capital punishment?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by OptimusRoo, Sep 14, 2015.

?

do you believe in capital punishment?

  1. yes

    11.1%
  2. no

    88.9%
  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Did anyone say the meaning of self-defense changed based on one's location? No. No one has said that. That's you making stuff up. Murders can and do kill more than just one person. There are serial murders, and that's primarily who we are talking about here, and they don't stop killing just because they are locked up. They are a threat to fellow prisoners and guards and they do escape. It was just a few weeks ago 2 murders escaped from a high security prison.

    And as much as you dislike it, deterrence is a collective self-defense. We do not know with specificity which lives will be saved. But we do know lives will be saved, it's in the numbers.

    That doesn't make sense. People commonly get killed in prison with or without the death penalty. Fellow criminals kill each other, and? They create and execute their own death penalties on fellow inmates and prison guards. Without the death penalty, there is little disincentive to murdering a fellow inmate or guard.


    Well that is your belief, it doesn't make it true or reasonable. Are you saying Ted Bundy wasn't guilty? There are cases which are particularly heinous and guilt is certain and for those cases the death penalty is an effective and reasonable remedy. We are not talking about cases where guilt is not overwhelming. In the statistics offered and discussed in this thread, error rates have been estimated to be between .5% and 4%. That is the science and those cases occurred before DNA became available to criminal investigators.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,275
    In my case, at least four times beginning with the first link in post #6 - which features a compilation of almost all the major research published in the matter, including every study mentioned in the slipshod media articles that are all you have posted.
    Media articles are not "evidence" when they are slipshod and biased.

    You still don't know what the evidence is, do you. You still haven't read any of the studies linked for you, including the ones you are claiming to argue from.
    Not many experienced researchers in the field. A couple of economists have agreed with each other's conclusions from naive statistical analysis of some data they lack familiarity with; a couple of journalists have written articles about them without providing quotes, context, or critical analysis, from more experienced researchers in the field; and you have swallowed those articles like a baby sunfish going for a worm.

    You have even refused to take on the immediate issue of which any claimed direct deterrent effect would be a part - the net deterrent effect.

    Why do you so badly want the death penalty to have a deterrent effect?

    Yes, it did. As pointed out, you are promoting a claimed deterrent effect that would be, if it existed, derived from killing the innocent.
    I never said there was. I said there was an information deal with the informants who made the capture of the Unabomber possible, saving many lives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kaczynski I said that in the context of a specific argument against capital punishment that specifically rested on the fact that the prospect of severe punishments deters informants, especially the family members and other intimates who would be the best and most likely sources of information about the kinds of people who commit the most heinous crimes. I was explicit about that, clear and with repetition in this thread.

    There was no ambiguity there, no reasonable way for you to mistake that as about an information deal with the Unabomber himself. So what's going on with these posts of yours? Can we take your continual libeling of other people as liars and dishonest and so forth as a clue?
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Except, all of that is just regurgitated crap that has been repeatedly disproven.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    How about doing something radical, like being honest? As repeatedly proven, there was no information deal with Kaczynski or any informant - one of "dem" damn details again. You have made a lot of allegations but offered virtually no proofs. You have been repeatedly requested to prove your assertions with text which you claim exists in your "links" and you haven't because it doesn't exist. You have NO evidence the death penalty actually deters informants. You cited Kaczynski as an example of the death penalty deterring informants. All well and good, except as repeatedly pointed out to you it didn't stop Kaczynski's brother from informing the FBI and turning in his brother. If you are going to cite a case to support your belief, it should actually support your case.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Truth and reason are going on here. You should try it sometime.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Here is the thing Iceaura, in order for something to be liabilous it has to be untrue and it isn't. YOU have been repeatedly challenged to prove the material you claim exists within your links with actual text from those links and you have repeatedly failed to do so. You even admitted as much a few posts ago. You have a long history of misrepresentation not just in this thread but others as well. That is intellectually dishonest. And the only person I recall calling dishonest, is you. Because you have repeatedly been dishonest and not just in this thread.

    The unpleasant truth for you is that as reported by The New York Times, CBS, and The Associated Press several studies, conducted by credible researchers, have found the death penalty provides a deterrent and saves lives and several notable economists have found the studies valid including a Nobel Laureate. You are on the wrong side of science.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,275
    Yes, it did. I provided you with a link to that effect. He and his wife withheld their suspicions and their information until promised the State would not seek the death penalty, and would provide psychiatric care.

