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.
posted
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).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
"...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.
posted
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.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
