News Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[nismaratwork]

Really ? Dont bring Sharia into this. Dont bring any religious laws into this. It has no place.

Btw, wouldn't you like to kill the perpetrator with your own hands if it would be your daughters who suffocated and burnt alive, your women, your wife, which was raped for hours and killed slowly ? Think about it, how would you feel to be your family there, victims of crime, and not a tabloid news story which you can dismiss, thinking in the back of your mind .. "this will never happen to me" ?

Why wouldn't I bring in the law-set that matches what you said exactly? Under Sharia law the condemned is to be killed by the next of kin of the victim, OR shown mercy by those same people. Even the Code of Hammurabi doesn't match it so well... not my fault this is where you took it.

As for the rest, I think the individual emotional desire for revenge being suppressed by the state is part of what separates a real judicial system from religious law or the Chinese version of roaming death-mobiles. My desire to kill the person who killed by my daughter (and I would want to kill them) is eclipsed by the public good and agreed-upon standards of justice.

 

[DanP]

Why wouldn't I bring in the law-set that matches what you said exactly? Under Sharia law the condemned is to be killed by the next of kin of the victim, OR shown mercy by those same people. Even the Code of Hammurabi doesn't match it so well... not my fault this is where you took it.

Because Sharia is a religious complex of laws. It's a sacred law for Islam, often misunderstood deeply. Even more so nowadays with all the anti muslim propaganda one has to endure.

Leave Sharia and the Bible and whatever other religious codex you find apart from this. It has nothing to do secular laws we are talking about here.

As for the rest, I think the individual emotional desire for revenge being suppressed by the state is part of what separates a real judicial system from religious law or the Chinese version of roaming death-mobiles. My desire to kill the person who killed by my daughter (and I would want to kill them) is eclipsed by the public good and agreed-upon standards of justice.

Big words. It's a guess, as good as any other. I sincerely hope you won't have to test this belief during your life time. Public good yeah ... when your wife is raped and killed. I doubt that "public good" has anything to do with it.

Anyway, agreed standards of justice change.

 

[apeiron]

My desire to kill the person who killed by my daughter (and I would want to kill them) is eclipsed by the public good and agreed-upon standards of justice.

Even a religious code is based on some group level standards of justice. What we think of as more civilised is justice based on more abstract or generalised principles. This is why we like the idea of handing over the decisions and punishments to an impersonal, rational, decision-making process. It is a way to ensure the best group-level outcomes.

DanP wants a justice system based on just what he himself feels is appropriate, which is not even as civilised as a religious code. This is why he has to keep repeating the most extreme and unlikely scenario (wives and daughters being raped repeatedly for hours) to argue that the personal emotional response should in principle be preferred over the impersonal social and rational one.

 

[DanP]

This is why he has to keep repeating the most extreme and unlikely scenario (wives and daughters being raped repeatedly for hours) to argue that the personal emotional response should in principle be preferred over the impersonal social and rational one.

Yeah, right. Very unlikely. As you could see for your own eyes, a case of this kind was posted here just several posts ago. One was mentioned by Evo when the thread was started. But of course, you choose to conveniently ignore those events which happen right in front of our eyes (murders and rapes) to support your so called "rational" position.

 

[CRGreathouse]

This is why he has to keep repeating the most extreme and unlikely scenario (wives and daughters being raped repeatedly for hours) to argue that the personal emotional response should in principle be preferred over the impersonal social and rational one.

I've been trying to stay out of this discussion, but I wanted to bring something up on this point. If DanP was only suggesting the death penalty in rare and extreme situations, then he would be quite justified in discussing those situations to justify the death penalty.

More generally, it seems that the appropriate situations to discuss are the least 'extreme' where there is argument as to whether the death penalty should apply. If a person wanted to argue for the death penalty only in these cases, then discussing those cases as justification is appropriate. If a person wanted to apply it to not just brutal rape-murders but also to murder and manslaughter, then justifications would be required for the manslaughter case -- using the more-extreme case doesn't suffice for the argument.

 

[apeiron]

Yeah, right. Very unlikely. As you could see for your own eyes, a case of this kind was posted here just several posts ago. One was mentioned by Evo when the thread was started. But of course, you choose to conveniently ignore those events which happen right in front of our eyes (murders and rapes) to support your so called "rational" position.

You said: "Or preferably let the survivor of the assault kill him if he so desires."

And that was what Nismar and myself in turn responded to. There is a good reason why this is not in fact preferable. If you can offer a rational answer why justice should be personal rather than impersonal, please do.

 

[DanP]

You said: "Or preferably let the survivor of the assault kill him if he so desires."

