COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Defense attorneys and prosecutors plan an unusual combined plea for the life of a death row inmate who fatally stabbed a neighbor 17 times.
Both sides were scheduled to address the Ohio Parole Board Monday on behalf of condemned killer Billy Slagle at a hearing normally divided between arguments for and against an inmate's life.
Attorneys for Slagle, 44, have long argued his sentence should be commuted to life without parole, citing his age — at 18, he was the minimum age for execution in Ohio when the crime happened — and a long history of drug and alcohol abuse.
A divided parole board rejected that argument two years ago, but the final decision was put on hold by Gov. John Kasich, who delayed the execution by two years while a federal judge weighed challenges to Ohio's execution procedures.
Slagle's defense team plans to renew its arguments Monday, this time joined by prosecutors from Cuyahoga County. Last week, chief prosecutor Tim McGinty reversed his office's long-standing position on the 1986 case and said he was asking Slagle's sentence be commuted to life without parole. He used the same arguments as Slagle's attorneys, adding that since life without parole was not an option at the time, jurors made the only choice they could to ensure Slagle never be freed.
In 1996, Ohio law changed to allow jurors to choose between death and life without parole. In 2005, lawmakers added a provision allowing prosecutors to pursue life without parole in non-death penalty cases.
McGinty said in a statement Friday that Slagle's case doesn't fit the criteria he would use today for a death penalty case.
Kasich is not commenting. Slagle's execution is scheduled for Aug. 7.
It's unclear if a sitting Ohio prosecutor has ever asked that a death row inmate under his office have the sentence commuted.
Last year, a former Mahoning County prosecutor pleaded for clemency for a man he put on death row, saying he had come to believe inmate John Eley was not as responsible as a co-defendant who was acquitted in a fatal 1986 robbery. The parole board recommended against clemency, but Kasich commuted Eley's sentence.
Last year in Alabama, a man convicted of the 1996 killing and robbery of two people at a pawn shop had his death sentence changed to life in prison without parole. Shelby County District Attorney Robbie Owens first agreed to drop the death sentence for LeSamuel Gamble in 2007 after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that defendants who were under 18 when the crime was committed couldn't be executed. Gamble was 18.
Owens said at the time he supported changing Gamble's sentence since a 16-year-old co-defendant who fired the fatal shots was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
In 2011, an Arkansas prosecutor worked on a plea deal for three convicts known as the West Memphis Three, including one man on death row.
In a 1997 Virginia case, then-Gov. George Allen commuted the death sentence of William Saunders, saying he was swayed by a prosecutor and judge who said Saunders was not the same violent man sentenced to death seven years earlier.
Cuyahoga County has long had a reputation for heavy use of capital punishment indictments with relatively low numbers of death sentences. McGinty had promised to reduce the number of death penalty charges when he ran for the office.
Billy Slagle was 18 when he broke into Mari Anne Pope's house looking for money to buy alcohol in the early morning hours of Aug. 13, 1987.
He ended up stabbing her 17 times with a pair of sewing scissors he found in the house. Two child witnesses heard Pope, 40, praying before the attack. Police later found a broken rosary near her body. . . Pope was an innocent victim who was brutally murdered with children nearby, the board's report noted. Pope was a babysitter and friend of the children.
Slagle also demonstrated a violent streak less than a year before the murder, the board said. Slagle attacked a couple he had been staying with when they asked him to leave in October 1986. Slagle hit the wife in the head with a meat hook and stabbed her husband in the leg with a pair of scissors.
Billy Slagle was 18 when he broke into Mari Anne Pope's house looking for money to buy alcohol in the early morning hours of Aug. 13, 1987.
He ended up stabbing her 17 times with a pair of sewing scissors he found in the house. Two child witnesses heard Pope, 40, praying before the attack. Police later found a broken rosary near her body. . . Pope was an innocent victim who was brutally murdered with children nearby, the board's report noted. Pope was a babysitter and friend of the children.
Slagle also demonstrated a violent streak less than a year before the murder, the board said. Slagle attacked a couple he had been staying with when they asked him to leave in October 1986. Slagle hit the wife in the head with a meat hook and stabbed her husband in the leg with a pair of scissors.
Rented Tritium wrote: Execution costs more than life in prison. I'm really tired of having to explain this in every single thread this comes up in.
Plus, if money is your justification for life vs death, I think you're a monster.
That's ironic, don't you think?
Anyway, to me, money is no object for exterminating this sort of vermin. Euthanizing someone for breaking into a house and killing someone for no reason is something I won't lose any sleep over.
Rented Tritium wrote: Execution costs more than life in prison. I'm really tired of having to explain this in every single thread this comes up in.
Plus, if money is your justification for life vs death, I think you're a monster.
That's ironic, don't you think?
Anyway, to me, money is no object for exterminating this sort of vermin. Euthanizing someone for breaking into a house and killing someone for no reason is something I won't lose any sleep over.
The innocence project proves that there are things to lose sleep over here.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's funny that the basis for the "ridiculous amount" of appeals is a constitutional one, but the people who want less appeals will beat their chests about the constitution in every other thread.
Rented Tritium wrote: Execution costs more than life in prison. I'm really tired of having to explain this in every single thread this comes up in.
Plus, if money is your justification for life vs death, I think you're a monster.
That's ironic, don't you think?
Anyway, to me, money is no object for exterminating this sort of vermin. Euthanizing someone for breaking into a house and killing someone for no reason is something I won't lose any sleep over.
The innocence project proves that there are things to lose sleep over here.
I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious, not to be snarky: I know that there have been multiple older death penalty convictions overturned due to new DNA evidence being used. Have there been any more recent death penalty convictions overturned in which DNA evidence was used from the start?
Frazzled wrote: I'm ok with Life on a chain gang. But we need to bring back chain gangs.
You should check out the book In Defense of Flogging by Peter Moskos, Frazzled. Everyone even slightly interested in the criminal justice system should, really.
Rented Tritium wrote: Execution costs more than life in prison. I'm really tired of having to explain this in every single thread this comes up in.
Plus, if money is your justification for life vs death, I think you're a monster.
That's ironic, don't you think?
Anyway, to me, money is no object for exterminating this sort of vermin. Euthanizing someone for breaking into a house and killing someone for no reason is something I won't lose any sleep over.
The innocence project proves that there are things to lose sleep over here.
No it really doesn't. It's also rather beside the point, since the choice here isn't "Death Penalty or Freedom" but "Death Penalty or Life Without Parole".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I'm ok with Life on a chain gang. But we need to bring back chain gangs.
Do they still have that rock-breaking thing that you used to see in movies?
No it really doesn't. It's also rather beside the point, since the choice here isn't "Death Penalty or Freedom" but "Death Penalty or Life Without Parole".
The risk of false conviction very much plays into whether or not we should require a lot of appeals. You cannot release them if you have already killed them. What's the hurry?
I think there's a very reasonable argument being made here by, well, both sides of the original case.
This is, by nearly any modern definition, a very weak death penalty case. You're not supposed to re-try cases, and burglary plus murder = felony = potential death penalty, but this doesn't strike me as a typical cold blooded killing.
Regardless, the overall point is that the option for life without parole was not availabe to the jury, it would be available now, and nobody seems to seriously think he'd get the death penalty under modern rules. Toss in his age and likely altered state of mind, and I'd commute the sentence.
No it really doesn't. It's also rather beside the point, since the choice here isn't "Death Penalty or Freedom" but "Death Penalty or Life Without Parole".
The risk of false conviction very much plays into whether or not we should require a lot of appeals. You cannot release them if you have already killed them. What's the hurry?
Death by trebuchet, guillotine, or other French device.
Put it on TV.
Get some sponsors like Miller Light.
Get some ring girls in revealing outfits.
Use any earnings to pay to the victims surviving family and cover execution costs.
No it really doesn't. It's also rather beside the point, since the choice here isn't "Death Penalty or Freedom" but "Death Penalty or Life Without Parole".
The risk of false conviction very much plays into whether or not we should require a lot of appeals. You cannot release them if you have already killed them. What's the hurry?
Justice delayed is justice denied is typically the argument, plus the cost, plus the threat to other inmates and jailors from continued existence of dead men walking.
Overall cuplability. We don't execute minors, because they're held to not fully understand consequences. I doubt an 18 year old is magically 100% adult in his thinking because of a birthday.
usually death penalty analysis considers a ton of factors, from the nature of the crime to any mitigating circumstances. There are usually a lot of different factors, both aggravating and mitigating. Outside of perhaps the gruesome manner of the death (which, ironically, should not matter), I dont' see any real aggravating factors. There's nothing that leaps out at me to suggest this should be a capital case, aside from, I suppose, the sympathetic nature of the victim (which should not be a factor, but is almost always the biggest factor).
No it really doesn't. It's also rather beside the point, since the choice here isn't "Death Penalty or Freedom" but "Death Penalty or Life Without Parole".
The risk of false conviction very much plays into whether or not we should require a lot of appeals. You cannot release them if you have already killed them. What's the hurry?
With the near universal use of DNA evidence collecting and other advanced forensics, the probability of false convictions on something so major is dwindling.
The window of time the defense has to prove otherwise should change to reflect that.
You are not going to have any more people exonerated after 20+ years due to DNA analysis.
And this isn't a case of guilt being questioned, nobody is questioning his guilt.
And this isn't a case of guilt being questioned, nobody is questioning his guilt.
Well, nobody is questioning if he killed the woman. I'm sure there's some controversy over the natuer of his guilt regarding what exact crime he committed, but you are broadly correct.
The nature of his conviction is probably not a controversy. Hell, by all accounts this isn't even a legal appeal. It's simply an attempt to get the parole board to commute a sentence.
With the near universal use of DNA evidence collecting and other advanced forensics, the probability of false convictions on something so major is dwindling.
The window of time the defense has to prove otherwise should change to reflect that.
Yeah, we're so good at justice now that we don't need to give those constitutionally required appeals.
You are not going to have any more people exonerated after 20+ years due to DNA analysis.
Right, it will be because of some new technology that we're not aware of yet.
And this isn't a case of guilt being questioned, nobody is questioning his guilt.
Sure, but you don't throw principle out the window because THIS case is really easy. How unquestioned does it have to be before we throw out due process?
Again, I am not saying they should get no appeals.
I'm saying they should have an unlimited number of appeals, but only a limited amount of time. If you can't prove you are innocent within 5 years too bad. At this point in time, if the process lasts for more than that time you are almost certainly not going to find anything new that tosses all the other evidence out the window.
And I'm not sure what other advancement could be made that would make DNA obsolete.
Finding a person's DNA or finger print at the crime scene, plus having motive, is not going to be proven wrong. Any other advancements will only reaffirm what happened.
So unless we develop the ability to question the dead victim or send a probe back in time nothing is going to invalidate DNA.
I'm saying they should have an unlimited number of appeals, but only a limited amount of time. If you can't prove you are innocent within 5 years too bad. At this point in time, if the process lasts for more than that time you are almost certainly not going to find anything new that tosses all the other evidence out the window.
You do not seem to understand how appeals of criminal convictions work. Rarely is it a question fo new evidence appearing. Even when it is, the challenge isn't to find it, it's to get an appeals court to order a new trial, which is, of course, the only way to "prove" anything.
Most of the time, appeals to criminal convictions are questions of law (meaning decisions by a judge), such as if some evidence was properly admitted, or if there was an error in the procedure.
Finally, appeals take time mostly because the legal system takes a while. For the most part, a convicted defendent will have three major appeals: the first courts of appeals of his state, his state supreme court, and SCOTUS. Some appeals courts (like the feds) allow for en banc review, which is a half appeal, but that's rarely granted on meat and potatos cases.
After that, it's bascially "hail mary" appeals to federal court, which have about a 2% success rate.
If your argument is "legal matters should resolve themselves more quickly," then I think most people would agree. But if you're saying that a person shoudl be execute while awaiting their appeal... that's pretty callous.
And I am of the opinion that evidence is evidence. The ease at which good solid evidence can be ruled as inadmissible is just silly. Unless it can be shown that it was falsified it should be allowed.
If it was obtained illegally, that should be a separate legal matter. If evidence was seized unlawfully, it could still be used, but the individuals who obtained it would suffer consequences of some sort.
It just seems wrong for someone to walk away from a murder because of an error in procedure. What sort of error could make the difference between an innocent and guilty verdict?
And I am of the opinion that evidence is evidence. The ease at which good solid evidence can be ruled as inadmissible is just silly. Unless it can be shown that it was falsified it should be allowed.
If it was obtained illegally, that should be a separate legal matter. If evidence was seized unlawfully, it could still be used, but the individuals who obtained it would suffer consequences of some sort.
That's an understandable opinion, because it's natural to look at a process that allows for windfalls to occur as flawed. It is, however, a terrible opinion.
Evdience is gathered by police and presented by prosectors. Who, exactly, is going to investigate and press charges against cops and prosecutors that illegally obtain evidence? Federal courts, at one time, had exactly the respect for the integrity of police that they should, which is to say about none. Further, courts cannot create a crime. They can't make create the laws that would allow that, and no jurisdiction has chosen to do so. The only rememdy a court itself can create would be exclusion.
Not allowing tainted evidence is the quickest, cheapest, and most effective way to stop illegal searches.
It just seems wrong for someone to walk away from a murder because of an error in procedure. What sort of error could make the difference between an innocent and guilty verdict?
Well, this is one of those things that's scarier in "law and order" than in real life.
Keep in mind, ~90% of criminal cases are resolved by plea bargain. Most cases that go to trial result in convictions, and most remanded cases that require a new trial also result in conviction.
One of the most infamous cases was Arizone v. Miranda. You know, the guy not read his rights? sCOTUS sent it back, and even without that confession the state got a conviction.
There's a more philosophical argument about how its more important for the State itself to be lawful than it is the citizens, but I have a feeling that's not going to go over well.
It just seems wrong for someone to walk away from a murder because of an error in procedure. What sort of error could make the difference between an innocent and guilty verdict?
You seem to be having a problem with the very thing that makes our justice system so fantastic.
The fact that even someone who we all know is guilty will walk if the proper procedures aren't followed is the ONLY reason procedures are getting followed for everyone else.
Equal protection means we follow procedures NO MATTER WHAT and we throw out evidence that wasn't handled properly. This is for the protection of ALL accused.
You cannot just say "well this guy is a fething murderer, so let's just ignore due process".
You know, we could always just not go out of our way to kill people. I mean I get that concepts like "We should avoid killing other human beings if at all possible" can kind of seem like far-fetched crazy talk, but it's actually worked on a fair number of occasions.
Yeah personally I think we should just abolish the death penalty. Life without parole is no picnic. Just put them in and move on.
Even if a loved one was murdered, I would much rather have the murderer get life without parole so I can move on with my life than to live with the execution process over my head for some number of years.
I mean, have you seen interviews with loved ones of murder victims who are waiting for an execution? They get CONSUMED by this need for revenge. They want it to happen so they can get "closure" but after a while it starts to mess with them and they get bloodthirsty. It's such an unhealthy way to deal with a loved one's death.
You put someone in a box without parole, you can put them out of your mind and move forward. You can also sleep at night knowing that if you were wrong, you were not a part of a murder.
Our justice system is FANTASTIC and I love it, but to say that it's so perfect that we should enact permanent and irreversible punishments is utter hubris.
It just seems wrong for someone to walk away from a murder because of an error in procedure. What sort of error could make the difference between an innocent and guilty verdict?
You seem to be having a problem with the very thing that makes our justice system so fantastic.
The fact that even someone who we all know is guilty will walk if the proper procedures aren't followed is the ONLY reason procedures are getting followed for everyone else.
Equal protection means we follow procedures NO MATTER WHAT and we throw out evidence that wasn't handled properly. This is for the protection of ALL accused.
You cannot just say "well this guy is a fething murderer, so let's just ignore due process".
I mean, have you seen interviews with loved ones of murder victims who are waiting for an execution? They get CONSUMED by this need for revenge. They want it to happen so they can get "closure" but after a while it starts to mess with them and they get bloodthirsty. It's such an unhealthy way to deal with a loved one's death.
While I personally would not presume to tell anybody who the should or should not deal with the death of a loved one, you raise a point dear to me.
I think the theoretically arguments for the death penalty are pretty decent. Not overwhelming, but I have no real great reason to oppose the theory of capital punishment. What bugs me is the practice. Casting aside the incredibly racially biased way it's actually used (based, suprisingly, not on the race of the defendent but of the victim), it raises a very ugly streak of vengeance, which, IMO, is not proper for the legal system.
Rented Tritium wrote:Execution costs more than life in prison. I'm really tired of having to explain this in every single thread this comes up in.
Plus, if money is your justification for life vs death, I think you're a monster.
In this particular case, hasn't the defendant already gone through all of the appeals anyway? Thus meaning that 50 years (really more like 25-30, though considering health conditions in prisons) will definitely cost more?
Frazzled wrote:I'm ok with Life on a chain gang. But we need to bring back chain gangs.
This is monstrous. Frazz, you do realize that chain gangs were a stop-gap replacement for a slave-labour economy and tied to countless wrongful convictions for the purpose of free labour?
Rented Tritium wrote:Execution costs more than life in prison. I'm really tired of having to explain this in every single thread this comes up in.
Plus, if money is your justification for life vs death, I think you're a monster.
In this particular case, hasn't the defendant already gone through all of the appeals anyway? Thus meaning that 50 years (really more like 25-30, though considering health conditions in prisons) will definitely cost more?
Frazzled wrote:I'm ok with Life on a chain gang. But we need to bring back chain gangs.
This is monstrous. Frazz, you do realize that chain gangs were a stop-gap replacement for a slave-labour economy and tied to countless wrongful convictions for the purpose of free labour?
Whats wrong with hard labor? If Cool Hand Luke has taught us anything, its that a good chain gang can clean a road.
You are perfectly within your right to say that if someone murdered one of your loved ones that you'd like that person in jail for life. However if anyone murdered any of my loved ones I would have no problem with the death penalty.
