Death Penalty

[Aridas]

I no longer support the death penalty however. Not that I am opposed to the concept, but I just do not think there is any way it can be applied without accidently having an innocent person executed.

That general argument sounds like it just invokes the old issue of turning the perfect into the enemy of the good, though. No system is perfect so long as humans are running them, after all, and various aspects of our society have "hidden" death tolls associated with them that aren't held to remotely similar standards in practice. Distinctions can generally be made, sure, but they don't change much about the essence of what's happening.

Please note, of course, that that's not an argument for the death penalty, but rather a poke at the nature of that particular line of argument.

 

[plague311]

That general argument sounds like it just invokes the old issue of turning the perfect into the enemy of the good, though. No system is perfect so long as humans are running them, after all, and various aspects of our society have "hidden" death tolls associated with them that aren't held to remotely similar standards in practice. Distinctions can generally be made, sure, but they don't change much about the essence of what's happening.

Please note, of course, that that's not an argument for the death penalty, but rather a poke at the nature of that particular line of argument.

When it comes to the death penalty then you damn well better be perfect. If you sentence someone to death, and they're innocent, then do you deserve the death penalty too? After all, you killed an innocent person. Someone who committed no crime.

That's the way I look at it. That's why I would do away with the death penalty all together. This isn't horseshoes, close enough doesn't count.

 

[Aridas]

When it comes to the death penalty then you damn well better be perfect. If you sentence someone to death, and they're innocent, then do you deserve the death penalty too? After all, you killed an innocent person. Someone who committed no crime.

That's the way I look at it. That's why I would do away with the death penalty all together. This isn't horseshoes, close enough doesn't count.

An odd argument when put in larger context. For it to work as made, one would need to basically treat any killing, even indirect, as a crime worthy of the death penalty. At last check, the laws (and morals) surrounding killing people are much, much more complex than that. Manslaughter and murder are treated very differently, for example, and with good cause, with even most murders not earning the death penalty. Further, a number of kinds of people contribute to getting innocent people killed or even directly kill innocents without anything anywhere close to that level of punishment.

Given things like that, demanding perfection for the death penalty, especially using justification like that which you just forwarded, seems to be an odd conceit, to me. A conceit of similar nature to the "pro-life" crowd trying to pretend that they're saving people by trying to ban abortion. There may be important differences in how correct the final result is, but not so much in the flaws inherent in how the result was reached in that case.

Again, I'm entirely fine with the death penalty not being allowed. I happen to think that in the current civilized world there's little to no benefit to allowing it, but I think that the reasoning and justification for such shouldn't be what boils down to an emotional appeal without context or perspective.

 

[arthwollipot]

Again, I'm entirely fine with the death penalty not being allowed. I happen to think that in the current civilized world there's little to no benefit to allowing it, but I think that the reasoning and justification for such shouldn't be what boils down to an emotional appeal without context or perspective.

Why not? Death is an emotional subject.

 

[Aridas]

Why not? Death is an emotional subject.

It certainly can be an emotional subject, yes. All the more reason to guard against self deceit and promoting irrationality as an acceptable basis for public policy.

 

[Babbylonian]

An odd argument when put in larger context. For it to work as made, one would need to basically treat any killing, even indirect, as a crime worthy of the death penalty. At last check, the laws (and morals) surrounding killing people are much, much more complex than that. Manslaughter and murder are treated very differently, for example, and with good cause, with even most murders not earning the death penalty. Further, a number of kinds of people contribute to getting innocent people killed or even directly kill innocents without anything anywhere close to that level of punishment.

You seem to believe you've dropped a real logic bomb here. You haven't. The point being made was that executing an innocent person for a murder they didn't commit is an actual premeditated murder.

Further, your assertion that requiring perfection when it comes to executions by the state is an emotional argument makes no sense. It's quite reasonable to exclude execution as a punishment because of its finality as compared to life sentences. While one can certainly be emotional about this position - I am - it doesn't make the argument itself an emotional one.

 

[arthwollipot]

It certainly can be an emotional subject, yes. All the more reason to guard against self deceit and promoting irrationality as an acceptable basis for public policy.

This is a very Vulcan belief - that emotion and rationality are diametrically opposed. It is not true, largely because Vulcans are fictional. Emotion and reason have to complement each other and decisions must satisfy both. To assume otherwise is simply not human.

 

[Aridas]

You seem to believe you've dropped a real logic bomb here. You haven't. The point being made was that executing an innocent person for a murder they didn't commit is an actual premeditated murder.

Knowingly condemning an innocent person to death can be reasonably be counted as an actual premeditated murder, sure. No distinction was made between that and unknowingly condemning an innocent person to death while thinking that they're guilty, though. Nor was there acknowledgement of the role that everyone else involved played and whether they deserve the death penalty for their parts, too.

