(Ed) Capital punishment - for or against?

[Francesca R]

Do you think that the economic cost of life imprisonment is higher than the cost of execution, inclusive of all state expenditure?

When I google "costs of death penalty", the first page that comes up is this:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

That's what they claim.

This is a bit belated of me but thank you.

 

[richardm]

Hmm, . . . my views unchanged from almost 2 years ago.

I was puzzled as to why your quoted responses were showing as being from Acuity. That explains it!

 

[Tiktaalik]

Against.

Rasmus, I've always loved that quote as well.

That said, I have to admit a certain feeling of inevitability when he-who-shall-not-be-named who bombed the Alfred P. Macmurrah building was executed. That feeling doesn't make it right, though.

I guess I should add: it appears to me that this one life is all we get. Snuffing anything out for eternity is therefore the most horrendous thing I can think of. I can't justify it in my mind even if someone committed a heinous crime.

 

[Segnosaur]

A lot of people have stated they are against capital punishment because they don't like the possibility of executing an innocent man. That's certainly a valid concern.

But... what if we restricted capital punishment to only those cases where we knew the identity of the criminal with 100% certainty? All others would be subject to life imprisionment. I'm thinking of situations where, for example, police catch an individual in the act, or we find some serial killer with the bodies actually stored in the basement of his house.

Would you support the death penalty if it were restricted to those situations only? Would it change your opinion?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Why the two year bump?

 

[Rolfe]

A lot of people have stated they are against capital punishment because they don't like the possibility of executing an innocent man. That's certainly a valid concern.

But... what if we restricted capital punishment to only those cases where we knew the identity of the criminal with 100% certainty? All others would be subject to life imprisionment. I'm thinking of situations where, for example, police catch an individual in the act, or we find some serial killer with the bodies actually stored in the basement of his house.

Would you support the death penalty if it were restricted to those situations only? Would it change your opinion?

That's an extremely hypopthetical scenario. I can well imagine circumstances where it would be argued that we were 100% certain, but which were later found to be questionable. It's not many cases where a perpetrator is caught red-handed and there is no possibility of an extenuating circumstance.

Yes, I'm 100% sure Harold Shipman was guilty. And I'm 100% sure Fred West was guilty. But that doesn't actually mean there couldn't possibly have been some new evidence that could have emerged.

Basically, no. For pretty much all of the above reasons. Majoring on not wwanting to give the state the power to kill me, and the concerns about unsafe convicions, and the ethical position that the state should not be empowered to take life.

It would have been interesting if this had been a poll.

Rolfe.

 

[ravdin]

A lot of people have stated they are against capital punishment because they don't like the possibility of executing an innocent man. That's certainly a valid concern.

But... what if we restricted capital punishment to only those cases where we knew the identity of the criminal with 100% certainty? All others would be subject to life imprisionment. I'm thinking of situations where, for example, police catch an individual in the act, or we find some serial killer with the bodies actually stored in the basement of his house.

Would you support the death penalty if it were restricted to those situations only? Would it change your opinion?

Yes, but I don't think it's possible. Many prosecutors are not above withholding evidence- perhaps something crucial that would make a jury less than 100% sure that the defendant is guilty.

I might also add to my previous comments that Eric Rudolph^WP and Robert Hanssen^WP are not on Death Row, even though they both deserve to be executed if anyone does. Our civilization is not facing imminent collapse as a result of this leniency.

 

[Rasmus]

A lot of people have stated they are against capital punishment because they don't like the possibility of executing an innocent man. That's certainly a valid concern.

But... what if we restricted capital punishment to only those cases where we knew the identity of the criminal with 100% certainty? All others would be subject to life imprisionment. I'm thinking of situations where, for example, police catch an individual in the act, or we find some serial killer with the bodies actually stored in the basement of his house.

Would you support the death penalty if it were restricted to those situations only? Would it change your opinion?

No, as I have other reasons against it, too.

That being said, what does that even mean, 100% certain? Remember, you would have to write a law that tells us quite clearly how we can tell a 100% case from a 99% case. It's easy to ask about 100% cases, but it's quite difficult to define them.