Rented Tritium wrote: Yeah personally I think we should just abolish the death penalty. Life without parole is no picnic. Just put them in and move on.
Even if a loved one was murdered, I would much rather have the murderer get life without parole so I can move on with my life than to live with the execution process over my head for some number of years.
I mean, have you seen interviews with loved ones of murder victims who are waiting for an execution? They get CONSUMED by this need for revenge. They want it to happen so they can get "closure" but after a while it starts to mess with them and they get bloodthirsty. It's such an unhealthy way to deal with a loved one's death.
You put someone in a box without parole, you can put them out of your mind and move forward. You can also sleep at night knowing that if you were wrong, you were not a part of a murder.
Our justice system is FANTASTIC and I love it, but to say that it's so perfect that we should enact permanent and irreversible punishments is utter hubris.
Or you can put a murderer in a box in the ground after his/her execution and know that you were not part of a murder either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Whats wrong with hard labor? If Cool Hand Luke has taught us anything, its that a good chain gang can clean a road.
For non-violent offenders we still have work details here that go out and clean up roads.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You are perfectly within your right to say that if someone murdered one of your loved ones that you'd like that person in jail for life. However if anyone murdered any of my loved ones I would have no problem with the death penalty.
Which is why we don't allow those who have been affected by a crime to set the penalties for it.
an unhealthy way to deal with a loved one's death.
You put someone in a box without parole, you can put them out of your mind and move forward. You can also sleep at night knowing that if you were wrong, you were not a part of a murder.
Our justice system is FANTASTIC and I love it, but to say that it's so perfect that we should enact permanent and irreversible punishments is utter hubris.
Or you can put a murderer in a box in the ground after his/her execution and know that you were not part of a murder either.
To get back to the point you clearly ignored, 5 or 10 years later, what happens if they discover that the 'murderer' in that box in the ground turned out the be innocent?
Fafnir wrote: Which is why we don't allow those who have been affected by a crime to set the penalties for it.
Does you point also apply to those saying lock the person up until the end of his/her life, or just the ones who have no problem with execution?
Fafnir wrote: To get back to the point you clearly ignored, 5 or 10 years later, what happens if they discover that the 'murderer' in that box in the ground turned out the be innocent?
And how likely is that to happen with recent advances in DNA? And with all the appeals that someone on death row gets? What sorts of figures are we talking here?
Fafnir wrote: Thankfully, that possibility is not a concern of our legal systems. However, the rights and futures of the people being handled by it are.
Although, in the case of a comet, it would melt up in our atmosphere, what with being made mostly of ice.
No, the concerns of how the victims' families might feel if decades later the convicted person turns out to be innocent most certainly AREN'T.
Frazzled wrote: No, the concerns of how the victims' families might feel if decades later the convicted person turns out to be innocent most certainly AREN'T.
I'm always amazed at how many people always overlook the victim to argue for the rights of the perpetrator, that's why I thought I would clarify what the crime was in the OP.
Fafnir wrote: Thankfully, that possibility is not a concern of our legal systems. However, the rights and futures of the people being handled by it are.
Although, in the case of a comet, it would melt up in our atmosphere, what with being made mostly of ice.
Also you clearly haven't read Lucifer's Hammer. I suggest you do so, and pronto. Its righteously excellent.
Frazzled wrote: No, the concerns of how the victims' families might feel if decades later the convicted person turns out to be innocent most certainly AREN'T.
I'm always amazed at how many people always overlook the victim to argue for the rights of the perpetrator, that's why I thought I would clarify what the crime was in the OP.
There is no right to vengeance. Nobody has the right to have another person be dead or miserable.
Whenever possible we should avoid killing people or making them suffer. That perhaps some believe that the death or suffering of another may do something to ease the pain they feel does nothing to change that. Killing and misery are awful things, if there is any alternative whatsoever we should avoid actively creating either.
Fafnir wrote: Which is why we don't allow those who have been affected by a crime to set the penalties for it.
Does you point also apply to those saying lock the person up until the end of his/her life, or just the ones who have no problem with execution?
Of course it does. As I said, those affected by the relevant crimes should not be responsible for setting the penalties.
Fafnir wrote: To get back to the point you clearly ignored, 5 or 10 years later, what happens if they discover that the 'murderer' in that box in the ground turned out the be innocent?
And how likely is that to happen with recent advances in DNA? And with all the appeals that someone on death row gets? What sorts of figures are we talking here?
The number itself is irrelevant, so long as the possibility for any error at all exists. Unless the system is perfectly, infallibly correct in every case with no possibility at all of error, then measures must be taken so that credibility may be maintained. It's one of the safeguards and burdens that puts our legal systems above those of less developed nations.
Frazzled wrote: No, the concerns of how the victims' families might feel if decades later the convicted person turns out to be innocent most certainly AREN'T.
I'm always amazed at how many people always overlook the victim to argue for the rights of the perpetrator, that's why I thought I would clarify what the crime was in the OP.
The victim is dead and absolutely nothing we can do is going to bring them back.
Fafnir wrote: The number itself is irrelevant, so long as the possibility for any error at all exists. Unless the system is perfectly, infallibly correct in every case with no possibility at all of error, then measures must be taken so that credibility may be maintained. It's one of the safeguards and burdens that puts our legal systems above those of less developed nations.
No sense having a discussion with you if you're so absolutist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote: There is no right to vengeance. Nobody has the right to have another person be dead or miserable.
Whenever possible we should avoid killing people or making them suffer. That perhaps some believe that the death or suffering of another may do something to ease the pain they feel does nothing to change that. Killing and misery are awful things, if there is any alternative whatsoever we should avoid actively creating either.
Best not lock them up either, the poor dears might be miserable.
Fafnir wrote: The number itself is irrelevant, so long as the possibility for any error at all exists. Unless the system is perfectly, infallibly correct in every case with no possibility at all of error, then measures must be taken so that credibility may be maintained. It's one of the safeguards and burdens that puts our legal systems above those of less developed nations.
No sense having a discussion with you if you're so absolutist.
So you would be okay with the possibility (no matter how small) of you or a loved one being wrongly executed for a crime you or they did not commit in order to make the legal system more efficient, I would assume?
Rented Tritium wrote: The victim is dead and absolutely nothing we can do is going to bring them back.
So we worry about the rights of the person who meted out a non-reversible punishment of his own? Sickening.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fafnir wrote: So you would be okay with the possibility (no matter how small) of you or a loved one being wrongly executed for a crime you or they did not commit in order to make the legal system more efficient, I would assume?
So an absolutist position and now this? Are you serious??
Fafnir wrote: So you would be okay with the possibility (no matter how small) of you or a loved one being wrongly executed for a crime you or they did not commit in order to make the legal system more efficient, I would assume?
So an absolutist position and now this? Are you serious??
Our universe exists as it does on even shakier probability. So the point is, would you accept the possibility of it happening? Of course I'm serious, because what you propose would admit such a possibility to happen in the first place. Whether it be you, someone you know, or someone entirely unknown to you should be irrelevant, all that matters is that the possibility exists.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Best not lock them up either, the poor dears might be miserable
Certainly, locking someone up is inherently regrettable. However we can't simply let a proven danger, in this case the actions of murderer go on unchecked. In this way it becomes apparent that there is no alternative to changing that individuals circumstances such that they can no longer present a danger to others. In practical terms at least given our current circumstances this means constricting their freedoms and removing them from the general population. We should still aim to do so in a way that minimizes human suffering, and certainly in a way avoids anyone getting killed.
Murder is an awful thing already. Let's not use as an excuse for more inhumanity.
Fafnir wrote: Our universe exists as it does on even shakier probability. So the point is, would you accept the possibility of it happening? Of course I'm serious, because what you propose would admit such a possibility to happen in the first place. Whether it be you, someone you know, or someone entirely unknown to you should be irrelevant, all that matters is that the possibility exists.
So I'm not allowed to decide if someone should be executed because of personal feelins. But I am allowed to decide if hypothetically a family member should be tried and have a minuscule chance of being executed because I have personal feelings.....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote: Certainly, locking someone up is inherently regrettable. However we can't simply let a proven danger, in this case the actions of murder go on unchecked. In this way it becomes apparent that there is no alternative to changing that individuals circumstances such that they can no longer present a danger to others. In practical terms at least given our current circumstances this means constricting their freedoms and removing them from the general population. We should still aim to do so in a way that minimizes human suffering, and certainly in a way avoids anyone getting killed.
Murder is an awful thing already. Let's not use as an excuse for more inhumanity.
But you stated that they should not be made miserable, which is it?
So it's more humane to lock someone up for life, give them nothing to lose and put them in with other prisoners and guards that they can harm? That's humane??
Life without parole accomplishes what we want (murderer off the street) and minimizes the consequences of mistakes (execute innocent person) relative to the severity of the need. And since it is not a permanent and unrecoverable punishment, we can use the regular non-automatic appeals system without the constitutional problem that necessitated automatic appeals in death penalty cases.
There is no right to vengeance. Nobody has the right to have another person be dead or miserable.
For arguments's sake:
1. To you maybe. Others disagree.
Whenever possible we should avoid killing people or making them suffer. That perhaps some believe that the death or suffering of another may do something to ease the pain they feel does nothing to change that. Killing and misery are awful things, if there is any alternative whatsoever we should avoid actively creating either.
There is no right to vengeance. Nobody has the right to have another person be dead or miserable.
For arguments's sake:
1. To you maybe. Others disagree.
"rights" are an actual thing that you can point to. They can be subjective often, but they are still something tangible with a basis. If there's a "right to get revenge" floating around in the constitution, I'd like to see it.
If you are alive, even if you are imprisoned, you can still enjoy something occasionally. Music, a favorite food, etc.
Being dead, well, you can't.
I would say being alive under most circumstances is better than being dead. Which is a major reason I feel that murderers should be deprived of the same thing they deprived their victims of.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, and anyone who can't see how being confined can and is worse in some ways than death is stupid.
What, if any validity this statement could have is largely dependent on the circumstances under which a person is confined.
Given the state of the American Prison system at least, it might be fair to say that both the death penalty and a prison sentence of any length are both grossly inhumane. However I think that speaks more as a condemnation of a prison system than it does a justification for the death penalty.
There is no right to vengeance. Nobody has the right to have another person be dead or miserable.
For arguments's sake:
1. To you maybe. Others disagree.
"rights" are an actual thing that you can point to. They can be subjective often, but they are still something tangible with a basis. If there's a "right to get revenge" floating around in the constitution, I'd like to see it.
In contrast, another view proffers that the only rights you have are the ones you can take and defend.
Monster Rain wrote: Which is a major reason I feel that murderers should be deprived of the same thing they deprived their victims of.
There are two questions here and you are focusing on only one.
1. What is the appropriate punishment for someone who did X
2. Did this person do X?
The fact that we're only 98% good at number two is justification to back down to live without parole for number one. It still accomplishes what the state has an interest in (stop murder) and minimizes the impact of mistakes to a level we can live with.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And remember, punishment for crimes is based on what the state has an interest in doing, not what makes the victim's families feel warm and fuzzy. Making people whole again is what civil court is for.
Not to mention, what is the point we intend for prisons? Do we want to use them just as a pen to make criminals rot, or should the goal be something greater than that?
Personally, I believe the role of prison should be centered around that of isolating criminals from the public at large while attempting to rehabilitate them to be useful members of society (if possible).
Of course, more vindictive people will disagree with that.
Fafnir wrote: Not to mention, what is the point we intend for prisons? Do we want to use them just as a pen to make criminals rot, or should the goal be something greater than that?
Personally, I believe the role of prison should be centered around that of isolating criminals from the public at large while attempting to rehabilitate them to be useful members of society (if possible).
Of course, more vindictive people will disagree with that.
There's a great comic about criminal law (anybody interested in the topic would enjoy the whole thing) that touches on this subject: (Not completely profanity free)
In short: we all talk about rehabilitation and deterrence, but realistically we just focus on keeping criminals off the street and punishing them to feel better.
Fafnir wrote: Not to mention, what is the point we intend for prisons? Do we want to use them just as a pen to make criminals rot, or should the goal be something greater than that?
Personally, I believe the role of prison should be centered around that of isolating criminals from the public at large while attempting to rehabilitate them to be useful members of society (if possible).
Of course, more vindictive people will disagree with that.
There's a great comic about criminal law (anybody interested in the topic would enjoy the whole thing) that touches on this subject: (Not completely profanity free)
In short: we all talk about rehabilitation and deterrence, but realistically we just focus on keeping criminals off the street and punishing them to feel better.
And with prisons operating for profit, it will continue to be that way (why rehabilitate prisoners so they won't reoffend when it removes your source of profit?).
Until you realize that in most cases, the person imprisoned will be let out within a few years, no better than they were going in, and just as likely to cause more problems. If you figure out where they went wrong in life, give them the skills they need to succeed in society, and then let them out, everyone benefits, as opposed to one person just suffering.
Until you realize that in most cases, the person imprisoned will be let out within a few years, no better than they were going in, and just as likely to cause more problems. If you figure out where they went wrong in life, give them the skills they need to succeed in society, and then let them out, everyone benefits, as opposed to one person just suffering.
I would agree with you, but rehabilitation has consistently failed on any long term scheme, especially in a modern economy where a person with a felony conviction is all but unemployable.
There are 2.2 million people incarcerated in this country, nearly all of prime working age. Our economy can't handle the number of low skilled workers we have now, let alone two million more.
Until you realize that in most cases, the person imprisoned will be let out within a few years, no better than they were going in, and just as likely to cause more problems. If you figure out where they went wrong in life, give them the skills they need to succeed in society, and then let them out, everyone benefits, as opposed to one person just suffering.
I would agree with you, but rehabilitation has consistently failed on any long term scheme, especially in a modern economy where a person with a felony conviction is all but unemployable.
If a felony conviction precludes employment and employment is key to integration in society, then no honest attempt at rehabilitation has been made by society.
Chongara wrote: If a felony conviction precludes employment and employment is key to integration in society, then no honest attempt at rehabilitation has been made by society.
The question isn't just eliminating stigma. The reason employers don't hire felons is because there is a surplus of unskilled labor. You don't need to hire felons to fill a job in this country, so why even bother?
Some would point out that the ludicrously dismal economic prospects of the poor might be a factor in crime, but I'm pretty sure they're all Bolsheviks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fafnir wrote: Which is why I would say the method itself is flawed, rather than the idea.
But honestly rehabilitation is a case by case basis. Some people can be trained up, and given a new lease.
Which is why I noted that it would be optimal where possible. That said, I'd imagine that there are more cases where rehabilitation is possible than current society, especially with the systems in place, deem there to be.
Rented Tritium wrote: Yeah, even if you rehabilitate successfully, they get back out and the whole world gakks on them for the rest of their lives.
You're not mad at society for being mean to felons are you?
I can't speak for him, but I find no merit in cruelty regardless of the circumstances.
I'm not talking about cruelty when I say that, I mean if I owned a business and I had a choice between a person with or without a criminal record, I'd choose one without.
I can't say I see the difference between life in prison and the death sentence anymore. Neither provides a hope for return. The person's life is over in either case. If anything, spending the rest of one's life in a small room may be worse than a quick death.
Rented Tritium wrote: Bottom line is that our system is not perfect enough to have non-reversible punishments.
Prison time is irreversible. You can't give those years back.
This is some extreme nitpicking.
I'm not trying to nitpick, nor am I trying to use it as a reason why we should execute somebody instead (although I'm not against capital punishment, at least in theory). My point is, while the death penalty is a very serious punishment, so is being sent to prison. While it's important not to be cavalier about executions, I think it is equally as important to not be cavalier about sending someone to prison or tacking on years. Going to prison, even only for a few years, can easily destroy someone's life and the potential for them to improve their life in the future, even if they are able to get out and stay out. It's just important to remember that while the death penalty certainly is permanent, sending someone to prison for pretty much any length of time has serious permanent consequences, some of which can be removed by overturning a conviction, but many of which can't.
Rented Tritium wrote: Yeah, even if you rehabilitate successfully, they get back out and the whole world gakks on them for the rest of their lives.
You're not mad at society for being mean to felons are you?
Why feth with prison for anybody at all if there is no such thing as "having served your sentence"?
Exactly. After someone does their time, why shouldn't they have a chance to be a productive member of society? The fact that it's almost impossible to do so in many cases is part of the reason we have such a ridiculous recidivism rate.
Rented Tritium wrote: Yeah, even if you rehabilitate successfully, they get back out and the whole world gakks on them for the rest of their lives.
You're not mad at society for being mean to felons are you?
Why feth with prison for anybody at all if there is no such thing as "having served your sentence"?
Exactly. After someone does their time, why shouldn't they have a chance to be a productive member of society? The fact that it's almost impossible to do so in many cases is part of the reason we have such a ridiculous recidivism rate.
Frazzled wrote:Whats wrong with hard labor? If Cool Hand Luke has taught us anything, its that a good chain gang can clean a road.
Nothing's wrong with hard labour; the problem lies in the fact that the for-profit system presents a conflict of interest between its need to turn a profit, and justice being served.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:And how likely is that to happen with recent advances in DNA? And with all the appeals that someone on death row gets? What sorts of figures are we talking here?
Even just once is too often. And the problem isn't with advances in forensic DNA analysis, the problem is with a jury being able to understand the findings, in addition to several evidenciary problems surrounding collection and transportation. Recombinant DNA analysis is fantastic; however there are many, many flaws attributable to human error at several steps of the process.
Grey Templar wrote: With the near universal use of DNA evidence collecting and other advanced forensics, the probability of false convictions on something so major is dwindling.
Ha ha ha ha.
No.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: I think the theoretically arguments for the death penalty are pretty decent. Not overwhelming, but I have no real great reason to oppose the theory of capital punishment. What bugs me is the practice. Casting aside the incredibly racially biased way it's actually used (based, suprisingly, not on the race of the defendent but of the victim), it raises a very ugly streak of vengeance, which, IMO, is not proper for the legal system.
