Nope. The system of justice as it currently exists is imperfect, yet has room for improvement. I do not draw illogical distinctions as to the sorts of lives which are expendable and those which must be preserved at any cost.
I don’t believe that one can comfortably emote from a higher moral plane, when one’s standards of morality are flawed and deeply inconsistent.
my mistake there, I see on a second reading that it was clearly not your intention to use the bandwagon in that case.
This is definitely not. The bandwagon fallacy depends on sheer numbers of adherents as opposed to actual support (such as evidence in favour of a hypothesis). The civilized (in fact, even more than that probably) world has recognized and agreed that human life is fundamentally important. I’m not talking about the rabble here (the rabble never signed the Geneva convention, it was governments that did), but about persons and bodies that work on such material professionally, such as human rights experts, courts, governments, etc. These informed bodies and persons debate on the issues, and the result is a global attitude (with a few exceptions) that the death penalty is an inappropriate punishment for a variety of reasons. Despite informed debate, a few countries (like the US) have stuck to the DP in the face of the argument. I have yet to see a solid pro-DP argument here that doesn’t rely on unverified data or simple speculation. That the majority of the civilized world has taken the debate to heart and removed the DP is not a bandwagon fallacy, although in this case the numbers are indeed with the anti-DP civilized world.
A valid objection, but since when is the general public informed about anything at all? Quiz the average American (and, to varying extents, average citizens of several other nations) about any issue and you are bound to receive the most obtuse interpretations or shows of ignorance. Look at surveys concerning the high percentage of Americans who think that astrology and creationism are legitimate sciences, or who have trouble locating the US on the globe, or who have fundamental problems with critical thinking, literacy, mathematical skills, etc. Hell, people on this board have enough trouble figuring out what is going on, and I would consider them on the whole rather more informed than the average person.
The average person provides a mediocre understanding of any given situation, so if that is really what one looks for, one obviously has no problem asking the unwashed masses. But it seems foolish to base a decision on mediocre understanding if it can be helped, especially since we look to authorities to provide us with better understanding than the easily obtainable and frequently inaccurate “average”.
You may object to my pet term “unwashed masses”, but I don’t think you can argue that the average person is well informed on any given subject. To reach a decision on such matters you need to consider the persons who are knowledgeable in the particular field of inquiry, and allow them to debate in order to bring the most important issues and materials to light (one has to expose all the arguments and dig for the truth). Such is being informed. The public, on the other hand, is uninformed for the purposes of such inquiry, and ought not to be relied upon (again, according to the public, astrology works and dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth together).
You may feel quite certain on this, but informed debate over thousands of years has yet to provide a clear answer to the negative on whether it is always immoral to kill someone (whereas it has provided us with a clear “yes” to the question: is it immoral to kill). It is safer to proceed on the grounds that, since killing is bad, it is always bad to kill someone; but of course this is a provision that the morally concerned perceive, but few others do.
The issue here is the previously mentioned fallible judgement, of course; but in addition to that there are many more arguments against the DP, such as the fact that the US executes minor and mentally retarded persons (immoral application of an immoral practice), or that the DP may be applied on the basis of example, bias, etc. Or that the DP really does no good to the state, apart from saving a sum on accommodation costs (and even then, I am very uncomfortable with a society that puts a price tag on a human life in such a manner). In short, the arguments against the DP are legion. What are the arguments for it, apart from personal opinion?
Indeed, that is the reasoned conclusion a large part of the informed have reached, that DP is simply not needed (by contrast to informed decisions, public sentiment is normally bunk, being swayed as it is by a single story that offends the public, e.g. a post-partum depressive mother killing her babies results in calls for the DP, etc.). But, while DP is and has always been the most extreme and final punishment for severe crimes, it’s not as if it was the only one. Maiming (amputation, scarring) and torture (lashings, canings, hot irons, etc.) were also available alongside death as punishments over much of the world, not to mention of course imprisonment, fines, forced labour, slavery, reduction of status, etc. The DP is simply one very questionable method, and I see no reason why it ought to be tolerated in modern civilization, at least on the basis of this discussion. After all, the other less final forms of objectionable punishment have all been removed on the grounds that they were inhumane.
Well, I will give it one more shot, Jack.
There ought to be a prayer about preserving us from idiocy. Come on Jack, I’ve tried to be nice in the face of your non-arguments, but this is really ridiculous.
First of all, in spite of your weak defence (which as before consists of focusing attention away from your arguments by attempting to ridicule me) your arguments are still unsupported crap, and you had better reconsider them, and the numerous and obvious fallacies they contain as explained earlier, if you expect people to take you seriously.
Secondly, the sentence in which you supposedly summarize my position is a very poor representation of my arguments. Apart from focusing on a tiny segment of the argument, you claim that I am against addressing wrongful death in prisons in a meaningful comprehensive manner. The real deal is that I am avoiding the confusion of issues that seems to have its parlous grip on you. The fact that people die in prison HAS to be addressed; but what exactly does it have to do with the DP? Or are you suggesting, as I have asked before, that violent prisoners be killed off for the good of other non-violent prisoners?
If a violent prisoner kills an inmate, a fault of the system which allows known violent prisoners to kill others is involved somewhere (e.g., corrupt or inadequate guards, insufficient security in an institution that relies on security, etc). Every effort ought to be made to correct such faults, but the fact that these problems exist says NOTHING about the DP and its applicability or the moral status of DP critics (or of birdwatchers and lifeguards for that matter).
