Death Penalty

[tomwaits]

Question: is there a practical (as opposed to moral) reason for having a death penalty, backed up by evidence supporting said reason? Does having a death penalty somehow help produce a more secure and healthy society than simply having life imprisonment?

 

[Caper]

But since we're not talking about preventing all miscarriages of justice...

But that's what he was talking about. He basically said his position was..... It's better to let an infinite amount guilty go free then convict one innocent person. The only way to assure that is to let everyone go free.... or no justice system.

 

[Carnivore]

But the only way to prevent a miscarriage of justice is to have no justice system.

The only way to absolutely prevent any miscarriage of justice is to have no justice system, yes.

We pretty much all agree that a justice system is necessary however, and the posiiblity of miscarriage of justice is why we insist on due process, safeguarding the rights of the accused and placing the burden of proof on the prosecution.

We also make it part of the system that if new evidence comes to light exonerating a convicted person, we let them go. We do this because we care about justice.

The death penalty specifically denies the opportunity for further evidence. It's proponents either deny the possibility of miscarriage of justice or think killing prisoners is so desirable that they just don't care.

Having the death penalty is a statement that at some point you are just going to stop looking at evidence. You've seen enough. Nothing will ever make you change your mind about a persons guilt. It's a statement of faith.

Sure, most of the time you will be right. Eventually you won't be.

The death penalty is irrevocable and specifically denies a prisoner relief or redress in the event that evidence exonerating them comes to light after their execution. As long as even the theoretical possibilty exists that the wrong person could be convicted of a capital crime the death penalty is incompatible with justice.

Given the highly controversial nature of some real world capital convictions it's more than just a theoretical possibilty. Given the well known flaws demonstrated by any justice system, it's an eventual certainty.

ETA: Oh, and the State killing an innocent person is pretty much the most morally horrifying thing that could be done in our name. If all we need to do to avoid this is nothing - ie refrain from executing prisoners in our custody, the whole thing seems like a no brainer.

 

[ronin688]

But that's what he was talking about. He basically said his position was..... It's better to let an infinite amount guilty then convict one innocent person. The only way to assure that is to let everyone go free.... or no justice system.

I'm talking specifically about the death penalty.

I understand there is always going to be some level of wrongful conviction in any society and we have to live with that, but we don't have to enforce a death penalty with a system we know is inherently faulty.

 

[Caper]

The only way to absolutely prevent any miscarriage of justice is to have no justice system, yes.

We pretty much all agree that a justice system is necessary however, and the posiiblity of miscarriage of justice is why we insist on due process, safeguarding the rights of the accused and placing the burden of proof on the prosecution.

We also make it part of the system that if new evidence comes to light exonerating a convicted person, we let them go. We do this because we care about justice.

The death penalty specifically denies the opportunity for further evidence. It's proponents either deny the possibility of miscarriage of justice or think killing prisoners is so desirable that they just don't care.

Having the death penalty is a statement that at some point you are just going to stop looking at evidence. You've seen enough. Nothing will ever make you change your mind about a persons guilt. It's a statement of faith.

Sure, most of the time you will be right. Eventually you won't be.

The death penalty is irrevocable and specifically denies a prisoner relief or redress in the event that evidence exonerating them comes to light after their execution. As long as even the theoretical possibilty exists that the wrong person could be convicted of a capital crime the death penalty is incompatible with justice.

Given the highly controversial nature of some real world capital convictions it's more than just a theoretical possibilty. Given the well known flaws demonstrated by any justice system, it's an eventual certainty.

Hey I agree with you. I am basically defacto against the death penalty.... at least this week. There just isn't a death penalty system out there I would support right now.

I was simply arguing the other point.

 

[Caper]

I'm talking specifically about the death penalty.

I understand there is always going to be some level of wrongful conviction in any society and we have to live with that, but we don't have to enforce a death penalty with a system we know is inherently faulty.

Got ya... basically I hear that quite often... on the news and in debates and such..... I always wanted to insert that, what about 11 part. I couldn't help myself.

I will say though... when the debate comes up about the death penalty, amongst family or friends... I always argue for it (I'm in Canada), even though, like I said... I really can't support it because of the risk of dooming the innocent. Though in the end that's pretty much the only argument I have left.

 

[Carnivore]

Hey I agree with you. I am basically defacto against the death penalty.... at least this week. There just isn't a death penalty system out there I would support right now.

