Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[Last of the Fraggles]

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

Its equally as likely as the bizarre number you quoted.

Nobody is arguing that there are no wrongful convictions we're just trying to stop you quoting that weird statistic without understanding what it means.

 

[CFLarsen]

Its equally as likely as the bizarre number you quoted.

Nobody is arguing that there are no wrongful convictions we're just trying to stop you quoting that weird statistic without understanding what it means.

How many wrongful executions do you accept, then?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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".

I think you should stop quoting figures until you can establish what they mean.

The number exonerated is not a random sample and cannot be applied to the total population to tell us anything other than the mistakenness of the one making the assertion.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think you should stop quoting figures until you can establish what they mean.

The number exonerated is not a random sample and cannot be applied to the total population to tell us anything other than the mistakenness of the one making the assertion.

How many wrongful executions do you accept, then?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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

What a strange answer. I wasn't asking what people feel or think I was asking you what the benefit was. Are you arguing that the 'feeling of justice being done' benefits us practically?

In what way was my question an 'imprecise observation'? Perhaps if you'd actually answered it we'd have an observation to deal with.

I can only assume you misread or misinterpreted what I posted.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

How many wrongful executions do you accept, then?

Personally, none.

But I don't believe that figure to be some moral absolute. I actually asked DR to provide some evidence that would lead me to increase my number but he posted something i didn't really grasp instead.

If someone could show the death penalty to have some positive effect beyond punishment I'd be open to the idea that a non-zero number of innocents killed is OK.

The car analogy is not exact but does provide some perspective... the purpose of cars is to provide transportation and yet a large number of innocents die, the purpose of the death penalty is to punish the guilty and yet a small number of innocents die.

It does become a cost benefit analysis ultimately.

 

[CFLarsen]

Personally, none.

But I don't believe that figure to be some moral absolute. I actually asked DR to provide some evidence that would lead me to increase my number but he posted something i didn't really grasp instead.

If someone could show the death penalty to have some positive effect beyond punishment I'd be open to the idea that a non-zero number of innocents killed is OK.

You would? Really?

What positive effect can you imagine? Not show, but imagine?

The car analogy is not exact but does provide some perspective... the purpose of cars is to provide transportation and yet a large number of innocents die, the purpose of the death penalty is to punish the guilty and yet a small number of innocents die.

No, no, no. The purpose of the death penalty is to kill those who have been found guilty. There is no way you could say that the purpose of the car is to kill anyone.

It does become a cost benefit analysis ultimately.

Then, you should be able to put a price on the death penalty.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

You would? Really?

What positive effect can you imagine? Not show, but imagine?



No, no, no. The purpose of the death penalty is to kill those who have been found guilty. There is no way you could say that the purpose of the car is to kill anyone.



Then, you should be able to put a price on the death penalty.

Well a rather simple example would be to say that if the effect of having the death penalty lowered the chance of being killed in the street by a murderer by more than it increased the chance of being wrongly executed then we would be better off as a whole.

So I would be willing to accept the 0.00000001% chance of being executed wrongly if it eliminated the 0.00000002% chance of being killed randomly.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

You would? Really?

What positive effect can you imagine? Not show, but imagine?



No, no, no. The purpose of the death penalty is to kill those who have been found guilty. There is no way you could say that the purpose of the car is to kill anyone.



Then, you should be able to put a price on the death penalty.

Well of course we CAN'T put an exact price on it for the reasons we've talked about. We don't really know what the error rate is.

 

[RandFan]

Hereby, I am willing to demonstrate to you why death penalty is wrong.

Now, my question is, is this behaviour to be defined as " moral ", in your opinion?

I'm at a complete loss. I guess I will have to read the other posts but where have you demonstrated anything? Is your argument simply an appeal to individual sense of morality? If so then you have demonstrated nothing.

Perhaps you simply want to discuss the issue. If so I'm not very taken with your example. It doesn't really present any profound moral dilemmas. It's simply a garden variety one caused by the application of societal rules and the understandable hurt and traumatized state of a person who witnessed that which he most loves destroyed. We might as well discuss the ocean tides.

Do you have a better example?

Oh, BTW, let me answer your question. It's a simple one that is not at all controversial.

To society the action is immoral.
To the individual the action is both rational and moral.

Any more questions?

 

[balrog666]

If someone could show the death penalty to have some positive effect beyond punishment I'd be open to the idea that a non-zero number of innocents killed is OK.

