Split Thread Why Capital punishment?

[PitPat]

"reasonable doubt" is about the case before the jury or judge, not about the justice system. Juries nor judges are not asked to make a determination based on the fact that juries and judges have made wrong decisions in the past.
Your standard would mean no one could ever be convicted of any crime.

I think that's exactly what both are for. And absolutely a reflection of the justice system, wherever it may be.

What better legal system can one come up with?

We're all animals living on a planet, and break serious rules.

I'd like to think we're better than just going around killing people when the opportunity presents itself.

Not saying making them suffer forever, but just never having to do whatever they want and not walk outside their confines.

Just talking about the really bad ones here.

 

[Roboramma]

In what way is a preference in seafood analogous to a moral principle of crime and punishment? Why on earth would convenience ever be a factor in deciding whether to do what you believe is wrong?

One reason is that money is fungible. If you save money by not executing someone, that money can be spent in other ways.

For another reason, perfect justice doesn't exist. There are always going to be tradeoffs. And many of the tradeoffs we make are related to money. Is taxation "just"? I think it's pragmatically necessary, and we'd all be poorer and worse off (and probably killed by our less than unjust enemies) if we required society to be perfectly just, but society has to try to find the balance between principle and pragmatism.

 

[theprestige]

"The accused had motive, means, and opportunity. They were found at the scene. None of the evidence presented by either prosecution or defense puts any other plausible suspect at the scene. The defense has presented no coherent theory of who or when or how else it could have happened. Beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is guilty."

"Yeah, but what if this is a super improbable edge case where the accused was blackout drunk and the kid he bullied in high school still holds a grudge and happened to be nearby with rubber gloves in his glove box, and seized the opportunity to frame him? Have we considered that possibility? I think there's reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt, here."

 

[Thermal]

"The accused had motive, means, and opportunity.

That would indicate that the suspect could plausibly have committed the crime, not that he actually did. You could probably tick off a hundred people that I have M, M & O to kill, but no evidence that I actually had anything to do with it.

They were found at the scene.

Well that would look bad, unless they had a perfectly good reason to be at the scene, with or without the victim. I once almost drove over a guy laying in the middle of the street, bleeding from the head. Had a cop looked in my direction, I would surely have been "found at the scene" (as fate would have it, I called 911 before any looked in my direction).

None of the evidence presented by either prosecution or defense puts any other plausible suspect at the scene. The defense has presented no coherent theory of who or when or how else it could have happened.

Why is it the accused's job to actually solve the crime and find the guilty party? Assuming they are innocent, why would they be expected to go all Magnum PI and find the real killer? Their job is simply to defend themselves against the charges.

Beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is guilty."

Not a shred of evidence to support that conclusion is presented in your hypothetical, and would hope a jury wouldn't either. There is good reason to consider him a likely suspect. There is zero reason to find him guilty, and less than zero to be found so beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Darat]

I don't think I quite understand your point. I was talking about individual cases where a jury apparently thought that there was no "reasonable doubt" that the defendant was guilty, and yet the defendant was not guilty, in fact. ...snip...

Of course any jury could come to the "wrong" verdict, but it is expected that they use what they learn and are told in court to come to a decision, as long as they have done that then their verdict - at the time - was correct.

That other evidence might become known after the trial is not something that I can see we can ever add into the trial side of a conviction, well not at least until we have working time travel!

And remember "beyond a reasonable doubt" is just a phrase - what it means is that the jury is certain. I.e.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/beyond_a_reasonable_doubt

...snip...

beyond a reasonable doubt

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict. ...snip....

The test for the jury to make their decision is already "absolute certainty". Now you can add a third option, famously Scotland has its not guilty, guilty and not proven verdicts. But anytime that verdict is "guilty" the jury will with "absolute certainty" have decided on that guilty verdict.

 

[ahhell]

As far as that, if humane is important, then the thing to do is to let them decide, rather than deciding on their behalf.

In the original thread it was suggested that they be given a menu, a range of options, and then allowed to choose which way they'd like to go out. I liked that idea.