    The State then broke this promise - which is something we hope will not unduly affect the next brother who harbors unsure suspicions about the next terrorist bomber.

    His betrayal by the State in that matter led him into years of campaigning against the death penalty altogether - http://www2.siena.edu/pages/1096.asp, http://ejusa.org/about, https://www.myphilanthropedia.org/t...or-alternatives-to-the-death-penalty-new-york
    What would you expect, beyond reason and example? You have been provided with reason and example. You "mistook" the example, again, and bollixed the reasoning, as always.

    Then you typed out a bunch more sentences calling other people liars and dishonest and so forth, again, as has become your habit after all these odd "mistakes" and incomprehensions.
     
  8. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,151
    I'm not sure I have a dog in this fight. There are several reasons I'm a bit apprehensive regarding this issue:
    1) The judicial system is not perfect; innocent people do go to jail.
    2)Yeah, it probably does cost the system a fortune to kill a criminal.
    3)I don't believe consequence deters, in many cases, the criminal mind.
    4)Which is worse, sudden death or a lifetime in prison?
    5)How should we apply the death penalty? Do we kill all who murder or only those freaky sadistic maniacs?

    On the other hand, if one of my family were murdered, I would probably want blood in return, as would many people in the same situation. I think most people are captivated and emotionally consumed by the most evil killers that hit the papers, and they are generally in favor of the death penalty for those cases. However, if every instance of murder were to be deemed punishable by death, how would we react? I mean, is one life of an innocent any less valuable than some other victim?

    I lean towards the death penalty, but then again, there are problems and questions introduced by the proposition.
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,955
    You implied that I would change my mind about the meaning of self-defence if I was in prison.

    I didn't say I dislike it. I expressed doubts about its effectiveness. And as much as you adore it, it isn't self-defence. Proactive offense is not defence. You could just as easily prevent speeding by executing everybody who applies for a driver's license.

    So you're fine with behaving the same way the criminals do.

    Of course we are. The reality is that if the death penalty is condoned, there WILL be innocent people executed.
     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    I implied if you actually had to spend some time with murders, those who have committed some of these horrendous crimes, your moral beliefs with respect to capital punishment might change.

    You expressed your disbelief in the science demonstrating capital punishment deters murder, and deterrence is in itself a collective form of self defense. Using your line of reasoning, police and military personnel aren't self defense. Using a personal example, my home has a number of defenses built into it. I have a security system. That security system might protect me from a robber or would be killer, but it could also protect others in my home. Just because that security system may not protect me directly whenever that ill doer shows up, it doesn't mean that home security system isn't a self defensive measure.

    Saving lives is a form of collective self-defense. I defend my neighbors as I defend myself. Police forces defend the people within their jurisdictions as they would defend themselves. Unfortunately for you, that is self defense. You just don't believe the science because it conflicts with your moral beliefs. And here is nothing wrong with that as long as you are honest about it.

    Oh, and what have I said or done which would lead a reasoned person to that conclusion?

    Again, that is your belief, that isn't reality. As discussed earlier in this thread conviction error rates are extremely low, ranging from .5% to 4% and with the extensive reviews afforded capital cases and with the advent of new technologies, I'd say the execution error rate is virtually nill. In all this discussion, not one person has provided even one example of someone who was wrongfully executed.

    And if you read the preceding pages, you should know that while the science applies to all murder convictions, what I and others have argued is capital punishment should be reserved for only those who have committed horrendous crimes and whose guilt is certain. Are you saying guilt can never be known with absolute certitude?
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Oh, then you should be able to provide a reference for that and copy paste the specific text from that reference to support your assertion. But we both know you can't because that support doesn't exist. I have now several times showed you the evidence your assertion is untrue. But you never let little things like facts get in the way of your fantasies. As has been repeatedly proven, there was no deal with Kaczynski's family. His family initiated contact with the FBI without reservation and fully cooperated without reservation. Their motivation was to save the lives of innocents. In fact, they donated the reward money to Kaczynski's victims.

    Oh, and where is the evidence for that one...with all the others I suspect?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You just make this stuff up, you are as bad as the rightwing nuts in that regard. You have been repeatedly shown your assertion, along with many others, is wrong. But, hey, you don't care about fact and reason.

