Death Penalty

[Aridas]

Can you please clarify the highlighted statement? It's so convoluted that I'm not sure I'm interpreting it correctly.

Probably easiest to answer that question with what I was already going to respond with.

There are 2 possibilities:

- That the possibility of a death penalty is more of a deterrent to a prospective murderer than life without parole.

- A prisoner with a life sentence still has the possibility of escape, and since they have killed before, they will have no hesitation to engage in more violence.

I was primarily referring to the second option in that example, though the first would also work for the point there, however much it's fairly certainly not actually true. To expand slightly on the second, though, escape in this case is not limited solely to illegal methods. Recidivism is a very real issue and even life sentences for serious crimes frequently come with the potential for parole. It's entirely feasible for the perceived dangers associated with that to be weighed more heavily than the dangers of wrongful execution, especially if a person has effectively blind faith in the reliability of the justice system or has otherwise been bombarded with police/justice system propaganda with little to counter that.

I used to support the death penalty, for pretty much that reason. (I have since switched my opinion; I recognize that the death penalty probably doesn't provide much of a deterrent since criminals probably think they won't get caught anyways.)

Overall, I have no problem with the concept of the death penalty. (I do think some people's crimes are so horrible that they should not even be allowed to spend life in prison. Serial killers, people who talk in movie theaters, etc.) But, I also recognize that the criminal justice system is incapable of reliably applying it to only those who deserve it. Too many innocent people convicted. So, good in theory, bad in practice.

I suppose I should make my personal opinion clear, too, just because. My actual position is probably pretty similar to yours, for that matter. It would probably be more appropriate to say that I don't care either way about the death penalty, though, at least directly. Rather, this is another one of those things where my specific position falls under the umbrella of whether having it or not having it would benefit society more and that is highly variable upon a number of other factors not limited to the immediate ones. Still, I suppose I should address some of the more immediate issues for the US, specifically. Given the serious, systemic issues at every level of the US justice system, combined with the level of wealth, security, and resources available, and with the added note that the current death penalty rules apparently make it more expensive to pursue the death penalty than not, I'm inclined to think that it's more beneficial for the US not to employ it under the present conditions. A notable difference in stated positions though, is that that's not a good in theory, bad in practice stance, so much as a conditions in this particular broad scenario stance.

 

[jimbob]

I have moved 26 posts from the Trump Presidency thread to this one

Posted By: jimbob

 

[arthwollipot]

An entirely reasonable statement. It's quite hard to disagree with, in and of itself.

I disagree with it. Or rather, I disagree with the first part of it. I don't disagree with the second part.

 

[Bob001]

Florida wants to make it easier to kill people.

The bill would allow a judge to toss out a jury’s recommendation of life without parole and substitute the death penalty. No other state permits that, but it was the law in Florida until nearly seven years ago. That’s when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Hurst v. Florida, ruled that judges wielded too much power in death sentencing cases. The high court’s decision forced Florida to change its law.

But the proposed legislation would go further: It would also journey back in time and allow a jury to recommend a death sentence without unanimity — an 8-4 majority could impose it. Florida law did not require unanimous decisions in death sentencing until 2017.

Instead, a jury would need only to agree unanimously on one matter — that the defendant is eligible for the death penalty because at least one “aggravating factor” exists beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/20/reckless-florida-death-penalty-legislation/

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Change in Florida's laws

Bob001, This point came up before. DeSantis misrepresented the situation with respect to one case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

possibly false confessions or false accusations

"The boys testified in pre-trial hearings that detectives alternately screamed at them and assured them they could go home if they just told the truth. Four of them said officers threatened the death penalty—which wouldn’t have been on the table because North Carolina eliminated it for juveniles in 1987. In the 2022 hearing, Bryant told the three-judge panel that one of the detectives pointed to a place on his arm and told him that’s where the needle for lethal injection would go... Winston-Salem police didn’t say in their notes or reports that they had threatened the boys with the death penalty, but years later, detectives Sean Flynn and Stan Nieves admitted to commission staffers that they falsely told Bryant and Tolliver they could get the death penalty. An audio clip of Flynn’s interview with an Innocence Inquiry Commission staff attorney was played at the 2022 hearing." From an article at www.theassembly.com.

