The Death Penalty

[Togo]

No, of course not. Because the notional escapee could as easily escape from Death Row as from Life Imprisonment. Given that the time spent on Death Row is measured in decades, the chances of escape are almost equal.

Now let's ask the same question the other way around. Let's say a guy who murdered someone. But during the trial the threat of the death penalty means that two witnesses don't come forward and the jury narrowly votes to acquit (because if you're killing someone, you want to be darned sure). So now he's free, because locking him up wasn't enough to satisfy your desire for revenge. If he was fated to kill a member of your family, would that enough to change your mind about the death penalty?

If the jury wrongly or perversely acquits him then that's that.

Nothing perverse about it. Juries are asked to judge beyond a reasonable doubt. It's left to them to decide how much doubt is 'reasonable'. Applying the death penalty raises the stakes (which is a reason some people support it, as a deterrent), and thus makes the amount of doubt seen as reasonable much smaller, making reaching a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt a higher standard.

The same goes for witnesses. For murders you're often looking for friends and immediate family members to step forward and say what they saw. You're also asking people who may not know themselves if the guy was guilty or innocent to give the facts that they witnesses. Both groups of witnesses will be much more reluctant to come forward, or to speak up, if their words will kill a guy.

Having the death penalty makes it harder to secure a conviction. Or to put it another way, applying the death penalty means being soft on murder.

But with your logic he could be free to murder again anyway,

Nope, if you can imagine a guy who is fated to escape if locked up, then I can imagine a guy who is fated to be let off if the jury and witnesses know they'll be killing him by finding him guilty. And my scenario is much much more likely than yours.

whereas with mine he wouldn't be, ...

Yes, he would. Because sentencing him to death doesn't remove him from jail for 15-20 years, on average, possibly longer. So the escape rate is about the same.

Look, imagine 100 murderers

1) Your way - death penalty

100 murderers
70 get caught
35 get convicted and sentenced to death
5 escape from Death Row
70 free to kill again. (65 never convicted, 5 escapes)

2) My way - no Death penalty

100 murderers
80 get caught (more witnesses)
60 get convicted (jury effect) and sentenced to life
10 escape from Life Imprisonment
50 Free to kill again (40 never caught, and 10 escapes).

By making it harder to convict murderers, you catch fewer of them, and more people die as a result.

That's what happens when you dilute a worthy goal (stopping murderers from murdering again) with an unworthy goal (wanting to satisfy your desire for vengeance, even if more people die as a result).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well in that (highly unlikely - I mean seriously, what are the chances of that?? ) case there would be an element of doubt, wouldn't there, so I'm not quite sure what the salient point is?

Do you really want to base the decision on an emotional attachment to the victim, when it could just as easily be attached to the perp?

 

[Cerberus]

Well in that (highly unlikely - I mean seriously, what are the chances of that?? ) case there would be an element of doubt, wouldn't there, so I'm not quite sure what the salient point is?

Do you really want to base the decision on an emotional attachment to the victim, when it could just as easily be attached to the perp?

Can you please reword that - I don't understand the premise. I don't know why everyone seems to be anguishing so much for psychopathic scumbags, who would stick a knife in them for the smallest gain as soon as look at them. This must be either a very liberal board or a very religious one.

 

[abaddon]

At least 4.1 percent of persons put on death row are innocent, and that’s a conservative estimate. And just a fraction of those are released.

So some of the scumbags ain’t criminals or even scumbags regardless of how hated they are. Feelings say nothing about anything other than the person who feels them.

 

[4321lynx]

At least 4.1 percent of persons put on death row are innocent, and that’s a conservative estimate. And just a fraction of those are released.

So some of the scumbags ain’t criminals or even scumbags regardless of how hated they are. Feelings say nothing about anything other than the person who feels them.