    Hmm, and where is there evidence of the "betrayal" you allege occurred? It isn't in the material in your links.

    That's more dishonesty on you part. You haven't provided any evidence capital punishment deters informants, not a single shred of evidence or example have you provided. What you have done and done repeatedly, is to lie about Kaczynski's family and the FBI,

    Well then you should be able to demonstrate that....so please do.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Where are all these others. The only I called dishonest was you, and that is because you are dishonest and blatantly so.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,275
    The latest of the three links I have provided for you on that specific matter is in the second to last paragraph of post 122 above, the Wikipedia article on David Kaczynski.

    You didn't read it, just as you haven't read any of the studies or links or scientific articles or anything else provided for you by three or four posters here.

    But even without reading any of those many links, or any of the science you claim is so important to you, you should have been able to follow the four or five arguments against having the State kill people for deterrence, or use the threat to extract information and confessions from the unwilling, etc. You should have been able to handle the illustrative examples, both specifically real (Bundy, McVeigh, Kaczynski, incompetent lawyers, high costs, etc) and generally so (error, coercion, informant deterrence, State abuse, etc).

    You have an increasingly visible psychiatric problem.
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,102
    Extremely low?

    Nationally, during the 23-year study period, the overall rate of prejudicial error in the American capital punishment system was 68%. In other words, courts found serious, reversible error in nearly 7 of every 10 of the thousands of capital sentences that were fully reviewed during the period.

    Capital trials produce so many mistakes that it takes three judicial inspections to catch them — leaving grave doubt whether we do catch them all. After state courts threw out 47% of death sentences due to serious flaws, a later federal review found “serious error”—error undermining the reliability of the outcome—in 40% of the remaining sentences.

    [...]

    High error rates put many individuals at risk of wrongful execution: 82% of the people whose capital judgments were overturned by state post-conviction courts due to serious error were found to deserve a sentence less than death when the errors were cured on retrial; 7% were found to be innocent of the capital crime.

    High error rates persist over time. More than 50% of all cases reviewed were found seriously flawed in 20 of the 23 study years, including 17 of the last 19. In half the years, including the most recent one, the error rate was over 60%.


    That is not extremely low. Far from it.

    Johnny Garrett..
    Joe Arridy..
    George Stinney.. Who was 14 years of age when executed by the State.
    Carlos DeLuna..
    Cameron Willingham..

    Then of course you have the many many people who were on death row or serving life sentences while innocent of any crime, some serving in excess of 20 years.
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,102
    Had you also read it, which you clearly have not, you would see that the only way it can work as a deterrent is if each State executes one person each year, because to get the deterrent effect, they had to lag the result and put in at least one execution each year, otherwise, they could not obtain that result. Had you read the study you keep citing, you would also see that by their calculations, what you are praising to rid of errors to apparently cut down on wrongful convictions and executions works against the deterrent effect.. So the study clearly states that removing people from death row or the death penalty has an opposite effect. Do you understand now? For it to work as a deterrent, even innocent people, who once convicted and placed on death row, should not be removed from said death row even if it is clear they are innocent. Worse yet and which is why the authors caution about the death penalty in their study (which you did not read), there is clear evidence of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system and it is not applied fairly or equally.

    Although these results demonstrate the existence of the deterrent effect of capital punishment, it should be noted that there remains a number of significant issues surrounding the imposition of the death penalty. For example, although the Supreme Court of the United States remains unconvinced that there exists racial discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty, recent research points to the possibility of such discrimination (Baldus et al. 1998, Pokorak 1998, Kleck 1981). Along the same lines, there is evidence indicating that there is discrimination regarding who gets executed and who gets commuted once the death penalty is received (Argys and Mocan 2002). Given these concerns, a stand for or against capital punishment should be taken with caution.*


    The manner in which these economists have attempted to skew the numbers to reach a deterrent effect is why the National Academy of Sciences have been so scathing in their response to these studies, because their numbers and results contradict each other, are skewed and lagged to such a degree that they make no sense aside from trying to obtain a positive result, and because they consistently fail to take in all other variables that affect the death penalty.

