# No, nothing barbaric about this (death penalty rant) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 30, 2014, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347 "2014-04-30T10:29:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/161 "2014-05-02T18:15:52Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > I guess you could further claim that the exoneration and appeals process catches a further 99 out of 100 false convictions, but considering the reluctance of judges to overturn convictions this is another quite laughable proposition. You’re going to have to define what you mean by “exoneration” and “false conviction”. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/162 "2014-05-02T18:16:57Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > Injustice exists – like it or not, it’s part of our imperfect world. Deal with it. There is no tradeoff. It’s worse in every way. If there were tradeoffs you would have to balance this against the plus side of executions, but there aren’t any. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/163 "2014-05-02T18:20:36Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > Execution, like all forms of punishment, aren’t meant for the criminal. It’s meant to bring closure to the victims and to make the rest of us feel better about ourselves. > > And I don’t get all this hand-wringing over the death penalty due to the 1% who may be innocent (I doubt it’s that high, anyway.) People get punished for things they’re not guilty of all the time; why does it matter if it’s life in prison, losing your job, or being made to stand in the corner? Injustice exists – like it or not, it’s part of our imperfect world. Deal with it. So, in order to feel better about ourselves, we say that it’s okay to kill innocent people? Strangely, that makes me feel worse about us, not better. ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/164 "2014-05-02T19:25:58Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > If there were tradeoffs you would have to balance this against the plus side of executions, but there aren’t any. The plus side, as previously stated, is gaining closure for the victims’ families. It also prevents that criminal from breaking the law again, with 100% certainty. Supposedly it also acts as a deterrence, and saves billions of taxpayer dollars from having to provide room & board for life (in theory, anyway.) > [@jsgoddess](#): > > So, in order to feel better about ourselves, we say that it’s okay to kill innocent people? Who said it’s okay? Of course it’s not okay. But the $64 million question is, what are you going to do about it? Face it, the only way to prevent any innocent person from being punished for a crime he didn’t commit is to rescind all laws and empty all the jails. Are you willing to take all those people into your home, just in case one or two of them may be innocent and deserve a helping hand? I didn’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/165 "2014-05-02T19:33:26Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > Who said it’s okay? Of course it’s not okay. But the $64 million question is, what are you going to do about it? The way not to kill innocent people is not to kill people. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/166 "2014-05-02T19:42:31Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > The fact is, it is nearly impossible to tell the true rate of innocents being found guilty, and there are disputed studies on both sides. I have very little faith in DPIC and their studies, and even less in Scalia, but I find nothing in the description of this particular study that would indicate to me that its guesstimate is anymore reliable than any other. There have been 18 DNA-based exonerations in the US for prisoners on death row. [Physical evidence to test exists in less than 10% of crimes](http://www.falsejustice.com/#!numbers). I think we can say the number is higher than 18. A whole lot of death row inmates are in there based solely on eyewitness testimony, which is not nearly reliable enough to meet the reasonable doubt standard. [QUOTE=buddha david] Face it, the only way to prevent any innocent person from being punished for a crime he didn’t commit is to rescind all laws and empty all the jails. Are you willing to take all those people into your home, just in case one or two of them may be innocent and deserve a helping hand? I didn’t think so. [/quote] He’s got you, **jsgoddess**. The only choices are to execute prisoners, or let them stay in your house. That scalpel-sharp mind has beat us again. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/167 "2014-05-02T20:14:10Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > What do you think the chances of a wrongful execution are? Less than 1 in 2000? People are really that infallible? Unless the chances that 12 random people could be trusted enough to make the correct decision 1999 out of 2000 times, the chances of at least one wrongful execution having taken place since 1973 (and really, that’s moving the goalposts) is 50%. As I said before: "there is a world of difference between “we shouldn’t have the death penalty because it’s possible an innocent has been executed” and “we shouldn’t have the death penalty because an innocent has been executed”. If you want to argue that “I calculate that the odds are that an innocent person has been executed”, fine. Have at it. Knock yourself out. I don’t find it nearly as persuasive as “an innocent has been executed”. Just don’t conflate the two, and we’ll be fine. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/168 "2014-05-02T20:17:55Z")
> [@bup](#): > > There have been 18 DNA-based exonerations in the US for prisoners on death row. > > [Physical evidence to test exists in less than 10% of crimes](http://www.falsejustice.com/#!numbers). > > I think we can say the number is higher than 18. I think we can too. Which doesn’t change my point whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/169 "2014-05-02T20:38:48Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > As I said before: "there is a world of difference between “we shouldn’t have the death penalty because it’s possible an innocent has been executed” and “we shouldn’t have the death penalty because an innocent has been executed”. If you want to argue that “I calculate that the odds are that an innocent person has been executed”, fine. Have at it. Knock yourself out. I don’t find it nearly as persuasive as “an innocent has been executed”. Just don’t conflate the two, and we’ll be fine. How do you propose we test whether an innocent person has been executed? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/170 "2014-05-02T20:44:20Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > As I said before: "there is a world of difference between “we shouldn’t have the death penalty because it’s possible an innocent has been executed” and “we shouldn’t have the death penalty because an innocent has been executed”. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/171 "2014-05-02T20:47:36Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > As I said before: "there is a world of difference between “we shouldn’t have the death penalty because it’s possible an innocent has been executed” and “we shouldn’t have the death penalty because an innocent has been executed”. If you want to argue that “I calculate that the odds are that an innocent person has been executed”, fine. Have at it. Knock yourself out. I don’t find it nearly as persuasive as “an innocent has been executed”. Just don’t conflate the two, and we’ll be fine. A major problem here is that, post execution, there’s no reason for the State to keep evidence on file to be used in exonerating someone who was executed. In fact, in the case of Joseph Roger O’Dell, the state won their argument and destroyed the case evidence, despite a request to do post-execution DNA testing. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/172 "2014-05-02T21:01:14Z")
