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.

 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.

Also, the appeals process is sometimes seriously flawed.

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?

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

Also, the appeals process is sometimes seriously flawed.

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.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:And one example does not an argument make.

Where the death penalty is concerned, one example most certainly does 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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 can see that being hugely productive....

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

You two want to take a breather and come back using another tact to get across?

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

Considering the penalty is as absolute as it gets, I don't see any other way to conduct such a discussion.

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

*shrugs*

Nah, in other areas of crime, home break-ins, mugging, instances of drug use, you're pretty much bang on the average. And in terms of the murder rate, in 2011 less than 15% of murders were related to felonies of any type http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10.

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.

In the United States there have been 142 cases of people on death row having their convictions over turned, going all the way back to 1937. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates#1990-1999

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.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

eh... I'd be in favor of dropping execution for hard labor and chain gangs:

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

Penal Battalion....