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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I have doubts about that...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I'm not sure you could draw meaningful statistical conclusions from that.
Must...resist...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by steven: I'm not sure you could draw meaningful statistical conclusions from that.
Must...resist...
You can do it Porter, pray with me!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Must...resist.."
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.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
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.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Heh...you changed your comment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yeah, I did.
I see what you're saying now.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.
*nods
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
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.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
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.
Posted by otterk10 (Member # 10463) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Which column was that?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hiya, CT!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by otterk10 (Member # 10463) on :
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."
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
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?
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
between 3 and 18? that's not very accurate. how do we know it's not between 0 and 18?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kama: between 3 and 18? that's not very accurate. how do we know it's not between 0 and 18?
The margin of error was only 2+/-. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Yes, but again the technology potentially changes that dynamic.
Not really, because there is not DNA evidence pointing either way in many cases.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I imagine that any culture thinks that they have a foolproof way of determining guilt. And then we find out that it isn't.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
So why not err on the side that is reversible rather on the side that is not.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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.
[ June 11, 2007, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
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.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If the sentence is life without parole, there is little risk of the guilty offending again except within the prison population.
And the prison guards.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Just to toss in my two cents:
It is never okay to take a person's life. The only time it is even remotely morally defensible is in self defense.
Even if it is a deterrent, the death penalty should be done away with.
That is, of course, just my opinion.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It is never okay to take a person's life.
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:It is never okay to take a person's life.
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?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
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.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:It is never okay to take a person's life.
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Like in the OJ Simpson trial.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I like the system of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Which apparently translates to "beyond the doubt of the jury."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: 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.
Works for me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I would be fine with something like that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I believe that not only is killing someone not always wrong, but that sometimes refraining from killing someone is itself wrong.
I've discussed this with a lot of people, and it's rare to find someone who disagrees, when we actually get away from the abstract and delve into specifics.
For example, if I've got a loaded firearm and someone is threatening a loved one of mine, and I am reasonably certain that they will not stop short of death, yeah, not killing that aggressor is dead wrong (no pun intended).
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
That's a good point.
So then you use this reasoning to justify the death penalty (at least for murderers)?
I'll have to think about this. It feels wrong to me, but I can't justify it.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
Is your purpose to kill them or to stop them? Killing may be the outcome but should not be purpose. What is the purpose of the death penalty; that is what we need to decide. Is it to stop the murderer, is killing necessary for that; is it to deter, I doubt it deters in the majority of cases especially as handled today where the penalty is extracted years after the crime, well out of the sight and mind of the public. When you set out to take a life you should be very very sure it is necessary and just.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: 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.
To me two witnesses are not much of an addition to DNA evidence. Witnesses can lie, they can give flawed accounts of things they were physically there to witness.
Eye witnesses are certainly very helpful, but not because they can remove any shadow of a doubt.
Would you be OK with a death sentence being passed on the testimony of say three men, but with no supporting forensic evidence? Shaky forensics? What if a man could be linked to a murder by DNA, cross fiber, and fingerprint evidence? At that point would the witness of two people even matter?
Also it seems like in this day and age its EXTREMELY easy to kill somebody without any witnessees.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
For the Originally Cited Article -
"...whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer."
"A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides."
Are you people actually looking at these numbers? Presumably these are averages, meaning some killers kill more and some kill less, but regardless of which number you use, the implication is that our society is rampant with SERIAL KILLERS! But, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Do you really believe that the average person convicted of murder not only has the potential but is very likely to kill between 5 and 20 other people? That just doesn't seem right. Maybe if you are a hit-man for the Mafia or an extreme psychotic, but I just don't see the average killer taking that many lives of his (or her) lifetime.
So, maybe the average killer is killing fewer, but that means the above average killer is killing massively more people than indicated. Again, I just don't see that happening on the 6 o-clock news.
Is some misguided kid caught up in the delusions of 'Gangsta mystic' likely to continue killing for decades to come, or is he likely to grow up and see how ridiculously off base his priorities were? Is someone who kills on impulse or for money likely to continue in that vein killing again and again and again, racking up 5 to 20 deaths before he/she is caught. Again, the 6 o-clock news simply doesn't bear that out.
