Capital Punishment: Always an Error, or only Sometimes?

[newyorkguy]

Does she realize when Muhammed lived? Does she know what happened with Spartacus and his followers, roughly one century before Christ? Or with the followers of Judas the Galilean?

All of 'em!​

 

[Segnosaur]

Is there a cost difference between a death penalty facility and keeping a person in isolation?

I have no idea. I figure that the costs would be roughly similar, since both would need special supervision, single jail cells, special scheduling considerations, etc.

(With of course the big difference that someone will be on death row for only a limited time, whereas someone in isolation will be there potentially until they die of natural causes.

You know that's all the argument you ever need. And if opponents of the death penalty stopped there, I'd be happy. Its a convincing enough argument on its own.

If it is sufficient then the added arguments can not diminish it...

I don't agree...

When a person brings up an argument supported by both correct and incorrect data, I believe the argument is tarnished by the incorrect data, since it can lead to suspicion that "If fact X is wrong, can we believe Fact Y"?

If that's your argument you must be against putting anyone in jail, since arresting and incarcerating them is similar in practice to kidnapping.

There is a qualitative difference between killing some one and holding them against their will.

And there's a qualitative difference between killing someone and subjecting them to house arrest. And there is a qualitative difference to killing someone by lethal injection and torturing them to death. And there's a qualitative difference between jailing someone or simply subjecting them to a fine.

A capital case triggers automatic appeals that are not in place if the prosecutor does not seek the death penalty.

From what I understand, while its common, not all states have automatic appeals.

Of course, the idea of the automatic appeals is rather curious... in theory there could be cases where an innocent person might almost be better off being given the death penalty, since the appeals process might ensure a more fail trial.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I have no idea.

When you do, let's discuss.

I don't agree...

When a person brings up an argument supported by both correct and incorrect data, I believe the argument is tarnished by the incorrect data, since it can lead to suspicion that "If fact X is wrong, can we believe Fact Y"?

If you have already admitted to knowing that Y is true how can X being unconvincing tarnish your knowledge of Y? The truth of Y does not depend on the credibility of the presenter if you already know it to be true.

And there's a qualitative difference between killing someone and subjecting them to house arrest. And there is a qualitative difference to killing someone by lethal injection and torturing them to death. And there's a qualitative difference between jailing someone or simply subjecting them to a fine.

Ah, a slippery slope. If we can't kill them then I guess we can't do anything. That's a philosophical problem at best, more of a fallacy, though. Let's stick to our actual experience: every other western democracy does ok without the death penalty.

From what I understand, while its common, not all states have automatic appeals.

And that would increase the likelihood of dead innocents, no?

Of course, the idea of the automatic appeals is rather curious... in theory there could be cases where an innocent person might almost be better off being given the death penalty, since the appeals process might ensure a more fail trial.

Yes. There is currently a large incentive to prove the innocence of those on death row before the state kills them. If we stop killing prisoners I assume there will still be those who work to prove the innocence of the incarcerated, even if they lose the artificial incentive of their client's imminent death.

 

[Segnosaur]

Define humane

I wasn't aware there were more than one definitions. To me, humane is actions that prevent suffering and anguish; and preserve one's humanity and dignity.

I'm quite aware of the definition.

The problem is, any type of sentencing (especially for a serious crime) is going to lead to suffering and anguish. Even something as mild as house arrest. So, if you wanted to totally prevent inhumane handling of prisoners, you wouldn't have any sort of sentencing handed out.

What if (for example) some alien came down and said "You put your prisoners in cages? How inhumane!!!"

I'd be delighted to have a conversation with it about that topic. Did you think you had some convincing argument, there ?

Actually I did. You just avoided it.

While I don't expect aliens to be visiting any time, your argument that the "death penalty is undignified/causes suffering" applies to pretty much any penalty. (I used the "alien" because it would have been a foreign culture who would provide an external view about what "humane" was.)

And what are your concerns about productivity?

Seems pretty self-evident to me. Dead people aren't very productive.

I've pointed out that the death penalty (if it did exist) would only be applicable to the worst of the worst... individuals who would never ever get out of prison. They would never be "productive" members of society.

The last sentence does not follow from the others.

Ummm... yes it does.

Life in prison with no parole (i.e. type of sentence that would be handed to someone like Ted Bundy) means that the individual would never get out of jail. Hence they would never be functioning within society, paying taxes, etc.

The only way your argument makes sense is if you favor the release of people like Ted Bundy. That would be the only way he'd ever be "productive" again.

Why exactly is punishment wrong?

Did I say that ?

Well, your exact statement was: it's not about punishment or revenge. No qualifications there.... nothing about "its only PARTLY about punishment". Or "Punishment is only a small part". Sounded pretty black-and-white... "Not about punishment".

I mean that the action being "punished" isn't as important as one's likelihood of repeating that action.

