Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[Bob Klase]

Why are they not correlated?

Exactly what do you think the the correlation is? They are correlated in the same way that my numbers are correlated.

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
The fact that 121-125 innocent people have been found on death row supports that. No one has disputed it. Connecting that number to the number executed adds exactly nothing. Extending that number to cover everyone merely makes it look like you're too desperate to stick to actual facts.

Nonsense.

Nonsense? I guess that's another one of your indisputable facts.

Yes, it is an average, but you can't call it "only". That's precisely what averages are for: Finding averages.

Much like my averages- 1 innocent for every 4000 murders, 1 for every 8000 murders and rapes. We can find lots of averages.

What you are doing is comparing exonerated from the group of death-row convicted to the larger group of non-death-row convicted. That, you cannot do.

What you are doing is comparing exonerated from the group of death-row convicted to the smaller group of death-row executed. That you can do, but it's still meaningless.

Huh? Where do I do that?

Post #187- You claim my argument is invalid since "all innocent ones are not found". Therefore your argument must be invalid for the same reason.

 

[CFLarsen]

Exactly what do you think the the correlation is? They are correlated in the same way that my numbers are correlated.

No, they are not.

Much like my averages- 1 innocent for every 4000 murders, 1 for every 8000 murders and rapes. We can find lots of averages.

Not all averages are equally valid.

What you are doing is comparing exonerated from the group of death-row convicted to the smaller group of death-row executed. That you can do, but it's still meaningless.

Tell me something: How would you find out how many on death row are innocent, out of the whole population on death row?

Post #187- You claim my argument is invalid since "all innocent ones are not found". Therefore your argument must be invalid for the same reason.

???

I admit no such thing.

 

[Yiab]

It is a sad fact that he who can pay the better lawyer, wins the case. What you are arguing is that only people on death row who are rich enough to get proper legal defense are innocent. The poor are the guilty ones.

Oversimplification. While the amount of money someone can pay for a lawyer certainly does enter into it and can have a major affect on the outcome of a case, the defendant's guilt or innocence of the crime also enters into it as does the random influence of prosecutor's capability, jury selection and judge's personality.
My point is that there is no clear way to determine the statistical interaction between these confounding factors and so we cannot rightly conclude that the variables "is innocent but on death row" and "is executed after time on death row" are at all independent, hence we cannot consider that the sample we have to be representative in any meaningful way.

The statistic is suggestive that research needs to be done, but unfortunately there is no feasible and ethical way of performing that research which has yet been conceived of. The statistic by itself, though, is not even inconclusive it is of insufficient quality to be called evidence in either direction.

 

[Bob Klase]

No, they are not.

Yes, they are.

Not all averages are equally valid.

Not they are not. But in this thread, my averages are as valid as yours.

Tell me something: How would you find out how many on death row are innocent, out of the whole population on death row?

By finding evidence that exonerates those that are innocent and then counting how many have been exonerated. Not by dividing number that prove nothing.

Maybe you should just go ask Syliva Brown- I'm sure that whatever method she used would be as accurate as yours.

???

I admit no such thing.

Whether you admit or not, your argument is invalid for the same reason that mine is.

 

[CplFerro]

The death penalty, IMO, can be applied to people who have been convicted as being responsible for intentially wanting to kill other people and eventually making it happen.
For instance, a serial killer. That man does not deserve to live. Think about it, in prison where do you think he gets his food from? from your tax money. And he can legally marry a woman and bring kids to this world and see them from time to time. Why should he have that privilege if he has taken the basic privilege of every human being which is to live?

Regards,
Yair

Dear yairhol,

Life is not a "privilege," it is a right. No one "deserves" to live except by virtue of their humanity, which criminal activity does not remove. Argue from rights, not privilege, which ever way you swing.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CFLarsen]

By finding evidence that exonerates those that are innocent and then counting how many have been exonerated. Not by dividing number that prove nothing.

So, you do not think it is possible to get an estimate? You will have to go through each and every case, to get an idea of how many are innocent?

 

[wollery]

So, you do not think it is possible to get an estimate? You will have to go through each and every case, to get an idea of how many are innocent?

Precisely.

You will only ever have a posteriori knowledge of the number of wrongful convictions, and that number will be inaccurate, since it is safe to assume that not all wrongful convictions will be discovered, and some convictions will be overturned in error.

However, it is possible that nobody on death row at this moment is innocent. Which renders your statistic utterly meaningless.

 

[CFLarsen]

Precisely.

You will only ever have a posteriori knowledge of the number of wrongful convictions, and that number will be inaccurate, since it is safe to assume that not all wrongful convictions will be discovered, and some convictions will be overturned in error.

