Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 01-27-2020, 06:17 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
That's the point here: those sentenced to death are confined to prison while the "decades of appeals" take place. Either you don't want decades of appeals, or you want them put somewhere other than prison: which is it?
It's pretty obvious he wants them killed immediately after sentencing.
  #302  
Old 01-27-2020, 06:29 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
You are correct - no system ever devised by man is or ever will be perfect.Therefore, the system where we execute murderers, despite proof beyond a reasonable doubt and after years and decades of appeals, will, eventually execute an innocent person. We might not even know it, but eventually we will. Similarly, the system where we condemn murderers to prison is not perfect. The difference is that we know pretty clearly that innocent people, more than one, have already died due to the imperfections of the "prison for murderers" system. Because murderers escape, are paroled, are furloughed, kill other prisoners, kill guards, etc., even from prison.

So the question is not, which system is perfect and never allows an innocent person to die. The question is, under which system is the smallest number of innocents going to die. There has been, possibly, maybe, at worst one or two innocents executed. At the same time, pretty certainly, many more than that who were murdered by people who were not executed. See the OP.

It doesn't help to say "innocent people shouldn't die". Innocent people are going to die either way. Do we go with the system giving the larger number, or the smaller?

Regards,
Shodan
I don't disagree with the logic in principal. My disagreement mainly comes down to the yardstick for measurement. IMO the only reasonable yardstick for death penalty mistakes is people who were found guilty of murder, and then the DP imposed in a penalty phase, who should have been found 'not guilty' or the DP shouldn't have been imposed according to the ostensible rules of the system if they'd been followed. It's not measured by those 'we surely know had absolutely nothing to do with this murder'. We simply don't know that. The system's outputs are G and NG, there is no output 'definitely didn't do it', that's just people debating based on media articles.

The number of people found guilty and sentenced to death who should not have been according to the system's rules if followed is not small at all.

Then on the other side of the coin, the US states with greatest use of the DP, the practical benchmark for 'if we had the DP in general' sentence single digit % of murderers to death (OK 5%, TX 2%). These stats for example
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-a...ntencing-rates
There's ambiguity in that denominator 'murders with known offenders' mainly since it presumably includes all illegal killing ('manslaughter' etc). But it still suggests that the number of 'real murderers' sentenced to life by 'have DP' states greatly outnumbers people sentenced to death. Hence, you can't validly count all the people sentenced to life who subsequently kill (almost always in prison, in very rare cases after escaping) as avoidable with DP without considering the impact on the DP error rate if it wasn't limited to the easiest cases to prove. And that error rate is already disturbingly high.

So I don't think your numbers add up, is the main problem with your argument IMO. You're setting a bar for DP errors 'innocent beyond a reasonable doubt' but there's no such thing. The number of errors by the system in DP cases, by its own standards (later examination or even later proof that proof beyond reasonable doubt was not found while following all rules of evidence and due process in the original trial) is apparently not all that small, disturbingly. Then you're comparing that to murders committed by people already serving life sentences for murder without considering all the additional DP errors you'd have to generate by imposing the DP on probably 10's of % of illegal killers compared to a couple or few % in reality in the most pro-DP states. Which tends to involve harder to screw up cases, though also more heinous ones.
  #303  
Old 01-27-2020, 08:37 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If I understand your argument, you are saying that it is ethically superior to accept a system where more innocent people die rather than one in which fewer innocent people die. I don't agree.
You clearly don't understand my argument. I'm making the point (which I would have thought pretty obvious) that murderers illegally killing innocents is not ethically equivalent to the criminal justice system legally killing innocents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
If we execute a thousand people, of whom one is factually innocent and thereby prevent the 999 guilty from committing a dozen murders, IMO that is ethically superior to not executing a thousand people, sparing one innocent life at the cost of twelve innocent lives.
That immorally utilitarian argument could be used to justify any amount of arbitrary tyranny and/or vigilantism. By your logic, we don't even need to wait to try and convict people in order to have a valid reason to execute them. Just identify the "murderous types" and off them before they get a chance to kill anybody.