Well, as I said, you didn't attach importances to anything earlier... you made a rather blunt statement "its not about punishment".

And how often do executed murders repeat their actions?

After all, prisoners DO escape.

Rarely.

So? I even admitted in my earlier posting that the risk of that was small, but it does exist.

You never set an explicit threshold... you simply said its "about making society safer". You never stated whether it had to prevent 1 death in 100, or 1 death in 1 billion.

You are failing to see the other possibilities, such as executing innocents or having death penalties for minor crimes, etc.

You're right... I didn't address the issue of executing innocents...

Except for in post 22, where I stated: I don't necessarily support the death penalty... good in theory, sucks in practice.

Or post 36 where I stated: I'm not for the death penalty... I'm against it because of potential errors in the sentencing process.

Or post 54, where I responded to someone who mentioned killing innocents: Its a convincing enough argument on its own..

So yeah, I never bothered to mention the probability of killing innocents. Except for those 3 times.

As for killing people for 'minor' crimes, I think I've made it clear that if we ever were to have the death penalty (and it could be applied without error... which I recognize is an impossible standard), it would be reserved for only extreme cases... serial killers, those who's crimes involved other serious felonies such as sexual assault, etc. (See post 43)

 

[jimbob]

I voted for option one but can think of situations where it can be justified.

War criminals who might otherwise destabalise a region. Goering, for example.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Sorry but I couldn't resist. Does Sarah Palin support the death penalty? You betcha! Why? Jesus!

Just last week she explained her views on a FOX News segment:



Okay, sure.

Everyone understands this is satire, right? I realize that it's hard to tell with her.

 

[ddt]

I voted for option one but can think of situations where it can be justified.

War criminals who might otherwise destabalise a region. Goering, for example.

Seconded. That would be the only reason and situation I could think of, and for exactly the same reason - not out of revenge or punishment, but because such people can even be a threat when alive when secure within prison walls.

But even Goering wasn't executed.

 

[newyorkguy]

Everyone understands this is satire, right? I realize that it's hard to tell with her.

Darn it! They had me fooled. What do they say about, "Something that's too good to be true usually isn't."

She is pro-death penalty, however, including for child rape and drive-bys. This is from 2006 when she was running for governor of Alaska. It should be noted, there is no death penalty in Alaska.

Feeling safe in our communities is something we cannot accept any compromise on. If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive by shooting will never be able to do that again.
Link

 

[Noztradamus]

Darn it! They had me fooled. What do they say about, "Something that's too good to be true usually isn't."

Not that impressive, You gave them a huge head start

BTW, did you know JK Rowling worshisps Satan?

 

[newyorkguy]

Not that impressive, You gave them a huge head start

BTW, did you know JK Rowling worshisps Satan?

I hate to argue this, but if you want to act smug it helps if you can spell.

 

[jimbob]

Seconded. That would be the only reason and situation I could think of, and for exactly the same reason - not out of revenge or punishment, but because such people can even be a threat when alive when secure within prison walls.

But even Goering wasn't executed.

I thought that was only because he'd committed suicide first.

 

[ddt]

I thought that was only because he'd committed suicide first.

Yes it was indeed. A poor attempt at humor/pedantry from my side.

 

[jimbob]

Yes it was indeed. A poor attempt at humor/pedantry from my side.

Hey, that's my job

 

[Belz...]

I'm quite aware of the definition.

Then why the hell did you ask ?

The problem is, any type of sentencing (especially for a serious crime) is going to lead to suffering and anguish.

I don't see this as inevitable. But there's a difference between "go to your room" or "you don't get dessert" and "ok, strap time, boy!"

Actually I did. You just avoided it.

...what ?

Ummm... yes it does.

Life in prison with no parole (i.e. type of sentence that would be handed to someone like Ted Bundy) means that the individual would never get out of jail. Hence they would never be functioning within society, paying taxes, etc.

And yet he might still contribute, somehow.

The only way your argument makes sense is if you favor the release of people like Ted Bundy.

No, there's another possibility. I'll give you another shot at thinking about it.

Well, your exact statement was: it's not about punishment or revenge. No qualifications there.... nothing about "its only PARTLY about punishment". Or "Punishment is only a small part". Sounded pretty black-and-white... "Not about punishment".

Indeed. So why did you ask me why punishment is wrong if I didn't say anything of the sort ?

And how often do executed murders repeat their actions?

Same goes for thieves and adulterers, and people of opposing political views: if you kill them, they can't continue. But that's not what I said: I talked about the likelihood of it happening.

So? I even admitted in my earlier posting that the risk of that was small, but it does exist.

The risk of every possible thing is non-zero. Why would you even mention it ?

You never set an explicit threshold... you simply said its "about making society safer". You never stated whether it had to prevent 1 death in 100, or 1 death in 1 billion.

Yes, and I also never said that every action must always make society safer, with no exception of possibility of error.

