It’s pretty obvious he wants them killed immediately after sentencing.
I don’t disagree with the logic in principal. My disagreement mainly comes down to the yardstick for measurement. IMO the only reasonable yardstick for death penalty mistakes is people who were found guilty of murder, and then the DP imposed in a penalty phase, who should have been found ‘not guilty’ or the DP shouldn’t have been imposed according to the ostensible rules of the system if they’d been followed. It’s not measured by those ‘we surely know had absolutely nothing to do with this murder’. We simply don’t know that. The system’s outputs are G and NG, there is no output ‘definitely didn’t do it’, that’s just people debating based on media articles.
The number of people found guilty and sentenced to death who should not have been according to the system’s rules if followed is not small at all.
Then on the other side of the coin, the US states with greatest use of the DP, the practical benchmark for ‘if we had the DP in general’ sentence single digit % of murderers to death (OK 5%, TX 2%). These stats for example
There’s ambiguity in that denominator ‘murders with known offenders’ mainly since it presumably includes all illegal killing (‘manslaughter’ etc). But it still suggests that the number of ‘real murderers’ sentenced to life by ‘have DP’ states greatly outnumbers people sentenced to death. Hence, you can’t validly count all the people sentenced to life who subsequently kill (almost always in prison, in very rare cases after escaping) as avoidable with DP without considering the impact on the DP error rate if it wasn’t limited to the easiest cases to prove. And that error rate is already disturbingly high.
So I don’t think your numbers add up, is the main problem with your argument IMO. You’re setting a bar for DP errors ‘innocent beyond a reasonable doubt’ but there’s no such thing. The number of errors by the system in DP cases, by its own standards (later examination or even later proof that proof beyond reasonable doubt was not found while following all rules of evidence and due process in the original trial) is apparently not all that small, disturbingly. Then you’re comparing that to murders committed by people already serving life sentences for murder without considering all the additional DP errors you’d have to generate by imposing the DP on probably 10’s of % of illegal killers compared to a couple or few % in reality in the most pro-DP states. Which tends to involve harder to screw up cases, though also more heinous ones.
You clearly don’t understand my argument. I’m making the point (which I would have thought pretty obvious) that murderers illegally killing innocents is not ethically equivalent to the criminal justice system legally killing innocents.
That immorally utilitarian argument could be used to justify any amount of arbitrary tyranny and/or vigilantism. By your logic, we don’t even need to wait to try and convict people in order to have a valid reason to execute them. Just identify the “murderous types” and off them before they get a chance to kill anybody.
As long as you can make the numbers work out to a total number of innocents executed that’s smaller than the assumed number of murders that you “prevented” all the executed individuals “from committing”, then your tyrannical reign of terror is by your reasoning totally justified.
By that logic, as I said, you’re being hypocritical if you insist on always waiting till somebody’s a convicted murderer before executing them. You could protect more innocent lives by executing the obvious “murderous types” in advance and saving the lives of all their future victims.
That’s the type of unintended consequence you lay yourself open to if you refuse to acknowledge the common-sense ethical distinction between murderers illegally killing innocents and the criminal-justice system legally killing innocents. If all you care about is the decontextualized calculus of total number of innocents killed, then you have no justification for rejecting any system, no matter how violent and arbitrary, as long as it produces a smaller number of dead innocents.
Right, I’d assume we’d have to start executing people convicted of attempted murder too, in order to be consistent.
Americans tend to believe us Scandinavians have governments with a lot of power over us, but do not really seem to mind giving their own government the power to kill them.
AFAICT I understand your argument just fine. You are saying that murderers illegally killing is not ethically equivalent to innocents being executed. Apparently innocent executions is worse. Because one innocent execution is apparently worse than a dozen murderers illegally killing. That’s not at all obvious.
So you need to flesh out your argument instead of simply assuming it. In what ways is it worse that one innocent dies (maybe, eventually) than that a dozen innocents die (which has already happened)?
And the way we establish the murderous types is by proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, using sworn testimony and evidence, and affording the accused murderous type the presumption of innocence.
So it is neither arbitrary, tyrannical, nor vigilantism. We are offing them before they get the chance to kill again.
Again, you are begging the question. In what way does common sense or context show how one innocent death is worse than a dozen?
Regards,
Shodan
Correct - I would support the DP upon conviction for attempted murder as well. Please note the emphasis - I don’t want the thread derailed by straw men like the ones Kimstu is trying.
