Tookie Williams: clemency denied

[Tony]

? Yes, it is deliberate but not deliberate to kill innocent people.

Then I guess the innocent people just happen to conveniently stumble into the execution chamber on the day of execution.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

The severity of the punishment wasn't my logic. My point was that an innocent death is much worse than an innocent person in jail. "Severity" had nothing to do with it. My logic is that life is preferable to death because a life sentence can be reversed. Death cannot.
.

Really now? If you are unjustly sentenced to life and spend 15 years in prison before you prove yourself innocent and are released you can get those 15 years back? When did this marvel of time travel become available?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Of course it is. But the deliberate part is killing guilty people. You seem to be saying, and correct me if I'm in error, that the death penalty is fatally (heh) flawed because it may have the undesired outcome of also killing some unknown but tiny number of innocent people. That argument does not hold water unless one is an anarchist. Governments do lots of things all the time which have the unintended effect of killing innocent people in furtherance of a larger goal (say, preventing a swine flu epidemic or reducing automobile fatalities or protecting the citizenry from criminals). But no one (other than anarchists and deluded woos) says "stop vaccinating people because some innocent people will die from it" -- indeed, anti-vac types are widely and correctly derided on these boards. But it's a fact -- more innocent people died from the single year of swine flu vaccinations than innocent people were killed by execution in this country since the death penalty was reinstated. So it can't be the possibility of innocent people dying alone that serves as an objection to the death penalty.

The producers of vaccines strive to produce vaccines with as low a risk of death as possible, and would prefer to have no deaths from their vaccines. Unfortunately, in order to enjoy the protection the vaccines provide, some risk of death is unavoidable.

However, the death penalty is carefully, speficialy targeted at select individuals. It is not an unfortunate accident, but an expensive and deliberate process.

Your analogy does not apply.

 

[Manny]

Absolutely it applies. All that is different is the goal. The goal of the death penalty is to kill guilty people, whether for justice or revenge or to minimize recidivism or to act as a deterrent. To steal your sentence construction, the actors in the trial and appeals system strive to produce justice with as low a risk of innocent deaths as possible and would prefer to have no innocent deaths from the implementation of justice. Unfortunately, in order to enjoy the societal benefit the death penalty provides, some risk of innocent deaths is unavoidable.

 

[Tony]

Of course it is. But the deliberate part is killing guilty people. You seem to be saying, and correct me if I'm in error, that the death penalty is fatally (heh) flawed because it may have the undesired outcome of also killing some unknown but tiny number of innocent people.

Good enough.

That argument does not hold water unless one is an anarchist.

This is a non-sequitor. There are many restrictions we put on government power because of the prospect of abuse, incompetence or corruption. Following your logic, it is anarchistic to institute checks and balances. Not allowing the government to kill people because some of them may be innocent should be one of those restrictions.

Governments do lots of things all the time which have the unintended effect of killing innocent people in furtherance of a larger goal (say, preventing a swine flu epidemic or reducing automobile fatalities or protecting the citizenry from criminals).

What larger goal is being hindered because the government isn't allowed to execute innocent people? Surely not justice.

But no one (other than anarchists and deluded woos) says "stop vaccinating people because some innocent people will die from it" -- indeed, anti-vac types are widely and correctly derided on these boards.

False analogy.

But it's a fact -- more innocent people died from the single year of swine flu vaccinations than innocent people were killed by execution in this country since the death penalty was reinstated.

This is a red herring.

So it can't be the possibility of innocent people dying alone that serves as an objection to the death penalty.

It is for me. I have no principled objection to the idea of executing murderers. But I do object to the killing of innocent people.

 

[Tony]

Really now? If you are unjustly sentenced to life and spend 15 years in prison before you prove yourself innocent and are released you can get those 15 years back? When did this marvel of time travel become available?

So because someone spends 15 years in prison when wrongly convicted, we should allow the execution of innocent people. Please continue with your wreckless regard for innocent human life.

 

[WildCat]

The death penalty can easily be applied to innocent people, as anyone who lives in Illinois can tell you. Lots of questionable cases here, and lots of evidence that prosecutors and police deliberately railroaded some innocent defendants. Examples are the Ford Heights 4 and the 2 men wrongly put on death row for the 1983 sexual assault and murder of Jeanine Nicarico.

What needs to be done, IMHO, is a higher standard of guilt for the death penalty to be applied. Not just "beyond a reasonable doubt" but beyond any doubt, the evidence should be overwhelming and unassailable.

But Tookie? I'm all for his execution. He started a murderous gang that has killed thousands of innocent people over the last 30 years in dozens of states. People like him are why we need a death penalty.

 

[Tony]

Absolutely it applies. All that is different is the goal.

Bwahahahahahahahah. The only thing different between the death penalty and a vaccine is the goal.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Absolutely it applies. All that is different is the goal. The goal of the death penalty is to kill guilty people, whether for justice or revenge or to minimize recidivism or to act as a deterrent. To steal your sentence construction, the actors in the trial and appeals system strive to produce justice with as low a risk of innocent deaths as possible and would prefer to have no innocent deaths from the implementation of justice. Unfortunately, in order to enjoy the societal benefit the death penalty provides, some risk of innocent deaths is unavoidable.

Manny, all those deaths are avoidable. We can simply stop exceuting people.