Yeah. Calling for death is a primal thing and it brings powerful emotions to the trial. As a result I think there's a good chance of the verdict being driven more by that emotion than by reason and a proper review of the evidence, producing a really shocking number of really poor verdicts in death penalty cases.
Rented Tritium wrote: Execution costs more than life in prison. I'm really tired of having to explain this in every single thread this comes up in.
Plus, if money is your justification for life vs death, I think you're a monster.
It only costs more because of our ridiculous amount of pleas we allow, meaning nobody ever gets executed for decades.
Seriously, we should put some sort of limit on the number of pleas and a hard execution data. Say 5 years max.
If you have indeed been wrongly convicted, you have 5 years to prove it.
As was mentioned in the first post, the West Memphis Three had a man on death row, took more than 5 years to get Damien Echols off death row, despite overwhelming evidence of innocence. A backwards southern town looking for a scapegoat and refusing to accept the wrong man was in prison kept him on death row. Tell him he only deserved 5 years to prove his innocence when proof was constantly ignored. Tell his wife and their new child that, while you're at it. I'm not saying I don't support the death penalty: some monsters need it. I'm saying don't paint with such a wide brush.
Rented Tritium wrote: Execution costs more than life in prison. I'm really tired of having to explain this in every single thread this comes up in.
Plus, if money is your justification for life vs death, I think you're a monster.
Well said. I don't often support the death penalty (but sometimes, it really depends on the case), but I never think a cost basis argument has any bearing on the argument in civilized society.
You can find reasons for and against the death penalty. The death penalty should exist as a deterrent for people who commit heinous crimes. I have no problem with a person who committed first degree murder being executed if you can prove to the jury he did it. I have no problem with the defendent getting one last shot to prove his innocence before his execution.
The fact that we are killing people for heinous crimes as a deterrent, and that hundreds of years later people still commit henious crimes that they are getting killed for, should make it obvious that it doesn't appear to be a very effective deterrent.
Considering the fact that a far higher number of convicted killers murder again, either in prison or after their release than there are innocent people executed, I'm all for the death penalty.
I flip flop on the death penalty issue, sometimes I'm very much in the camp of, "What that man/woman did was a terrible crime, he wants to live? Fry him!". But in this case, I can see granting the man life without parole simply because when he was arrested, it wasn't an option in Ohio, and I'm fairly certain he would have been granted such a sentence in any such case for this crime, but I'm not a lawyer, nor have I served on a jury.
d-usa wrote: The fact that we are killing people for heinous crimes as a deterrent, and that hundreds of years later people still commit henious crimes that they are getting killed for, should make it obvious that it doesn't appear to be a very effective deterrent.
I don't think this is a good argument. I mean, you can say that about essentially any law - as x crime exists, should we bother legislating x crime? Just because a law isn't a perfect, 100% solution doesn't mean it isn't effective enough that it's worth having.
A better tack would be arguing that the law isn't enough of a deterrent to warrant state-sponsored executions; or hell, maybe argue it's not a deterrent at all. Is it? I don't know, but if I wanted to argue against it this would be fertile ground to plumb.
Of course, they're always the argument all life is sacred, so we shouldn't kill people on that ground. I personally don't believe that but I respect that others honestly can feel that way.
d-usa wrote: The fact that we are killing people for heinous crimes as a deterrent, and that hundreds of years later people still commit henious crimes that they are getting killed for, should make it obvious that it doesn't appear to be a very effective deterrent.
I don't think this is a good argument. I mean, you can say that about essentially any law - as x crime exists, should we bother legislating x crime? Just because a law isn't a perfect, 100% solution doesn't mean it isn't effective enough that it's worth having.
Except that is not what I am arguing. You still punish crimes, like we have always done. There is a difference between "the death penalty doesn't deter people, let's stop passing anti-homicide laws and let them walk" and "the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent, let them rot in prison".
But executing people as an extra deterrent has not been effective. I'm not even talking it hasn't been 100% effective, I'm saying it has not been effective at all. How many murders does the US have compared to other western nations that don't have the death penalty?
A better tack would be arguing that the law isn't enough of a deterrent to warrant state-sponsored executions; or hell, maybe argue it's not a deterrent at all. Is it? I don't know, but if I wanted to argue against it this would be fertile ground to plumb.
Which is pretty much what I did. I never argued that we should not punish criminals, just that "killing people to keep others from killing" doesn't seem to work.
Of course, they're always the argument all life is sacred, so we shouldn't kill people on that ground. I personally don't believe that but I respect that others honestly can feel that way.
For me it's not a life is sacred thing, it's just a "if there is a chance that even a single innocent man gets killed because of the law, then it is a bad law".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just for fun, rates of intentional homicides per 100,000 people:
So it looks like there are quite a few countries that managed to lower the homicide rate without the whole "We are going to execute you, that will show the others and keep them playing nice" thing.
There may be plenty of arguments for the death penalty, but "it is a deterent" doesn't seem to be one of them.
d-usa wrote: The fact that we are killing people for heinous crimes as a deterrent, and that hundreds of years later people still commit henious crimes that they are getting killed for, should make it obvious that it doesn't appear to be a very effective deterrent.
Eh... it really isn't about punishment (like you're saying)... it's really about removing such folks from society. That's what it's really about.
As to the OP: if both the fricking defense AND prosecution band together on this, I'd side with them.
EDIT: I'm groaning that you're using that stat d... I'd argue that most of those are drug/gang related homicides that we in the US of A have in spades. I wish there's a way to extrapolate those stats in such a way to identify "gang-related homicides", "drug-related homicides", "burglery homicide"... etc.
d-usa wrote: The fact that we are killing people for heinous crimes as a deterrent, and that hundreds of years later people still commit henious crimes that they are getting killed for, should make it obvious that it doesn't appear to be a very effective deterrent.
Eh... it really isn't about punishment (like you're saying)... it's really about removing such folks from society. That's what it's really about.
As to the OP: if both the fricking defense AND prosecution band together on this, I'd side with them.
But I was responding to the post directly before mine:
boyd wrote: You can find reasons for and against the death penalty. The death penalty should exist as a deterrent for people who commit heinous crimes. I have no problem with a person who committed first degree murder being executed if you can prove to the jury he did it. I have no problem with the defendent getting one last shot to prove his innocence before his execution.
EDIT: I'm groaning that you're using that stat d... I'd argue that most of those are drug/gang related homicides that we in the US of A have in spades. I wish there's a way to extrapolate those stats in such a way to identify "gang-related homicides", "drug-related homicides", "burglery homicide"... etc.
*shrugs*
And no other western country has gang/drug related homicides?
But again, I was replying to the stupid "death penalty is a deterrent" argument. We do have more homicides than pretty much every other western nation, and there are many causes and possible fixes. Killing people to keep people from killing people has not worked though.
d-usa wrote: The fact that we are killing people for heinous crimes as a deterrent, and that hundreds of years later people still commit henious crimes that they are getting killed for, should make it obvious that it doesn't appear to be a very effective deterrent.
Eh... it really isn't about punishment (like you're saying)... it's really about removing such folks from society. That's what it's really about.
As to the OP: if both the fricking defense AND prosecution band together on this, I'd side with them.
But I was responding to the post directly before mine:
boyd wrote: You can find reasons for and against the death penalty. The death penalty should exist as a deterrent for people who commit heinous crimes. I have no problem with a person who committed first degree murder being executed if you can prove to the jury he did it. I have no problem with the defendent getting one last shot to prove his innocence before his execution.
Oh...
I stand corrected. Sorry.
I'm of opinion that the death penalty isn't a deterrence.
Whole-life jail sentences without any prospect of release amount to inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, the European court of human rights has ruled.
The landmark judgment will set the ECHR on a fresh collision course with the UK government but does not mean that any of the applicants – the convicted murderers Jeremy Bamber, Peter Moore and Douglas Vinter – are likely to be released soon.
In its decision, the Strasbourg court said there had been a violation of article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment.
The judgment said: "For a life sentence to remain compatible with article 3 there had to be both a possibility of release and a possibility of review."
The court emphasised, however, that "the finding of a violation in the applicants' cases should not be understood as giving them any prospect of imminent release. Whether or not they should be released would depend, for example, on whether there were still legitimate penological grounds for their continued detention and whether they should continue to be detained on grounds of dangerousness. These questions were not in issue."
The appeal was brought by Vinter, who murdered a colleague in 1996 and after being released stabbed his wife in 2008; Bamber, now 51, who killed his parents, his sister Sheila Cafell and her two young children in 1985; and Moore, who killed four gay men for his sexual gratification in 1995.
The judges in the grand chamber at Strasbourg, the appeal court above the ECHR, found by a majority of 16 to one that there had been a violation of human rights. The judges awarded Vinter €40,000 (£34,500) for his legal costs.
Their decision means that the government will now be under pressure to introduce a formal review of whole-life sentences after 25 years. The current law governing release of life prisoners in England and Wales was unclear, the judges said.
Those on a whole-life term can be freed only by the justice secretary, who can give discretion on compassionate grounds when the prisoner is terminally ill or seriously incapacitated.
The ruling comes shortly after the home secretary, Theresa May, voiced her frustrations with the European courts in the Commons in the wake of the lengthy fight to deport the radical cleric Abu Qatada from the UK.
In its judgment, the grand chamber said: "The need for independent judges to determine whether a whole-life order may be imposed is quite separate from the need for such whole-life orders to be reviewed at a later stage so as to ensure that they remain justified on legitimate penological grounds."
It added: "Given that the stated intention of the [2003 Criminal Justice Act] was to remove the executive entirely from the decision-making process concerning life sentences, it would have been more consistent to provide that, henceforth, the 25-year review [of whole-life sentences], instead of being eliminated completely, would be conducted within a wholly judicial framework rather than, as before, by the executive subject to judicial control."
The new British judge on the court, Paul Mahoney, pointed out in his comments that the UK government was "of course free to choose the means whereby they will fulfil their international treaty obligation" to abide by the judgment.
In response to the decision, Bamber said: "I am the only person in the UK who was [retrospectively] given a life tariff on a majority verdict that maintains innocence. The verdict today seems in so many ways to be hollow, as I am still serving a prison sentence for a crime I did not commit. My whole-life order has now been given a system of reviews, but there is no provision for someone who is wrongly convicted to prove that they are worthy of release, such hope is in reality no hope at all.
"Reviews and parole hearings are subject to a risk assessment to gauge dangerousness and this is influenced by the inmate's confession, remorse and rehabilitation for reintegration back into the community. In my case I do not fit the criteria for parole on this basis.
"The justice system, despite the investment in the Criminal Cases Review Commission, still refuses to accept that there are prisoners who are innocent of the crimes they have been convicted of and this comes into conflict with sentence reviews.
"While there are some people who have been released at the end of their sentence and still maintained innocence, such as Eddie Gilfoyle and Susan May, it is unlikely that I would ever be released without my conviction being overturned in a court of law simply because of the high-profile nature of my case. As is always, the law does not apply if it assists me in any way."
Bamber's statement was released by those campaigning to overturn his conviction for killing five members of his family at a farmhouse in Essex in 1985.
During the original hearing in Strasbourg, Pete Weatherby QC, who represented the three claimants, told the court: "The imposition of a whole-life sentence crushes human dignity from the outset, as it removes any chance and therefore any hope of release in the future. The individual is left in a position of hopelessness whereby he cannot progress whatever occurs."
Commenting on the decision, Rebecca Niblock, a criminal law solicitor at Kingsley Napley LLP, said: "No doubt there will be renewed calls to pull out of the European convention on human rights and repeal the Human Rights Act. Yet Theresa May would do well to keep a sense of proportion: a right to have the sentence reviewed is quite different from a right to be released, and the number of prisoners affected is tiny – 49."
"England and Wales lag behind other European countries in the use of the whole-life sentence – the only other EU country which uses it is Holland. The repeated calls to withdraw from the European convention carry a huge risk of undermining the UK's reputation abroad. There is only so much the UK can say to other countries about their human rights records when they show disdain for judgments which go against them at Strasbourg.
"Making political capital at the expense of the rule of law is a dangerous game."
boyd wrote: You can find reasons for and against the death penalty. The death penalty should exist as a deterrent for people who commit heinous crimes. I have no problem with a person who committed first degree murder being executed if you can prove to the jury he did it. I have no problem with the defendent getting one last shot to prove his innocence before his execution.
The problem becomes though, if it is supposed to be a wonderful deterrent, you MUST use it.
And haven't we (the US) determined that a person convicted of a felony no longer has rights? I mean, he/she can't vote, can't really hold a job anywhere legal (or rather, that no place that does strictly legal business would hire them for any meaningful work), they are in essence among the worst drains on public funds and resources.
We also know of plenty of ways to execute someone that are just as effective as lethal injection. The people who do actually commit the sort of crimes that deserve capitol punishment, and are actually guilty are really inhuman, so what bother is it to anyone else how they die?
Given the choice, I would much rather kill rapists and child molesters than the average murderer. Despite the previous link on the topic, it isn't all that likely for a murderer to kill again.
Sex offenders, however, end up in jail again all the time. They deserve no mercy.
MrDwhitey wrote: And now in before "Acceptable collateral" comments.
I think my collars are fine and completely acceptable. What are yout alking about...er never mind...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: The fact that we are killing people for heinous crimes as a deterrent, and that hundreds of years later people still commit henious crimes that they are getting killed for, should make it obvious that it doesn't appear to be a very effective deterrent.
You just made the argument that no criminals should ever be sentenced, because laws haven't stopped crime from happening. Thats hilarious on its face.
azazel the cat wrote: Even just once is too often. And the problem isn't with advances in forensic DNA analysis, the problem is with a jury being able to understand the findings, in addition to several evidenciary problems surrounding collection and transportation. Recombinant DNA analysis is fantastic; however there are many, many flaws attributable to human error at several steps of the process.
Which is why we will often have the Defense obtain their own experts to rebut forensics, and why almost all the forensic tests done on evidence are peer reviewed to minimise the risk of error.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: [
Just for fun, rates of intentional homicides per 100,000 people:
USA: 4.8
So it looks like there are quite a few countries that managed to lower the homicide rate without the whole "We are going to execute you, that will show the others and keep them playing nice" thing.
There may be plenty of arguments for the death penalty, but "it is a deterent" doesn't seem to be one of them.
And are those figures from the USA State executions or federal execution? Are those homicides in States without the death penalty?
azazel the cat wrote: Even just once is too often. And the problem isn't with advances in forensic DNA analysis, the problem is with a jury being able to understand the findings, in addition to several evidenciary problems surrounding collection and transportation. Recombinant DNA analysis is fantastic; however there are many, many flaws attributable to human error at several steps of the process.
Which is why we will often have the Defense obtain their own experts to rebut forensics, and why almost all the forensic tests done on evidence are peer reviewed to minimise the risk of error.
The cost of experts for the defense is unfortunately often not available due to the financial burden. And those forensic tests are not peer reviewed; the clinical trials and studies themselves may be, but the individual tests on a case-by-case basis are not peer reviewed.
And again, please read the posted link to understand why all of that is sometimes moot right from the beginning.
azazel the cat wrote: The cost of experts for the defense is unfortunately often not available due to the financial burden. And those forensic tests are not peer reviewed; the clinical trials and studies themselves may be, but the individual tests on a case-by-case basis are not peer reviewed.
And again, please read the posted link to understand why all of that is sometimes moot right from the beginning.
I've read plenty of forensic reports concerning the evidence in criminal cases, and all of them have had peer review of their findings. I have never seen a forensic report that has not had this.
And one example does not an argument make.
azazel the cat wrote: Where the death penalty is concerned, one example most certainly does an argument make.
So we're back to the absolutist argument then? That sort of limits any sort of scope for discussion then doesn't it.
Let's break this down into concrete terms then!
Let's grant that in general killing people for their crimes is A-OK, but killing them for other reasons is not. This isn't my stance but let's assume it for the sake of argument.
Now let's assume that a single example of wrongful evidence or conviction is not enough to invalidate the death penalty, from above.
Now given the justice system is made of humans and relies on evidence in one way another produced or gathered by humans we assume the justice system is not infallible. That is to say there will be some non-zero rate of execution of people who didn't actually commit the crime the sentence was passed for.
We also acknowledge that ideal rate executions from false convictions is one that approaches zero, but this isn't particularly useful for drawing any conclusions about what non-zero rate of executions from false convictions is acceptable. Rather we should focus on the upper limit of many of these executions is acceptable. That is the relevant figure is how many executions do you have to get right for each one you get wrong in order to have a properly functioning system of capital punishment.
So with that I ask, what is that number? 1 Innocent is worth how many guilty? Are we talking like it's OK to fry 1 innocent dude if you get 10 guilty ones, 100? Is a 1:1 ratio enough?
You mean that you want me to give you an arbitrary figure that you later object to, then try and find out how I reached this figure, and then attempt to demonize me for saying that it's acceptable that innocent people die?
I still want to know how many death penalty sentences have been overturned with DNA evidence since DNA evidence has started to be regularly used as evidence in death penalty cases.
Have there been any? It seems like a lot of them that have been overturned have been cases in which DNA evidence was not presented in the original trial.
Hordini wrote: I still want to know how many death penalty sentences have been overturned with DNA evidence since DNA evidence has started to be regularly used as evidence in death penalty cases.
Have there been any? It seems like a lot of them that have been overturned have been cases in which DNA evidence was not presented in the original trial.
I've asked that question also, I too would be interested in hearing back
That's why I was talking about a spectrum of guilt.
There are some cases that may be questionable, so it is reasonable to want that sentence commuted. If your DNA ties you to the perpetration of a capital crime, sorry.
I don't know about any specific death penalty cases.