    There is no empirical basis for choosing among these specifications, and there has been heated debate among researchers about them, particularly on the number of years that should be lagged for the numerator and, even more so, for the denominator in order to best correspond to the relevant risk of execution given a death sentence in each state and year. This debate, however, is not based on clear and principled arguments as to why the probability timing that is used corresponds to the objective probability of execution, or, even more importantly, to criminal perceptions of that probability. Instead, researchers have constructed ad hoc measures of criminal perceptions. Consequently, the results have proven to be highly sensitive to the specific measures used. Donohue and Wolfers (2005) find, for example, that when reanalyzing the results in Mocan and Gittings (2003), using a 7-year lag implies that the death penalty deters homicide (4.4 lives saved per execution) but using a 1-year lag implies that the death penalty increases the number of homicides (1.2 lives lost per execution). Donohue and Wolfers (2005) question whether would-be murderers are aware of the number of death sentences handed down 7 years prior. Responding to these concerns, Mocan and Gittings (2010) argue that because executions do not take place the same year as a sentence is imposed, models with a 1-year lag are meaningless.

    [...]

    The fact that there is a mismatch between the numerator and denominator in the models used is perhaps best illustrated by the many state-year cases in which there are one or more executions the prior year but there were no death sentences imposed 7 years earlier. Researchers have made a variety of ad hoc removals or substitutions for these undefined cases including: replace with zero or treat as missing (Kovandzic, Vieraitis, and Boots, 2009); numerator set to zero regardless of denominator and non-zero numerator and zero denominator considered missing at random (Donohue and Wolfers, 2005; Mocan and Gittings, 2003, 2010); replace with most recent defined ratio (Zimmerman, 2004). These (and other) ad hoc adjustments highlight the general problem that the people who were sentenced to death 7 years earlier may be executed before or after the year in which executions are counted, and they are not the only people at risk for being executed in the current or prior year. Overall, the interpretation of this ratio is not clear at all, whether the denominator is lagged any particular number of years, and its relevance to the objective risk of execution for each state and year, let alone to the risk perceptions of potential murderers, is highly questionable.

    Basing execution risk measures only on data on executions that have actually been carried out, as has been done in the research being discussed, could result in a serious underestimate of the eventual probability of execution for those given a death sentence. In addition, this fact raises serious questions about whether the risk of ever being executed after a death sentence is the most salient measure or whether additional information is salient, such as measures that consider expected time to death, expected living conditions while on death row, and in comparison, expected time to death during a long prison sentence and conditions while in prison in that state. (Of course, one can only speculate about which, if any, of these variables is salient for potential murderers.)

    These many complications make clear that even with a concerted effort by dedicated researchers to assemble and analyze relevant data on death sentences and executions, assessment of the actual and changing objective risk of execution that faces a potential murderer is a daunting challenge. Given the obstacles to obtaining an objective measure of this risk, the committee does not find any of the measures used in the studies to be credible measures of the objective risk of execution given a death sentence. We also reiterate that it is not known whether there is a relationship between any of these measures or any more credible objective measure of execution risk, and the execution risk as perceived by potential murderers.

    The study by the National Academy of Sciences is over 140 pages long and makes for interesting reading. Which I doubt you will read, because you prefer to stick to non-scientific news stories instead. Now, as a lawyer, I'd rather stick to science which clearly shows that the manner in which Mocan and Gittings and their economics cohorts obtained the results were skewed and completely unreliable. In fact, it is so bad that the Committee recommends the following about the studies by these economists:

    In summary, the committee finds that adequate justifications have not been provided to demonstrate that the various time-series-based studies of capital punishment speak to the deterrence question. It is thus immaterial whether the studies purport to find evidence in favor or against deterrence. They do not rise to the level of credible evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment as a determinant of aggregate homicide rates and are not useful in evaluating capital punishment as a public policy.

    [...]

    The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates. Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide. Consequently, claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate by a specified amount or has no effect on the homicide rate should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment.

    In fact, the results from the studies by the likes of Mocan and Gittings have had the National Academy of Sciences issue a warning in taking them seriously. And this isn't even considering the responses from Criminologists and Lawyers, who also advised that the Mocan and Gittings study was flawed and explained why, and which was linked earlier on in this thread. That is the reality of a scientific and legal response to these studies. Sure, you may refuse to read them, just as you have yet to even read the study that was cited in the CBS news story you keep referring to, and instead relied solely on the abstract...



    * H. Naci Mocan, University of Colorado at Denver, and R. Kaj Gittings, Cornell University, "Getting Off Death Row: Commuted Sentences and the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment", 46 Journal of Law arid Economics 453 (2003)
     
  15. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,955
    And under those circumstances, your beliefs "might" change too. You "might" come to understand that they aren't so different from you.

