Our pathologist here may be close to finding a cure for several forms of cancer, but if he is incarcerated for life, what incentive does he have to actually carry out that task? I doubt it would be “to save lives.”
Put yourself in this man’s shoes.
You’re on the verge of finding a cure for cancer. The government is willing to fund your research no matter what the cost. And you know you could do it. But then you think to yourself, “wait a minute, I just found a cure for cancer, and I’m still not going to be able to get out of this prison.”
See, this man is going to have demands that must be met in order for him to continue his research. I mean, it’s just human nature to want to be rewarded and recognized for your efforts. One of those demands would most likely be a pardon. If not a pardon, then some kind of special treatment in which his freedom would not be alienated. And if this were to be granted, then we would be back to sqaure one – him killing people.
Now, one can look at this and see that it is very argumentative. But one must also examine the subject. This man rapes and kills, and does it continually. So with that said, one can say that human life means very little to him.
So if he never found that cure for cancer, it won’t be on his conscience.
By the same reasoning, should we kill someone who is in a coma, and being kept in life with high-cost medical care at taxpayer expense?
Another hypothetical: let’s say that the cost of an execution is $X, equivalent to (e.g.) a 10-year prison term. Then for anyone getting a prison term longer than 10 years, it would be more economical to give them the death penalty.
I disagree with the argument “it’s cheaper to kill people.” Even assuming that it’s true, which according to my reading it isn’t. Capital punishment is more expensive than a life imprisonment sentence, so if you’re that concerned about the judicial use of government funds, you should be opposed to the death penalty.
(My assertion is defendedhere: Cost of the Death Penalty).
So is anyone going to make the argument that capital punishment is justified even if it’s reasonably foreseeable that some wrongly sentenced people will be put to death?
Alternately, is anyone going to make the argument that our judicial system works well enough as to ensure that no wrongly sentenced people will ever be put to death?
If neither of these arguments can be made, it seems to me that there’s no justification for continuing the death penalty. So let’s see someone make 'em.
O Swiney One, surely this is trivial (although as I stated I’m not in favour of capital punishment).
If one is an instrumentalist (only outcomes matter), then the possibilty of taking innocent lives is an unfortunate cost of deterring potential criminals. (again, I do not contend that there is any such deterrent effect)
On the contrary…I don’t think it’s trivial at all. If someone believes that capital punishment acts as a deterrent, and if someone believes that innocent lives can foreseeably be taken as a result of capital punishment, and if someone believes that the deterrent effect is great enough as to offset the taking of those innocent lives…then sure, a fallible death penalty can be justified. That doesn’t make the question trivial, though–not least because there ain’t that many people who hold the above position (I’d like to talk to one). Most advocates of the death penalty assert that the system has checks in place to ensure that mistakes don’t happen (I’d like to talk to one of them, too).
Basically, the position you’re positing above–and I understand that it’s not your personal belief–is that the death of the guilty many is more important than the life of the innocent few. But if you’re a governor or a Supreme Court justice, and the evidence suggests that not all prisoners on Death Row have been rightfully sentenced, yet you refuse to stay the execution of any prisoner, how are you not guilty of depraved indifference?
Sorry, the last sentence of my previous post should read:
But if you’re a governor or a Supreme Court justice, and the evidence suggests that not all prisoners on Death Row have been rightfully sentenced, yet you refuse to consider the stay of execution of any prisoner, how are you not guilty of depraved indifference?
Daniel: I’m not making the argument one way or another about whether the death penalty is intrinsically justified in certain cases. What I am saying is that the system isn’t perfect, and that sometimes innocent or wrongfully sentenced people slip through the cracks. If you’d like to dispute this, please do. My contention is that if we can’t eliminate (with as much certainty as possible) the possibility of a wrongfully sentenced man being executed, then we should err on the side of caution. I wouldn’t necessarily be against selective use of the death penalty, but only if we could ensure that those being executed met the standards set for reasonable execution–that they were guilty of the crime charged, and that their constitutional rights had not been violated.
This is true in the United States. However, in other countries, like China, it is a lot cheaper. Take away all the red tape legal shit, and it would become cheaper in the U.S. as well.
Make Paul Michael Glaser (Starsky) the Attorney General and David Soul (Hutch) the Director of the FBI. That way by the end of an hour after the commission of any heinous crime (two hours, if it’s a two-parter), the person who deserved to die for the crime would fall from a great height into rapidly rotating helicopter blades. And there would never be any mistakes, either.
innocent look But both George W. Bush, in his capacity as governor, and William Rehnquist, in his capacity as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, have as a matter of practice refused to consider granting stays of execution. What are you saying, picmr?
Okay, but I’d still like to meet someone who actually believes that argument, so I can flog them with the damp linguini of logic.
It reminds me of the British judge and Master of the Rolls Lord Denning’s reason for denying retrials to fraudulently convicted terrorists: that to overturn the original judgement would undermine confidence in the judicial system.
I can understand how the other things he does pisses you off, and that’s not cool at all. However, to be fair with this particular behaviour I’ve known quite a few girls who will say they don’t want to talk about something and then get upset when the guy doesn’t pursue the line of questioning because they perceive that he doesn’t care enough to find out what’s upsetting because he didn’t pester them.
So from a guys point of view sometimes there’s no way to tell when the girl doesn’t want to talk about something to when she does want to talk about it but is testing the guy. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
