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.

 Redbeard wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not concerned about cost. I'm concerned about human life.

Apparently not about the quality of it. You know there are over seven billion human lives on the planet. That every day, we drive other species extinct as we consume their habitats to drive our never ending quest for more human life. But how much of a life is it, sitting in a 9x9 cell for 23 hours a day?

If your innocent, then you have a chance of getting out of that. If it's the death penalty, there is no going back. Some people deserve to die, but to many innocent people get convicted for me to take that chance.

Here's my question. If a person's execution is botched and he/she dies later from injury caused by said execution attempt, can the State be sued for wrongful death?

 Redbeard wrote:

That's naive. Of course cost should enter discussions. And, sorry, but your analogies are inappropriate here. There's nothing that equates someone convicted of violent crimes with orphans or homeless people. Those convict of violent crimes against society have already surrendered their right to be a part of society, and the discussion about what to do with them, how to remove them from society, absolutely should consider the cost to society. On the other hand, everyone else that you mention have done nothing wrong that requires their removal for our safety.

Wants to execute people because it's cheaper.
Wants to remove the system put in place to protect innocent people from getting executed.
Claims that no innocent people will ever be executed so it's stupid to compare it to the execution of innocent people.

Genius.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Their crime is terrible, yes, but everybody can make mistakes with their lives.

Some mistakes have consequences that are a little more permanent than others

Such as executing an innocent person?

Funny and what I'm getting at, have an exalt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
Here's my question. If a person's execution is botched and he/she dies later from injury caused by said execution attempt, can the State be sued for wrongful death?

That is an interesting question. I guess it depends on the case. If it's hours of horrible agony that is preventable, than yes. If it's just a regular death, than not really.

Co'tor Shas wrote:... Some people deserve to die, but to many innocent people get convicted for me to take that chance.

I think you vastly over-estimate this.

d-usa wrote:
Wants to execute people because it's cheaper.
Wants to remove the system put in place to protect innocent people from getting executed.
Claims that no innocent people will ever be executed so it's stupid to compare it to the execution of innocent people.

Hey there, "Genius", I think if you go back and re-read everything I've written, I've never once claimed that no innocent people will be executed. What I have said, repeatedly, is that I believe the death penalty should be applied to repeat offenders. Now, it's entirely possible that an innocent person is convicted once, spend some time in jail, be believed rehabilitated, be released, and then arrested again, before their actual innocence in the first crime is revealed. And, if they are also innocent of that second crime, then it's entirely possible that they get executed. But, the likelihood of this all happening is very slim, and certainly within what I consider an acceptable margin.

That's unfortunate, but it is better than the alternative. Remember, if they were actually guilty of either crime that they were convicted of, they're not innocent. Remember, also, that the vast majority of VICTIMS of violent crime are innocent. If there's enough evidence to wrongly convict someone twice, then perhaps some other part of the system needs to be evaluated. Because locking an innocent person up for 30 years IS NOT BETTER.

Whoever said "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent be executed" was a moron. With a recidivism rate of even only 4%, letting 1000 guilty people go free would result in 40 additional innocent victims. Last time I checked, 40 innocent victims was more than one innocent victim.

Then turn all death penalty sentences into life without parole.

They have a lifelong opportunity to prove that they are innocent and no innocent people get killed, neither by the state nor by people that were released.

We spend more money locking up drug offenders than murders, so the money argument is nonsense.

 d-usa wrote:
Then turn all death penalty sentences into life without parole.

They have a lifelong opportunity to prove that they are innocent and no innocent people get killed, neither by the state nor by people that were released.

We spend more money locking up drug offenders than murders, so the money argument is nonsense.

We obviously just disagree.

1) I believe that life imprisonment is a fate worse than death. I would not want to spend the rest of my life in a prison, and would rather face a lethal injection, a hanging, or a bullet, than the prospect of the loss of my freedom for 30 years. Now, I also don't plan to kill anyone, and doubt that I'm going to be wrongly convicted of such, so I probably won't have to face that choice. Still, presenting life imprisonment as somehow 'better' for the prisoner is an idea I simply cannot fathom. The only person that life imprisonment is better for is the owner of the jail. This is true whether the prisoner in question is actually guilty or falsely convicted. Loss of freedom with no expectation of release is a fate worse than death.

2) What we do with drug offenses should have no impact on this discussion. I mean, it's wrong and all, but two wrongs don't make a right. If your argument is that we waste too much on drug offenders, therefore we should also waste too much on violent offenders, then you've lost any respect I may have had for you.

 Redbeard wrote:

Whoever said "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent be executed" was a moron. With a recidivism rate of even only 4%, letting 1000 guilty people go free would result in 40 additional innocent victims. Last time I checked, 40 innocent victims was more than one innocent victim.