Let’s try that again: system A (prisons) may have a problem, but that has no necessary impact on system B (the DP), and vice versa. That the DP is inhumane does not necessarily mean that prisons are inhumane. That the prison system is flawed does not necessarily mean that the DP is flawed (we rely on real arguments to establish that, Jack) and vice versa. That people unfortunately, suddenly, and regrettably die of violence in prison does not mean that people ought to die by design through the DP. And so on.
Not at all, as demonstrated yet again for your benefit. I don’t know how to make it any simpler Jack, perhaps you ought to leave this for a few days and re-think about it later. At this point I wonder whether reason is going to work, since you have shown no compunction about dishing out rubbish and defending it.
Fortunately I see that Kabbes was listening and understood the general point. He wrote:
Thank you, Kabbes, for confirming that this was not such an abstruse point. Not that it helped Jack, judging from his stubborn response:
Who the fuck cares, Jack?? Should we consider critics of the DP hypocritical simply because they are not by necessity involved with or vocal about the number of wrongful deaths in prison? Of course not, perhaps they simply understand that these are two problems instead of one, and attacking the one is not making a statement about the other (except perhaps to send out the message that human life is valuable). Or perhaps they focus their efforts on one target at a time. Or perhaps it is more important to critics of the DP that the nation is killing in their name whereas murder in prison is committed not in their name. And so on, and on.
It’s not the moral variety, but I assure you I experience excesses of repugnance when I see attempts to set me up.
Jack, I have explained EXACTLY why your arguments are crap, in detail even. I’m not telling you that your arguments are crap because I want to insult you; I am pointing out your arguments are crap because they honestly are rubbish. You on the other hand keep trying to paint me as a stubborn child yelling and refusing to listen to anyone. The support in favour of this depiction consists entirely of a few of your own fallacies (all of which were already addressed last time I replied to you) and the fact that I called you out on the nonsense you tried to pass off as logic. Would you like to come up with something more concrete than such foolish ad hominem attacks? Or, if you wish, by all means precede me to the Pit.
The helpful Kabbes saw through the whole “but people are dying in prisons” diversion and asked, pointedly:
to which came the reply:
Which, of course, is what I have been saying. Some of the improvements necessary are in general prison conditions and security. Another one is removal of the DP. Although prison and the DP may both be considered part of the justice system in the US, they are different things. What goes for one does not have to go for the other. If I attack the DP, I am not necessarily supporting wrongful death of prisoners. Come on, only creationists have time for that (fallacious) line of debate.
This means nothing to the argument, and I wonder if it means anything at all. Additionally, it seems to be your own unsupported opinion (i.e., it is not an argument).
If your intent was to establish that my standards of morality are flawed and inconsistent based on my willingness to let prisoners die helpless victims of inmate violence, you have failed (since I have no such willingness). If your intent was otherwise, perhaps you can find it in the same place where you lost your arguments? I’d be happy to hear from both.
If attempts at scorn were equivalent to being responsive and applying logic, Abe, you’d be doing quite well. Unfortunately they are not.
The “real deal” is that addressing criminal behavior, like so many other human issues, is a complex one. Indulging in simplistic rhetoric does not obscure this fact.**
I see faint but encouraging signs that you’re beginning to see what I’m getting at. Still, saying "Leave me alone! I can’t concentrate on more than one thing at a time! I’m confused! is not quite an acceptable response.
“Human life is valuable” expresses well the core belief of most people who support the death penalty, including those who recognize that there are flaws in it, as there are in any human endeavor. Protecting the lives of people in prison is an important goal that is linked with support for the death penalty, as I’ve pointed out but you are unwilling to acknowledge. Anti-DP fervor carries with it the baggage of putting other lives at risk. The overall public good is something that can be debated without absolutist statements like “I choose Life”.**
Paranoid much?**
I see you have a rather high threshold of irony.
**
Yes, I know. And if those critics continue to make such artificial distinctions and continue to dismiss avoidable deaths in and out of prison secondary to lack of DP application, that is a valid point for their opponents.**
Most eloquent.
Well Jack, if you wish to live in denial of the facts and mutter to yourself the reassuring nothings of your last message, far be it from me to spoil your fun.
But until you demonstrate that systems A and B are actually validly linked in the arguments of pro-and anti-DP folks, your posts here are, to say the least, unconvincing.
Again, a feeble ad hominem set up and not at all what I have been doing (I have been mopping up your feeble points in case you didn’t notice). Try using a real argument next time.
This is an assertion that is at the very least superficially contradictory (“I kill because I value life” – I think we’ve already touched on such morals), and not terribly helpful to the argument. You will note I have outlined the serious problems with the DP system quite a while back without claiming that supporters of the DP spurn life (I would say they simply don’t understand the issues involved).
Kindly explain how you have provided such a link between the two systems other than repeatedly making the unsupported claim that a valid connection exists and is sufficient to justify fallible beings passing final judgment. Because that link is a crucial missing part of your argument.
No lives are put at risk because of objections to the DP. Lives are put at risk when systems fail (such as prisons or the DP–actually the DP always puts lives at risk, even when it does not fail).
In addition to the above aphorism being (surprise) unhelpful to the particular discussion, this is a point I touched upon with my mention of utilitarian vs. moral approaches to the problem. The absolute statements you mention, and the judgments, actually come from the pro-DP folks, the ones who feel comfortable denying a person his/her life based on an inhumane and dangerously fallible system. As I said much earlier, death is the absolute judgment. The DP is a faulty system that does no significant measurable or observable good to society. You are accusing those who refuse to subscribe to the school of absolute judgment of being absolute.