    If the military prevent invaders from entering your nation, it's self-defence. If they go half-way around the world to kill little brown people, it isn't. If somebody takes a shot at you and misses and you shoot him before he can get a second shot of, it's self-defence. If you shoot him because he "might" take a shot at you next week, it isn't.

    If you execute a murderer because he "might" commit murder again, that isn't self-defence.

    I don't care about the "science" at all. At best, deterrence is about convenience. It's convenient to kill people because they "might" kill somebody some day.

    Of course it's all about what's moral. You don't do what's wrong just because it's convenient.

    So the reality is that people WILL be unjustly executed, as I said.

    So it's okay to execute somebody because he "might" kill again but it doesn't matter if somebody "might" be wrongfully convicted?

    I don't think anything can be known with absolute certitude. Science doesn't make that claim.
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Well, here are the problems with that assertion, there is only one link in your Post 122 and that post doesn't say what you assert it says. It says what the other Wiki references I made said. It very clearly says there was no deal to forgo the death penalty with Kaczynski's brother or family in exchange for information as you have asserted. The FBI did promise, but not in exchange for information, to keep his brother's assistance secret. But his participation was leaked to the press. So in that respect the FBI didn't keep its promise because it failed to prevent a leak. That goes to competence not intent. That's why the Kaczynski family felt betrayed and rightly so. The were promised secrecy and they didn't get it and that put heir lives in jeopardy because Kaczynski had not yet been apprehended.

    But as repeatedly discussed with you, even if there had been a deal with Kaczynski's family, it would have validated the usefulness of the death penalty as a criminal investigatory tool. Read your own reference, the death penalty didn't prevent Kaczynski's family from contacting the FBI and spilling the beans on the Unabomber.

    And you think any of that makes sense....seriously? You are making stuff up again. All of those cases you have referenced have been discussed and your arguments debunked. You have left out material information, you have misrepresented information (e.g. Kaczinski) and you have yet to identify all these "high cost" you have repeatedly allege exist, much less quantify. And what are these four or five other arguments? You have made assertions, but you have been unable to back up even one.

    Oh, back to good old ad hominem, more fallacious argument really helps your case..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Well, here is the deal, I have met those guys up front and personal. I have also seen their work up front and personal. You see, I was an EMT. I started out being against the death penalty. Most people don't know what blood smells like. I do. Blood is also slippery as hell and a sickly sweet metallic smell. I've seen pretty much all of it. I remember smelling the crime scene even before seeing it. You never forget the smell of gunsmoke and blood. I have seen children murdered. I have seen the most atrocious rapes, all up front and personal as I was the EMT called to save these people. Do you know what it's like see and smell blood, sweat and semen and witness a woman beaten so badly, her eyeballs have been literally knocked out of her eye sockets and her body covered with bite marks. I do. I was they guy called to provide medical assistance. I am they guy who had to get up front and personal with their work.

    I've also seen these perps in jails, because while they really don't care much about others, they do care about themselves, they care a great deal about what happens to them. So yeah, I know these guys and what they are like.

    So it isn't self defense if military forces just exist to deter people from invading and killing? Deterrence has been a successful strategy to prevent warfare. It kept the Cold War from becoming a hot one. You don't have to shoot anyone to deter them.

    I know you don't care about the science, and I appreciate you honesty. But I don't think you understand deterrence. Deterrence is not just preventing the murder from committing another murder, it's also about preventing other would be murders from committing murder.

    I don't disagree.

    Well that is your belief, but doesn't make it so. Do you really think Ted Bundy was innocent? Can you name one innocent person who was found guilty after 2000 and and been wrongly executed?

    So you doubt Kaczynski's or Bundy's guilt? The science estimates error rates between .5% and 4% conviction error rate as James found earlier. But as I have pointed out, those errors occurred before DNA became available as a crime fighting tool.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,275
    Here's the quote:
    Or you could read one of the dozen or more other links you have been provided, that deal with the issue in various aspects.

    It had already delayed the providing of the information - the discussions took time, during which Ted could have easily killed again. With that evidence, obtained by promising not to kill Ted, there was no problem convicting him - they certainly didn't need a confession, and the attorney general had to be pressured quite strongly to give up the death penalty she so obviously wanted to impose.

