I wasn’t intentionally misunderstanding her. I was pointing out how her position would justify execution.
The statement was;
Executing a murderer is certainly reacting to his wrongdoing. They are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, and no evidence has been produced that there is anything more than a one in a thousand chance of there ever having been an innocent execution. Even Dead Badger admits that this has not been demonstrated in the case of the OP. Ergo, we are not killing them for assuming they will do wrong, but for the wrong they have already done. That we will also prevent future murders is a side benefit. But it is equally just to execute a murderer who will not repeat his crime.
Besides, the idea that it is more moral to wait until after a wrong has been committed is silly. If someone is coming towards you with a knife and you have a gun, would you wait until after he stabs you to shoot him?
Ridiculous. You shoot the guy. Same thing with murderers. Kill them for the wrong they did in the past, and reap the benefit that the recidivism rate for an executed murderer is 0%.
Incidentally, were you going to address any of my cites of the murdered prison guard, and other instances of murders implemented by those still in prison?
Excuse me, but I don’t “admit” it; I point out that it is the inevitable result of a system which has no process for examining its own failures. Cantu’s innocence will never be “demonstrated” in the legal sense, because there is no system in place to do so. Others would consider the fact that both surviving people present at the time of the murder now say he was not there to be as categorical a demonstration of innocence as can be expected. Not you; you want an impossible retrial before you will accept Cantu’s innocence.
Call that an “admission” if you like, but I’m pretty sure it is a further condemnation of your insistence that the error rate is low.
But it doesn’t. It doesn’t even come close. The closest that it comes is that it might not provide further argument against the death penalty.
If I say that reacting to an aggressive dog is more moral than deciding to kill all dogs out of fear that they might bite, I’m not justifying killing all dogs that growl at someone. I’m not even technically saying that reacting to an aggressive dog is moral. I’m just saying that a generic reaction is more moral than a preemptive action.
Your question has nothing to do with your statement. When someone comes after me with a knife, I am reacting to his wrong if I shoot him. He acted wrongly when he came after me. If I act before the wrong has been committed, I shoot a bunch of people out of suspicion that they probably have knives.
In any case, if the guy is coming at me with a knife, and I have a surefire way to keep him from getting at me (i.e., he’s on the other side of a prison wall), then my shooting him is unethical.
I looked at a few of your cites, and some of them are pretty hinky (what the hell is emergency.com?), but others look legit. Unfortunately, they’re still anecdotal. Originally I’d asked you to “dig up the statistics on murders committed by people who are serving a sentence of life without parole.” Anecdotes are not statistics. If you’re sticking to your original claim–that “not using the DP is 824 times more likely to end an innocent life than to use it,” I’ll stick to my demand that you use relevant statistics, and not be swayed by anecdotes.
I guess I’m one who doesn’t see any rational or justifiable moral compnent in this justification of punishment, so perhaps we need to lay it out in more detail. There are a lot more sensible justifications for punishment than emotional revenge, especially at the price of making life a conditional factor at the discretion of a state (or whomever happens to be the most powerful authority at any given time).
If the motive is then we are using a feeling human life as a means to an end. Isn’t that morally repugnant? There are many many cases in which killing someone might indirectly save other lives down the road. In general, however, most people agree that actually taking an existing human life is a special sort of line that mere cost benefit analysis doesn’t trump. The going C/B cost of human life is anywhere around 7mil to 16mil. But most people would agree that I can’t just kill someone because I can show that there will be a net benefit after considering that cost.
Why? What is “just” about it? It is unjust to kill someone who is not a direct and immediate threat to someone else. That’s why the murder they committed is wrong in the first place.
No, but that’s exactly the point: in such a case the person is a direct and immediate threat. Killing them may be the only way to deal with that threat. But once they are rendered harmless, you just aren’t in the same situation.
The first murder rate for an innocent person executed is also 0%. So? If people that have previously murdered murder at a higher rate than the normal population, thne there are also many subgroups of the normal population that have a higher future murder rate than everyone else. I don’t see how statistics are a sensible way to judge individual cases. That’s why we have a justice system.
If a specific individual is trying to kill others even in prison, then at least there there is some case to be made that this person is an ongoing deadly threat. But that just isn’t the case for all or even most murderers.
My statement doesn’t justify execution. It doesn’t rule it out, either.
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a full-fledged ends justifying the means argument. Congratulations. I thought it had gone the way of phrenology.
What makes it a stupid argument? Shodan is saying that killing innocent people can be okay. Do you agree with that? If you do, what makes the state killing innocent people okay and an individual killing innocent people a despicable act deserving of retribution?
