Forked from "22-year-old...": My thoughts on the Death Penalty

[Colonel Green]

People frequently argue that society needs the death penalty in order to protect itself from violent criminals, while ignoring the fact that the death penalty itself is a threat to the innocent.

One wrongful execution is too many. Life in solitary confinement serves to protect the public just as well as execution, not to mention the fact that it is WAY cheaper.

Didn't your mothers teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

 

[Lonemagpie]

And then there are all the practical considerations to take into account about making sure the guilty are absolutely and definitely *actually* guilty first...

I wonder how you would phrase that in law.

I mean the standard right now is beyond reasonable doubt. What could it be next? Beyond unreasonable doubt? Wouldn't say, Aliens made me do it be unreasonable doubt?

"Not fitted up by the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad" would be a good place to start.

A person convicted on moderately convincing evidence can always be compensated and released if better evidence (or advances in technological ability to interpret evidence) later shows the conviction was wrong

And if you say some sort of "only people who are really guilty", then why are the others convicted if they aren't "absolutely and definitely *actually* guilty"?

Because jurors frequently don't fully understand the scientific evidence, are bamboozled by lawyers, can be bought, can be manipulated by the lawyers (OJ's trial immediately springs to mind here!) and frequently just want to get it over with so they can leave, regardless of the consequences for others.

And the same goes for magistrates, tribunals, etc

On a scale from Amanda Knox to Timothy McVeigh, sure there are differences in how certain we are that they're guilty. How do you put that into actual usable law?
Have X number of witnesses? Y number of different types of DNA evidence?

You'd certainly want a broad spread of utterly irrefutible evidence of different types- witnesses, CCTV footage, physical evidence, confessions that come with sufficient evidence of not being forced...

 

[iguana_tonante]

it just, in general, "feels right."

This is the only reason for the death penalty. Vengeance. Blood calls for blood.

Make no mistake, I can understand it. If someone had taken a loved one away from me, I'll want vengeance. Bloody vengeance. But some faceless bureucrats to take things into their hands is ridiculous and completely off the point. When you steal something, you don't pay a fine to the state, you make restitution to the wronged part. He wronged me: his life his mine. I should be the one pulling the trigger, if I feel the need for it.

If you want vengeance, at least you should have the guts to call it by its name.

 

[USS Triumphant]

the ACLU comment has some basis in fact. There have been several studies which found that going only based on crime committed and punishment issued, the DP is handed down several times more often if the convicted is black, verses white.

Most whites get life.

If this is true - and it sounds well-researched (although there is a blatant error in math on the ACLU page tsq sent me to) - then it still isn't an argument against the death penalty. It is a very good argument for eliminating inequality in sentencing, which is something that we know needs to be done across the board, anyway - like in the difference in sentencing between possessions of crack and regular cocaine.

Well I think it's repugnant to "reward" a criminal monster with a lifetime of free room and board, healthcare and having all of his needs met without any responsibilities on his part to society.

Granted, life in prison is no picnic, but the guy is still sucking on air, eating every day, is able to read and enjoy books and is even still legally entitled to other activites because liberal nutjobs sobed over prisons being too cruel so many of them have been made practicaly into resorts.

It isn't a reward. A sentence of life in prison, or a death penalty sentence, or even just a three year sentence, is demanding a sacrifice from someone that their basic human rights entitle them to because they have demonstrated that it is necessary for the good of society. And I've been to prisons lately - they aren't resorts by any means, with possible rare exceptions at the federal level.

I agree with you and feel the same way about abortion.

I feel almost the same way about abortion and the death penalty - both are unfortunate choices that are sometimes necessary ones. The difference being that abortion is a decision that can't practically be put in the hands of government (and thus must be reserved to the mother), and the death penalty is one that can't be put anywhere else BUT the government (or you end up with vigilantes).

Didn't your mothers teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

Since it was my mother that I was referring to when I said I had had a loved one who had been at risk of receiving the death penalty, maybe that isn't the best question to ask in my case.

This is the only reason for the death penalty. Vengeance. Blood calls for blood.

No. It isn't. When a dog has to be put down after attacking a human, is this vengeance? Or simply an unfortunate choice made to remove an animal that can no longer be trusted with humans?

Sometimes people are just too broken to fix, too.

 

[cultcross]

"Many people have been executed who later have been proved to be innocent." - "Many" is a strong word. The system mostly works. But if your point is that some have and that some is too many, then I'll agree. But no system is without flaws.