And that was what Nismar and myself in turn responded to. There is a good reason why this is not in fact preferable. If you can offer a rational answer why justice should be personal rather than impersonal, please do.

Irrelevant, this explanation doesn't makes your first post any more interesting. If you didn't observed yet, we are talking in this thread about cut and dried cases (as cut and dry as they can be) , where dead penalty is very likely candidate in many jurisdictions.

Those are exactly the kind of crimes you repeatedly ignore, namely murder I, rapes followed by death of the victim and so on. For you it seems that aggravated rapes and murder do not exist and we are a perfect society. Murder and rapes are "unlikely" for you. I wonder if we live on the same planet :P Perhaps you should start by aknolwdgin that those cases do happen and they aint so unlikely as you try to make it.

 

[apeiron]

Those are exactly the kind of crimes you repeatedly ignore, namely murder I, rapes followed by death of the victim and so on. For you it seems that aggravated rapes and murder do not exist and we are a perfect society. Murder and rapes are "unlikely" for you. I wonder if we live on the same planet :P Perhaps you should start by aknolwdgin that those cases do happen and they aint so unlikely as you try to make it.

Why the evasion? You said individuals ought to have the right to deliver justice. I said there is a reason why this is "uncivilised".

If your position is based on good principle, then it would apply equally well to minor crimes like shoplifting.

Should a shop-keeper be able to punish shoplifters (for example, by locking them in stocks outside the shop for public humiliation). How do you imagine you would reply to the question as (a) a shopkeeper who has lost a lot of money over many years, and (b) father of a daughter caught in the act by such a shopkeeper? If the answer is not exactly the same, then your position is obviously unsound - emotionally subjective rather than rationally objective.

As to whether I live on another planet (ie: planet rational), well objectively the homicide rate is about 1 in 50,000 per year. And a lot of that is domestic violence and baby-bashing.

So I do indeed spend little to no time obsessing about murder/rapes, and instead give rather more time to contemplating death or maiming at the hands of such things as mountain bike trails.

 

[DanP]

So I do indeed spend little to no time obsessing about murder/rapes, and instead give rather more time to contemplating death or maiming at the hands of such things as mountain bike trails.

Perhaps then you shouldn't get involved in threads where ppl discuss exactly the situations you choose to ignore, and move to a thread where maiming resulting from extreme sports is discussed ?

 

[Char. Limit]

As to whether I live on another planet (ie: planet rational), well objectively the homicide rate is about 1 in 50,000 per year. And a lot of that is domestic violence and baby-bashing

You use the legal term for "domestic violence", but not the legal term for "child murder" or whatever it's called?

Just a strange non-sequitur (sp?) i noticed. You could have easily called the first "spouse-bashing". (Taking care to note that the ratio of domestic violence by a man as opposed to by a woman is a lot closer to 1:1 than many people think)

 

[apeiron]

Perhaps then you shouldn't get involved in threads where ppl discuss exactly the situations you choose to ignore, and move to a thread where maiming resulting from extreme sports is discussed ?

Perhaps you should just respond to the arguments as raised rather than coming over all evasive when the essential silliness of your position is exposed.

You raised the issue of personal dispensation of justice. Others have pointed out that this is not generally considered a good idea for obvious reasons.

I have offered the explicit counter-example to your murder/rape of justice for a shoplifter. Have you got a coherent reply?

 

[DaveC426913]

A quick question for someone not in the know:

What does the death penalty accomplish?

 

[apeiron]

You use the legal term for "domestic violence", but not the legal term for "child murder" or whatever it's called?

Just a strange non-sequitur (sp?) i noticed. You could have easily called the first "spouse-bashing". (Taking care to note that the ratio of domestic violence by a man as opposed to by a woman is a lot closer to 1:1 than many people think)

I can't follow the points you are attempting to make here.

However, clearly the point I was making is that when it comes to violent deaths, in most societies it is your "loved ones" rather than psychopathic strangers who are the greater risk.

In DanP's world, it is some mythic bereaved patriarch who is being called upon to hand out justice - preferably a bullet in the nape of the neck from the patriarch's luger.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, it is the patriarchs who are the police's first suspects when there is a murdered female or raped child.

 

[Char. Limit]

I can't follow the points you are attempting to make here.

However, clearly the point I was making is that when it comes to violent deaths, in most societies it is your "loved ones" rather than psychopathic strangers who are the greater risk.

In DanP's world, it is some mythic bereaved patriarch who is being called upon to hand out justice - preferably a bullet in the nape of the neck from the patriarch's luger.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, it is the patriarchs who are the police's first suspects when there is a murdered female or raped child.

Well, I wasn't making a point before, just asking a question, but I will now.

