posted
I never heard these numbers before. If, in fact, a execution prevents 3-18 other murders, then that would seem to be a very, very strong argument in favor of.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you have a reason for that, besides, "I don't like the death penalty," Synethesia? And I ask that as someone who doesn't approve of it either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that I'm frightened of our penal system. I don't even think about doing anything that could get me arrested, because even short of the death penalty, I know it would seriously mess up my entire life.
It isn't as though I would generally do illegal things, and the possible penalty is the only thing keeping me honest, but any time I even have a thought of doing something dangerous, the threat of prison pops into my head.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article quotes a statistician who says that the numbers of people executed are too small to draw meaningful conclusions from. I kind of think he's right, too...most states have executed a couple of people a year, at most, since 1976. I'm not sure you could draw meaningful statistical conclusions from that.
I'm not saying you can't...it's just that the year-to-year ups and downs in the murder rate are probably almost as big as the changes those studies claim to point out.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Cute. From now on, should I assume that every single comment you make that could possibly have any sort of snarky subtext in fact has such subtext? I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt previously.
AS well, I'd like to point out that the grasp of statistics I just displayed maybe should give you pause in dismissing my conclusions in any area that touches on statistics, including nutrution. Particularly if you haven't put in the years of study that I have in said area.
Porter, you're probably lying on your back in pain as you type this. Am I right?
I myself have had back problems over the years. Adding good quality animal products like shellfish, fish eggs, and organ meats of all types has really seemed to help. I can lift much heavier things now than before, without any sense of "wow, will I hurt myself when I lift this?" I don't keep the ability up by regular lifting. It is pretty much there when I need it. I'm not talking about huge, heavy weights, but I can toss around 50-pound sacks of topsoil when I want, and I'm not a big guy. This is not to say that you want to go super-low-carb, because that is known to cause lower-back issues in some people.
I can point you in a couple of other directions as well. There's a videotape by Dr. John Sarno that is really excellent for this. I also recommend using a ma roller.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgive me if this has already been discussed in this forum, but it seems to me the deterrent argument often ignores the fact that LWOP is just as effective. Any argument based on a statistic that measures the amount of potential deaths prevented by an execution is flawed because such deaths could have been prevented just as effectively by keeping that murderer in prison.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Any argument based on a statistic that measures the amount of potential deaths prevented by an execution is flawed because such deaths could have been prevented just as effectively by keeping that murderer in prison.
Did you read the article?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe my wording could be a little more concise. Please don't try to read anything more than the obvious in what I've said.
All I'm saying is that a popular argument for deterence centers on the amount of deaths that one murderer may have personally caused had he not been executed. It's simply a matter of prevention, and LWOP does that just as effectively. Now when you get into second-hand deterrence - as suspicious as that concept sounds to me - the statistical evidence may very well have some legitimacy. I'm not trying to throw down some irrefutable argument against the death penalty's potential deterrence.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We know a good percentage of people sentenced to death row in the US were later exonerated by DNA evidence when it became available.
Still, executing those (innocent) people would have had just as much effect as noted above, if indeed that article is correct. (I doubt this, given what else I've read on the subject, but I will grant for the purpose of argument.)
Would the effect still justify the action?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: The article quotes a statistician who says that the numbers of people executed are too small to draw meaningful conclusions from. I kind of think he's right, too...most states have executed a couple of people a year, at most, since 1976. I'm not sure you could draw meaningful statistical conclusions from that.
posted
the violence and suicide rates for those on death row are very high. plus, the thought of our government killing when not necesary makes me feel bad inside.
Posts: 856 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understand about deterrence theory, the perceived odds of being caught decreases the chances of illegal behavior much more than the harshness of the punishment.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Do you have a reason for that, besides, "I don't like the death penalty," Synethesia? And I ask that as someone who doesn't approve of it either.
It doesn't take into consideration conditions that can cause violent crime. It's more than just "Kill tha suckas" It would be a better idea to go to the source, but that takes effort.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The government often has an easier time preventing crime when it is allowed to violate our rights and commit immoral acts in the name of protecting us. I'm not sure that is a "very, very strong" argument in favor of allowing the government to violate our rights and commit immoral acts, though.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In theory, I do not believe the death penalty is cruel. However, since it is impossible to prove anything, the death penalty is not practical.
I remember my rabbi telling me that in the old testament (or maybe it was some other Jewish scripture) it says that the death penalty is allowed. However, there must be two eye witnesses to the murder, and the murderer has to admit to killing the person. These are not be the exact details, but it's the gist of it.
OSC also agreed with me in one of his columns a couple weeks ago.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the death penalty is okay, but only if it has the same standard of proof that it takes to prove treason, as spelled out in the constitution: two eye witnesses to the actual crime.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's in the May 6th edition of OSC Reviews Everything.
Here's the quote:
"In a world where stupidity, pride, venality, ambition, and many other motives can prompt police and states' attorneys to miscarry justice so grossly, it becomes unconscionable for us to use the death penalty.
I say this as one who still thinks the death penalty is perfectly appropriate for some crimes. There are criminals whose acts are so intolerable that no society -- not even prison society -- should be forced to put up with their presence."