This is a HUFFPOST CRIME report of work and study by Michigan U Law Scool of cases from 1973 to 2004, hardly up to date. Some who were innocent of child rape they were convicted for, confessed in prison to two other child rapes they were never charged with. If you read the full article, even in a communication so emotionally charged with anti death penalty sentiment as this: its title is

Shocking Number Of Innocent People Sentenced To Death, Study Finds

you will find the facts are not as shocking as alleged, the figures are based on theoretical statistical conclusions, and with modern methods all the mistakes would most likely be eliminated, especially with the safeguards proposed in post 8 in this thread, ---- http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?5524-The-Death-Penalty ---- and any others you may suggest.
Notable is the fact that most those who had their sentences reduced to life imprisonment, did not pursue their pleas of "innocence" any further, showing clearly what they feared most was the death sentence and not that of permanent incarceration.

And sure, that"most likely" in my penultimate sentence would have to be changed to "with absolute certainty" before applying the death penalty.
If you say absolute certainty is impossible, why do you place, or imply, such absolute certainty to the findings quoted by that highly emotional article you have indicated here.

 

[abaddon]

And sure, that"most likely" in my penultimate sentence would have to be changed to "with absolute certainty" before applying the death penalty.
If you say absolute certainty is impossible, why do you place, or imply, such absolute certainty to the findings quoted by that highly emotional article you have indicated here.

But I don’t.

The article doesn't matter at all, it's a deflection to put any focus on it. I had the pick of dozens of online journals I might have linked to, and I didn't do more than scan a couple very quickly because of any article's near-total insignificance as nothing but an intro to a scientific study. It’s the study that matters; and then only a little. I went looking for a study like it for a bit of support to an extremely uncontroversial point.

It should be no surprise that a bureaucratic system, in whatever day and age, makes mistakes. I’m certain of one thing. All humans and all human institutions make mistakes, and there’s nothing anyone or any group can do to eliminate them.

Your proposed "most likely" doesn't much refute my general point.

The uncertainty that death row contains only people guilty of the crime they’re being killed for is one reason why I’m against the death penalty.

 

[4321lynx]

And sure, that"most likely" in my penultimate sentence would have to be changed to "with absolute certainty" before applying the death penalty.
If you say absolute certainty is impossible, why do you place, or imply, such absolute certainty to the findings quoted by that highly emotional article you have indicated here.

But I don’t.

The article doesn't matter at all, it's a deflection to put any focus on it. I had the pick of dozens of online journals I might have linked to, and I didn't do more than scan a couple very quickly because of any article's near-total insignificance as nothing but an intro to a scientific study. It’s the study that matters; and then only a little. I went looking for a study like it for a bit of support to an extremely uncontroversial point.

It should be no surprise that a bureaucratic system, in whatever day and age, makes mistakes. I’m certain of one thing. All humans and all human institutions make mistakes, and there’s nothing anyone or any group can do to eliminate them.

Your proposed "most likely" doesn't much refute my general point.

The uncertainty that death row contains only people guilty of the crime they’re being killed for is one reason why I’m against the death penalty.

It is the only reason I have some qualms in my support of the death penalty. There have been notorious cases of miscarriage of justice both ways here in Canada.
But I think the devil is in the details and I would like to see the details of the alleged "innocents". All cases on appeal should be reviewed by judges with full access to all evidence even if this was unavailable to the jury on technical legal grounds, whether this points to guilt or innocence. There should be severe penalties for both defence and prosecution for knowingly witholding evidence either way in the original trial or in judicial reviews on appeal.

 

[Cerberus]

At least 4.1 percent of persons put on death row are innocent, and that’s a conservative estimate. And just a fraction of those are released.

So some of the scumbags ain’t criminals or even scumbags regardless of how hated they are. Feelings say nothing about anything other than the person who feels them.

A jesus freak unless I'm much mistaken! I won't address the preceding sentence of that post because I don't have the faintest idea what it means.

 

[Cerberus]

If the jury wrongly or perversely acquits him then that's that.