Do you have a concrete argument in favour of the DP? It would seem you are focusing on a tiny section of the larger issue and relying on your opinion for support. There’s more to the DP issue than violence in prison.
This is a laughable and transparent objection. Do you consider there to be a difference between the fact that a nation executes people, sometimes erroneously, in the name of all its citizens, and the fact that prisoners are occasionally killed in prisons by random acts of violence? According to you the difference would be an artificial distinction.
Is there no meaningful distinction between
a man put to death by error, example, bias, or fair trial on behalf of the people by the state and
a prison inmate killed in a random outburst of prison violence or
a person killed in a public place by a previously normal random passer-by
You see, the latter two cases are heinous and violent crimes, not judgments by the state. These incidents are regrettable, but in no case is anyone condemning the victims of such violence to death, apart of course from their (criminal) killers (and the DP is simply state- and people-sanctioned murder).
We can freely admit that any system is flawed, and still work on other systems to improve them. Or we can provide a poor fix for a faulty system (prison) by implementing highly objectionable measures (the DP) that do not work and that create even more difficulties.
Now, if you please, provide a valid argument, perhaps a better discussion between execution and death in prison, since you claim that such distinctions are artificial (although I hardly see how this would provide sturdy support in favour of the DP!).
Abe, in case you hadn’t noticed, announcing that the death penalty is “inhumane” and claiming that we are executing innocent people is not a presentation of fact - it’s an expression of opinion not backed by evidence. Challenging me for allegedly expressing opinion is in the same category as whining about “ad hominem” attacks, even as you indulge in such behavior. As I said, you have an unusually high threshold of irony.
It is beyond the scope of this thread and has been done to death (sorry) previously, but a forum search will provide you with ample documentation of deaths of innocents due to failure to apply the death penalty (including one case of a death row inmate saved by the last Supreme Court ruling overturning the death penalty, who went on to commit multiple murders). If you don’t want to acknowledge such real-life risks or the hazards to people in prisons who would be able to kill with impunity under your proposed “reform”, there’s little more I can say.
We’ve already gone over the “inhumane” discussion briefly, although if you really wish that can be left open to equivocation should you come up with anything meaningful. As for executing the innocent, there is very little question that people are wrongful victims of capital punishment, and indeed of the entire justice system. Your approach seems to question these instances and the many others that no doubt are unknown owing to the fact that investigation of a suspect typicaly ceases after execution of the suspect.
http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/mike.list
from http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/wrong.html
Perhaps I ought not assume that an apparently informed long-standing member of this board holding a defined position and previous exposure to this topic would admit spontaneously the above facts among others. The justice system is clearly fallible, and the death penalty is clearly fallible too. That is not mere opinion, and it’s certainly not unsupported.
I beg you to cease your bellyaching and please provide a real argument already. And no, my criticizing your unsupported opinion is certainly not in the same category as your ad hominem attacks. My attacks have been directed at the silliness that you have posted and that you have insisted upon in this thread, not necessarily at you. Now stop avoiding the issue with silly diverting comments on “irony”: they were lame the first time you posted them and have not improved since.
Well, I like the pun. And, again, this is not an argument for the Death Penalty. It is, however, an argument for keeping murderers in secure detention and assessing their release more carefully.
I am beginning to suspect that there is not much you can say on this topic that is not a fallacy or unsupported opinion, but hopefully you can prove me wrong. Once again, I ask you to demonstrate why this hypothetical increase in risk in prisons (which it is the responsibility of the prison authority to correct) is in any way an argument in favour of the death penalty. You are simply highlighting that some detention areas (or some prisoners) require improved security–such as that afforded by Death Row were it to be converted into a normal prison as opposed to remaining the vestibule of death.
How do you conclude that people in prison would be able to “kill with impunity” based on my arguments here? May I also remind you that people kill with impunity right now–that’s what the death penalty is, approved killing (or killing “with impunity”).
In the latest deluge of moronity posted in your “mopping-up” operation (see, this isn’t an “ad hominem” attack by your standards), here’s some of the standout silliness:
Your cites on alleged wrongful executions depend almost entirely on ancient cases going back to at least 1905. If this kind of listing is supposed to be making an argument against the precision of DP sentencing, it’s pitifully out of date. And one of your sources trumpets Randall Adams (of Thin Blue Line fame) as having been rescued from death row by discovery of his innocence. Adams was actually serving a life sentence. If you need a further definition of irony, look at the URL for your source (which ends in wrong/wrong.html).
Or you’re now arguing that life sentences should not be imposed because of the risk of error.
This is such a wonderful excuse for the fact that the “real criminals” don’t magically turn up after alleged innocents are executed. The diligent defenders drop them like a hot rock and move on to the next publicity op. Surely if the system is rife with errors a little post-mortem investigation would turn the “real killers” up? Explaining away the lack of results on the basis of the laziness of DP opponents won’t wash.
**
Who would not agree with this? The problem is that DP opponents like you are not interested in reform, but in abolition. Your willingness to overlook the deaths of innocents spawned by such an approach as “defects of the system” for which you can’t be held responsible, is what’s at issue here.**
This silliness (and weighty pronouncements about the “vestibule of death”) equating murder with execution is unfortunately typical of the excess and distorted values weighing down the debate. Next you’ll be demonstrating Godwin’s Law.
If what your message boils down to is Abe’s Moral Sense Is Outraged, we have little further to discuss.
