Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[Matteo Martini]

No - but unless the husband has a complete idiot for a lawyer, this won't happen so is a strawman. Lawyer will have the husband polygraphed, will have him interviewed by psychiatrist and may well use funds to work backwards on the earlier case. Husband may go to jail (if my wife has that happen to her, I'll take that chance - though I will not kill immediately unless I have no option either) but I think he would accept that - and were I on the jury, it would be a hung jury.

The husband killed a man, who, by the law, was innocent.
The murder was premeditated, intentional, performed under no threat, in perfect willingness.
I can not see why you rule out death penalty for the husband so easily

 

[CFLarsen]

That was exactly the question- how could you know how many innocent were among the executed if nobody bothers to check the ones executed.

Wow- 372. The math seems pretty easy when you can just make up the numbers.

But Matteo's reference

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=9&did=188#year

says 125- significantly less than 372. And that's 125 since 1973- so (just maybe) it would make sense to compare it to the number of people who have been sent to death row since 1973 and not just the number who were on death row on a particular date.

If we compare the 372 to the number on your referenced site, you're even further off:

http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/about/arguments/argument3a.htm

Since 1973, at least 121 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged

121, 372, 125. Even when trying to compare numbers in a meaningless way you can't keep the straight.



I feel better knowing that you feel your arguments are so weak that you have to manipulate and exaggerate the numbers to make them look worse than they are.

Oy, oy, oy....

Read my posts, and the links I provided. Understand what they say. They do not say what you think they say. You have gotten it seriously wrong, many times.

I am not saying I know the numbers of how many innocent were among the executed. I specifically said that we can't know that, precisely because nobody checks.

The 121-125 number is the number of exonerated people on death row since 1973.

We know that whenever there are 8 people executed, there's another one exonerated. 1 in 9.

The 372 number is what you get, if you take 1/9th of the 3,350 (jan 2007).

Do you understand now?

The numbers are irrelevant.

1 wrongful execution is too many.

That's what it boils down to, yes. Which leads to the inevitable question:

So you assert. Subjective judgment. I am never impressed by the zero defects standard: no one is willing to bear the cost.

Your expressed sentiment of not considering a wrongful execution desireable is agreed completely.

DR

How many innocent people being executed are you willing to accept?

 

[jsfisher]

If you think that the jury could send the man ( burglar ) to death, but the husband should not have killed the burglar, you have to explain to me why, a man who has all the info in his hands, can not kill another man ( being sure he is guilty ) , while a group of men, who have not all the info in their hands, can morally send the burglar
to die.

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

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

We know that whenever there are 8 people executed, there's another one exonerated. 1 in 9.

The 372 number is what you get, if you take 1/9th of the 3,350 (jan 2007).

And we've several times pointed out that this is not the right statistic to quote.

The 1/9th of 3350... what do you think it means? I doubt that number is the number you think it is. Can you explain in fairly simple English what you think that number indicates?

That number seems to be meaningless yet you repeatedly state it as relevant so one of us is mistaken.

Lets try an example:

100 people are convicted of murder...

90 people get the death sentence...

New evidence comes along.... oops 10 of the 90 (1/9) were innocent remove them from the system.

80 people are executed.

How many of the executed do you think are innocent?

(Hint: Any answer you give is wrong, except 'we don't know')

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

The numbers are irrelevant.

1 wrongful execution is too many.

I personally agree but that's certainly not a statement of fact, just an assertion.

I wouldn't subject others to a system that I wouldn't want to go through myself.

Equally couldn't you argue that 1 innocent person being locked up for 25 years is too many also though? Where would that leave life sentences?

 

[fuelair]

In which case you aren't fit for jury service.

The only job of a jury is to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to find someone guilty of the crime they are charged with. In this instance the man is demonstrably guilty of premeditated murder, albeit with mitigating circumstances.

Two words: Jury Nullification - which assumes a jury can decide if a law is bad or is being misapplied/misused or is otherwise not appropriate.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ron Goldman, by the U.S. law, was not killed by O.J. Simpson.
And, I think that, if you perform an intentional, premeditated, not-under-menace murder of a guy who. by the law, is 100% innocent, you can be sent to death ( by the law )

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

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

 

[wollery]

I personally agree but that's certainly not a statement of fact, just an assertion.

I wouldn't subject others to a system that I wouldn't want to go through myself.

Equally couldn't you argue that 1 innocent person being locked up for 25 years is too many also though? Where would that leave life sentences?

Which is worse? A life sentence repealed after 10 years with reparations for wrongful conviction, or a death sentence that can never be repealed.

 

[wollery]

Two words: Jury Nullification - which assumes a jury can decide if a law is bad or is being misapplied/misused or is otherwise not appropriate.

So are you arguing that a man who commits premeditated murder should be found not guilty?

Is there something wrong with the law about murder? How is the law being misapplied/misused or not appropriate in this hypothetical?

 

[Darth Rotor]

What cost? Demonstrate that removing the death penalty increases the number of crimes, or that it costs more money to keep a prisoner in jail for life than to execute them.

Crimes, or capital crimes? And why do you ask me to demonstrate that? Many capital crimes are not attended by the death penalty, but by lesser sentences, either due to a plea bargain or due to arguments of mitigation before sentencing. I don't find the challenge to be rational. The other problem with your challenge is that the death penalty is not universally applied, nor even used, in all states.

