Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[Elind]

First post late, but what the hell:

We have all heard the above already, whatever it is, and no offense meant.

No to the death penalty; because it doesn't reduce killing and because it doesn't take the high ground between the good and the bad. They do it, we don't when we don't have to.

Of course if it involves my family, give me the rope.....but you get the idea.

 

[CplFerro]

First post late, but what the hell:

We have all heard the above already, whatever it is, and no offense meant.

No to the death penalty; because it doesn't reduce killing and because it doesn't take the high ground between the good and the bad. They do it, we don't when we don't have to.

Of course if it involves my family, give me the rope.....but you get the idea.

Dear Elind,

That's an interesting moral stance; are you arguing by implication that the agents who carry out an execution are more moral than you, because they consider all victims of murder "their family" that they are willing to take vengeance for?

Cpl Ferro

 

[RandFan]

No to the death penalty; because it doesn't reduce killing and because it doesn't take the high ground between the good and the bad. They do it, we don't when we don't have to.

I've never found this argument ultimately compelling. It seems persuasive on the outset but are we not also above incarceration? What do we do with kidnappers?

 

[RandFan]

No to the death penalty; because it doesn't reduce killing...

Do we really know this? I could be wrong but I think this is a controversial point.

 

[joobz]

How many wrongful incarcerations do you accept?

That's a good question. ideally none as well. BUT, at least with a wrongful incarceration, there's a chance of correcting the error. With the death penalty, there's no going back. If you are wrong, that's a huge wrong.

I know someone in prison now for almost 20 years now. Very recently, new evidence came out that may exonerate him. if it turns out he was innocent, while he wouldn't gain those 20 years back, he'd at least have the rest of his life.

 

[RandFan]

That's a good question. ideally none as well. BUT, at least with a wrongful incarceration, there's a chance of correcting the error. With the death penalty, there's no going back. If you are wrong, that's a huge wrong.

I know someone in prison now for almost 20 years now. Very recently, new evidence came out that may exonerate him. if it turns out he was innocent, while he wouldn't gain those 20 years back, he'd at least have the rest of his life.

Hold on, while you have a great point to make about the obvious distinction between the death penalty and incarceration, zero tolerance for wrongful incarcerations would mean the end of prisons. If we are intellectually honest with ourselves we have to tolerate, to some degree, wrongful incarcerations. It's going to happen.

 

[joobz]

Hold on, while you have a great point to make about the obvious distinction between the death penalty and incarceration, zero tolerance for wrongful incarcerations would mean the end of prisons. If we are intellectually honest with ourselves we have to tolerate, to some degree, wrongful incarcerations. It's going to happen.

I don't see the problem you raise. I guess I have a pragmatic view of this. Striving for zero error isn't the same as saying mistakes won't happen. If we set the bar lower with allowing a percentage of mistakes to slip through, then you allow for even more mistakes to be made. Perhaps a six sigma approach to the penal system is what is needed.

 

[RandFan]

I don't see the problem you raise. I guess I have a pragmatic view of this. Striving for zero error isn't the same as saying mistakes won't happen. If we set the bar lower with allowing a percentage of mistakes to slip through, then you allow for even more mistakes to be made. Perhaps a six sigma approach to the penal system is what is needed.

Ok, I like that, let's assume that there is no problem. Then let's do the same for the death penalty. Let's strive for zero error. Sounds good, right?

 

[joobz]

Ok, I like that, let's assume that there is no problem. Then let's do the same for the death penalty. Let's strive for zero error. Sounds good, right?

well, now your misinterpreting my point.
I never said to assume there isn't a problem. I do not know how you inferred that view. I state that we have the justice system work as accurately as possible. We set the laws to minimize the likelyhood of wrongful incarceration while still allowing for the conviction of the guilty. this isn't a clean line and mistakes will occur. As I've already explained, the death penalty doesn't allow for error correction. for this reason, any mistake that was made by the initial conviction can be corrected at later date.

Such self correction isn't permitted in the death penalty.

 

[RandFan]

well, now your misinterpreting my point.
I never said to assume there isn't a problem. I do not know how you inferred that view.

Let's back up.

CFL: How many wrongful executions do you accept, then?
MM: One is too much
RF: How many wrongful incarcerations do you accept?
JZ: Ideally none as well

I don't really know what that means. So far we haven't resolved it.