As long as you can make the numbers work out to a total number of innocents executed that's smaller than the assumed number of murders that you "prevented" all the executed individuals "from committing", then your tyrannical reign of terror is by your reasoning totally justified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
Hypocrisy comes when we decry killing innocents as wrong when we aren't doing everything we can to avoid killing innocents -by, for instance, executing murderers, and thereby saving innocent lives.
By that logic, as I said, you're being hypocritical if you insist on always waiting till somebody's a convicted murderer before executing them. You could protect more innocent lives by executing the obvious "murderous types" in advance and saving the lives of all their future victims.

That's the type of unintended consequence you lay yourself open to if you refuse to acknowledge the common-sense ethical distinction between murderers illegally killing innocents and the criminal-justice system legally killing innocents. If all you care about is the decontextualized calculus of total number of innocents killed, then you have no justification for rejecting any system, no matter how violent and arbitrary, as long as it produces a smaller number of dead innocents.
  #304  
Old 01-27-2020, 08:47 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 874
Right, I'd assume we'd have to start executing people convicted of attempted murder too, in order to be consistent.
  #305  
Old 01-28-2020, 04:49 AM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,354
Americans tend to believe us Scandinavians have governments with a lot of power over us, but do not really seem to mind giving their own government the power to kill them.
  #306  
Old 01-28-2020, 10:08 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
You clearly don't understand my argument. I'm making the point (which I would have thought pretty obvious) that murderers illegally killing innocents is not ethically equivalent to the criminal justice system legally killing innocents.
AFAICT I understand your argument just fine. You are saying that murderers illegally killing is not ethically equivalent to innocents being executed. Apparently innocent executions is worse. Because one innocent execution is apparently worse than a dozen murderers illegally killing. That's not at all obvious.

So you need to flesh out your argument instead of simply assuming it. In what ways is it worse that one innocent dies (maybe, eventually) than that a dozen innocents die (which has already happened)?
Quote:
That immorally utilitarian argument could be used to justify any amount of arbitrary tyranny and/or vigilantism. By your logic, we don't even need to wait to try and convict people in order to have a valid reason to execute them. Just identify the "murderous types" and off them before they get a chance to kill anybody.
And the way we establish the murderous types is by proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, using sworn testimony and evidence, and affording the accused murderous type the presumption of innocence.

So it is neither arbitrary, tyrannical, nor vigilantism. We are offing them before they get the chance to kill again.
Quote:
That's the type of unintended consequence you lay yourself open to if you refuse to acknowledge the common-sense ethical distinction between murderers illegally killing innocents and the criminal-justice system legally killing innocents. If all you care about is the decontextualized calculus of total number of innocents killed, then you have no justification for rejecting any system, no matter how violent and arbitrary, as long as it produces a smaller number of dead innocents.
Again, you are begging the question. In what way does common sense or context show how one innocent death is worse than a dozen?

Regards,
Shodan
  #307  
Old 01-28-2020, 10:14 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
Right, I'd assume we'd have to start executing people convicted of attempted murder too, in order to be consistent.
Correct - I would support the DP upon conviction for attempted murder as well. Please note the emphasis - I don't want the thread derailed by straw men like the ones Kimstu is trying.

Regards,
Shodan
  #308  
Old 01-28-2020, 11:35 AM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Correct - I would support the DP upon conviction for attempted murder as well. Please note the emphasis - I don't want the thread derailed by straw men like the ones Kimstu is trying.

Regards,
Shodan
WHEN, exactly, should the execution take place? Immediately upon conviction? After a month, a year, decades of appeals, when?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
So you need to flesh out your argument instead of simply assuming it. In what ways is it worse that one innocent dies (maybe, eventually) than that a dozen innocents die (which has already happened)?
If we execute an innocent person, then we are murderers. We have become that which we abhor, and by your own logic, **WE** deserve to be and should be executed to prevent us killing another innocent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
And the way we establish the murderous types is by proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, using sworn testimony and evidence, and affording the accused murderous type the presumption of innocence.
Are you ever going to address the fact of those who have been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt and using sworn testimony and evidence to have been murderers, and who were then exonerated, or do you just want to pretend they don't exist? There's 167 of them on this listing, and the vast majority were convicted and sentenced to die after 1976, the date after which you claim forensic science became so much better that we don't need to worry about mistakes.

