Oh fer christ’s sake. Dismissal by insult? I dismissed it, and insulted it. I’m insulted by it. I respect your opinion in a way that probably never comes clear because of this very topic, but your insistence that your question is fair is absolutely astounding. I think it is an unfair request to make, and my reasons aren’t insulting, they’re clear: once a person is guilty, innocence is determined by the court. Factual, objective innocence exists, but the court system sure as shit doesn’t know it, and neither do you or I. We settle for the courts. That’s the point of the courts. I cannot show you anyone who was innocent and sentenced to death since 1976 or whatever year you figure is worth using to bolster your position. I will never be able to until someone close to the case actually demonstrates it to the court system. Hell, I would never accept a dissertation from anyone that said a convicted person was innocent. Why would I, when innocence is discovered by courts?
I am fairly confident it will happen sooner or later so long as we keep the death penatly enacted, unless we bar them access to DNA evidence, or other shenanigans that help keep evidence from appearing in their favor. But I can never find it, and I stand by my statement: it is disingenuous to ask for “proof” when you should know better than most what that standard has to be… and where it has to be met.
Do you actually read what I post or is it easier just to rant and rave and pay no more attention than that of an average fruit fly? Passion is all fine and good, but brainless, blind passion, as you’ve shown here, is just pathetic. I know it’s all well and good to shout from your soapbox that the courts have no regard for actual, factual innocence, but, here in the real world, they do, and I do. And I’m willing to discuss factual innocence with someone who is honestly interested in debate, rather than someone who seems hellbent on idiotic rantings like yourself.
Courts have the highest regard for factual evidence and their own verdicts. From this, they determine innocence in the case of appeals, or guilt at initial trials. We’re both aware of how trials work, right? Evidence suggests a verdict, rather than guilt that is known by all parties and the lawyers simply manipulate evidence to support that knowledge, with one party (depending on the trail) lying their ass off just for show. There is no such thing as factual innocence that the courts deal with. There is no such thing as factual guilt. There are facts, and there are verdicts. Facts imply a verdict. Oracular guilt doesn’t imply facts in the American justice system.
Actually, I was pleased to find myself in a thread that does not degenerate into name-calling, sniping, drive-bys and the other less pleasant aspects of life on the SDMB. And so close to the election, too!
Anyway, no worries. And, as you say, on with the show.
I don’t follow you here. The innocent deaths are not what? Not crimes? They are; I was talking about the twelve murders committed by previous murderers.
If you care to explain - I am missing something here. What is significant?
Actually, apart from the “gods” reference, you are correct in saying that I consider the sacrifice of one innocent to be worthwhile if it saved the lives of twelve others.
Right, and I don’t think you can do that legitimately.
I don’t see how one kind is more directly addressable than the other. We can count how many innocents have been executed, and we can see how many murderers repeat the crime (if not executed). And we can certainly see that no executed murderer has ever repeated his crime.
Again, I think I am missing something here.
Agree, certainly.
Again, agreed.
Here’s where we part company. We cannot prevent the loss of all innocent life in the justice system.
I have already mentioned a couple of instances where murderers who were not executed committed crimes from inside the justice system - Robert Stroud, the famous Birdman of Alcatraz, Willie Horton, the guy who killed Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. People on parole are still inside the justice system. So are those who escape, technically. And, as a direct result of their treatment by the justice system (they were not executed, although they should have been), they are still capable of presenting a danger to others. So removing the death penalty does not eliminate the risk of the loss of innocent life.
The third one, obviously, and for the reasons previously stated.
And I would go on to rephrase the argument, with an alternative third statemen which follows logically from the second:
I am not basing my morality on consequences, exactly. I am assuming the morality as a given (loss of innocent life should be prevented), and supporting one system over another because its consquences more nearly approach the desired end.
It strikes me that you are also basing your argument on consequences, since innocent lives are lost (in your view) with the DP. You are, however, only considering one set of consequences in your analysis. And I am still not sure why.
Well, I rather doubt that we all believe as whole-heartedly in the verdicts of the justice system as all that. And the reason for asking for evidence that some innocents have been executed is to establish the argument that you have made, that eliminating the death penalty would spare innocent lives.
But possibly we are hitting on a fundamental disagreement here.
I don’t see the justice system as so self-contained as I think you seem to believe I do. Now your point that the absolute truth cannot really be established by the justice system is quite accurate. I am not sure that it can be established anywhere completely, either. But the justice system is not an end in and of itself, in my view. It exists only to works as a means to an end.