Using your own example: What if someone else hid bodies in your basement? I would do that if I was a serial killer - make sure that all evidence that might be found clearly points at somebody else... also, included in the rent I pay is a small compartment in the basement of my apartment building. I've been there once on the day I got my keys. (Or possibly the day I had a look at the place before renting i, even.) If that compartment was stacked with bodies of murder victims I wouldn't know it.

On top of that, as long as we have a separation of powers, you can never be 100% certain just because of that. The judge or jury cast the verdict. But they have to rely on other people presenting the evidence or speaking as witnesses. Level upon level of removal from the actual crime with layer upon layer of abstraction.

 

[Segnosaur]

But... what if we restricted capital punishment to only those cases where we knew the identity of the criminal with 100% certainty?

That's an extremely hypopthetical scenario. I can well imagine circumstances where it would be argued that we were 100% certain, but which were later found to be questionable.

I'm not suggesting cases where we knew the cillre with 100% certainty would be in the majority, or even common. But, the chance would certainly be greater than zero.

I'm thinking in particular of 2 cases here in Canada...

- Paul Bernardo... where there is videotaped evidence of him committing his crimes. (I could also mention the testimony of his wife; however, given the troubling circumstances surrounding her 'confession' I wouldn't blame anyone if they wanted to discount her court testimony)

- The beheading incident on the greyhound bus in Manitoba earlier this year, where the suspect was arrested by police immediately after the crime, and for which multiple individuals would have had him in sight continuously from before the attack to the arrest.

In both these cases, the possibility of mistaken identity is virtually nil.

Yes, these cases are the exceptions compared to all the other murder cases, but they do exist.

Basically, no. For pretty much all of the above reasons. Majoring on not wwanting to give the state the power to kill me, and the concerns about unsafe convicions, and the ethical position that the state should not be empowered to take life.

I don't want the state to have the power to kill me either. I also don't want the state to have the power to imprison me either. Of course, if you are going to suggest that the state is so 'corrupt' that they can just execute someone for no reason, then whey even worry about capital punishment? After all, such a corrupt government could just send out 'death squads' that operate illegally anyways.

That being said, what does that even mean, 100% certain? Remember, you would have to write a law that tells us quite clearly how we can tell a 100% case from a 99% case. It's easy to ask about 100% cases, but it's quite difficult to define them.

To be honest, I don't have an exact definition of '100% certain' either.

I guess the easiest way to explain it would be that the person is either A: Captured by the police during the commission of the crime (e.g. perhaps a hostage situation that resulted in a death), or B: a case where multiple witnesses both view the crime, and have a continuous view of the suspect until they are arrested. (The beheading on a greyhound bus in Manitoba earlier this year would fit that description) It may also be possible that videotape would provide evidence to guarantee certainty (although given the state of digital technology, it may be in the future such 'evidence' provides less of a guarantee).

Using your own example: What if someone else hid bodies in your basement? I would do that if I was a serial killer - make sure that all evidence that might be found clearly points at somebody else...

Fine if you want to discount that example (I have given others however).

Lets alter the example a bit... the cops (acting under a legally obtained warrant) find the killer in his basement, covered in the victim's blood, with a shovel and a dead body, and is in the process of digging a grave.

(I'm not so interested in suggesting exact details of a crime... I'm just asking if we were sure we had the right person, and restricted executions to only those small minority of cases, would that change your opinions.)

 

[Praktik]

(I'm not so interested in suggesting exact details of a crime... I'm just asking if we were sure we had the right person, and restricted executions to only those small minority of cases, would that change your opinions.)

Well, in your hypothetical scenario, if we could know with a certainty that would still not change my opinion. I just don't buy the eye for an eye approach generally.

Besides, how many prosecutors would try and present their case as one of those "100%" cases?

In America they actually elect some members of the judiciary and even DA's, how many of them would feel political pressure to present their case as "100%"?