Domestic violence is not a one-way street. Women are responsible for about http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm. So... quit talking about "patriarchy" and "murdered women".

 

[apeiron]

Well, I wasn't making a point before, just asking a question, but I will now.

Domestic violence is not a one-way street. Women are responsible for about http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm. So... quit talking about "patriarchy" and "murdered women".

Dan and others chose the examples so take it up with them.

Though the fact that about a quarter of intimate relationship killings are women on men does demonstrate the need to deal in general principles of justice and to quit arguing on the basis of the most extreme examples (extreme from ppl's all too clearly gendered pov).

 

[DanP]

.

In DanP's world, it is some mythic bereaved patriarch who is being called upon to hand out justice - preferably a bullet in the nape of the neck from the patriarch's luger.

I think you go on one of your fantasist stories yet again. It should be time for you to understand that handing out justice is for the courts of law. Executing the court's sentence is not justice by any means of imagination, it;s just carrying out the court;s sentence. But probably in your dream world the two of them are the same. Ah, and it's an interesting choice of words you had for a firearm ... a luger :P Rofl

 

[Proton Soup]

Perhaps then you shouldn't get involved in threads where ppl discuss exactly the situations you choose to ignore, and move to a thread where maiming resulting from extreme sports is discussed ?

he is in exactly the right place because he is exactly right. you're obsessed with vengeance. some of us think that is an irrational basis for a legal system. and i personally think that is one of the main problems with the death penalty.

 

[nismaratwork]

he is in exactly the right place because he is exactly right. you're obsessed with vengeance. some of us think that is an irrational basis for a legal system. and i personally think that is one of the main problems with the death penalty.

Agreed... shot in the nape of the neck... that's just raw.

 

[Chi Meson]

A quick question for someone not in the know:

What does the death penalty accomplish?

Though not my own reasons, it seems to be various combinations of:

1: a sense of closure for the victims / justice being served (could be same or diff things)
2: revenge for the community
3: a savings of taxpayer's money by not housing the criminal for several decades

My personal feeling is that the worst criminals (Tim VcVeigh, the Cheshire Home invasion Duo) were/would not be punished enough by being put to death. WE should give them all the decades they need to learn true remorse, and only then let them out of their tiny cells so they can go into their regular cells for their remaining lives.

 

[DanP]

Agreed... shot in the nape of the neck... that's just raw.

Curiously how a clean execution of a criminal appears to you raw and yucky :P Perhaps is the blood which phases you ? Ok, use a lethal injection, is cleaner, and the end result is the same.

Would you cry for Steven Hayes should he get death sentence nismartwork ?

 

[nismaratwork]

Curiously how a clean execution of a criminal appears to you raw and yucky :P Perhaps is the blood which phases you ? Ok, use a lethal injection, is cleaner, and the end result is the same.

Would you cry for Steven Hayes should he get death sentence nismartwork ?

That you'd consider this down to particular kill shots is a little... off. Beyond that you're just mocking me and are not reflecting my beliefs. As has been mentioned before, you're more about vengeance than justice, and for all of your talk, you seem quite emotional about it.

 

[dudleysharp]

Why the death penalty?

Justice.

is the primary reason, just as it is for all criminal sanctions.

"Death Penalty Support: Religious and Secular Scholars"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

In addition, it saves innocent lives.

Innocence & Deterrence in the Death Penalty Debate
Dudley Sharp, contact info below

Innocence

1) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx


The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:


2) "The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

3) The 130 (now 139) death row "innocents" scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

4) "The Exonerated: Are Any Actually Innocent?"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/08/21/the-exonerated-are-any-actually-innocent---new-mexico.aspx

5) Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/04/sister-helen-prejean--the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx

6) "At the Death House Door" Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx


7) "Cameron Todd Willingham: Another Media Meltdown", A Collection of Articles
http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Cameron%20Todd%20Willingham.aspx

8) "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A


Deterrence

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

1) 25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

2) "Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

4) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html


5) This is out of date, but corrects an number of the misconceptions about deterrence.

"Death Penalty and Deterrence"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-as-a-deterrent--confirmed--seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx

6) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

 

[DaveC426913]

Though not my own reasons, it seems to be various combinations of:

1: a sense of closure for the victims / justice being served (could be same or diff things)
2: revenge for the community
3: a savings of taxpayer's money by not housing the criminal for several decades

This is what I was thinking. Can any of those be considered examples of the highest morals to which our society should be aspiring?

Should we not, as a society, be taking responsibility for producing even the sickest of individuals? To execute them is to imply that they are not a product of us as humans, is it not?

