capital punishment?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In fact, no government given the death penalty as a tool has ever failed to abuse it. Certainly not the US - not with death rows full of black men and shadow prisons in offshore sites equipped with torture gear.

And yet - in fact - somehow innocent people are convicted of crimes quite frequently in the US, and often on the basis of confession. In Illinois - I choose an example presented to us in your biased and carelessly researched link as a State that has suffered dozens of extra murders since suspending its death penalty - almost one in eight men convicted of serious violent crime (the kind that leaves DNA evidence that happened to have been preserved) were apparently innocent. Several of the innocent had confessed.

Here's an example, a case in which the absence of a death penalty paid off in several ways: it freed the innocent, who had not been killed by the State in the years since conviction; it provided opportunity for the guilty to come forward (serving a life sentence for other horrible crimes, he had not been killed by the State); it prevented the State from closing the books on the crime and discarding evidence etc; and so forth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case

States should not be allowed to bury their mistakes (or their crimes). They will, if they can.

Says a citizen of the country that recently invaded and occupied Iraq (a country about the size of Poland and likewise rich in fossil fuels, if that rings a bell), with expanding consequences becoming more visible by the day.

This is a typical attitude of people who trust their government - not other governments, of course, but theirs - with capital punishment.

It's got nothing to do with what horrible criminals "deserve". It has to do with what powers a government "deserves".

Above, an example of a case in which absence of the death penalty proved fortunate. The Unabomber provides another, although in that case it was only the credibility of the Feds involved when they promised family not to pursue it that provided the absence. Here's another side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh Notice how much was lost by the killing of McVeigh - not only the dubious "good" of punishment (he preferred execution to life in prison), but the loss of potential future information, remorse, etc.

S

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It doesn't matter what he "deserves." A monster like that doesn't "deserve" anything; he's given up any rights he has.

The only remaining issue is how to protect society from him at the lowest cost. And life in prison accomplishes that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, unfortunately for you Iceaura, facts do matter. So according to you the State of Kansas which has had the death penalty on the books since the 1976 when the Supreme Court restored capital punishment has abused its death penalty law by failing to execute even one person....really? Iceaura, you are doing what you always do. Inflammatory rhetoric isn't a substitute for fact and reason.

Well, you are moving the goal post. The discussion isn't about all crimes. It's very specifically about the death penalty. And what would that example be exactly?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think as is often the case with you, you are confused.

I guess you missed the part where I said, guilt must be certain and the part where I spoke about DNA evidence. The Central Park case you cited was never a capital punishment case to begin with, and the convicted murder who was subsequently found guilty of the rape was convicted of murder and sentenced to life while New York still had he death penalty on its books, so it's difficult to see why you believe the lack of a death penalty in this case was beneficial. The state had a death penalty at the time...oops.

No they shouldn't. But that isn't the issue here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Earth to Iceaura....

Actually, the Unibomber case was a textbook case for the death penalty. It was an incentive to provide evidence. As for the McVeigh case, there is no, absolutely no evidence or any reason to believe, that any material information would have been gained if he had not been executed. It has been many decades since McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma federal building. McVeigh's criminal enterprise ended with his execution.

So yeah, unfortunately for you Iceaura, fact and reason do matter.

 

Given a choice between life in prisonment and death, I'd choose death. It'd be like doctor assisted suicide.

Other than that, how did Putin get so much money? The only one wealthier than him is Bill Gates.

 

I tend to agree.
Capital punishment should be reserved for very heinous deliberate crimes of either vicious gang rapes and/or murders, and where all doubt has totally been removed as to any chance of innocence.

 

Do you believe in the (human) law ?

 

Perhaps we need a third choice in the poll.
All murders, all rapes, are at various degrees of intent, cruelty and mindsets.
Only the worst kinds should have the death penalty considered.

 

Capital punishment for other crimes than murder is rogue stupidity.

Because it endangers the life of the victims of these other crimes. The criminal has, in this case, nothing to loose by killing his victim. But if the victim is dead, it cannot tell anything to the police. So, it would be stupid for him to leave his victim alive.

 

Really???
Some vicious gang rapes of the extreme kind, that forever harm the victim physically and mentally, also deserve the death penalty.