This is not the only time I have heard of the threat of the death penalty being used to elicit what is alleged to be a false confession or a false accusation. I do not have other examples at my fingertips, however.

 

[Suddenly]

"The boys testified in pre-trial hearings that detectives alternately screamed at them and assured them they could go home if they just told the truth. Four of them said officers threatened the death penalty—which wouldn’t have been on the table because North Carolina eliminated it for juveniles in 1987. In the 2022 hearing, Bryant told the three-judge panel that one of the detectives pointed to a place on his arm and told him that’s where the needle for lethal injection would go... Winston-Salem police didn’t say in their notes or reports that they had threatened the boys with the death penalty, but years later, detectives Sean Flynn and Stan Nieves admitted to commission staffers that they falsely told Bryant and Tolliver they could get the death penalty. An audio clip of Flynn’s interview with an Innocence Inquiry Commission staff attorney was played at the 2022 hearing." From an article at www.theassembly.com.

This is not the only time I have heard of the threat of the death penalty being used to elicit what is alleged to be a false confession or a false accusation. I do not have other examples at my fingertips, however.

It would be near impossible to definitively say how often this happens but if a detective is using it in one case they are likely using it in all cases. It's pretty much SOP to put in a suspects head that if they don't immediately confess really bad things are going to happen to them.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

rational versus emotional thinking

It would be near impossible to definitively say how often this happens but if a detective is using it in one case they are likely using it in all cases. It's pretty much SOP to put in a suspects head that if they don't immediately confess really bad things are going to happen to them.

I should have fleshed out my comment more completely. There is the distinction between a punishment that is dreadful when we think about it rationally (life in prison) versus a punishment that is scary (the death penalty). Our emotional reaction to the thought of being put to death is so strong IMO that it could motivate false accusations more efficiently than the difference between a longer and a shorter sentence.

 

[Suddenly]

I should have fleshed out my comment more completely. There is the distinction between a punishment that is dreadful when we think about it rationally (life in prison) versus a punishment that is scary (the death penalty). Our emotional reaction to the thought of being put to death is so strong IMO that it could motivate false accusations more efficiently than the difference between a longer and a shorter sentence.

Probably so, but in a lot of ways unnecessary and clumsy to do what they did. The really bad things I mention aren't limited to possible sentences.

There is often an unspoken threat that the suspect will suffer immediate violent repercussions if they don't confess. Usually they don't say as much (once in a while when audio only there is a gun to someone's head) but a lot of the techniques used are to instill immediate instinctive fear and confusion. Terrified scared people will admit to anything and the prospect of an immediate beating is effective enough.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

worst of the worst

Link "Phillips’ and Richardson’s review of more than 1,500 cases in which convicted prisoners were later exonerated found that “as the seriousness of a crime increases, so too does the chance of a wrongful conviction.” They explain that prosecutions for the most serious crimes tend to involve the most inaccurate and unreliable evidence, and the risks are greatest in cases producing murder convictions and death sentences. “The types of vile crimes in which the state is most apt to seek the death penalty are the same crimes in which the state is most apt to participate in the production of erroneous evidence …, from false confession to untruthful snitches, government misconduct, and bad science.” The authors continued, "Overall, Perjury or False Accusation (P/FA) was present in 101 of the 143 exonerations (70.6%) in 2019, making it the most prevalent factor in the year’s exonerations."

This is the collateral damage of the death penalty, but IMO the study cited has wider implications for the criminal justice system.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Link "Phillips’ and Richardson’s review of more than 1,500 cases in which convicted prisoners were later exonerated found that “as the seriousness of a crime increases, so too does the chance of a wrongful conviction.” They explain that prosecutions for the most serious crimes tend to involve the most inaccurate and unreliable evidence, and the risks are greatest in cases producing murder convictions and death sentences. “The types of vile crimes in which the state is most apt to seek the death penalty are the same crimes in which the state is most apt to participate in the production of erroneous evidence …, from false confession to untruthful snitches, government misconduct, and bad science.” The authors continued, "Overall, Perjury or False Accusation (P/FA) was present in 101 of the 143 exonerations (70.6%) in 2019, making it the most prevalent factor in the year’s exonerations."

