Death Penalty

[Dr. Keith]

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.

I just don’t like my errors being pointed out so blatantly. I’d think you were jerk even if you did so affably in a seer sucker suit and bow tie.

Most of my time here is in between email storms that I know are brewing so I have little motivation to start on a document only to be interrupted after correcting the entity names.

 

[Suddenly]

I don't know what you do, that you see a hundred deaths per day.

Professional disc golfer. I keep trying to have McBeth arrested but he still keeps killing everyone.

Even if that number were 10 times as many, that still wouldn't make a single mistaken execution frivolous or unimportant.

When dealing with public policy issues on a large level almost every position is going to result in someone dying or other tragic result. When considering public policy you don't get to take the position that ends with no death because it is a mirage. A lot of poor policy is the result of fixating on a small number of identifiable dramatic deaths and ignoring the ones harder to connect to the policy.

Deaths of despair are usually the kind that get downplayed.

 

[Chanakya]

Professional disc golfer. I keep trying to have McBeth arrested but he still keeps killing everyone.


When dealing with public policy issues on a large level almost every position is going to result in someone dying or other tragic result. When considering public policy you don't get to take the position that ends with no death because it is a mirage.

To therefore regard and refer to people's concern for the undeserved, mistaken deaths of some individuals as "frivolous" does not follow, at all. Comes across as distinctly ...let's just say, not fully balanced and well-adjusted. Not the kind of approach one would wish for in anyone who has anything at all to do with actually taking policy decisions.

A lot of poor policy is the result of fixating on a small number of identifiable dramatic deaths and ignoring the ones harder to connect to the policy.

I don't see why you keep on conflating the two issues, and specifically why you keep insisting on seeing this as an either-or situation.

Deaths of despair are usually the kind that get downplayed.

Fair point, and very valid point. But, as I see it, a separate discussion. Not entirely unrelated, naturally, but definitely a separate discussion.

 

[AmyStrange]

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.

You make a good point, but could we also fix that by also making a life sentence 120x easier to fix than a death sentence.

How do we do this? I'm not sure, but it's definitely worth thinking about and thank you Suddenly.

 

[lomiller]

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.

If you want to fix the issue of wrongful conviction endless appeals on technicalities are not the way to do it. Most wrongful convictions are the result of bad policing, which is something that needs to be fixed anyway.

Some provision for a new trial based on evidence that shows a person was wrongfully convicted could be helpful, but endlessly rehashing technicalities doesn't really accomplish much other than waste money.

 

[Bob001]

......
Some provision for a new trial based on evidence that shows a person was wrongfully convicted could be helpful, but endlessly rehashing technicalities doesn't really accomplish much other than waste money.

What's a technicality? Seriously. The law itself is a technicality. Provisions must be obeyed. Procedures must be followed. Once you start saying "Yeah, the cops didn't Mirandize him, but that's just a technicality," or "Yeah, the cops didn't have a warrant, but look at what they found!," or "One of the jurors was the victim's brother-in-law, but who cares?" you may as well hang it up. The courts are perfectly capable of dismissing a petition based on a "technicality" that's invalid. But sometimes they recognize that ignoring a "technicality" results in an injustice.

 

[AmyStrange]

If you want to fix the issue of wrongful conviction endless appeals on technicalities are not the way to do it. Most wrongful convictions are the result of bad policing, which is something that needs to be fixed anyway.

Some provision for a new trial based on evidence that shows a person was wrongfully convicted could be helpful, but endlessly rehashing technicalities doesn't really accomplish much other than waste money.

I wonder if instead of spending all that money on appeals, if it wouldn't be cheaper to just retry the defendant?

If I had just bone wish come true (that involved fixing the justice system), it'd be another trial (after the original) that would be necessary before the DP was allowed.

This trial would go beyond reasonable doubt and instead would be used to prove beyond ANY DOUBT that the defendant really was guilty and really deserved to die.

LWOP could also be included, because to be honest, it does ultimately mean that you're sentenced to die in prison.

After that, a limited amount of appeals would be granted to the defendant (with the DP hanging over their heads) so they could be hung within two years of the finding of absolute guilt.

I'm just not sure how to construct a trial that would prove absolute guilt?

One thing I definitely wouldn't allow was eyewitness identification of a stranger. There was one recent execution in Texas that was based entirely on the testimony of one eyewitness.

I can't remember the names, but it involved a fatal robbery in a parking lot--witnessed by a woman who was a little distance away and it was night.

