Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Peregrine wrote:...

It must be nice to have such a sheltered and naive view of the world. I imagine it makes it so much easier to avoid thinking about a lot of awkward and uncomfortable truths...

Peregrine:

I fully admit that the guilt or innocent of a given person would have been much more dubious in previous times than today. But today, we have the convenience of technologies and techniques which did not exist previously.

Many people have been "proven innocent" via DNA science. This is an argument that anti-death penalty people will raise.

What they fail to grasp, however, is that, in fact, we have DNA science now. That means we can be much more certain of the guilt or innocence of a given accused person.

Given modern technologies and techniques, I am inclined to think that the execution of innocent persons is extremely unlikely.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think jreailly89 makes a good point about the difference if any between death and 68 years of life imprisonment.

My answer is that under our western Christian ethics, there is always the chance of remorse, forgiveness and redemption, which is not possible after death.

Western Christian ethics? You mean, this Christian ethics? This one right here?

"For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. [4] For he is God' s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God' s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil" (Romans 13:3-4).

Last I checked, swords aren't used for rehabilitating or incarcerating people.

Anyone want to guess what swords are used for?

 Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:...

It must be nice to have such a sheltered and naive view of the world. I imagine it makes it so much easier to avoid thinking about a lot of awkward and uncomfortable truths...

Peregrine:

I fully admit that the guilt or innocent of a given person would have been much more dubious in previous times than today. But today, we have the convenience of technologies and techniques which did not exist previously.

Many people have been "proven innocent" via DNA science. This is an argument that anti-death penalty people will raise.

What they fail to grasp, however, is that, in fact, we have DNA science now. That means we can be much more certain of the guilt or innocence of a given accused person.

Given modern technologies and techniques, I am inclined to think that the execution of innocent persons is extremely unlikely.

Except that these techniques are not always used correctly and in the future we may develop even better techniques which cast doubt on the techniques we have now.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Except that these techniques are not always used correctly and in the future we may develop even better techniques which cast doubt on the techniques we have now.

This just leads to a vicious circle of doubt/skepticism.

Thankfully, the criterion is "reasonable doubt," not "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

 Traditio wrote:
This just leads to a vicious circle of doubt/skepticism.

No, it just gets in the way of your brutal revenge fantasies. In the real world there's a perfectly acceptable way to escape the issue: life in prison instead of the death penalty. That way if any new evidence or scientific techniques are discovered that would cast doubt on a person's guilt they can be freed and allowed to live as much of a normal life as possible.

Thankfully, the criterion is "reasonable doubt," not "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

And this criterion, when applied to the death penalty, indisputably leads to innocent people being killed.

 Traditio wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Except that these techniques are not always used correctly and in the future we may develop even better techniques which cast doubt on the techniques we have now.

This just leads to a vicious circle of doubt/skepticism.

Thankfully, the criterion is "reasonable doubt," not "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

You should be skeptical of DNA evidence until it is explained exactly how the results were obtained and what margin of error is present.

Otherwise you can end up with situations like in the Steven Avery case in which you had a prosecution scientist saying, under oath, that they were positive that all the blood samples at the crime scene didn't come from a blood test without testing all of them or disclosing the minimum sensitivity of the test.

Scientific evidence like DNA can seem ironclad to a jury who have no knowledge of the restrictions of the science or how it can be misinterpreted, it is not always the case, however.

Better that 100 innocents should die than 1 guilty person should be spared.

There are still various problems with DNA evidence. It isn't the magic bullet that scientifically unknowledgeable people might believe.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Scientific evidence like DNA can seem ironclad to a jury who have no knowledge of the restrictions of the science or how it can be misinterpreted, it is not always the case, however.

And of course lawyers know this and make sure to keep anyone who does understand the science off the jury.

There are still various problems with DNA evidence. It isn't the magic bullet that scientifically unknowledgeable people might believe.

Besides some people are talking like there is DNA evidence used in just about every case. The articles I found show that DNA evidence is only found in 4.5% of murder cases. most cases are convicted on circumstantial evidence. In fact there is a name for the phenomenon that people believe there should be physical evidence most of the time. it is called the CSI effect, look it up. It is rather scary what preconceived notions a jury pool has.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Better that 100 innocents should die than 1 guilty person should be spared.

100 innocents out of how many total convictions?

The simple fact is that persons guilty of certain classes of crimes deserve to die. The State owes them death, and possibly a very brutal and painful one, at that.

You, in turn, will tell me that the State doesn't always write the "check (a check of deserved suffering and death)," so to speak, to the right person.

How often are such mistakes made? If out of every 1000 convictions, 1 person is innocent, I hardly find this a good reason to abolish the death penalty wholesale.

Killing guilty people is part of what the State is supposed to do. The job of the State is to administer justice, and justice requires that the State kill certain classes of people.

Sure. Sometimes mistakes are made, but that's true in general, and you would never take the possibility of human error, however remote, as a reason for abolishing other practices.

Sometimes, children are mixed up at birth. Therefore, women shouldn't give birth in hospitals?

Sometimes, people are falsely convicted. Therefore, nobody should be sent to prison?

