In the general sense, absolutely I can say this honestly. I don’t think the racist murderer people are crowing about in the other death penalty thread should have been executed either, and he was unquestionably guilty (and unrepentant). Guilt has nothing to do with my opposition to the death penalty - humanity does.
Drunk drivers cause fewer accidents than sober drivers. Why do we think drunk drivers are dangerous?
It’s because there are many many more sober drivers than drunks. When we look at the accidents per capita caused by drunks, we see that even though their raw numbers are smaller than for sober drivers, the accidents per driver are much higher.
By the same reasoning, why wouldn’t we adjust for per capita here? The populations of the countries mentioned above:
China 1,339 million people
USA 312 million people
Pakistan 132 million people
Iran 75 million people
Saudi Arabia 27 million
North Korea 24 million people
Does the USA still make the list?
Interestingly enough, gonzomax, I have read more inaccurate statements from you than I have from Ann Coulter.
Here’s a list of state executions per capita - I’m not sure how recent the data is (it only says “latest available data”).
- Saudi Arabia: 1.09774 executions per 1mn
- Iran: 0.970331 executions per 1mn
- China: 0.816802 executions per 1mn
- United States: 0.229936 executions per 1mn
- Pakistan: 0.0246275 executions per 1mn
For the record, 18 and 19 are Cuba and Afghanistan, 21 and 22 are Vietnam and Zimbabwe.
Nicely put.
Is it not obvious that we’re all discussing opinion here?
FYI, the pages he refers to (which are marked pp. 114-119 at the bottom) are actually pages 52-57 of the second PDF.
Plus Texas offed that dude, but its no big deal, he was a racist.
I’m not a death penalty supporter, but taking a nitpicker’s position here, what does “confirmed” mean in this context? Is it not reasonable to assume that:
[ul]
[li]We know about every execution carried out in the US, where both free press and vigilant, committed activists serve as watchdogs[/li]
[li]We certainly do NOT know of every execution carried out in authoritarian police states, where there are far fewer rights for defendants, no free press, and activists run significant risk if they speak out[/li][/ul]
Chinese, North Korean, and Iranian numbers actually executed are certainly higher than we have confirmation of; American numbers are very closely watched and almost certainly no higher than reported.
Wouldn’t that alone tend to inflate the US rank in comparison to the authoritarian police states on the list?
Disclaimer: I haven’t heard of the Georgia case until this week.
In the Texas execution (Brewer), the man convicted of a brutal murder, did not deny the act, nor express remorse.
While the risk of executing an innocent man in unsettlingly high in my opinion, I find it difficult to feel compassion or sympathy for Brewer.
There are “lines” where a society draws that communicates “we will not tolerate these actions”. The whole premise of bombing Libya and killing who knows how many people is that Qadaffi is so evil he’s got to go, and his potential future actions (in suppressing the rebellion in Libya) put a number of lives at risk.
-
With the quoted statements above, do you feel any different about the Brewer case?
-
If a government has the right to declare war, and use the military to kill people, why wouldn’t it have the right to execute people for the most serious of domestic crimes?
No. Because you went on to argue against the execution as if he were innocent.
Again, no. What people say when they are wrong doesn’t usually affect anything.
Regards,
Shodan
-
No.
-
I absolutely agree the government has the right. What I question – what I deny, in fact – is that executing a man in this fashion is a wise or humane use of that right.
In the case of military actions, the government is using military force to accomplish its political goals. That’s fine – there is sometimes no substitute for that. Saddam Hussein was unlikely to leave Kuwait in 1993 no matter how pleasantly we asked him.
But the analogy of this to the death penalty is inappropriate, because in this case we’re not killing to achieve some desired action or outcome. We have already captured and secured the man. We don’t need to force him to do any additional action. We’re not killing him to advance a goal. We are simply revenging ourselves on him.
That, I contend, is unwise.
All right. Thanks for the reply.
I shall now go back under my rock and digest these thoughts.
By 1993, the first Gulf War had already been over for almost 2 years. I think you meant 1991.
And there’s actually a reasonable amount of evidence that, in the run-up to that first war, George Bush’s administration did everything it could to prevent negotiations, all the while claiming that it was committed to a peaceful solution. I don’t really disagree with the decision to repel the Iraqis using military force, but my reading at the time and in the period afterwards suggested that there were greater possibilities for a negotiated settlement than the administration was letting on.
Not just the death sentences. We have more of our citizens jailed than any other country. Not just percentage, but more than China by far. We are in fine company. But that is who we are.
So . . . we’re in the company of more than half the UN. We’re just going with the majority. Come on, peer pressure is cool!
Well, if by “probably” you mean 'beyond any reasonable doubt", that part is fine.
The rest of it doesn’t work.
If you are arguing we cannot execute because no system is perfect, then we cannot use life in prison as an alternative, because we cannot perfectly guarantee that he won’t escape, or otherwise threaten the public, if he were not executed. What (for instance) Willie Horton, Robert Stroud, Ed Wein, et al.,did cannot be rectified either.
And the Department of Justice has found that 1.2% of all murderers kill againwithin five years of their release, and that murderers have escaped in the past, it becomes a matter of whether we want to take the vanishingly small chance of executing an innocent person (something that has not happened since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976) or the greater chance of a murderer repeating his crime (something which has definitely happened since 1976).
But you are correct - we cannot be absolutely sure either way. So in my view, we play the odds - execute the obviously guilty, and take the one-in-a-million chance that we were wrong, instead of the one-in-a-hundred chance that the murderer will repeat his crime.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m interested to know what the words “obviously guilty” mean to you.
After all, each of the 273 people exonerated by DNA evidence since 1989 were not only “obviously guilty,” they were, as required by law, “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Of the people exonerated in those cases, 17 were on death row.
Yeah, but most of those were in Texas. Seriously. To date, Texas has executed some 400+. I think the next closest state has executed between 20 and 30. They’re a bloody bunch down there.
You don’t know that. Nobody does. Also, ‘vanishingly small’ sounds affected.
Right now, there are 3,291 people on death row in the United States. 139 more people that were on death row have been exonerated. They had been convicted (beyond a reasonable doubt, although in hindsight getting it wrong at least one out of every 35 times doesn’t seem like a threshold that should be called reasonable doubt).
1,039 have been executed. I think the odds that none of them were innocent is really small.
That’s wrong too, because 1.2% kill again within five years of their release. If, where we now would sentence execution, we instead give sentence to life without parole, the recidivism rate on the public is reduced to only those who escape. I’ll grant that escapees’ recidivism rate is probably higher than the 1.2%, but overall, the successful escapee rate is tiny.