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.

 d-usa wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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."

Stupid argument is stupid.

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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

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?

 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.

Relapse wrote:

 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?

Relapse wrote:

 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:

Relapse wrote:

 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.

Relapse wrote:

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:

whembly wrote:

 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.

Best of luck in your future endeavours;

Lt. Governor Judith Guichon

Relapse wrote:
People sentenced to death found later to be innocent and acquitted:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row


On the other side of the coin:


http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm


convicted murderers who murdered again, either after release or while still in prison:


http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

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.

Relapse wrote:

Relapse wrote:
People sentenced to death found later to be innocent and acquitted:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row


On the other side of the coin:


http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm


convicted murderers who murdered again, either after release or while still in prison:


http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

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?

Is my understanding correct?

 Rented Tritium wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:

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.

Chongara wrote:


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.

Relapse wrote:

I am showing that the United States would have a lower murder rate with the death penalty.

The united states has the death penalty right now. There is no "would".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

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?

PhantomViper wrote:

Chongara wrote:


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.

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.

 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!

PhantomViper wrote:

 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.

Relapse wrote:

 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.