Kind of like winning the lottery TWICE?
No, I didn’t say that. I spent a couple of lines explaining that the absolute proof I was talking about was the absolute truth that executing the murderers mentioned in the OP would have saved at least three innocent lives. If you have evidence that the murderers are actually innocent, or that they would have been able to kill after they were executed, then by all means produce it.
I meant that it would help the case against the DP if you could produce evidence that these murderers were not actually murderers. It helps the case for the DP if no evidence exists to overcome the evidence that proved each of them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - the DNA evidence in one case, that several of the murderers admit their guilt, that no evidence of innocence has been produced over the years and decades of appeals in each case, and that in two of those cases, that three innocent lives have been lost that would have been spared if the murderers in question had been executed, and that this demonstrates that the DP saves lives overall and is therefore a better and more morally justified approach to the question of how to treat murderers.
By all means, let’s focus on the debate at hand, which is about executing murderers. If you would like to talk about drunk driving, feel free to start your own thread.
Which of them were executed?
He confessed his guilt in open court, while under oath.
Regards,
Shodan
How do we know the three dead people were innocent? Do we have minute-by-minute accounts of their daily activities? If the standard in play is absolute truth, this omission is downright scandalous.
The entire premise of the debate is flawed. The choice is not between letting people go and killing them. The choice should be between a life sentence with no parole and killing them. In that case, the moral choice is clear: the life sentence is preferable because it relieves society of the moral burden of killing someone and it allows for erroneous convictions to be overturned. So if some state paroles a convicted murderer and he kills again, the fault doesn’t lie with the lack of capital punishment, it lies with there being parole for murderers.
OK.
My thesis is: people, in the last fifty years in the United States, have been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.
Do you agree with that claim?
Sadly, Kenneth McDuff* was ultimately denied habeas corpus relief.
*released from death row after the death penalty was found unconstitutional, went on to torture/kill at least six more times, finally caught and executed.
Some murderers kill again because we do not kill them first.
To build an argument out of that, you need to also know a bunch of other things, including how many innocent people are killed by the death penalty.
Since that’s hard to know, it’s a lot easier to just adopt the faith-based premise that our criminal justice system is perfect at exonerating the innocent.
You’re presupposing that: a) innocent people aren’t executed, b) that someone who escaped from jail three weeks after conviction would have been thwarted by the death penalty, c) that abstaining from executing people requires that they be released from prison, and d) that the state executing an innocent person and a murderer killing someone are morally equivalent from the perspective of voters.
I question all 4 assumptions.
ETA: Do we even know whether the murder rate for paroled killers is higher than that for the general population?
Cite? Echols pled not guilty, and appealed his conviction.
There are other options besides killing them.
Certainly. Which ones were executed, and what evidence is there that they were factually innocent?
Because my thesis is that all eight of the murderers in the OP have been rightfully convicted, and since they have not been executed, at least three innocent people have died. Do you agree with that claim?
Exactly. So far, the number of innocent people killed by the death penalty since it was reinstated is zero.
[list=a][li]Innocent people have not, as far as can be determined, been executed in the US since 1976 when the death penalty was reinstated. []If someone is executed, he is not able to kill anyone. If someone is sentenced to prison, he can, and this has happened.[]Abstaining from executing someone does not require that they be released. Murderers escape, as in the case of one of the murderers in the OP, or they kill while still in prison, and LWOP does not mean that the threat has been eliminated.[*]The morally relevant factor is how many innocent people die, and that three innocent deaths is worse than one. [/li]
As far as voters are concerned, polls linked to earlier in the thread show that these executions are overwhelmingly approved by voters of all stripes. Largely, no doubt, because none of them are innocent, and that one of them at least has killed again. So the equation doesn’t really apply.[/list]
Regards,
Shodan
ETA -
I somewhat misspoke - he entered an Alford plea, where he said that there was sufficient evidence to convict. Cite.
The murderer mentioned in the OP was not paroled.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s my question to you, in a sense: what evidence would you agree is required to prove the claim?
I don’t know enough details of their cases to form an opinion.
This is the claim I wish to explore.
Then his sentence was less than life in prison.
Simple solution:
First degree murder gets life in prison with no chance of parole. This completely removes the “protect the public” rationale for capital punishment.
What, prison guards aren’t members of the public enough for ya? What are you, some kind of white-collar professional type? Harrumph!
This is a serious question: I’m not naive enough to believe that innocent have not been executed (although I’ not sure I’ve seen a recent persuasive example). But I also tend to think that there have been a number of innocent people who have been sentenced to LWOP and died in prison. (And, since the anti-death penalty movement spends a lot of resources on attempting to demonstrate that people on death row are innocent, I suspect your chances of being exonerated are probably higher as an innocent person on death row than an innocent person serving LWOP.). Why is it better without the death penalty? Is it just the speculative possibility of exoneration (the hope of being freed lasts longer)? Is the the difference in the moral significance between killing someone directly and caging them up until they die?
If you ignore 90% of my post, then what’s the fucking point?
Which of them were executed? The 13 likely innocent people and 10 people pardoned for innocence in my second link. The other 157 were lucky.
Except that capital murderers continue to injure and kill people while in prison, guards and other inmates alike. But prison guards and convicts aren’t “the public”, I guess.
What percentage of capital murderers go on to kill in prison, and how does it compare to the percentage of other prisoners that kill?
What are you relying on to make this determination?
Also, you realize, I hope, that mandating executions would greatly increase the number of executions, and thus the number of innocent people executed? Brendan Dassey was falsely convicted of first degree murder, and is still in prison for it. Luckily, he was sentenced to life without parole, and thus there’s some time for justice to prevail, and for him to be set free and compensated.
If, instead, his conviction required that he be executed before having any opportunity to escape or harm a prison guard or inmate, there’d be no chance of justice prevailing.
You are using someone who escaped before they could have possibly been executed as an example.
An innocent person being executed is, per my moral compass, a worse outcome than an innocent person being murdered by an individual. That idea is baked into our system, hence the concept of guilt being proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
He took a plea deal in 2011 that required an Alford plea in exchange for his release, so the state of Arkansas could save face (and money, no doubt). But, thanks for the correction.
Are we sure that murderers who’ve completed their sentences are more likely to kill again than the general public? I’m still looking for studies, but here’s an early result:
CBS News: Once a criminal, always a criminal?
Mullane said she was able to determine that 988 convicted murderers were released from prisons in California over a 20 year period. Out of those 988, she said 1 percent were arrested for new crimes, and 10 percent were arrested for violating parole. She found none of the 988 were rearrested for murder, and none went back to prison over the 20 year period she examined.