We all agree on certain principles (justice, the defense of the innocent, public safety and order, and so forth). We also agree (in the US) on other principles as well - the rights of the accused, not imposing cruel or unusual punishment, etc. The justice system exists as a balancing act amongst those various principles, and can and should be judged primarily on how successfully it achieves all those principles. That is to say, you can easily pick out one principle and judge in various circumstances how well or badly the justice system achieves that goal. For instance, one principle of the system is that it should convict the guilty. There have been, however, notorious trials in which that was not achieved. I find it unlikely, for example, that OJ was really framed. But that is not the imposition of a new or esoteric standard of truth - it’s just common sense. It is not even the imposition of a higher standard that could be achieved within the criminal justice system. Because OJ walked because the system is also set up to achieve other goals as well as the one of convicting the guilty - to acquit the innocent.
In other words, we as a society have decided that we would rather see a dozen guilty go free than one man punished, and that the accused should be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Now we assume both these things, because we have judged that the consequence of not assuming them is worse than it is if we do assume so. But always, we are applying our judgement to the justice system to see if it achieves the goals - all the goals - that we want it to achieve. It is never treating the justice system as if it were a self-evident or self-sufficient system unto itself.
The presumption of innocence is not an assertion of actual fact. It is a legal fiction, imposed on the system from without because we as a society have decided that it is better than the alternatives.
That is largely why I have insisted on the importance of factual innocence as the standard by which to judge if an execution is just or not. It is also why I reject the notion that we cannot consider factors outside the justice system in deciding how to implement that system. Because all the factors, principles and consequences the justice system is intended to fulfill come to it from without. None are, and none should be, designed or implemented for the benefit of the system itself, or because it has no referent to anything outside itself.
The justice system is there to do justice. It is not, and cannot be, justice. Therefore the idea that we cannot consider factors outside the justice system in deciding how to improve it is one that I fundamentally reject.
I think we need to focus a bit. Both our responses are getting unwieldly! But, whether we can convince each other of anything or not, we’re certainly fleshing out the positions. With that end in mind…
Right… not all of them that you’re willing to be a part of. Some of them could be at the hands of the justice system. I’m just making the unspoken assumption that you don’t hold the justice system accountable for “honest” mistakes. So we have innocent deaths as the result of crimes, and innocent deaths as the result of the mistakes of the justice system. I would not consider both of those as the interpretation of your quote, which was that you also consider it a phrasing of “reducing crime”. Bottom line is that accidentally killing innocents isn’t reducing crime. It is just a cost you’re willing to have them bear for you, or a cost you’re willing to bear given the odds against it happening, or etc.
You see I definitely disagree here, if we mean “objective innocents”, since it remains my position that this number is unquantifiable. We get into this later again, and it touches on the Hamlet side discussion.
But is killing these people the only way to accomplish that? If, say, death row inmates are only kept with other death row inmates, is it fair for you to count these deaths? Same passage:
That’s quite true. But note that I’ve never tried to put the position forward that the ultimate goal of the justice system is to remove danger from people (though it certainly is one of the conflicting requirements I suggest we place upon it). Indeed, free societies accept many dangers in order to retain certain freedoms. I strongly believe the “right” to not be executed by the state as the result of a legal process trumps the danger escaped murderers present. I’m about as scared of escaped murderers as I am terrorists or getting poisoned by a family member, even though all these things are quite possible, all these things have happened to some people, and their grief has been very real.
How can I put this… it is like… death is the ultimate solution. And it is. Dead people can’t escape, can’t kill inmates, can’t engage in violence against prison guards, and so on. That’s totally true. Because dead people can’t do anything. Death is sort of a degenerate (cf. def’n 2) solution to a problem in that way. To me, if the problem is that convicts might escape, we seek to prevent escape. To me, if the problem is that convicts might kill other convicts, we work harder to prevent that occurance. Etc. Death happens to have these properties, because it means the absence of all these properties and others, like mounting a defense for example. And to pre-empt what I think your reply to that sentece will be…
Quite so. But of course, to properly impliment the DP you have so far seemed to accept the mandatory appeals process that follows it, during which time all the objections you raise to me are still quite active.
Sure, I can accept that. But when we go this route, my previous objections remain in play, such that the justice system has to meet several, often conflicting, criteria. These criteria might forbid the death penalty long before this quantification can be made. That is most clearly my position.