They can say these number represent the science of it, but why doesn't the reality of the 6 o'clock news indicate the same thing?
Personally, I am in favor of the existence of the death penalty, but sadly it is too often used vindictively. I think it should be reserved for crimes that are so horrific and so excessive that they clearly indicated an extreme irredeemable sociopathic psychosis. So, in my view maybe one out of every 100 or even 500 murders would be extreme enough to be considered for the death penalty.
Oh, and for the record, the average prison sentence for simply homicide is about 10 years. That is another indication of how vindictive the death penalty is. Someone you like kills someone, and they serve 10 years. Someone you DON'T like kills someone, they get the death penalty. Justice needs to be blind, but it is clearly NOT. Black people and other minorities are more likely to get the death penalty. Squeaky clean upper middle class white boys are far less likely. That is exactly why the death penalty should be used EXTREMELY sparingly.
Also, I think the time between the death sentence and the death penalty should be a minimum of 10 years. There should be no rush to penalty to ensure ample time for appeals and reviewing new evidence. I think new DNA testing should be mandatory in death penalty appeals. If a new technology come into common use after the verdict, I think it's use should be automatic in reviewing death penalty cases. As a side note; I think the courts should be far more open to re-evaluating evidence using advanced technology in all cases.
Too often the death penalty is used to placate the family of the victim and not to serve justice. This creates 'Death Creep' in the system. First the death penalty is applied to extreme serial killers then a high profile sympathetic victim makes the headlines, and politicians and opportunist everywhere jump on the bandwagon seeking the death penalty. Then next thing you know, instead of 1-in-100 or 1-in-500 getting the death penalty, 1-in-2 are getting it, and that is just wrong.
Next, all these people are breaking the law, so apparently the law doesn't mean much to them. Logically, they break the law because they either don't think they will get caught. Amazingly stupid criminals ALWAYS over estimate their own intelligence. Or they simply don't care if they get caught.
The penalty for a crime simply can not act as a deterrent if you think you are too smart to get caught or you simply don't care. Or in the case of impulsive misguided youth, you are simply too short sighted to see that far in the future.
I think if you look at the numbers they are professing, you will see that they are ridiculously flawed. And if you look at the fact that even with the death penalty, people still kill people, you will see that is does not act as a deterrent.
The people who are deterred by punishment are very likely the people who would not commit crimes anyway.
Just one man's opinion.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:the implication is that our society is rampant with SERIAL KILLERS!
I have no idea where you are pulling that implication out of. Could you elaborate?
Posted by otterk10 (Member # 10463) on :
BlueWizard, I think you are misinerpreting what the article means when it talks about the death penalty saving 3-18 lives. It doesn't mean that the murderer who was put to death would kill 3-18 more people, but that 3-18 other potential murderers will decide not to commit homicide for every person put to death.
I'm still not sure if I believe those numbers, though.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I wonder if the relatively small number of people put to death actually increases the deterrent, up to a point. That is, since executions are rare, they get a lot of publicity. If they were more common, it might make them less of a deterrent, as they would be less in the spotlight.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Mr_Potato_Head, Otterk10 has put the issue in perspective. I think the point he is making is the same point you are making.
And I do get it, but still don't believe it. The News simply doesn't bear this out. Texas is notorious for it's death penalty, and yet has hundreds on death row. Other state that don't have the death penalty still have people of the same caliber as those on death row in Texas.
Killers are either extremely impulsive, killing someone in a fit of anger or other emotion. Or they are calculating but to one very specific end; they want their wife dead, they want to collect the insurance, etc..., but they are not people who are planning to make a life long job of killing people.
Again, barring extreme emotions 'heat of the moment', or seriously misguided youth, most killers think they are going to get away with it. So, the penalty is not a deterrent, as can be seen by the many people who are killed in death penalty states. Either that or they have a total disregard for any law, or the feel they are a law unto themselves as is the case with gangsters.
