Score one against barbarism

[Partha]

Oh, and as an aside, yes, he wasn't released from death row. He was, however, serving 'life without parole'.

[Embar Angylwrath]

More info on the death penalty.

Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Marshall) had this to say:

"No matter how careful courts are, the possibility of perjured testimony, mistaken honest testimony, and human error remain all too real. We have no way of judging how many innocent persons have been executed, but we can be certain that there were some." Furman v Georgia

From a 1987 report issued by the Stanford Law Review

In November 1987, the Stanford Law Review published the landmark article "Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases" by Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet. The article reports on 350 cases of defendants erroneously convicted of capital-or potentially capital-crimes in the United States in the interval 1900-1985. Of those convictions, 139 resulted in actual death sentences and ultimately, 23 executions. An additional 8 died in prison and 22 were reprieved within 72 hours of execution. Of those cases in which the inmate was ultimately released, 40% of releases came more than 5 years after conviction; 20% of releases arrived after more than 10 years.

In addition to presenting and tabulating the cases, Bedau and Radelet analyzed both the causes of the erroneous convictions and the mechanisms by which the errors were discovered. The disturbing results reveal that while the police and prosecutors are frequently the causes of the error (by way of coerced confessions, suppression of exculpatory evidence, suborning perjury, etc.), they are rarely responsible for uncovering errors. Indeed, investigative journalists and authors accounted for more exonerations than police, prosecutors and judges, combined. People who live to see reversal of a mistaken conviction, do so in spite of the criminal justice system, not because of it.

From a 1993 US House sub-Committee report

In 1993, a report of the US House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, prepared by the Death Penalty Information Center, addressed the cases of the 48 defendants who were released from death row since 1973 because of faulty convictions. Establishing conclusively that error in capital cases did not end with Furman, the report concludes that "a substantial number of death row inmates are indeed innocent and there is a high risk that some of them will be executed."

From an essay that addresses the notion that the death penalty is required for justice and protection of innocent victims:

Additional benefits cited are often in terms of doing what justice requires and concern for innocent victims.

Yet it boggles the mind what perverse sort of justice requires that the state be willing to sacrifice innocent victims, in order to protect innocent victims. And unlike traffic accidents, the risk of mistaken execution is not evenly distributed throughout society. Rather, it is those who have the least access to high quality investigation and legal representation who shoulder the burden of wrongful death sentences and executions.

Why is the question of factual innocence so compelling? For those opposed to capital punishment on principle, it does not matter if the condemned prisoner is guilty or not. No member of society is disposable, regardless of who they are or what they have done. The issue is important because Americans overwhelmingly support the death penalty, but become apprehensive when confronted with the harsh realities of how it is applied. And for those people that do support the death penalty, the possibility of judicial error is the most distressing aspect of its application. The execution of innocent people is such a gripping fact because it belies the claim that capital punishment exists to protect innocent victims from random violence. On the contrary, the death penalty imposes a tremendous risk of creating innocent victims with no real benefits to society.

But I think Marquis de Lafayette said it best, in 1831.

"Till the infallibility of human judgement shall have been proved to me, I shall demand the abolition of the penalty of death."

[Narith]

Well you are assuming that each habitual case there is only 1 victim per, which we know generally that repeat offenders in cases of murder generally kill more than 1 victim before they are caught.

No Narith. That's not a justifiable assumption. Remember, the stats were tanken in a context of murderers already in prison. It is highly unlikely that murderers already in prison will have more than one "future victim", given the particular environment in houses of incarceration.

Take for example a serial killer... he'll have many victims before he's caught, but do you think he'll have just as many victims after he's imprisoned? Of course not. When you're in lockdown 23 out of 24 hours, and in a supervised exercise yard by yourself during that one hour when you get to see sunshine, your chances of killing again are remote at best.

If you delve into the stats, you'll see that most murders inside a penitentiary aren't made by previously convicted murderers. They're made by other violent criminals, and are usually gang related.

No no no I am assuming that the repeat offenses are done after release (on parole, whatever), now a seriel killer released that commits murder again will generally take more than 1 victim when caught. We know that at least 1 life will be cost per repeat offense, but that does not account for double homicides, tripple homicides, and so on, as well as multiple individual victims from a repeat serial killer before they are caught again.

If the serial killer was on lock down 23 of 24 hours a day and never released then he would be in the 400 pool as I mentioned above (600 released out of 1000, again those are simply numbers I pulled outta the air, don't know exact numbers) meaning that the 3% that they claim go onto murder again would be a higher percentage of those actually released. I am asking, how skewed is that 3%, does it take into effect the murderers who never get a chance (which I believe those on multiple life sentences or on death row are more likely to commit a murder again which would significantly raise that % if they were released) or is that 3% only 3% of those who are actually released back into society? I am trying to figure out if that 3% is fairly accurate based only on those criminals given a 2nd chance to commit thier crime again, or if that 3% is 3% of all criminals who commited that crime including those who will never get another chance?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Narith -

Maybe I'm not being clear. The discussion is framed in the context of "death penalty v life without parole". For the purpses of this discussion, it's assumed that none of the convicted would breath free air again (unless they were exonerated). Under no circumstances do I (or anyone else here that supoprts the death penalty) support parole as an option for individuals who would otherwise be eleigible for the death penalty.