When the end result is death, I find those flaws less easy to casually dismiss.

A person convicted on moderately convincing evidence can always be compensated and released if better evidence (or advances in technological ability to interpret evidence) later shows the conviction was wrong

"Moderately convincing evidence"?? The standard in a criminal court is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. If the evidence is only 'moderately convincing', the correct verdict is 'not guilty'.


The death penalty straddles the gulf in our legal system where we must, simultaneously, take it as being flawless and yet acknowledge its flaws. We can't treat a 'guilty' verdict as representing a certain degree of guilty, case by case - they're guilty, or they're not. We have to assume when it comes to the sentencing phase that the 'guilty' is correct - the strength of the specific evidence that led to the verdict isn't relevant anymore.
And yet, we must also keep in the back of our minds that trial by jury isn't a flawless system, so in order to reflect that, we take our 'worst' punishment off the table completely. That means that no-one is executed wrongly. OK, if you're in prison for 40 years and then exonerated, can we really 'pay back' the wrongs done to you? I doubt it. But we can at least try. We can clear your name, we can try to make restitution. If you're 40 years dead and buried by our hand, tough shit. The punishment stands.

 

[iguana_tonante]

This is the only reason for the death penalty. Vengeance. Blood calls for blood.

No. It isn't. When a dog has to be put down after attacking a human, is this vengeance? Or simply an unfortunate choice made to remove an animal that can no longer be trusted with humans?

Of course it is vengeance. What else? Dogs have personalities, moods and motives. Sometimes we understand them, sometimes we don't. Ask yourself: why you put them down? Is it for deterrent? No, because other dogs will not understand this. Is it for protection? No, because all dogs have the potential to hurt humans, not just the ones that already did. Shall we put them all down, just to be sure?

It is a matter of punishment, and punishment without rehabilitation is vengeance.

Sometimes people are just too broken to fix, too.

And so you kill them? Because they are an inconvenience? And where to stop? I'm no fan of "slippery slope" argument, but once you start killing people because they are inconvenient to keep alive, it's difficult to avoid the question who you are going to kill next.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

"Many people have been executed who later have been proved to be innocent." - "Many" is a strong word. The system mostly works. But if your point is that some have and that some is too many, then I'll agree. But no system is without flaws.

Listen to yourself: "The system mostly works." Well, that's great if you're talking about handing out parking tickets, and it's regrettable but impossible to avoid when you're dealing with putting people in prison for more serious crimes where at least they're still alive to be released if you're wrong. But it's completely unacceptable when the system mostly works and the end result is that innocent people wind up dead as a result.

How many innocent dead are considered acceptable losses to an inefficient and costly form of punishment which does not serve as a deterrent? The fact that "no system is without flaws" is precisely why the death penalty should never be used.

How can you say any loss of innocent life at government hands is one too many and then follow that up by sloughing that off as the cost of doing business?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Of course it is vengeance. What else? Dogs have personalities, moods and motives. Sometimes we understand them, sometimes we don't. Ask yourself: why you put them down? Is it for deterrent? No, because other dogs will not understand this. Is it for protection? No, because all dogs have the potential to hurt humans, not just the ones that already did. Shall we put them all down, just to be sure?

It is a matter of punishment, and punishment without rehabilitation is vengeance.

I am forced to agree with the proposition that some people, or animals (or both ) simply cannot be rehabilitated. I'm not saying the death penalty is always the right response. But the fact remains, some are simply beyond help. So what's to be done with them? I admit I don't know the answer to that one.

 

[cultcross]

^ Who gets to make the decision whether someone can never be rehabilitated or if it's not worth even trying?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Who gets to make the decision whether someone can never be rehabilitated or if it's not worth even trying?

I didn't say it wasn't worth trying. Obviously it is. But if, after repeated and unyielding attempts, it still doesn't work, what then? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

 

[cultcross]

^ Who gets to make the decision whether someone can never be rehabilitated or if it's not worth even trying?