I just think its a slippery slope since perfect knowledge is impossible and besides the Greyhound slasher and a few anomalies I don't think the perceived "benefit" of killing them would outweigh the negatives of the slippery slope.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

Hmmm -- Interesting thread.

I think we have amply demonstrated that the US criminal justice system is flawed. That is why there is a standard of "reasonable doubt" for juries to consider--because it's not preponderence of evidence, as in civil cases. And a capital crime requires a unanimous jury vote on both the guilt and the punishment phase of the trial. And yet...mistakes happen. Fraud happens. Scapegoats are created. I just don't trust the courts to not make a mistake.

The irritating thing about the court system is that it cannot do "Justice" because that requires a standard of knowledge that we do not have, and cannot have, about what happened before, during, and after the crime. A lot of guilty folks go free, in order to make it improbable that an innocent person be convicted. And even so, we can and do convict people of crimes they didn't commit. There's no way to reverse a mistaken execution. The only way to prevent a State-enforced murder of an innocent is to not have capital punishment.

Having said all of that, I have in my heart a small, angry, Cro-Magnon-browed voice that says, "If he's raping and killing children, he ought to die!" There are crimes the barbarity of which cry out for not justice, but vengeance; crimes of a level that are nearly unimaginable to normal humans. People who starve their children to death over years, locked in a room where the daily humiliation and brutality exceeds that of concentration camps. People who torture their victims to death, then go find another, and another, for reasons even they cannot explain. So while Reason prevails in my judgment, I also feel the pressure of Rage and Outrage calling for what is due.

I do not support vigilante action; but if I am ever called to jury duty for a parent who caught the molester in the act of raping their child -- and killed -- I'd not be able to find that parent guilty. (I might even recommend a public "thank you".) And if anyone on the previously-cited bus had used lethal force on the attacker, I would not convict them.

So put me down as, "In principle opposed, but has the ability to understand why people support it in certain Very Special Cases."

Thanks for the chance to revisit an issue I haven't discussed in years, MK

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, in your hypothetical scenario, if we could know with a certainty that would still not change my opinion. I just don't buy the eye for an eye approach generally.

How exactly does this count as an eye for an eye approach? After all, in theory when someone is executed, attempts are made to ensure the execution is quick and painless, somethign that does not happen with many killers.

Besides, how many prosecutors would try and present their case as one of those "100%" cases?

They may want to, but I've given a very simplistic definition about how we could catagorize identification as 'certain'... namely, catching the individual in the act, or multiple eye-witnesses that follow the suspect from crime to arrest.

Even if a prosecutor would want to present the case as '100%', they'd still actually have to follow that rule.

I just think its a slippery slope since perfect knowledge is impossible and besides the Greyhound slasher and a few anomalies I don't think the perceived "benefit" of killing them would outweigh the negatives of the slippery slope.

First of all, why is that a 'sliperly slope'? I think you may be mis-using that phrase. I've given a simple definition that could be used to charactorize suspect identification as 'certain'. Its a rather black-and-white definition. If you think the 'slippery slope' is a big problem, then you should be against any and all jail terms, since the 'slippery slope' suggest that if you jail people for 'serious' crimes, we could end up jailing them minor crimes, or even jailing innocent people.

Secondly, you seem to have stated mutually exclusive ideas... first you say that 'perfect knowledge is impossible', then you suggest that things like the Greyhound Slasher are 'anomolies'... well, if the greyhound slasher is an 'anomoly' and we have a 100% idendificatin, then obviously 100% knowlege is not 'impossible', just uncommon (something I have never denied).

 

[Praktik]

First of all, why is that a 'sliperly slope'? I think you may be mis-using that phrase. I've given a simple definition that could be used to charactorize suspect identification as 'certain'. Its a rather black-and-white definition. If you think the 'slippery slope' is a big problem, then you should be against any and all jail terms, since the 'slippery slope' suggest that if you jail people for 'serious' crimes, we could end up jailing them minor crimes, or even jailing innocent people.