This is the collateral damage of the death penalty, but IMO the study cited has wider implications for the criminal justice system.

some people might argue that it is essential for people's trust in the system to see crime punished, even if the person punished is not the person deserving of punishment.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

John Adams

some people might argue that it is essential for people's trust in the system to see crime punished, even if the person punished is not the person deserving of punishment.

John Adams argued to the contrary: "“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

"But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

 

[Thermal]

John Adams argued to the contrary: "“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

I don't know that Adams was entirely right, as many can be cowed into compliance with just about anything, but it's an interesting argument for the rights of the innocent to be more important.

Eta: also assumes people will be antisocial by default, given the choice

 

[PitPat]

And they're entitled to their opinions, but not facts.

Sounds like someone is bleeding from her wherever.

 

[Darat]

some people might argue that it is essential for people's trust in the system to see crime punished, even if the person punished is not the person deserving of punishment.

Certainly was a view held by the highest judges in the UK, Lord Denning's infamous quote:

....Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”....

Plus his - claimed to have been taken out of context:

...
“We shouldn’t have all these campaigns to get them released if they’d been hanged. They’d have been forgotten and the whole community would have been satisfied.”

...

Those quotes were about the "Birmingham 6" - a group of 6 people that on appeal it was found their convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory and yes the police "..were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence;"

 

[Nessie]

some people might argue that it is essential for people's trust in the system to see crime punished, even if the person punished is not the person deserving of punishment.

It is odd that people are not more horrified by miscarriages of justice, especially police and lawyers, who are directly involved in causing them. That attitude of just punishing someone, anyone, for a crime, and not worrying so much that they have got the right person, is very disturbing.

I would also like to see a study of cases where the real culprit is later identified for a crime, so learn more about how they think and behave, when they see an innocent person being punished for a crime they committed.

If we understand more about people's behaviour, more could be done to prevent miscarriages of justice.

 

[lionking]

Link "Phillips’ and Richardson’s review of more than 1,500 cases in which convicted prisoners were later exonerated found that “as the seriousness of a crime increases, so too does the chance of a wrongful conviction.” They explain that prosecutions for the most serious crimes tend to involve the most inaccurate and unreliable evidence, and the risks are greatest in cases producing murder convictions and death sentences. “The types of vile crimes in which the state is most apt to seek the death penalty are the same crimes in which the state is most apt to participate in the production of erroneous evidence …, from false confession to untruthful snitches, government misconduct, and bad science.” The authors continued, "Overall, Perjury or False Accusation (P/FA) was present in 101 of the 143 exonerations (70.6%) in 2019, making it the most prevalent factor in the year’s exonerations."

This is the collateral damage of the death penalty, but IMO the study cited has wider implications for the criminal justice system.

That is amazing research, and thanks for the link.

The strongest argument against capital punishment has always been the risk of wrongful conviction. This barbaric punishment must cease.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more changes needed beyond abolition

That is amazing research, and thanks for the link.

The strongest argument against capital punishment has always been the risk of wrongful conviction. This barbaric punishment must cease.

lionking,

You are most welcome. Obviously, I agree about the death penalty, although reforming the CJ system will have to include additional changes.

 

[Roboramma]

Since 1970, 149 people in the UK have had their murder convictions overturned. If we still had the death penalty, how many of those innocent people would now be dead?

https://evidencebasedjustice.exeter.ac.uk/miscarriages-of-justice-registry/the-cases/overview-graph/

The criminal justice system is too unreliable to risk having the death penalty.

I agree with this, but it seems if the error rate really is this high then the criminal justice system is also too unreliable for long prison sentences as well.

Sending an innocent person to prison for 25 years may be better than killing them, but it's not that much better. It's still horrific.

And yet, we need a criminal justice system. One that both deters future crime and removes known offenders from the streets.

 

[Nessie]

A more reliable CJ is system is simply achieved by more honest and better educated and trained police and prosecutors, who understand evidencing and are not chasing targets based on detections and convictions.