But there have been plenty of cases where DNA evidence was used to get a conviction, and it later turns out that lab personel screwed up the DNA evidence or even flat-out lied about DNA evidence that was presented. So it would appear that DNA evidence is not an 100% guarantee of preventing wrongful convictions.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You mean that you want me to give you an arbitrary figure that you later object to, then try and find out how I reached this figure, and then attempt to demonize me for saying that it's acceptable that innocent people die?
I can see that being hugely productive....
Are you willing to back up your position or not? It doesn't even have to be an exact figure a loose figure will do. This waffling reeks of cognitive dissonance.
In the United States, prisoners may wait years before execution can be carried out due to the complex, expensive, and time-consuming appeals procedures mandated in the jurisdiction. The time between sentencing and execution has increased relatively steadily between 1977 and 2010, including a 22% jump between 1989 and 1990 and a similar jump between 2008 and 2009. In 2010, a death row inmate waited an average of 178 months (or close to 15 years) between sentencing and execution.[1] Nearly a quarter of deaths on death row in the U.S. are due to natural causes.[2]
When the United Kingdom had capital punishment, the convicted were given one appeal of their sentence. If that appeal was found to involve an important point of law it was taken up to the House of Lords, and if the appeal was successful, at that point the sentence was changed to life in prison.[3] The Home Secretary in the United Kingdom had the power to exercise the Sovereign's royal prerogative of mercy to grant a reprieve on execution and change the sentence to life imprisonment. In some Caribbean countries which still authorize execution, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the ultimate court of appeals. It has upheld appeals by prisoners who have spent several years under sentence of death, stating that it does not desire to see the death row phenomenon emerge in countries under its jurisdiction.
Didn't know that about the UK. I think if a deathrow inmate had a choice of waiting like 15 yrs or accept a verdict of Sharia Law. I bet he go with the 15 yrs with the appeals instead of almost a automatic beheading.
Chongara wrote: Are you willing to back up your position or not? It doesn't even have to be an exact figure a loose figure will do. This waffling reeks of cognitive dissonance.
In modern psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions.
Far from it, I just want to avoid a pointless conversation that will get the discussion no further forward when I already know what the end game is. Sorry to spoil your fun though.
Chongara wrote: Are you willing to back up your position or not? It doesn't even have to be an exact figure a loose figure will do. This waffling reeks of cognitive dissonance.
In modern psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions.
Far from it, I just want to avoid a pointless conversation that will get the discussion no further forward when I already know what the end game is. Sorry to spoil your fun though.
You're flat-out refusing to provide any kind concrete... or even loose statements on a fundamental part of belief you're claiming to hold. If that doesn't scream of someone holding conflict reactions, I don't know what does. It's kind of irrelevant to be perfectly honest.
Ultimately you've taken a position and refuse to support it. You've got no ground to stand on. Regardless of if you really have a figure in your head you're really OK with but just don't want share or not.
EDIT:
d-usa wrote: I don't know about any specific death penalty cases.
But there have been plenty of cases where DNA evidence was used to get a conviction, and it later turns out that lab personel screwed up the DNA evidence or even flat-out lied about DNA evidence that was presented. So it would appear that DNA evidence is not an 100% guarantee of preventing wrongful convictions.
Just imagine if Annie Dookhan had worked in DNA lab in Texas.
Chongara wrote: You're flat-out refusing to provide any kind concrete... or even loose statements on a fundamental part of belief you're claiming to hold. If that doesn't scream of someone holding conflict reactions, I don't know what does. It's kind of irrelevant to be perfectly honest.
Ultimately you've taken a position and refuse to support it. You've got no ground to stand on. Regardless of if you really have a figure in your head you're really OK with but just don't want share or not.
No, I'm refusing to come up with an arbitrary number of innocent people that I'd have executed because, as I've said previously, it is an exercise in futility - no matter what figure I come up with you'll ask how I arrived at it, then object to it, then use it against me to show that I support the deaths of innocents (as your last sentence shows) when what I am saying is that I support fully the punishment of the guilty. That is not contradicting my position, that is refusing with unreasonable requests to provide you with ammunition to undermine my character. There is a difference there.
Jihadin wrote: You two want to take a breather and come back using another tact to get across?
Thank you but I think we're at a natural impasse here, I don't see the conversation between us moving in a direction that could be seen as constructive so we may just have to agree to disagree.
azazel the cat wrote: Considering the penalty is as absolute as it gets, I don't see any other way to conduct such a discussion.
Well, as long as you're aware that you're actively arguing from a position that eliminates discussion.
Incarceration is pretty absolute too, barring use of a time machine you don't get back those lost years.
Jihadin wrote: You two want to take a breather and come back using another tact to get across?
Thank you but I think we're at a natural impasse here, I don't see the conversation between us moving in a direction that could be seen as constructive so we may just have to agree to disagree.
I'll agree to no such thing. I would agree to the fact you've basically forfeited your position by refusing to do anything in the way of supporting or justifying it.
azazel the cat wrote: Considering the penalty is as absolute as it gets, I don't see any other way to conduct such a discussion.
Well, as long as you're aware that you're actively arguing from a position that eliminates discussion.
Incarceration is pretty absolute too, barring use of a time machine you don't get back those lost years.
His position does nothing to eliminate discussion. There is plenty of discussion to be had. He has made the assertion that the number of acceptable innocent losses is 0. The way to discuss is to disagree, assert how many innocent losses are acceptable as well as why and then assuming position is sound, you'll ultimately win out. However the only step you've made thus far is to disagree. You've made no statement as to how many losses are acceptable and why they are acceptable. That is a perfectly viable way to continue the debate from the current positions. The only impasse we're at is the one you're facing with regards to backing up your position.
Chongara wrote: His position does nothing to eliminate discussion. There is plenty of discussion to be had. He has made the assertion that the number of acceptable innocent losses is 0. The way to discuss is to disagree, assert how many innocent losses are acceptable as well as why and then assuming position is sound, you'll ultimately win out. However the only step you've made thus far is to disagree. You've made no statement as to how many losses are acceptable and why they are acceptable. That is a perfectly viable way to continue the debate from the current positions. The only impasse we're at is the one you're facing with regards to backing up your position.
I have set out my position above. You, and Azazel, have indicated that you have a position that you will not shift from. Your position by definition is one that eliminates discussion.
Chongara wrote: I'll agree to no such thing. I would agree to the fact you've basically forfeited your position by refusing to do anything in the way of supporting or justifying it.
That is your prerogative.
It is unfortunate that you seek to prolong a conversation that due to your absolutist position cannot progress. I will not be responding to you further concerning this matter.
whembly wrote: EDIT: I'm groaning that you're using that stat d... I'd argue that most of those are drug/gang related homicides that we in the US of A have in spades. I wish there's a way to extrapolate those stats in such a way to identify "gang-related homicides", "drug-related homicides", "burglery homicide"... etc.
So whatever is causing the murder rate in the US, it isn't drugs and the crime gangs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: We also know of plenty of ways to execute someone that are just as effective as lethal injection. The people who do actually commit the sort of crimes that deserve capitol punishment, and are actually guilty are really inhuman, so what bother is it to anyone else how they die?
I'm really, really not comfortable with the idea of killing someone because we deem them a drain on resources.
I mean, I'm not even all that bothered by the death penalty anymore, because the person's life is pretty much wasted whether they're killed or they sit in maximum security for the rest of their lives, but the actual list of reasons given for the death penalty, whether it's deterrence or victim's rights or drain on resources... well ultimately they all just kind of leave me a little befuddled.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: I still want to know how many death penalty sentences have been overturned with DNA evidence since DNA evidence has started to be regularly used as evidence in death penalty cases.
Have there been any? It seems like a lot of them that have been overturned have been cases in which DNA evidence was not presented in the original trial.
Now that doesn't answer your question exactly, but if we look at the instances of cases being overturned 2008 to 2012, we see 18 cases overturned. Of those 18 cases, only 4 were convicted before 1990, which we can draw as a rough line in the sand as when DNA evidence started becoming standard. So we're looking at 14 cases in just the last five years overturned, despite being tried in the era in which DNA evidence was common and expected.
Chongara wrote: His position does nothing to eliminate discussion. There is plenty of discussion to be had. He has made the assertion that the number of acceptable innocent losses is 0. The way to discuss is to disagree, assert how many innocent losses are acceptable as well as why and then assuming position is sound, you'll ultimately win out. However the only step you've made thus far is to disagree. You've made no statement as to how many losses are acceptable and why they are acceptable. That is a perfectly viable way to continue the debate from the current positions. The only impasse we're at is the one you're facing with regards to backing up your position.
I have set out my position above. You, and Azazel, have indicated that you have a position that you will not shift from. Your position by definition is one that eliminates discussion.
It doesn't. It eliminates compromise. There is a significant difference.
I'm actually in favour of the death penalty in some cases, however I maintain the stance that a non-zero figure of wrongful punishments is intolerable.
And yes, I can reconcile those two positions: I want HD video, DNA evidence, a bragging confession and maybe even some selfies of the culprit posing with the deceased victim during the act.
Dreadclaw, Chongara does have the right of it. If you disagree with me, then you have yet to state what position you hold, other than being purely contrarian. So far as I can tell, you position appears to be that you disagree, and if I am unwilling to compromise, then there is no debate to be had. If that is your position, then it is ridiculous on its face as it implies that you do not wish to debate, but rather to preach to your choir.
So I am legitimately curious as to what your magic number of acceptable collateral casualties is in order to support the death penalty. If it is zero like mine is, then we've got little to debate. However, if it is a non-zero number (perhaps even expressed as a percentage or function of the number of executions) then I would be interested in knowing what it was, and what your justification for such is. Ultimately, my position is such:
It is completely unacceptable for the state to execute even a single innocent person. If the purpose of execution is to ensure the offender never harms society again, then that need can be fulfilled by life without parole instead, thus ensuring the state never does execute an innocent person. While the state may err and cannot give back a portion of a person's life, the state also cannot give back a person's entire future, either, if execution is the method. This issue is not present when using life imprisonment in plaec of such. And cost does not factor into my reasoning.
azazel the cat wrote: I'm actually in favour of the death penalty in some cases, however I maintain the stance that a non-zero figure of wrongful punishments is intolerable.
And yes, I can reconcile those two positions: I want HD video, DNA evidence, a bragging confession and maybe even some selfies of the culprit posing with the deceased victim during the act.
So you are in favour of the death penalty, but only if we have to cross an unreasonably high threshold of evidence? Yeah, again I'm not seeing much potential for constructive dialogue.
Life without parole is currently justice-less. While they lack freedom to leave the prison, they DO get a comfy cell and square meals, with no real financial burden.
Now, execution would be less needed if, say, the financial burden of Lifers comes out of their OWN bank books.
I'm with Whembly on "Hard Labor and Chain Gangs"....though I want pink stripe prison outfits. Hell with it. Total pink prison uniforms. Though I do have an issue of the "SoL" factor upon release from a facility and stigma. Culturaly I think its ingrained in us to ignore the "bad people". Their best bet in life....French Foreign Legion
Jihadin wrote: I'm with Whembly on "Hard Labor and Chain Gangs"....though I want pink stripe prison outfits. Hell with it. Total pink prison uniforms. Though I do have an issue of the "SoL" factor upon release from a facility and stigma. Culturaly I think its ingrained in us to ignore the "bad people". Their best bet in life....French Foreign Legion
We could totally do better than the French's Foreign Legion.. Probably come up with a flashier name too
Jihadin wrote: I'm with Whembly on "Hard Labor and Chain Gangs"....though I want pink stripe prison outfits. Hell with it. Total pink prison uniforms. Though I do have an issue of the "SoL" factor upon release from a facility and stigma. Culturaly I think its ingrained in us to ignore the "bad people". Their best bet in life....French Foreign Legion
We could totally do better than the French's Foreign Legion.. Probably come up with a flashier name too
If they're prisioners in pink stripey uniforms can we call them the Penile Legion?
The FFL doesn't let in serious criminals anymore, so most prisoners wouldn't even have that option.
In a lot of cases working outside is preferable to rotting in a prison cell anyway. There's a reason only well-behaved prisoners get to go on work details.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So you are in favour of the death penalty, but only if we have to cross an unreasonably high threshold of evidence? Yeah, again I'm not seeing much potential for constructive dialogue.
Dude, did you read my post? In the last 5 years 14 people have been released having been wrongfully convicted and put on death row in trials in the age of DNA evidence. How is it setting an unreasonably high threshold to want a higher threshold than that?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So you are in favour of the death penalty, but only if we have to cross an unreasonably high threshold of evidence? Yeah, again I'm not seeing much potential for constructive dialogue.
Dude, did you read my post? In the last 5 years 14 people have been released having been wrongfully convicted and put on death row in trials in the age of DNA evidence. How is it setting an unreasonably high threshold to want a higher threshold than that?
Because it conflicts with the sense of power he gets from being able to think of people dying due to a concept of "Justice" he supports. It's that's a rather ugly truth to face hence the vague attacks on every criticism towards the idea, with no substantive argument to back it up. It's hard to admit, even to oneself. That's way the evidence looks to me at least.
Chongara wrote: Because it conflicts with the sense of power he gets from being able to think of people dying due to a concept of "Justice" he supports. It's that's a rather ugly truth to face hence the vague attacks on every criticism towards him. It's hard to admit, even to oneself. That's way the evidence looks to me at least.
Yeah, it's a primal human thing - harsh punishment for a horrible crime. Which is basically why the death penalty is so dangerous, because when you're tapping in to such a powerful instinct its easy for emotion to get dominance over rationality. Which I think is a pretty major part of the reason so many innocent people ended up on death row.
Did they come off deathrow due to advancement in DNA Forensic? Or did they come off Deathrow due to new evidence appearing? Before we get "unhinge" were those convicted to deathrow when the legal system were started introducing DNA evidence? How many of those were 14 were convicted during the transition period? Lets try not to make it like 90% of deathrow inmates are innocent.
Jihadin wrote: Did they come off deathrow due to advancement in DNA Forensic? Or did they come off Deathrow due to new evidence appearing? Before we get "unhinge" were those convicted to deathrow when the legal system were started introducing DNA evidence? How many of those were 14 were convicted during the transition period?
We'll start with the most recent acquittal - Seth Penalver. He was released in 2012, after being convicted in 1997 of a 1994 murder. Penalver was linked to the crime by an associate of the other person at murder (who would later state at trial that he wasn't sure if Penalver had been at the scene, and that he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol when he told police Penalver was involved... and police would testify at trial that no witness had received a reward for their statement, despite having paid that witness through Crime Stoppers). There was surveillance footage at the home of the victim, and though it was blurry three people who knew Penalver said looked like him (police interview notes would later show none of the three made identifications at first and only did so after considerable pressure, and two stated at trial that they had been told they were signing only to establish that they had looked at the picture, not that they were giving a positive identification). Both the prosecution and the defence facial reconstruction experts stated they couldn't be certain if the image in the surveillance footage was Penalver. Police had a footprints at the scene, including a bloody one, but they didn't match any shoe belonging to Penalver. A shirt found at the scene contained human hair, but it didn't match Penalver's hair. Penalver's ex-girlfriend (one of the people who identified him in the surveillance images) claimed she saw Penalver using a washing machine with pink foam, suggesting he was washing off blood, and driving a car that matched the victim's, but the girl's mother disputed this (the ex-girlfriend would later confess to changing her statement to suit police, to get more leniant treatment for her new boyfriend). There's some other minor stuff, but that's basically the nuts and bolts of the case.
That was enough to get a mistrial (10 guilty, 2 innocent), and then in a second trial Penalver was found guilty and sentenced to death.
In 2006 the case was reviewed, and the judges found that the surveillance footage was not sufficient to make an identification. They also found evidence of police pressure on the eye witnesses, and other dubious elements. This opened the door to another trial, at which, after 15 years on death row, he was fully acquitted.
Anyhow, does that give you an idea of how weak some cases are, that still produce death sentences? If you want we can move on to the next one, reading about Penalver was kind of fun
Lets try not to make it like 90% of deathrow inmates are innocent.
No-one is saying that. But exactly how high would you allow the percentage of innocent deathrow in-mates to be before you thought the death penalty was an issue? 5%? 2%?
No-one is saying that. But exactly how high would you allow the percentage of innocent deathrow in-mates to be before you thought the death penalty was an issue? 5%? 2%?
Like I said earlier, I'd abolish Dealth Penatly and reinstitute incarcerated forced hard labor:
Some would argue that many incarcerated would love to work "hard outside" and not exactly punishment. My retort is that it isn't about punishment per se, but to separate those convicted of crimes from society. Plus, inmates who has worked hard all day would be too tired to do any shenanigans in prison.
The other issue, which is OT, is that we need to get away from privatizing our states jail (Federal is still government ran). But, that's a whole different topic.
In 2006 the case was reviewed, and the judges found that the surveillance footage was not sufficient to make an identification. They also found evidence of police pressure on the eye witnesses, and other dubious elements. This opened the door to another trial, at which, after 15 years on death row, he was fully acquitted.
Sounds like an Appeal Court did this. I do prefer a 2nd set of eyes that's impartial to the case to review the case.
For the life of me I either cannot google fu or make it Barney level to find out how many or the process of appeals an inmate has. Now I'm seeing 20 to 30 yrs wait.
I prefer "Zero" percent in screwing up in executing someone. Even though its a long and lengthy process to actually execute someone who may or may not be guilty. (Pain meds kicking in) We owe it to the individual we condemn to death to be afforded all appeals and any chance to come off death row. Its not a perfect system we have...well some states have but its one system that's being faded out. Granted there should be some nightmare of a person that really needs to go. Like the Arabic guy in Saudie that was recently executed for raping 30+ minors. Brutal raping.
