The Death Penalty.

[El_Machinae]

Again, the method isnt exactly the same. The study I linked to studied individuals states and even counties in which the executions were performed against areas in which the death penalty was not enforced or didnt exist. Again, the method used wasnt the same method argued against.

I'll again recommend that, after you retire, you enroll in a complete statistics course (like one offered in a university). You know what I mean, the 30 hours of lecture/45 hours of study kinda thing. One with a professor and a TA to work you through specific examples.

Maybe a course on research methods and design, though I don't think that's nearly as likely as it would require more than one semester.

You LOVE these types of arguments, a great deal. But "Common Sense" does not equip one to properly critique/examine research studies.

That said, I do agree that lawyers should be using science to streamline the legal process. Proper datamining technologies would be a godsend in this field. Speech-to-text would reduce the stress of dictation burdens on the assistant staff. More rigorous science would allow evidence collection to be more reliable. Etc.

I'd think, though I'll not argue heavily, that increasing the chance of a (proper) conviction for a serious crime would have the greatest deterrence effect. The greatest benefit would be realised if we could get young men to mature out of the 'aggressive hormones' stage of young-adulthood!

I also agree that a society could argue that a system which resulted in some innocents dying but saved a LOT of oblique suffering could be defended. They have to be careful if they're killing their own citizens, because the 'societal contract' is sticky at that level

 

[mdwh]

Not at all. Can you not envision a way to make it less expensive but still close to perfect? Science is helping along those lines for certain, resulting in far, far less wrong convictions....if science helps us streamline the process while retaining accuracy, then whats the problem?

I can't think of a way, no. If you have a way to reduce the cost without increasing wrong convictions, then let's hear it. But I don't think "don't have appeals" counts as one.

(Of course science will help us increase the rate, but we are still along way from being able to do without appeals - note that new science brings its own problems, as people have been convicted due to new scientific evidence where as before they'd have been found not guilty, but a few years later on appeal it turns out that the scientific evidence was wrong, and newer scientific knowledge shows them to be innocent...)

 

[Volum]

If the choice is either death penalty with the risk of innocents getting executed (wich has happend and good chance will happen again) or life in prison (actually life in prison) with prisoners stairing at the wall 24/7, i prefer the prison.

Science uppdates itself all the time.

 

[aronnax]

You anti-death penalty people make it sound like half of all people sentecned to death were innocent. That lawmakers, judges and officers do the most horrible job at upholding justice. Sheesh! Stop being so dramatic

 

[Volum]

You anti-death penalty people make it sound like half of all people sentecned to death were innocent. That lawmakers, judges and officers do the most horrible job at upholding justice. Sheesh! Stop being so dramatic

Nah, we just have an issue about people getting executed for something they didnt to. You know, innocent people getting put to death kind of bothers us.

One is to much.

 

[wicshade]

after reading through about 60% of the posts i would have to say there is not any point in arguing this. It seems like anybody can find statistics for what ever they want to believe.

I will say that the U.S. justice system has many problems and is costing the states way to much money. IMO if we will senetce a criminal to life in prison then we may as well just take that life and end his suffering. I'd like to think that the government is trying to shorten the time it takes our courts find justice, but I just don't know.

 

[Red Door]

Thats a fairly anti-death penalty biased site.

And that makes the data they collected wrong? The numbers are sitting there, I'm just wondering if they included Texas.

 

[bhsup]

marry
I just have a hypothetical for everyone against it due to the possibility of an innocent being put to death.

Say a man walks into a news studio while it is broadcasting. He calmly, in full view of all watchers on TV as well as people in the studio, begins shooting random people in the studio. He then sits down at the anchor desk with two dead anchors on either side of him and gives his name, social security number, and any other relevant information and freely states he just committed murder for the sole purpose of testing the resolve of those opposed to the death penalty because an innocent person could be put to death. He dares the judicial system to execute him and patiently waits for the police to arrive and arrest him.

Are you still opposed to the death penalty for him? His guilt is clear and not even open for debate. Because if you are not opposed to this particular person getting the death penalty, then it isn't the death penalty at all you're against, just how it is currently implemented (though that's goofy too as no innocents are put to death in this day and age, at least in America.)
procreate

 

[Volum]

marry
I just have a hypothetical for everyone against it due to the possibility of an innocent being put to death.

Say a man walks into a news studio while it is broadcasting. He calmly, in full view of all watchers on TV as well as people in the studio, begins shooting random people in the studio. He then sits down at the anchor desk with two dead anchors on either side of him and gives his name, social security number, and any other relevant information and freely states he just committed murder for the sole purpose of testing the resolve of those opposed to the death penalty because an innocent person could be put to death. He dares the judicial system to execute him and patiently waits for the police to arrive and arrest him.

Are you still opposed to the death penalty for him? His guilt is clear and not even open for debate. Because if you are not opposed to this particular person getting the death penalty, then it isn't the death penalty at all you're against, just how it is currently implemented (though that's goofy too as no innocents are put to death in this day and age, at least in America.)
procreate

Put him in a prison cell and let him live on bread and water for the rest of his misreable cell. I know your trying to make me sound like a moron of some sort but why give him the joy of being executed?

And you can never know that innocent people arent put to death, even in America. Theres no way to 100% guarntee that.

Im going to make this nice and easy for you folks:

I, Volum, citizen of Norway, am opposed to the death penalty. That even includes for killers, rapists and even pepsi drinkers :O I think they should spend life (and them i mean life not 30 years) in prison, eating bread, drinking water seeing the same walls all the time and maybe do some boring work for 50 years to help pay back society.