 

[alt]

The singular and insurmountable problem witht the death penalty, IMO, is that there is rarely if ever, 'no question'. The last man to be hanged in Australia was one Ronald Ryan, in 1967 before the death penalty was repealed ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Ryan

or rather, repealed as a consequence of this hanging. For it was recently revealed that he was innocent ..

Nineteen years after Ryan's execution, former Warder Doug Pascoe, confessed on-air to Channel 9 and the media, that he fired a shot during Ryan's escape bid. Pascoe believes his shot may have accidentally killed his fellow prison guard, Hodson. Pascoe had not told anyone that he fired a shot during the escape because at that time, "I was a 23-year-old coward". In 1986, he tried to sell his story but his claim was dismissed by police, because his rifle had a full magazine after the shooting and he was too far away.[56][57]

What about this guy - 'The Wronged Man'

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/wrongedman/default.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/wrongedmantwo/default.htm

Spent 12 years in jail for bludgeoning a woman to death. Recently released as innocent. Had the death penalty not been repealed, he'd be dead.

It's usually as 'no question' as the prosecution can make it.

 

[alt]

This is what I was thinking. Can any of those be considered examples of the highest morals to which our society should be aspiring?

Should we not, as a society, be taking responsibility for producing even the sickest of individuals? To execute them is to imply that they are not a product of us as humans, is it not?

That's the uncomfortable issue, isn't it ? I am reminded of one philosopher (forgot who, but it doesn't matter) ..

"A leaf does not grow bad without the silent knowledge of the whole tree"

 

[DaveC426913]

That's the uncomfortable issue, isn't it ? I am reminded of one philosopher (forgot who, but it doesn't matter) ..

"A leaf does not grow bad without the silent knowledge of the whole tree"

Thank you. I will steal that quote.

 

[skeptic2]

Though not my own reasons, it seems to be various combinations of:

1: a sense of closure for the victims / justice being served (could be same or diff things)
2: revenge for the community
3: a savings of taxpayer's money by not housing the criminal for several decades

My personal feeling is that the worst criminals (Tim VcVeigh, the Cheshire Home invasion Duo) were/would not be punished enough by being put to death. WE should give them all the decades they need to learn true remorse, and only then let them out of their tiny cells so they can go into their regular cells for their remaining lives.

Did you leave out deterrence intentionally?

 

[pongo38]

I don't think it should ever be the function of the state to kill its own citizens. That principle comes above all others.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't think it should ever be the function of the state to kill its own citizens. That principle comes above all others.

I also don't think it should be the function of a state to house people who break the law in such good conditions (this is more regarding British prisons and the fact they spend far too much providing prisoners with the 'basics' - Playstation, Xbox, Wii, TV, Gyms etc - all things which anyone in the 'real' world would have to pay for, and they're not exactly cheap either.) It's no wonder people don't mind going to prison.

I'm not saying American prisons have equivalent conditions (do they?), but still, the cost of keeping someone for a life sentence (I mean life, as in whole life, not the British 15 years life sentence) is excessive and shouldn't have to be paid for by the tax payers.

If someone commits a crime which means they're going to die in prison, what is the point in keeping them alive there? You're then spending large amounts of money just to wait for them to die naturally. Again, quality of life is a factor, and it is my dislike of the 'good' prison conditions in the UK that makes me see this practice of life imprisonment as pointless as the whole "your life is crap now your in prison" factor is lost when you give them all of the commodities they'd have on the outside (items such as those above).

If you take the number of people to be put to death and then compare that to the number later found innocent, what does it look like (anyone have the numbers)? Does it justify the cost of keeping everyone alive?
I know this sounds harsh but given the law works on evidence and innocent until proven guilty, if all the evidence says you committed the crime and you have no way to prove your innocence (these days, to have nothing to say you didn't do it isn't exactly an easy situation to get yourself into), then you can't expect people to just accept your innocence and you are going to be convicted. (I'm not saying I advocate this and I definitely wouldn't want to be in this situation.)

The case above regarding the guy convicting of killing and it turned out to be someone who fired a shot accidentally, that is very sad, but you can't blame the law. You can't say that they made a mistake, because based on the evidence they had a decision was made and given said evidence it was the correct decision. If the actual guilty person had come forward then and there, it would have been different and to ignore that evidence would have been a mistake (especially as it appears the guy had attempted to cover up what had happened).

With hindsight, many issues could be avoided (in all aspects of life) but the fact is it doesn't exist and to say that a judgement was wrong because of 'new evidence' that comes forward just doesn't work (unless there is a specific reason it wasn't used in the trial, but was available at the time). Using DNA to clear people from past crimes is fair enough, but again, the fact is DNA wasn't available then and the evidence they had showed that person as guilty. You can't then turn around and say the law made a mistake. The law followed its procedures, used the evidence, and gave a judgement.