Recidivism rate among executed murderers = zero.
Recidivism rate among executed serial rapists = zero.
Recidivism rate among executed armed robbers = zero.
Recidivism rate among executed child molesters = zero.
.
.
.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well a rather simple example would be to say that if the effect of having the death penalty lowered the chance of being killed in the street by a murderer by more than it increased the chance of being wrongly executed then we would be better off as a whole.

So I would be willing to accept the 0.00000001% chance of being executed wrongly if it eliminated the 0.00000002% chance of being killed randomly.

Wait a second. You can end up on death row for not just murder, but also rape (and other crimes). If you want to do the calculation you did above, you have to include all those crimes.

But, let's just take homicide. In 2002, the homicide rate in the US was 6.1 per 100,000. There is approx. 300 million people in the US, so that gives us 18,300 homicides in 2002.

Now, the percentages you gave was 1:2. For each two homicides, you would accept one unjustly executed person.

That means you will accept 9,150 unjustly executed persons.

Are you sure that sounds acceptable to you?

Well of course we CAN'T put an exact price on it for the reasons we've talked about. We don't really know what the error rate is.

Then, you can't say it is a cost benefit analysis.

 

[CFLarsen]

Recidivism rate among executed murderers = zero.
Recidivism rate among executed serial rapists = zero.
Recidivism rate among executed armed robbers = zero.
Recidivism rate among executed child molesters = zero.
.
.
.

Does that mean you think all these crimes should automatically result in the death penalty?

If so, what other crimes should automatically result in the death penalty?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Recidivism rate among executed murderers = zero.
Recidivism rate among executed serial rapists = zero.
Recidivism rate among executed armed robbers = zero.
Recidivism rate among executed child molesters = zero.
.
.
.

Could equally be achieved by locking someone up for life so not a great argument.

You have to show the ADDITIONAL benefit of killing them.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Wait a second. You can end up on death row for not just murder, but also rape (and other crimes). If you want to do the calculation you did above, you have to include all those crimes.

But, let's just take homicide. In 2002, the homicide rate in the US was 6.1 per 100,000. There is approx. 300 million people in the US, so that gives us 18,300 homicides in 2002.

Now, the percentages you gave was 1:2. For each two homicides, you would accept one unjustly executed person.

That means you will accept 9,150 unjustly executed persons.

Are you sure that sounds acceptable to you?



Then, you can't say it is a cost benefit analysis.

You seem to be struggling with the numbers in this thread I did nothing of the sort.

I said I would accept the risk of being wrongly executed being less than the reduced risk of being murdered in the street.

You just made the rest up. At least I could see how you made up your last numbers, these latest ones I have no idea.

 

[balrog666]

Could equally be achieved by locking someone up for life so not a great argument.

You have to show the ADDITIONAL benefit of killing them.

Oh, you mean there are no murders in prison? No rapes in prison? No robberies? No assaults?

And no escapes? No errors in releases? Ever?

Gosh, who knew?

 

[balrog666]

Does that mean you think all these crimes should automatically result in the death penalty?

If so, what other crimes should automatically result in the death penalty?

Oh, yes, we include people who run red lights too!

Do you have any more straw men you want to assault?

 

[RandFan]

Could equally be achieved by locking someone up for life so not a great argument.

You have to show the ADDITIONAL benefit of killing them.

I used to be a very strong proponent of the death penalty. Currently I lean against it.

That said, why? Doesn't one need to simply demonstrate that such people kill others while incarcerated. That such individuals can and do escape and kill other people?

 

[CFLarsen]

You seem to be struggling with the numbers in this thread I did nothing of the sort.

I said I would accept the risk of being wrongly executed being less than the reduced risk of being murdered in the street.

You just made the rest up. At least I could see how you made up your last numbers, these latest ones I have no idea.

That's precisely what I went with: One percentage was twice as large as the other. 1:2.

Now, I know that you just wrote a lot of zero's and thought it looked impressive. It does, but not the way you thought.

Now, if you say there is a 0.00000002% of being murdered, it means that, out of a population of 300 million, there are 0.06 homicides in all. So, you have already eradicated homicides as a possible crime. The basis of your calculation is equivalent to 1 homicide each 16 years.

Your percentages are not just grabbed from thin air, they are also totally unrealistic.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I used to be a very strong proponent of the death penalty. Currently I lean against it.

That said, why? Doesn't one need to simply demonstrate that such people kill others while incarcerated. That such individuals can and do escape and kill other people?

Well that would be an argument against allowing them to have contact with other people or for greater security in prisons.

I'm pretty sure you could design a prison that eliminate these 2 issues though I'm not sure how human rights friendly they would be.

I have a feeling this is coming down to the number of wrong convictions (unknown) vs the deterrent effect (unknown)

Not really helping is it?