The most stupid fucking argument you have ever heard around here? OHHHHH BROTHER, talk about :rolleyes:-ing. You either (1) didn’t understand what I wrote, (2) over exaggerate for dramatic appearances, (3) really haven’t been around much because there really have been some VERY. STUPID. ARGUMENTS. around this place that I can’t even hold a candle to.
Please explain in your infinite ability to recognize “stupid fucking arguments”, why it is a “stupid fucking argument”. Tell me why the killing of an innocent prisoner is any more, or less, repungant than the killing any other innocent person.
What, you’ve never heard of a wrongful death suit?
The point is, we have a very extensive system in place that operates before any execution occurs. The fact that this system operated for a period of many years before Cantu was killed makes it - well, other than automatically believable that the witness is telling the truth now, and not when he was under oath.
But, as I say, assume that he was really innocent. The number of wrongful executions, as an absolute maximum, is less than one in a thousand.
Actually, no, we don’t know that - it was based on a couple of your assumptions, for which you didn’t produce much by way of justification.
The average time served for murder is a little under six years. The average age of a murderer is twenty seven. If you want to get from there to some notion that significant numbers of murderers are never released and die of old age in prison, you will have to do more to establish the notion than simply assume it.
Then we are rather spinning our wheels, aren’t we? If you didn’t base your opinion on the facts, then presenting a fact-based argument was rather disingenous.
Really? How exactly do we make restitution to the victim of a murder that could have been prevented?
No, only murderers, who have forfeited their right to life by their crimes.
And by yours, we ought to decide whether or not to execute someone based on an estimate that some tiny proportion might be innocent. This is different - how, exactly?
You are subjecting yourself to the same error that LHoD makes. Why do you judge your kind of system by its intentions rather than by its results, and not our current one? By that standard, you have no objection to the supposed innocent execution of the OP - since no one intended that an innocent should be executed. Why not judge that execution by the same standard of intent that you use to try to exclude the DP?
Because post hoc, ergo propter hoc is still a logical fallacy.
Closely reasoned, and entirely correct. We are executing only murderers - dogs who have already bit, in your analogy, or people who have already stabbed someone else. We are executing them for the wrong they already committed, just as you shoot someone for attacking you, and add the benefit of preventing future crimes as well.
See the distinction? Not “execute everyone who might murder”, not “shoot all dogs who might bite”. Execute those who have already murdered, shoot the dog who has already bit.
No, it hasn’t - it appears in the OP, for instance. And in your own argument:
Although I recognize that what you mean is that you will never accept that any evidence is sufficient. What level did you want? DNA? Signed confessions in front of ten witnesses? A hand-written note from God?
I am currently reading a book by Daniel Petrocelli, the lawyer who got a conviction in the civil suit against OJ Simpson for killing Ron Goldman. He did a mock trial, with interviews with the “jurors” afterwards, to see what worked in his case and what didn’t. He had been concentrating on building an irrefutable chain of evidence, which he presented to the “jury”.
He lost the fake trial. And the analysis done by the polling company later found that there was a certain demographic type - older, less-educated black women - who were simply not going to convict, no matter what. And in the interviews after, no matter what the evidence was, those people instantly dismissed it, without (apparently) any regard for whether their reasons to ignore the evidence made sense, or were mutually contradictory, or simply impossible. Simpson denied ever wearing Bruno Magli shoes, and the prosecution produced photos of him wearing the shoes. Didn’t matter. It was scientifically impossible that the blood on the socks had been stolen from Nicole’s autopsy sample. Didn’t matter - they didn’t trust it. Fuhrman was accused of planting OJ’s blood at 8:00 am, when OJ’s blood was not drawn from his arm until 2:30 that afternoon. Didn’t matter - it was a conspiracy because Fuhrman said “nigger”.
Petrocelli made more or less the same mistake that I have been making. Some innocent lives are apparently worth more than others.
Regards,
Shodan
PS -
You might want to try actually reading the thread.
That addresses half of my point. Make it one-third of my point. The point is threefold:
There is nothing silly about the idea that it is more moral to react to a committed wrong than to act to prevent a hypothetical wrong. I believe you’ve conceded this above.
That idea does NOT mean that any reaction to a committed wrong is thereby justified. It has no justification at all for any act or reaction within it. Therefore it doesn’t justify, among many other things, the Death Penalty for murderers, caning for gum-chewers, or a special level of hell for people who take calls during concerts.
If there’s a prison wall safely separating me from the guy who’s coming at me with a knife, it’s unethical for me to shoot him.
No, I have not conceded this. Especially since we are not talking about hypothetical wrongs, but actual murders. As I mentioned.
Any reaction? No. A proportionate reaction? Yes. Thus the DP for murderers is justifiable.
As well as do a number of assholes.
The reasons for providing the cites that I did was to establish that a prison wall is not a guarantee that a convict will not murder again. Even inside prison walls. It doesn’t need vast numbers of statistics, any more than one clear case would be needed to show that occasionally, an innocent person might be executed.
