Do your loved ones know you feel this way?
flowbark wrote:
You’d think so, wouldn’t you? Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of criminals, including murderers, act on the assumption that they are taking adequate precautions to avoid being caught. To them, the potential penalty is irrelevant. Back in the days when pickpocketing was punishable by death, it was not uncommon for pickpockets to do their dirty work at public executions, presumably thinking “That won’t happen to me - I’m a professional!”
Others have already pointed out that court costs drive the cost of execution well above the cost of life imprisonment. I won’t deny that people like McVeigh deserve to die, but as a taxpayer, I don’t want the government spending extra money to satisfy people’s primal desire for vengeance (which is all the death penalty is good for) when it could be spent on all sorts of things that would be much more beneficial to society.
Another thing: As a freedom loving American, I don’t like the use of Bible quotes as arguments for or against the death penalty. The Constitution specifically states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, which among other things means that the government isn’t supposed to base public policy on religious doctrine.
What we have is a failure to communicate.
I do have a problem with the death penalty because it does not appear to deter crime. If it saved a statistically significant number of lives, I’d be for it.
Let me remind my fellow posters that executing a murderer does have some humanitarian disadvantages: you are killing a human being, one with family (parents, spouses, offspring) and friends. You are promoting suffering. OTOH, putting someone to death does appear to satisfy some rather primeval sense of justice as well as having considerable entertainment value.
Anyway, one pro-DP argument is that the DP prevents future killings. So it does. Kill 554 of the probably guilty and 4 innocents and you save the lives of 7 crime victims. Approximately. By my values, this particular justification for the death penalty (it’s called “restraint” and has was put forward by emarkp, among others) falls apart. Killing about 550 people in order to save a net of 3 innocent people violates my sense of proportion. But that’s me.
It’s always good to get new information. Thanks. Permit me to comment.
-
Conventional wisdom in criminological circles is that the probability of punishment matters more for deterrence than the intensity of punishment. You put forward a 3rd factor: the speed and the visibility of punishment. Putting all of that together, one might conclude that public floggings (following rapid conviction is a kangaroo court) would be comparably effective.
-
Saudi Arabia’s austere Islamic tradition probably contributes to its lack of crime. (cultural reasons)
-
The climate of fear engendered in authoritarian regimes tends to repress crime rates, regardless of culture.
-
Most of those put to death in Saudi Arabia are foreign workers from the third world. (Source: Amnesty International) So I wonder whether the native population faces a comparable risk of death, and therefore a comparable level of deterrence.
-
Part of the reason why they can execute somebody in 3 months is presumably related to SA’s fast trials which fall short of international standards: of the 122+ killed in 1997, none received legal representation and all of the trials were secret. In at least one case, an Indonesian domestic worker was executed before her family or the Indonesian government learned of her sentence. (Source: AI)
-
We might be able to separate out some of these effects by looking at an authoritarian Islamic country which lacks public executions. Kuwait during certain periods might qualify.
-
Overall, the SA experience doesn’t seem particularly applicable to countries whose citizens value their civil liberties. Still, it was an interesting point.
You’re welcome. But I will now introduce you to the American Civil Liberties Union, who will explain to you how locking down an entire prison population in their cells with extremely limited opportunity for work or recreation violates their civil rights. You can’t treat all prisoners as if they were death row inmates.
Something for anti-death penalty advocates to contemplate: given the strength of your feelings about the risk of executing an innocent person, which you feel is such an imminent proposition, it should be impossible for you to sit on a jury that sentences anyone to prison for any crime. Given that the odds of being murdered by a fellow inmate in the general population far exceed the odds of executing an innocent person, consider this possibility: you wrongly convict an innocent person of stealing a car or robbing a 7-11, who then gets shanked in jail because he pissed off the Aryan Brotherhood. How will your conscience handle that?
True to form, no anti-DP folks have commented on the fate of the six innocent people in Arizona who were murdered by escaped killers (see previous link).
Don’t everybody speak up at once.
Excellent response, RoboDude. I might add that the US has a history of public executions (the last one occurring in the 1930s I believe) and I know of no evidence that suggests that they deterred crime. Just asserting it don’t make it so.