I don't think you realize that forensics is still often a bit player in murder convictions, and certainly isn't the bright shining line you imagine. DNA evidence is still open to interpretation; for example, the lab can't tell you _when_ a sample was left, so it is possible the accused was at the crime scene hours or days before the event. DNA might not be available at all, or may be ambiguous, or if the accused lived or worked at the location, there may be a perfectly innocent explanation. Real life isn't CSI. A lot of people are convicted based on eyewitness testimony, and that isn't any more reliable in 2020 than it was in 1920, or 1620. Police and prosecutorial misconduct didn't just disappear in 1976; neither did simple mistakes.
  #309  
Old 01-28-2020, 12:58 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
In what ways is it worse that one innocent dies (maybe, eventually) than that a dozen innocents die (which has already happened)?
In the way of who is doing the killing and why. We acknowledge that murderers are illegally and immorally violating the norms of society by killing innocents. That's bad, but what's worse is for society to embrace its own legal killing of innocents as a morally acceptable norm in an attempt to reduce illegal killings by murderers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
And the way we establish the murderous types is by proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, using sworn testimony and evidence, and affording the accused murderous type the presumption of innocence.
If the only thing that matters is reducing the number of innocent deaths, then by your reasoning, waiting until a murderous type has been "established" as someone who's actually committed murder is irresponsible and hypocritical.

You're blatantly and illogically trying to have it both ways here:

1) When I point out that it's immoral for society to be willing to kill innocents, you retreat to your naive "death calculus" to argue that the only goal that matters is to end up with fewer dead innocents, e.g., one instead of twelve.

2) And then when I point out that that argument automatically justifies us in adopting any system, no matter how abusive or tyrannical, that produces a smaller total number of dead innocents, you abandon your previous position in order to assume the necessity of broader jurisprudential principles such as reasonable doubt, sworn testimony, and the presumption of innocence.

But you can't have it both ways. If the only thing that matters is minimizing the total number of innocent deaths, then throwing out basic human-rights principles in order to execute potential murderers before they commit any murders is just fine. If, on the other hand, the upholding of basic human-rights principles overrides the goal of minimizing innocent deaths, then it's reasonable to argue that such principles can also include society refusing to execute murderers.

Your wishy-washy rhetoric in which you appeal to both those claims when you find it convenient, but don't adhere to either of them consistently, is not providing you with a logical or persuasive argument.
  #310  
Old 01-28-2020, 02:02 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
Are you ever going to address the fact of those who have been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt and using sworn testimony and evidence to have been murderers, and who were then exonerated, or do you just want to pretend they don't exist?
That's been addressed. We are talking about unjust executions offset against unjust murders. How many of those were executed? Zero. How many repeat murders have been cited? Read the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
In the way of who is doing the killing and why. We acknowledge that murderers are illegally and immorally violating the norms of society by killing innocents. That's bad, but what's worse is for society to embrace its own legal killing of innocents as a morally acceptable norm in an attempt to reduce illegal killings by murderers.
Apparently you can't explain how it is worse, but want merely to repeat the assertion. More innocent deaths are better than fewer.:shrugs:
Quote:
If the only thing that matters is reducing the number of innocent deaths, then by your reasoning, waiting until a murderous type has been "established" as someone who's actually committed murder is irresponsible and hypocritical.
This is nonsense. Executing people who have not been established as murderers is not something anyone, least of all me, is recommending.
Quote:
You're blatantly and illogically trying to have it both ways here:

1) When I point out that it's immoral for society to be willing to kill innocents, you retreat to your naive "death calculus" to argue that the only goal that matters is to end up with fewer dead innocents, e.g., one instead of twelve.

2) And then when I point out that that argument automatically justifies us in adopting any system, no matter how abusive or tyrannical, that produces a smaller total number of dead innocents, you abandon your previous position in order to assume the necessity of broader jurisprudential principles such as reasonable doubt, sworn testimony, and the presumption of innocence.

But you can't have it both ways. If the only thing that matters is minimizing the total number of innocent deaths, then throwing out basic human-rights principles in order to execute potential murderers before they commit any murders is just fine. If, on the other hand, the upholding of basic human-rights principles overrides the goal of minimizing innocent deaths, then it's reasonable to argue that such principles can also include society refusing to execute murderers.
More nonsense. No one is talking about throwing out any basic human rights principles, so this is your straw man again.

Regards,
Shodan
  #311  
Old 01-28-2020, 02:04 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
AFAICT I understand your argument just fine. You are saying that murderers illegally killing is not ethically equivalent to innocents being executed. Apparently innocent executions is worse. Because one innocent execution is apparently worse than a dozen murderers illegally killing. That's not at all obvious.