Major Hasan. The Fort Hood shooter. Even though I like for him to get "opted" out. Its not going to happen, This guy wants to be executed. Its more harsher if we let him live.
whembly wrote: Like I said earlier, I'd abolish Dealth Penatly and reinstitute incarcerated forced hard labor:
Some would argue that many incarcerated would love to work "hard outside" and not exactly punishment. My retort is that it isn't about punishment per se, but to separate those convicted of crimes from society. Plus, inmates who has worked hard all day would be too tired to do any shenanigans in prison.
The numbers I've seen have shown society doesn't actually get any benefit out of mandatory chain gang labour. The extra costs of security outweigh the work delivered (people who are forced to work for no reward will do just enough to avoid punishment, and it turns out just enough is very little indeed). That changes when you look at voluntary prison workforces (prisoners volunteering to do work, in order to get some kind of benefit like money on leaving prison).
And then there's the issue of security. Maximum security is what it is for a reason, and taking prisoners outside in work situations is a whole lot of steps below maximum security. Even in the days of chain gangs they didn't put the seriously hard nuts to work.
The other issue, which is OT, is that we need to get away from privatizing our states jail (Federal is still government ran). But, that's a whole different topic.
Yeah, it's a whole other topic and a major one. I think it might take another decade for the greater public to realise how screwed up that has been.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Sounds like an Appeal Court did this. I do prefer a 2nd set of eyes that's impartial to the case to review the case.
Absolutely. Preferably a third and fourth set of eyes as well, all fully independant of each other.
I prefer "Zero" percent in screwing up in executing someone. Even though its a long and lengthy process to actually execute someone who may or may not be guilty.
Absolutely, and the problem then is that given what we know about the current system, and about human systems in general, I'm not sure 0% is achievable. Especially when you add something as emotive as the death penalty in to the question.
I mean, I don't really have a problem with the death penalty handed out to the people like you mentioned. It's just that having a death penalty for them means having a systems of law where each case needs to be assessed as to whether guilt is unquestionably, 100% certain, or just 'we're pretty damn certain and really angry about what happened to the victim'.
Part of the problem is probably that many people don't realize how horrendous and savage a sentence like life without parole actually is. If there's no chance of parole whatsoever, what reason does the prisoner have to be well behaved or to improve himself?
sebster wrote: Dude, did you read my post? In the last 5 years 14 people have been released having been wrongfully convicted and put on death row in trials in the age of DNA evidence. How is it setting an unreasonably high threshold to want a higher threshold than that?
Dude, did you read the post I was responding to? That may have been useful instead of rushing to build a straw man. Here's the post in case you missed it;
azazel the cat wrote: I want HD video, DNA evidence, a bragging confession and maybe even some selfies of the culprit posing with the deceased victim during the act.
So HD video, DNA, and a bragging confession (not even just a regular "I did it" confession), plus optional selfies of the culprit during the act. Please state your case as to how that criteria is in anyway a reasonable request. It is an almost impossible burden to meet, and only gives a veneer to the claim that someone supports the death penalty. Had the same restrictive criteria been placed on providing abortions we would be hearing how grossly unfair and disproportionate they were.
So HD video, DNA, and a bragging confession (not even just a regular "I did it" confession), plus optional selfies of the culprit during the act.Please state your case as to how that criteria is in anyway a reasonable request. It is an almost impossible burden to meet, and only gives a veneer to the claim that someone supports the death penalty. Had the same restrictive criteria been placed on providing abortions we would be hearing how grossly unfair and disproportionate they were.
This is so adorable my ovaries are going to burst.
azazel the cat wrote: I want HD video, DNA evidence, a bragging confession and maybe even some selfies of the culprit posing with the deceased victim during the act.
So HD video, DNA, and a bragging confession (not even just a regular "I did it" confession), plus optional selfies of the culprit during the act. Please state your case as to how that criteria is in anyway a reasonable request. It is an almost impossible burden to meet, and only gives a veneer to the claim that someone supports the death penalty. Had the same restrictive criteria been placed on providing abortions we would be hearing how grossly unfair and disproportionate they were.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post, and I want you to know that I seriously expected better of you than this.
So we'll start with this first question, and unless you can answer it, then there is no reason for you to continue here:
How many executions of innocent people do you consider to be acceptable? If you cannot answer this question, then you may as well not respond at all.
azazel the cat wrote: I want HD video, DNA evidence, a bragging confession and maybe even some selfies of the culprit posing with the deceased victim during the act.
So HD video, DNA, and a bragging confession (not even just a regular "I did it" confession), plus optional selfies of the culprit during the act. Please state your case as to how that criteria is in anyway a reasonable request. It is an almost impossible burden to meet, and only gives a veneer to the claim that someone supports the death penalty. Had the same restrictive criteria been placed on providing abortions we would be hearing how grossly unfair and disproportionate they were.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post, and I want you to know that I seriously expected better of you than this.
So we'll start with this first question, and unless you can answer it, then there is no reason for you to continue here:
How many executions of innocent people do you consider to be acceptable? If you cannot answer this question, then you may as well not respond at all.
On the other hand, I think you find it unacceptable that someone who commited a crime to put him in danger of execution avoids that sentence and then goes on to kill other people. The question is in my mind, where is the balance? More people are murdered by those who avoided the death penalty than there are innocent people executed.
azazel the cat wrote: This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post, and I want you to know that I seriously expected better of you than this.
So we'll start with this first question, and unless you can answer it, then there is no reason for you to continue here:
How many executions of innocent people do you consider to be acceptable? If you cannot answer this question, then you may as well not respond at all.
For someone with an entrenched position, and who sets out agreeing with something in principal but then sets an impossibly high hurdle to the actual practice of it then perhaps it is you who should not have responded as you are not actually interested in a discussion - merely a lecture based on your own talking points.
Funny enough, that was also my reaction when I read your response. Can we please stop with the continued, repeated, worn out fallacy that people supporting the death penalty are in favour of innocent people being executed. It's such a transparent loaded question you may as well ask "Do you still beat your wife".
For someone who so strenuously objects to fallacies, and takes pains to point them out when he sees them, I'm surprised that you would use one yourself.
azazel the cat wrote: This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post, and I want you to know that I seriously expected better of you than this.
So we'll start with this first question, and unless you can answer it, then there is no reason for you to continue here:
How many executions of innocent people do you consider to be acceptable? If you cannot answer this question, then you may as well not respond at all.
For someone with an entrenched position, and who sets out agreeing with something in principal but then sets an impossibly high hurdle to the actual practice of it then perhaps it is you who should not have responded as you are not actually interested in a discussion - merely a lecture based on your own talking points.
Funny enough, that was also my reaction when I read your response. Can we please stop with the continued, repeated, worn out fallacy that people supporting the death penalty are in favour of innocent people being executed. It's such a transparent loaded question you may as well ask "Do you still beat your wife".
For someone who so strenuously objects to fallacies, and takes pains to point them out when he sees them, I'm surprised that you would use one yourself.
It's not a fallacy. If you support the death penalty, you must inherently support the executions of innocents. This is because the justice system is an imperfect system subject to human error - that is not always caught. This means that any sentence passed by it, will at least on occasion be on a passed on an innocent person. This means it is impossible to have a system of capital punishment that does not also execute innocent people..
Executing the innocent is fundamentally a part of running a system of capital punishment. To claim you support the death penalty but not the killing of innocents is like claiming you support the existence of sandwiches, but not the existence of bread. Then when somebody points out "Sandwiches are made with bread, you must support some kind of bread. What is it?" you go "Nuh-Uh. I'm not going to answer your question, it isn't constructive."
The position you seem to be trying to take "The death penalty is something I support, but I don't support the killing of innocents" is entirely incoherent and self-contradicting
Frazzled wrote: Remember, if you support prison, you must inherently support the imprisonment of innocents.
This is also true. It becomes at that point an question of what kind of false conviction rate you're comfortable with before you'd call the system broken.
Frazzled wrote: Remember, if you support prison, you must inherently support the imprisonment of innocents.
This is also true. It becomes at that point an question of what kind of false conviction rate you're comfortable with before you'd call the system broken.
One is too many? Everyone is guilty of something? Why are you asking me I only work here pal?
Frazzled wrote: Remember, if you support prison, you must inherently support the imprisonment of innocents.
3 hots and a cot? What's not to like about being locked up? So you have to deal with your bunk mate getting frisky, and shankings kinda suck, but no rent, no bills, and if you're lucky get locked up in one of the 8 states that allow conjugal visits!
Alfndrate wrote: 3 hots and a cot? What's not to like about being locked up? So you have to deal with your bunk mate getting frisky, and shankings kinda suck, but no rent, no bills, and if you're lucky get locked up in one of the 8 states that allow conjugal visits!
Frazzled wrote: Remember, if you support prison, you must inherently support the imprisonment of innocents.
This is also true. It becomes at that point an question of what kind of false conviction rate you're comfortable with before you'd call the system broken.
One is too many? Everyone is guilty of something? Why are you asking me I only work here pal?
I really wasn't asking you directly. Simply pointing out that my line of reasoning is consistent in that respect. To take a "You must support some level of killing innocents" stance in regard to the death penalty, but deny "You must support some level of jailing innocents" in regards to prisons would be hypocritical.
That said I honestly don't really support our prison system as it exists in it's current form. It's incredibly toxic and I'm not wholly convinced it keeps more serious or violent criminals off the streets than it creates and then pushes back out but that's the kind of thing that's hard to get a real handle on. I suppose it represents the least of all of currently available evils, so I kind begrudgingly throw myself in support of it for lack of better option... but that's entirely different topic.
That said if we're talking about false conviction rates in general, I'd probably be comfortable with anything at or below 1 in 500. Just if someone wants an answer similar to the one I've been pushing for from others. Which depending on the figure you believes we're somewhere between "Not quite there" and "Nowhere close to to".
I mean I've got issues all sorts of issues with our criminal justice system, up to an including the retributive approach it uses to handle crime. It's just that death penalty is one of the most egregiously immoral parts of our system, and the one that people are most willing to look at.
Alfndrate wrote: 3 hots and a cot? What's not to like about being locked up? So you have to deal with your bunk mate getting frisky, and shankings kinda suck, but no rent, no bills, and if you're lucky get locked up in one of the 8 states that allow conjugal visits!
And a college education with no debt
Which prisons offer a college education with no debt?
Alfndrate wrote: 3 hots and a cot? What's not to like about being locked up? So you have to deal with your bunk mate getting frisky, and shankings kinda suck, but no rent, no bills, and if you're lucky get locked up in one of the 8 states that allow conjugal visits!
And a college education with no debt
Sounds an awful lot like Army life... and I know from experience our food is the same as in the prison system
They live better then us...but food wise.....I never seen the DFAC serve bologna sandwiches....actually...I've seen it a couple times where you can make a bologna sandwich.....then there was a time they serve liver....twice...two days in a row....due to budget cuts...
Jihadin wrote: They live better then us...but food wise.....I never seen the DFAC serve bologna sandwiches....actually...I've seen it a couple times where you can make a bologna sandwich.....then there was a time they serve liver....twice...two days in a row....due to budget cuts...
And I think we're given the same "safety silverware" that they are.... Today's fightin' men and women, and we can't even properly cut our mystery meat
Hordini wrote: Part of the problem is probably that many people don't realize how horrendous and savage a sentence like life without parole actually is. If there's no chance of parole whatsoever, what reason does the prisoner have to be well behaved or to improve himself?
There's a big difference between spending your life in a small box, and spending your life in a small box with a TV, reading material, and visits from friends and family. Prisoners who act poorly can expect to lose access to the latter, giving them incentive to behave.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Dude, did you read the post I was responding to? That may have been useful instead of rushing to build a straw man. Here's the post in case you missed it;
I read it. And I note that he's given a standard, albeit what is likely a fairly exaggerated one. Whereas you haven't given any such thing. And when I gave you a list of people who under the current system were convicted and put on death row despite being innocent, you just kept talking about someone else's standard.
Well, what is your standard for how certain you have to be before someone can be sentenced to death, and do you think courts in the US consistently restrict themselves to that standard?
Hordini wrote: Part of the problem is probably that many people don't realize how horrendous and savage a sentence like life without parole actually is. If there's no chance of parole whatsoever, what reason does the prisoner have to be well behaved or to improve himself?
There's a big difference between spending your life in a small box, and spending your life in a small box with a TV, reading material, and visits from friends and family. Prisoners who act poorly can expect to lose access to the latter, giving them incentive to behave.
People who are imprisoned for life, that aren't out and out psychopaths (which tend to be in isolation anyway) look at prison as home and prefer that their house not be a chaotic mess all the time and tend not to like those who bring drama into their house.
Despite whatever moral arguments I might have against the death penalty, the fact that the system isn't perfect (and I don't think we can ever guarantee a perfect system) is really the #1 reason why I think we need to get rid of it.
d-usa wrote: Despite whatever moral arguments I might have against the death penalty, the fact that the system isn't perfect (and I don't think we can ever guarantee a perfect system) is really the #1 reason why I think we need to get rid of it.
Yup... agreed.
Unless... we throw them in The Thunderdome TM and charge a premium on pay-per-view... BAM! No moar debt! (waaait.... how many movies are based on this premise? )
azazel the cat wrote: @Dreadclaw: chongara seems to have ninja's my response. I still await your explanation as to what an acceptable standard is.
Speaking for me... how 'bout all parties do the best they can without prejudice?
Dear Mr. Whembly:
The state of Missouri is terribly sorry to have executed you wife/son/daughter for capital charges which were later proven to be false. However, we hope you take solace in the fact that the state prosecuted your family member as best they could and without prejudice, and offer you my personal condolences.
azazel the cat wrote: @Dreadclaw: chongara seems to have ninja's my response. I still await your explanation as to what an acceptable standard is.
Speaking for me... how 'bout all parties do the best they can without prejudice?
And if we kill someone innocent its okay because at least we tried?
You either have a 100% fail proof system when it comes to ending the live of somebody accused of being a criminal, or you don't kill people.
Innocent people die every day.
You don't have a 100% fail proof system of preventing people from meeting fatal accidents on constructions sites and oddly enough you build new things all the time.
azazel the cat wrote: @Dreadclaw: chongara seems to have ninja's my response. I still await your explanation as to what an acceptable standard is.
Speaking for me... how 'bout all parties do the best they can without prejudice?
And if we kill someone innocent its okay because at least we tried?
You either have a 100% fail proof system when it comes to ending the live of somebody accused of being a criminal, or you don't kill people.
Innocent people die every day.
You don't have a 100% fail proof system of preventing people from meeting fatal accidents on constructions sites and oddly enough you build new things all the time.
The key difference is those are accidents and not willful acts of the state.
azazel the cat wrote: @Dreadclaw: chongara seems to have ninja's my response. I still await your explanation as to what an acceptable standard is.
Speaking for me... how 'bout all parties do the best they can without prejudice?
And if we kill someone innocent its okay because at least we tried?
You either have a 100% fail proof system when it comes to ending the live of somebody accused of being a criminal, or you don't kill people.
Innocent people die every day.
You don't have a 100% fail proof system of preventing people from meeting fatal accidents on constructions sites and oddly enough you build new things all the time.
I periodically visit prisons as part of my job and you would actually be surprised how different it is from what you would think.
The lifers are often quite well behaved and have the best sense of community. The flowerbeds and vegetable gardens in most prisons are tended by lifers. The young guys who will be out soon are the ones without perspective who start things.
Depending on how long the lifer has been in there, I imagine a level of wisdom could be earned... I would find it interesting to converse with such a person.
azazel the cat wrote: @Dreadclaw: chongara seems to have ninja's my response. I still await your explanation as to what an acceptable standard is.
What an acceptable standard of proof is? The same as it is already - beyond a reasonable doubt, and with the jury reaching a sentence having the proper attention to the law, and any aggravating/mitigating factors.
And please don't try and use an appeal to emotion either. I'd hate for you to be forced to use another fallacy.
azazel the cat wrote: @Dreadclaw: chongara seems to have ninja's my response. I still await your explanation as to what an acceptable standard is.
Speaking for me... how 'bout all parties do the best they can without prejudice?
And if we kill someone innocent its okay because at least we tried?
You either have a 100% fail proof system when it comes to ending the live of somebody accused of being a criminal, or you don't kill people.
Innocent people die every day.
You don't have a 100% fail proof system of preventing people from meeting fatal accidents on constructions sites and oddly enough you build new things all the time.
Stupid argument is stupid.
Its actually not.
Laws are made by human beings. Trials are also made by human beings.
That means that despite everyone's best efforts mistakes will be made. Those mistakes will get innocent people killed, that happens every day as well. "Innocent people will die" has never been a reason to stop doing something because innocent people will die doing practically anything imaginable.
We, as a society, should strive for the goal that there should be no wrongful convictions in any justice system. I can practically guarantee the we will never get there...
If we go by the premise that the world is better off without some people in it (child murderers, child molesters, serial killers, etc), then its not that much of a moral stretch to accept that while achieving that goal, some other people will die and that that is a better outcome than the alternative.
And there is a pretty huge difference between a government passing laws that grant rights and freedoms to people that might result in a death to somebody and a government passing laws that grant no freedoms or rights to anybody but that give the government the power to actively and directly end the lives of people that may be innocent.
"It's okay for the state to kill people that may be innocent because they gave me a drivers license and I could kill somebody anyway."
d-usa wrote: And there is a pretty huge difference between a government passing laws that grant rights and freedoms to people that might result in a death to somebody and a government passing laws that grant no freedoms or rights to anybody but that give the government the power to actively and directly end the lives of people that may be innocent.
"It's okay for the state to kill people that may be innocent because they gave me a drivers license and I could kill somebody anyway."
Stupid argument is stupid.
You are throwing the "stupid" moniker around just a bit too much, don't you think?
And no, in this case the government is passing a law that while it might inadvertently kill an innocent man, will protect society and countless others from child molesters, child murderers, serial killers, etc...
Life without parole still protects society just as much as death, only with less risk to the falsely convicted.
It's a common misconception that they'll still get out, but the "without parole" part really is serious. You only get out of that with a successful court appeal.
azazel the cat wrote: @Dreadclaw: chongara seems to have ninja's my response. I still await your explanation as to what an acceptable standard is.