So I am persuaded, except for one small point. I didn’t write that friggin post, Acco40 wrote it. Sheesh, gang, get it right. december’s the guy you want to go after, not me. 
Haven’t looked at the link. Don’t plan to. Limited time, guy. Maybe another poster will.
But gee Jack, an anecdote is not data. I’ve presented statistical results addressing the restraint argument above. Both today and last night. And I haven’t seen you respond to that, though the issue has been pretty central to your posts. Now perhaps you think that it’s worth killing 550 of the probably guilty, plus 4 innocent people in order to save the lives of 7. Fine. Then just say so. I for one do not consider the former to be merely collateral damage. But YMMV.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by flowbark *
**
Eloquently spoken. Why give a thought to murder victims when there are tragically condemned men like Kenneth McDuff who need your help?**
Not to mention my interpretation of what constitutes “statistical results”. What you seem to be saying, in a rather murky way, is that executing 554 or 558 convicted killers would have added up to a lot more bodies than the number of innocent victims they accounted for in the study’s time frame**, therefore the death penalty is wrong. Leaving aside such vanities as describing 4 as innocent and 554 as “probably guilty” (got some evidence for casting doubt on every single verdict?), you seem to be saying that only raw numbers count, that the lives of victims have the same value as those of murderers.
You’re right. Highlighting that sort of attitude, which I personally find revolting, is pretty central to my posts.
*We are sinking to new lows when the grim factual account of 6 murders is dismissed as an “anecdote”, or when a poster’s bringing up the killings of people close to him is derided as emotionalism. Disgustingly callous.
**In future, when citing the literature, I suggest you provide a complete citation including titles of articles or books, name of journal, pages etc. If you’re unable to link to them at least an interested party has a chance of finding them.
(Italics mine)
Once again, responding to a point I didn’t raise.
I said treat all those convicted of “heinous crimes” as though death row inmates. We’ve established that we can treat death row inmates like death row inmates. Therefore, we should be able to not execute them, but continue treating them like death row inmates. Simple, n’est-ce pas?
Hypotheticals. I could be run down by a car tomorrow walking to work, but I still have to go. If a criminal needs to be removed from society, I can in good conscience convict them (and be partially responsible for their imprisonment). That they might be killed is irrelevant; they might also die of a heart attack. I cannot, in good conscience, send a person to certain death.
Were these escaped killers on death row? If no, then the point is moot (if yes, then there’s a whole nother can o worms). Or are you suggesting we off as many convicts as possible to avoid escapes? Surely if we killed every criminal who comes through the doors, there would be a 0% rate of repeat offenders?
You do know that you have to use logical extensions of the argument you’re trying to counter for reducto ad absurdum to have any weight, don’t you?
I think it’s pretty much guarranteed that if everyone was let go instead of going to prison there would be VASTLY more people murdered out on the streets than are currrently murdered in prisons. So no, I don’t feel that it’s wrong to sentence anyone because of the possibility that they might be innocent and get murdered by a fellow inmate. That issue has no relevence to the DP debate. An innocent person sentenced to death is a lot more likely to end up dead than an innocent person sentenced to life imprisonment.
When you convict someone, you would believe them to be guilty. In some cases they aren’t, this is unfortunate but unavoidable. And I personally would much rather rot in prison for 20 years before having my innocence proved than rot in prison for 15 years before finally being executed, and then have my innocence proved. Both situations are pretty shitty, but the first is still infinitely preferable to the last. Until there’s a way of getting 100% accuracy in convictions (impossible), sending innocent people to jail is the lesser of 3 evils (the others being not sending anyone to jail and executing innocent people).
Thanks for your reply.
“1) Conventional wisdom in criminological circles is that the probability of punishment matters more for deterrence than the intensity of punishment. You put forward a 3rd factor: the speed and the visibility of punishment. Putting all of that together, one might conclude that public floggings (following rapid conviction is a kangaroo court) would be comparably effective.”