Splendid! It is much better to see scorn and contempt out in the open as opposed to veiled vile vituperations from the shadows. And they do say that imitation is the highest form of flattery, indirect as this particular case may be. Unfortunately this does not change the numerous objections against the nonsense you had the courage to post (and whining something about “it’s not fallacy” is not a defence).
The link cited relies on sources published in 1992 and 1984, perhaps not shiny and new but hardly ancient, although they use references that go back as far as 1905. Since in many of these cases it takes decades to uncover and confirm evidence of wrongdoing, it is not surprising that the compilers do not have figures for more recent years, however data on the 70s decade and earlier is represented (which is what you would certainly expect from the dates of the sources). It’s a historical overview indicating that there is serious cause for concern. I would like to find a more comprehensive listing but the Web is thoroughly tangled and my patience is short. Do you have reason to believe that such misconducts do not take place, that they stopped abruptly? What about the other documented cases not mentioned in this summary?
Firstly, as I heard it Randall Adams was given the death sentence following a highly questionable trial for a crime he did not commit. The sentence was later overturned on a technicality by the Supreme Court just 3 days before the execution. The error still took place, and this man was almost killed based on suppressed evidence and perjured testimony. While he was lucky enough to escape with his life, the deliberate “errors” that were allowed to take place during his trial nonetheless cost him 12 years of his life.
Secondly, you assert that the source I quoted “trumpets Randal Adams as having been rescued from Death Row by discovery of his innocence” but to me it looks like the source does nothing of the sort. Perhaps you’d like another look at the page on Randall Adams, which is right here.
Wrongful convictions do occur and are still occurring. Fortunately today we have techniques such as DNA testing that in some cases allow for previous convictions to be overturned more easily than in the past, but as you see people are still getting convicted based on influences other than justice. There is no doubt that improved technology contributes to establishing innocence or guilt during or after a trial; the problem is that courts are still handing out wrongful death penalties that in some cases do not come to light until after the suspect is convicted. Innocence or guilt is supposed to be established during trial; evidence of such fallibility does not support the case for DP.
Nice argument.
Better reach for that coffee, Jack, and try to pay attention to the discussion for longer than 3 seconds at a time. I’ve already made it abundantly clear–as if it needed any clarification–quite a while back that the death sentence, once carried out, is irreversible. On the other hand if a lifer is found to be innocent you can always apologize and let him out, and address the issue from there in whatever way suits the customs and laws of the country in question. You have not taken away all he has, and you can begin to make reparations. Can you give life to those who were killed erroneously? Can you pass absolute judgment without absolute knowledge of the facts?
Spaghetti reasoning. Time is limited and the silliness is both abundant and evident, suffice it to say that you may include ad hoc rationalizations in your lengthy list of fallacious debate tools.
Why would it? Once a DPer is executed the case is dropped unless someone makes an effort to champion the cause. We’ve seen that in many cases it takes decades for the truth to come to light, so a “little investigation” hardly seems sufficient. You may also want to consider cases such as this recent one, that DO exist and are concerns. The link also cites an error rate of 4.51% in DP convictions in Illinois, with several of the relevant investigations so far (which are 13 in total) being conducted by just one man. Given these facts, I’ll bet that the error rate is even higher than reported.
Tsk, tsk, all these false assumptions that are irrelevant to the argument anyway. I could counter your comment with something equally stupid, for example, “DP supporters like you are not interested in a fair system, but in revenge fantasies”. However that would be just as silly as your tactic, besides which it’s a hasty generalization driven by frustration and not reasoning. I leave such to your capable hands, except in those cases where I make it clear through the use of specific signals that I am not completely serious in my rhetoric.
On the topic of questionable generalizations, I offer the lead prosecutor in the recent Andrea Yates case, who stated that he was “proud” to ask the jury to put Yates to death. Proud—this is after both the defence and the prosecution admitted that Andrea Yates was mentally ill. Oh look, you and the chief prosecutor share the same pro-DP “hang‘em high” position, why don’t I lump you all together and ascribe certain idiotically simplified qualities to the group?
The deaths of prisoners are due to defects of the system. And no, I am not responsible for any such defects any more than I am responsible for the Firestone tire defects, but someone sure as heck is responsible and ought to be pressured about such problems. If the system were working optimally, inmates would not be subject to abuse from other prisoners because the security of the entire institution would not permit such conduct. I hope you can understand once and for all that violence committed by DP candidates in prison is an argument for keeping those offenders in secure detention and assessing their release into society more carefully; it is not any sort of argument in favour of the DP, no matter how many times you bring it up after the same thing is pointed out to you.
As I pointed out quite a while back, using the kind of reasoning quoted above you may as well say that all prisoners with violent tendencies ought to be executed so as to minimize the potential risk to others. Establish a valid link and I’ll grant you that; but, since your conclusion is built on a false premise, your argument is fallacious and really not worthy of so much attention.
No, but you have demonstrated several Godwin’s Law equivalents, such as insistence on inane references to so-called irony in attempts to discredit the speaker of arguments that have withstood attack, parroting, vulgar and deliberate generalizations, selective reading, snide uncalled-for references to Godwin’s Law (not the same thing as the Law itself), and a host of other venerable time-honoured crap that sits in the section with Godwin’s Law at the Museum of Ineffectual Debate Strategies.