 

[drachasor]

Are you still opposed to the death penalty for him? His guilt is clear and not even open for debate. Because if you are not opposed to this particular person getting the death penalty, then it isn't the death penalty at all you're against, just how it is currently implemented (though that's goofy too as no innocents are put to death in this day and age, at least in America.)

Apparently you just don't pay attention when people on death row are cleared of any wrong doing. It has happened in very recent history. It is sensible to believe some innocents have been put to death since efforts to prove their innocence usually cease after the execution.

 

[MobBoss]

Apparently you just don't pay attention when people on death row are cleared of any wrong doing. It has happened in very recent history. It is sensible to believe some innocents have been put to death since efforts to prove their innocence usually cease after the execution.

It is also sensible to presume that a whole lot of extremely violent murderers have also been put to death...wouldnt you agree?

Oh..and btw, if someone on death row is cleared of their charge before they are executed, I would say thats more proof that the process to eliminate wrongful execution is working...not as a sign it isnt.

 

[frob2900]

Are you still opposed to the death penalty for him? His guilt is clear and not even open for debate. Because if you are not opposed to this particular person getting the death penalty, then it isn't the death penalty at all you're against, just how it is currently implemented

The main reason I'm against it is since it can't always be perfectly implemented and in the cases where its not the consequences are very harsh.

The situation you describe is just too esoteric and is not the type of crime thats a major problem anyway. Policies have to be chosen with the real world in mind, not some fancy academic ivory-tower thought experiment

[EDIT]

It is also sensible to presume that a whole lot of extremely violent murderers have also been put to death...wouldnt you agree?

Yeah, so what? A lot of violent murderers have been put in life imprisonment too. Vengeance isn't a particularly good justification for societal policies, even though it can be an overpowering emotion for the individual.

Oh..and btw, if someone on death row is cleared of their charge before they are executed, I would say thats more proof that the process to eliminate wrongful execution is working...not as a sign it isnt.

Yeah, it's a good process and very necessary to ameliorate the negative sides of the death penalty.

 

[bhsup]

Apparently you just don't pay attention when people on death row are cleared of any wrong doing. It has happened in very recent history. It is sensible to believe some innocents have been put to death since efforts to prove their innocence usually cease after the execution.

marry and procreate
No, I am well aware of that fact. If anything, the fact that people on death row are sometimes taken off death row proves the system we have with all the checks and balances WORKS. Anyone initially wrong convicted is inevitably weeded out and taken off death row.

BTW, though, it usually isn't that they are found innocent anyway. It's some glitch in the trial, or some evidence should not have been introduced, etc. They are indeed probably quite guilty of the crime most of the time.

The situation you describe is just too esoteric and is not the type of crime thats a major problem anyway. Policies have to be chosen with the real world in mind, not some fancy academic ivory-tower thought experiment

Okay, I admit the scenario was far-fetched, but I must admit I never thought I'd be accused of putting forth an "ivory-tower" experiment!!

 

[Volum]

marry and procreate
. They are indeed probably quite guilty of the crime most of the time.

Probably, and most of the time.

But that isnt always is it

(I'm annoying i know)

 

[drachasor]

No, I am well aware of that fact. If anything, the fact that people on death row are sometimes taken off death row proves the system we have with all the checks and balances WORKS. Anyone initially wrong convicted is inevitably weeded out and taken off death row.

Wow, and even when they are rescued after the appeals process is over and sometimes essentially at the last second, that means the system must work, because there's no way there some of them didn't have the support or time to prove they were innocent. Do you need any help to bury your head in the sand any further?

BTW, though, it usually isn't that they are found innocent anyway. It's some glitch in the trial, or some evidence should not have been introduced, etc. They are indeed probably quite guilty of the crime most of the time.

Not beyond a reasonable doubt. They are innocent until proven guilty. Actually, there have been quite a number of people exonerated because of a reevaluation of evidence or new evidence brought forth. It definitely happens.

 

[El_Machinae]

If an imperfect system is finding out that innocent people have been killed in the past, is it reasonable to think that there are other innocent people that we don't know about?

 

[bhsup]

Well, you can't really compare the first half of the 20th century with modern times. DNA testing wasn't even around then.

 

[El_Machinae]

Very true: I think our ability to "prove things beyond a reasonable doubt" has gotten better. And that means that we're often prosecuting offenses without access to those evidences.

I mean, sometimes there IS no DNA evidence, despite the person being guilty. Juries seem to expect it now, even if it's not available. But I get your point.

I'm not convinced of the deterrence effect of the death penalty, which is my main objection.

 

[MobBoss]

Here is a question....how many legitmate murderers does our system LET GO because of the failsafes in the capital punishment process?

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

Yep, this is why I don't feel guilty about killing anyone either. I figure the infinite Creator has already given that person plenty of time to "get right with Him". Either they never were going to go to Heaven anyway, or they're going to Heaven.

"Kill them all, God will know His own"

Hm thats a pretty neat mis characterization of what I said, which coincidentally seems to be your favorite form of debating me.

Considering you were the one who brought the issue of salvation into the concept of just killing I don't quite see why you are dragging that to an absurd conclusion, it has no effect on what I said.

Furthermore the same Creator that allows whatever amount of time on this Earth that he sees fit, either through nature, or the allowance of his creatures exercising their free will, also counts life as an inherent good and the unjust taking of it as inherently evil. So, if you are really into killing people to assure their salvation (which is impossible no one can say who is and is not in a state of sanctifying grace) then enjoy your separation from that Creator.