> [@bup](#): > > How do you propose we test whether an innocent person has been executed? The same way we test innocence, with evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/173 "2014-05-02T21:05:24Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Why? You don’t think it would be more compelling to some people to show the death penalty was wrongly inflicted on a real, innocent person than to say “we might have”? I think have a tangible, provable instance would be more persuasive to some people than just relying on “well, we think so” or “odds are”. I think people would be more likely to have an emotional reaction to a real instance than a hypothetical one. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/174 "2014-05-02T21:06:15Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > The same way we test innocence, with evidence. See the post above yours, [and read this.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States) ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/175 "2014-05-02T21:25:55Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > See the post above yours, [and read this.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States) I will if you [read this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=263901&highlight=tafero&page=2). In there, I discuss O’Dell and Tafero cases. I certainly hope you don’t expect me to go over every raised case of “actual innocence” in wikipedia. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/176 "2014-05-02T21:32:44Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > You don’t think it would be more compelling to some people to show the death penalty was wrongly inflicted on a real, innocent person than to say “we might have”? I think have a tangible, provable instance would be more persuasive to some people than just relying on “well, we think so” or “odds are”. I think people would be more likely to have an emotional reaction to a real instance than a hypothetical one. YMMV. The problem with that is twofold: One, getting the evidence, and two, it seems like you just end up in a situation where someone argues about that particular case. I think Cameron Todd Willingham was almost certainly innocent. You might or might not. How do we prove innocence? That’s really hard, and I’m not sure it can ever be done. You said there’s a “world of difference” between the two. I find there is a smidgeon of difference between the two in actual persuasive force because of the problem of proof. Just as it would be hard to prove to me that someone deserved to die (because I am opposed to the death penalty), it will be hard to prove to someone who believes and trusts in the death penalty that it was wrongly used. We all have our biases. But I think the most biased among us can still imagine a hypothetical which can challenge our beliefs. We may not agree that someone WAS killed who was innocent, we may not agree that someone DOES deserve the death penalty or the death penalty is necessary, but we can imagine a world in which these things are true. (Then we see people saying so what if innocent people are killed and, frankly, I think that does my side of the argument a world of good. It only helps to make the pro-DP side look like they don’t actually care about guilt.) ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/177 "2014-05-02T21:40:45Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > You said there’s a “world of difference” between the two. I find there is a smidgeon of difference between the two in actual persuasive force because of the problem of proof. Just as it would be hard to prove to me that someone deserved to die (because I am opposed to the death penalty), it will be hard to prove to someone who believes and trusts in the death penalty that it was wrongly used. We all have our biases. Don’t mistake my biases. I don’t support the death penalty. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > But I think the most biased among us can still imagine a hypothetical which can challenge our beliefs. We may not agree that someone WAS killed who was innocent, we may not agree that someone DOES deserve the death penalty or the death penalty is necessary, but we can imagine a world in which these things are true. And I think that the difference between something happening and imagining something happening is persuasive to many people. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/178 "2014-05-02T21:45:22Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > And I think that the difference between something happening and imagining something happening is persuasive to many people. I don’t think such a case exists and, frankly, I don’t think such a case can exist that could convince most people that it has happened. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/179 "2014-05-02T22:09:22Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I will if you [read this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=263901&highlight=tafero&page=2). In there, I discuss O’Dell and Tafero cases. I certainly hope you don’t expect me to go over every raised case of “actual innocence” in wikipedia. OK, I read it. In two cases, the executed a guy that was almost certainly the correct culprit. There’s a world of difference between that and claiming that we’ve tested already-executed people in a statistically meaningful way. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347/180 "2014-05-02T22:09:29Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > You don’t think it would be more compelling to some people to show the death penalty was wrongly inflicted on a real, innocent person than to say “we might have”? I think have a tangible, provable instance would be more persuasive to some people than just relying on “well, we think so” or “odds are”. I think people would be more likely to have an emotional reaction to a real instance than a hypothetical one. YMMV. One problem is that after the person is executed, his further efforts to exonerate himself are severely weakened. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nothing-barbaric-about-this-death-penalty-rant/687347.md?page=10)