Score one against barbarism

[Partha]

Embar talking about dodging....heh

[vaulos]

Embar is asking the question, because he knows full well that quantifying deterence is patently impossible. The best you can do is find a state that went from having the death penalty to banning it, and visa versa. And even that is problematic, due to national trends in crime.

But even if we were to accept that it is "more" of a deterence than life-in-prison (which I think is a poor argument to make), we are stuck asking ourselves whether that money couldn't save more lives, if it were spent on more police officers, DA's, and jurists. Because, lets face facts, the death penalty to fucking expensive to get right.

[Relbeek Einre]

This thread has become a vortex of stupid. Discernible wisdom is sucked into the maelstrom never to be seen again.

[Embar Angylwrath]

This thread has become a vortex of stupid. Discernible wisdom is sucked into the maelstrom never to be seen again.

It would be beneficial if people who were really interested in the debate actually answered some the questions instead of just lobbing in some assumption and crawling back into the woodwork.

Although I must say it's kinda cool to have Partha follow me around as my personal little fanboi.

[Mukik]

I was sitting here reading this thread again when I had a memory of some movie about a young adult crimminal. The short of it was these kids would do felonies until they hit the golden age of 16 and then go clean. Some people kept one guy drugged up so when he got busted he thought he was under 16 when in fact it was his b/d. The point behind this? well its simple. I didnt do things wrong when I was younger for fear of 2 things. 1. the ass whooping my dad would give me if I did get in trouble and 2. the ass raping I would get for going to jail. I know moral implcations should prevail as a deterrent as well, but everyone has reasons for not doing something against society. You take away the death penalty for kids as an option and they may not fear living a life in prison. Free meals, college education and in 20 years parole doesnt sound that bad for someone whos life has no direction.

Deterrents are more there for the borderline criminals who weigh the cons and the pros and decide the crime just isnt worth the price of being caught. Kllers will be killers no matter what. Keep the firm hand and follow up with the consequences of your actions, accountabiltiy is lacking now adays and thats where some of our downfall resides.

[Relbeek Einre]

Give it up, Embar, you're contributing to the stupid as much as anyone. We may share the same side of this issue, but you're glossing over the other side's points, when they're made, too.

[Aabe]

I have been waiting for one of the arguements I can respect but not agree with. Saying any system has to be perfect or throw it out, is a cheap and wrong arguement in my opiinion.

I suspect Beek holds something similar to an arguement I have been waiting to show up here, given the name he put on the thread.

In my gut I believe a whole lot more people are protected and saved by the current death penalty than are hurt by it. Untill someone can give me a study I can believe is unbiased, that is what I have to go on. My feeling comes from what I believe about human nature and gathered through years of discussion, some phsychology and sociology classes, articles in various media ect. And I do pay attention to all information that speaks to the death penalty. Most of it is rehash stuff. Everyone has to judge for thier own, from their life experience, this is where it has put me to date.

That is what I beleive. You can't really debate an opinion, unless you enjoy pounding your head against brick walls..

BUT, if one beleives a society putting anyone to death, even the most brutal of serial killers, is a barbaric thing and takes away from our humanity AND even it we loose a number of our citizens to murders that otherwise could have been detered is worth the cost to keep our humanity. That is an honest statement and belief.

We make cost decisions all the time.

In other words, if you are willing to acknowlege that keeping our humanity comes with a cost and never putting anyone to death has a significant value to your society. A value worth enough to knowingly allow preventable (detered) murders occur. (which I believe is still unproven absolutely either way.) That arguement I can understand and respect.

I personally don't beleive that it makes us barbaric, but I can understand and respect that position and people that hold it. As long as they are honest about it.

For people that hold that opinion, I just have to say we must agree to disagree, because that arguement won't sway me and mine won't sway you.

A person with that opinion WILL NOT change their mind even if a reliable study shows, stopping the death penalty DOES costs lives. (they beleive the benefits are worth the cost) But a study showing that the death penalty absolutly DOES NOT save lives CAN change my opinion on the matter. And so I continue to read and wait.

Someone willing to acknowlege the possible cost of life for a better society is being honest in their beliefs. One that uses other argurements, usually things like "even one life is too many" or "it has to be perfect", to mask what they really believe IS dishonest.

