You’re missing my point. Every day we do things that carry a chance of death. I could die driving my car to work. I could get food poisoning eatting my lunch. I could slip at work and snap my neck. Sure, many of these sorts of things are negligible death rates, but not all of them. And we can extend this to ideals as well. Many lives are ended fighting wars for ideals like freedom or in other cases for greed. And yet, people die in car crashes, to food poisoning, to on the job accidents every day at rates magnitudes higher than 1 in a googolplex. And yet you assert that you believe that the death penalty is just, only you won’t accept a meaningful rate of failure on it. How can you say you value justice at all, when you literally value the risk associated with it at magnitudes less than so many other every day activities?
Or to put it in another way. According to the CDC 5000 people die each year to food borne illnesses in the US (cite: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no5/mead.htm). There is a real, but very small chance, that your next meal could make you sick and kill you, but you probably don’t ever think twice about that. But, if you were faced with a choice of giving up your next meal in exchange for justice, wouldn’t you do it?
The only reason I bring numbers into this at all is because the assertion that people believe that the death penalty is just and yet refuse to accept anything but a zero failure rate (or, as you propose, something that might as well be), it straight up contradictory. There is failure associated with EVERYTHING that you value even the least. Why is something that you deem just unable to accept even a miniscule rate of failure?
I agree. I’ve no moral objection to killing as such, I regard it as morally neutral. But going with human nature and history I don’t trust the justice system with the power to execute people. For that matter I don’t trust it with the power to imprison people, but we don’t really have a practical alternative to that that isn’t worse.
Not unless you personally shoot them as they are literally in front of you committing the crime. Mistaken identities happen. Corrupt judges and police happen. Lab screw ups and falsified data happen.
Would you be willing to accidentally execute one person to prevent some number of murders?
Well, if the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder then you might be able to support the death penalty despite the imperfection in the system.
Which is why I support the death penalty for white collar crime. I don’t know if the death penalty will deter crimes of passion or some mentally ill person’s rampage or some sick fuck committing some heinous crime but I am almost positive that it would have prevented Enron, Global Crossings, Madoff, and the mortage crisis.
It’s rather interesting how the less rational a crime is the harsher we punish it, while we go easier on people who commit cold blooded, rationally self interested crime - exactly the sort of people who are more likely to respond to deterrence.
They are generally more rational, more planned out crimes. On occasion even with a cost/effect calculation including the likelihood of getting caught. “If we get caught we lose less money from fines than if we solve the problem with exploding fuel tanks right now”
But aren’t white collar criminals more prone to think “I can get away with this because I’m smarter than the common folk, and besides, if I do get caught I’ll lawyer up and they’ll never touch me!”
Because you can get justice WITHOUT execution, in my opinion. If a murderer is executed, then justice is served. If a murderer rots in prison, then justice is served. If I understand it correctly, your analogy falls apart because the choice isn’t between justice and no justice, it’s between two sentences that are just.
Do we? I thought it was usually the reverse. If we’re talking and you make me so mad that I strangle you, then isn’t that usually punished less than if I murder you for the insurance money? In the military, they punish “missing movement” (somebody, either through carelessness or choice, misses his deployment) less seriously than AWOL (Somebody decides he’s not going to be in the military anymore and deserts), and so on.
I was against the DP until a good friend described the last minutes of his mother’s life, as she begged for her life and was shot in the forehead by some slime ball. If there’s enough evidence, and it’s unquestionable, then there are circumstances where I’ll just turn my head and let the DP continue.
There is not enough evidence. It is never unquestionable. We kill innocent people every year for capital crimes. The juries were absolutely convinced enough to give them the death penalty. Yet they are innocent. You can not erase executing an innocent man, a retarded man or a crazy man.
The point that I have been trying to make is that there is always a chance of executing an innocent man. The state should not be given the power to take life, especially if there no guarantee that the right person (the one who is truly guilty of the crime) will be convicted.
My reason for quoting is that I am in complete agreement with this post.
ACLU provided reasons to be against the death penalty, and I am in complete agreement.
This is true IF we act6ually catch people and send them to prison. If the risk of getting cuaght seems to be very low adn the eventual penalty is very low then people can make a cost benefit analysis and might be able to convince themselves that its worth the risk. If the penatly is DEATH, then no matter how remote the chances of getting caught, its hard to see how you can make that cost benefit analysis for someone who is already making hundreds of thousands if not millions a year but is tempted to engage in criminal activity to make a few million or even billion more.
I don’t think Der Trihs is saying that EVERY corporation engages in this stuff ALL THE TIME. He is saying IT HAPPENS and he only needs ONE exa,ple to make that true and we both know there is more than one example.