Posts: 77 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not agree with the death penalty. There are far too many mistakes for it to be just. As it is administered today, I do not believe it is an effective deterrent. If the goal is deterrence for others then perhaps a more public, grotesque display would be more appropriate. LWOP is less expensive to society (as the process goes today)and a lot easier to rectify a mistake.
To say the death penalty is not cruel (to take some one's life away is not cruel)? Is it not cruel because we don't make them suffer? Are they any less dead?
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:To say the death penalty is not cruel (to take some one's life away is not cruel)? Is it not cruel because we don't make them suffer? Are they any less dead?
Is it any less cruel to put a dog to sleep with a painless injection than to torture it to death? I, and I'd wager most people, would say yes.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I do not understand is that people mention how many death row inmates were exonerated on the strength of DNA evidence and therefore the death penalty is just not a safe and just punishment.
Doesn't the fact we now have better and better DNA forensic technology make the arguement that the death penalty can NOW be wisely employed more plausible?
BTW I completely agree that DNA exonerations were incredibly important, many innocent men were being sent to the gallows, or more accurately the table.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes but that is just a matter of degree. If you are saying it is "less cruel" to use a painless injection you are postulating that it is at least cruel to some extent.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you are saying it is "less cruel" to use a painless injection you are postulating that it is at least cruel to some extent.
Not necessarily. "Not cruel at all" is less cruel than "somewhat cruel".
quote:What I do not understand is that people mention how many death row inmates were exonerated on the strength of DNA evidence and therefore the death penalty is just not a safe and just punishment.
It shows that people can be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death in our justice system even though they are innocent. That is chilling.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It shows that people can be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death in our justice system even though they are innocent. That is chilling.
Yes, but again the technology potentially changes that dynamic.
Take the Salem Witch trials, we all agree there were people who were certainly not witches who were executed under the pretense of being one.
Now lets ASSUME there are witches, and that they deserve death. Now lets assume an extremely reliable test was devised that could correctly identify witches. It is good enough that although it cannot be employed in all circumstances, when it is, it never mistakenly identifies somebody as a witch.
Should the fiasco of the Salem Witch Trials with all their phony witch tests and ridiculous verdicts, render all the results this test could produce moot?
I can certainly agree that the judicial format for employing the death sentence should be seriously reviewed, but I would not say, "The mistakes of the past make any course but discontinuation a crime against humanity."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine that any culture thinks that they have a foolproof way of determining guilt. And then we find out that it isn't.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but again the technology potentially changes that dynamic.
Not really, because there is not DNA evidence pointing either way in many cases.
Well then why not make DNA evidence a requisite for obtaining a death sentence? There likely is, but can you think of a reason why that would be an unreasonable requirement for the death penalty.
edit: Please note that in my example I said the witch detecting method would never mistakenly identify somebody as a witch, but it could not be used in every situation.
DNA evidence is not always present at a crime scene. But you can't use John's DNA and match it perfectly to Jack's.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am somewhat a supporter of the death penalty, but I have no problems with requiring a stricter burden of proof for the death penalty than for a conviction.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by baduffer: So why not err on the side that is reversible rather on the side that is not.
It's also the side that must lay down a sentence that does not fit the crime, as well as admit that the possibility of the guilty offending again is still existant.
posted
I consider it more just to allow some guilty to live their lives in jail than to ensure that some innocent are put to death. If the sentence is life without parole, there is little risk of the guilty offending again except within the prison population.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
News articles seriously need to start linking to papers, or at least stating which journal the study was in. I'd be interested in reading the paper if anyone figures out where it is. I'll go hunting for it myself if I get some time later this week.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I agree with this, but even if I believed there were cases where it is justified, I would not find it acceptable unless the number of innocent deaths could be limited to zero. I don't think that is feasible.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
I agree with this, but even if I believed there were cases where it is justified, I would not find it acceptable unless the number of innocent deaths could be limited to zero. I don't think that is feasible.
But you are OK with life imprisonment where the possibility that the person might kill again is also not zero?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you are OK with life imprisonment where the possibility that the person might kill again is also not zero?
I'm more OK with it because the potential victims are other violent criminals and guards that understand that risks of their chosen career.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
I agree with this, but even if I believed there were cases where it is justified, I would not find it acceptable unless the number of innocent deaths could be limited to zero. I don't think that is feasible.
But you are OK with life imprisonment where the possibility that the person might kill again is also not zero?
Yes. The answer should be better prisons or better systems of imprisonment, not killing people.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... DNA evidence is not always present at a crime scene. But you can't use John's DNA and match it perfectly to Jack's.
AFAIK, in most cases DNA fingerprinting is used so you could actually match John's DNA to Jack's, its just that there is an extremely small probability of this actually happening.
The bigger problem would be that you still have the human element. You can still get police men or forensics personnel that may rig or change the evidence.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
DNA fingerprint is very good, but the understanding of it is commonly subject to many fallacies.
For instance, many people think the pertinent question (given a positive fingerprint) is, "what is the likelihood this person would be positively fingerprinted if his DNA didn't match" or similar, when it should really be "what is the probability this person is the one whose DNA it is, given there's a match". The answer to the second varies, but can be as low as 1 in 10.
That's where other evidence comes into play.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I like the system of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