Embar, probably part of my frustation with your posts, has been trying to sort you out from the the people who dishonestly try to use some of the arguements you have presented. Because in reality, quietly (not openely) they are knowingly willing to allow the posiblility of an increased murder rate for their prinicple, which they believe is a more humane society. But quietly they fear if they reveal what they really believe that they will lose the argument.

Hopefully this helps and makes some sense. I really am not sure how many more ways I can approach the topic. (And unfortunatly continue to drive Beek up the wall with excessive post lengths.)

[Relbeek Einre]

Where I agree with Embar in regards to your argument, Aabe, is that you are flawed in that your "default" position in absence of hard evidence is to support the death penalty. You know the death penalty carries a nonzero error rate and that innocent people will be put to death by the death penalty. You don't know, merely believe, that more innocent lives will be saved by use of the death penalty. Your position, therefore, is not logical.

I have "beliefs" as well. I believe that a society that uses the death penalty sends a message to its people that some human beings are less than human - they are rabid dogs to be put down. (Language to that effect has been heard in this forum.) I believe that this contributes to the mindset that allows some murderers to kill in the first place - someone who has wronged them sufficiently is "less than human" and thus killing them isn't so bad. Which is why I call the death penalty barbarism (or barbarity, whatever). I call things which devalue the lives of human beings, or desensitize people to the gravity of human life lost, barbaric.

Now I don't have hard evidence to support that belief - it's just a belief. The principle on which I base my opinions of policy is different - I reason that any power granted to a government carries a risk of abuse by that government, and therefore that risk must be factored into the balance when we evaluate the costs vs the benefits of that power. I also reason that any power granted to a government will be implemented imperfectly, and must also weigh in the costs of error into the equation. Given our government's record of showboating in trials throughout the last century (Sacco and Vanzetti, the Rosenbergs, Tim McVeigh) that involve the death penalty, given the class, gender, and racial inequalities in our legal system, and given a host of other reasons, I conclude that the potential benefits in prevented or deterred crime by the death penalty's use are outweighed by the combined costs and risks, and do not support it for those reasons.

[Rsak]

I believe that a society that uses the death penalty sends a message to its people that some human beings are less than human - they are rabid dogs to be put down.

To an extent I have to believe there is some validity and accuracty in that pronouncement.

My belief is that there are some crimes that are so heinous that the individual who commits them are a danger to society at large and cannot be rehabilitated or redeemed. That there is some line which when crossed cannot be returned from. Where that line is found is not something pertinent to this discussion since what we are concerned with is whether the Death Penalty is a valid form of punishment and whether it serves a purpose rather then which crimes should merit that penalty. We are discussing the general cases rather then specifics.

The safest step for society to take when considered these individuals is to remove them from the community. That can involve some form of banishment, execution, or imprisonment.

Banishment has the benifits of being a less-violent solution then Execution and provides more freedom then imprisonment. To enforce this punishment you either have to rely upon the word of the individual that he or she will never return or guard the border of your community to block any return. With the growth of nations and ease of travel it is entirely impractical to guard the borders of our communities or nations. Not to mention the fact that any bordering countries will be unwilling to take these criminals and there is in effect no unclaimed territory that could be used as a dumping ground for these individuals.

Execution is the easiest to enforce since its effects are permanent and no recidivism is impossible. The down side is that the possiblity exists that an innocent can be unjustly executed for a crime he or she did not commit. The burden on the society ends once they have decided whether the individual should be executed or not.

Imprisonment removes the individual from the society however even if the period of imprisonment is permanent then the possiblity of recidivism exists at the benifit of additional evidence setting free any innocents that were wrongfully punished. The possiblity exists that some individuals at the bottom end of society will believe that they are in situations which would improve even if they are convicted and imprisoned. This de facto encouragement to commit crime would be counter to the purpose of the punishment.

The balance between the two remaining options of Execution and Imprisonment hinge on whether the burden on society to imprison the convicted is more or less onerous then the possiblity that innocents will be executed. Deterrence is a factor that could sway the decision towards Execution and must be considered.

However in our current system in the United States the steps we have taken to minimize the chances of an innocent being executed has made the differences in burden on the society between Execution and Imprisonment negligible. The deterrence that could be found in Execution is marginalized for these very speed and process issues.

Understand that this whole post is relegated to the perspective of protection of society and the community rather then any form of justice.