Did you not note my comment on pest control a page or so back? I do not ascribe to a single factor justification for the death penalty.

As to the latter, as I have noted before, the length of time it takes to get a death sentence through the appeals process is a fixable inefficiency in the system, and at the moment is an inefficiency that is accepted.

That is not the fault of the death penalty as a method for pest control.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

If the state kills an innocent, then, he state too, becomes a murderer.
By which standard, then, a murderer can judge another murderer?

The state isn't a person, it is a party in a legal proceeding.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

How many innocent people being executed are you willing to accept?

We've been through this before. Don't you recall?

A few. Note: how many executed in a year, in the whole country?

No, wait, we went through that before as well. Months ago, you and I.

No point in repeating myself.

DR

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

We've been through this before. Don't you recall?

A few. Note: how many executed in a year, in the whole country?

No, wait, we went through that before as well. Months ago, you and I.

No point in repeating myself.

DR

Sounds OK when you say it like that but do you really mean it?

Are you prepared to be executed wrongly in order to have the death penalty on the statutes?

Personally, I'm not. I'd have to see a lot more evidence that the new risk incurred (being executed by the state) was offset by a lowered risk of being murdered by a criminal. Haven't seen that yet.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Which is worse? A life sentence repealed after 10 years with reparations for wrongful conviction, or a death sentence that can never be repealed.

Not really the question I presented though.

You are arguing that its pretty much OK to occasionally lock innocent people up for 10-20 or more years, presumably because you think the benefit outweighs this cost.

Pretty easy to then extend this to say its OK to occasionally execute the wrong person.

In fact there;s even an argument to suggest that had the death penaly existed many of those wrongul convictions would not have been passed since a jury is more likely to err on the side of caution when someone's life is on the line.

 

[wollery]

Crimes, or capital crimes? And why do you ask me to demonstrate that? Many capital crimes are not attended by the death penalty, but by lesser sentences, either due to a plea bargain or due to arguments of mitigation before sentencing. I don't find the challenge to be rational. The other problem with your challenge is that the death penalty is not universally applied, nor even used, in all states.

Did you not note my comment on pest control a page or so back? I do not ascribe to a single factor justification for the death penalty.

As to the latter, as I have noted before, the length of time it takes to get a death sentence through the appeals process is a fixable inefficiency in the system, and at the moment is an inefficiency that is accepted.

That is not the fault of the death penalty as a method for pest control.

DR

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

If the death penalty is a deterrent then it should be used, but if it isn't then what's the point? Saving money? Except it doesn't. Ensuring the safety of the public? How is it different in that respect from a life sentence without the chance of parole? Plea bargaining? Why would a DA accept a plea bargain if they had a really strong case? Mitigating circumstances before sentencing? Has anyone argued that that's a bad thing? Pest control? Are we talking about cockroaches or human beings?

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

And as for the amount of time it takes to get the death penalty through the appeals process, is this not a good thing? It allows time for new evidence to come to light, increasing the chances of exoneration for the wrongfully convicted.

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

 

[wollery]

Not really the question I presented though.

You are arguing that its pretty much OK to occasionally lock innocent people up for 10-20 or more years, presumably because you think the benefit outweighs this cost.

Where did I say that it's okay to lock up innocent people? It isn't, but it's preferable to executing innocent people. Wrongful convictions are never okay, but they happen. Given that reality I believe the death penalty is fundamentally wrong.

Pretty easy to then extend this to say its OK to occasionally execute the wrong person.

No. That was the entire point I was making. The death penalty is irreversible, a life sentence isn't.

In fact there;s even an argument to suggest that had the death penaly existed many of those wrongul convictions would not have been passed since a jury is more likely to err on the side of caution when someone's life is on the line.

Possibly, but there'd still be wrongful convictions, and innocent people being killed. Given the choice, I'd rather have twice the rate of wrongful convictions without the death penalty.

 

[CFLarsen]

And we've several times pointed out that this is not the right statistic to quote.

The 1/9th of 3350... what do you think it means? I doubt that number is the number you think it is. Can you explain in fairly simple English what you think that number indicates?

That number seems to be meaningless yet you repeatedly state it as relevant so one of us is mistaken.

Lets try an example:

100 people are convicted of murder...

90 people get the death sentence...

New evidence comes along.... oops 10 of the 90 (1/9) were innocent remove them from the system.

80 people are executed.

How many of the executed do you think are innocent?

(Hint: Any answer you give is wrong, except 'we don't know')

You are so wrong.

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

We've been through this before. Don't you recall?

A few. Note: how many executed in a year, in the whole country?

No, wait, we went through that before as well. Months ago, you and I.

No point in repeating myself.

DR

A "few".

1? 2? 10? 500?

 

[fuelair]

So are you arguing that a man who commits premeditated murder should be found not guilty?

Is there something wrong with the law about murder? How is the law being misapplied/misused or not appropriate in this hypothetical?

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

 

[balrog666]

The numbers are irrelevant.

1 wrongful execution is too many.

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

Now what?

 

[Matteo Martini]

The state isn't a person, it is a party in a legal proceeding.

DR

But the jury, which decides to send to death ( or not ) a person, is made of people, right?
People who take decisions according to what they know about a crime.
Now, if the jury can send people to die, even if they do not know about a crime that much, why can not the husband, who has much more info, in this particular case, about the crime?