 

The example I chose - because it was presented in the biased and incomplete link you based your entire argument on, corrected by my link providing the rest of the facts - was specifically Illinois death row. All of my posting here has referred to exactly the kinds of crime the death penalty is supposedly (in your Pollyanna world) automatically restricted to.

Until you can demonstrate the creation of such infallibility and enforcement of such restrictions in the government of at least one State, somewhere, on any continent and at any time in history including the present, that's irrelevant.

After you have accomplished that, you can move on to my argument here: it's not worth it. The gain is minimal, the hazard and brutality and temptation of the State very great.

Yes, it is the issue here.

The family who provided the information used to capture the Unabomber did so only when they were promised he would be treated humanely when arrested and not executed if actually found guilty. When the State tortures and kills people, such sources of information tend to dry up.

The State was nowhere near catching him, at the time, and his bombs were getting more lethal as he gained skill, so the State's willingness to treat him humanely and forego the death penalty almost certainly saved many, many lives.

Yes, there is. Read the links. And in any case - we'll never know now. Opportunity cost is among the many significant and overlooked costs of capital punishment.

As illustrated in the NY wilding correction of State error, in which the opportunities gained by not killing the guilty included the use of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent. Five of them.

 

Murder and treason are the only crimes punishable by death in the US.

 

Nonsense. Here's a list: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty

and some examples: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/those-executed-who-did-not-directly-kill-victim
Hidden in that list are various idiosyncratic definitions of, for example, what "murder" is. In Texas, it included holding the ladder for somebody who is burglarizing and kills the resident. And "espionage" or "treason" is of course almost always included in the crimes a State wants to kill its citizens for - you do realize how that works in practice, right?

In Illinois, it was about 12% of those who committed crimes involving DNA evidence, statistically - the percentage of the others, who were convicted with less physical evidence (and thus had no chance of exoneration by DNA) would presumably have been higher.

By general observation and reason, the worse the crime the more likely an innocent will be convicted in a trial. Emotions come into play, as well as political motives and other such corrupting factors.

 

That's why I said, it needs to be totally and honestly reserved for really heinous cruel crimes of gang rape and murder, only when it is positive that no doubt exists as to their guilt.

I remember a case popularised by a movie in England a couple of decades or more ago, where they hung some poor innocent chap...Crystal or similar name seems to come to mind.

 

Which gets rid of most of the deterrent effect, by limiting the penalty to a vanishingly small subset of highly unusual crimes, usually committed by the insane anyway. Are we expecting to deter the insane?

There is no such thing as "it is positive that no doubt exists", btw: in real life one has "the sentencing judge has no doubt", "the jury has no doubt", "the DA has no doubt", "the State has no doubt" etc. There is no infallible deity involved in these trials.

Again: the benefits are minimal and dubious, the risks and costs large and undeniable.

 

And what example would that be exactly? You were asked for your “example”. So instead of evading, how about answering the question. And an example needs to be relevant. So where is your example?

Hmm, and what does that have to do with your assertion that where the death penalty is available, it is always abused? It isn’t as previously evidenced by the State of Kansas which has had the law on the books for more than 3 decades and has executed a grand total of ZERO prisoners. And you think that’s abusive….really? Unfortunately, you are doing what you always do, obfuscate. You love to wallow in ambiguity and to deny fact and reason.

Let me once again render some clarity for your repeated edification. In cases where guilt is certain and the crime is particularly heinous, capital punishment is a viable remedy. Are you going to tell me Ted Bundy was innocent?

Earth to Iceaura….

As previously pointed out to you, that’s an argument for the death penalty. It’s a bargaining chip which can be used to gain additional information and cooperation and as previously pointed out; it has worked in a number of cases. Murders reveal information they otherwise would not have revealed.

But as is frequently the case with you, you have your facts screwed up. The there was no deal for humane treatment or to not pursue the death penalty in exchange for cooperation. Humane treatment is mandated by law. That is one of your many biased inspired fictions. Not everyone shares your antipolice beliefs. There was however a deal to maintain anonymity for David Kaczynski, the Unabomber’s brother in exchange for his cooperation. But that was the only deal made by the family.