To be told this from someone who relies on one single, minor, foolish, and fallacious argument in favour of the DP while ignoring the majority of the other arguments is definitely amusing. The above rubbish about moral outrage is the exclusive message you have tried to ascribe to me repeatedly, but that leaves arguments (other than Abe’s moral sense) that you have yet to address, not to mention the question of what to do with the overflow of fallacies that I was kind enough to point out to you and that you have denied insistently but, alas, ineffectually.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abe *
**Well, I’ve read your latest post, Abe, and a most fascinating one it is - replete with sneers, allegations of defects in reasoning (without actually addressing the points raised) and digressions into irrelevancies (Andrea Yates, false Godwin’s law invocations etc etc.). In other words, more of the same and a waste of pixels.
If the hypocrisy and denial of your position does not bother you, then by all means, go right on sloganeering.
One last thing: you claimed that innocent people are currently being executed. When asked to back up that charge, you produced a link to claims about decades-old cases, including many from the '30s and going as far back as 1905. Your subsequent flailings on this point don’t obscure this: you don’t have the evidence to back up your allegation. Deal with it. Stop blaming the inadequacies of the Internet and your lack of patience.
When you have something new and worthwhile to contribute, bring it on.
And that is what we refer to as “parroting”, something you had given clear indications of engaging in earlier, and which I pointed out (the one with the crap arguments here is you, Jack, not me. This was pointed out to you repeatedly, gently at first but more forcefully when your level of incomprehension became evident). The sneers are richly deserved by the quality of your arguments and responses, the abysmal level of which has already been highlighted and discussed. Your only defence to that has been insisting that your arguments were not fallacious but that mine were instead, no reasoning given. Nice work! You will note I explained what you were doing wrong, and your defence was "Merely shouting “Fallacy!” doesn’t cut it.” After which you simply repeated the fallacious argument. Denial, denial.
And nice strategy of deriding all the arguments thrown at you without actually addressing any of them. Does the technique work much?
Yet another non-argument, not addressing the issues and focusing instead on non-issues, such as my moral position or a distorted representation of what I have been saying here (first I’m supposed to be a stubborn kid, now I’m a sloganeer). I’ve lost count of how many such non-arguments you have provided. At any rate, I am hardly sloganeering; I am investing considerable patience and effort in debating the Death Penalty with someone who seems allergic to valid debating techniques.
No, I never claimed that that list of wrongful executions was current. The list in question covers a period of roughly from 1905 to 1975, and includes thoroughly documented cases of clearly wrongful executions in that period (if we want to talk about wrongful Death Penalty overturned before execution, the list is much longer). The literature on the topic tends to cover the best established cases, not the current ones. For a thorough compendium of the current ones, you may have to wait a few years (or a few decades).
However that is certainly not the end of the argument. Here are even more links and facts for you:
http://columbo.ucsd.edu/journalism/971117.html More of an opinion piece, but offers an interesting (US) angle on how a suspect was executed on a technicality (regardless of whether he was guilty or not).
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/europa/parlamento/mortusae.htm looks at some of the facts and draws conclusions that the DP is applied unfairly. The state of Virginia executed Joseph O’Dell in July 1997 despite the existence of DNA evidence that could have established O’Dell’s innocence or guilt with better accuracy than previous methods, and despite the fact that only one of two samples from the victim seemed to match the accused. The courts refused to consider the new technique because Virginia law says that any evidence found after 21 days is inadmissible in proving the innocence of a convicted person. O’Dell begged the court to carry out the tests that would offer weightier conclusions, but the court refused. An affidavit claimed that another prisoner had already confessed to the crime in question years before O’Dell was executed.
http://www.abanet.org/media/feb97/death.html The American Bar Association House of Delegates approves call for halt in U.S. executions until death penalty fairness is assured, strongly questioning current fairness (1997).
There is a follow-up on that release: http://www.abanet.org/media/feb00/penatly.html “Growing Uneasiness with the Death Penalty” (2000). Quoting from there: "ABA President Bill Paul said [of Illinois Governor Ryan moving to block executions while the practice is reviewed], “We commend Gov. Ryan for taking this decisive action. In the face of a number of examples of how its system has failed, Illinois acknowledged the intolerably high risk of error and is seeking answers. Gov. Ryan’s leadership should be followed by conscientious public officials in other jurisdictions.” "
http://www.abanet.org/media/sept96/execute.html Did Florida Almost Execute An Innocent Man? Quoting from the 1996 release:
“CHICAGO, Sept. 5 – “Crazy” Joe Spaziano has spent the past 20 years in prison, possibly an innocent man. Spaziano, convicted of the 1973 murder of 18-year-old Laura Lynn Harberts, has come within inches of being executed by a system that seemed to have overlooked one crucial point: the State of Florida had no credible evidence against Spaziano except for the testimony of a 16-year-old who held a grudge and “remembered” key facts under hypnosis.”
And also from that same page a bit farther down: " “Regardless of what people think about the death penalty in the abstract, it does in fact send innocent people to death row and will, in fact, execute an innocent person,” says Michael Mello, University of Vermont law professor and former public defender, who represented Spaziano in post-conviction proceedings from 1983 to 1995."
Spaziano made it out with his life, after a decision that took the court decades of dicking around and that ought to have been reached within a few hours at most. He was given the Death Penalty, once again proving that innocent people are given the DP, even if it is sometimes overturned before the critical moment. The fact that this man is alive today is probably due to the media attention that the case received, something that suggests that if more cases on Death Row received such media attention, judges would sign more stays of execution and actually hold fair trials instead of the ridiculous events that Spaziano was forced to live through. And we would have more comprehensive uptodatestatistics on how many people wrongfully receive the Death Penalty and how many people are wrongfully executed, as opposed to a lack of data for obvious reasons already described in my previous post (which you referred to as “flailings”–good one Jack).