.
A execution of a innocent is worse, since we all bear responsibility for it. The murder of a innocent- only the killer bears responsibility.
  #312  
Old 01-28-2020, 02:21 PM
Annie-Xmas is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,365
And just how should they be forced to live up to that responsibility? Killing them is wrong. Putting an innocent man in prison is wrong.

This area has seen two men arrested for murder hang themselves om separate incidents recently.
  #313  
Old 01-28-2020, 02:42 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
This is nonsense. Executing people who have not been established as murderers is not something anyone, least of all me, is recommending.
Yes, we get that. The question is, why not? You've laid out a logical argument for keeping the death penalty: even if we kill a few innocent people, even more innocent people will be saved by preventing murderers from killing again. Why does that logic stop at, say, the presumption of innocence? If we can save more innocent lives by killing people suspected of being murderers, because of all the actual murderers that we'd be killing, why should we not do that? Why does your logic hold in the first situation, but not in the second situation?
  #314  
Old 01-28-2020, 02:46 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
A execution of a innocent is worse, since we all bear responsibility for it. The murder of a innocent- only the killer bears responsibility.
Exactly this: executing an innocent makes *me* a murderer. This is unacceptable, even if it serves to avoid other killings (which is still by no means in evidence).
And, Shodan, you are positing an artificial binary: killing convicted murderers vs imprisoning them and then letting them go to kill again. There are of course other options, like life w/o parole.
  #315  
Old 01-28-2020, 02:47 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
That's been addressed.
Not by you, it hasn't. One hundred and sixty-seven times (at least) in the modern era, sworn testimony and evidence established beyond any reasonable doubt that an innocent person was a murderer, and you are ignoring, as though the fact we didn't actually manage to execute any of them before their exoneration somehow isn't evidence that our system of convicting by sworn testimony and evidence established beyond any reasonable doubt sometimes gets it wrong. On average, they spent fourteen years on death row before they found the resources and lawyers to free them, but you are arguing that they should be executed more quickly, before there's any chance of them killing again. You are arguing that the system should be changed to INCREASE the likelihood of an innocent person being unjustly executed, and you either don't grasp that or want to hand-wave it away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
We are talking about unjust executions offset against unjust murders. How many of those were executed? Zero.
Repeating this over and over does not make it true. Neither of us has any idea at all whether Sedley Alley was unjustly executed, and you are apparently comfortable with the State of Tennessee not wanting you to know. Unless they change their laws, you will probably never know. Repeat for Cameron Willingham or Ledell Lee or any of the others whose cases are forgotten because posthumous exoneration is extremely difficult. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Virginia did retest Roger Coleman's DNA, yes. Tennessee did not do ANY testing on Sedley Alley's, and the judge says their law prohibits doing so. If the test cannot legally be done, then relying on the absence of results is intellectually dishonest.

And you have continued to ignore the fact that DNA isn't the sole or even main evidence in most murder prosecutions. Do you think eyewitness testimony is more reliable today than in 1950? Why or why not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
How many repeat murders have been cited? Read the OP.
To prevent the crimes cited in the OP, you must execute those convicted immediately after sentence is handed down, without any opportunity for appeal. If that is what you want, then you must be willing to accept the consequence that every single one of the 167 above cited would have been unjustly executed. Are you really willing to accept 167 innocent deaths?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Executing people who have not been established as murderers is not something anyone, least of all me, is recommending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Correct - I would support the DP upon conviction for attempted murder as well.
Those two quotes are contradictory. "Murderer" is defined as someone who has actually killed somebody, not a person who tried and failed.
  #316  
Old 01-28-2020, 02:54 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
This is nonsense.
Only to somebody who's having trouble following a logical argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Executing people who have not been established as murderers is not something anyone, least of all me, is recommending.
And the point is that refusing to execute people who have not been established as murderers is hypocritical and irresponsible of you if the goal is only to decrease the net total of innocent deaths.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
No one is talking about throwing out any basic human rights principles
And the point is that reluctance to throw out any basic human rights principles is hypocritical and irresponsible of you if the goal is only to decrease the net total of innocent deaths.