That "moron" was the man who made it possible for people other than highly trained lawyers to understand English Common Law. He's a big reason you have the laws that you do have.

Also, he originally said 10 guilty people to one innocent. but the ratio is unimportant. The principle is not.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

By imprisoning and executing innocent people you are infringing on all three of the rights which are held as absolute in the very document that led to the founding of your country.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redbeard wrote:


1) I believe that life imprisonment is a fate worse than death. I would not want to spend the rest of my life in a prison, and would rather face a lethal injection, a hanging, or a bullet, than the prospect of the loss of my freedom for 30 years. Now, I also don't plan to kill anyone, and doubt that I'm going to be wrongly convicted of such, so I probably won't have to face that choice. Still, presenting life imprisonment as somehow 'better' for the prisoner is an idea I simply cannot fathom. The only person that life imprisonment is better for is the owner of the jail. This is true whether the prisoner in question is actually guilty or falsely convicted. Loss of freedom with no expectation of release is a fate worse than death.

What about the convicted persons family? Is it better that their children grow up without a father or mother because they were executed? How will those children feel when their parent is later proven innocent? At least with life imprisonment they would then get to spend some more time with their father/mother after their release when they are found innocent.

Saying that loss of freedom with no expectation of release is worse than death is only true if you accept that innocent people in jail will not be able to get out. In which case you need to really look at your current justice system and possibly tear it down and build something better in it's place because it is obviously not fit for purpose.

 Redbeard wrote:

2) What we do with drug offenses should have no impact on this discussion. I mean, it's wrong and all, but two wrongs don't make a right. If your argument is that we waste too much on drug offenders, therefore we should also waste too much on violent offenders, then you've lost any respect I may have had for you.

It shows how stupid the argument is that we should execute people because it's cheaper.

There are currently ~3,100 people on death row.
There are currently 500,000 people in jail for drug crimes.

Arguing that we should just kill them to save the money we would spend on housing them is nonsense, it is even more nonsense when we look at just how little money we would actually save because they are such a tiny percentage of the people we actually have in prison.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Also, he originally said 10 guilty people to one innocent. but the ratio is unimportant. The principle is not.

Actually, the ratio is extremely important. When dealing with the concept of repeat offenders, understanding the recidivism rate is how you make an educated decision that minimizes harm to innocents. You have to compare the rate of false conviction to the rate of recidivism to know how to minimize harm to innocents. If your ratio of false convictions is 4% and your recidivism rate is 10%, then for each 100 convictions, you have 4 innocents up-front, and another 10 who will harm innocents once released. With that ratio, you're better off executing first-time offenders, as for each 100 convictions, you'll see only 4 innocents harmed, rather than 10 if you let them all go. Once your recidivism rate drops below your false conviction rate, you're better off waiting for them to prove that they're not rehabilitated before executing them.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

By imprisoning and executing innocent people you are infringing on all three of the rights which are held as absolute in the very document that led to the founding of your country.

Oh, which is somehow better than infringing on only two of them by imprisoning them for life? It's well-established that convicted felons have surrendered these rights, otherwise we'd have no moral ground for imprisonment at all.

 Redbeard wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

By imprisoning and executing innocent people you are infringing on all three of the rights which are held as absolute in the very document that led to the founding of your country.

Oh, which is somehow better than infringing on only two of them by imprisoning them for life? It's well-established that convicted felons have surrendered these rights, otherwise we'd have no moral ground for imprisonment at all.

Those two rights (Liberty, pursuit of happiness) can be regained upon release. If you take the third (life) then you take away all three forever, regardless of whether the person is later proven innocent.
So yes, I do think it is better to (potentially temporarily) take the two which can be regained rather than the third which also takes the other two and cannot be reversed.

At least The Onion is on the case:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/cashstrapped-oklahoma-to-conduct-executions-by-ham,21233/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview%3ANA%3AInFocus

In my personal experience, people who support the death penalty are people who are not used thinking things all the way through.

Some things to consider when arguing for the death penalty:

1. Define violent crime. Think of all types of violence.
2. At what point does the execution of innocents become unacceptable for you?
3. Do you there believe there is "good murder" and "bad murder", just as you believe there is "good killing" and "bad killing"?

feeder wrote:
In my personal experience, people who support the death penalty are people who are not used thinking things all the way through.

Hrm, that's what I think of people who oppose it.

1. Define violent crime. Think of all types of violence.

Wikipedia does this just fine. Feel free to look it up on your own time.