Ted Kaczynski confessed in order to avoid the death penalty. Kaczynski’s confession combined with all the bomb making materials found at his abode and his writings and other evidence collected over many years was overwhelming proof of his guilt.

Well, that is your belief. The FBI had published the Unabomber’s manifesto and David Kaczynski recognized his brother’s writing and contacted the FBI and provided them with additional evidence. But that doesn’t strengthen your argument. Again, it really isn’t relevant.

No there isn’t. How about you read your links? There is no evidence that not executing someone would have produced more evidence. As previously pointed out to you in my last post, as previously pointed out to you, your NY case occurred when the death penalty was the law of the land in New York. So as previously stated, it’s difficult to see how the death penalty impeded anything as you seem to believe it did. Frankly, your belief just doesn’t make any kind of sense.

 

Well according to a study by Ohio State University, the number is less than one percent.

"These findings are included in the new book Convicted But Innocent: Wrongful Conviction and Public Policy (Sage Publications, 1996). The book was written by C. Ronald Huff, director of the Criminal Justice Research Center and the School of Public Policy and Management at Ohio State University; Arye Rattner, professor of sociology at the University of Haifa, Israel; and the late Edward Sagarin, who was a professor of sociology at City College and CityUniversity of New York.

The survey asked respondents to estimate the prevalence of wrongful conviction in the United States. About 72 percent estimated that less than 1 percent -- but more than zero -- of convictions were of innocent people.

Based on these results, Huff estimated conservatively that 0.5 percent of the 1,993,880 convictions for index crimes in 1990 were of innocent people. (Index crimes, which are reported by the FBI, are murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and arson.)

That would result in an estimated 9,969 wrongful convictions.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm

And not every conviction carries with it a capital punishment. We are only talking between 30-40 cases per year. So even a rate of 1% of 40 isn't very big. It's less than one person per year. But capital crimes are not treated like run of the mill crimes. They receive a lot of extra scrutiny and review as well they should. So it would be wrong to compare a capital crime with crimes which receive less judicial review and scrutiny. The error rate for capital crimes is probably much lower given the additional scrutiny and review they receive.

And here is the other thing that needs to be considered, DNA has revolutionized criminal investigations. It's really difficult to argue against DNA evidence. Most erroneous convictions are attributable to witness misidentification.

 

We can approach such perfection with a reasonable facsimile thereof.
The death penalty should in my opinion be used in those "beyond a very very reasonable doubt, that it is positive"

 

Deeply flawed study from the conception (ignores coerced plea bargaining, false confession, etc).

Also, kind of a joke:

Good lord, a survey?

And it gets sillier - look who they surveyed:

So let's see: a bunch of judges, sheriffs, prosecutors, DAs, and police chiefs in Ohio were polled for their estimates of how often they completely and collectively fucked up their jobs and sent the innocent to prison. And 28% of them said more than 1% of the time.

And that was extrapolated to the entire country as a finding that less than 1% of the people brought all the way to trial and convicted were innocent. Was this some kind of a parody?

Besides, it's irrelevant. We were discussing death penalty level crimes only, not freaking motor vehicle theft. Why are you doing what you erroneously accused me of doing earlier?

That is false. It is almost certainly much higher, for the reasons given above. The Illinois finding of more than 12%, for example, was based not on a survey of the opinions of the people who had arrested and tried and convicted these men, but actual physical evidence of their complete innocence.

And you are going to restrict capital punishment to DNA-proved guilt, with your Hogwart's powers. So the Unabomber and McVeigh and the Freeway Sniper and so forth would not qualify. Treason and espionage would not qualify. A large fraction of murders, especially by gunshot, would not qualify. And most of your alleged deterrent effect vanishes.

That's never been demonstrated, anywhere on this planet, at any time. Since the gain would be so dubious and minimal anyway, one would need very secure demonstration.

To what gain? The gain would have to be very large and very certain, to offset the costs and risks.

This is the reason one adopts ethical principles and inculcates moral rules: they forestall this kind of expedient justification and temporary confusion in times of stress and pressure.

You are talking about giving the State permission to kill its citizens, on purpose and in cold blood, when they are not threatening anyone, self-justified by the State's estimation of their guilt. That's a bad idea. Don't do it.