I repeat: You're inconsistently shuttling back and forth between the claim that the supreme and overriding goal is to reduce the net total of innocent deaths, and the claim that of course basic human rights principles take priority even if they end up increasing the net total of innocent deaths. Your inability to stick to either of those positions consistently is what's invalidating your argument.
  #317  
Old 01-28-2020, 03:24 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Yes, we get that. The question is, why not? You've laid out a logical argument for keeping the death penalty: even if we kill a few innocent people, even more innocent people will be saved by preventing murderers from killing again. Why does that logic stop at, say, the presumption of innocence? If we can save more innocent lives by killing people suspected of being murderers, because of all the actual murderers that we'd be killing, why should we not do that? Why does your logic hold in the first situation, but not in the second situation?
Because executing people who are only suspected of murder raises the chances that the number of innocents executed will outweigh the number of lives saved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
A execution of a innocent is worse, since we all bear responsibility for it. The murder of a innocent- only the killer bears responsibility.
Exactly this: executing an innocent makes *me* a murderer. This is unacceptable, even if it serves to avoid other killings (which is still by no means in evidence).
I don't see how that follows. If I as a citizen am responsible for wrongful deaths consequent to the DP, then I am equally responsible for deaths consequent to not having the DP.
Quote:
And, Shodan, you are positing an artificial binary: killing convicted murderers vs imprisoning them and then letting them go to kill again. There are of course other options, like life w/o parole.
Again, read the OP, which mentions someone condemned to LWOP who then escaped and killed again. Thus demonstrating what is already obvious - people can escape from prison. Dead people - not so much.

Regards,
Shodan
  #318  
Old 01-28-2020, 03:31 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Because executing people who are only suspected of murder raises the chances that the number of innocents executed will outweigh the number of lives saved.
Says who? If you manage to "pre-execute" a few mass murderers, for example, you could afford to "pre-execute" quite a few innocent people as well while still decreasing the total number of innocent deaths.

Oh, you think that "pre-executing" murderers is an unacceptable violation of human rights? So, you hold that more innocent deaths is better than fewer. :shrugs:

Either minimizing the total number of innocent deaths is your sole policy criterion---in which case you have no logical justification for refusing to "pre-execute" future murderers in order to save the lives of their victims---or it isn't, in which case it doesn't automatically override ethical arguments against the death penalty.
  #319  
Old 01-28-2020, 04:24 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If I as a citizen am responsible for wrongful deaths consequent to the DP, then I am equally responsible for deaths consequent to not having the DP.
In the legal system, there is a difference between taking affirmative action to cause a death and merely not taking action to stop somebody else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Again, read the OP, which mentions someone condemned to LWOP who then escaped and killed again. Thus demonstrating what is already obvious - people can escape from prison. Dead people - not so much.
Yes, that person was Kenneth Williams, who was convicted on Sept. 14, 1999, for the first murder and who escaped from prison on October 3 (nineteen days later). That means to prevent all such future crimes, you must (***MUST***) execute convicts immediately after sentencing: no appeals, no opportunities for mistakes to be discovered or new evidence to be revealed. This is the consequence of what you are arguing for, and this consequence would have resulted in the deaths of AT LEAST one hundred and sixty seven innocent people (probably many more, because I don't have a count on the number of people who did not get the death penalty have been exonerated). Do you think that killing hundreds of innocent people makes this a better and safer world?
  #320  
Old 01-28-2020, 04:34 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Because executing people who are only suspected of murder raises the chances that the number of innocents executed will outweigh the number of lives saved.
But if the math worked out, you'd be for it? If I could demonstrate to your satisfaction that killing people just for being accused of murder would kill X innocent people, but prevent X+1 innocent people from being murdered by all the actual murderers we were also killing, would you still object?
  #321  
Old 01-28-2020, 05:10 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
Exactly this: executing an innocent makes *me* a murderer. This is unacceptable, even if it serves to avoid other killings (which is still by no means in evidence).
And, Shodan, you are positing an artificial binary: killing convicted murderers vs imprisoning them and then letting them go to kill again. There are of course other options, like life w/o parole.
Except: life w/o parole has issue, like a prisoner escaping and killing agin, ordering a hit from prison, killing a guard or another prisoner, or getting accidentally released and killing again. All of these things have occurred.

No, we just have to limit the DP for repeat or especially heinous offenders. Not just some guy who kills his wife 'cause she's cheating on him.
  #322  
Old 01-28-2020, 05:17 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,869
Not to distract from arguing that death penalty defenders want to execute anyone even accused (but not convicted) of murder, but the following might be of interest.