2. At what point does the execution of innocents become unacceptable for you?

When the math shows that more innocents are harmed in enacting the policy than are saved from harm in upholding it. This is not nearly as deep as you think it is. The goal is removal of harm from innocents. If this is best achieved by executing those convicted of repeat violent offenses, then that's what should be done. If the rest of the justice system is so inept that you find that following this policy actually harms more innocent people than would be harmed by releasing them, then release them, but I think you have a bigger problem on your hands if this is the case.

3. Do you there believe there is "good murder" and "bad murder", just as you believe there is "good killing" and "bad killing"?

This is not a valid question, as it presumes a belief I don't have. What is a "good killing" or a "bad killing", I don't think I've seen these terms in this discussion before.

 Redbeard wrote:

When the math shows that more innocents are harmed in enacting the policy than are saved from harm in upholding it. This is not nearly as deep as you think it is. The goal is removal of harm from innocents. If this is best achieved by executing those convicted of repeat violent offenses, then that's what should be done. If the rest of the justice system is so inept that you find that following this policy actually harms more innocent people than would be harmed by releasing them, then release them, but I think you have a bigger problem on your hands if this is the case.

Am I correct in assuming based upon this that you'd consider the death of an innocent at the hands of the government equal in "wrongness" to the death of an innocent at the hands of a citizen?

 daedalus wrote:

Am I correct in assuming based upon this that you'd consider the death of an innocent at the hands of the government equal in "wrongness" to the death of an innocent at the hands of a citizen?

Absolutely. To the innocent party, I doubt it makes much difference.

 Redbeard wrote:

feeder wrote:
In my personal experience, people who support the death penalty are people who are not used thinking things all the way through.

Hrm, that's what I think of people who oppose it.

1. Define violent crime. Think of all types of violence.

Wikipedia does this just fine. Feel free to look it up on your own time.

2. At what point does the execution of innocents become unacceptable for you?

When the math shows that more innocents are harmed in enacting the policy than are saved from harm in upholding it. This is not nearly as deep as you think it is. The goal is removal of harm from innocents. If this is best achieved by executing those convicted of repeat violent offenses, then that's what should be done. If the rest of the justice system is so inept that you find that following this policy actually harms more innocent people than would be harmed by releasing them, then release them, but I think you have a bigger problem on your hands if this is the case.

3. Do you there believe there is "good murder" and "bad murder", just as you believe there is "good killing" and "bad killing"?

This is not a valid question, as it presumes a belief I don't have. What is a "good killing" or a "bad killing", I don't think I've seen these terms in this discussion before.

Black baby Jesus in a dune buggy! We got ourselves a utilitarian.

 Redbeard wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Am I correct in assuming based upon this that you'd consider the death of an innocent at the hands of the government equal in "wrongness" to the death of an innocent at the hands of a citizen?

Absolutely. To the innocent party, I doubt it makes much difference.

The problem with that is that we cede our natural rights to the government as part of the social contract where they protect our given rights. As they have responsibility to actively protect and uphold those rights, the innocent put to the death at the hands of the state is doubly wronged. He is not being harmed by the state, and he is actively protected by the state from itself.

Dead men offer no appeals. You can gain little extra information from a corpse, and you do not put to death someone you believe is innocent, so if you have put the innocent to death, there is still a guilty party at large and the dead innocent is no longer capable of attempting to drive further investigation or prove his innocence in any way.

So now you have two ways in which that the doomed innocent were wronged, and another way which wrongs the original victim(s) (deprived of justice) and society (leaving a criminal who could act again still at large) as a whole. While you can't directly measure that impact in a count of heads, there certainly must be an impact there. That is why people find it repugnant.

Meanwhile murdering citizen has no such obligation to actively uphold the protection bestowed upon you by the state; he simply has an obligation to not violate the voluntary cession of his natural rights. What he does is appalling, but not to the extent of when it occurs by state.

Well, that's one way to look at it. I'm sure that a wrongly dead person really cares whether he was wronged once or twice in his killing.

And, it doesn't address the question of the math. If one person is doubly wronged, but the system that leads to a small number of people being doubly-wronged also prevents a much larger number of people from being wronged at all, aren't the fewest wrongs achieved by hitting the small number of people doubly?

Executing them doesn't prevent anybody from being wronged, at all.

That's the failure of your logic.

If you exclude that there's someone guilty still out on the loose in those situations, perhaps. The math approach here makes sense, but it kind of has a "this'll never happen to me" feeling about it. The dead party was still wronged. I suppose it's academic how wronged they are, and they certainly don't care, but it is no less wronged.