Rant over, it is this simple principle, which as long as the law acts fairly and judges based on evidence with the whole innocent until proven guilty system, which allows me to accept the death penalty as a way punishment and reducing prison costs / overcrowding (although I agree it wouldn't do too much for overcrowding, every little helps).

The only alternative I'd say to the death penalty, would be lock these scumbags in solitary for their entire sentence. OK, the cost of keeping them is still there (when I say solitary I mean them, a bed and a toilet), but at least they are being punished properly (you want to attack / rape someone, you don't deserve to be a part of a society, prison or otherwise). But then this comes down to being pretty much torture, which brings me back to the whole "should be a quick death" issue. Hence my agreement with the death sentence.

 

[DanP]

That you'd consider this down to particular kill shots is a little... off. Beyond that you're just mocking me and are not reflecting my beliefs. As has been mentioned before, you're more about vengeance than justice and for all of your talk, you seem quite emotional about it.

Interesting words from somebody who publicly recognized that he would like to kill the would be assassin of his daughter.

 

[JaredJames]

Interesting words from somebody who publicly recognized that he would like to kill the would be assassin of his daughter.

I don't think there's anyone who can truly say they wouldn't want revenge on a person who killed their spouse / children / family in general.

The difference is, the system in place is designed to separate peoples heightened emotional state (in this case that makes them want to seek revenge) and applies a rational decision making processes which dishes out a suitable (at least in the eyes of the law) punishment.

If you want to take into consideration the feelings of the victims family when it comes to enacting a punishment, surely you should also consider the family of the accused? They may feel equally strongly that they don't want them to die / receive said punishment.
It may sound stupid, but both groups would be in a heightened state of emotion and so their judgements will be skewed and not rationally based.

Which is the whole point of separating them.

I do understand what you're saying (I think), once the decision to execute is given, you want the victim / victims family to be able to carry out the sentence. The problem I see with this (aside from the above) is simple:
The state executioner is very much faceless. They just carry out the sentence and it's done. The moment you let the victims family perform the execution, you face the possibility of the accused persons family lashing out and going for revenge on that person. Creating a cycle of revenge which we don't want in a civilised society.

Not to mention the potential psychological after effects the family member who conducts the execution could be faced with. How often do you do something in the heat of the moment and then regret it afterwards (sometimes straight away).
Always leave an email written in anger for a few hours and wait to see if you still want to send it - same principle, just a more emotionally charged scenario. Nonetheless a possibly devastating outcome for the 'sender'.

 

[DaveC426913]

The singular and insurmountable problem witht the death penalty, IMO, is that there is rarely if ever, 'no question'.

I disagree. I don't think the issue is about guilt at all. I think it's about why a society would enact a death penalty at all.

I also don't think it should be the function of a state to house people who break the law ...

While I recognize that you strongly qualified your case, I'm going to cherry pick this piece as representative of what I think many people feel.

If we as a society are responsible for these people who are violent, then we have no business turning our backs on them and condemning them to "the ultimate exile".

I think the question we need to be asking is: do we as a society take responsibility for the mental state of all our citizens?

Unless they grew up in a vacuum, how can we not be in some part responsible for the outcome? Did they develop their world view while on the Moon?

 

[JaredJames]

If we as a society are responsible for these people who are violent, then we have no business turning our backs on them and condemning them to "the ultimate exile".

I think the question we need to be asking is: do we as a society take responsibility for the mental state of all our citizens?

Unless they grew up in a vacuum, how can we not be in some part responsible for the outcome? Did they develop their world view while on the Moon?

I agree that society plays a part on peoples mental states, but I disagree that is to blame for their actions as a whole. What people do in life and the choices they make, are going to have a massive influence.

Growing up in violent households or violent areas are what I consider contributing factors, but that to me doesn't make the whole society responsible. People who commit these horrendous crimes choose to do so and don't deserve to be a part of society. I, as you can probably tell, don't accept the "insanity plea" as a defence.

Everyone I know just lives quiet lives and don't want violence. It is a minority who go looking for trouble. Of all the thousands of football fans that watch matches, it is only a small group that go looking to start fights and the police target them as necessary. When it comes to recognising trouble makers I think the general population does so well. We see who are the trouble makers are and try to deal with it.

I don't think it's fair however, to blame society as a whole for a minority of people who commits such hideous crimes. Especially when you consider how normal some people who commit murder may appear before the event (as pointed out before regarding murders being mainly by close family / friends).

 

[BobG]

Perfection - a beautiful fairy tale that always leaves you hating yourself.