Absolutely not. As I indicate to Hamlet, I feel I would be a fool to even attempt that. My arguments hinge on the possibilities that exist within the justice system being in a certain way. No actual consequences are under consideration. I am trying to set up some preliminary requirements a justice system should meet, and if the death penalty exists, those requirements have the possibility of being violated… making a contradiction, not a reappraisal based on consequences.
It would. If we both admit the justice system can be mistaken, and we both admit that the death penalty should be implimented, then we’d both have to admit that innocent people could be executed, where “innocent” means “objective innocence” not those who have acheived a verdict declaring them innocent. No one has to find anyone who is innocent to do that, from after 1976 or before: it is a simple, logical consequence of the nature of the system. As far as I can tell, there are only three ways to avoid this: one, have an oracular justice system capable of never making mistakes; two, never declare anyone guilty; three, never impliment the death penalty. One is impossible and two dismantles the entire justice system, leaving only three.
I definitely sense this, hence my mention of consequentialism. I see the justice system as the standard of fairness, so I hold it to a vastly different standard than something that is a result of that system (say, lawyers, judges, etc). I approach the justice system like I approach a constitution, or system of reasoning, etc: there is no other authority, and so it must be viewed with a different style than other things, like competing products (hence my earlier reference to groceries, for example).
So for all we agree, when you suggest that your position is, “The justice system exists as a balancing act amongst those various principles, and can and should be judged primarily on how successfully it achieves all those principles.” My own position, phrased in this way, would be, “The justice system is the manifestation of, and wholly represents these principles, so its measure of success should primarily be how closely it approximates those principles and standards.” Of course, the justice system is not timeless, it comes with the ability to be adjusted. But I would support no adjustment which would violate the principles, unless the principles themselves were adjusted (which can certainly happen as a result of cultural changes or etc). In this way, the justice system’s success is a measure of how close it is to ideal. The implimentation of justice, or, should I say, the results of justice I leave in the hands of executive force, such as police departments and so on, or in officers of the court like bailiffs, or in prisons and prison guards, etc. There is no single ideal justice system. I rally against the death penalty not because there is no room for it in any justice system, but because there is no room for it in the justice system I prefer. And because there are mechanisms in place for adjusting it, I would support those that meet my own goals. The justice system hasn’t failed just because a murderer that was declared rehabilitated is released only to kill again, or because of jury nullification in letting a good old boy who killed a nigger go, or because of other perceived “miscarriages”. These things can only happen because of how we’ve structured the system, not because it is failing.
As you might expect, I agree wholeheartedly. Similarly, the verdict of guilt is not the assertion of a fact, nor is a victorious appeal a reassertion of initially presumed innocence, and so on and so forth.
Here is our clearest divide. I think you have that precisely backwards. The more it is justice, the better it can do justice. I do not believe for a moment that the situation can be reversed. I feel the reverse is mob rule, tyranny of the majority, lynching, and which gang has the most guns, all hiding behind the guise of justice.
Shodan and erislover, I am quite enjoying watching your debate from the sidelines. I stepped back as I thought the two of you were doing fine on your own. I’m also quite impressed with the level of respect you’ve shown each other and I commend you both.
That said, I just wanted to add a little detail to the examples of murderers who were not executed as quoted below:
If I understand you correctly, you are proposing that the execution of these murderers could have prevented additional murders. Correct me if I’m wrong. Let’s examine those examples.
Robert Stroud. Convicted of manslaughter for killing a bartender. It is reported he was violent and uncontrollable in the early years of his incarceration. Ultimately, after being denied a visit with his brother, he fatally stabbed a guard, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. His death sentence was commuted by Woodrow Wilson and he served out the remainder of his life sentence, primarily in solitary never committing another murder (even contributing positively to the study of canaries hence his fame and moniker).
What can we surmise from this?
A) Since Stroud was convicted of manslaughter (admittedly I don’t know the details of the charge), he would not likely have been eligible for a death sentence. But had he been, there’s no guarantee he would not have killed a guard while on death row. Though this is unlikely as death row is a generally more secure environment. His level of access in the prison quite likely contributed to the relative ease with which he committed the murder of the guard. But then you could surmise that the level of access was a direct correlation of the crime of which he was convicted - manslaughter (a lesser charge than murder in the first-degree).
B) Once sentenced to death as a result of his second conviction, he was handled differently by the prison system, remaining in solitary confinement for much of his sentence. Could the prison system have prevented Stroud’s murder of the guard? It’s certainly possible.
