Death Penalty

[JoeMorgue]

This is a very odd angle.

 

[Suddenly]

This is a very odd angle.

It's a result of frustration with that the discussion about criminal justice so often is dominated by the worry over a tiny number of deaths while on a daily basis I'm seeing tons of completely pointless mass misery including deaths of despair caused by a system that functions to convict as many innocent people as possible and is totally oblivious to the damage suffered by even those found innocent.

The sad thing is that the cops/prosecutors/judges I deal with at present are by far the most reasonable and enlightened group I've ever dealt with in my life, and I've been around. It is still objectively a horror show, both because it isn't exactly a high bar, and because it is systematic.

"We might accidentally kill someone" just seems a bit frivolous when I'm stepping over at least a body per month that I can trace back to the failure of the system.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I feel like killing someone versus keeping in the prison until they die is a much bigger and easier to get distinction then you're making at.

I also fail to see how stopping executions, ya know the topic of the thread, has anything to do with your issue, as valid as it is or isn't.

Yes stopping executions won't fix the entire criminal justice system. No reason to still not do it.

I'll never understand this "Your solution to a problem doesn't also address another problem I'm feel strongly about" thing.

 

[Suddenly]

I'll also add that I can come off a bit strident on my random visits here and that's in part because quite often it's what I do to vent after that sort of thing.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'll also add that I can come off a bit strident on my random visits here and that's in part because quite often it's what I do to vent after that sort of thing.

I appreciate the time you put in to making your point here. I stay as far from the criminal justice system as I can so my views are rarely informed by direct exposure. Thank you for adding that perspective.

What I’m getting is that you are not pro death penalty, but that the death penalty is far from being the biggest problem in our system. And focusing on the death penalty often leads to ignoring those much larger problems. Especially when the arguments against the death penalty hang on those larger problems.

I don’t know why I felt the need to restate your position, maybe I’m doing too many emails summarizing issues lately.

 

[Chanakya]

It's a result of frustration with that the discussion about criminal justice so often is dominated by the worry over a tiny number of deaths while on a daily basis I'm seeing tons of completely pointless mass misery including deaths of despair caused by a system that functions to convict as many innocent people as possible and is totally oblivious to the damage suffered by even those found innocent.

The sad thing is that the cops/prosecutors/judges I deal with at present are by far the most reasonable and enlightened group I've ever dealt with in my life, and I've been around. It is still objectively a horror show, both because it isn't exactly a high bar, and because it is systematic.

"We might accidentally kill someone" just seems a bit frivolous when I'm stepping over at least a body per month that I can trace back to the failure of the system.

What?!

Haven't followed the thread very closely, and you may have discussed what you do in posts I've missed, but whatever it is, how can accidentally (mistakenly, I suppose you mean) killing someone possibly be "frivolous"?

 

[Suddenly]

I feel like killing someone versus keeping in the prison until they die is a much bigger and easier to get distinction then you're making at.

Emotionally? Sure. Actually going and ending a life is traumatic and terrifying. Outside of that, not so much.

I mean, if you were innocent but convicted of murder, would you rather get sentenced to surely die in jail or get a death sentence that gives you 120x the chance of being exonerated and going free and will most likely not end in an execution (commutation or otherwise die) and if it did would take 20 years to happen? The only case for the life sentence is emotional, really.

This is an absurd state of affairs, and in a general discussion about the death penalty sort of important to consider.

It isn't the conclusion that the death penalty is wrong I take any issue with. It is that a lot of the common arguments are dubious and in a less tangible way the implications contribute to the problems I deal with.

If someone is concerned about the death penalty costing too much compared to a life sentence this can be fixed by making life sentences cost at least as much by giving the same due process and scrutiny. Fixes that.

The concern about the death penalty not being reversible gets blown up by the statistics that pretty clearly establish that in reality the life sentence is less likely to be reversed before death. So that's backwards if all we worry about is certainty of guilt.

etc.

 

[Suddenly]

What?!

Haven't followed the thread very closely, and you may have discussed what you do in posts I've missed, but whatever it is, how can accidentally (mistakenly, I suppose you mean) killing someone possibly be "frivolous"?

Is the concept of comparison that tricky to grasp?

 

[Suddenly]

I appreciate the time you put in to making your point here. I stay as far from the criminal justice system as I can so my views are rarely informed by direct exposure. Thank you for adding that perspective.