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news...noOqozjnt6yzK/

Note that one of those found guilty in the attack had been convicted of three aggravated murders, including the killing of a fellow inmate at Lebanon Correctional as well as the murder of a fellow inmate on a transport bus.

You can't throw such people in solitary confinement for life - it would (should?) be considered inhumane.

And what of people sentenced to lengthy prison terms for murder in lieu of execution, who wind up dying prematurely from disorders contracted in or exacerbated by imprisonment, including liver cancer secondary to hepatitis B or AIDS? Is it ethical to sentence anyone to prison, seeing that innocents could contract a fatal disease, die from lack of top-line medical care or be murdered by fellow inmates or even guards?
  #323  
Old 01-28-2020, 05:48 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
And what of people sentenced to lengthy prison terms for murder in lieu of execution, who wind up dying prematurely from disorders contracted in or exacerbated by imprisonment, including liver cancer secondary to hepatitis B or AIDS? Is it ethical to sentence anyone to prison, seeing that innocents could contract a fatal disease, die from lack of top-line medical care or be murdered by fellow inmates or even guards?
They could also wind up dying prematurely from disorders contracted out on the street; neither Hep C nor AIDS is unique to prisons. They could be struck by a drunk driver, contract coronavirus, or fall into a sinkhole, or for that matter be murdered by the guy who got away with it when shoddy police work left somebody else to take the fall. However, in none of those cases are we, as individuals or as a society, directly causing the death.

All we can do is apply our best efforts to protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty. Our best, however, is most emphatically NOT "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out."
  #324  
Old 01-28-2020, 06:43 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If I as a citizen am responsible for wrongful deaths consequent to the DP, then I am equally responsible for deaths consequent to not having the DP
I am not responsible for the kids drowning in swimming pools because the government didn’t order to fill them in. But if the government were to order the US Marshals to throw all little kiddies in the pool to see who makes it, then we are all responsible. If you cannot see the difference, there is no point in further debate.
  #325  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:30 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,523
https://cultmtl.com/2020/01/murderer...L0T6xxEo26unng
Last week, Marylène Lévesque, a 22-year-old sex worker employed by a Quebec City massage parlour, was murdered by 51-year-old Eustachio Gallese. Lévesque agreed to meet with the man at a hotel in the city’s Ste-Foy district, but never made it home. Gallese later surrendered to local police and told them to retrieve her body from his hotel room.

The death of a young woman is horrific enough. But the details that would soon surface would make many of us question the inner failings of our justice system and a world that continues to treat sex workers as dispensable.

In 2006, Gallese was sentenced to life in prison for the brutal death of his girlfriend, with no possibility of parole for 15 years. Thirty-two-year-old Chantale Deschenes had been savagely beaten to death with a hammer and repeatedly stabbed. Gallese then took the time to scribble vile insults about her on the bedroom wall before turning himself in to police. This wasn’t a one-time offence. He already had a history of conjugal violence with a previous partner in 1997.

Even though the Parole Board initially found that he posed “a high risk of violence,” they later inexplicably changed that to a “moderate risk” and nine years later Gallese won conditional release to a halfway house. He had been out on day parole since March of 2019. While out, he was apparently allowed to see sex workers “in order to address [his] sexual needs.”
  #326  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:40 AM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
https://cultmtl.com/2020/01/murderer...L0T6xxEo26unng
[I]Last week, Marylène Lévesque, a 22-year-old sex worker employed by a Quebec City massage parlour, was murdered by 51-year-old Eustachio Gallese.
Is Marylène Lévesque's life more or less valuable than those of the 167 death row residents who have been exonerated?
  #327  
Old 01-30-2020, 12:09 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
Is Marylène Lévesque's life more or less valuable than those of the 167 death row residents who have been exonerated?
It’s not lives saved math. For one, instead of killing the inmate, we are in fact capable of locking them up forever. We have done so successfully with many.
But furthermore the killing by the state of an innocent is a different thing from one citizen killing another. And in my opinion infinitely worse. But under no circumstance could I give a multiplier. It’s just something we shouldn’t do.
Trying to do math with murder victims plays into Shodan’s narrative, which serves no purpose whatever.
  #328  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:15 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
Is Marylène Lévesque's life more or less valuable than those of the 167 death row residents who have been exonerated?

who have been exonerated

That shows the system works.