A good general rule, but you have to seriously question just how much error is tolerable when it comes to the death penalty.

It's definitely true that DNA evidence has discovered past errors, but DNA evidence is only available for a small percentage of cases from the past. DNA evidence isn't always available even for current cases (even though I think DNA testing and other modern techniques make errors less likely).

I think the testimony of eyewitnesses is particularly suspect. I think it takes a lot of eyewitnesses to reduce the error rate down to an acceptable level.

And I think the term 'acceptable level' is hard to define, as well:

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," says English jurist William Blackstone. (This is the ratio most often quoted.)

"It's better for four guilty men to go free than one innocent man to be imprisoned," says basketball coach George Raveling.

But "it's better to turn five guilty men loose than it is to convict one innocent man," according to ex-Mississippi executioner and roadside fruit stand operator Thomas Berry Bruce.

Justice Benjamin Cardozo certainly believed in five for execution, and allegedly favored ten for imprisonment. (error rate of 17% for execution and 9% for imprisonment, which is an interesting attitude)

Benjamin Franklin thought "that it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

English chief justice John Fortescue suggested "Indeed I would rather wish twenty evil doers to escape death through pity, than one man to be unjustly condemned."

In Judge Henry J. Friendly's opinion, "Most Americans would allow a considerable number of guilty persons to go free than to convict any appreciable number of innocent men." (I'm not sure which is a larger number: considerable or appreciable)

In the Bible, God executes the entire population of Earth, except for Noah and his family. (But, in that case, all of the executions were justified and none of the executed were later found to be innocent.)

Instituting the death penalty automatically means a certain percentage of innocent people will be executed and anyone that's pro-death penalty should at least consider what error rate would be acceptable when deciding what type of evidence is acceptable in death penalty cases.

Personally, I don't think convictions based on eyewitness testimony should be eligible for the death penalty. I also don't believe the death penalty is appropriate for any run of the mill murder regardless of the evidence. There should be very few cases where the depravity of the murder was great enough to warrant the death penalty (cases such Dahmer, et al).

I don't have a specific number of acceptable false executions, but I guess my ratio would be greater than 1000 to 1.

 

[DaveC426913]

I agree that society plays a part on peoples mental states, but I disagree that is to blame for their actions as a whole. What people do in life and the choices they make, are going to have a massive influence.

Growing up in violent households or violent areas are what I consider contributing factors, but that to me doesn't make the whole society responsible. People who commit these horrendous crimes choose to do so and don't deserve to be a part of society. I, as you can probably tell, don't accept the "insanity plea" as a defence.

I am not suggesting society is "to blame" and I don't mean "wholly responsible".

These people did not grow up isolated on the Moon; they did grow up in our society. As a society, we may have to recognize that our world is not perfect, and that humans are often deeply flawed, but that society is a product of all humans, not just the well-behaved ones.

To execute one is to say "you are not human" when, in fact, they are.

 

[JaredJames]

To execute one is to say "you are not human" when, in fact, they are.

A human who has taken the life or ruined the life of another human. Should they be a part of society? No.

But then why should a society who they have committed such a crime against be forced to pay to keep them in what I consider 'stable' conditions? Ignoring quality, 3 meals a day, a bed, bathroom facilities, entertainment (again depending where you are it will differ), education, healthcare.

When there are homeless people who need most of these things but can't get help. When there are people who can't afford the £50,000 cancer treatment and have to live with the fact there is a cure, but they can't have it and so will suffer and die, and yet it's costing millions to maintain prisoners who don't deserve to be alive let alone paid to live by tax payers. I find this the ultimate irony.

Here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081125/text/81125w0033.htm under Prisons: Per Capita Costs section it shows to keep a male prisoner locked up for ten years is around £390,000, now you consider the cost of keeping someone in prison until they die, these days (assuming the crime is committed mid 20's) you could be looking at 40 - 60+ years. That money could be far better spent on healthcare or education.

EDIT: That cost above doesn't include any healthcare or education costs for those prisoners, that's additional (again shown in that article).

 

[JaredJames]

BobG, I was using the DNA issue to simply outline that people saying courts make mistakes when sentencing people in the past isn't a fair accusation.

If DNA wasn't available for the case at the time (lack of technology), you can't expect the courts to use it. They make an informed decision based on the evidence provided. Something I'd expect every person here can agree with.

If in the future DNA evidence is brought to light which clears the accused, it doesn't mean the courts decision in the past was wrong, just that there is now better evidence to make said decision on.