A high probability of punishment being a deterrent makes sense but I’m not sure I buy the rest of it. Flogging, or other relatively mild punishment seems inappropriate for the kind of crimes that would generally receive the death penalty. Also, why would it necessarily be a “kangaroo court?”
- Saudi Arabia’s austere Islamic tradition probably contributes to its lack of crime. (cultural reasons)
No arguments on this point.
- The climate of fear engendered in authoritarian regimes tends to repress crime rates, regardless of culture.
I don’t feel fearful in this country, nor do most other expatriates or the locals. As far as murder, rape, and the various other crimes that lead to dismemberment, I avoid them and don’t expect the DP to become an issue.
“4) Most of those put to death in Saudi Arabia are foreign workers from the third world. (Source: Amnesty International) So I wonder whether the native population faces a comparable risk of death, and therefore a comparable level of deterrence.”
The native population does indeed get chopped, and on a regular basis. As recently as 3 weeks ago they executed 5 locals for gang-rape of a woman.
“5) Part of the reason why they can execute somebody in 3 months is presumably related to SA’s fast trials which fall short of international standards: of the 122+ killed in 1997, none received legal representation and all of the trials were secret. In at least one case, an Indonesian domestic worker was executed before her family or the Indonesian government learned of her sentence. (Source: AI)”
I agree that the trials are WAY short of international standards but the format of the trial has little to do whether the DP deters crime or not. I originally mentioned that the execution was 2 or 3 months after CONVICTION, not from time of first arrest or suspicion. This makes the execution more effective in that people remember the crime, it has more impact as a deterrant. Waiting a decade (as in the US) waters down the effect.
“6) We might be able to separate out some of these effects by looking at an authoritarian Islamic country which lacks public executions. Kuwait during certain periods might qualify.”
I can’t truthfully comment on this. While I’ve been to Kuwait many times, also Bahrain, the Emirates and others, I haven’t lived there long enough to get a feel for the crime rate.
“7) Overall, the SA experience doesn’t seem particularly applicable to countries whose citizens value their civil liberties. Still, it was an interesting point.”
I don’t consider the DP and civil liberties to be mutually exclusive. I agree with several of your points though, especially about the trials and the culture, but at the end of the day, the judge here can have a man executed and that DOES reduce the crime rate.
While there are some thought-provoking points made by either side, the debate itself seems futile. I doubt if either of us will convince the other and there are no “crusher cites” that will make one party shrivel up and slink away in shame. Still fun to debate though and thank you again.
Regards.
testy.
flowbark said:
Ok, I see it now, I misread your earlier post. My bad. We are actually in agreement on this point. It seems to me, that in addition to being out of proportion, it is vastly worse (for society as a whole) for the state to sanction the killing of innocents than for those innocents to fall victim to murder.
gEEk
True to form, eh? Don’t everybody speak up at once?
OK, I’ll bite.
Assuming that you actually mean to make a point, your statement is so colossally stupid that you have now established that a person would have to be either 5 years old or actually clinically insane to listen to anything you have to say about any matter.
On the slim chance that there are any 5-year-olds reading along, (or the much more likely chance that you don’t actually intend to make a point, but are rather intentionally leaving out important facts and making unsupportable assumptions about the Tison case to make DP opponents look like murderer-coddlers) let’s look at just a few of the underlying (false) assumptions implied by your challenge.
-
You assume that Tison would have received the death penalty had Arizona been in the death penalty business in ‘78. Of course this is an unsupportable assumption.
-
You assume that even if Tison had received the death penalty, it would have been implemented prior to the date of the escape. This of course also has no basis, particularly given his history of escaping.
-
You assume that “escape” is some sort of normal status for convicted killers. Essentially, you statement can be re-written to say “cops should not be allowed to carry guns because X innocent people were killed by armed cops last year." If you know anything about the Tison case, you know of the numerous errors made across the whole of the Arizona penal system that allowed him to get out, and you know that that is not typical. You are not just off base here – you are actively lying. You wanted a reaction from a death penalty opponent? Here it is: Those people should not have been killed any more than Amadou Diallo should have been. What’s your point?