Further, your assertion that requiring perfection when it comes to executions by the state is an emotional argument makes no sense. It's quite reasonable to exclude execution as a punishment because of its finality as compared to life sentences. While one can certainly be emotional about this position - I am - it doesn't make the argument itself an emotional one.

Two points of note here. First, the argument, as made by plague311, was very much an emotional argument, even if perfection plays an important role in it. Second, the lack of context and larger perspective serves as a very real flaw to the perfection line. It may happen to support a correct course of action, but the reasoning is no less unsteady for that.

This is a very Vulcan belief - that emotion and rationality are diametrically opposed. It is not true, largely because Vulcans are fictional. Emotion and reason have to complement each other and decisions must satisfy both. To assume otherwise is simply not human.

An odd argument, really. Emotion certainly is important in a bunch of ways. The issue is more that rationality is far better for some things and that neglecting it in favor of letting emotion rule in those ways is not a good thing.

 

[jeremyp]

This is a very Vulcan belief - that emotion and rationality are diametrically opposed. It is not true, largely because Vulcans are fictional. Emotion and reason have to complement each other and decisions must satisfy both. To assume otherwise is simply not human.

In what way should emotion be allowed to dictate (or at least influence) the decision of whether society should allow the death penalty?

 

[Darat]

In what way should emotion be allowed to dictate (or at least influence) the decision of whether society should allow the death penalty?

As to whether we have the death penalty or not.

Even if you are a believer in a strict consequentialist ethical morality, for example utilitarianism I don't think there is sufficient data of sufficient quality to be able to objectively analyse the outcomes of either stance, so you'd still have to simply decide which argument feels right or best to you.

 

[Darat]

One of the major objections to the death penalty is always the fact that we know innocent people are executed.

I would like to see actual data that would let us look at for example how many murders convicted murderers go on to commit after their conviction. We say that we are wary of the death penalty as we know mistakes have (and will be) be made and an innocent person could be killed, but would it change your mind to know that convicted murderers commit further murders?

To simplify it for discussion's sake - if we have data that shows 1 in 100 executed people are innocent, but convicted murderers go on to commit one additional murder at a rate of 2 for every 100 convicted murderers therefore we would have saved 2 innocent people for every 1 innocent person we execute (because of course the executed murderer cannot commit any further murders).

Would that make you reconsider your objection to the death penalty that was based on mistakes will happen because by not executing a murderer one additional innocent is killed?

 

[bruto]

This is a very Vulcan belief - that emotion and rationality are diametrically opposed. It is not true, largely because Vulcans are fictional. Emotion and reason have to complement each other and decisions must satisfy both. To assume otherwise is simply not human.

It seems a common error to presume that emotion and reason are opposites when of course they're not. But aside from that, what one dismisses as mere emotion includes a lot of what others might consider basic principles of civilization. We may well call it an emotional argument that we're better off if we don't kill innocent people despite the expense of letting live those who ought not to. The relative importance of things may well be emotional, but it is not nothing.

At various times societies have embodied principles we find abhorrent. A purely, mathematically utilitarian viewpoint might make a strong argument for tyranny, enslavement or decimation. The qualities we consider essential to our society are heavily freighted with emotion because we're real people, not numbers in a game of Hammurabi.

 

[bruto]

One of the major objections to the death penalty is always the fact that we know innocent people are executed.

I would like to see actual data that would let us look at for example how many murders convicted murderers go on to commit after their conviction. We say that we are wary of the death penalty as we know mistakes have (and will be) be made and an innocent person could be killed, but would it change your mind to know that convicted murderers commit further murders?

To simplify it for discussion's sake - if we have data that shows 1 in 100 executed people are innocent, but convicted murderers go on to commit one additional murder at a rate of 2 for every 100 convicted murderers therefore we would have saved 2 innocent people for every 1 innocent person we execute (because of course the executed murderer cannot commit any further murders).

Would that make you reconsider your objection to the death penalty that was based on mistakes will happen because by not executing a murderer one additional innocent is killed?

That kind of sounds like a trolley problem transplanted, with the presumption that if not executed, a criminal will be either exonerated or paroled. In reality, I suspect that if the alternative to execution is life imprisonment, there is little likelihood of the problem arising.

 

[Darat]

That kind of sounds like a trolley problem transplanted, with the presumption that if not executed, a criminal will be either exonerated or paroled. In reality, I suspect that if the alternative to execution is life imprisonment, there is little likelihood of the problem arising.

To the highlighted - people are murdered in jails! ETA: 120 in the USA in 2018 there were 25 executions that year.

I was illustrating why we need data to make a truly "rational" decision, but the world stubbornly refuses to match our ideologies - which is what our ethical/moral systems are - no matter how much we wish and hold our breaths. I don't even know if it would be possible in principle to get the data that would be required for the mythical "rational" decision regarding having the death penalty or not.