Some cops aren't good at their job. Therefore, all police reports and police testimony should be thrown out?

Sometimes, scientists make mistakes. Therefore, we should throw out all of the science books?

You want to focus on the 1 innocent person, out of a thousand, who might be wrongfully put to death. What concerns me much more is the 999 guilty people that you want to rob of the suffering and death which is due to them.

I wonder if Oklahoma ever had any problems with the people running the criminal labs for the state that could affect DNA cases...

(Hint, the answer isn't no)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Better that 100 innocents should die than 1 guilty person should be spared.

100 innocents out of how many total convictions?

The simple fact is that persons guilty of certain classes of crimes deserve to die. The State owes them death, and possibly a very brutal and painful one, at that.

You, in turn, will tell me that the State doesn't always write the "check (a check of deserved suffering and death)," so to speak, to the right person.

How often are such mistakes made? If out of every 1000 convictions, 1 person is innocent, I hardly find this a good reason to abolish the death penalty wholesale.

Killing guilty people is part of what the State is supposed to do. The job of the State is to administer justice, and justice requires that the State kill certain classes of people.

Sure. Sometimes mistakes are made, but that's true in general, and you would never take the possibility of human error, however remote, as a reason for abolishing other practices.

Sometimes, children are mixed up at birth. Therefore, women shouldn't give birth in hospitals?

Sometimes, people are falsely convicted. Therefore, nobody should be sent to prison?

Some cops aren't good at their job. Therefore, all police reports and police testimony should be thrown out?

Sometimes, scientists make mistakes. Therefore, we should throw out all of the science books?

You want to focus on the 1 innocent person, out of a thousand, who might be wrongfully put to death. What concerns me much more is the 999 guilty people that you want to rob of the suffering and death which is due to them.

That ignorant and incoherent rant deserves the death penalty.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
This just leads to a vicious circle of doubt/skepticism.

No, it just gets in the way of your brutal revenge fantasies. In the real world there's a perfectly acceptable way to escape the issue: life in prison instead of the death penalty.

A serial murderer does not deserve life in prison. He deserves to die.

Your way of "escaping the issue" is unjust.

And this criterion, when applied to the death penalty, indisputably leads to innocent people being killed.

How many? What percent?

I'm pretty comfortable making the argument that more innocent people have been killed by the state than by murderers released from prison.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm pretty comfortable making the argument that more innocent people have been killed by the state than by murderers released from prison.

1. Do you have any actual statistics to support that?

2. Even if you did, so what? Such an argument requires utilitarian/consequentialist presuppositions that I simply don't share. I don't care how much of a threat a given murderer poses to the community if he's released. My sole concern is his guilt and desert for punishment.

Do you have any evidence that the number of innocent people who are put to death is at all significant?

Well, on the bright side, at least this is making my point about revenge better than I ever could.

 Traditio wrote:
A serial murderer does not deserve life in prison. He deserves to die.

Your way of "escaping the issue" is unjust.

I see. So your position here is that it's better to execute an innocent person than to allow a guilty person to spend the rest of their life in prison? Would you stick to this principle if you were the innocent person about to be executed, and consider your death a fair price to pay for ensuring that the guilty are also executed? What if it was your wife and children about to be executed for crimes they didn't commit? Would you shrug that off with a "I love you, but you need to die to make sure that murderers are punished appropriately", or would you suddenly discover the injustice of executing innocent people?

How many? What percent?

Any number greater than zero is a problem, and enough of a reason to replace the death penalty with life in prison.

 curran12 wrote:
Well, on the bright side, at least this is making my point about revenge better than I ever could.

I will freely say it: what justice requires is that the State exact vengeance/revenge (i.e., by corporal punishment and death) for certain classes of crimes. The ancients/medievals even had a term for this: "ius talionis," i.e., the right of vengeance.

 Traditio wrote:
2. Even if you did, so what? Such an argument requires utilitarian/consequentialist presuppositions that I simply don't share. I don't care how much of a threat a given murderer poses to the community if he's released. My sole concern is his guilt and desert for punishment.

Well, that certainly makes it clear that we're dealing with bloodthirsty revenge fantasies rather than a reasonable attempt to consider what is best for the world.

Peregrine wrote:I see. So your position here is that it's better to execute an innocent person than to allow a guilty person to spend the rest of their life in prison?

Yes.

Because it's only per accidens that an innocent person is being put to death. The State has taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that a guilty person is being put to death.

In the other case, it's not an accident that a guilty person is being imprisoned rather than killed. The State intends to do this.

And that's unjust.

Would you stick to this principle if you were the innocent person about to be executed, and consider your death a fair price to pay for ensuring that the guilty are also executed? What if it was your wife and children about to be executed for crimes they didn't commit? Would you shrug that off with a "I love you, but you need to die to make sure that murderers are punished appropriately", or would you suddenly discover the injustice of executing innocent people?

Any number greater than zero is a problem, and enough of a reason to replace the death penalty with life in prison.

Why don't you make this argument about criminal punishments in general?

Or science?

Or giving birth in hospitals?

And for any Christians who may be reading this, I strongly recommend that you read the Law of Moses, which St. Paul said was holy, just and good (Romans 7:12).