The guy she identified was black and also had a proven alibi, but that didn't matter.

 

[Suddenly]

If you want to fix the issue of wrongful conviction endless appeals on technicalities are not the way to do it. Most wrongful convictions are the result of bad policing, which is something that needs to be fixed anyway.

Some provision for a new trial based on evidence that shows a person was wrongfully convicted could be helpful, but endlessly rehashing technicalities doesn't really accomplish much other than waste money.

True. The legal appeals have a more abstract effect.

The biggest issue is the lack of investigatory resources in criminal defense. If indigent defense counsel before trial had at its disposal a third of the investigatory resources that the state has the wrongful conviction rate would drop like a stone across the board.


The knock-on effect would be a reform of police conduct. They get caught out more often when they do substandard work because there will be people who are trained in investigation looking over their shoulder rather than some lawyer who isn't trained in that and has too many cases to properly do it even if they were.

 

[Planigale]

True. The legal appeals have a more abstract effect.

The biggest issue is the lack of investigatory resources in criminal defense. If indigent defense counsel before trial had at its disposal a third of the investigatory resources that the state has the wrongful conviction rate would drop like a stone across the board.


The knock-on effect would be a reform of police conduct. They get caught out more often when they do substandard work because there will be people who are trained in investigation looking over their shoulder rather than some lawyer who isn't trained in that and has too many cases to properly do it even if they were.

In the UK the police are legally obligated to find evidence for innocence, whilst not a complete solution wrongful convictions I do think the UK has made attempts.

1) The PEACE interview technique which is sensitive to the issues of false admissions of guilt. Essentially a structured interview of suspects with a lawyer present.
2) The police cannot lie to suspects.
3) The prosecution are required to achieve justice not prosecutions. (I have read some US election manifestos for district attorneys or equivalents; any claiming a 100% conviction rates are either bringing too few cases to trial or there is something corrupt going on).
4) Police legally obligated to provide evidence of innocence.

 

[Suddenly]

In the UK the police are legally obligated to find evidence for innocence, whilst not a complete solution wrongful convictions I do think the UK has made attempts.

We have something similar but watered down and basically impossible to enforce.

1) The PEACE interview technique which is sensitive to the issues of false admissions of guilt. Essentially a structured interview of suspects with a lawyer present.

Which is better than our system where if the person doesn't ask for a lawyer the cops can more or less do whatever they want and if they ask for a lawyer they don't get to ask anything at all ever except strictly on terms set by the lawyer.

2) The police cannot lie to suspects.

Yeah, that would be nice.

3) The prosecution are required to achieve justice not prosecutions. (I have read some US election manifestos for district attorneys or equivalents; any claiming a 100% conviction rates are either bringing too few cases to trial or there is something corrupt going on).

We have an ethical requirement that prosecutors are to act as quasi-judicial officers seeking justice, etc. However, a lot of prosecutors have no clue this is a thing and the bar never does anything to enforce it anyway.

The 100% thing would happen only if they took only dead bang certain cases to trial and dealt everything else. There are all sorts of ways to manipulate those numbers.

4) Police legally obligated to provide evidence of innocence.

Yeah, we have this, but with basically zero enforcement mechanism. Much of the vaunted US set of constitutional rights are effectively unenforceable and becoming more and more so given the drift away from legal realism towards formalism.


One of my old law professors wrote an article about how our constitutional protections aren't all that workable and most of the problems we have begin with the courts finding ways to not hold the state to all of them because in that case the state would almost never manage to convict anyone. It goes pretty deep.

It's a hopeless tangled mess at this point but given how the government is structured revisiting the bill of rights with an eye towards even administration of justice rather than the insane gamed up system we have is never going to happen.

 

[Thor 2]

We have something similar but watered down and basically impossible to enforce.

Which is better than our system where if the person doesn't ask for a lawyer the cops can more or less do whatever they want and if they ask for a lawyer they don't get to ask anything at all ever except strictly on terms set by the lawyer.

Yeah, that would be nice. We have an ethical requirement that prosecutors are to act as quasi-judicial officers seeking justice, etc. However, a lot of prosecutors have no clue this is a thing and the bar never does anything to enforce it anyway.

The 100% thing would happen only if they took only dead bang certain cases to trial and dealt everything else. There are all sorts of ways to manipulate those numbers.



Yeah, we have this, but with basically zero enforcement mechanism. Much of the vaunted US set of constitutional rights are effectively unenforceable and becoming more and more so given the drift away from legal realism towards formalism.