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/death.html American Bar Association, saying “Death row inmates have been subjected to numerous due process violations, particularly in state courts, in the litigation and appeal of capital punishment cases.” This link also includes discussions of the unfairness of execution as a punishment for juvenile crimes and the mentaly ill or retarded. Still not sounding like a fair system to me, and the conclusion states: “For many years, the ABA has conducted studies, held educational programs, and produced studies and law review articles about the administration of the death penalty. As a result of that work, the Association has identified numerous, critical flaws in current practices. Those flaws have not been redressed; indeed, they have become more severe in recent years, and the new federal habeas law and the defunding of the PCDO’s have compounded these problems. This situation requires the specific conclusion of the ABA that executions not continue, unless and until greater fairness and due process prevail in death penalty implementation.” (my emphasis)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/02/08/death_penalty/index.html?CP=SAL&DN=110 this is a short February 2000 piece that discusses why public faith in the DP has been undermined. Some of the factors are (of course) popular media, but the story also says: “Corrupt police and prosecutors have undermined trust in the criminal justice system – in Los Angeles, for example, investigators have found about 100 convicted “criminals” (so far) who were framed by cops who planted evidence and intimidated witnesses”.
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/press/pr972.htm a 1997 National Science Foundation release titled “Capital Punishment Decisions Hinge on Jurors Who May Not Understand Their Task”. Again indicating that the Death Penalty is an issue far from crystal-clear, especially to some of the people making the crucial decisions.
http://www.gidc.com/racial%20bias%20act%20article.htm A 1999 Georgia Indigent Defence Council analysis based on an Amnesty International report that suggests racial bias in the application of the Death Penalty in the US. Again, the system is questioned over wrongful application of the DP.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/05/04/death/index1.html an interesting 2000 Salon piece about sexism and the Death Penalty. The article doesn’t discuss the unfair sentencing of innocent people, but discusses the possibility that the DP is applied unfairly based on sex: “it is worth noting that while women commit nearly 30 percent of spousal murders (excluding homicides ruled to be in self-defense), they account for only 15 percent of prisoners sentenced to death for killing a spouse.” There is still no evidence of a system free from error, bias, or corruption and, therefore, free from erroneous executions or simply erroneous sentences.
Now, on the topic of error I found an aptly named link that discusses exactly what I have been trying to tell you until this point, which is that very few people bother to champion the causes of dead men. It costs money, time, and effort, and the defendant in question is already beyond help:
(My emphasis)
I freely admit that researching this kind of thing on the Internet seems very difficult, either because it’s a specific topic that I have not researched before, or because current information on the topic is extremely scarce. In addition to the above material on error I found a work in progress called “Twenty-Five Years of Executions & Twenty-Five Executions with Reasonable Doubts: A Brief Analysis of Some post-Gregg v. Georgia Executions” by Karl Keyes, who is “a lawyer with extensive case involvement in death penalty litigation. For the last three years he has been the editor of Capital Defense Weekly.” He breaks down cases of execution into likelihoods of being wrong. I quote below from the first section, Cases of High Likelihood Innocence (all emphases are mine and the section is not completely reproduced here):
Dawud Abdullah Muhammad was executed on November 19, 1999 in South Carolina. I hope these examples are current enough for you, and the other sections also make for interesting reading. [NOTE TO MODERATORS: I have not reproduced the entire piece, or even the majority of the piece, or even the entire section in order to avoid copyright problems, but the above is still fairly lengthy. Apologies in advance if you feel you have to cut anything]
I noticed one of my cites above was garbled for some reason. I repost it below:
(My emphasis)
(Continued from previous lengthy post)
Now, if you want to be particularly lame about it you will question whether someone is being erroneously executed right now, or this very month or year, and when I can’t prove that because the information does not exist or is not available, you will chuckle in premature glee. But what I have been trying to explain to you is that it takes so much time and effort to investigate these cases post-execution that it is reasonable to estimate that what we are seeing is most likely only a part of the problem.
Staying with the same document, I would like to quote the introduction to the section on Near Misses: “Although there have been approximately one hundred (100) [fn 1] cases where a person was released for reasons of factual innocence (rather than legal innocence or some other “technical” reason) even a quick overview of handful of these cases provides ample evidence that the jury system can, and often does, err in capital cases.” (from http://coramnobis.com/CDW/innocent.html).
Remaining on that document, this is the introduction to the Other Cases of Note section: “Several additional cases do not fit readily into the mold cast above. Some are cases where the person was found not to be guilty of the circumstances that aggravated the murder to capital murder, only to be executed anyway (Thomas Thompson), others are cases of a “near miss” where a final outcome is still unknown (Curtis Kyles & Lloyd Schlup), and another still a case where the government, according to their own prosecutors, killed someone even though the person who actually committed the murder did not receive death (Jessie Jacobs)” (from http://coramnobis.com/CDW/innocent.html).
There is a very comprehensive document at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/inn.html that hits on a lot of these issues. It’s called The Case Against the Death Penalty by Hugo Adam Bedau, 1996. Of course, it happened to be the last document that I found in my research, when in fact it had a lot of the materials I was looking for. Of particular interest:
and
And
There are more examples that I will not quote for reasons of message length and copyright. The quote below addresses an important question:
Finally, we can take a look at the conclusion:
So let me ask you: do you have any reason to believe that the system is not executing innocents, and is not giving innocents the Death Penalty?