It's the "not all wrongful convictions will be discovered" part that worries me. And should worry others, too.

However, it is possible that nobody on death row at this moment is innocent. Which renders your statistic utterly meaningless.

Only in that case, of course. But it's not very likely that nobody on death row at this moment is innocent.

 

[wollery]

It's the "not all wrongful convictions will be discovered" part that worries me. And should worry others, too.

Only in that case, of course. But it's not very likely that nobody on death row at this moment is innocent.

I don't disagree with your first statement (as even a cursory reading of my posts in this thread will reveal), but your statistic is still meaningless, since it is impossible to know, or predict, how many of the people on death row are innocent. Each case is unique, so the probability of the number of cases which are wrongful convictions is not a measurable statistic.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't disagree with your first statement (as even a cursory reading of my posts in this thread will reveal), but your statistic is still meaningless, since it is impossible to know, or predict, how many of the people on death row are innocent. Each case is unique, so the probability of the number of cases which are wrongful convictions is not a measurable statistic.

Unfortunately, they are not as unique as one might expect. If you are non-white, poor and uneducated, you stand a much "better" chance of ending up there.

Of the currently 124 exonerated, only 49 were white. Only 7 were pardoned, the rest were acquitted or the charges were dismissed.

The "system" does not "work".

 

[wollery]

I never said that the system worked, just that you can't predict how many will be wrongful convictions.

What I meant by unique is that each case is different from all the rest.

 

[CFLarsen]

I never said that the system worked, just that you can't predict how many will be wrongful convictions.

What I meant by unique is that each case is different from all the rest.

We can definitely make an educated guess.

What I have yet to see, is a sound argument for accepting that innocent people are executed. How many will be accepted, and, especially, why?

Is it cost?

 

[wollery]

If by educated guess you mean that we can say that some people on death row are most probably innocent, then yes, we can make an educated guess.

However, any number is you might provide would be meaningless.

As for arguments about accepting the executions of innocent people, I've seen several sound arguments. I disagree with them, but that doesn't mean that they aren't valid arguments, just based on different personal opinions of what is or isn't acceptable.

 

[Bob Klase]

Of the currently 124 exonerated, only 49 were white. Only 7 were pardoned, the rest were acquitted or the charges were dismissed.

The "system" does not "work".

How is that an indication that the "system" does not "work"? I may be wrong, but from the wording you seem to think that anything other than being pardoned is an indication of the system not working. That's wrong.

When evidence of innocent is found, it's not brought directly to the governor for a pardon. First it goes back to court. I believe that generally (if not always), the pardon is (sort of) the last resort.

I think it would be more an indication that the system's not working if there had been 115 pardons and only 7 had been acquitted or had the charges dismissed.

For indications of systems not working, you might want to read Mean Justice by Edward Humes- in particular all the cases listed in the appendices.

What I have yet to see, is a sound argument for accepting that innocent people are executed. How many will be accepted, and, especially, why?

Any answer will only be opinion, not fact. How many deaths are acceptable by automobile accidents? At what point should be ban cars because too many people are dying in them? Obviously (in the US) the number is greater than 40,000 per year.

Is it cost?

Obviously not since the cost to keep one in prison for life is much cheaper than the death penalty.

 

[Darth Rotor]

but is not really terribly beneficial for society.

There's an imprecise observation, nice and broad, based on your point of view.

Society is made up of people, and sufficient of those people feel it has a place, in some states. Some states have decided that your PoV is one they are more happy living with. That too is society. You aren't matching what is with what is, you are comparing what you think should be with what you presume "society" thinks, and you seem to presume society as either homogenous, or monolithic, or a sentient entity.

Not interested in further philosophical hairsplitting cum mental masturbation. (Guessing that with you it would be much more the former than the latter.)

I no longer consider the matter a topic for debate, in terms of what I spend my time considering. There are times in life to quit waffling about and making a decision. I did my waffling in my twenties, and my decision was made a bit later. I support it. I agree that the standards need tightening. I live in a state that uses the Death Penalty. If you live in one where it isn't used, that hopefully makes you content with justice in your state. If not, you have the choice of moving, or of working toward political change. That's more productive than hairsplitting with me.

DR

 

[CFLarsen]

How is that an indication that the "system" does not "work"? I may be wrong, but from the wording you seem to think that anything other than being pardoned is an indication of the system not working. That's wrong.

You are wrong. Anything other than abolishing the death pentalty because it sentences innocent people to be killed is wrong.