It's like doing an experiment and getting result A. You broadcast this and others try it and agree. Ten years later, someone finds a factor that wasn't included in the initial tests thanks to some new technology and builds it in, proving result A incorrect and B correct instead. A might have been the wrong answer for ten years, but if the technology wasn't around to let the performers of A know this, how would they have been able to factor it in? At the time, the decision to accept result A was correct.

Before I make a judgement, I'd like to see some numbers for the guilty:innocent ratio. At the moment, I don't see how it could be that high, but again, numbers first.

I agree, there needs to be a lot of eye witnesses to make a testimony accurate.

Me personally, if the evidence points to A as the answer, I go with A. I make an informed decision based on the evidence. If a person has all evidence against them saying they did it, you can't blame anyone for agreeing with it. We as a society make mistakes. The question is, how many guilty people are we willing to let go just on the off chance that one of them is innocent? Again, I need numbers to come up with a conclusion here.

 

[zomgwtf]

Did you leave out deterrence intentionally?

Deterence does not work. I'm pretty sure this has been studied to no end and while random reports come out claiming HEYYYY IT WORKS! Take them with a grain of salt. I mean reports and studies also come out saying that the world is 6000 years old and global warming isn't occurring.

I mean why are death rates consistently lower or equal in states without death penalty vs. those with? If it were such a great deterent as has been suggested then it would be completely logical that murder rates would be extremely high in states without the death penalty.

Why after a country abolishes the death penalty murder rates do not sky rocket? I've studied abolishment of the death penalty in Canada for law and how it relates to extradition of criminals.

Execuctions save lives? Really? That's a non-credible statement if I ever heard one. I mean I could probably take the exact same data and show that death penalty actually causes more deaths.

They are never innocent? Really? You actually believe without a doubt in your mind that every single person ever put to death was guilty of the crime they were convicted of? I have to call ******** on that one, too many people are later found innocent after being convicted for me to think that somehow capital crime cases get it right everytime 100% no doubts.

As wll, I've read here in this thread people thinking it saves money. Really? Citations for this? Everything I've ever read states that it costs taxpayers a hell of a lot more to keep the death penalty vs. sentencing life without parole.

 

[zomgwtf]

The question is, how many guilty people are we willing to let go just on the off chance that one of them is innocent? Again, I need numbers to come up with a conclusion here.

Who exactly is being let go? Guilty criminals? Where? Where you live?

 

[nismaratwork]

Interesting words from somebody who publicly recognized that he would like to kill the would be assassin of his daughter.

Oh enough games DanP... do you have any clue how transparent this is? Yes, I answered your hypothetical about my hypothetical daughter, which, when taken out of context sounds like I think I should be allowed to kill the hypothetical killer. IN context, I was using that as an example describing why personal grief and anger shouldn't be a factor in these cases.

Your "view" is on record pages back... you don't give a ****, and just want people who commit crimes to get reciprocal treatment because to you that's "right". You stated you have no issue except forwarding your political agenda...we've all heard it... maybe now you should work on it being compelling.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Deterence does not work.

Should we give up on the criminal justice system entirely, then?

 

[JaredJames]

They are never innocent? Really? You actually believe without a doubt in your mind that every single person ever put to death was guilty of the crime they were convicted of? I have to call ******** on that one, too many people are later found innocent after being convicted for me to think that somehow capital crime cases get it right everytime 100% no doubts.

I hope this wasn't aimed at me based on my comments. I have never said they are all guilty. Only that they were proven guilty in a court of law. There is a difference.

Actually Guilty = committed the crime.
Proven guilty in a court of law = there was enough evidence to show they committed the crime vs the evidence they are innocent. This simply means you couldn't prove your innocence, not that you actually committed the crime.

As wll, I've read here in this thread people thinking it saves money. Really? Citations for this? Everything I've ever read states that it costs taxpayers a hell of a lot more to keep the death penalty vs. sentencing life without parole.

I gave you a link. In the UK, it is costing an average of £390,000 per ten years to lock someone up. Are you seriously going to tell me it is more expensive to execute someone? And that's on the basis they die naturally within ten years of receiving life without parole. They could spend the next 50 years of their life in prison costing nearly 2 million pounds to the tax payer.
Now unless you can cite something showing the cost of execution being higher than life without parole I suggest you let this go.

I mean why are death rates consistently lower or equal in states without death penalty vs. those with? If it were such a great deterent as has been suggested then it would be completely logical that murder rates would be extremely high in states without the death penalty.

You could equally apply that those states with the death penalty are more violent than those without and it is deterring people from committing violent crimes. Therefore lowering the crime rate. You know, the whole correlation not implying causation thing.

 

[JaredJames]

Who exactly is being let go? Guilty criminals? Where? Where you live?

In this case I was referring to being let go from the death penalty. How many people are we willing to pay to keep in prison simply on the off chance they are innocent.