And what exactly is your argument now? Have you given up on the ridiculous fallacious claim that the Death Penalty is good because it keeps prisoners “safe”? Can you argue why, if we are to kill people based on the safety of criminals in prison, we ought not to kill every prisoner whose profile indicates a likelihood of killing or abusing other prison inmates?
I noticed also that you did not address the other arguments against the DP, such as the execution of mentally ill or retarded people, and so forth. Perhaps the person with an outraged moral sense and little else here could be you?
Well well, another attempt to change reality through the use of assertive behaviour and confident swaggering, unfortunately it will not change the facts. You have provided fallacies, complaints without substance, and selective unsupported gainsaying focused on one small miserable and fallacious argument. It is becoming evident that you may have little else to argue this point with.
Nice example of more parroting, unfortunately you are in no position to use that tack on me. I have debated, whereas you have merely complained and insisted when your argument was demonstrably fallacious.
Well, Abe, after your prior complaints about the vexatious nature of the Internet and your lack of patience with the effort to find documentation for your views, you’ve buckled down and really chugged your way through salon.com and deathpenaltyinfo.org. Congratulations on putting forth effort.
Too bad that for all of this work (fleshed out with gripes about the unfairness of the system, “near misses” and the like), you still haven’t come up with a single confirmed case of the wrong man being executed, just the usual citing of “maybe”, “could be”, “a good chance” and so on. Your bald statement about innocents currently being executed remains unsubstantiated hyperbole.
Death penalty supporters have no similar trouble in documenting cases of innocent deaths that could have been avoided through application of the death penalty. http://www.doc.state.ok.us/DOCS/OCJRC/Ocjrc96/Ocjrc115.htm shows how escaped killers in just one state over a single 5-year-period murdered two people. (Abe: “But that’s ‘the system’ failing. Not my responsibility.”)
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/press_archive/981117cj.htm documents the career of Kenneth McDuff, who was saved from execution when the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty, and later went out and brutally murdered at least two more people before finally being caught and executed. (Abe: “That nasty 'ol system again. Not my affair.”)
Extensive listings of repeat murderers and their crimes at http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/repeat_murder.htm
(Abe: “The state shouldn’t kill people! The vestibule of death! etc. etc.”)
Should all murderers be executed? Of course not. Should juries, judges and courts of appeal (who in Abe’s view know far less about guilt or innocence than deathpenaltyinfo.org) be allowed to exercise their discretion in protecting society from some of the worst killers and thus saving lives? Yes.
By the way - congratulations on finding a sig that suits you so well.
Let me congratulate you as well, Jack: the hateful, vindictive tone of your responses to Abe’s well-reasoned and well-argued posts, coupled with your willful refusal to straightforwardly address his arguments, have gone a long way in convincing me that the death penalty is little more than an excuse for slavering, blood-thirsty fanatics to exercise their revenge fantasies on others, regardless of their innocence or guilt. It has also reduced an interesting debate into a morass of mud-slinging, ad hominem attacks, and useless cite-clicking.
Good show.
Hello there, Mr. Svinlesha. It’s been awhile since you last jumped in to attack one of my posts (I believe the most recent occasion was the thread on what things make America great; you were grossly offended when I cited America’s role as a haven for immigrants seeking a better life).
Again, we have someone who is severely irony-deficient. If you would like to set a calmer tone, and actually address the issues I have raised, feel free to do so. Or you can hurl invective and then complain about “ad hominem” attacks. The choice is yours.
In our attempts to execute those who are innocent of murder, we may accidentally execute some who are innocent.
But then, some of those whose lives would be spared might go on to commit murder in prison, or to escape and commit more murders on the outside.
But then, someone else whose life would be spared might write a book from his prison cell about how he turned his life around and how much he regrets his past. The book would be read by millions, including many troubled teens who certainly would have gone on to commit murder if this book hadn’t convinced them to head in another direction.
But then, the little brother of someone murdered by one of those people might have been inspired by the tragedy to become a police officer, who would go on to deter dozens of murders over the course of his career.
But then, the victim of one of those prevented murders might have been planning a Timothy McVeigh-style terrorist act when he was (not) gunned down.
You can play this game all day. It’s fun!
Dr. J
Hi, Uncle Jack!
Ah, yes…seems like only yesterday…
I was not!
Yup. Guess I’m just not getting enough irony in my diet.
Nahhh…this was just a drive-by. To the hoop, y’all!
Hmmm…tough choice. Where’s a little devil smilie when ya need one?
Okay, but seriously, it would be cool to see a more substantive response to Abe’s points. Instead, first you razz him for not having any cites, and then you disparage all the cites he presents. Can’t win for losing.
Going back over the thread, I can’t even begin to disentangle the web the two of you have woven. But maybe I can give you an example of what I mean.
Fine. Abe’s cites go all the way back to 1905, but continue (at this point) until the mid-70s. Rather than simply dismissing them, I think that it would be incumbent upon a pro-DP’er, who in addition claims that he values human life, to address the list directly. You could, for example, argue something like this:
Certainly, there have been wrongful deaths committed by the US state over the years. But a lot has happened since 1905; the standards of justice are considerably higher now, in part because we’ve learned from our mistakes… etc., etc.
Not that I would buy that argument, personally, but at least you can admit that failures in the justice system are an important problem regarding the DP, even for those who favor it. Instead, after demanding a cites from him, you categorically dismiss them. And it turns out that you misrepresent the only case you deal with directly (the “Thin Blue Line” case).