C) Even after his death sentence was commuted to life in prison, he never killed another human being and, despite incarceration, made contributions to a narrow field of study (birds). Therefore, no lives would have been saved by executing him for the murder that earned him a death sentence as he proved to no longer be a threat under the conditions of his incarceration.
William Horton. Convicted of murdering a gas station attendant in 1974 and sentenced to life (without parole, from what I can make out). He was granted a 48-hour furlough and never returned. He was subsequently apprehended, tried and convicted for assault and rape which he committed after he was furloughed.
Conclusions:
A) Horton is a one-time murderer. He did not commit another act of murder when paroled, so proposing execution for his first conviction does not prevent further murders.
B) Had Horton not been furloughed, he would not have had the opportunity to commit the additional crimes he was subsequently convicted for.
C) The secondary crimes for which he was convicted (assault and rape) are not punishable by death, so proposing execution for his second conviction is not valid in today’s justice system.
Christopher Scarver. (I could find very little information on the guy who killed Jeffrey Dahmer.) First, Dahmer was convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to fifteen consecutive life sentences (min. 936 years) in Wisconsin (no capital punishment state). He was clubbed to death in prison by Christopher Scarver, another convicted murderer who was apparently deranged as he told prison officials after the murder that he was the son of God and he was instructed by his “father” to kill Dahmer and another inmate. Scarver had reportedly been on an anti-psychotic medication while in prison. I can find no information on what happened to Scarver subsequent to his murder of Dahmer.
Conclusions and Questions:
A) Had Scarver been executed, Dahmer’s death might have been prevented. He was hardly innocent (having been proven guilty in a court of law), however, and by your argument, Dahmer should have been executed as well.
B) If Scarver was determined to be insane when he committed his second murder (Dahmer), he would be eligible for the death penalty in today’s justice system. There is no report I can find of the current details of his incarceration and whether he has killed again since Dahmer.
C) The prison failed to place Dahmer in protective custody though there were threats against his life. He was left unattended with two other inmates when the fatal attack occurred. So, it’s not unreasonable to believe that the prison is at least partially culpable for Dahmer’s death and they could have prevented it with reasonable security measures.
D) Dahmer, of course, never killed again and *presumably *never would have if his consecutive life sentences were carried out in a properly secured environment.
Hence, your examples do not serve you in proving your position that the death penalty ensures preventing further innocent deaths or is even the better choice than the lesser sentence of life in prison with no parole, handled properly by the prison system.
OTOH, your examples do, IMO, highlight what’s wrong with the prison system.
If Scarver was determined to be insane when he committed his second murder (Dahmer), he would be noteligible for the death penalty in today’s justice system.
I also wanted to say again that I’m fascinated by your debate. While I disagree with you, Shodan, your argument has intrigued me and your debating style is clear and concise. erislover, you have presented the case far better than I could have ever dreamed. I couldn’t possibly express it any better. But I have a teeny tiny nitpick and then I’ll shut up again. It’s implement with an ‘e’. Sorry, I was prepared to let it go and avoid sounding like an ass, but it’s been repeated several times and it distracts me every time I see it.
This looks to be another busy day at work, and I may not be able to steal the time properly to respond until either lunch or until I get home.
Cinnomon Girl - you are correct in your analysis of two of my examples. Willie Horton didn’t kill anyone (after he was furloughed), and Stroud did not kill anyone besides the manslaughter for which he was originally convicted, and the guard he murdered later.
I don’t think it necessarily affects my point as much as might be thought, since the distinction between being murdered, and being raped and tortured for twelve hours is not that much greater than the the distinction between murder and attempted murder. My point was that people in prison still present a danger to others, in a way that the executed cannot.
If you need a cite of convicted murderers who killed again, here is the first one I could find with a quick Google.
I will try to respond in detail (to you and to erislover) later on.
I’m not sure what you mean here, so I can’t really comment on it as I’m liable to misinterpret your point.
Sure, they do. That’s the primary reason they’re in prison. (Sticky point, though: Horton wasn’t in prison when he reoffended. The state gave him the opportunity to commit the assault and rape by furloughing a violent offender.) But you’ve been arguing that execution prevents innocent murders. My point is that blanket execution of murderers doesn’t always prevent additional murder and that you don’t know which of those you’re executing is likely to murder again. The examples you used do not illustrate your argument.
Another example of problems within the prison system that execution does not fix. First of all, prison escape is an extremely rare occurence: less than one percent. Secondly, the report shows that the more than half of those who escaped had the opportunity to escape, raising the question: why aren’t murderers better secured? I’d be interested to know if there have been any recent escapes from death row considering that is probably the most secured incarceration.