 

[Manny]

There are many restrictions we put on government power because of the prospect of abuse, incompetence or corruption. Following your logic, it is anarchistic to institute checks and balances. Not allowing the government to kill people because some of them may be innocent should be one of those restrictions.

Aha. You've moved the goalposts, but in a good way. The death penalty as currently implemented has myriad checks and balances. It's reasonable to argue that there aren't enough of them. It might even be reasonable to argue that one can't imagine a system where there enough of them. It's also reasonable to make different arguments against the death penalty. One might reasonably argue that it is wrong to kill people who no longer pose a significant threat even if they're guilty, for example. All I'm saying is that it is nonsensical to oppose the death penalty for the single reason that it might, theoretically, cause some tiny number of innocent people to die if one also believes that it is legitimate for government to do those other things which undeniably cause many innocent people to die.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

What needs to be done, IMHO, is a higher standard of guilt for the death penalty to be applied. Not just "beyond a reasonable doubt" but beyond any doubt, the evidence should be overwhelming and unassailable.

Now that I would agree with. However I think the years and years of appeals that we give them before applying the death penalty comes as close to that standard as humanly possible.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Aha. You've moved the goalposts, but in a good way. The death penalty as currently implemented has myriad checks and balances. It's reasonable to argue that there aren't enough of them. It might even be reasonable to argue that one can't imagine a system where there enough of them. It's also reasonable to make different arguments against the death penalty. One might reasonably argue that it is wrong to kill people who no longer pose a significant threat even if they're guilty, for example. All I'm saying is that it is nonsensical to oppose the death penalty for the single reason that it might, theoretically, cause some tiny number of innocent people to die if one also believes that it is legitimate for government to do those other things which undeniably cause many innocent people to die.

This is not so. The government only does two things which specifically target people for death; The Death Penalty, and War. Everything else which may be risky has accidental deaths. Fortunately, the governments tends to go through a lot of trouble to prevent accidents of that nature. In the case of the death penalty, the government is specifically killing people, some of whom are innocent.

 

[Tony]

All I'm saying is that it is nonsensical to oppose the death penalty for the single reason that it might, theoretically, cause some tiny number of innocent people to die if one also believes that it is legitimate for government to do those other things which undeniably cause many innocent people to die.

All those "other" things don't compare.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

By that logic, whether you support the death penalty or not, if you don't believe the system is perfect then you must find it acceptable that innocent people will be forced to rot in a jail cell by the government.

They have a chance to get out and some of them have. You cant undo the death penalty.

 

[Manny]

Manny, all those deaths are avoidable. We can simply stop exceuting people.

Yes, and we can disarm the cops and take out the airbags (or at least put on the cut-off switch so many people begged for when they were correctly predicting the outcome of the pre-'97 airbag regulations) and make vaccines voluntary. But we don't because we, collectively, see a benefit to offset the innocent lives lost -- other innocent lives saved, people protected from criminals, better building insulation. Society believes it gets a benefit from the implementation of the death penalty against guilty people. Recidivism among post-executed people is zero, victims achieve justice, some believe there to be a deterrent effect (or would be if the death penalty were accomplished with fewer checks and balances), etc.

 

[Tony]

Now that I would agree with. However I think the years and years of appeals that we give them before applying the death penalty comes as close to that standard as humanly possible.

Except in the cases he cited.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

Peddle your straw elsewhere, AH. Imperfection itself is not reason to scrap anything. And I object to your characterization of my satisfaction of justice being a "warm fuzzy"; it speaks volumes about your inability to discuss things honestly.

Imperfection is not a reason to scrap anything? Are you serious? So you dont have a problem with Jim Crow laws I take it. Do you think its just chance that more blacks than whites get the chair?

Stop putting words in my mouth I am not a anti-semite you owe me an apology.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes, and we can disarm the cops and take out the airbags (or at least put on the cut-off switch so many people begged for when they were correctly predicting the outcome of the pre-'97 airbag regulations) and make vaccines voluntary. But we don't because we, collectively, see a benefit to offset the innocent lives lost -- other innocent lives saved, people protected from criminals, better building insulation. Society believes it gets a benefit from the implementation of the death penalty against guilty people. Recidivism among post-executed people is zero, victims achieve justice, some believe there to be a deterrent effect (or would be if the death penalty were accomplished with fewer checks and balances), etc.

Again, you are making a false analogy. Recidivism amoung post-exceuted people is of course zero. So is dissent, rehabilitation, tap dancing and chewing with their mouths open.

You claim that the death penalty is an effective deterent to crime. Care to open a thread asserting that more fully?

 

[Tony]

Yes, and we can disarm the cops

Yes, we should disarm cops.

and take out the airbags (or at least put on the cut-off switch so many people begged for when they were correctly predicting the outcome of the pre-'97 airbag regulations)

Yes, you should have the choice whether you want the airbag on or not.

and make vaccines voluntary.

They are. I was never forced by government fiat to get a vaccine.

Society believes it gets a benefit from the implementation of the death penalty against guilty people.

Can you provide evidence for this? Can you provide evidence that societies "belief" is founded in reality?

Recidivism among post-executed people is zero, victims achieve justice, some believe there to be a deterrent effect (or would be if the death penalty were accomplished with fewer checks and balances), etc

It is the exact same with life without parole.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

True. But I think you'll agree that an innocent person being executed by the state is a lot worse than an innocent person spending X number of years in jail.

I do not