Here’s another one:
Remember, the application of the Death Penalty requires, and damn well should require, evidence that lies “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” Therefore, it is not incumbent on Abe to provide a “confirmed case or the wrong man being executed;” he merely has to provide evidence that can lead to a reasonable doubt. If in any application of the DP he presents there exists such a reasonable doubt, then he’s made his point.
Regarding your last group of cites, of course there are gaps, and sometimes clearly criminal individuals make it out into the world again to wreak havoc. But on this basis one could just as cogently argue that we need to enforce laws better, close up technical loopholes that allow such people to be released, and so forth.
In other words, you would do better in this discussion if, rather than merely smearing your opponent every time he presents an argument, you sincerely argue for why you think the DP is a justifiable punishment.
You appear to be suggesting that the mere presentation of cites compels us to accept them. Abe’s initial citation was in response to my requesting data backing up his claim that we are currently executing innocents. Obviously, presenting relatively ancient cases does nothing to support such a claim. His followup cites do not constitute proof of wrongful death, either.
The citation regarding the Thin Blue Line case suggested that Randall Adams was saved from the death penalty by discovery of his innocence. Actually, his sentence was commuted to life years before filmmaker Errol Morris ever got ahold of the case.**
We already have a system that deals with the question of reasonable doubt. I don’t know how they do it in the “Great White North”, but here it’s called the jury system (not to mention all the followup appeal mechanisms available to those convicted).**
And we could even more cogently argue that eliminating defects and inequalities in application of the death penalty would go far to protect society and defendants.**
I have already pointed out that people who admit that they feel justified in employing sneering remarks when they find opposing comments unpalatable and make attempts at insults a mainstay of their arguments, have no leg to stand on when it comes to the question of rectitude. They appear to 1) want to reserve vituperation for their exclusive use, and/or 2) have nothing relevant to say and welcome the distraction of arguing about debate tactics.
Would you care to address the question of why the documented deaths of innocent victims in society and those within the prison environment, when occurring at the hands of convicted murderers can be dismissed as unfortunate errors of the system which can be repaired, but the potential for a wrongful execution is so appalling that no reform short of abolition should be contemplated?
Jack:
**Not at all, Jack. But if you demand cited examples from a debating opponent, and he provides them, then it seems to me that it becomes incumbent upon you to debunk them. Waving your hands and categorically dismissing them as “…chugg[ing] your way through salon.com and deathpenaltyinfo.org.” is not the same as systematically addressing his argument. To begin with, anyone with a couple of eyes in his head can see that Abe has quoted from other sources as well, including the University of California at San Diego as well the American Bar Association. But this is neither here nor there. If we can’t beat ‘em in a straight debate, just impugn their source material, eh, Jack?
Help me out a bit here, Jack. As far as I can see, this entire thing started when Abe volunteered a couple of cites to back his contention that innocent men had been executed by the US government as a result of the DP. Your response was 1) a dismissal of the material as “ancient,” 2) a misconstrual of one old case, and 3) the assertion that Abe had claimed his info was “current,” followed by a challenge for him to present such info. Whatever else might be the case, it was in no a sense a “response to [your] requesting data backing up his claim that we are currently executing innocents.” However, when you put those words into his mouth and charged him with providing some evidence to back them up, he did so (I honestly cannot find such a claim by Abe prior to your assertion that he had made it). Now you dismiss them without even bothering to look at them. I suppose that next you’ll start jumping up and down and threaten to hold your breath until we let you have your way. I don’t what one can call such techniques, but they sure as hell don’t make for a Great Debate.
Really? Gee, thanks for clearing that up for me, Jack. Why, up here, we just sacrifice the bastards to Thor, cut out their liver, and the leave the remains to the crows.
Your system doesn’t work. It’s fraught with internal failures. You know that as well as I do. Remember O.J. Simpson? Guilty people regularly get off the hook. Innocent people do time. It’s not unreasonable to give pause before entrusting the life of another to a system like the US courts.
Then why don’t you do that, huh, Jack?
** This, coming from you?
:rolleyes:
Give me a break, will you?
**Well, to start with, the question is one of agency and responsibility. A convicted murderer is the agent of his own actions, and is ultimately always responsible for them. In the first case, the State as agent is responsible for making sure that such a person does not repeat his crime (to simplify). Thus, it is a consistent position for one who opposes the DP to argue that when someone does manage (despite all measures to the contrary) to repeat his offenses, this is a result of failings in the system that need to be repaired. It is not in any sense a contradiction that a strong anti-DP stance can be coupled with, for example, an argument favoring tighter restrictions regarding parole decisions for dangerous criminals. On the contrary, such positions would be complimentary.
On the other hand, with regard to the DP, it is the State itself which is the agent of execution. Surely you can see the difference between a convicted murderer attacking and killing an inmate, on the one hand, and the State acting as executioner, on the other? Because it is almost as if you think that in both cases, the State is the agent. As I understand it, it is the job of the State to protect innocents. In the first case, that of the convicted murderer who manages to murder again, the State has clearly failed to protect; but in the second case, that of the DP, the State has executed innocents in the pursuit of its mission, which is to protect innocents. This is clearly a contradiction, and even someone who supports the DP ought to take the problem seriously. If you want to argue for “reform” rather than “abolition,” you need to begin by showing that the chances of executing an innocent are extremely low – so low that the benefits outweigh the risks. As far as I can tell, the historical record does not support you in this contention.
But of course, I’m sure you’ll have some glib, “ironic” retort to the argument above – one that doesn’t even address the issue. Debating with you on this question is like wrestling with a octopus. No matter how many weak-ass arguments you present for refutation, you seem to always have an extra set of sucker-pods in reserve.