles. Why should the State have a monopoly on murder? And even worse, they use our taxes to pay for it! Not only is it a clear violation of property rights and personal freedom, but like any monopoly it distorts the marketplace and encourages graft and corruption.

As much as I consider myself libertarian in some ways; this to me is nonsensical. It's effectively an argument against any sort of police or judicial system when taken to its logical conclusion.

A murderer has already demonstrated that s/he is not interested in the social contract, that s/he does not respect the rights of others, and is willing to violate them to serve their own desires. Once you refuse to respect the rights of others, you lose the right to have your respected.

 

[luchog]

For example, if I know that a certain number of prisoners will die at the hands of other prisoners, but judge imprisonment worthwhile in spite of that, I'd still put people in jail. Naturally, I want to make it as safe as practically possible - just as I'd want to avoid handing out the death penalty to innocent people. But no one truly expects the process to be error free.

I don't see this as a valid argument unless one can demonstrate that the chances of being murdered in prison are higher than being murdered outside prison to a statistically-significant degree. (Which it may very well be, depending on the prison. Those in the US can certainly be brutal enough.) But that's an argument for prison reform, not against imprisonment in general. And it's true regardless of the crime one was imprisoned for.

No one expects either process to be error free; but there is an almost infinitely greater likelihood that a wrongly-imprisoned person may be eventually exonerated, released, and partially compensated; than there is a likelihood that a wrongly-executed person could be brought back to life.

 

[Samson]

As much as I consider myself libertarian in some ways; this to me is nonsensical. It's effectively an argument against any sort of police or judicial system when taken to its logical conclusion.

A murderer has already demonstrated that s/he is not interested in the social contract, that s/he does not respect the rights of others, and is willing to violate them to serve their own desires. Once you refuse to respect the rights of others, you lose the right to have your respected.

This is in its own way nonsensical. The simplest contract the state enters into is to protect the interests of all its citizens. Three meals a day and free medical care does this. Killing them does not.

 

[Brian-M]

If certain punishment by way of imprisonment is a disincentive, wouldn't the death penalty also be a disincentive?

Yes, but it's not a more effective disincentive. (Murder rates don't tend to rise when states and countries remove the death penalty.)

At best you could say that it's equally effective as a disincentive.

I don't see why the death penalty wouldn't also meet these criteria -

It does meet those criteria. I'm not arguing that the death penalty doesn't work, I'm only arguing that it's not necessary.

although I disagree that preventing crime is the main purpose.

I didn't say that preventing crime was the purpose. I said that encouraging and discouraging certain behaviours was the purpose. This purpose is achieved by declaring certain acts to be criminal, and issuing penalties for those who commit those acts.

If the purpose was simply preventing crime you could just make everything legal. You can't commit a crime if nothing is a crime.

 

[Brian-M]

Killing an innocent person is a worse crime than murder.

I disagree with this.

Given that murder often involves intentionally killing an innocent person, I'd say that killing an innocent person is, at most, equally as bad as murder. It's not worse than murder.

 

[Brian-M]

Of course. Lock up someone until, oh, say, six months before they die of old age or something. Then let them free! Wow, you've released them and realized your mistake. No harm done! It's like a magic Star Trek reset button.

The majority of anti-death-penalty crusaders are quite happy to take away 99.5% of an innocent person's life. They just don't want to take away the last bit, because that might make them feel all bad and guilty.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any "anti-death-penalty crusader" who'd be happy with locking up innocent people for several decades.

Locking someone up for 30 years for a crime they didn't commit is a terrible thing, a gross injustice that can never be put right.

But it's not quite as bad as killing a person for a crime they didn't commit.

Releasing an exonerated prisoner after keeping them locked up for decades for a crime they didn't commit isn't a magic reset button, and nobody thinks it is. Locking him up all that time for a crime he didn't commit will have done him a great deal of harm. It's just a less worse situation then having killed the poor guy long before discovering that he was innocent.

 

[marplots]

Not that the question was put to me, but no. I am not OK with killing people.

I think that is a very defensible position, without a lot of unneeded baggage.

 

[marplots]

People were 100% sure of the guilt of people put on death row. Beyond reasonable doubt.

And still 4% were innocent.

Let me ask you directly : HOW in the hell do you determine that the guilt is 100% sure ?

Same general way you do it now. There was some means to decide that 4% are innocent, so that's a start - add that to your double checking. And whatever further means you discover to identify the innocent, add that too. Whatever you have left are the guilty.

If, on the other hand, you hold that 100% certainty is unobtainable in the real world, then the request is for something you do not believe exists, which kind of makes it a disingenuous dodge. Hence the phrase, "beyond a reasonable doubt." To assert that such a state of beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't exist out of the box is to assert our justice system is based on a serious, un-fixable flaw. And the same argument would be in play no matter what the punishment is, from a simple fine, all the way to death.

This is no different than insisting that no bridge can be built, because no engineer can guarantee, with 100% certainty, that the bridge will never fail and never kill innocent people.

If I saw someone kill my mom, I'm pretty sure I would state as much with 100% certainty. However, the system requires more than my own judgement. It requires that others are convinced I have it right. They do not give me the power to exact retribution, even though I do have the vaunted 100% certainty.

 

[marplots]

This is not about the amount of life you give back. This is about being able to correct error even toward the end of someones life and ask for forgiveness or whatever.

The opportunity still exists, whether it's 10 years on death row or a few dozen. Prove there's a mistake before they die. The clock is ticking.

If they can't be proven innocent in a dozen years, then what's a dozen more going to do? Meanwhile, the prosecution should have a chance to prove, with an even higher level of certainty, that they are really guilty, and push the clock the other way.

"Here's some more evidence that she really did it. Can we kill her now?"

 

[marplots]

marplotsWhich is a good reason to only kill the guilty, which we all support.

Where on earth do you get that idea?

I'm an optimist.

 

[marplots]

I don't see this as a valid argument unless one can demonstrate that the chances of being murdered in prison are higher than being murdered outside prison to a statistically-significant degree. (Which it may very well be, depending on the prison. Those in the US can certainly be brutal enough.) But that's an argument for prison reform, not against imprisonment in general. And it's true regardless of the crime one was imprisoned for.

Agreed. Just as arguments to make sure the death penalty is only meted out to the guilty is an argument for death penalty reform.

No one expects either process to be error free; but there is an almost infinitely greater likelihood that a wrongly-imprisoned person may be eventually exonerated, released, and partially compensated; than there is a likelihood that a wrongly-executed person could be brought back to life.

I don't think that's actually true. At some point, in either case, all hope of an error being corrected is truly and utterly gone. Any process which reduces such errors should be in play for all prisoners, whether they are sentenced to death or life in prison. To deny a process which fixes errors is just as wrong for either party, and to think that all such remedies cannot be exhausted is naive.

I propose there are many innocents serving life without parole with absolutely no chance of having their convictions overturned. Tragic really. Simply keeping someone alive in the hopes of a miracle won't do - specific action that addresses the problem of false conviction is needed. And those same actions can be used to repair the same defects in death penalty cases.

ETA: I am reminded of those cases where the brain-dead, comatose patient is kept on life support because, "they might get better."

 

[marplots]

I'm not arguing that the death penalty doesn't work, I'm only arguing that it's not necessary.

Heartily agree. It isn't necessary. There are plenty of countries who get along just fine without it. The US could drop it as well.