Likewise, as far as the humane factor in our decision-making about whether to keep them all life long, or just kill them and put them out of their misery, then the way to decide that would be to let them decide that. As far as the humane angle, that is.

While I think death might be more humane than life in prison and some folks might choose it, I still don't think it should be an option because there is no way to fix that mistake. There isn't with long stays in prison either but at least there's a chance to let the wrongully convicted out.

 

[Venom]

A former U.S. Attorney's reasoning for the death penalty is as a last resort after lifers continue to kill other inmates and staff behind bars. And I'm pretty much in this camp if I support capital punishment at all. The people that do this don't necessarily commit the "worst" crimes to get into prison, but they continue to be an extreme danger to others once inside.

I'm trusting people's judgement less and less on who should live or die; it's a slippery slope, so I oppose capital punishment in general. I'm quite content with doing time as the punishment for even the worst offenders.

 

[PitPat]

A former U.S. Attorney's reasoning for the death penalty is as a last resort after lifers continue to kill other inmates and staff behind bars. And I'm pretty much in this camp if I support capital punishment at all. The people that do this don't necessarily commit the "worst" crimes to get into prison, but they continue to be an extreme danger to others once inside.

I'm trusting people's judgement less and less on who should live or die; it's a slippery slope, so I oppose capital punishment in general. I'm quite content with doing time as the punishment for even the worst offenders.

IMO, it's more about the law that allow them to. Also, depending on where you live.

 

[Olmstead]

There's really no place for "justice" in a utilitarian society. It's essentially just institutionalised revenge, and provides nothing of worth. The real cornerstones should be deterrence, rehabilitation, and removal of people that are dangerous to others.

And if we already have life sentences, and a prisoner cannot reasonably be considered a danger to others while in prison, then capital punishment really is just revenge.

 

[Venom]

IMO, it's more about the law that allow them to. Also, depending on where you live.

Well yeah, ultimately changes in the law are going to be driven by a lax attitude among the privileged non-criminals in society.

 

[theprestige]

There's really no place for "justice" in a utilitarian society. It's essentially just institutionalised revenge, and provides nothing of worth.

There's no such thing as a utilitarian society, though.

And "institutionalized revenge", as you call it, does provide something of worth to a civil society: The reassurance that actions have consequences, and that bad actors are getting what they deserve.

Nothing accelerates the destruction of society like the perception that crime isn't punished and criminals can get away with anything. If you don't institutionalize the revenge, citizens will just start taking matters into their own hands. And if their community survives that period of its history, citizens will ultimately institutionalize their vigilantism, bringing us full circle back to "justice".

 

[Olmstead]

There's no such thing as a utilitarian society, though.

And "institutionalized revenge", as you call it, does provide something of worth to a civil society: The reassurance that actions have consequences, and that bad actors are getting what they deserve.

Nothing accelerates the destruction of society like the perception that crime isn't punished and criminals can get away with anything. If you don't institutionalize the revenge, citizens will just start taking matters into their own hands. And if their community survives that period of its history, citizens will ultimately institutionalize their vigilantism, bringing us full circle back to "justice".

That's not justice, it's deterrence, and if the difference between life imprisonment and execution doesn't actually make a difference, then it's pointless to insist on it. Or on any other punishment that doesn't offer a deterrent effect for that matter.

 

[theprestige]

That's not justice, it's deterrence

No, I'm definitely not describing deterrence, nor advocating for deterrence in any way. I have no idea what part of my post you think lends itself to the "deterrence" interpretation, but that interpretation is wrong.

Justice is not about deterring bad acts, but about punishing the bad actors that are undeterred. I'm talking about the punishment part, the "revenge". Not the deterrence part.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Saving money isn't justice. We can deal with crime more cheaply by doing nothing, but saving money isn't the goal of the criminal justice system.

There are two basic arguments against the death penalty that you can make on the basis of justice, and neither of them has to do with cost. The first is the argument that no crime deserves the death penalty. This is an axiomatic claim (but then, so is the claim that there are crimes which deserve the death penalty), for the most part you either agree or don't. If one believes that no crime deserves the death penalty, then there should be no capital crimes at all. The existence of the category presumes that some crimes deserve death.