 

[jeremyp]

As to whether we have the death penalty or not.

Even if you are a believer in a strict consequentialist ethical morality, for example utilitarianism I don't think there is sufficient data of sufficient quality to be able to objectively analyse the outcomes of either stance, so you'd still have to simply decide which argument feels right or best to you.

It seems to me that you are saying "it's a hard question, so we should just go with our feelings". That feels wrong to me.

In fact I don't agree. I think my opinion that there should be no death penalty is based entirely on rationality and not emotion (although I accept I could be wrong).

 

[ahhell]

To the highlighted - people are murdered in jails! ETA: 120 in the USA in 2018 there were 25 executions that year.

I was illustrating why we need data to make a truly "rational" decision, but the world stubbornly refuses to match our ideologies - which is what our ethical/moral systems are - no matter how much we wish and hold our breaths. I don't even know if it would be possible in principle to get the data that would be required for the mythical "rational" decision regarding having the death penalty or not.

It seems to me that you are saying "it's a hard question, so we should just go with our feelings". That feels wrong to me.

In fact I don't agree. I think my opinion that there should be no death penalty is based entirely on rationality and not emotion (although I accept I could be wrong).

IDK, sounds like an argument against the death penalty to me. We can't know if it works so death is too serious a consequence to impose?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two problems with the death penalty

One, there are several DP cases in which the evidence to support a conviction have been cast into extreme doubt; IIRC several names have already come up in this thread (Todd Willingham, Larry Swearingen, and James Otto Earhart), and more names could be added. Others have come within days or hours of being executed before they were exonerated, which suggests that there were others who were less fortunate. EDT: I see that Darat has already discussed this point today.

Two, the threat of the death penalty distorts the criminal justice system, because witnesses are pressured into making false statements against themselves or others, as a previous comment of mine discussed in greater detail. This issue comes up less often, but it could be that it is the larger of the two problems. EDT: see this link.

An argument for the death penalty would have to be stronger than the sum of these two.

 

[ahhell]

There is some evidence that the DP works as a deterrent if used correctly (a big if).

After the DP was banned in the US in the 70s, murder rates increase in some states for the specific case where witnesses were murdered to cover up other crimes.

So, I would consider supporting the DP only in that case. Its about the only situation where the murderer is actually thinking about consequences. If I murder this person, they can't be a witness vs If I murder this person and I'm caught, its the difference between life and death for me.

 

[Aridas]

As to whether we have the death penalty or not.

Even if you are a believer in a strict consequentialist ethical morality, for example utilitarianism I don't think there is sufficient data of sufficient quality to be able to objectively analyse the outcomes of either stance, so you'd still have to simply decide which argument feels right or best to you.

For what it's worth, I'm using rationality far more in terms of the quality and nature of the logic invoked. As an easy rule of thumb to start to evaluate such, if we wouldn't accept logic of that quality and nature to justify things that we oppose, it's wrong to accept it when it comes to things that we support. Further, if an argument essentially rests on arbitrarily declaring something sacrosanct (as the perfection argument does), that's a fundamental flaw right there. It becomes even more of a flaw when said sacrosanct thing isn't remotely sacrosanct in other contexts, as is the case for innocent life. Just look at all the innocent people killed by the police with only slaps on the wrist as punishment, if even that, to see how sacrosanct innocent life is. Just look at politicians and predatory lenders that intentionally cause harm to already vulnerable groups and the innocent deaths that causes without even a slap on the wrist.

 

[bruto]

To the highlighted - people are murdered in jails! ETA: 120 in the USA in 2018 there were 25 executions that year.

I was illustrating why we need data to make a truly "rational" decision, but the world stubbornly refuses to match our ideologies - which is what our ethical/moral systems are - no matter how much we wish and hold our breaths. I don't even know if it would be possible in principle to get the data that would be required for the mythical "rational" decision regarding having the death penalty or not.

True, but your original statement asked how one might react if we found an unexecuted person might kill two innocent people (or rather that this would be the average for them all), and although innocence is of course relative, the prison population is (one hopes at least) not a random sample of the population at large.

It remains an interesting question, though, and one that I imagine should not be all that hard to address, since there are large areas in which capital punishment is not practiced. We know what sorts of crimes would result in capital punishment in places where it is, so it should not be all that hard to do a matched-pair study between, say, Texas and New York, and determine the difference in post-conviction murder rate. Remember here that the argument is not about how many people are murdered in jail, but how many are murdered specifically by prisoners who would in some jurisdictions have been executed.

Even if answered, a finding of higher murder rate, while mitigating the argument against capital punishment, does not automatically favor it if the problem might better be solved by a change in the conditions of incarceration of unexecuted capital offenders.