Except for in post 22, where I stated: I don't necessarily support the death penalty... good in theory, sucks in practice.

Or post 36 where I stated: I'm not for the death penalty... I'm against it because of potential errors in the sentencing process.

Or post 54, where I responded to someone who mentioned killing innocents: Its a convincing enough argument on its own..

So yeah, I never bothered to mention the probability of killing innocents. Except for those 3 times.

This has nothing to do with what I posted.

You said the world is safer with that person dead. I am pointing out possibilities where it isn't, not saying you never mentioned innocents.

 

[catsmate]

Even then there are, I'm sure, some people who could be so much in denial that they would be flagged as not guilty and some people who are so sure that they are responsible (but aren't) that you might get a false positive.

Well I was more thinking of a device that could actually show memories and events but yes.

I guess it comes down to the purpose of the death penalty:

Its effect as a deterent needs to be demonstrated. AFAIK it hasn't been demonstrated effectively in part because some criminals don't think they will be caught and others don't think or care about the consequences of being caught

Agreed. Deterrents only really work against rational offenders who think that can be caught and have time to consider. They're damn-all use against someone who thinks they won't be caught or acts without thinking.

It could conceivably be cheaper than keeping people in gaol for life but only if the appeals process can be significantly curtailed. The hypothetical mindreading device could help with this to an exetent but there's still be arguments about whether Person A deserves the death penalty when Person B didn't

And there's the possibility of 'scope creap', i.e. we start off executing murderers, then add repeat rapists and child molesters, then arsonists and kidnappers, then a 'three felonies' law, and eventually smoking in public is a capital offense.

Which leaves justice, retribution or vengeance (however you want to paint it)

Personally I'm uncomfortable with killing someone else, no matter how repulsive they are, to make me feel better, YMMV.

Agreed.

It isn't just felonies. There is a movement to revise or eliminate sex offender registries. The offenses that can get a person on the registry include misdemeanors, and affect the person for the rest of their life.

Yeah, moral panic has that problems.

Inmates sentenced to death are automatically granted appeals. Inmates who are not on death row do not automatically get the appeals. So while the inmate can ask, if there is no real appealable issue, the appeal goes nowhere.

Yeah, if the trial was technically correct and the system doesn't accept there was a mistake, it's quite possible to kill an innocent person.

 

[12AX7]

I don't shed any tears over murderers being executed, but I sort of wish executions employed more poetic justice:

Murderer kills by strangling, then execution by strangling.
Murderer tortures victims for weeks on end before killing them, execution by torture for weeks on end.
Murderer buries victims alive, then execution by live burial.
Murderer gives victims their choice of last meal and a painless injection of sedatives and barbiturates, then execution by that method.

Its only a shame we can't bring them back and kill them once more for every victim.

But, I'm aware that innocent people can and have been executed, that black men are disproportionately more likely to receive death sentences than white men, black on white murders are more likely to result in death sentences than white on black murders, that even proponents of capital punishment do not believe its a deterrent to anything.

I don't necessarily oppose the death penalty in principle, but only because my country is truly terrible in its application. Maybe if the US could guarantee only guilty people are executed, that death sentences are applied without racial bias, and that the process could be expedient and cost effective, it would be easier to implement.

But, I have no particularly strong feelings one way or the other about capital punishment, I don't care if the practice is banned in entirety. Banning it might win some "more civilized country" brownie points too.

More than that, I'm well aware that the US criminal justice system is seriously broken beyond repair. The idiotic War on Drugs. Enormous racial bias in sentencing and convictions. Huge sections of the US population are imprisoned. Lengthy sentences that make no attempt to release people even after they've been rehabilitated. A felony convictions that become life sentences after release (as felons struggle to find to find employment, housing, and they are disqualified from government assistance programs such as WIC and TANF), resulting in huge recidivism rates.

Maybe capital punishment is one small aspect of our seriously broken criminal justice system?

Wow.

You saved me a lot of typing! I agree 100%.

 

[Trakar]

I understand people who believe the death penalty is appropriate in certain cases. I get it. However, I do not believe the state should have the right to kill someone as punishment. Period.

It isn't that I don't think there are excusable instances where an individual might take the life of another individual, but I do not think that the state should ever be allowed to demand the life of one of its own citizens.

 

[Trakar]

Like many things, it's pretty easy to have a moral stance against the death penalty when it doesn't affect you. For the vast majority that voted option 1, I wonder the (hopefully) unanswerable: what if it were your parent, sibling, spouse or child?

Does not change my consideration at all. The state should not have the authority to kill its citizens.

 

[BenBurch]

Exactly. Now if, as a thought experiment, we postulate a method of reading the contents of the human brain and showing it to others we could be sure. But that's quite a ways off.

Assuming the brain to be a reliable recorder might not be appropriate in all cases.

 

[BenBurch]

Does not change my consideration at all. The state should not have the authority to kill its citizens.

Even in its protective role?