The second argument is that the system is error prone, and an incorrect execution is of such a greater injustice than a lesser penalty for someone who deserves death that we must err on the side of lesser penalties to avoid an unjustified execution. You make mention of this, but again, cost isn't relevant to this argument

The argument on the basis of cost has nothing to do with justice, and in fact subverts justice for the sake of expediency.

These are the arguments I would make, especially the second argument.

 

[Olmstead]

No, I'm definitely not describing deterrence, onr advocating for deterrence in any way. I have no idea what part of my post you think lends itself to the "deterrence" interpretation, but that interpretation is wrong.

Justice is not about deterring bad acts, but about punishing the bad actors that are undeterred. I'm talking about the punishment part, the "revenge". Not the deterrence part.

Okay, I have re-read it, and I misunderstood.

But in that case, I don't agree with your premise that retribution is required for society to work. Oslo isn't in flames because Breivik didn't get what he "deserves". Neither are other countries that focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.

 

[sackett]

A society organizing to kill an individual is chicken ****.

 

[PitPat]

Executions certainly happen a lot. There was a push awhile back about televising them.

Why not? Certainly would get huge ratings.

Maybe because we don't live in Middle Ages and it's just easier to think about it than actually see it and still feel kind of good about it.

 

[theprestige]

Okay, I have re-read it, and I misunderstood.

But in that case, I don't agree with your premise that retribution is required for society to work. Oslo isn't in flames because Breivik didn't get what he "deserves". Neither are other countries that focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.

I'm sure there's broad consensus in Norwegian society that Breivik is getting what he deserves, and that criminals getting away with things are seen as rare rather than commonplace. Different societies will have their own standards of desert and thresholds of tolerance, of course. But the principle remains the same: Crime without punishment is corrosive to civil society. Consequences, not rehabilitation, is the thing of worth that justice provides.

 

[Puppycow]

In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict.

The test for the jury to make their decision is already "absolute certainty". Now you can add a third option, famously Scotland has its not guilty, guilty and not proven verdicts. But anytime that verdict is "guilty" the jury will with "absolute certainty" have decided on that guilty verdict.

To me "virtually certain" and "absolutely certain" are not the same thing.

"Virtually" means nearly or almost. Other synonyms are in effect, effectively, practically and approaching.

Anyway, it was just a thought. The current standard is probably the right one, but we must accept that sometimes people who are in fact innocent may be found guilty. I'd like to bring more science to bear on the problem, and I imagine that this happens less often nowadays than it did in the past (think of witch trials for example). There was even a time when "trial by ordeal" was thing. Or the church could try people for such crimes as heresy or blasphemy. We are getting better little by little and I don't think we should use the idea that we can never have perfect knowledge as an excuse to say it's already as good as it can possibly be.

 

[Suddenly]

To me "virtually certain" and "absolutely certain" are not the same thing.

"Virtually" means nearly or almost. Other synonyms are in effect, effectively, practically and approaching.

Anyway, it was just a thought. The current standard is probably the right one, but we must accept that sometimes people who are in fact innocent may be found guilty. I'd like to bring more science to bear on the problem, and I imagine that this happens less often nowadays than it did in the past (think of witch trials for example). There was even a time when "trial by ordeal" was thing. Or the church could try people for such crimes as heresy or blasphemy. We are getting better little by little and I don't think we should use the idea that we can never have perfect knowledge as an excuse to say it's already as good as it can possibly be.

Capital punishment debates usually trend towards the observation that our criminal system is inefficient to say the least. The whole thing is theatre where we assume that 12 randoms are able to judge the credibility of people they have never met based on how they seem during stressful testimony. Not to mention understand god knows what technical evidence that could be trotted out there. Meanwhile everything they see is presented by people with axes to grind. The death penalty just gives it focus. It still sucks if the punishment is 30 days suspended for a year of probation plus fines and costs.

Imagine today we had no knowledge of the system at present and we are tasked with creating a way to determine whether someone committed a crime. If someone suggested the system we have now we'd think that person an unhinged lunatic.