For your penance and as part of an attempted intellectual rehabilitation, your assignment is to find the total number of innocent people killed by escaped murderers and the total number of innocent people killed by armed police officers. You are then to write a 500-word essay on why neither statistic has any bearing whatsoever on whether the State should put people to death or whether police officers should carry guns. The assignment is due next Wednesday.
But I won’t read it. You are a liar and I have no use for further interaction with you.
Sound recommendation. I had posted the cites on page 2 of this thread. Here it is again: Source: Marquart and Sorensen (1989), cited in Tabak (1998). Tabak’s article was in the Cornell Law Review (83:1431). Marquart’s (which I have not read) is from the Loyola L.A. L. Rev, p. 22-24.
Let me note again that there are a number of theories of punishment. They include prevention, restraint, rehabilitation, deterrence, education and retribution. Variants of the latter include vengeance and entertainment. You are pushing the restraint argument: we should kill 'em because some of them will kill others.
M&S evaluated this question by looking at 558 prisoners on death row whose sentences were overturned en masse in 1972. It is true that some of them killed again. According to Marquart, 4 of the 558 were innocent. Given the well-documented concerns with current convictions, and the unavailability of DNA evidence in 1972, it does not strain credulity to assert that more than 4 of the 558 were innocent.
The Point: If all prisoners currently on death row had their sentences commuted, some would go on to murder others. That much is granted. During the 1972-approx 1988 period, 7 were murdered by 7? of the 558. Some fraction of those with commuted sentences would be innocent. Those who justify the DP by saying that it prevents future murders are accurate, but are weighing the lives of a small number of innocents against a much greater number of guilty. Judging from previous work, the ratio appears to exceed 1:100. (or 3:554, to be more exact; I am subtracting 4 of the convicted innocent from the 7 of the unjustly murdered.) From your posts, it appears that you are making exactly that sort of judgment: you are willing to sacrifice 554+4 for the lives of 7. I am not.
There are better arguments for the death penalty.
Anecdotal evidence: Evidence that derives from a single example. By it’s nature, such evidence will be weaker than data-based evidence. Yes, the stories of 7 murdered guards, ex-girlfriends and prisoners are quite unfortunate. As are the stories of the 4+ innocent prisoners that would have been put to death had the death penalty not been overturned in 1972. Not to mention the stories of the families of the 554.
True, mainly because IMHO the retribution/ vengeance / entertainment justifications boil down to matters of value and not fact. Still, I’ve found your reports from SA interesting. For example,
Good qualification. Still, authoritarian countries do tend to have less crime (violent and nonviolent), which is a separate contributor to SA’s level of public safety. And your separate point about the native population getting chopped was clarifying.
My summary (YMMV):
The death penalty as practiced in the US does not deter crime. I can’t rule out the possibility that if US executions occurred within (say) 12 months of conviction, that the DP would have some deterrent effect, for there is no data on this question. I fear though that such a process would result in the execution of an unacceptably large share of innocent human beings.
Flogging, etc: I was merely trying to generalize your point that visible punishment and quick punishment are 2 variables that may be relevant for deterrence. I suppose the effects of visibility could be evaluated by studying the practice of using chain-gang labor to pick up litter.
I’ve enjoyed our chat, Testy of SA. (The internet rocks once more.)
-flowbark
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by manhattan *
**
So, in which category do you place yourself, Manny?**
I said no such thing. I think that someone with Tison’s criminal history who murdered a peace officer in the course of an escape was deserving of the death penalty.**
I have no idea when any execution might have taken place. You’re making up assumptions again. But try to maintain your attention span a little longer - see the response to your next juicy little item.**
All this made-up assuming tends to make an ass of…well, it ain’t me, friend.