What an acceptable standard of proof is? The same as it is already - beyond a reasonable doubt, and with the jury reaching a sentence having the proper attention to the law, and any aggravating/mitigating factors.
And please don't try and use an appeal to emotion either. I'd hate for you to be forced to use another fallacy.
You get that the world fallacy isn't defined as "A line of reasoning I don't want to address" right? You've been throwing it around an awful lot when faced with some pretty basic logic.
Rented Tritium wrote: Life without parole still protects society just as much as death, only with less risk to the falsely convicted.
It's a common misconception that they'll still get out, but the "without parole" part really is serious. You only get out of that with a successful court appeal.
Well, that depends if you consider the other convicts and prison guards as members of society or not.
Rented Tritium wrote: Life without parole still protects society just as much as death, only with less risk to the falsely convicted.
It's a common misconception that they'll still get out, but the "without parole" part really is serious. You only get out of that with a successful court appeal.
Except for the fact that these guys are still free to commit murder while in prison, or after they sometimes escape, as has happened in the past
d-usa wrote: Is there any shred of evidence that we are accomplishing anything by having the death penalty that puts us above countries that don't have them?
If we accept the risk of "sometimes we will kill innocent people for the common good", then what are the proven benefits?
Ask people who have had loved ones murdered by convicted killers that were allowed to live and then later set free or escaped prison. I've provided cases of this happening quite a bit to the point it outweighs innocent people executed.
d-usa wrote: Is there any shred of evidence that we are accomplishing anything by having the death penalty that puts us above countries that don't have them?
If we accept the risk of "sometimes we will kill innocent people for the common good", then what are the proven benefits?
Ask people who have had loved ones murdered by convicted killers that were allowed to live and then later set free or escaped prison. I've provided cases of this happening quite a bit to the point it outweighs innocent people executed.
Did such things increase in countries that abolished the death penalty?
d-usa wrote: Is there any shred of evidence that we are accomplishing anything by having the death penalty that puts us above countries that don't have them?
If we accept the risk of "sometimes we will kill innocent people for the common good", then what are the proven benefits?
Ask people who have had loved ones murdered by convicted killers that were allowed to live and then later set free or escaped prison.
So that's a no then?
Would you care for a witty "Ask people whose innocent family member was executed to appease someone else's victims" reply, or do you want to provide actual proof that we are having better results than countries without the death penalty?
d-usa wrote: Is there any shred of evidence that we are accomplishing anything by having the death penalty that puts us above countries that don't have them?
If we accept the risk of "sometimes we will kill innocent people for the common good", then what are the proven benefits?
Ask people who have had loved ones murdered by convicted killers that were allowed to live and then later set free or escaped prison.
So that's a no then?
Would you care for a witty "Ask people whose innocent family member was executed to appease someone else's victims" reply, or do you want to provide actual proof that we are having better results than countries without the death penalty?
The fact of the matter is that far more people are killed by convicted murderers allowed to live after conviction than innocent people executed. I appologize if my comment seemed flippant, but there is far more damage letting convicted murderers live.
The fact of the matter is that far more people are killed by convicted murderers allowed to live after conviction than innocent people executed. I appologize if my comment seemed flippant, but there is far more damage letting convicted murderers live.
But we have the death penalty and this is happening.
You need to establish that stopping the death penalty will make it happen more.
So at the very least you should be able to provide a source and numbers of convicted murderers that escaped and killed again for the US and then for countries that don't have the death penalty as well?
d-usa wrote: So at the very least you should be able to provide a source and numbers of convicted murderers that escaped and killed again for the US and then for countries that don't have the death penalty as well?
I've already provided souces and links elsewhere in this thread for both sides of the question for the United States.
azazel the cat wrote: @Dreadclaw: chongara seems to have ninja's my response. I still await your explanation as to what an acceptable standard is.
Speaking for me... how 'bout all parties do the best they can without prejudice?
Dear Mr. Whembly:
The state of Missouri is terribly sorry to have executed you wife/son/daughter for capital charges which were later proven to be false. However, we hope you take solace in the fact that the state prosecuted your family member as best they could and without prejudice, and offer you my personal condolences.
Best of luck in your future endeavours;
Governor Jay Nixon
Dear Mr. Azazel The Cat:
The Province of British Columbia is terribly sorry for the death of your wife/son/daughter for failing to convict and incarcerate a known killer. However, we hope you take solace in the fact that the state prosecuted this killer as best they could and without prejudice, and offer you my personal condolences.
Once again, since it seems to be getting overlooked, innocent people executed as compared to a very short list of people murdered by killers after they were convicted.
Once again, since it seems to be getting overlooked, innocent people executed as compared to a very short list of people murdered by killers after they were convicted.
So, you seem to have established a ratio. Maybe you'll be willing to answer? What's the Innocent Execution vs "Real Killers Destroyed/Repeat Offenders Stopped". What's the acceptable rate of Collateral Damage, as it were?
The question here is what is the least number of people killed. Those murdered by killers after conviction or those wrongly executed.
There are more people killed by murderers after conviction than innocent people executed. It's a tragedy in both regards, but if you're about saving lives, then execution seems to be the way to go.
Relapse wrote: The question here is what is the least number of people killed. Those murdered by killers after conviction or those wrongly executed.
There are more people killed by murderers after conviction than innocent people executed. It's a tragedy in both regards, but if you're about saving lives, then execution seems to be the way to go.
Except that countries that banned the death penalty did not see any change in the murder rates. You are showing us ratios that exist EVEN WITH the death penalty.
Relapse wrote: The question here is what is the least number of people killed. Those murdered by killers after conviction or those wrongly executed.
There are more people killed by murderers after conviction than innocent people executed. It's a tragedy in both regards, but if you're about saving lives, then execution seems to be the way to go.
So if I understand correctly your formula is something along these lines.
When all is said and done, take count of the number of innocent parties killed. If this is lower with the penalty than without, than the number with than the death penalty is justified. In this model killings by the state/law and those by repeat offenders aren't really weighed differently it's just about the discrete number of innocent lives lost?
Relapse wrote: The question here is what is the least number of people killed. Those murdered by killers after conviction or those wrongly executed.
There are more people killed by murderers after conviction than innocent people executed. It's a tragedy in both regards, but if you're about saving lives, then execution seems to be the way to go.
Except that countries that banned the death penalty did not see any change in the murder rates. You are showing us ratios that exist EVEN WITH the death penalty.
I am showing that the United States would have a lower murder rate with the death penalty.
Relapse wrote: The question here is what is the least number of people killed. Those murdered by killers after conviction or those wrongly executed.
There are more people killed by murderers after conviction than innocent people executed. It's a tragedy in both regards, but if you're about saving lives, then execution seems to be the way to go.
So if I understand correctly your formula is something along these lines.
When all is said and done, take count of the number of innocent parties killed. If this is lower with the penalty than without, than the number with than the death penalty is justified. In this model killings by the state/law and those by repeat offenders aren't really weighed differently it's just about the discrete number of innocent lives lost?
Is my understanding correct?
What I am saying is that there would be less people murdered with an enforced death penalty because convicted murderers would not be around to kill others after parole, escape, or while still in prison. As this number exceeds those wrongly executed , the death penalty becomes a sad but better alternative.
So, you seem to have established a ratio. Maybe you'll be willing to answer? What's the Innocent Execution vs "Real Killers Destroyed/Repeat Offenders Stopped". What's the acceptable rate of Collateral Damage, as it were?
What I am saying is that there would be less people murdered with an enforced death penalty because convicted murderers would not be around to kill others after parole, escape, or while still in prison. As this number exceeds those wrongly executed , the death penalty becomes a sad but better alternative.
Wait, so you would rather a nation wrongly execute 99 of its own citizens if it will prevent 100 from being killed by murderers?
So, you seem to have established a ratio. Maybe you'll be willing to answer? What's the Innocent Execution vs "Real Killers Destroyed/Repeat Offenders Stopped". What's the acceptable rate of Collateral Damage, as it were?
49.9%
If you are under 50% you are saving lives.
Thank You! Finally. Someone was willing to actually put a number on the table. It's certainly a very utilitarian viewpoint. It'd be interesting to see how other people on that side felt about this number.
Rented Tritium wrote: The people killed by murderers have a fighting chance. We can let them have guns, we can have more cops. There are things we can do to save them.
The innocent who are wrongly executed are being killed by their own government.
One of those things is worth more than the other.
Those on trial for murder also have a fighting chance, with a very high burden of proof required for conviction and several rounds of appeals court after that... They sure as hell have a much better "fighting chance" than someone that is jumped on by surprise in their own home and stabbed 17 times in front of 2 children!
Rented Tritium wrote: The people killed by murderers have a fighting chance. We can let them have guns, we can have more cops. There are things we can do to save them.
The innocent who are wrongly executed are being killed by their own government.
One of those things is worth more than the other.
Those on trial for murder also have a fighting chance, with a very high burden of proof required for conviction and several rounds of appeals court after that... They sure as hell have a much better "fighting chance" than someone that is jumped on by surprise in their own home and stabbed 17 times in front of 2 children!
Really? You're going to bring the discussion this far down into the mud?
Rented Tritium wrote: The people killed by murderers have a fighting chance. We can let them have guns, we can have more cops. There are things we can do to save them.
The innocent who are wrongly executed are being killed by their own government.
One of those things is worth more than the other.
You should look at that link I provided about repeat murderers. You would see how wrong you are.
Rented Tritium wrote: The people killed by murderers have a fighting chance. We can let them have guns, we can have more cops. There are things we can do to save them.
The innocent who are wrongly executed are being killed by their own government.
One of those things is worth more than the other.
You should look at that link I provided about repeat murderers. You would see how wrong you are.
I did, and no I didn't.
If this thread is just going to devolve into these weird emotional appeals, I'm out.
What myself and, I think Viper are saying is that it isn't a game where you let someone have a turn or "fighting chance". It's about preventing people getting killed and saving lives by taking a certain difficult course.
I agree,there is something emotional about a child being raped and murdered by someone who should have been executed.
Rented Tritium wrote: The people killed by murderers have a fighting chance. We can let them have guns, we can have more cops. There are things we can do to save them.
The innocent who are wrongly executed are being killed by their own government.
One of those things is worth more than the other.
Those on trial for murder also have a fighting chance, with a very high burden of proof required for conviction and several rounds of appeals court after that... They sure as hell have a much better "fighting chance" than someone that is jumped on by surprise in their own home and stabbed 17 times in front of 2 children!
Really? You're going to bring the discussion this far down into the mud?
The OP is about someone who was sentenced to death because he was convicted of murdering a person by stabbing them 17 times in their own home in front of two small children.
Your reply to his was supposedly that if the victim had a gun, this wouldn't have happened and I'm the one dragging down the level of the thread?
The "funny" thing is, if the victim had a gun ready and had managed to successfully defend herself, then the criminal would be just as dead as if the sentence had been carried out...
Relapse wrote: What myself and, I think Viper are saying is that it isn't a game where you let someone have a turn or "fighting chance". It's about preventing people getting killed and saving lives by taking a certain difficult course.
I agree,there is something emotional about a child being raped and murdered by someone who should have been executed.
Yeah see? It's posts like this right here that make it impossible to have a real discussion.
Rented Tritium wrote: The people killed by murderers have a fighting chance. We can let them have guns, we can have more cops. There are things we can do to save them.
The innocent who are wrongly executed are being killed by their own government.
One of those things is worth more than the other.
Those on trial for murder also have a fighting chance, with a very high burden of proof required for conviction and several rounds of appeals court after that... They sure as hell have a much better "fighting chance" than someone that is jumped on by surprise in their own home and stabbed 17 times in front of 2 children!
Really? You're going to bring the discussion this far down into the mud?
The OP is about someone who was sentenced to death because he was convicted of murdering a person by stabbing them 17 times in their own home in front of two small children.
Your reply to his was supposedly that if the victim had a gun, this wouldn't have happened and I'm the one dragging down the level of the thread?
The "funny" thing is, if the victim had a gun ready and had managed to successfully defend herself, then the criminal would be just as dead as if the sentence had been carried out...
We stopped talking about the OP pages ago and you know it.
Relapse wrote: The emotional thing about these two cases are that they really happened. Would you like to pretend otherwise?
We were having a normal abstract policy discussion a few pages ago before you decided to turn to "if you don't support my position, you support child rape" nonsense. You 100% turned away from having actual reasonable discussion this topic and now both of you are twisting 2 pages of posts to be about the OP which we stopped discussing almost IMMEDIATELY.
You're arguing in bad faith, you're being intellectually dishonest and purposefully obtuse. We're done talking. Other people argued for the death penalty in this thread in a reasonable and friendly way and you're making them look horrible. Enjoy my ignore list.
We stopped talking about the OP pages ago and you know it.
Maybe.
But my point is that these are the type of people that we are talking about, we are talking about scum that go after the weakest members of society, people that can't defend themselves. There are no "fighting chances" here!
If eradicating them will sometimes catches someone that isn't as guilty in the net... I'm sorry, but at the end of the day we are still saving more innocent lives.
We stopped talking about the OP pages ago and you know it.
Maybe.
But my point is that these are the type of people that we are talking about, we are talking about scum that go after the weakest members of society, people that can't defend themselves. There are no "fighting chances" here!
If eradicating them will sometimes catches someone that isn't as guilty in the net... I'm sorry, but at the end of the day we are still saving more innocent lives.
Couldn't have said it better. It's not like these are paragons from the honor role we are talking about. I'm sorry Rented took it as though I was condemning those against the death penalty, I definitely didn't mean it that way, but I laid out the cases and numbers for both sides and it appears he didn't like what he saw.
Rented Tritium wrote: The people killed by murderers have a fighting chance. We can let them have guns, we can have more cops. There are things we can do to save them.
The innocent who are wrongly executed are being killed by their own government.
One of those things is worth more than the other.
^This^
I just like to argue both sides of this issue.
I'm in favor of abolishing the death penalty for hard manual labor.
azazel the cat wrote: @Dreadclaw: chongara seems to have ninja's my response. I still await your explanation as to what an acceptable standard is.
What an acceptable standard of proof is? The same as it is already - beyond a reasonable doubt, and with the jury reaching a sentence having the proper attention to the law, and any aggravating/mitigating factors.
And please don't try and use an appeal to emotion either. I'd hate for you to be forced to use another fallacy.
I have not yet made any illogical statements and you know it. And you have tried to dodge my question like you're in a Matrix movie:
The acceptable standard I want from you is the number, or ratio, of innocent people executed by the state that you are willing to tolerate. And you know that is the standard I was asking for, because it is the only quesiton I have asked you for several posts now.
I want you to tell me what your number is. What is the maximum number of innocent people the state could execute for you to still simply write them off as collateral damage?
There is no appeal to emotion here. The only thing close to an appeal to emotion was a satirical response to Whembly's silly position of "I think everyone should just try their best", and even then it wasn't an appeal to emotion, it was an attempt to get Whembly to try and see things from the perspective of not someone who is currently immune from the issue.
And on that note...
@Whembly: you do understand that there is a massive difference between an offender not being convicted at trial and killing your wife, and the state executing your wife due to an error, right? Attempting to compare those two is like trying to compare apples to cars.
azazel the cat wrote: I have not yet made any illogical statements and you know it. And you have tried to dodge my question like you're in a Matrix movie:
The acceptable standard I want from you is the number, or ratio, of innocent people executed by the state that you are willing to tolerate. And you know that is the standard I was asking for, because it is the only quesiton I have asked you for several posts now.
I want you to tell me what your number is. What is the maximum number of innocent people the state could execute for you to still simply write them off as collateral damage?
There is no appeal to emotion here. The only thing close to an appeal to emotion was a satirical response to Whembly's silly position of "I think everyone should just try their best", and even then it wasn't an appeal to emotion, it was an attempt to get Whembly to try and see things from the perspective of not someone who is currently immune from the issue.
So framing loaded questions, and appeals to emotion dressed up as satire are not fallacies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies You, and others, had your answer to that question before. You have an absolutist position which you have attempted to cover with a veneer of being reasonable and permitting the death penalty in circumstances so narrow as to de facto ban it. Had similar restrictions been placed on the availability of abortion people here would be outraged.
You want me to give you an arbitrary number, ask me how I came to that figure, argue the point as to whether it is reasonable given that for you any death of an innocent is intolerable, and all the while knowing that it is a loaded question designed to show that I am prepared to sanction the execution of innocent people. Let me make this clear in case you may have missed it the past several times - I am in favour of guilty people being executed. When you stop attempting to misrepresent my argument and have a less absolute position then perhaps we can have a discussion.
You are continually asking a tawdry and patently loaded question in an obvious attempt to discredit people disagreeing with your position. Again, you are showing very clearly that you are not interested in a debate you just want to rehash your talking points and lecture others. This is itself is treading the road of the fallacy of repetition.
@Whembly: you do understand that there is a massive difference between an offender not being convicted at trial and killing your wife, and the state executing your wife due to an error, right? Attempting to compare those two is like trying to compare apples to cars.
Hey... dude... just so that you know, I'm actually on your side here.
But, in response to your question... no, I don't believe it's that much of a stretch to compare to the two. We live in a society, for all of it's flaws, presumes innocents and strictly adhere to judicial constraints/laws. We hear numerous cases where the killer is set free due to improper investigation, incompetent prosecutors, or whatever legal jujitsu to that let's the killer go... who may kill again.
Since we don't have perfect omnission, it is impossibel to ensure only "guilty" people are executed. Therefore, no one should be executed as we can not be sure only "guilty" people are being executed.
We can make a distinction between execution and othe rprison sentences/punishments as an execution can not be undone as other punishments can be undone.
****Added to appeal to your "Libertarian" beliefs******
Plus, how can we trust the "big" Government to get such matters of life and death correct?