One of my old law professors wrote an article about how our constitutional protections aren't all that workable and most of the problems we have begin with the courts finding ways to not hold the state to all of them because in that case the state would almost never manage to convict anyone. It goes pretty deep.

It's a hopeless tangled mess at this point but given how the government is structured revisiting the bill of rights with an eye towards even administration of justice rather than the insane gamed up system we have is never going to happen.

Most disturbing Suddenly.

In the light of your post I can see an explanation, for the extraordinary high incarceration rate in the USA - something like two times higher than in any other country I have read.

 

[The Common Potato]

Quote:

2) The police cannot lie to suspects.
Yeah, that would be nice.

Suddenly, the police in the UK are legally not allowed to lie, when conducting interviews.

 

[Suddenly]

Quote:

2) The police cannot lie to suspects.
Yeah, that would be nice.

Suddenly, the police in the UK are legally not allowed to lie, when conducting interviews.

I know. In the US they'd be more likely be fired or demoted if they didn't.

 

[The Common Potato]

I know. In the US they'd be more likely be fired or demoted if they didn't.

Suddenly, you can't have watched much Court TV.

Ah, I re-read that comment of yours.

Or, you can't have watched much Court TV, right?

 

[Suddenly]

Suddenly, you can't have watched much Court TV.

Ah, I re-read that comment of yours.

Or, you can't have watched much Court TV, right?

Never. I get enough of that sort of crap in my real life.


If a person wants an more accurate idea of the day to day workings of the system l always suggest watching "Night Court."

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

John Oliver just did a segment about wrongful convictions.

 

[Thor 2]

John Oliver just did a segment about wrongful convictions.

Unfortunately not available in Australia.

Interesting the way this thread has developed. So much emphasis on wrongful conviction and the risk of the innocent being killed.

My objection to the death penalty is that I see it as being essentially wrong and gives the wrong message to the public. I think the idea that protection of human life should be ultimate ideal in a civilised society. Society killing folk doesn't promote that ideal.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.....

This is a terrible argument. How can we be upset about Ukraine when many more people are dying in multiple African wars? How can we worry about all those hundreds of deaths you are talking about when COVID is killing so many people in jails?

Newsflash: People can chew gum and walk at the same time.

I wonder if instead of spending all that money on appeals, if it wouldn't be cheaper to just retry the defendant?

It would be better to assure people in criminal cases got effective counsel in the first place. Half the cases (or more) of the wrongly convicted I hear about had defense attorneys who were grossly incompetent.

And more than a few prosecutors need to be fired when they are found to have concealed exculpatory evidence. There needs to be more motivation for these jerks to stop doing that.

Re the rest of your post, the limitation on appeals is an issue. I can see the problem if defendants get unlimited appeals. OTOH there needs to be some kind of neutral evaluation of that exculpatory evidence.

And from what we know about eyewitness testimony being unreliable, no death penalty case should be based on eyewitness testimony if there is no corroborating physical evidence.

And the forensic lab people need regular random confirmation testing of their findings. It would find falsified results but it could also put a check on bad science like bite-marks and arson evidence. Once these kinds of errors are found it should lead to major reforms in forensics, and to some people being fired and/or prosecuted if it was willful.

See the John Oliver piece. Police battering to get a confession really needs to stop. There's a woman scheduled to be executed next month who was battered into confessing she killed her baby through abuse despite the fact the police video is available and they clearly battered her (verbally) until she confessed. And again there was exculpatory evidence which wasn't presented like her other kids saying she never abused any of them. We know this kind of police interrogation gets false confessions on a regular basis.


I might have posted this before, it's a long thread: SCOTUS Scalia once said in an interview he was fine with an innocent person being executed as long as that person had due process. How disgusting is that? Instead of saying the 'process' needed to be reevaluated, he just sat there all smugly saying he wouldn't lose sleep over state sponsored murder.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Unfortunately not available in Australia.

Interesting the way this thread has developed. So much emphasis on wrongful conviction and the risk of the innocent being killed.

My objection to the death penalty is that I see it as being essentially wrong and gives the wrong message to the public. I think the idea that protection of human life should be ultimate ideal in a civilised society. Society killing folk doesn't promote that ideal.

I agree with this. Step 1: fix the immediate problems. Step 2: join the rest of the civilized world and stop executing people period.

 

[arthwollipot]

Unfortunately not available in Australia.

Last Week Tonight becomes available in Australia a month after being published. So, just need to come back then, I guess.