Nothing perverse about it. Juries are asked to judge beyond a reasonable doubt. It's left to them to decide how much doubt is 'reasonable'. Applying the death penalty raises the stakes (which is a reason some people support it, as a deterrent), and thus makes the amount of doubt seen as reasonable much smaller, making reaching a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt a higher standard.

The same goes for witnesses. For murders you're often looking for friends and immediate family members to step forward and say what they saw. You're also asking people who may not know themselves if the guy was guilty or innocent to give the facts that they witnesses. Both groups of witnesses will be much more reluctant to come forward, or to speak up, if their words will kill a guy.

Having the death penalty makes it harder to secure a conviction. Or to put it another way, applying the death penalty means being soft on murder.

But with your logic he could be free to murder again anyway,

Nope, if you can imagine a guy who is fated to escape if locked up, then I can imagine a guy who is fated to be let off if the jury and witnesses know they'll be killing him by finding him guilty. And my scenario is much much more likely than yours.

whereas with mine he wouldn't be, ...

Yes, he would. Because sentencing him to death doesn't remove him from jail for 15-20 years, on average, possibly longer. So the escape rate is about the same.

Look, imagine 100 murderers

1) Your way - death penalty

100 murderers
70 get caught
35 get convicted and sentenced to death
5 escape from Death Row
70 free to kill again. (65 never convicted, 5 escapes)

2) My way - no Death penalty

100 murderers
80 get caught (more witnesses)
60 get convicted (jury effect) and sentenced to life
10 escape from Life Imprisonment
50 Free to kill again (40 never caught, and 10 escapes).

By making it harder to convict murderers, you catch fewer of them, and more people die as a result.

That's what happens when you dilute a worthy goal (stopping murderers from murdering again) with an unworthy goal (wanting to satisfy your desire for vengeance, even if more people die as a result).

We could both sit here all day speculating with unsubstantiated figures, and inventing absurd hypotheses to back up our standpoints, but it serves no purpose - none whatever. So - over and out!

 

[Togo]

Nothing perverse about it. Juries are asked to judge beyond a reasonable doubt. It's left to them to decide how much doubt is 'reasonable'. Applying the death penalty raises the stakes (which is a reason some people support it, as a deterrent), and thus makes the amount of doubt seen as reasonable much smaller, making reaching a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt a higher standard.

The same goes for witnesses. For murders you're often looking for friends and immediate family members to step forward and say what they saw. You're also asking people who may not know themselves if the guy was guilty or innocent to give the facts that they witnesses. Both groups of witnesses will be much more reluctant to come forward, or to speak up, if their words will kill a guy.

Having the death penalty makes it harder to secure a conviction. Or to put it another way, applying the death penalty means being soft on murder.

We could both sit here all day speculating with unsubstantiated figures, and inventing absurd hypotheses to back up our standpoints, but it serves no purpose - none whatever. So - over and out!

I'll note that only one of us is planning to kill people based on those hypotheses and statistics.

 

[Cerberus]

We could both sit here all day speculating with unsubstantiated figures, and inventing absurd hypotheses to back up our standpoints, but it serves no purpose - none whatever. So - over and out!

I'll note that only one of us is planning to kill people based on those hypotheses and statistics.

Yes, 'provided there is incontrovertible proof of guilt' (which I distinctly remember writing here) means 'based on hypotheses and statistics'!!!!! FFS

 

[Togo]

I'll note that only one of us is planning to kill people based on those hypotheses and statistics.

Yes, 'provided there is incontrovertible proof of guilt' (which I distinctly remember writing here) means 'based on hypotheses and statistics'!!!!! FFS

Even with incontrovertible proof of guilt, you're still letting murders go free by depressing the conviction rate. Why don't you care about that?

More to the point, what the heck is 'incontroveritible proof'? The justice system is set up on fairly sensible grounds that all evidence is controvertible, and controverting it is largely what a trial is all about. That's why people sentenced to death hang around on Death Row for decades - because there is no reason not to challenge any and all evidence, over and over again.

