Are you unfamiliar with the definition of the word interesting or did you just misspell boring?
Death Penalty
- Thread starter Thor 2
- Start date
Are you unfamiliar with the definition of the word interesting or did you just misspell boring?
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Heh, heh, heh. I plead the fifth!
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
It's one of the classic techniques of someone who doesn't want to have to defend their position, along with reversal of the burden of proof, which is what Warp12 has been doing throughout this thread. The question s/he has carefully avoided answering, for the most part, is:
Why should we kill murderers?
It's a fair question; the null hypothesis would be that there is no particular reason to kill murderers. Arguing against the null hypothesis would require an explanation of why killing murderers is superior to any other action that might be taken, on whatever grounds the arguer chooses. Warp12 has skipped this step and progressed to Just Asking Questions, a classic way of evading the argument.
Since I've presented my arguments against the death penalty quite clearly, I'm not going to bother discussing them until Warp12 advances some in its favour. If s/he doesn't, I'll assume that constitutes a concession that s/he doesn't have any good enough to offer.
Dave
Thermal
August Member
The whole question boils down to what the point is of punishing, right? Is it to keep society safe from predators, or to get even, or what?
Regarding execution being "more expensive" than life incarceration, disagreed. It is very artificially made to be more expensive. The cost could be knocked down to the $100 range with the simple dropping of pretense.
Warp asks if we are "okay with" a Gacy or Dahmer passing on a bit earlier than nature intended. Pretty sure we all are. But the question is whether we should be the ones bringing about that passing. Because of the inevitable eventual wrong verdict, we really shouldn't. It's more than a little barbaric to say "yeah, I'm ok with the occasional innocent being killed by the State as long as we can watch some guilty ones take a bullet". If we are all about Justice, that includes protecting against bad sentencing, which we can't possibly do if we kill the mother ****** in a fit of bloodlust.
Regarding execution being "more expensive" than life incarceration, disagreed. It is very artificially made to be more expensive. The cost could be knocked down to the $100 range with the simple dropping of pretense.
Warp asks if we are "okay with" a Gacy or Dahmer passing on a bit earlier than nature intended. Pretty sure we all are. But the question is whether we should be the ones bringing about that passing. Because of the inevitable eventual wrong verdict, we really shouldn't. It's more than a little barbaric to say "yeah, I'm ok with the occasional innocent being killed by the State as long as we can watch some guilty ones take a bullet". If we are all about Justice, that includes protecting against bad sentencing, which we can't possibly do if we kill the mother ****** in a fit of bloodlust.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
The links posted earlier don't support that assertion. The main cause of extra costs with execution appears to be the more complicated legal safeguards that have to be put in place to try to make absolutely certain that no innocent person is ever executed. The only 'pretense' that would have to be dropped, I think, is that it's never OK to execute the wrong person.
Dave
Thermal
August Member
That is what I mean by artificial expense. Bin Laden and Hussein's executions were not encumbered by such safeguarda, for instance. A Gacy or Dahmer probably don't need convoluted excersises in jurisprudence. There is a certain tier of guilt where you no longer need the tap dance of "just double checking" for 25 years. Determining just where that line is, compared to "beyond reasonable doubt" is the trouble area.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,563
nine to one
"For every nine people executed, one person on death row has been exonerated." link. Some have come within days of being executed prior to their exoneration.
Once AEDPA became law circa 1996, it became much harder to appeal. "We have examined the published results on appeal of all federal habeas corpus applications filed by all death row inmates between 2000 and 2006, inclusive. The data can be summarized simply: whereas prior to AEDPA deathrow inmates prevailed somewhere between half and two-thirds of the time, they now prevail, nationwide, approximately 12 percent of the time. Further, the success rate, in most jurisdictions, appears to be declining."
"For every nine people executed, one person on death row has been exonerated." link. Some have come within days of being executed prior to their exoneration.
Once AEDPA became law circa 1996, it became much harder to appeal. "We have examined the published results on appeal of all federal habeas corpus applications filed by all death row inmates between 2000 and 2006, inclusive. The data can be summarized simply: whereas prior to AEDPA deathrow inmates prevailed somewhere between half and two-thirds of the time, they now prevail, nationwide, approximately 12 percent of the time. Further, the success rate, in most jurisdictions, appears to be declining."
Thermal
August Member
Bet you would if it was you or someone you love.
And it's not dying; it is being meticulously, deliberately killed by the State. Makes tax time extra fun, giving them the money that was used to wrongfully whack your loved one.
We will need to "double check" whether someone really is over that line. You know, allow them to appeal that verdict and ... Aw, crap!
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
And yet, somehow I expect that you would be quite worked up if you were going to be a person who was about to be wrongly executed.
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
At least the people who wrote some of the stories about him had some pretty good ideas. /off topic.
I think you have missed the point. As I stated earlier, my question about Gacy was so I could determine where people stand. If someone is against his execution, as numerous people stated, there is no point in further discussion. It's an example of a clear-cut, mass murder of a very heinous nature. If you are not an advocate for his execution, there is no point in debate.
I am not interested in explaining why Gacy warranted his punishment, and why it should have been carried out more quickly. If someone doesn't get that now, they never will. I also mentioned that revamping the way death penalty cases are processed, and what warrants the charge, could help make the system be more just and efficient/cost effective.
You see, what really drives this debate is that people are struggling with the ethics. That is why you get all the bitching and moaning about fairness and cost, and the process...but you don't hear these same people really rallying for death penalty law reform. They are hung up on abolition, no matter what.
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Then why should we answer your questions?
It's dishonest to point to one case and say "This is why we need the death penalty." It's astonishing to me that people who consider themselves small government (or downright anti-government) conservatives want the government to be able to kill people. Most Western democracies seem to function quite well without that practice. But it's real popular in places like China. The fact is that most death penalty cases are nowhere near as heinous as Gacy. There are numerous cases of multiple defendants in the same crime getting disparate penalties as much by whim as anything else.
And of course the strongest argument against the death penalty is that sometimes the system makes mistakes. Almost 200 people sentenced to death have subsequently been proven innocent. There is no doubt that innocent people have been executed. How many innocent people would you fry to kill a guilty one?
https://innocenceproject.org/nation...ur-percent-of-death-row-inmates-are-innocent/
https://healthresearchfunding.org/31-innocent-people-killed-death-penalty-statistics/
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence
Life in a cage -- maybe for 50 years or more -- should be plenty of punishment for anybody. You can't support the death penalty without claiming that the system that administers it is absolutely perfect. And it's not.
Here's a more typical case. You think she should die? And don't say "If she did it." The point is that we can't know.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/10/melissa-lucio-death-row/
https://innocenceproject.org/new-fi...time-abuse-innocent-execution-date-withdrawn/
Last edited:
This is obviously and demonstrably false.
You're right. I should have said "You can't rationally support..." Nobody has to be rational.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
What's false?
Are you saying you can support the DP even though it's not perfectly administered?
Sorry, but all those double negatives are confusing.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Thank you
What do you mean by "rationally support" here? Are you imagine arguing from universal moral truths?