I was simply arguing the other point.

Insomnia makes me bombastic. I wasn't trying to shout at anyone in particular.

I apologise if I was coming on too strong or if it seemed personal. Unintended.

 

[Explorer]

Interesting that nobody has yet raised the "deterrent" effect of capital punishment. I don't subscribe to this, but an argument can be put forward on its behalf, that asks the question, how many more innocent deaths would have been prevented with CP?

It is surely as valid as the other question raised above, as to how many of the convicted innocents would be killed, if we had CP. It is an unknown quantity.

 

[JJM 777]

Death penalty is uncomfortable for organized crime, or anyone who has a policy of sometimes hiring assassins. Total abolition of death penalty is most important for organized criminals such as mafia. My imagination explains that the double standard of accepting bloody military actions while not accepting death penalty of a proven guilty murderer has its origins in lobbying circles whom the absence of death penalty benefits and protects.

My answer is: there should be a death penalty, but it should only be used in cases where the proof is complete, without any known naturalistic theory that would explain away the guilt of the suspect. For example, shooting a person under video camera surveillance, the act being recorded on video, would produce such evidence.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Interesting that nobody has yet raised the "deterrent" effect of capital punishment. I don't subscribe to this, but an argument can be put forward on its behalf, that asks the question, how many more innocent deaths would have been prevented with CP?

It is surely as valid as the other question raised above, as to how many of the convicted innocents would be killed, if we had CP. It is an unknown quantity.

That argument works for other crimes (rape, child molestation), also. If you say that only murderers "deserve" CP, than the argument has gone full circle back to the issues raised above. I think if CP was applied consistently, it might have a significant effect on reducing murders, but so would cutting the hands off of thieves. The main problem for me, as mentioned above, is that it is final and irrevocable.

 

[mike3]

Well, the biggest difference is the consequence of doing nothing.

It costs you nothing not to kill your convicted murderer in prison. He is not a threat to society. (In fact in the real world it saves money, as it costs less to convict a murderer and support him for life in prison than the process of capital trial and appeals to get someone executed.)

Wars can be justified or unjustified but individaul soldiers in war must kill in self defence, or to protect their comrades.

With regards to the hypothetical strike on the terrorist compound the question is "What happens if we don't bomb the compound?"

If this is your only opportunity to strike at a terror cell before it carries out an attack that will kill many more innocents, then yes, the strike is justified. If it is a meeting a senior leaders whose deaths will disrupt guerilla attacks around the world, yes, again I think it is justified.

On the other hand, if the terrorists are in hiding, not communicating on a tactical level with their organisation and we just want them dead for their past crimes, then they are not an immediate danger to others and we can afford not to bomb them. In that case bombing that would kill innocents is unjustified.

In the real world, when Team Six went after Bin Laden, they did it with boots on the ground and separated the harmless from the terrorists.

So if I get this right, then what's going on is that in the case of the war, some innocents' losses are acceptable as we were trying to save other lives from the terrorist attack. Whereas in the case of Dogg, the lives are "saved" at the point of arrest and detainment -- and the "death penalty", etc. is about administering justice. And in that case, killing even one innocent is injustice.

Is this understanding valid?

 

[Carnivore]

So if I get this right, then what's going on is that in the case of the war, some innocents' losses are acceptable as we were trying to save other lives from the terrorist attack. Whereas in the case of Dogg, the lives are "saved" at the point of arrest and detainment -- and the "death penalty", etc. is about administering justice. And in that case, killing even one innocent is injustice.

Is this understanding valid?

Yes, I think that's a good summary.

 

[Caper]

My answer is: there should be a death penalty, but it should only be used in cases where the proof is complete, without any known naturalistic theory that would explain away the guilt of the suspect. For example, shooting a person under video camera surveillance, the act being recorded on video, would produce such evidence.

I would tend to agree. I think also you would need some checks and balances. It kind of scares me that elected prosecutors can make these decisions. I think if a prosecutor is seeking the death penalty he should have to seek permission from a non elected body..... not sure how that would work though.

 

[The Dark Lord]

I would tend to agree. I think also you would need some checks and balances. It kind of scares me that elected prosecutors can make these decisions. I think if a prosecutor is seeking the death penalty he should have to seek permission from a non elected body..... not sure how that would work though.

Well, in the US, a jury decides if the death penalty will be applied, and it is a non elected body.