Serial killer are just completely deranged even though they may function fine in society. They are the most insidious because other that killing several people at for purposes only known to themselves, they are polite and cooperative. They can also be very charming, and therefore, many years in the future when the horrendous nature of their crime has fade, they can be released/paroled to kill again. When this extreme psychosis is evident, then perhaps the death penalty is in order.
My point is, if you consider all other factors, I don't see the death penalty deterring people in states with the death penalty over states the don't have the death penalty.
Only citizens who might accidentally or incidentally be pulled into a potential 'killer' situation are likely to think of the penalty. For example if your daughter is raped, you might be tempted to kill the raper. I'm sure any father or brother would have that urge very strongly, and certainly the penalty would be a deterring factor, but I think sound judgment and good reason would be more of a deterring factor.
Again, the people who are deterred by the penalty are the very people who are NOT likely to commit the act in the first place.
People who are likely to commit the act, either think they are smart enough to outwit the law; the very very very rarely are, or the simply don't care about the act or the punishment.
I really don't see the death penalty as a deterrent because in countries and states with the death penalty, people are killed just as often as in places without.
VALUES do a lot more for deterring crime that punishment, and that applies to all crimes and general rule breaking.
As the the statistics quoted, I still say the 6 o-clock news doesn't bear them out. My point in referencing the killing to an individual was to illustrate the statistics in a perspective. I doesn't matter whether one person kills all those people or multiple people do the killing, there simply aren't that many killings on the News, and the difference between Death Penalty states and non-death penalty states is not that great.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: ... Mr_Potato_Head ...
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I wonder if the relatively small number of people put to death actually increases the deterrent, up to a point. That is, since executions are rare, they get a lot of publicity. If they were more common, it might make them less of a deterrent, as they would be less in the spotlight.
Like the intermittent reward is more motivating than the constant reward?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think so, if it is consistent. A rare spanking will have more effect than spanking will if a child gets "used to" being spanked.
I am advocating neither spanking nor the death penalty.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
"Mr_Potato_Head"... with apologies to mr_porteiro_head . Normally I cut and paste which means I always get it right until I don't.
I'm for the Death Penalty in concept, but as I've illustrated it becomes a political tool or a tool of vindictiveness, or a tool to oppress those you don't like, so functionally it is very flawed.
I think perhaps a committee that is not involved in the case, and not biased by news reports should decide the sentencing. Read the details of the trial, read the recommendations of the judge and both sides, then try to make as neutral a judgment on sentencing as possible. That would make the sentencing more blind to factors like race, social status, and media induced sympathy.
Still the committee could just as easily become corrupt and subject to political whims as the judge and jury.
It is not an easy problem to solve.
I think there should be a death penalty, but it should be extremely rare that it is used. It should be used for criminals who are so wholly amoral that they can never have any socially redeeming value to society. They further represent a on-going and unrelenting danger to society. When the case is extreme enough, then the death sentence should not be applied, but it should be considered.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: "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.
Thanks, fugu. I've been wondering how if there are only four amino acids and the DNA chains are almost infinitely long you can't match a piece of my DNA to a piece of anyone else's if you look long enough. I've been told the techs somehow know they're matching the same part of the DNA together, but I've doubted the accuracy for a while.
Anyone see "I Am My Own Twin" on the Discovery channel? Apparently, some people absorb their own fraternal twin in the first couple of days of the pregnancy and have two seperate sets of DNA in their bodies. Doctors call it Chimerism and used to think it was incredibly rare. Now that they've had some cases with women whose DNA didn't match their children's, they've discovered it can have no visible symptoms and they have absolutely no idea how often it happens. I've never heard if the techs just run the DNA to see if it's a perfect match or if they would stop to see that it matches a brother or sister.
I don't know enough about DNA tests (or DNA) to be comfortable killing someone or declaring them absolutely innocent based on it. I just hope the guys who make the policy decisions do.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I certainly admit I could be wrong, but I always thought the computer that analyzed and compared DNA calculated the odds of it being a match. Saying not that this DNA matches that DNA, but says that this DNA has a 1-in-6,000,000 chance of being that DNA or a 1-in-10 chance of matching that DNA, or something like that. Though I must have something wrong because from crime TV shows it seems like the higher the number the closer the match.