It’s a lot easier for murderers who are not on death row to escape (although it happens, as in Texas recently). Had Tison and his trucker-killer buddy been on death row, instead of in a lower-security setting, relatives would probably not have been able to sneak weapons in to them and their escape would have been far less likely.**
This is blithering idiocy. My bringing up the Tison case was designed to get death penalty opponents to see the consequences of not executing vicious killers - through ingenious escapes, official misplaced trust or malfeasance, legal manipulations or dotty parole boards, they will get out and people will die - 8 in the Tison case, including 6 innocent travelers who got in their way. If you think this case is too unique to lend itself to my argument, confine yourself to saying so instead of hurling juvenile invective or dragging in Amadou Diallo, overreacting cops, or the Tucson weather forecast.**
Manhattan, your inner 5-year-old child is running amuck. What miniscule “interaction” I have had with you previously (as poster or “immoderator”) never suggested this capacity for temper tantrums. A little too much alcohol in the ol’ blood surrogate?
I suggest a much easier assignment for you (if you’re not bouncing around with your fingers in your ears, determinedly not paying attention): Check any good dictionary for a definition of “liar”. I doubt you will see the word defined as “someone with whom Manhattan disagrees in a debate”.
Point well taken Myrr, regarding tight segregatation of all cons sentenced to life without parole (rather than all members of the prison population, as I misstated your proposal). I still doubt the prison rights groups would sit still for walling off all those convicted of “heinous crimes”, though.
I was trying to avoid this discussion degenerating into an argument about the system, but I failed miserably.
DP proponents: Don’t try to argue about the system. The system doesn’t matter. Hypothetically, if the system was perfect and only guilty people were executed, the anti-DP people would still be against it. If the system was perfect and proven to deter crime, the anti-DP people would still be against it. Don’t try to argue how guilty or evil a particular criminal is, because as this case has shown; it doesn’t matter. In their view, the killing of a any person by the state, even a criminal, will lead to a decline in our society.
DP opponents: Don’t argue the system. We realize that the system is flawed. We do understand that innocent people have and will in the future be executed. Does it bug us? Yes. Do we think the system should be scrapped, because of this possiblity? No. We believe that not killing a heinous criminal will lead to a decline in our society
I know I used some broad generalizations, but just trying to boil down the arguments to the essentials. Even with these simplified arguments, there is a an intellectual chasm that is almost impassable. When this thread started, I simply couldn’t understand why you couldn’t see what was obvious to me. I still don’t. I’m sure the anti-DP people can say the same thing
Why couldn’t anti-DP people say the same thing? What you’ve just said we should cut out leaves a debate that is almost entirely focussed on issues that little more than opinions. To you it’s obvious that the DP benefits society even given inaccurate convictions, to someone else (not me) it’s obvious that the DP is a detriment to society, even if it were possible to get 100% accurate convictions. Neither case can be proved.
And I just noticed while reading that, the ‘even’ bit of the pro-DP argument is “even given what is actually happening”, while the ‘even’ bit of the anti-DP argument is “even if it were possible to achieve something that isn’t (currently anyway) possible”, which in itself lends weight to the anti-DP argument, in a way, because it is amplified by real world considerations while the pro-DP argument is depleted by real-world considerations.
But the main problem I have with leaving out the system is that the main argument against the death penalty (as I see it) comes out of the system and the real world. If you could get 100% accurate convictions, then I wouldn’t argue against the death penalty.
You’re not actually boiling the argument down to essentials, you’re totally shifting it. Instead of debating whether or not the death penalty is a good idea, you want us to debate whether or not it’s right to execute murderers and then pretend that’s the same question. And there are only subjective personal beliefs to be put forward as arguments on either side in that one, really.
~Jello Biafra with D.O.A. on an excellent album.
Sorry, couldn’t resist once I saw that name.
I agree with the death penalty idea; I also agree that it cannot be implimented without some people screwing up, and screwing up royally. I used to be a big supporter, then I realized, “Hey, I don’t like the government! Why should I give them the power to kill even more people?!?”
“Bug” you? It ought to offend you to the point that you simply cannot tolerate it any longer. No one deserves to be killed, whether guilty or innocent.
Even though it means there is a possiblility that you will one day be a victim of wrongful prosecution, that one day you might be executed for a murder you never committed? Maybe you’re willing to die to preserve the DP, but I’m not.
BTW: I don’t see how we can discuss McVeigh’s punishment without debating the punishment.