 

[JamesDillon]

Interesting that nobody has yet raised the "deterrent" effect of capital punishment. I don't subscribe to this, but an argument can be put forward on its behalf, that asks the question, how many more innocent deaths would have been prevented with CP?

It is surely as valid as the other question raised above, as to how many of the convicted innocents would be killed, if we had CP. It is an unknown quantity.

That last bit is an interesting point that I can't recall having seen raised before. If we assume that the death penalty prevents at least some murders, then we're essentially trading off innocent lives (murder victims) against innocent lives (wrongful convictions) in deciding whether or not to have capital punishment-- and if that's the case, then maybe the possibility of a wrongful execution isn't a trump against capital punishment if the number of innocents saved exceeds the number of innocents executed? Interesting-- but on the other hand, the alternative to death is usually life without parole, and the number of murders one can commit in prison is fairly low (though not zero, and I'd accept for these purposes that even convicted felons are "innocents" when thinking of them as potential murder victims).

 

[Lowpro]

He said I "excluded a middle", and I was wondering what the "middle" was I excluded.

Where can I find out more about the "processes and ethics" involved in each, and about the reasons for the existence of those ethics and why reasons applying in one circumstance do not carry over to the other?

I'm not going to speak about what someone else said.

Honestly if you want to know more about the ethics and processes of murder I'd suggest studying law. It's a living ethic. As for why they don't carry over, again that's a legal thing.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Question: is there a practical (as opposed to moral) reason for having a death penalty, backed up by evidence supporting said reason? Does having a death penalty somehow help produce a more secure and healthy society than simply having life imprisonment?

A theoretical practical reason for imposing the death penalty would be to save the taxpayers the money it costs to keep the scumbag alive for decades in prison. Of course, in the real world, death penalty cases actually cost the taxpayers more money, I believe.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

A theoretical practical reason for imposing the death penalty would be to save the taxpayers the money it costs to keep the scumbag alive for decades in prison. Of course, in the real world, death penalty cases actually cost the taxpayers more money, I believe.

I actually agree with the above. Let's assume that person X did something so horrible that we decide he can't ever be part of society again.
Assuming guilt is certain (we're talking about the punishment here, not the judicial system)

Why should my tax payer money keep that person alive?

As for if it is cheaper or not - I do believe it's cheaper.
When P&T did the death penalty episode (which was horribly done), Penn said they'll cover every single argument regarding death penalty. I kept waiting to hear the financial argument assuming some facts will be presented but no such thing. He did mention a single sentence of "If you have problem with the cost give him cheaper food" which makes me believe that they do know something about the numbers but haven't bothered showing them as it would hurt their cause.
Though of course I'd be more than interested if anyone can provide actual numbers.

Question: is there a practical (as opposed to moral) reason for having a death penalty, backed up by evidence supporting said reason? Does having a death penalty somehow help produce a more secure and healthy society than simply having life imprisonment?

With the exception of the financial issue above, how about the argument that the fact that you can't undo it is sometimes practical for society?

For example, putting a guy in prison for 60 years still opens the possibility that he'll escape and commit other crimes. Not to mention possibly hurt other inmates or even guards in the prison itself.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

That last bit is an interesting point that I can't recall having seen raised before. If we assume that the death penalty prevents at least some murders, then we're essentially trading off innocent lives (murder victims) against innocent lives (wrongful convictions) in deciding whether or not to have capital punishment-- and if that's the case, then maybe the possibility of a wrongful execution isn't a trump against capital punishment if the number of innocents saved exceeds the number of innocents executed? Interesting-- but on the other hand, the alternative to death is usually life without parole, and the number of murders one can commit in prison is fairly low (though not zero, and I'd accept for these purposes that even convicted felons are "innocents" when thinking of them as potential murder victims).

The evidence that the death penalty has a deterrent effect is slim to non-existent. There may even be evidence that it increases murder rates. Most evidence seems to show it has no effect. There are problems with sample size, as the number of executions (and, in most countries, murders) is so low. There's a good summary here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cassy-stubbs/the-death-penalty-deterre_b_52622.html

 

[Bikewer]

One might argue that often, the more depraved, vicious and nasty a criminal might be, the more likely they are to be suffering from severe mental illness that results in diminished capacity.
As well, the harm to society caused by various types of "white collar" crime might be considered considerably worse than a typical murderer, regardless of how depraved...Yet no one considers such crimes as meriting the death penalty.