Sorry, we have maybe two examples of recent cases where a innocent man was executed.

I dont have the time, but i am sure I could dredge up dozens of convicted killers who killed again, in one way or the others.

Now, again- I am against the DP except in extreme cases. Those who will clearly kill again and who are clearly guilty- just like CA does. I hate the way Texas does it.
  #329  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
It’s not lives saved math. For one, instead of killing the inmate, we are in fact capable of locking them up forever. ...
Unfortunately, we are not capable of locking them up forever. Prisoners escape, they are accidentally released, the kill a guard or fellow prisoner or the order a killing from inside.

If we were actually capable of locking them up forever, then there'd be no need for the DP.
  #330  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:47 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
who have been exonerated

That shows the system works.

Sorry, we have maybe two examples of recent cases where a innocent man was executed.

I dont have the time, but i am sure I could dredge up dozens of convicted killers who killed again, in one way or the others.

Now, again- I am against the DP except in extreme cases. Those who will clearly kill again and who are clearly guilty- just like CA does. I hate the way Texas does it.
Exoneration, however, requires that they still be alive to be exonerated, and absolutely preventing them from killing again requires they be dead. Those are mutually exclusive goals.

As you point out to Isosleepy, the system doesn't always "work" to keep people locked up forever; somebody somewhere misjudged Eustachio Gallese and he got out to kill again, while Kenneth Williams escaped just weeks after conviction and killed multiple innocent people. The only sure way to prevent escapes and accidental releases and killing guards or fellow prisoners would be to impose the death penalty very quickly after conviction. If you do that, however, then the system has no time to "work" to exonerate the innocent (NOBODY gets the death penalty in the US unless a judge and/or jury is convinced that they are clearly guilty, but sometimes they're wrong), and it becomes more likely that a lot more than two innocent people are executed.

This is the essential contradiction here: you cannot have both a perfect system of preventing all murderers from killing innocent people again AND a perfect system of preventing the state from executing innocents. The options are:

1. do the best job you can on both, while acknowledging that there might be some failures (including both Marylène Lévesque and Cameron Willingham as failures);

2. choose active and quick enforcement of the death penalty, with the knowledge that means that every single one of the 167 exonerated under the current system and probably a large number of other innocents would have been executed; or

3. abolish the death penalty in the name of protecting the wrongly-convicted, with the knowledge that sometimes the correctly-convicted will kill again.

Right now most states are doing some variation of #1; California comes a little closer to #3, while Texas is closer to #2, but neither is an exact implementation, and instead is a variant of #1 with different emphases.

Shodan, however, (and many other DP supporters) want to have #4, absolute perfection on both counts, and that isn't an option in the real world. In this world of imperfection, every option involves trade-offs, and it all comes down to which lives you are willing to trade off to protect others.

Last edited by slash2k; 01-30-2020 at 01:47 PM. Reason: grammar
  #331  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:31 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
Exoneration, however, requires that they still be alive to be exonerated, and absolutely preventing them from killing again requires they be dead. Those are mutually exclusive goals.
...
3. abolish the death penalty in the name of protecting the wrongly-convicted, with the knowledge that sometimes the correctly-convicted will kill again.

Right now most states are doing some variation of #1; California comes a little closer to #3, while Texas is closer to #2, but neither is an exact implementation, and instead is a variant of #1 with different emphases. .....
Well, altho you can rarely exonerate a executed person (altho some Governors have pardoned dead people), investigators do continue after the fact.

CA I think has the best compromise. Only the worst of the worst are sent to death row. TX does the worst job.
  #332  
Old 01-30-2020, 05:05 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, altho you can rarely exonerate a executed person (altho some Governors have pardoned dead people), investigators do continue after the fact.
You can NEVER exonerate an executed person. You might be able to exonerate their name, or pay compensation to their survivors, but they're still dead.

And, unfortunately, in most cases investigations do NOT continue after the fact; most states put up substantial barriers even to the attempt (cf. Tennessee, above). The exceptions are highly publicized, but most folks paying the bills figure that dead is going to stay dead, so there's no point in paying good money on a moot subject.
  #333  
Old 02-03-2020, 05:24 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
Exactly this: executing an innocent makes *me* a murderer. This is unacceptable, even if it serves to avoid other killings (which is still by no means in evidence).
And, Shodan, you are positing an artificial binary: killing convicted murderers vs imprisoning them and then letting them go to kill again. There are of course other options, like life w/o parole.
Then why do you favor imprisonment knowing that *you* are imprisoning innocent people, subjecting them to rape, alienation from their children, etc.?