Rented Tritium wrote: The people killed by murderers have a fighting chance. We can let them have guns, we can have more cops. There are things we can do to save them.
The innocent who are wrongly executed are being killed by their own government.
One of those things is worth more than the other.
You should look at that link I provided about repeat murderers. You would see how wrong you are.
You have yet to provide a shred of proof that what we are doing, right now with the death penalty, makes our numbers lower than those countries that don't have the death penalty.
If you can't show that we have less killers that escape and kill than "Canada/Germany/France/UK/Norway/etc" because we kill some of them, then you haven't actually made an argument.
Rented Tritium wrote: The people killed by murderers have a fighting chance. We can let them have guns, we can have more cops. There are things we can do to save them.
The innocent who are wrongly executed are being killed by their own government.
One of those things is worth more than the other.
You should look at that link I provided about repeat murderers. You would see how wrong you are.
You have yet to provide a shred of proof that what we are doing, right now with the death penalty, makes our numbers lower than those countries that don't have the death penalty.
If you can't show that we have less killers that escape and kill than "Canada/Germany/France/UK/Norway/etc" because we kill some of them, then you haven't actually made an argument.
The fact that all those deaths could have been prevented if the convicted killers were executed is enough. I'm not talking about statistics between countries. I am stating the established fact that more people have been murdered by convicted killers who were not executed than there were innocent people executed.
You can no more bring those murder victims back to life then you could someone wrongly executed.
So you make it pretty clear that you are basing this entirely on emotion and not any kind of factual basis.
Because if you cannot even show that we have less people getting killed by felons when we execute some of them, then you are talking out your rear when you say crap like "if we executed more then even less people would die".
You have not produced one shred of evidence that we have less people getting killed by executing some of them, but we should execute more because it works.
Your repeated mantra of "murderers kill, kill more murderers" is just stupid if you can't even show that killing them has made any mind of difference.
Show that killing some has produced better results than nations that kill none.
d-usa wrote: So you make it pretty clear that you are basing this entirely on emotion and not any kind of factual basis.
Because if you cannot even show that we have less people getting killed by felons when we execute some of them, then you are talking out your rear when you say crap like "if we executed more then even less people would die".
You have not produced one shred of evidence that we have less people getting killed by executing some of them, but we should execute more because it works.
Your repeated mantra of "murderers kill, kill more murderers" is just stupid if you can't even show that killing them has made any mind of difference.
Show that killing some has produced better results than nations that kill none.
No, I've given numbers. According to the DOJ, there is a 1.2% recidivism rate of convicted killers who murder again after conviction. There are roughly 9,000 - 11,000 murder convictions a year depending on the year sampled. Taking into account the fact that some of those murders commited are multiple, it comes out to more people murdered than wrongfuly executed.
I'm just going off established statistics for the U.S. using DOJ findings when I say there would have been less dead people if those murderers had been executed since the numbers are there to prove me right.
In other words, not killing those convicted murderers have cost lives, not saved them. It can't be much clearer than that.
d-usa wrote: So you make it pretty clear that you are basing this entirely on emotion and not any kind of factual basis.
Because if you cannot even show that we have less people getting killed by felons when we execute some of them, then you are talking out your rear when you say crap like "if we executed more then even less people would die".
You have not produced one shred of evidence that we have less people getting killed by executing some of them, but we should execute more because it works.
Your repeated mantra of "murderers kill, kill more murderers" is just stupid if you can't even show that killing them has made any mind of difference.
Show that killing some has produced better results than nations that kill none.
No, I've given numbers. According to the DOJ, there is a 1.2% recidivism rate of convicted killers who murder again after conviction. There are roughly 9,000 - 11,000 murder convictions a year depending on the year sampled. Taking into account the fact that some of those murders commited are multiple, it comes out to more people murdered than wrongfuly executed. I'm just going off established statistics for the U.S. using DOJ findings when I say there would have been less dead people if those murderers had been executed since the numbers are there to prove me right.
You are posting a statistic in a complete vacuum and are just making useless post after useless post.
You have not shown that our system results in less people getting killed from repeat murderers because we kill people compared to countries that don't kill people. You haven't even shown that executions result in less people getting killed by repeat murders in states that execute more people than others.
But let's work with your useless numbers:
So let's ignore the facts that there are a giant pile of things that influence recidivism rates other than "just kill them", let's go with the 1.2% recidivism rate based on a 19 year old study conducted in 15 states.
First thing we need to do is to take a couple of facts into consideration: It doesn't matter how many people a year get convicted of murder when we look at the 1.2% recidivism rate of people who were initially convicted of homicide and then were rearrested for homicide after release. We need to look at the number of people executed instead. It doesn't matter wether or not 1.2% of all people convicted for homicide might commit another homicide later. What matters is what the number of people executed for murder might have done.
So last wear we executed 43 people. At 1.2% we might have prevented 0.5 murders. Over the last two years we have executed 86 people, at a 1.2% rate we might have prevented 1 murder.
So two years of executions might have possibly prevented one death. And you need to be pretty certain that out of those 86 people you didn't execute anybody that was innocent or the whole process was just a waste of time.
So now we know that at a recidivism rate of 1.2% you need to execute 86 people to possibly prevent one murder from somebody that has been convicted and released from prison only to kill again. So we are ignoring the effects of Life in Prison on murder rates as well and pretent that the only two options are "kill them" or "release them to kill again". Because your statistic only looks at murder after release from prison.
So lets look at what statistics we have for people that were wrongfully executed or have a very high likelyhood that they were wrongfully executed:
Since the Death Penalty has been reinstated we have had, depending on sources, 39 people that have a very high likelyhood of being wrongfully executed (as of 2010).
So if we consider your statistics as "Very high likelyhood that they would have murdered again" and compare them to the "very high likelyhood that they were innocent" we get:
Number of people executed: 1233 Number of murder convictions possibly prevented based on a statistical rate of 1.2%: 15 Number of people possibly wrongfully executed: 39 Homicide recidivism rate: 1.2% Wrongful execution rate: 3.2%
So there is a high likelyhood that we killed 39 innocent people to prevent 15 innocent victims. There is a high likelyhood that our justice system resulted in 24 additional deaths that would not have happened without it.
Let's revisit this. At an average of 9000 convictions with a recidivsm of 1.2% equals roughly 108 murders that happen if we go with a lowball figure of only 9,000 convictions and if we say each murder only involves one murder being commited, although in several case it involves more than one person being killed.
We have the data points to extrapolate how these figures run, so it's hardly the vacumn you claim it is.
From 1973 to 2012, there have been 142 people exonerated of murder charges.
The 9000 convictions don't matter when you talk about the death penalty preventing murders.
You can't talk about how the death penalty is effective by talking about murders that were commited by people that didn't receive the death penalty and were released from prison instead.
It doesn't matter one single bit if 9,000 people a year are convicted of murder.
It doesn't matter one bit if 142 people are exonerated of murder charges since 1973.
There are only three numbers that matter:
The number of people that were actually executed.
The statistical number that those people might have killed if they were released from prison.
The likely number of people that were wrongly executed.
And we know, from your data, that execution might have prevented 15 deaths.
And we know, from separate data, that there is a high likelyhood that we might have executed 39 people that were innocent.
So while you throw out statistics that are, once again, based on a 19 year old 15 state study and also pretent that the only options are execution or release from prison (because your date does not address murderers that were never released and how many people were/were not killed because of life in prison) we do have a simple fact.
There is a high possibility that we killed 39 innocent people to fight the possibility that 15 other innocent people might have been killed.
d-usa wrote: The 9000 convictions don't matter when you talk about the death penalty preventing murders.
You can't talk about how the death penalty is effective by talking about murders that were commited by people that didn't receive the death penalty and were released from prison instead.
It doesn't matter one single bit if 9,000 people a year are convicted of murder.
It doesn't matter one bit if 142 people are exonerated of murder charges since 1973.
There are only three numbers that matter:
The number of people that were actually executed.
The statistical number that those people might have killed if they were released from prison.
The likely number of people that were wrongly executed.
And we know, from your data, that execution might have prevented 15 deaths.
And we know, from separate data, that there is a high likelyhood that we might have executed 39 people that were innocent.
So while you throw out statistics that are, once again, based on a 19 year old 15 state study and also pretent that the only options are execution or release from prison (because your date does not address murderers that were never released and how many people were/were not killed because of life in prison) we do have a simple fact.
There is a high possibility that we killed 39 innocent people to fight the possibility that 15 other innocent people might have been killed.
It's actually far more deaths prevented than you say. 1.2 % of 9000 is 108, and as I said that is using low numbers for convictions and recidivsm.
d-usa wrote: The 9000 convictions don't matter when you talk about the death penalty preventing murders.
You can't talk about how the death penalty is effective by talking about murders that were commited by people that didn't receive the death penalty and were released from prison instead.
It doesn't matter one single bit if 9,000 people a year are convicted of murder.
It doesn't matter one bit if 142 people are exonerated of murder charges since 1973.
There are only three numbers that matter:
The number of people that were actually executed.
The statistical number that those people might have killed if they were released from prison.
The likely number of people that were wrongly executed.
And we know, from your data, that execution might have prevented 15 deaths.
And we know, from separate data, that there is a high likelyhood that we might have executed 39 people that were innocent.
So while you throw out statistics that are, once again, based on a 19 year old 15 state study and also pretent that the only options are execution or release from prison (because your date does not address murderers that were never released and how many people were/were not killed because of life in prison) we do have a simple fact.
There is a high possibility that we killed 39 innocent people to fight the possibility that 15 other innocent people might have been killed.
It's actually far more deaths prevented than you say. 1.2 % of 9000 is 108, and as I said that is using low numbers for convictions and recidivsm.
Please explain how executing 43 people in 2012 prevented 108 people from killing?
d-usa wrote: The 9000 convictions don't matter when you talk about the death penalty preventing murders.
You can't talk about how the death penalty is effective by talking about murders that were commited by people that didn't receive the death penalty and were released from prison instead.
It doesn't matter one single bit if 9,000 people a year are convicted of murder.
It doesn't matter one bit if 142 people are exonerated of murder charges since 1973.
There are only three numbers that matter:
The number of people that were actually executed.
The statistical number that those people might have killed if they were released from prison.
The likely number of people that were wrongly executed.
And we know, from your data, that execution might have prevented 15 deaths.
And we know, from separate data, that there is a high likelyhood that we might have executed 39 people that were innocent.
So while you throw out statistics that are, once again, based on a 19 year old 15 state study and also pretent that the only options are execution or release from prison (because your date does not address murderers that were never released and how many people were/were not killed because of life in prison) we do have a simple fact.
There is a high possibility that we killed 39 innocent people to fight the possibility that 15 other innocent people might have been killed.
It's actually far more deaths prevented than you say. 1.2 % of 9000 is 108, and as I said that is using low numbers for convictions and recidivsm.
Please explain how executing 43 people in 2012 prevented 108 people from killing?
As I said, we have enough data points to extrapolate. Six Sigma uses a similar type of calculation to predict trends for industry quality and prevention of rejects through problem solving.
Just say:
A) I'm for death penalty because it'll prevent future possible murders if killer is release back into the wild...
B) I'm against death penalty because the chance of killing a wrongly convicted person is too high...
And leave it at that...
or C) Let's go over Frazzled house for beer and queso! I call shotgun!
What an acceptable standard of proof is? The same as it is already - beyond a reasonable doubt, and with the jury reaching a sentence having the proper attention to the law, and any aggravating/mitigating factors.
I don't think anyone has argued the standard of proof should be anything other than "beyond a reasonable doubt". Rather it seems that the dispute is over what sort of proof should be required to convict a person of a crime given that they might face the death penalty (in areas where there is no, or limited, jury sentencing) or sentence someone to death (in areas where there is jury sentencing). In other words: what would it take to prove that X is guilty of Y, beyond a reasonable doubt?
In such a light, claiming that the standard of proof should be "beyond a reasonable doubt" is minimally a misunderstanding regarding Azazel's question*, and maximally an attempt to dodge it.
*Which seems to be: "What would you, as a juror or judge, require as proof in order to sentence someone to death?"
What an acceptable standard of proof is? The same as it is already - beyond a reasonable doubt, and with the jury reaching a sentence having the proper attention to the law, and any aggravating/mitigating factors.
I don't think anyone has argued the standard of proof should be anything other than "beyond a reasonable doubt". Rather it seems that the dispute is over what sort of proof should be required to convict a person of a crime given that they might face the death penalty (in areas where there is no, or limited, jury sentencing) or sentence someone to death (in areas where there is jury sentencing). In other words: what would it take to prove that X is guilty of Y, beyond a reasonable doubt?
In such a light, claiming that the standard of proof should be "beyond a reasonable doubt" is minimally a misunderstanding regarding Azazel's question, and maximally an attempt to dodge it.
Are you surmising that the burden of proof for capital offense be higher than what we have now?
You want me to give you an arbitrary number, ask me how I came to that figure, argue the point as to whether it is reasonable given that for you any death of an innocent is intolerable, and all the while knowing that it is a loaded question designed to show that I am prepared to sanction the execution of innocent people.
That's what arguing for the death penalty entails.
Supporting the death penalty does not mean that you support the execution of innocents, but it does mean that you accept (sanction) it. Because it will happen regardless of how hard you try to avoid it.
Just say:
A) I'm for death penalty because it'll prevent future possible murders if killer is release back into the wild...
B) I'm against death penalty because the chance of killing a wrongly convicted person is too high...
And leave it at that...
or C) Let's go over Frazzled house for beer and queso! I call shotgun!
A wise man speaks. Rather than beat our heads together over positions we are convinced of, it's off to Frazz's.
d-usa wrote: The 9000 convictions don't matter when you talk about the death penalty preventing murders.
You can't talk about how the death penalty is effective by talking about murders that were commited by people that didn't receive the death penalty and were released from prison instead.
It doesn't matter one single bit if 9,000 people a year are convicted of murder.
It doesn't matter one bit if 142 people are exonerated of murder charges since 1973.
There are only three numbers that matter:
The number of people that were actually executed.
The statistical number that those people might have killed if they were released from prison.
The likely number of people that were wrongly executed.
And we know, from your data, that execution might have prevented 15 deaths.
And we know, from separate data, that there is a high likelyhood that we might have executed 39 people that were innocent.
So while you throw out statistics that are, once again, based on a 19 year old 15 state study and also pretent that the only options are execution or release from prison (because your date does not address murderers that were never released and how many people were/were not killed because of life in prison) we do have a simple fact.
There is a high possibility that we killed 39 innocent people to fight the possibility that 15 other innocent people might have been killed.
It's actually far more deaths prevented than you say. 1.2 % of 9000 is 108, and as I said that is using low numbers for convictions and recidivsm.
Please explain how executing 43 people in 2012 prevented 108 people from killing?
As I said, we have enough data points to extrapolate. Six Sigma uses a similar type of calculation to predict trends for industry quality and prevention of rejects through problem solving.
We do have the data points, you are just either ignoring them or not using them correctly.
You cannot say "we prevented [9000 convictions * 1.2% recivitism rate] of murders because that is not the number we work with. We have to work with the actual numbers. If 43 people were executed last year, than that is the number you use when determining what number you might have been prevented.
In 2011 and 2012 we executed 86 people, so we may have prevented one statistical death (if we pretent that they would have been released if they were not executed). We do know that there is a very high likelyhood that we executed an innocent man in 2011. So during the last two years we executed an innocent man to prevent the hypothetical murder of an innocent man.
Now if you want to make some sort of stupid argument that killing all 9000 murderers we convict each year would prevent an additional 1.2% of murders down the line, then you also have consider the statistical rate of wrongful executions. If you say "in the past, 1.2% of murderers released from prison kill again" then you also have to accept the statistics of "in the past, 3.2% of people we executed were likely innocent".
So if you want to use the 9000 (lowball number) of convicted murderers each year and pretend that the only two options are "kill them or release them" then we get the following numbers.
Murders after release statistically prevented by executing every murderer: 108
Number of innocent people statistically executed by executing every murderer: 288
So if you want to say that killing 288 innocent people a year is okay if it prevents the death of 108 other innocent people, then that is just stupid.
But let's just consider the alternative that you have not provided statistics for:
9000 people a year in jail for life without parole:
"People kill and get killed in prison all the time" is the mantra that has been voiced here. Well, thankfully we have a law that required the report of every death of every person in custody in the USA. And the average homicide rate in prison is a whooping 0.004%. 4 out of 100,000 inmates are killed in prison each year.
So now we have three options to figure out a number each year for those 9000 people, let's make a fancy table:
Option | Number of Innocent people killed (per year)
Kill everyone | 288
Release everyone | 108
Life without Parole | 0.36
I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it. So this is probably my last post on this subject.
I support the Death Penalty. Granted I also accept the.01% "Oh Frack" factor. I just have my view point a bit skewered/different from the major line of views. I have squeezed the trigger quite a few times.
Jihadin wrote: I support the Death Penalty. Granted I also accept the.01% "Oh Frack" factor. I just have my view point a bit skewered/different from the major line of views. I have squeezed the trigger quite a few times.
d-usa wrote: The 9000 convictions don't matter when you talk about the death penalty preventing murders.
You can't talk about how the death penalty is effective by talking about murders that were commited by people that didn't receive the death penalty and were released from prison instead.
It doesn't matter one single bit if 9,000 people a year are convicted of murder.
It doesn't matter one bit if 142 people are exonerated of murder charges since 1973.
There are only three numbers that matter:
The number of people that were actually executed.
The statistical number that those people might have killed if they were released from prison.
The likely number of people that were wrongly executed.
And we know, from your data, that execution might have prevented 15 deaths.
And we know, from separate data, that there is a high likelyhood that we might have executed 39 people that were innocent.
So while you throw out statistics that are, once again, based on a 19 year old 15 state study and also pretent that the only options are execution or release from prison (because your date does not address murderers that were never released and how many people were/were not killed because of life in prison) we do have a simple fact.