I state that we have the justice system work as accurately as possible. We set the laws to minimize the likelyhood of wrongful incarceration while still allowing for the conviction of the guilty. this isn't a clean line and mistakes will occur. As I've already explained, the death penalty doesn't allow for error correction. for this reason, any mistake that was made by the initial conviction can be corrected at later date.

• What if the person dies in prison?
• What if an incarcerated inmate escapes and kills another person?
• What do you mean by correct? Can you give a man 20 years of his life back?

Such self correction isn't permitted in the death penalty.

I don't think there is an ideal solution. Currently I'm anti-death penalty.

 

[joobz]

Let's back up.

CFL: How many wrongful executions do you accept, then?
MM: One is too much
RF: How many wrongful incarcerations do you accept?
JZ: Ideally none as well
I don't really know what that means. So far we haven't resolved it.

I said, ideally none, but i never said to pretend no problem exists.

You are asking for how many wrongful convictions are permitted and I do not think you can actually have a number. It's like asking how many on the job accidents are acceptable.

• What if the person dies in prison?
• What if an incarcerated inmate escapes and kills another person?
• What do you mean by correct? Can you give a man 20 years of his life back?

I don't think there is an ideal solution. Currently I'm anti-death penalty.

i completely understand these points and I too do not think there is an ideal solution.

if it turns out he was innocent, while he wouldn't gain those 20 years back, he'd at least have the rest of his life.

 

[RandFan]

You are asking for how many wrongful convictions are permitted and I do not think you can actually have a number. It's like asking how many on the job accidents are acceptable.

Then I think we are back to square one and haven't gotten anwhere. I'm not certain what relevance it is to say that we wouldn't tolerate a single innocent person to be put to death and we would virtually not tolerate an innocent person to be incarcerated.

Perhaps we should skip the tolerate or not tolerate rhetoric since it doesn't really serve any purpose.

if it turns out he was innocent, while he wouldn't gain those 20 years back, he'd at least have the rest of his life.

Of course, this does nothing for the innocent person who dies in prison.

Does the release of an innocent person always bring bring some sense of justice to that person? Some lives are permanantly scarred and perhaps irreprebly ruined. Perhaps we shouldn't take too much comfort in such corrections.

Please don't mistake that last paragraph as any attempt to justify the death penalty.

 

[joobz]

Then I think we are back to square one and haven't gotten anwhere. I'm not certain what relevance it is to say that we wouldn't tolerate a single innocent person to be put to death and we would virtually not tolerate an innocent person to be incarcerated.

Perhaps we should skip the tolerate or not tolerate rhetoric since it doesn't really serve any purpose.

Of course, this does nothing for the innocent person who dies in prison.

Does the release of an innocent person always bring bring some sense of justice to that person? Some lives are permanantly scarred and perhaps irreprebly ruined. Perhaps we shouldn't take too much comfort in such corrections.

Please don't mistake that last paragraph as any attempt to justify the death penalty.

With the death penalty, 100% of the people have 0% chance of having a reversal of penalty. Not everyone incarcerated die before the opportunity for reversal. In that regard, there is still some hope.

But would you equate death to a probability of a scarred life?

In a somewhat(vaguely) related issue, i always thought that the concept of the afterlife made people less likely to feel responsible in permitting the death penalty. afterall, ithey can console themselves that if they are wrong and the person was innocent...that person would go to heaven.

 

[RandFan]

With the death penalty, 100% of the people have 0% chance of having a reversal of penalty. Not everyone incarcerated die before the opportunity for reversal. In that regard, there is still some hope.

Yes, and there is a chance that a murderer will escape and kill another innocent person. It has happened BTW.

But would you equate death to a probability of a scarred life?

Not my point. Only that there is no simple equation to compare the two. Both have risks.

ETA: BTW, the finality of the death penalty does figure heavily into my stance of being anti death penalty. I just don't buy this zero tolerance stuff. Many policies in fact cause innocent people to die. I think we are often hypocritical in this regard.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes.

You want a list? Start here ->http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

A joke, then.

I don't think so. No, I'm certain that it is not a fundamental idea of modern legal systems.

On the contrary, I believe that the fundamental idea is that a just society is one that is willing to err on the side of caution to let a hundred guilty go free than one innocent man be punished.

BTW, the "hundred" isn't really a hard and fast figure. No such metric exists. Clearly society can't construct an error proof justice system. No such system is possible given human dynamics. Letting all guilty people go free to avoid the incarceration of a single innocent person is not justice.

So, humans device a system that ostensibly errs on the side of the innocent and not the victim (innocent until proven guilty). It's an imperfect system that is only as good as the citizens and their willingness to speak up on behalf of the accused rights to a fair trial.