What I’m getting is that you are not pro death penalty, but that the death penalty is far from being the biggest problem in our system. And focusing on the death penalty often leads to ignoring those much larger problems. Especially when the arguments against the death penalty hang on those larger problems.

I don’t know why I felt the need to restate your position, maybe I’m doing too many emails summarizing issues lately.

That's most of it.

There is also that the reasons people use to argue against the death penalty go beyond ignoring the way bigger issues into endorsing them.

I get real twitchy about the argument that it is cheaper to not have the death penalty. I mean, I get the pragmatic appeal and can be an effective argument and that's great, but from my experience it sounds borderline sociopathic given the reasons why death penalty cases are more expensive.

 

[Chanakya]

Is the concept of comparison that tricky to grasp?

The idea that people being mistakenly being put to death can be seen as frivolous, that is the part I was having difficulty grasping.

You could clarify, if you wish. Or if you've already done that in some earlier post, that I've not seen, then you could point to it, if you wish.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Emotionally? Sure. Actually going and ending a life is traumatic and terrifying. Outside of that, not so much.

I mean, if you were innocent but convicted of murder, would you rather get sentenced to surely die in jail or get a death sentence that gives you 120x the chance of being exonerated and going free and will most likely not end in an execution (commutation or otherwise die) and if it did would take 20 years to happen? The only case for the life sentence is emotional, really.

This is an absurd state of affairs, and in a general discussion about the death penalty sort of important to consider.

It isn't the conclusion that the death penalty is wrong I take any issue with. It is that a lot of the common arguments are dubious and in a less tangible way the implications contribute to the problems I deal with.

If someone is concerned about the death penalty costing too much compared to a life sentence this can be fixed by making life sentences cost at least as much by giving the same due process and scrutiny. Fixes that.

The concern about the death penalty not being reversible gets blown up by the statistics that pretty clearly establish that in reality the life sentence is less likely to be reversed before death. So that's backwards if all we worry about is certainty of guilt.

etc.

I think none of this is the topic of the discussion.

 

[Suddenly]

I think none of this is the topic of the discussion.

Many anti-death penalty arguments are facile. Seems a relevant point to a general discussion of the death penalty.

 

[Suddenly]

The idea that people being mistakenly being put to death can be seen as frivolous, that is the part I was having difficulty grasping.

You could clarify, if you wish. Or if you've already done that in some earlier post, that I've not seen, then you could point to it, if you wish.

Context is a thing.

Concerns about what amounts to about one death a decade is frivolous when compared to more like one hundred per day.

Death penalty discourse is frivolous within the context of what happens in the whole criminal justice system. This isn't a death penalty argument in and of itself. It is fine to argue about frivolous things, but when they crowd out more substantial concerns it becomes a problem.

 

[Chanakya]

Context is a thing.

Concerns about what amounts to about one death a decade is frivolous when compared to more like one hundred per day.

Death penalty discourse is frivolous within the context of what happens in the whole criminal justice system. This isn't a death penalty argument in and of itself. It is fine to argue about frivolous things, but when they crowd out more substantial concerns it becomes a problem.

I don't know what you do, that you see a hundred deaths per day. If it's do with the legal system, or whatever else it is --- and in saying that I'm not dismissing it, and am happy to hear if you wish to discuss specifics, or point to where you've already done that --- but if as a result individual killings mistakenly carried out end up appearing frivolous, unimportant, then I'd suggest that it is that latter that needs addressing (that it should so appear, I mean to say). It is that perception that is mistaken, I'd say.

I think, roughly following the last few posts on this page, that you're saying that conditions in jail end up killing people. (Is that right, is that what you're saying is the cause of those ~100 deaths a day? Correct me if I'm mistaken in thinking that's what you're saying.) If so, then what needs addressing is those conditions. Even if that number were 10 times as many, that still wouldn't make a single mistaken execution frivolous or unimportant.

 

[TomB]

Emotionally? Sure. Actually going and ending a life is traumatic and terrifying. Outside of that, not so much.

I mean, if you were innocent but convicted of murder, would you rather get sentenced to surely die in jail or get a death sentence that gives you 120x the chance of being exonerated and going free and will most likely not end in an execution (commutation or otherwise die) and if it did would take 20 years to happen? The only case for the life sentence is emotional, really.

This is an absurd state of affairs, and in a general discussion about the death penalty sort of important to consider.