    The betrayal of good faith informants is hardly going to encourage others to step forward.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Yes, that is a quote, now show me where in that quote did it say what you have repeatedly claimed it said? Do you remember what you have repeatedly asserted? You have repeatedly asserted, there was a deal with Kaczynski's family to exchange information for a death penalty waiver. As repeatedly demonstrated for your edification there was no deal and Kaczynski's brother provided all the information without a deal. You do understand English?
    Did you not read all the other previously referenced material? Apparently , you don't even understand your own references as demonstrated by your last post.

    LOL...we have been down this road many times. As demonstrated by this post, you clearly don't understand your references or you are just lying. As pointed out many times in this and other threads and most recently your last post, your links don't say what you assert they say...oops.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    HMM, I suggest you read the Wiki articles on Ted Kaczinski I have repeatedly referenced for your edification which details how Kaczinski was identified and the roll played by by Kaczynski's family and a chronology because they aren't consistent with your beliefs.

    Well I don't think anyone is advocating betrayal of "good faith" informants, and that really isn't relevant here. If you read the previously referenced material, you should know you are blowing smoke. There was no cooperation deal for immunity from capital punishment made with Kaczynski's family. Yes, there was overwhelming evidence of Kaczynski's guilt. But it wasn't a guaranteed conviction. The prosecution feared an insanity defense, and that is why a plea deal was made with Ted Kaczynski. Kaczynski pled guilty and accepted a life sentence in order to avoid capital punishment. And if you had read my previous references, you should know that.

    And as previously and repeatedly pointed out to you, if Kaczynski's family had linked cooperation with an agreement to waive the death penalty as you asserted, it would have been further evidence of capital punishment's value as a criminal investigative device.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2015
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,955
    Just to be clear, do you favour capital punishment for rape too? Because the scale seems to be sliding a bit from absolutely positively guilty of murder.

    Not if you deter invading and killing by a sneak attack on THEIR territory, no. That would be more like "a day that will live in infamy".

    I didn't say it wasn't effective. I said it wasn't self-defence.

    That same argument was made before the discovery of DNA. How do you know that some new technique won't turn around your "absolute" proof just like DNA does?

    So there IS a non-zero chance of wrongful conviction but you ASSUME that it will magically vanish because of DNA.
     
  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    As in protection against new murders through recidivism? This is possible against the small number of executed prisoners. How many innocent people are executed, however? I'd be interested to see how the numbers do balance out. Or is this in an earlier post?
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    What have I written that would even suggest that would be the case? Have I ever advocated the death penalty for rape? I think you are grasping for straws.
    That wasn't even remotely close to the question you were asked. The fact is deterrence was and remains an effective military defense strategy. The credible threat of retribution has been very successful defense. The credible threat of retribution has been an effective deterrent. It prevented the Cold War from becoming a hot one. No one snuck in and attacked anyone.

    Well what would you call it. It is certainly defense. Using the military example, if military forces were used to defend the country it would be
    self defense.

    ???? So you don't believe Bundy and Kaczynski are guilty despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Ok, then why punish anyone? Why should we have prisons? Why should we have law enforcement if no one can be proven guilty with any degree of certainty?

    When there are multiple sources of evidence each proving guilt that constitutes overwhelming guilt. Overwhelming guilt isn't dependent on just one piece of evidence or one source of evidence.

    Well, there is a non zero chance an asteroid will hit you on the head tomorrow too. How likely is it an asteroid will strike you in the head? There is a non zero change that when you get in a car or airplane you will crash and die, so are you advocating people should not ride in cars or airplanes?

    The single largest reason for conviction error rates are eye witness testimonies. But when you have multiple sources of evidence including scientific evidence, well your non zero chance is about as risky as being hit on the head by an asteroid.
     
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,955
    You brought up rape victims in a thread on capital punishment. I asked for clarification. No need to execute me.

    Again, I have not said that deterrence is not effective. I have said that it is not self-defence. Proactive offence is not defence, despite what football coaches may say.

    Like the Japanese defended themselves by attacking Pearl Harbour?

    Is your reading comprehension really that bad? I said that "overwhelming" evidence sometimes turns out to be false. It doesn't matter how "overwhelming" it seemed to be during the trial if it later turns out to be false.

    I'm advocating that people should drive carefully and not drive into situations that they can't drive out of.
     

Share This Page