Is it absolutely guaranteed that some one sentenced to life without parole will never present a danger to the public again? No, it is not. Is it absolutely guaranteed that some one executed will never present a danger to the public again?
Why is it that the US, with the longest and harshest prison sentences (and the DP) that I can think of in the west, also has the highest rate of recidivism do you think? Perhaps because of the focus on punishment instead of rehabilitation.
You say that the DP is justified. Why? How does it become correct for the state to legally murder?
Buh? You raised the multiple defendants/single trial issue, I pointed out that this did not affect the numbers. I have no idea what you’re on about. We are trying to assess how many prosecutions result from 187,000 murders. My figures make a pretty good attempt at this. You quibbled with an irrelevance, I pointed out that the irrelevance was irrelevant, and you claim I brought it up? Sheesh.
Could one of our resident lawyers clarify whether it would be possible for the relatives of an executed convict to sue the state? Because I’m frankly sceptical. Even if it were so, I don’t think it’s exactly fair to expect a dead man’s relatives to have the financial resources or inclination to successfully sue a US state before you will accept the man’s innocence. Again, the fact that you don’t see a case for innocence in a US DA and the only two witnesses agreeing that a man shouldn’t have been executed speaks volumes for your motivations in this instance.
Bullshit, it is. All we know is that the number of wrongful executions we know about at the moment is one in a thousand. How you can possibly claim that this is the absolute maximum is beyond me. A week ago the “maximum” was zero. Who knows what the “maximum” will be ten years hence? The word you are seeking is minimum, and it should bloody well worry you. Also, 1/987 is not “less than” 1/1000, it is “more than”. I realise that these trivial distinctions are irksome, but it would be nice if we could agree on such basic mathematical niceties as simple comparison.
I beg your pardon? You were the one who brought up this point, I acknowledged and researched it, and you now accuse me of making it up? I’d been enjoying this debate, but your latest post quite frankly pisses me off with its disingenuousness. I have provided two government statistics agency cites to indicate that there is indeed generally more than one defendant in each prosecuted murder case, a statistic which initially worked in your favour if you’d care to recall. Now that it becomes inconvenient for you, you turn around and claim I’m making it up? Sod that. I suppose it would be too much to expect you to acknowledge that in the calculation you’re presently quibbling, the 1.25 factor is included twice, once going up and once going down, and therefore cancels out and is irrelevant?
Most of these in states which already have the DP, and therefore cannot be considered a failure to have the DP on statute. The statistic is for “homicide”, not murder, and thus also includes manslaughter (culpable homicide), for which I’m assuming you do not advocate the mandatory death penalty, and which skews the numbers wildly towards the low end. A (far) more reliable source would appear to indicate that the average sentence for “murder” is more like 35 years. And you still (still!) ignore the fact that these sentences could simply be increased without resort to the DP. Throughout this thread you have falsely assumed that the alternative to the DP is to simply let people go, but this is not the case. There is an absolute world of options of equal viability, whose very existence you refuse to acknowledge. You present the falsest of false dilemmas, and despite this being repeatedly pointed out to you in huge glaring letters by multiple posters, you continue to pretend that you do nothing of the sort.
Jesus Christ! I am showing, using a statistically fact-based argument, that you are full of shit when you say that the DP is 857 times more likely to save a life than to mistakenly take one. I am showing that you cannot possibly justify such a figure without taking vast statistical liberties. My reasons for opposing the death penalty are quite different, as I have openly laid out for you. I apologise for doing you the favour of debating on your own terms; clearly, this was quite the mistake. As I stated before, I do not believe that your tawdry calculation has any place in formulating our justice policy. That does not preclude me from pointing out that the calculation is nonetheless flawed in the extreme, and this is what I have done. Your objections to the process up to this point have been largely reasonable, and I have factored them in to the revised calculation as appropriate, whether they benefited your side or mine. For you to now turn round and claim that I’m the one using the calculation to back up my argument is quite breathtakingly disingenuous.
My argument is that the ends justify the means? Do what?
I say the means justify the ends. Allowing the guilty to go free is better than imprisoning, or especially executing, the innocent. The end might result in more deaths, but those deaths are on the hands of the criminals, not on the hands of people like me. You don’t get to kill innocent people and then claim it’s for my good or for the good of society. That way lies abomination.
We don’t have perfect knowledge, so we’d best do as little damage as we can or we destroy the innocent with the evil. We can all offer sure-fire plans for eradicating crime, most of the time by allowing the state to be more monstrous than any individuals ever managed.
Gas whole cities and crime will plummet. Sterilize the poor to lead a safer life. And yes, execute all convicts and it’s suddenly a utopia, for those who survive it and whose families survive it.