That's precisely it: The idea - or principle, if you want - is that we simply can't jail (or, in your case, kill) innocent people.

The problem here is not that innocents are jailed, but that innocents are killed. No retribution possible. When a society takes that irreversible step, it leaves all pretenses of a just legal system behind.

42

A joke, then.

 

[RandFan]

AThat's precisely it: The idea - or principle, if you want - is that we simply can't jail (or, in your case, kill) innocent people.

The problem here is not that innocents are jailed, but that innocents are killed. No retribution possible. When a society takes that irreversible step, it leaves all pretenses of a just legal system behind.

If you say so. I honestly can't figure out what your point is. I don't know if it is ok or if it is not ok to jail people, ever, if it means that an innocent person might be jailed.

But that's ok, somehow I seriously doubt that I want to open that can of worms.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[Elind]

Dear Elind,

That's an interesting moral stance; are you arguing by implication that the agents who carry out an execution are more moral than you, because they consider all victims of murder "their family" that they are willing to take vengeance for?

Cpl Ferro

You miss the point. Social stances are not inevitably just the position of an arbitrary average individual.

 

[Elind]

I've never found this argument ultimately compelling. It seems persuasive on the outset but are we not also above incarceration? What do we do with kidnappers?

We can go back to playing with statistics, where this always ends up, forever, or we can listen to what we know of human behavior at a more personal level. I believe that murderers either don't care about consequences, don't care about their own life, don't think they will be caught or simply had a lapse of self control, or think that society is as bad as they are anyway.

Point is, life in prison or death will make no difference to the number of victims, although conceivably a "higher" stance by society towards taking life unnecessarily might have an effect on some who will realize they are crossing a more special line if they kill.

I can't prove it, but I'm convinced that those who would avoid killing because they know there is a death sentence waiting (maybe), as opposed to life in prison, are so few as to be reasonably compared to my possible "deterent" as described above.

If that is the case the only choice remaining is whether "we" want to kill because it makes us feel better, or not kill because that makes us feel better.

Take your pick.

 

[joobz]

Yes, and there is a chance that a murderer will escape and kill another innocent person. It has happened BTW.

I understand, but it is also possible that that escaped felon could save someone's life. i do not see how we can make policy based upon secondary events. Especially when it is related to a completely different issue (level of security used in the prison system).

Not my point. Only that there is no simple equation to compare the two. Both have risks.

ETA: BTW, the finality of the death penalty does figure heavily into my stance of being anti death penalty. I just don't buy this zero tolerance stuff. Many policies in fact cause innocent people to die. I think we are often hypocritical in this regard.

If you mean the activity version of zero tolerance, I agree. It is impractical and not possible. If you mean a policy goal of zero errors, I disagree. It would be like stating that since material fatigue occurs, we should just accept a certain number of bridge failures.

 

[RandFan]

We can go back to playing with statistics, where this always ends up, forever, or we can listen to what we know of human behavior at a more personal level.

Ok, but this doesn't answer my question. Nothing in your post does.

I believe that murderers either don't care about consequences, don't care about their own life, don't think they will be caught or simply had a lapse of self control, or think that society is as bad as they are anyway.

Point is, life in prison or death will make no difference to the number of victims, although conceivably a "higher" stance by society towards taking life unnecessarily might have an effect on some who will realize they are crossing a more special line if they kill.

I can't prove it, but I'm convinced that those who would avoid killing because they know there is a death sentence waiting (maybe), as opposed to life in prison, are so few as to be reasonably compared to my possible "deterent" as described above.

This is all well and good but is it grounded in emperical studies? If not then I really have no use for it.

If that is the case the only choice remaining is whether "we" want to kill because it makes us feel better, or not kill because that makes us feel better.

Take your pick.

I reject this false dichotomy. Let me reiterate. I'm currently against the death penalty. It is a position I took a long time to change based on years of discussion and debate. I did not come by my position lightly.

Ok, first off, it's impossible to divorce feelings from what humans do. Meaning itself is grounded in emotion. That said, we must take care that we are not simply motivated by emotion.

"Feel better"? How about a sense of justice and proportionality? Is that a rational sense? I think it is. I don't find incarceration to be proportional or just for folks like Dennis Rader. I accept that it is all that we will do to Rader and I accept that some time in the future there will be forever an end to a proportionality and a measure of justice for folks like Dennis Rader and it will be because of rational decisions that have nothing to do with your dichotomy.