And this "maybe they can be found innocent down the road" argument is facile. It is so extraordinarily rare as to be blip in the stats. That's why it is a news story when it happens.
  #334  
Old 02-04-2020, 12:06 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Then why do you favor imprisonment knowing that *you* are imprisoning innocent people, subjecting them to rape, alienation from their children, etc.?

And this "maybe they can be found innocent down the road" argument is facile. It is so extraordinarily rare as to be blip in the stats. That's why it is a news story when it happens.
I certainly believe our system is imperfect. But imprisoning a person unjustly as a consequence of having any justice system at all, is a whole different animal from killing prisoners because they might escape. There is at present no workable alternative for imprisoning at least some people. There is an alternative for killing them. And being responsible for unjust imprisonments is easier to carry than unjust killing, because the latter is final, and by far a worse transgression.
  #335  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:09 AM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
I'd be highly skeptical of your ability to convince other "small government conservatives" to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the criminal justice system. Don't get me wrong, I'd love more money. But a vast majority of "small government conservatives" are against spending on the criminal justice system.
Not really in my experience. Totally anecdotal, but I hear from many conservatives that they'd rather pay for a killer to be executed than for him to live out the rest of his years behind bars, eating better than I do, even if the former costs more. I'm of a similar sentiment.

Obviously, anyone who is innocent being put to death OR given LWOP is horrible. I don't feel that happens often enough, however, to justify getting rid of the death penalty.
  #336  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:18 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 33,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovitlac View Post
live out the rest of his years behind bars, eating better than I do, even if the former costs more.
My son is a corrections officer in a prison in the southern US. From what he has told me, the prisoners under his watch eat pretty shitty food. If there are prisoners eating better than you, are you dumpster diving for meals?
  #337  
Old 02-05-2020, 12:44 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovitlac View Post
Obviously, anyone who is innocent being put to death OR given LWOP is horrible. I don't feel that happens often enough, however, to justify getting rid of the death penalty.
And I feel that if it happens even once, then that's too often. We are not better or safer when the government murders innocent people.

It's also true that our justice system is biased against poor people generally, and poor people of color especially. Are the people you know interested in spending a lot more money to make sure every accused person has a competent and conscientious (and conscious!) attorney?
  #338  
Old 02-05-2020, 01:57 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
My son is a corrections officer in a prison in the southern US. From what he has told me, the prisoners under his watch eat pretty shitty food. If there are prisoners eating better than you, are you dumpster diving for meals?
When I was on the Grand Jury, one thing we had to do was visit every Jail, and eat a meal or two. The Youth facilities had decent meals- as they should. I'd say at least as good as school cafeterias.

The adult facilities had almost exactly the same sort of meals the people hand out to the homeless. A hot vegetable soup, a piece of fruit and a bland sandwich. It wasnt bad, but it wasnt good either.
  #339  
Old 02-05-2020, 03:16 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 33,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
When I was on the Grand Jury, one thing we had to do was visit every Jail, and eat a meal or two.
Why?
  #340  
Old 02-05-2020, 03:44 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The adult facilities had almost exactly the same sort of meals the people hand out to the homeless. A hot vegetable soup, a piece of fruit and a bland sandwich. It wasnt bad, but it wasnt good either.
As with medical care, substance abuse treatment, and general living conditions, a great deal depends on WHERE we're talking about. For example, Alabama jails have been notorious for bad food; "Sheriff Corn Dog" fed inmates in his charge corn dogs twice a day for weeks, because he got a really good deal on a truckload of them and any money he didn't spend on inmate food he could keep as personal income. (cite)

The health inspector's report from last year at Parchman (Mississippi State Penitentiary) is online: food stored unlabeled in overly-warm areas, sinks that didn't work, no sanitizer in the dishwasher, dead flies in the food prep area, and "raining in freezer."
  #341  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Why?

We inspected them, and had to make sure they had decent meals. The inspections were also sometimes a surprise, and we made sure the meals served were the norm. Mind you, I can see that getting boring rather quickly, but they arent in there for a vacation.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017