My point is that it is not subjective to the examiner, I certainly wouldn't trust that. The DNA comparing machine calculates a likelihood of a match and prints it out. I trust the machine to be, at least, unbiased.
Personally, I've never really trusted ballistic matches. The rifling in the barrel of a gun is precision machined, and if you've ever looked into the barrel of a pistol or a rifle then you've seen how perfect the rifling in the barrel is made. Perhaps when a gun is older and the barrel more worn and corroded, it might pick up unique characteristics, but for new guns, I just don't see the ballistics between two precision machined barrels of the same brand being that different.
It seems to be an accepted science, but I've never really trusted it, especially at the level it seems to be used in modern crime and punishment.
Just a thought.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, yes, the match is also not exact. I'm assuming a near-perfect match.
However, again, the probability of a match is not the right question to ask when determining the probability someone is guilty. The right question to ask is given a match, what's the probability this is the person who left the sample, which can still be pretty low. This is because there are lots of people on this planet and genetic testing only tests certain markers. Of course there will be several people alive who would match.
Once you have a match, you go to the other evidence and build a case for this person being the match.
Once you don't have a match, you run a few separate tests until you can be reasonably certain the person is definitely not the match, then you hopefully release them (if the only possible criminal in the case is the one who left genetic evidence).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Let me demonstrate what fugu's getting at:
Let's say that the test narrows down the DNA to 1 in a million - that is, only 1 person in a hundred thousand have DNA that produces that particular test result.
If you know nothing else about the suspect except that his DNA produces that test result, what are the odds that he's the one who committed the crime?
Many people think the answer is a hundred thousand to one, but that's wrong. The real answer is "not enough information to say."
Let's say that there a million people in the city. Then there are an expected 10 people in the city that would produce those results. (I've grossly oversimplified to illustrate a point here - the odds are not independent of blood relationships, but lets assume they are for now.)
This means, without knowing anything else, there is only a 1 in 10 chance that the suspect committed the crime.
Now, if we know that the suspect fought with the victim repeatedly, two witnesses saw someone with the same rough build and hair color, and a car of the same color and make whose license plate matches the first 3 letters of the suspect's was seen leaving after the crime, we can begin to be much more sure about this person.
The gut answer that the odds the person did it are a hundred thousand to one is called the "prosecutor's fallacy." There is a corresponding defense fallacy that refuses to look at all the evidence together and attempts to dismiss the DNA testing entirely because it only means "there's a 1 in 10 chance." The truth is somewhere in the middle. Remember, very few suspects have their DNA tested entirely at random. However, as DNA banks grow and cold hits become more common, the prosecutor's fallacy becomes more likely to apply. This can be prevented by rigorous investigation after the database hit.
If I recall correctly, the same type of problem came up when NY attempted to do universal HIV testing - the false positive rate, though low, and the low incidence of HIV infection in the tested population meant that most positive test results were from people who did not have HIV.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
By the way, there seems to be some inconsistent use of the word "deterrent" in this thread. Here is some suggested vocabulary to make the discussion more clear:
In the literature, "incapacitation" is usually used to refer to how a punishment lessens or eliminates a convicted person's ability to commit future crimes.
"Deterrence" is about lowering desire to commit crimes, not reducing the ability to do so.
"Specific deterrence" refers to how a punishment lessens a convicted person's desire to commit future crimes.
"General deterrence" refers to how the existence of the punishment, and the fact that some people have received it, lessens other persons' desire to commit future crimes.
Prison contains elements of incapacitation (by reducing the ability to commit crimes against persons outside the prison) and both kinds of deterrence (people don't want to go to prison). Death is incapacitation with respect to the person who is executed, but it has no specific deterrence, because the person executed is not capable of committing future crimes anyway. Whether death has a general deterrence effect is the main issue in articles discussing death as a deterrent.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)