Secondly, you seem to have stated mutually exclusive ideas... first you say that 'perfect knowledge is impossible', then you suggest that things like the Greyhound Slasher are 'anomolies'... well, if the greyhound slasher is an 'anomoly' and we have a 100% idendificatin, then obviously 100% knowlege is not 'impossible', just uncommon (something I have never denied).

I don't think i'm mis-using that term at all. I plainly stated my worry: that prosecutors looking for a big win would present cases as "100%" cases when really they aren't. That once we start with a "100% rule", pressures will build to funnel more and more cases into that category, possibly including innocent people.

I guess you may have caught me out on that mutually exclusive part - count yourself one more in the "victory column" on your whiteboard.

 

[Rasmus]

To be honest, I don't have an exact definition of '100% certain' either.

I guess the easiest way to explain it would be that the person is either A: Captured by the police during the commission of the crime (e.g. perhaps a hostage situation that resulted in a death),

Depending on the exact situation, that still leaves many possibilities where the accused might be innocent or at least only partially to blame.

or B: a case where multiple witnesses both view the crime, and have a continuous view of the suspect until they are arrested. (The beheading on a greyhound bus in Manitoba earlier this year would fit that description) It may also be possible that videotape would provide evidence to guarantee certainty (although given the state of digital technology, it may be in the future such 'evidence' provides less of a guarantee).

How does that account for motive, e.g.?

Fine if you want to discount that example (I have given others however).

My point was that examples don't cut it.

Lets alter the example a bit... the cops (acting under a legally obtained warrant) find the killer in his basement, covered in the victim's blood, with a shovel and a dead body, and is in the process of digging a grave.

In that case you don't even have a witness for the actual murder! You're down to maybe 90% here. It's glaringly obvious to me, yet you missed it. And at the same time you want to ask us to rely on 100% cases?

(I'm not so interested in suggesting exact details of a crime... I'm just asking if we were sure we had the right person, and restricted executions to only those small minority of cases, would that change your opinions.)

And I can only repeat that I need a definition of what it means to be sure. That's how law works: You don't decide a punishment after the fact, you describe what kind of act deserves what kind of punishment.

Yoiu can barely come up with watertight examples, yet you propose a law based on certainty?

 

[Segnosaur]

I don't think i'm mis-using that term at all. I plainly stated my worry: that prosecutors looking for a big win would present cases as "100%" cases when really they aren't.

But how can it fall under the '100% rule' if they don't have the direct arrest and/or multiple eye-witnesses? The decision about whether it was a '100% case' would not be up to the prosecutor's whims; it would have a specific definition.

That once we start with a "100% rule", pressures will build to funnel more and more cases into that category, possibly including innocent people.

So? How does that differ from the current situation where you have some people opposed to the death penalty and others for it?

I'm not necessarily eager to see the death penalty applied (or reinstated up here in Canada), I just don't agree with a lot of people's reasons for opposing it.

 

[Praktik]

You asked about your 100% hypothetical and I gave my answer. I think outside of the hypothetical - when the rubber hits the road so to speak - that the slippery slope is a real and valid concern. As others have pointed out, it is hard to even conceive of that many 100% scenarios that would fit the bill.

You also may have noticed I put the "benefit" of killing a killer in scare quotes above - that was to designate that I don't even see a societal benefit to doing this. Given my worries about actual harm coming from this - and no perceived benefit on my part from actually killing the killer - I don't think it would be wise to enact such a rule, a rule that only works in make-believe in the first place.

More generally, I am opposed to the death penalty on moral and economic terms. It costs more than incarceration for life given the stricter legal requirements (and ensuing court battles) and I also believe in a rehabilitative sense of justice, not a punitive one. For "hard cases" like say, Jeffrey Dahmer or the Greyhound Slasher, lifetime containment seems to me to be completely appropriate - with none of the extra costs or risks associated with capital punishment...

 

[Segnosaur]

I guess the easiest way to explain it would be that the person is either A: Captured by the police during the commission of the crime (e.g. perhaps a hostage situation that resulted in a death),

Depending on the exact situation, that still leaves many possibilities where the accused might be innocent or at least only partially to blame.