My personal beliefs is that the current appeals process is too burdensome and lengthy for benificial effects of Execution to be realized. However I believe that with the newer technology of DNA testing our legal system is due for a streamlining. That the initial court cases can be improved to offer a higher level of accuracy in determining guilt or innocence and that with a shorter appeal process the benifits of Execution can be realized. The standard of evidence for which the Death Penalty could apply may need to be raised because of this.

Due to the stage in our legal system is in and because some members of death row were not privy to the newer evidence collection methods there may be a legitimate case for a commuting of the sentences to impisonment unless new DNA evidence is used to provide assurances. However new cases that meet the higher standards and result in a guilty verdict should have less onerous appeals and processes before the execution actually occurs.

[Relbeek Einre]

I have to congratulate you on a thoughtful, rational, logical post, Rsak.

My only criticism is that I feel you place too much faith in DNA evidence. DNA evidence can be planted or falsified (it was in the OJ case, for example, even though he may have been guilty anyway), and DNA evidence can be found for reasons other than those which would tie the accused to the crime.

[Kulaf]

One might argue that the DNA evidence in the OJ trial was contaminated due to improper proceedure.....but I have never heard any testimony that DNA evidence was "planted or falsified".

[Riggen]

One thing I wonder about is that presumably, most criminals aren't actually looking to get caught. According to some discussion by experts in the field such as profilers, many of the most heinous criminals (for whom the death penalty would be relevant) actually have such extreme ego issues that in their mind, getting caught is a virtual impossibility.

Now it seems to me that if you don't expect to get caught, then the deterrent factor of the subsequent punishment doesn't carry much weight. I don't have any official data to back it up, but this is the basis for my questioning of the deterrent effect--It seems to me that your average Tom, Dick, or Harry is surely scared spitless of jail. But then, they're not as likely to commit a heinous crime in the first place. The ones most affected by the deterrent are those least in need of it, and vice versa.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Where Beek and I differ, I think, is that I understand him to feel that the death penalty would be an acceptable form of punishment IF (big if) all of the flaws in the system were removed.

And if that is the case, here is where we part ways. I feel that a government should never, under any circumstances, be given the power to take the lives of its own citizens, unless there is a clear and immediate threat to another citizen.

Governments just should not be in the business of snuffing out lives.

[Relbeek Einre]

Kulaf: Mark Fuhrman, when directly asked under oath if he planted any of the DNA evidence, pled the fifth.

Embar: Not precisely true. I would have substantially LESS trouble with it were those flaws removed, but if I may wax quasi-spiritual, I do not believe it's possible for mortal man to be infallible in such matters, and barring the entry of a higher authority into our legal system, your "if" is simply an absurdity to me.

I am willing to entertain the notion that some people deserve death. I do not entertain the notion that we humans are qualified to judge who should die.

[Aabe]

Where I agree with Embar in regards to your argument, Aabe, is that you are flawed in that your "default" position in absence of hard evidence is to support the death penalty. You know the death penalty carries a nonzero error rate and that innocent people will be put to death by the death penalty. You don't know, merely believe, that more innocent lives will be saved by use of the death penalty. Your position, therefore, is not logical.

I have "beliefs" as well. I believe that a society that uses the death penalty sends a message to its people that some human beings are less than human - they are rabid dogs to be put down. (Language to that effect has been heard in this forum.) I believe that this contributes to the mindset that allows some murderers to kill in the first place - someone who has wronged them sufficiently is "less than human" and thus killing them isn't so bad. Which is why I call the death penalty barbarism (or barbarity, whatever). I call things which devalue the lives of human beings, or desensitize people to the gravity of human life lost, barbaric.

Now I don't have hard evidence to support that belief - it's just a belief. The principle on which I base my opinions of policy is different - I reason that any power granted to a government carries a risk of abuse by that government, and therefore that risk must be factored into the balance when we evaluate the costs vs the benefits of that power. I also reason that any power granted to a government will be implemented imperfectly, and must also weigh in the costs of error into the equation. Given our government's record of showboating in trials throughout the last century (Sacco and Vanzetti, the Rosenbergs, Tim McVeigh) that involve the death penalty, given the class, gender, and racial inequalities in our legal system, and given a host of other reasons, I conclude that the potential benefits in prevented or deterred crime by the death penalty's use are outweighed by the combined costs and risks, and do not support it for those reasons.

You hold an HONEST and well resoned arguement.