As I've said consistently before, unless you can give numbers showing the guilty:innocent ratio for convictions, no one here can draw a conclusion. Until those numbers are shown we can't say whether or not there is a major problem with people being wrongly convicted in unreasonable amounts.

 

[zomgwtf]

Should we give up on the criminal justice system entirely, then?

I should have made it more clear: The Death Penalty does not work as a deterance.

 

[zomgwtf]

I gave you a link. In the UK, it is costing an average of £390,000 per ten years to lock someone up. Are you seriously going to tell me it is more expensive to execute someone? And that's on the basis they die naturally within ten years of receiving life without parole. They could spend the next 50 years of their life in prison costing nearly 2 million pounds to the tax payer.
Now unless you can cite something showing the cost of execution being higher than life without parole I suggest you let this go.

50 years in prison costing 2 million. The average cost of a death penalty case in Texas is 2.3 million and I'm not thinking they spend 50 years in the system.

Death penalty cases are extremely expensive. I do not think that using the death penalty saves any money. YOU are making the claim that it does so YOU need to provide citations not me.

By the way:
I'm not saying we shouldn't use the death penalty simply because it costs more. Because if that were the case then why not just put everyone on probation since incarceration costs more.

You could equally apply that those states with the death penalty are more violent than those without and it is deterring people from committing violent crimes. Therefore lowering the crime rate. You know, the whole correlation not implying causation thing.

Sure. I guess that mystically when places abolish the death penalty magically all those murderers that it was detering suddenly don't want to murder anymore. As well my entire statement was that ther WA NO PROOF for correlation OR causation. People who support the death penatly are, THEY need to prove that.

 

[JaredJames]

50 years in prison costing 2 million. The average cost of a death penalty case in Texas is 2.3 million and I'm not thinking they spend 50 years in the system.

Death penalty cases are extremely expensive. I do not think that using the death penalty saves any money. YOU are making the claim that it does so YOU need to provide citations not me.

I'd like to see a citation for the cost of the death penalty before I respond, you made the claim regarding the cost of 2.3 million and so you need to provide the reference.

Also, is that the cost of the trial as well or just the cost of execution? My figures don't include the trial so if yours does it isn't a fair comparison.

And what is your currency?

 

[DaveC426913]

A human who has taken the life or ruined the life of another human. Should they be a part of society? No.

What do you mean "should/shouldn't"? They are. Full stop.

Kicking them out of the club is denial.

But then why should a society who they have committed such a crime against be forced to pay to keep them in what I consider 'stable' conditions? Ignoring quality, 3 meals a day, a bed, bathroom facilities, entertainment (again depending where you are it will differ), education, healthcare.

When there are homeless people who need most of these things but can't get help. When there are people who can't afford the £50,000 cancer treatment and have to live with the fact there is a cure, but they can't have it and so will suffer and die, and yet it's costing millions to maintain prisoners who don't deserve to be alive let alone paid to live by tax payers. I find this the ultimate irony.

This is a red herring. If you want to discuss the quality of conditions of incarceration, start a new thread.

 

[JaredJames]

What do you mean "should/shouldn't"? They are. Full stop.

Kicking them out of the club is denial.

I'm not denying they were part of society, I'm simply saying that they don't deserve to be. They are a minority and a dangerous one at that. They don't deserve to be part of society and given what they are capable of, should be removed to prevent it occurring. You may call it denial, I call it actively working to remove threats.

This is a red herring. If you want to discuss the quality of conditions of incarceration, start a new thread.

I disagree, this thread is about giving the death sentence to 'cut and dried cases'. As such, it is important we look at the alternatives to doing so. I don't see where this thread was constrained to the US and I think looking at the UK's situation regarding similar circumstances can give us a good comparison and some insight about the alternatives to going straight to the death sentences.

I'm not saying discuss the conditions in prisons, but they are certainly a factor in deciding whether or not the death sentence is appropriate, especially given the costs linked to the various punishments.

 

[alt]

A human who has taken the life or ruined the life of another human. Should they be a part of society? No.

Humans ruin the life / take the life of others frequently - as in war .. as in 'Shock And Awe' for instance. State sponsored killing. I wonder how we reconcile that ?

 

[alt]

I disagree. I don't think the issue is about guilt at all. I think it's about why a society would enact a death penalty at all.

What I was getting at, was that way and beyond the consideration of whether the death penalty is good or bad, we would have to accept that with it, we are likely to kill innocent people, as displayed in the two Australian examples in my earlier post. That, IMO, is abundant reason not to have it.

Other than that, I don't know. There are plenty of solid arguments for and against.