And in keeping with the earlier statistic of murder convict recidivism, only two (possibly three) of the 35 committed additional murders.
You’re assuming that a convicted murderer is going to commit further murder, which, statistics show is a very small chance. Using that as a justification for execution of all convicted murders is not only a blanket solution to a fraction of the problem, it is essentially acting on crimes that have not even been committed. It’s reminds me of the movie Minority Report in which people were convicted for crimes it had been determined they were going to commit, but were prevented from committing.
Basically, that convicted murderers continue to present a danger to the public. They can commit crimes while in prison (which is why I mentioned Stroud), they can be furloughed, and they can escape or be paroled. All these dangers are removed with execution.
I mentioned Willie Horton because I think the crimes he did commit are nearly as bad as murder - certainly bad enough to show that the difference between his committing murder and his committing merely rape, burglary, assault, kidnapping, and torture, is a matter of luck. He is, and remains, a extremely dangerous person. And he will continue to present that danger with every further breath he takes.
But they would be safer still if they were dead.
Right. And therefore, I am sceptical that “life in prison with no parole” is as safe overall as executions. The system said that Willie was no longer dangerous, because he was never going to get out. Then they let him out. But now they want me to believe that he really won’t get out, and no one else will either. Really really. :dubious:
And other crimes as well, but yes, repeat murder is the crime on which we have been primarily focussing.
Well, unless you can come up with a counter-example of someone who committed a murder after being executed, I would contend that executions always does prevent additional murder.
But yes, you don’t know (with any certainty) which are going to be the repeat murderers. But you do know that a certain percentage of them will commit repeat murder (and present a danger while in prison, or escape, or be furloughed, or something), and that the overall body count will be higher if you execute than if you do not. And therefore, I argue, you execute, and thus save lives.
Right. Innocent executions are even rarer. But unless you are willing to argue that only being able to prevent a few dozen murders is not worth the bother, I don’t find your argument compelling.
Indeed. Why, for instance, do we not secure them as much as is possible - by, for instance, execution?
Again, this means that we could have saved at least two lives by executing murderers. And therefore, unless we can find at least three cases of factually innocent people actually being executed, we can be sure that execution would have saved innocent lives.
No, they are being executed for crimes they have already committed.
My daughter is calling me to dinner. More later, I hope.
True, but I hope if I need to drop out, that you don’t interpret this as impatience with prolixity. I am reading what you have to say with interest.
OK, I think I got you.
Maybe it would be clearer if I said that the reduction in crime caused by use of the DP would save innocent lives. I don’t know if you think of that as “holding the system accountable”. Certainly I would not punish “honest mistakes” with the death penalty. But, overall, “honest mistakes” would be far outweighed by “prevented repeat murders”, to put it that way.
No, I don’t agree. We can establish how many “objective innocents” have been executed to the same degree we can establish “objective guilty” - close enough that the overall results save innocent lives.
Then we fundamentally disagree. The “right not to be executed” derives from the same source as the “right not to be murdered” - that we are endowed by our Creator with the right to life. Thus a system that better protects that life is a better system.
Well, I mentioned earlier that if we are allowed to assume that any system can be perfect, then we can use the DP - since we can be perfectly sure that no one has been denied his “right not to be wrongfully executed”.
I think we are hitting up against something I still don’t understand.
Your desire to eliminate considerations other than that an innocent might be executed seems to me to be entirely arbitrary.
You seem always to be assuming a priori that, if we use the DP, we might execute someone wrongly. Granted. But cannot we also assume a priori that some murderer might repeat his crime? On what basis can we make one assumption - and then stop considering things?
Sure. So what?
Flip it around. Admit that the justice system can be mistaken, and the death penalty should not not be implemented. Don’t we both have to admit that some “objectively innocent” people are going to die at the hands of repeat murderers? After all, we know for a fact that it has already happened, and continues to do so.
Ergo, as I said earlier, innocent deaths are an inescapable fact of life, no matter how we choose. Our only choice - the only choice - is how many innocent deaths we want - one, or a dozen.
Nope, sorry. The third one doesn’t do it either.
That doesn’t change anything.
The principle you suggested earlier is that innocent deaths are a bad thing. I agree. But they are a bad thing no matter what we do, and therefore we have to minimize our damage.
I don’t see the rationale from excluding one kind of innocent deaths from your calculations. The one is just as much an inescapable consequence as the other.