I don't accept a few of the things you factor in, those involve value judgements I see differently. Another part of my problem is my inability to communtcate my thoughts better(tend to ramble on and still miss the point). But given the rational you lay out, I don't see us changing the others point of view. I honestly STRONGLY BELEIVE (not absolutely know) a lot of lives are saved because of the death penalty. Nothing left for us to debate. If data proves me wrong, I will then change.

Educated masses making the decisions teaches the society as a whole, lets them really understand the risks and benefits. A law passed, say forced by the courts against the majority opinion or passed by falacious arguements (end justifies the means kind of stuff) because "the masses don't know what is best for them", often does little to teach or change over the long term and sometimes embitters the society to what you were trying to do good for them in the first place. Because they never truely understood the reasoning.

To lie about ones resoning for change is the lazy man's way out. Or the product of those that feel that the dumb masses should have an intelletually superior class make the decisions for them. They do a disservice to a good cause.

I appreciate the site you have here to try to effect discussion and education to the masses. In the end I hope sites like this make a difference.

If you can educate/discuss a majority of voters to your point of view. Even if in the end if you were wrong and we decide to change back, it would be a good learning experience for us all as a people and not mearly have been a heated finger pointing blame contest. If honest people and honest discussion can convince the majority to go for a death penalty ban, more power to you. I do wish you well on this.

[Aabe]

Kulaf: Mark Fuhrman, when directly asked under oath if he planted any of the DNA evidence, pled the fifth.

Embar: Not precisely true. I would have substantially LESS trouble with it were those flaws removed, but if I may wax quasi-spiritual, I do not believe it's possible for mortal man to be infallible in such matters, and barring the entry of a higher authority into our legal system, your "if" is simply an absurdity to me.

I am willing to entertain the notion that some people deserve death. I do not entertain the notion that we humans are qualified to judge who should die.

Interesting thought, do you beleive humans are quailifed to set a standard as to who should die?

[Aabe]

I mean a standard that if crossed justifies death. Not specifically who.

[Relbeek Einre]

No, I don't.

The standard would, I imagine, be so damned nuanced....

[Rsak]

My only criticism is that I feel you place too much faith in DNA evidence.

This is the very reason that I did not go into specifics as to what standards of evidence would have to apply to utilize the streamlined appeal process. They would have to be higher then it is currently. What that level would be is unknown and changes the topic into specifics rather then whether Execution is reasonable, moral, or applicable.

There is no arguable differences between Imprisonment and Execution from this perspective since both are removing individuals from society. One can be done quick and relatively painlessly but has severe consequences if wrong. The other is long, drawn out, and potentially torturous but has higher tolerance for mistakes.

The only rational and subjective response on the issue of protection of the society is the question of whether the burden on the community is low enough to imprison convicts compared to executing them with some kind of minimilization of the innocents killed.

If current techonology does not offer you the assurances that we can streamline the process and have a noticably lower burden via Execution compared to Imprisonment and be within tolerance levels of innocents wrongfully executed then that is your decision to make.

If the majority of the citizens feel this way then use Imprisonment and put Execution on a moritorium until the technology advances enough to reconsider this.

The same would hold true if you feel the current technology offers enough of an assurance. If new technologies open up new fields of investigation that is leaps and bounds beyond current means then it should be evaluated once more.

[Narith]

Not much to say that hasn't already been said.

It is true that no one knows for fact that more innocent lives are saved than lost by the death penalty, just as no one knows for a fact that innocents are executed. We silmply have strong beliefs on either side of the issue. You may argue that we have proven innocents, or people guilty of a lesser crime are on death row and have had thier prison sentence reduced, modified, or even thrown out all together, the opposing arguement could say "see if they are innocent or not guilty enough to be put to death we will find out eventually.".

As for me it is simply a line drawn in the sand, one that is akin to how many flaws am I willing to accept in order to save innocent lives. I strongly believe that more innocent lives are saved than cost by the death penalty. I do acknowledge that innocents probably have been executed, however I also acknowledge that more innocents probably have been saved due to deterance and removing the murder from society permanently. If there is proof one day that more innocent lives are lost, or that none are saved by having the death penalty then I will change my stance, until that time I am willing to accept the flaws in the system in order to save the many.

I do disagree with Beek and agree with Rsak though on one point, that there is a line one can cross that there is no turning back from. Once crossed these people give up whatever shreds of humanity they had and become no better than any predatory animal, and thus deserve punishment as any predatory animal that preys on human beings.