Regards,
Shodan
WHEN, exactly, should the execution take place? Immediately upon conviction? After a month, a year, decades of appeals, when?
If we execute an innocent person, then we are murderers. We have become that which we abhor, and by your own logic, WE deserve to be and should be executed to prevent us killing another innocent.
Are you ever going to address the fact of those who have been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt and using sworn testimony and evidence to have been murderers, and who were then exonerated, or do you just want to pretend they don’t exist? There’s 167 of them on this listing, and the vast majority were convicted and sentenced to die after 1976, the date after which you claim forensic science became so much better that we don’t need to worry about mistakes.
I don’t think you realize that forensics is still often a bit player in murder convictions, and certainly isn’t the bright shining line you imagine. DNA evidence is still open to interpretation; for example, the lab can’t tell you when a sample was left, so it is possible the accused was at the crime scene hours or days before the event. DNA might not be available at all, or may be ambiguous, or if the accused lived or worked at the location, there may be a perfectly innocent explanation. Real life isn’t CSI. A lot of people are convicted based on eyewitness testimony, and that isn’t any more reliable in 2020 than it was in 1920, or 1620. Police and prosecutorial misconduct didn’t just disappear in 1976; neither did simple mistakes.
In the way of who is doing the killing and why. We acknowledge that murderers are illegally and immorally violating the norms of society by killing innocents. That’s bad, but what’s worse is for society to embrace its own legal killing of innocents as a morally acceptable norm in an attempt to reduce illegal killings by murderers.
If the only thing that matters is reducing the number of innocent deaths, then by your reasoning, waiting until a murderous type has been “established” as someone who’s actually committed murder is irresponsible and hypocritical.
You’re blatantly and illogically trying to have it both ways here:
-
When I point out that it’s immoral for society to be willing to kill innocents, you retreat to your naive “death calculus” to argue that the only goal that matters is to end up with fewer dead innocents, e.g., one instead of twelve.
-
And then when I point out that that argument automatically justifies us in adopting any system, no matter how abusive or tyrannical, that produces a smaller total number of dead innocents, you abandon your previous position in order to assume the necessity of broader jurisprudential principles such as reasonable doubt, sworn testimony, and the presumption of innocence.
But you can’t have it both ways. If the only thing that matters is minimizing the total number of innocent deaths, then throwing out basic human-rights principles in order to execute potential murderers before they commit any murders is just fine. If, on the other hand, the upholding of basic human-rights principles overrides the goal of minimizing innocent deaths, then it’s reasonable to argue that such principles can also include society refusing to execute murderers.
Your wishy-washy rhetoric in which you appeal to both those claims when you find it convenient, but don’t adhere to either of them consistently, is not providing you with a logical or persuasive argument.
That’s been addressed. We are talking about unjust executions offset against unjust murders. How many of those were executed? Zero. How many repeat murders have been cited? Read the OP.
Apparently you can’t explain how it is worse, but want merely to repeat the assertion. More innocent deaths are better than fewer.:shrugs:
This is nonsense. Executing people who have not been established as murderers is not something anyone, least of all me, is recommending.
More nonsense. No one is talking about throwing out any basic human rights principles, so this is your straw man again.
Regards,
Shodan
A execution of a innocent is worse, since we all bear responsibility for it. The murder of a innocent- only the killer bears responsibility.
And just how should they be forced to live up to that responsibility? Killing them is wrong. Putting an innocent man in prison is wrong.
This area has seen two men arrested for murder hang themselves om separate incidents recently.
Yes, we get that. The question is, why not? You’ve laid out a logical argument for keeping the death penalty: even if we kill a few innocent people, even more innocent people will be saved by preventing murderers from killing again. Why does that logic stop at, say, the presumption of innocence? If we can save more innocent lives by killing people suspected of being murderers, because of all the actual murderers that we’d be killing, why should we not do that? Why does your logic hold in the first situation, but not in the second situation?
Exactly this: executing an innocent makes me a murderer. This is unacceptable, even if it serves to avoid other killings (which is still by no means in evidence).
And, Shodan, you are positing an artificial binary: killing convicted murderers vs imprisoning them and then letting them go to kill again. There are of course other options, like life w/o parole.