Sure... maybe if a hostage taker shoots someone in the head, they're not to blame because the victim had a magnetic plate in their head that attracted the bullet.

Once again, I'm not stating that all cases of murder would fall under this particular burden of proof, I'm just saying for the ones that do, then we're sure we have caught the correct criminal.

If someone kidnaps a dozen people, kills a couple, and the police arrest him before he's able to kill anymore, then there is no real chance that they've gotten the wrong person.

or B: a case where multiple witnesses both view the crime, and have a continuous view of the suspect until they are arrested. (The beheading on a greyhound bus in Manitoba earlier this year would fit that description) It may also be possible that videotape would provide evidence to guarantee certainty (although given the state of digital technology, it may be in the future such 'evidence' provides less of a guarantee).

How does that account for motive, e.g.?

Why is motive important here? We're dealing only with the issue about whether we've prosecuted the correct individual.

The only think that may be relevant is whether a person was considered criminally insane.

Fine if you want to discount that example (I have given others however).

My point was that examples don't cut it.

You've ignored the fact that I've pointed out examples (such as the Grey Hound Bus decapitations where the chance that we've identified the wrong person is pretty much nil.

Lets alter the example a bit... the cops (acting under a legally obtained warrant) find the killer in his basement, covered in the victim's blood, with a shovel and a dead body, and is in the process of digging a grave.

In that case you don't even have a witness for the actual murder!
[/quote]
Believe it or not, there are some cases where there are witnesses for those types of murders. The Chicken-coop murders (as illustrated in the movie Changeling) is a prime example.

You're down to maybe 90% here.

You really think someone who's covered in the victim's blood and is in the process of burrying their body would only be considered 90% guilty? Really? Honestly?

Of course I could point out that even if we never actually saw him kill anyone, the disposal of the body would likely fall under various rules about obstruction of justice. Why not argue that it was actually space aliens that were able to control his mind and make him do those evil deeds?

Your agument was that perhaps the real killer was framing someone for the murders. I pointed out a hypothetical case where it would be impossible for the bodies to be burried in the basement without the suspect's actual cooperation and knowledge.

 

[Segnosaur]

You asked about your 100% hypothetical and I gave my answer.

Not sure why its 'hypthetical'... after all, I gave 2 examples (Bernardo and Grey Hound) where such a burden of proof would be met...

I think outside of the hypothetical - when the rubber hits the road so to speak - that the slippery slope is a real and valid concern. As others have pointed out, it is hard to even conceive of that many 100% scenarios that would fit the bill.

Why does the number of scenarios really matter? Either something is justified or it is not... the number of people it applies to does not change the morality or logic.

You also may have noticed I put the "benefit" of killing a killer in scare quotes above - that was to designate that I don't even see a societal benefit to doing this.

Hey, I don't see much benefit to executing a killer. But then, I don't see much benefit in keeping them alive either.

I can think of 2 minor advantages to allowing such executions:
- A killer, once executed, has no chance of escape and killing again (and believe it or not, convicted murderers do escape... e.g. Glen Stewart Godwin)
- The ability to have the death penalty applied may give prosecuters leverage in forcing plea bargins. (Granted, a suspect who's actually caught in the act would probably loose their case anyways)

More generally, I am opposed to the death penalty on moral and economic terms.

Ok, that's fine. I have no argument with you there. I find those arguments a lot more compelling than any of the other claims (such as 'slipperly slope') that have been made.

The idea that the death penalty is not 'moral' is a personal opinion for which there is no right or wrong answer. Personally, I believe that people who have murdered others (premeditated) have given up any claim to exist on this planet, but that is just my opinion and for which there is no right or wrong answer.

You are right in that the execution of an individual is often more costly than keeping them alive.

 

[Segnosaur]

(double post)

 

[Darth Rotor]

and also the nearest I get to an "ideological" objection - I just don't believe in giving the state the power to kill me.

I don't mind the state killing you, so long as it doesn't kill me.