Perhaps it is better to be fair than just.

 Traditio wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm pretty comfortable making the argument that more innocent people have been killed by the state than by murderers released from prison.

1. Do you have any actual statistics to support that?

2. Even if you did, so what? Such an argument requires utilitarian/consequentialist presuppositions that I simply don't share. I don't care how much of a threat a given murderer poses to the community if he's released. My sole concern is his guilt and desert for punishment.

Do you have any evidence that the number of innocent people who are put to death is at all significant?

Interesting how one can care so much about the law while not caring about the law, and how one can demand evidence while admitting that he will ignore the evidence.

 Traditio wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Well, on the bright side, at least this is making my point about revenge better than I ever could.

I will freely say it: what justice requires is that the State exact vengeance/revenge (i.e., by corporal punishment and death) for certain classes of crimes. The ancients/medievals even had a term for this: "ius talionis," i.e., the right of vengeance.

What about the flip side? The rights of the accused?

It's more than the rights of the convict... it's ensuring that the process itself is just.

 curran12 wrote:
Well, on the bright side, at least this is making my point about revenge better than I ever could.

And to think, we were having such a polite and reasonable discussion. Thanks, Dakka OT

 d-usa wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm pretty comfortable making the argument that more innocent people have been killed by the state than by murderers released from prison.

1. Do you have any actual statistics to support that?

2. Even if you did, so what? Such an argument requires utilitarian/consequentialist presuppositions that I simply don't share. I don't care how much of a threat a given murderer poses to the community if he's released. My sole concern is his guilt and desert for punishment.

Do you have any evidence that the number of innocent people who are put to death is at all significant?

Interesting how one can care so much about the law while not caring about the law, and how one can demand evidence while admitting that he will ignore the evidence.

I'm more interested in these punishment deserts. Is it like the long walk from 2000AD?

 Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:I see. So your position here is that it's better to execute an innocent person than to allow a guilty person to spend the rest of their life in prison?

Yes.

Because it's only per accidens that an innocent person is being put to death. The State has taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that a guilty person is being put to death.

In the other case, it's not an accident that a guilty person is being imprisoned rather than killed. The State intends to do this.

And that's unjust.

Would you stick to this principle if you were the innocent person about to be executed, and consider your death a fair price to pay for ensuring that the guilty are also executed? What if it was your wife and children about to be executed for crimes they didn't commit? Would you shrug that off with a "I love you, but you need to die to make sure that murderers are punished appropriately", or would you suddenly discover the injustice of executing innocent people?

Any number greater than zero is a problem, and enough of a reason to replace the death penalty with life in prison.

Why don't you make this argument about criminal punishments in general?

Or science?

Or giving birth in hospitals?

And for any Christians who may be reading this, I strongly recommend that you read the Law of Moses, which St. Paul said was holy, just and good (Romans 7:12).

Hey, at least you agree that the Romans justly excexuted Jesus so there is that.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Perhaps it is better to be fair than just.

Fairness = justice.

You can replace every instance of "just" that I've used in this thread with "fair."

It's not fair for a serial arsonist and murderer to spend the rest of his life in prison. What is fair is for him to die. And what's most fair (though by no means required) is that he be burned to death.

 Traditio wrote:
Because it's only per accidens that an innocent person is being put to death. The State has taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that a guilty person is being put to death.

Except they haven't taken all reasonable precautions, because they don't have to execute people at all. They can impose a sentence of life in prison instead, bringing the chance of executing an innocent person down to zero.

Why don't you make this argument about criminal punishments in general?

Or science?

Or giving birth in hospitals?

Because it would be a nonsense argument when applied to other things? Now, are you going to answer the question of whether you'd happily let the state execute your wife and children for crimes they don't commit and shrug it off as the acceptable price of making sure that the guilty are also executed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
It's not fair for a serial arsonist and murderer to spend the rest of his life in prison. What is fair is for him to die. And what's most fair (though by no means required) is that he be burned to death.

Why isn't it fair? Because it doesn't satisfy your desire to torture someone to death?

It's almost like the state that says "the law says x, but I got y, so that's good enough because Google" might not be trusted with their definition of due diligence.

 Traditio wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Well, on the bright side, at least this is making my point about revenge better than I ever could.

I will freely say it: what justice requires is that the State exact vengeance/revenge (i.e., by corporal punishment and death) for certain classes of crimes. The ancients/medievals even had a term for this: "ius talionis," i.e., the right of vengeance.

They also believed in magic spells, demons making people doing evil things, dragons, and the right to own salves. They believed in trial by combat, ordeal and the absolute divinity of kings. What's with the total hard-on for the ancients? They were idiots that gak in their own drinking water.

They also believed that the colonies belonged to the Crown!

whembly wrote:What about the flip side? The rights of the accused?

I fully admit the rights of the accused. The accused has a right to receive some kind of appropriate process to determine whether he's most likely innocent or guilty. If the great probability is that he is guilty, he has the right to receive the punishment which is appropriate for the crime for which he is accused (of which death and torture are possible punishment). Otherwise, he has a right to be set free.