I didn't say it wasn't worth trying. Obviously it is. But if, after repeated and unyielding attempts, it still doesn't work, what then? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

You'll find when dealing with humans, that stops being true. I know several examples of people who were finally rehabilitated after a lifetime of repeat offending and spending literally decades in prison. This book is by an ex burglar who spent more than half his life behind bars for a string of repeat offences before mending his ways and actually now working as a consultant for the police. I worked with him last year on a security-at-Christmas drive for local news, and he won over even my cynical disbelief. I'm also working with another potential example in a prison nearby of a man who has spent 30+ years inside for violent offences but is beginning to show the early steps towards true rehabilitation and redemption. Sometimes, with people, it really isn't as simple as 'it's insane to keep trying'.

Besides, what are the other options? Executions later on of those you can't make headway with?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I am forced to agree with the proposition that some people, or animals (or both ) simply cannot be rehabilitated. I'm not saying the death penalty is always the right response. But the fact remains, some are simply beyond help. So what's to be done with them?

If only there was some kind of alternative to killing those types of criminals, like locking them up for the rest of their lives...

I guess we'll never know. I dream too big.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I know several examples of people who were finally rehabilitated after a lifetime of repeat offending and spending literally decades in prison. This book is by an ex burglar who spent more than half his life behind bars for a string of repeat offences before mending his ways and actually now working as a consultant for the police. I worked with him last year on a security-at-Christmas drive for local news. I'm also working with another potential example in a prison nearby of a man who has spent 30+ years inside for violent offences but is beginning to show the early steps towards true rehabilitation and redemption. Sometimes, with people, it really isn't as simple as 'it's insane to keep trying'.

I suppose you're right.

Besides, what are the other options? Executions later on of those you can't make headway with?

I never said I supported the death penalty. I used to, but not anymore. I said that if rehabilitation didn't seem to be working, I don't know what else could be done. I guess it's nothing at all, except leaving them locked up. Fine. I accept that.

I admit I'm confused as to how it could be more expensive to execute someone than to leave them incarcerated until they die (which is often a considerable amount of time)...

 

[cultcross]

I admit I'm confused as to how it could be more expensive to execute someone than to leave them incarcerated until they die (which is often a considerable amount of time)...

It's largely to do with the appeals process (and the fact that 'execution' usually means 'incarcerate for a decade or more then execute' so you end up paying for both). I've heard advocates of the DP arguing to do away with it to make executions cheaper, but then that just makes it even more ridiculous in terms of false conviction risk.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I admit I'm confused as to how it could be more expensive to execute someone than to leave them incarcerated until they die (which is often a considerable amount of time)...

Dammit, did I activate the cloaking device on my posts again?

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3645703&postcount=15

 

[sidious618]

Hey, what the hell? Thanks for using my post, out of context, and putting it right at the beginning of your thread without asking. I really appreciate that.

And, as stated by the iguana, the only reason for the death penalty is vengeance and that's not a good enough reason for me. You can't kill people because, well, you don't like them very much. This becomes even more dangerous when the state is doing it.

 

[Lonemagpie]

A person convicted on moderately convincing evidence can always be compensated and released if better evidence (or advances in technological ability to interpret evidence) later shows the conviction was wrong

"Moderately convincing evidence"?? The standard in a criminal court is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. If the evidence is only 'moderately convincing', the correct verdict is 'not guilty'.

What's supposed to happen and what actually happens are not
always the same thing - and then there's the definition of "reasonable doubt" which is obviously subjective.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Dammit, did I activate the cloaking device on my posts again?

Guess I deserved that one.

Hey, what the hell? Thanks for using my post, out of context, and putting it right at the beginning of your thread without asking. I really appreciate that.

Who are you talking to?

 

[sidious618]

Hey, what the hell? Thanks for using my post, out of context, and putting it right at the beginning of your thread without asking. I really appreciate that.

Who are you talking to?

Well since I said "right at the beginning of your thread" who do you think?

 

[USS Triumphant]

Of course it is vengeance. What else?

Okay. So the little boy putting his rabid dog down in "Old Yeller" was doing it out of vengeance.

Hey, what the hell? Thanks for using my post, out of context, and putting it right at the beginning of your thread without asking. I really appreciate that.

I stated where the quote was from and that it was intended sarcastically, and based on that and my own comments following I felt it was pretty clear that your position was in opposition to my own. Also, I started writing that as a reply in the Amanda Knox thread and it grew way too big and seemed like it would derail that thread too much.

Sorry if this caused any confusion - but frankly, anyone who was confused by that probably doesn't need to be involved in a conversation about something as important as the death penalty.

Edit: I've edited it for clarity, anyway. I hope that's better.