Any answer will only be opinion, not fact. How many deaths are acceptable by automobile accidents? At what point should be ban cars because too many people are dying in them? Obviously (in the US) the number is greater than 40,000 per year.

You really don't see the difference between automobile accidents (uncontrollable accidents) and state-sanctioned killings of innocents (controllable deliberate actions to kill)?

Would you also include e.g. the almost 250,000 dead from the 2004 tsunami in your comparison?

Obviously not since the cost to keep one in prison for life is much cheaper than the death penalty.

Maybe not. What do you think? How many innocent people executed do you find acceptable?

 

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
How is that an indication that the "system" does not "work"? I may be wrong, but from the wording you seem to think that anything other than being pardoned is an indication of the system not working.

You are wrong.

I'm wrong about what? You don't think that?

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
How is that an indication that the "system" does not "work"? I may be wrong, but from the wording you seem to think that anything other than being pardoned is an indication of the system not working.

You are wrong. Anything other than abolishing the death pentalty because it sentences innocent people to be killed is wrong.

Is that supposed to address something I wrote in the paragraph you quoted?

You really don't see the difference between automobile accidents (uncontrollable accidents) and state-sanctioned killings of innocents (controllable deliberate actions to kill)?

Would you also include e.g. the almost 250,000 dead from the 2004 tsunami in your comparison?

Automobile accidents are not "uncontrollable accidents". Banning automobiles would end auto accidents. Passing a law banning tsunamis would not end tsunamis or tsunami caused deaths.

Apparently you think automobile deaths are as uncontrollable as tsunami's.

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
Obviously not since the cost to keep one in prison for life is much cheaper than the death penalty.

Maybe not.

Maybe not what? Are you disputing the fact that it costs more to carry out a death sentence than it does to keep someone in prison for life?

What do you think? How many innocent people executed do you find acceptable?

Why do you assume that I'm in favor of the death penalty? I've written nothing in this thread to indicate whether I am or not.

How about you? If the number of innocent people executed was zero would you still oppose the death penalty?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I wrote:
" Originally Posted by Matteo Martini
Basically, I do.

If only one wrongful execution happens, nothing differentiates the state from a cold blood, premedidate, murderer.. "

The intent in both cases is to kill.
I can not see much difference between a cold-blood murderer, who kills, for example, his wife for revenge, and the state, who kills an inmate, because they did not give him enough time/rights to prove his innocence.
Maybe, there is a difference, but, it dies not matter a lot, if you are that inmate

Well if you are only considering the outcome then moral or immoral are meaningless. The fact is that in the one case the intent was very different to the other. One did not intend to kill an innocent person and the other did. If you wish to exclude that difference from the discussion then we're wasting our time.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Wait a second.
This is eactly the point.
What does it mean that the process system is " transparent "?
Does it mean that it is , in this particular case, better?
I would not think so..
Transparent to the media, to the public, to everybody else, but, what does the public know about this murder?
Nothing more that what is publicly available.
And, so the jury.
THe husband knows more.
So, why the jury can send the man to die ( or not ), and the husband can not?

NO it doesn't mean 'better' ... where are you getting this nonsense?

It means that its been generally agreed by society and that it is open to inspection and 'change' is people object to the way things work. Vigalante justice is not open to this. Your specific case is meaningless as it is not in any way representative of any murder case ever tried or ever will be.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm wrong about what? You don't think that?

Try to read what I say.

Is that supposed to address something I wrote in the paragraph you quoted?

Yes, it was a response.

Automobile accidents are not "uncontrollable accidents". Banning automobiles would end auto accidents. Passing a law banning tsunamis would not end tsunamis or tsunami caused deaths.

Apparently you think automobile deaths are as uncontrollable as tsunami's.

Apparently you think automobiles are built to kill people. They are not. The death penalty is designed to do just that.

Since you bring up automobile accidents (where you accept a certain number of deaths following those) as being comparable to innocent people killed on death row, you must also have decided what the acceptable number of the latter is. Otherwise, your comparison makes no sense.

How many innocently killed on death row will you accept?

Maybe not what? Are you disputing the fact that it costs more to carry out a death sentence than it does to keep someone in prison for life?

Do you have a hard time understanding the written word? Or are you intent on misunderstanding what I say?

It may not be the cost the cost that is the decisive factor.

Why do you assume that I'm in favor of the death penalty? I've written nothing in this thread to indicate whether I am or not.

I didn't assume that you were. I asked how many innocent people executed you find acceptable. Care to answer?

How about you? If the number of innocent people executed was zero would you still oppose the death penalty?

Yes, of course. What about you?