Not by you, it hasn’t. One hundred and sixty-seven times (at least) in the modern era, sworn testimony and evidence established beyond any reasonable doubt that an innocent person was a murderer, and you are ignoring, as though the fact we didn’t actually manage to execute any of them before their exoneration somehow isn’t evidence that our system of convicting by sworn testimony and evidence established beyond any reasonable doubt sometimes gets it wrong. On average, they spent fourteen years on death row before they found the resources and lawyers to free them, but you are arguing that they should be executed more quickly, before there’s any chance of them killing again. You are arguing that the system should be changed to INCREASE the likelihood of an innocent person being unjustly executed, and you either don’t grasp that or want to hand-wave it away.
Repeating this over and over does not make it true. Neither of us has any idea at all whether Sedley Alley was unjustly executed, and you are apparently comfortable with the State of Tennessee not wanting you to know. Unless they change their laws, you will probably never know. Repeat for Cameron Willingham or Ledell Lee or any of the others whose cases are forgotten because posthumous exoneration is extremely difficult. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Virginia did retest Roger Coleman’s DNA, yes. Tennessee did not do ANY testing on Sedley Alley’s, and the judge says their law prohibits doing so. If the test cannot legally be done, then relying on the absence of results is intellectually dishonest.
And you have continued to ignore the fact that DNA isn’t the sole or even main evidence in most murder prosecutions. Do you think eyewitness testimony is more reliable today than in 1950? Why or why not?
To prevent the crimes cited in the OP, you must execute those convicted immediately after sentence is handed down, without any opportunity for appeal. If that is what you want, then you must be willing to accept the consequence that every single one of the 167 above cited would have been unjustly executed. Are you really willing to accept 167 innocent deaths?
Those two quotes are contradictory. “Murderer” is defined as someone who has actually killed somebody, not a person who tried and failed.
Only to somebody who’s having trouble following a logical argument.
And the point is that refusing to execute people who have not been established as murderers is hypocritical and irresponsible of you if the goal is only to decrease the net total of innocent deaths.
And the point is that reluctance to throw out any basic human rights principles is hypocritical and irresponsible of you if the goal is only to decrease the net total of innocent deaths.
I repeat: You’re inconsistently shuttling back and forth between the claim that the supreme and overriding goal is to reduce the net total of innocent deaths, and the claim that of course basic human rights principles take priority even if they end up increasing the net total of innocent deaths. Your inability to stick to either of those positions consistently is what’s invalidating your argument.
Because executing people who are only suspected of murder raises the chances that the number of innocents executed will outweigh the number of lives saved.
I don’t see how that follows. If I as a citizen am responsible for wrongful deaths consequent to the DP, then I am equally responsible for deaths consequent to not having the DP.
Again, read the OP, which mentions someone condemned to LWOP who then escaped and killed again. Thus demonstrating what is already obvious - people can escape from prison. Dead people - not so much.
Regards,
Shodan
Says who? If you manage to “pre-execute” a few mass murderers, for example, you could afford to “pre-execute” quite a few innocent people as well while still decreasing the total number of innocent deaths.
Oh, you think that “pre-executing” murderers is an unacceptable violation of human rights? So, you hold that more innocent deaths is better than fewer. :shrugs:
Either minimizing the total number of innocent deaths is your sole policy criterion—in which case you have no logical justification for refusing to “pre-execute” future murderers in order to save the lives of their victims—or it isn’t, in which case it doesn’t automatically override ethical arguments against the death penalty.
In the legal system, there is a difference between taking affirmative action to cause a death and merely not taking action to stop somebody else.
Yes, that person was Kenneth Williams, who was convicted on Sept. 14, 1999, for the first murder and who escaped from prison on October 3 (nineteen days later). That means to prevent all such future crimes, you must (MUST) execute convicts immediately after sentencing: no appeals, no opportunities for mistakes to be discovered or new evidence to be revealed. This is the consequence of what you are arguing for, and this consequence would have resulted in the deaths of AT LEAST one hundred and sixty seven innocent people (probably many more, because I don’t have a count on the number of people who did not get the death penalty have been exonerated). Do you think that killing hundreds of innocent people makes this a better and safer world?
But if the math worked out, you’d be for it? If I could demonstrate to your satisfaction that killing people just for being accused of murder would kill X innocent people, but prevent X+1 innocent people from being murdered by all the actual murderers we were also killing, would you still object?