It isn't the conclusion that the death penalty is wrong I take any issue with. It is that a lot of the common arguments are dubious and in a less tangible way the implications contribute to the problems I deal with.

If someone is concerned about the death penalty costing too much compared to a life sentence this can be fixed by making life sentences cost at least as much by giving the same due process and scrutiny. Fixes that.

The concern about the death penalty not being reversible gets blown up by the statistics that pretty clearly establish that in reality the life sentence is less likely to be reversed before death. So that's backwards if all we worry about is certainty of guilt.

etc.

I think I'm getting some of what you are saying.

If two innocent people are convicted, one to life another to death, the one who gets sentenced to death has better access to appeals and clemency hearings all the way up to a (small) chance that the governor may step in. Not to mention programs like the innocence project. Therefore an innocent person on death row may actually have a better chance of having their conviction overturned and regain their freedom.

Some of the arguments against the death penalty have included how expensive it is because of the extensive appeals process and the attention details crossing ts and dotting is. If ending the death penalty means we save money by removing that attention of detail and the extensive appeals, then it actually increases the innocent convicts who will never get their conviction overturned.

Really, we need to make that same level of scrutiny/appeal available to non-death row inmates as well. Particularly those with long and/or life sentences. Which, of course, means we lose the cost savings part of the argument.

 

[Suddenly]

I think I'm getting some of what you are saying.

If two innocent people are convicted, one to life another to death, the one who gets sentenced to death has better access to appeals and clemency hearings all the way up to a (small) chance that the governor may step in. Not to mention programs like the innocence project. Therefore an innocent person on death row may actually have a better chance of having their conviction overturned and regain their freedom.

Some of the arguments against the death penalty have included how expensive it is because of the extensive appeals process and the attention details crossing ts and dotting is. If ending the death penalty means we save money by removing that attention of detail and the extensive appeals, then it actually increases the innocent convicts who will never get their conviction overturned.

Really, we need to make that same level of scrutiny/appeal available to non-death row inmates as well. Particularly those with long and/or life sentences. Which, of course, means we lose the cost savings part of the argument.

Pretty much.

It is a perverse state of affairs when being sentenced to die is (it being abstractly terrifying aside) materially better than being sentenced to life. It seems like that should be addressed when getting rid of the death penalty.

Not making the cost argument is also a good idea. Congress gutting the right to federal habeas corpus is a direct response to that argument. It cuts both ways because the death penalty can easily be made cheaper.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

learning what to reform

If one studies death penalty cases retroactively (both exonerations and executions), one begins to sense that the same problems that led to convictions in these cases must plague non-DP cases. Cases in which arson was alleged provide some good examples, such as Todd Willingham compared to Han Tak Lee. Somewhat surprisingly Mr. Lee was exonerated despite the fact that this was not a DP case. It took many years to do so.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Many anti-death penalty arguments are facile. Seems a relevant point to a general discussion of the death penalty.

Agreed.

You have pointed out some bad arguments that I have made and I appreciate it. Well, at first I thought you were just being a jerk, but then I read your posts again. That always sucks. And it is the best part of this forum.

 

[Suddenly]

If one studies death penalty cases retroactively (both exonerations and executions), one begins to sense that the same problems that led to convictions in these cases must plague non-DP cases. Cases in which arson was alleged provide some good examples, such as Todd Willingham compared to Han Tak Lee. Somewhat surprisingly Mr. Lee was exonerated despite the fact that this was not a DP case. It took many years to do so.

They are usually worse in non-DP cases because of less resources and scrutiny.

Ever since the Fred Zain scandal my state has been pretty good about habeas corpus review of every case. Even the present GOP supermajority has been pretty good about indigent defense.

(Zain faked a bunch of serology evidence and got caught out when DNA became a thing and that blood evidence could be retested. It was so bad that our supreme court made a specific finding that all cases he touched were to be reviewed based on the assumption that any testimony he gave was unreliable.)

 

[Suddenly]

Agreed.

You have pointed out some bad arguments that I have made and I appreciate it. Well, at first I thought you were just being a jerk, but then I read your posts again. That always sucks. And it is the best part of this forum.

I would come off better if smoldering rage about some external event wasn't the main reason I pop up here.

I'm generally considered affable and reasonable in person. On here not so much, which I dunno. It's like this account is my picture of Dorian Gray.