In response to the OP: the math isn’t at all cut and dry – there could be more innocents killed by the DP than killed by murderers who escape/are released, or vice versa. That we know the answer for one is “at least 3” doesn’t change that the other factor is unknown, and it’s entirely reasonable to believe that it’s most likely larger than the other.
However, I don’t advocate for an end to the DP alone – but rather an end to the DP along with extensive social welfare improvement, and progress on social justice, such that fewer Americans have incentives to turn to crime, as well as fewer Americans experiencing the trauma and childhood drama that increases the chances of violent behavior. The end goal, IMO, is an America that looks much more like Northern and Western Europe in terms of crime and the justice system.
So how deliberate was it that you didn’t answer my questions? Since they both relate to crimes that can lead to innocent death and that seems your driving argument here, it sure feels real deliberate. A little cowardly too.
Hypothetically speaking, say that sometime in the near future an innocent man were executed, and later exonerated with new evidence found ex post facto. Would that be an acceptable trade-off for the net-gain in justice? Assuming that the DP is still providing a net benefit. Speaking in utilitarian terms. Kind of like a “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” type scenario.
If the answer is yes, at what point does the percentage of legally executed innocents outweigh the benefits of capital punishment. Say 49% of inmates were wrongly executed, but it contributed a net less of 1 to the total murder rate. Would that be just? Arithmetic says yes, but would it be ethically just in your mind? I feel as though the way someone were to answer the question, paints what side of the debate they would be on. Or maybe I’m off base.
God does not create evil, and all are redeemable, and all are entitled to the opportunity for redemption–and once redeemed, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be able to get on with their lives like the rest of us.
The average condemned murderer is morally superior to death penalty supporters, for two reasons:
There is a non-zero likelihood that at least one condemned murderer hasn’t actually killed anyone, while all death penalty supporters are indisputably complicit in every judicial killing. Thus, the average condemned murderer is less likely to be a killer than a death-penalty supporter.
Of the vast majority of condemned murderers who are indeed complicit in killing, a number of them have at least repented and recognized that they were wrong. No death penalty supporter has repented for the killings they’re complicit in and recognized they were wrong (if they had, they wouldn’t be death penalty supporters)–and since it’s morally better to sin and then repent than it is to sin and not repent, the average condemned murderer is of a higher moral status than any death penalty supporter.
Shodan’s image of reality is irrational. We have over a hundred cases of people who are definitely innocent who were freed by the innocence project.
We have specific examples of people who were executed where the evidence did not support a finding of beyond a reasonable doubt. Apparently, Shodan is unaware that after conviction you can only appeal if you can show
a. Procedural errors were made
b. There is evidence so compelling it proves your innocence.
In the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, the really compelling evidence of poor forensic science came after his execution. And while the poor forensic science allows you to say conclusively that the evidence to support his conviction was not beyond a reasonable doubt, appeals courts don’t care. That is not how they work. His attorneys would have either had to show that the errors made during his trial were so extreme to overturn the verdict (a hurdle almost never reached no matter how many errors were made) or find some piece of evidence that proved it was impossible for him to commit the crime.
And I segue into why Shodan’s view of reality is irrational. Let us suppose that we dig up the cases of 10 people where a rational, unbiased panel of the world’s best experts would conclude there is a mean probability that each of these people had a 30% chance of being innocent.
A rational person with knowledge of math would conclude that the most likely correct view of the world is that a mean of 3 innocent people were executed.
All our knowledge about the world is probabilistic, and as long as the math is bulletproof, it is the view of the world you must accept to be the least wrong. By glibly saying “but you didn’t prove in a court of law they were innocent, therefore I am absolutely certain they deserved execution” you are simply ignoring reality.
My suggestion is for the U.S. to immediately legalize all drugs. This will free up massive law-enforcement resources, allowing more serious crimes like murder to be fully fully investigated and the murderer caught and executed with as close to absolute certainty as possible.
Not to preempt Czarcasm, because I suspect he’ll be back shortly with a comical reply, but I’m pretty sure he thinks you’re arguing “his side” badly, and he wishes you’d stop, or better yet, switch to the other side and continue making arguments of the same quality.
He escaped 3 weeks after being convicted. Unless you’re arguing that the convicted should be shot as soon as the judge bangs his gavel, I don’t see the difference the death penalty would have made here.
Damian Echols would be the 12th person on that Arkansas list if evidence of juror misconduct had not led to his being freed with an Alford plea. In general, most people regard him to be not guilty of the crimes for which he was initially convicted. He has stated in public that he took the Alford plea rather than continue to pursue a verdict of “not guilty” out of a desperation to get off of death row. It’s probably good that he did, or he might have been moved up the list, since Arkansas has shown itself to be capricious, and it might just have put Echols on a short list just to end his appeals.
What’s the evidence of the opinion of “most people”? Was there a poll on it? Online survey? Show of hands somewhere?
I don’t know anything at all about Damian Echols or his case (and I strongly suspect “most people” are in the same boat as me), but this claim of yours struck me as an odd one.
Killing is killing, all killing is equally immoral in the eyes of God, and supporting a killing makes one morally complicit in it.
Therefore, since there are some condemned murderers who are innocent, then there is a less than 100% chance that a given condemned murderer is actually a killer. However, every supporter of the death penalty is definitely a killer, since they’re morally complicit in killing.