The problem here is that, at least for the people who oppose the death sentence, no amount of math, no matter how accurate, can compensate for the horror of hearing of a literal Kafkaesque situation where the law apprehends and kills an innocent person for crimes not committed. What you advocate is entirely logic based, and it probably IS a good system for creatures that are logic based. Humans really don't seem to be that though.

 curran12 wrote:
I was going to be amazed at how many people were fine with someone dying in tortured agony here, but then I remembered it was the internet.

I dunno, I just woke up and after skimming the thread am rather pleased with how the conversation has (mostly) failed to devolve, a rarity on such a polarizing subject.

 Redbeard wrote:

feeder wrote:
In my personal experience, people who support the death penalty are people who are not used thinking things all the way through.

Hrm, that's what I think of people who oppose it.

Lol, to be clear, I am not talking about anyone ITT. I have had this convo IRL and can usually show others the error in their thinking.

1. Define violent crime. Think of all types of violence.


Wikipedia does this just fine. Feel free to look it up on your own time.

Not really what I was getting at, but okay...

Wikipedia wrote:A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which the offender uses or threatens to use violent force upon the victim. This entails both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such as murder, as well as crimes in which violence is the means to an end, (including criminal ends) such as robbery. Violent crimes include crimes committed with weapons

So do you advocate the death penalty for multiple robberies? How about bar fights? Basically, what kind of violence justifies an execution?

2. At what point does the execution of innocents become unacceptable for you?

When the math shows that more innocents are harmed in enacting the policy than are saved from harm in upholding it. This is not nearly as deep as you think it is. The goal is removal of harm from innocents. If this is best achieved by executing those convicted of repeat violent offenses, then that's what should be done. If the rest of the justice system is so inept that you find that following this policy actually harms more innocent people than would be harmed by releasing them, then release them, but I think you have a bigger problem on your hands if this is the case.

Well, fair enough. I can see your line of reasoning, but I really think there is too many unknowns to get a mathematically sound ratio of lives lost vs lives spared. Not one that I would be comfortable with implementing, anyway.

3. Do you there believe there is "good murder" and "bad murder", just as you believe there is "good killing" and "bad killing"?

This is not a valid question, as it presumes a belief I don't have. What is a "good killing" or a "bad killing", I don't think I've seen these terms in this discussion before.

Sorry, I'll clarify. "Good" killing is killing via war, execution, (possibly) self-defence. "Bad" killing is murder.

oooohhhhhhhhhhh

feeder wrote:

Sorry, I'll clarify. "Good" killing is killing via war, execution, (possibly) self-defence. "Bad" killing is murder.

Self-defense is always "good". Sorry, but you really ought to be able to defend yourself with as much force as a situation merits.

The death penalty is not self defence.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The death penalty is not self defence.

What is it then?

Maybe we all should agree that being a Murderer & Rapist is an occupational hazard that your execution may not go as planned.

 Ouze wrote:
For the life of me, I don't understand why we don't just shoot people if we've got to execute them. I've got mixed feelings on capital punishment - I can neither endorse it nor condemn it - but if I had to get it, getting shot in the head point blank with a decent caliber seems more pleasant than either the chair, the gas, or the needle. Messier, I guess.

Yeah, some time ago people decided that you needed to execute people in a nice, clean fashion. There were lots of arguments about it being humane or whatever, but basically it meant they were inventing ways to kill people that didn't make a mess, didn't show any blood.

The result was a bunch of gas and injection based methods of killing that need to be administered very carefully or else they might cause a whole lot of pain while they kill the person.

Personally I'm all for death by explosion. Even over a bullet in the head, with enough explosive you're pretty much guaranteed an instant, pain free death. Sure it'd be gruesome, but you're killing a person, why get squeamish about it?

Any suffering from a human being even if they are going to die is unethical. I can't really say that much. No one has to suffer that much. no one.

Of course killing any human being is unethical even in self defense.... We are part of each other and we are human beings.

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
For the life of me, I don't understand why we don't just shoot people if we've got to execute them. I've got mixed feelings on capital punishment - I can neither endorse it nor condemn it - but if I had to get it, getting shot in the head point blank with a decent caliber seems more pleasant than either the chair, the gas, or the needle. Messier, I guess.

Yeah, some time ago people decided that you needed to execute people in a nice, clean fashion. There were lots of arguments about it being humane or whatever, but basically it meant they were inventing ways to kill people that didn't make a mess, didn't show any blood.

The result was a bunch of gas and injection based methods of killing that need to be administered very carefully or else they might cause a whole lot of pain while they kill the person.

Personally I'm all for death by explosion. Even over a bullet in the head, with enough explosive you're pretty much guaranteed an instant, pain free death. Sure it'd be gruesome, but you're killing a person, why get squeamish about it?

There's always the mortor option as pioneered by North Korea!