Setting up a standard of 'incontrovertible proof' would do two things. The first is that it would practically empty Death Row, because almost no one would be sentenced to Death. The Death penalty would become almost unknown, and vastly more expensive as a result. The second thing it would do in put a question mark over every murder conviction in the country. After all, they may have been found guilty, but the system has publically admitted that they were not entirely certain.

In short, your plan it to depress the conviction rate for murder, remove some of the stigma associated with being a murderer, and all but remove the death penalty. I'm pretty sure that's not what you were aiming for.

 

[Cerberus]

Stop digging. You've lost the argument - get over it!

 

[dystopian]

Stop digging. You've lost the argument - get over it!

Breaking news! The world was shocked today as a random poster on an internet forum declared that the person they were arguing with had lost the argument. Experts were confused to learn that one could simply declare such things and have it be true; with stated opinions on the paradigm-shifting revelation ranging from 'This will forever change the nature of debate' and 'Today marks a dark day for intellectualism' to 'holy shitballs this is amazing!'.

 

[Cerberus]

Stop digging. You've lost the argument - get over it!

Breaking news! The world was shocked today as a random poster on an internet forum declared that the person they were arguing with had lost the argument. Experts were confused to learn that one could simply declare such things and have it be true; with stated opinions on the paradigm-shifting revelation ranging from 'This will forever change the nature of debate' and 'Today marks a dark day for intellectualism' to 'holy shitballs this is amazing!'.

Well one party always has to lose in an argument; it just so happens that in this one it was you!

 

[jab]

question is too general. Death penalty for what? The Westburrowians, and some present-day Islamic polities are are in favour of the death penalty for homosexual acts, but not necessarily for heterosexual rape.

 

[dystopian]

Breaking news! The world was shocked today as a random poster on an internet forum declared that the person they were arguing with had lost the argument. Experts were confused to learn that one could simply declare such things and have it be true; with stated opinions on the paradigm-shifting revelation ranging from 'This will forever change the nature of debate' and 'Today marks a dark day for intellectualism' to 'holy shitballs this is amazing!'.

Well one party always has to lose in an argument; it just so happens that in this one it was you!

That's impressive, given that the original post in which you claimed that someone had last the argument wasn't even directed at me. Apparently you can't even keep apart whom you're arbitrarily declaring victory over?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not sure if this one has been done already but what about the death penalty?

Who is in favour?

Why?

Who is against?

Why not?

It is a complicated issue with many moral and political implications for society.

I am in 2 minds about it to some extent but I think there are persuasive arguments on each side of the debate so I am keen to hear the thoughts from the free thinkers on the forum.

There are aspects of morality and aspects of politics to the argument but in the end I went for the morality forum as I think the arguments for and against are more profound than mere politicking.

Mods please move to another forum if my brief meta-analysis of the topic in the preceding paragraph is unsound.

It's just too difficult to say and it's too long to explain all that there is to explain. If life was so dear to us we would have long solved worst problems far easier to solve, like, say, the 30,000 gunshot deaths caused each year by accident, road accidents, home accidents, death-by-dog accidents, junk food, sugar, fat, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, pollution, watching TV, crossing the street at just the wrong moment, etc etc etc. People will be people.

It would effectively be easier and cheaper to save 95% of all the potential victims of 50% of all deadly risks than design a judiciary system so perfect that no innocent could possibly be wrongly sentenced to the death penalty and yet we don't do half of what we could, which is already something but only half of what we could do if we just cared enough.

Also, I don't see too many people leaving the U.S. to protect themselves or their family against a potential but also effectively very improbable erroneous death sentence.

Also, I understand that violent crime is coming down steadily which makes for fewer potential death sentences and fewer sentencing mistakes.

It's also far more urgent to solve racial tensions in the U.S. and elsewhere than ban the death penalty. That would reduce dramatically the number of deaths by shooting (without any due process of course).

Oh Ok, it's also all tied up with social and political, and even geopolitical conflicts that have a life of their own and a silent death toll.

I'm in favour of the death penalty IF all those problems are solved first.
EB