There is a high possibility that we killed 39 innocent people to fight the possibility that 15 other innocent people might have been killed.
It's actually far more deaths prevented than you say. 1.2 % of 9000 is 108, and as I said that is using low numbers for convictions and recidivsm.
Please explain how executing 43 people in 2012 prevented 108 people from killing?
As I said, we have enough data points to extrapolate. Six Sigma uses a similar type of calculation to predict trends for industry quality and prevention of rejects through problem solving.
We do have the data points, you are just either ignoring them or not using them correctly.
You cannot say "we prevented [9000 convictions * 1.2% recivitism rate] of murders because that is not the number we work with. We have to work with the actual numbers. If 43 people were executed last year, than that is the number you use when determining what number you might have been prevented.
In 2011 and 2012 we executed 86 people, so we may have prevented one statistical death (if we pretent that they would have been released if they were not executed). We do know that there is a very high likelyhood that we executed an innocent man in 2011. So during the last two years we executed an innocent man to prevent the hypothetical murder of an innocent man.
Now if you want to make some sort of stupid argument that killing all 9000 murderers we convict each year would prevent an additional 1.2% of murders down the line, then you also have consider the statistical rate of wrongful executions. If you say "in the past, 1.2% of murderers released from prison kill again" then you also have to accept the statistics of "in the past, 3.2% of people we executed were likely innocent".
So if you want to use the 9000 (lowball number) of convicted murderers each year and pretend that the only two options are "kill them or release them" then we get the following numbers.
Murders after release statistically prevented by executing every murderer: 108
Number of innocent people statistically executed by executing every murderer: 288
So if you want to say that killing 288 innocent people a year is okay if it prevents the death of 108 other innocent people, then that is just stupid.
But let's just consider the alternative that you have not provided statistics for:
9000 people a year in jail for life without parole:
"People kill and get killed in prison all the time" is the mantra that has been voiced here. Well, thankfully we have a law that required the report of every death of every person in custody in the USA. And the average homicide rate in prison is a whooping 0.004%. 4 out of 100,000 inmates are killed in prison each year.
So now we have three options to figure out a number each year for those 9000 people, let's make a fancy table:
Option | Number of Innocent people killed (per year)
Kill everyone | 288
Release everyone | 108
Life without Parole | 0.36
I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it. So this is probably my last post on this subject.
I am going off the number of recorded exonerations since 1972 from a site with an axe to grind against the death penalty vs the DOJ percentage of recidivsm across a lowball number of convicted murderers. I am giving full advantage to the anti death penalty position with my numbers. You are bringing in terms like "might have been innocent"etc.
I honestly don't think either one of us is going to convince the other of our respective positions. You say a lot on these forums I agree with, but not on this one.
This link makes for some interesting reading. It states that 8.6% of death row inmates have previously been convicted of murder.
I have been reading a lot about the death penalty from both sides since we started this conversation and it is a hard choice in either direction. Thank you for putting me onto this and I plan on studying this out some more long after we're done talking about the death penalty.
How many exonerations since 1972 does your source say happened? 39 is the average that I have found, but since courts don't clear cases of people that have been killed it is hard to find any actual numbers.
That's the main reason I use "high likelyhood of being innocent", because we usually don't get a legal sentence of "not innocent" after execution.
Which is also the reason I use "high likelyhood of murdering again", because we don't know that those executed would have been part of the 1.2% that murder again.
d-usa wrote: How many exonerations since 1972 does your source say happened? 39 is the average that I have found, but since courts don't clear cases of people that have been killed it is hard to find any actual numbers.
That's the main reason I use "high likelyhood of being innocent", because we usually don't get a legal sentence of "not innocent" after execution.
Which is also the reason I use "high likelyhood of murdering again", because we don't know that those executed would have been part of the 1.2% that murder again.
Okay, I had my "wrongfully executed" and your exonorated confused. I am using the number of people that had their sentence carried out despite evidence of their innocence or strong doubts about their guild. The 39 people suspected of being wrongfully executed wouldn't be exonerated since courts drop those cases once the punishment is carried out.
That's what I have the problem with. We have a 3.2% rate of killing innocent people, and released murderers have a 1.2% rate of killing innocent people.
Actually keeping murderers in prison has the lowest rate of deaths out of all options. Bad guys are punished, the population is safe, and innocent people are least likely to die.
I see that the Wiki article cites the link I provided. If I read the article correctly, it says there were 39 executions since 1992 that could and should have been overturned.
I don't get the 3.2% figure from that. What am I missing here since I don't think you're just making up and throwing numbers out.
I think that the source counts 39 since we resumed in the 1970s. The source they link to for the 39 execution number doesn't have a hard date for when they cut off counting, but the posted date on the website for it was 2010. So with the 2011 case we should be up to 40, but I am not 100% sure on the date range so I didn't add it.
Used this for the total number of executions since the 1970:
I see now what you're talking about. I understand now how it boils down to a disagreement between us about the statistics used.
I am going off people actually exonerated, but you are going off something that possibly has a good argument in it's favor also.
Time to study this out a bit more.
Yeah, I wish we had a perfect system where 100% of innocent people are exhonarated. But I think I would rather have an innocent person be in jail, still have some activities, still be able to interact with his family instead of being executed.
The 1.2% reoffender rate probably balances out with the multiple victims though. Some probably kill more than one person after release, but not all of the 9000 people are going to get released to begin with.
d-usa wrote: Should probably just outlaw all guns, that would reduce the number of dead people more than anything...
[/thread derailed]
I'm afraid that there is only one true solution. *loads shotgun* It's time to ban PEOPLE The death rate will spike for a couple years but I think it'll even out just fine by the end
d-usa wrote: Should probably just outlaw all guns, that would reduce the number of dead people more than anything...
[/thread derailed]
I'm afraid that there is only one true solution. *loads shotgun* It's time to ban PEOPLE The death rate will spike for a couple years but I think it'll even out just fine by the end
azazel the cat wrote: I have not yet made any illogical statements and you know it. And you have tried to dodge my question like you're in a Matrix movie:
The acceptable standard I want from you is the number, or ratio, of innocent people executed by the state that you are willing to tolerate. And you know that is the standard I was asking for, because it is the only quesiton I have asked you for several posts now.
I want you to tell me what your number is. What is the maximum number of innocent people the state could execute for you to still simply write them off as collateral damage?
There is no appeal to emotion here. The only thing close to an appeal to emotion was a satirical response to Whembly's silly position of "I think everyone should just try their best", and even then it wasn't an appeal to emotion, it was an attempt to get Whembly to try and see things from the perspective of not someone who is currently immune from the issue.
So framing loaded questions, and appeals to emotion dressed up as satire are not fallacies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies You, and others, had your answer to that question before. You have an absolutist position which you have attempted to cover with a veneer of being reasonable and permitting the death penalty in circumstances so narrow as to de facto ban it. Had similar restrictions been placed on the availability of abortion people here would be outraged.
You want me to give you an arbitrary number, ask me how I came to that figure, argue the point as to whether it is reasonable given that for you any death of an innocent is intolerable, and all the while knowing that it is a loaded question designed to show that I am prepared to sanction the execution of innocent people. Let me make this clear in case you may have missed it the past several times - I am in favour of guilty people being executed. When you stop attempting to misrepresent my argument and have a less absolute position then perhaps we can have a discussion.
You are continually asking a tawdry and patently loaded question in an obvious attempt to discredit people disagreeing with your position. Again, you are showing very clearly that you are not interested in a debate you just want to rehash your talking points and lecture others. This is itself is treading the road of the fallacy of repetition.
There are de facto bans on abortions such as what you've described, and people are outraged by it. However, the comparison is faulty as abortion is not murder because a foetus is not a person; it is a malignant growth and remains such until it is capable of surviving on its own without latching onto the system of its host. I will also at this juncture point out the irony of your use of possibly the most inflammatory line of reasoning you could come up with in hopes of deflecting the argument, in the same paragraph wherein you accuse me of appealing to emotion.
And yes, I want you to give me a number, and no, it should not be arbitrary. And yes, the question is loaded because the position that you are arguing from is full of gak and this is the most direct way to force you to address that. A position such as "I am in favour of guilty people being executed" is every bit as worthless as a position such as "I think bad things shouldn't happen" and "all people should be happy". Your position is so vapid that I'm not entirely certain you didn't steal it from Gwynyth Paltrow.
I also am in favour of executing only the guilty. However, the current margin of error is not sufficient for me to be satisfied with the certainty that only the guilty are executed, and since I would rather seen 100 guilty men go free than execute one innocent, I have no problems not supporting the death penalty in all but a handful of cases (see my previous standard of proof that includes the killer taking selfies in the process of committing the act).
I fear that due to the nature of your position; "I support the death penalty only when they're guilty, but I'm not too worried about the standard for determining that guilt", we cannot have a reasonable debate as you have taken several pages to definitively prove that you bring nothing to the table on this matter other than empty rhetoric and platitudes, seasoned with just a dash of playing the victim.
Have a good day, Dreadclaw. Perhaps we shall discuss a different topic another time.
Relapse wrote:The fact that all those deaths could have been prevented if the convicted killers were executed is enough. I'm not talking about statistics between countries. I am stating the established fact that more people have been murdered by convicted killers who were not executed than there were innocent people executed.
You can no more bring those murder victims back to life then you could someone wrongly executed.
But what if one of those executed men would have gone on to cure cancer or AIDS or solve world hunger? You see, this is the problem with predictions: they're hard to make, especially the ones about the future.
Even keeping that aside, your position seems to rest on the idea that being killed by a murderer and being killed by the state are equivalent. While that is a legitimate position, I personally disagree with it: I see it as a greater crime for the state to wrongfully execute an innocent than I do for a murderer to earn that title. I feel as though what I'm trying to say isn't going to be terribly clear, but I hope the general sense of what I'm getting at comes across. Allow me to use an analogy: do you consider a heroic last stand by a stalward military man in defense of country to be better, worse or equal to that same person hanging out in his backyard and being killed by a random piece of detritus dropped from a passing airlplane -perhaps some frozen excrement.
I see the former as noble and a "good" death, whereas the latter is just a random, senseless tragedy and ultimately meaningless death. Similarly, I see a killer doing his thing as being tragic, but not as much a travesty as a state which is entrusted with the duty to protect its citizens effectively doing the polar opposite of that duty when it wrongfully executes someone.
So I'm curious: do you take a similar positon, or do you consider a death to be a death to be a death, irrespective of circumstance?
azazel the cat wrote: I have not yet made any illogical statements and you know it. And you have tried to dodge my question like you're in a Matrix movie:
The acceptable standard I want from you is the number, or ratio, of innocent people executed by the state that you are willing to tolerate. And you know that is the standard I was asking for, because it is the only quesiton I have asked you for several posts now.
I want you to tell me what your number is. What is the maximum number of innocent people the state could execute for you to still simply write them off as collateral damage?
There is no appeal to emotion here. The only thing close to an appeal to emotion was a satirical response to Whembly's silly position of "I think everyone should just try their best", and even then it wasn't an appeal to emotion, it was an attempt to get Whembly to try and see things from the perspective of not someone who is currently immune from the issue.
So framing loaded questions, and appeals to emotion dressed up as satire are not fallacies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies You, and others, had your answer to that question before. You have an absolutist position which you have attempted to cover with a veneer of being reasonable and permitting the death penalty in circumstances so narrow as to de facto ban it. Had similar restrictions been placed on the availability of abortion people here would be outraged.
You want me to give you an arbitrary number, ask me how I came to that figure, argue the point as to whether it is reasonable given that for you any death of an innocent is intolerable, and all the while knowing that it is a loaded question designed to show that I am prepared to sanction the execution of innocent people. Let me make this clear in case you may have missed it the past several times - I am in favour of guilty people being executed. When you stop attempting to misrepresent my argument and have a less absolute position then perhaps we can have a discussion.
You are continually asking a tawdry and patently loaded question in an obvious attempt to discredit people disagreeing with your position. Again, you are showing very clearly that you are not interested in a debate you just want to rehash your talking points and lecture others. This is itself is treading the road of the fallacy of repetition.
There are de facto bans on abortions such as what you've described, and people are outraged by it. However, the comparison is faulty as abortion is not murder because a foetus is not a person; it is a malignant growth and remains such until it is capable of surviving on its own without latching onto the system of its host. I will also at this juncture point out the irony of your use of possibly the most inflammatory line of reasoning you could come up with in hopes of deflecting the argument, in the same paragraph wherein you accuse me of appealing to emotion.
And yes, I want you to give me a number, and no, it should not be arbitrary. And yes, the question is loaded because the position that you are arguing from is full of gak and this is the most direct way to force you to address that. A position such as "I am in favour of guilty people being executed" is every bit as worthless as a position such as "I think bad things shouldn't happen" and "all people should be happy". Your position is so vapid that I'm not entirely certain you didn't steal it from Gwynyth Paltrow.
I also am in favour of executing only the guilty. However, the current margin of error is not sufficient for me to be satisfied with the certainty that only the guilty are executed, and since I would rather seen 100 guilty men go free than execute one innocent, I have no problems not supporting the death penalty in all but a handful of cases (see my previous standard of proof that includes the killer taking selfies in the process of committing the act).
I fear that due to the nature of your position; "I support the death penalty only when they're guilty, but I'm not too worried about the standard for determining that guilt", we cannot have a reasonable debate as you have taken several pages to definitively prove that you bring nothing to the table on this matter other than empty rhetoric and platitudes, seasoned with just a dash of playing the victim.
Have a good day, Dreadclaw. Perhaps we shall discuss a different topic another time.
Relapse wrote:The fact that all those deaths could have been prevented if the convicted killers were executed is enough. I'm not talking about statistics between countries. I am stating the established fact that more people have been murdered by convicted killers who were not executed than there were innocent people executed.
You can no more bring those murder victims back to life then you could someone wrongly executed.
But what if one of those executed men would have gone on to cure cancer or AIDS or solve world hunger? You see, this is the problem with predictions: they're hard to make, especially the ones about the future.
Even keeping that aside, your position seems to rest on the idea that being killed by a murderer and being killed by the state are equivalent. While that is a legitimate position, I personally disagree with it: I see it as a greater crime for the state to wrongfully execute an innocent than I do for a murderer to earn that title. I feel as though what I'm trying to say isn't going to be terribly clear, but I hope the general sense of what I'm getting at comes across. Allow me to use an analogy: do you consider a heroic last stand by a stalward military man in defense of country to be better, worse or equal to that same person hanging out in his backyard and being killed by a random piece of detritus dropped from a passing airlplane -perhaps some frozen excrement.
I see the former as noble and a "good" death, whereas the latter is just a random, senseless tragedy and ultimately meaningless death. Similarly, I see a killer doing his thing as being tragic, but not as much a travesty as a state which is entrusted with the duty to protect its citizens effectively doing the polar opposite of that duty when it wrongfully executes someone.
So I'm curious: do you take a similar positon, or do you consider a death to be a death to be a death, irrespective of circumstance?
I'll start by answering your first question to another poster. To me if you stay at 50% or under in execution of innocent people, you're on the right side of the equation in keeping the death peanalty going. That doesn't mean I'm going, yee haw, hang em!, because it is a tragedy whenever someone gets executed. Safeguards against killing an innocent person need to continualy be put in place and improved, but at the same time, we have to make sure that those condemned for murder are not position where they somehow get a chance to kill someone else as the 1.2% recidivsm rate shows is happening.
To me, death is not just death, since the nature of some of these murders are fairly horrifying. The fact that they are in some cases witnessed by children makes it even worse. Execution is a more clinical affair with as much consideration given to the condemned as possible and subject to state imposed conditions. I speak of this from a position of working with a man who used to help execution squads at the state prison here in Utah and talking with him about this very question.
It's an interesting question about the stalwart military man and the person in their back yard. Yes, it would be a preferable death to go making a heroic last stand, but I'd like to put this forward based on the death this past week of a man I knew quite well and respected. He never did anything considered glorious, but he put others above himself and fought with severe health and other problems most of his life. What he went through would have broken a lot of people and caused them to cacoon themselves or commit suicide, but he was always there to help those who needed it. The lesson I carried away from him is that everyone dies, whether covered in glory or covered in gak, but what is important is how well we live our life and do good for others.
As I mention earlier in the thread. There really needs to be an outside panel to accept or reject a request of execution. Like a panel of six individuals. Go over everything. If there's a doubt and the clarification of the "doubt" is half ass or worded to fit the subject matter in then out it goes. The panel would have to consist of individuals who have "opted out" a life. EXAMPLE Mainly soldiers/marines who knows the risk of squeezing the trigger at a threat.
Kind of poorly worded. Hopefully I have the gist of it
azazel the cat wrote: @ Relapse: just to be clear, you just advocated for a 50%-1 rate of wrongful execution in order to prevent a 1% recidivism rate.
That's weird.
Yes, I realized I had totaly mispoken myself on that after I left for some errands. What I mean to say is that if the amount of executions of innocent people is less than the recidivsm rate, then we should continue with the death penalty. I had quite an in depth discussion about this with d-usa last night that gave me food for thought on the matter.
There are ways around the recidivsm, the most obvious being not to so quickly be releasing convicted murderers as currently happens.
Yes, I realized I had totaly mispoken myself on that after I left for some errands. What I mean to say is that if the amount of executions of innocent people is less than the recidivsm rate, then we should continue with the death penalty. I had quite an in depth discussion about this with d-usa last night that gave me food for thought on the matter.
There are ways around the recidivsm, the most obvious being not to so quickly be releasing convicted murderers as currently happens.
I don't think recidivism is relevant to whether or not the death penalty should exist. Recidivism is, as you seem to note, an issue regarding sentencing in general.
To my mind the death penalty persists because people demand that the state provide a certain form of catharsis to the victim, and the people who have become emotionally engaged with a particular case.
hole, yea agreed. A proper functioning First World legal system? Thats funny.
)