[Embar Angylwrath]

should read.. (or anyone lese here that doesn't support the death penalty)

[Rsak]

Well, thanks for playing, now that you've devolved back into Rsakian logic I'm done with you.

In other words you have once again refused to offer any specificity in your complaints. Put up or shut up if you want to claim to have the high ground in this discussion.

[Relbeek Einre]

Sad. But that's what I get for thinking your lucidity would last.

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

You have offered numerous complaints about the model yet when asked for any of the details necessary to respond in a logical manner you have refused to do so.

In response to such a request for specificity all you can offer is insults. How you can expect anyone to respond to your complaints when you won't expound on them is the only abuse of logic I see.

[Relbeek Einre]

I did... you just ignored them, as usual. Shoo fly.

[Rsak]

Then you will have no problem pointing out that very post and my lack of reponse.

[Kulaf]

Would be interesting to compare the rates at which death row convicts are exonorated/pardoned vs. that of convicts serving life without parole. It would be interesting if it was found that a good majority of those released are only done so due to the extraordinary amount of review their cases get. And if so could a death sentance to a convicted yet innocent person be the best avenue to their eventual release.

[Relbeek Einre]

You'll just ignore that too. Sorry, Rsak, I know you're left unfulfilled, but I'm not interested in futile pursuits.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Would be interesting to compare the rates at which death row convicts are exonorated/pardoned vs. that of convicts serving life without parole. It would be interesting if it was found that a good majority of those released are only done so due to the extraordinary amount of review their cases get. And if so could a death sentance to a convicted yet innocent person be the best avenue to their eventual release.

Yeah, that would be a good review. Problem is, as you hinted at, there are different factors at work in each setting. So even if we did get some kind of number from each of those different cohorts, we couldn't compare them with any degree of certainty since the methodolgy and resources applied are so different.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You'll just ignore that too. Sorry, Rsak, I know you're left unfulfilled, but I'm not interested in futile pursuits.

But yet you keep responding to him, just to say you aren't going to respond anymore. You're letting the chimp trump you in doing so.

[Relbeek Einre]

Point to Embar.

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

Your biased position has zero bearing in the facts as evident from your inability to provide answers to simple and relevant questions. You may continue to run away with your tail between your legs.

We are done since my ever optimistic nature has been overcome by your vacuous actions and overwhelming history of repeated behavior.

[Narith]

Narith -

Maybe I'm not being clear. The discussion is framed in the context of "death penalty v life without parole". For the purpses of this discussion, it's assumed that none of the convicted would breath free air again (unless they were exonerated). Under no circumstances do I (or anyone else here that supoprts the death penalty) support parole as an option for individuals who would otherwise be eleigible for the death penalty.

Yes I realise that this topic is about life in prison vs. death sentence, we also know that life in prison does not mean that in all states. What I am trying to find out is is that 3% listed in the above statistics 3% of all murderers period or 3% of those released back into society only? If you have a state that abolishes the death penalty, but allows for parole for life sentences then you will have some of these potential death row inmates back out on the streets within a few decades (maybe less). Now going by that how many of those would commit a repeat crime, is the 3% statistic accurate, or is that a low number due to inclusion of inmates who will never be released (if 50% will never be released due to death in prison or what not, and they say 3% will commit another crime that means that that 3% has to have been released but it is actually 6% of the total number of the 100% that were released so as you go from a pool of 1000 total lets say to a pool of 500 released, but the number of repeat offenses remain the same).

Now then if the 6% figure is correct on estimated number of people wrongly put to death, and 3% is the actual number, counting multiple victims of the 3% you might have a push on which would cost society in more innocent deaths. If however, the 3% is the total prison population convicted of murder not just those released then you could easily have a number as high as 6% (maybe even more) who would most likely take more than 1 victim each before they were caught again costing society more innocent lives than the death penalty does. Turning people's lives into numbers honestly makes me cringe, but when arguing which will save more lives in the end it is something you must do.

I am simply trying to understand the numbers, which would theoretically save more innocent lives not including opinions on how many deterance saves, simply how many repeat offenders cost vs how many are estimated to not deserve the death penalty (not speaking philosophically only legally).

[SicTimMitchell]

now a seriel killer released that commits murder again will generally take more than 1 victim when caught

Do you have any idea how rare serial (many victims over a long period of time) and spree (many victims in a short period of time) killers are?

You hear about them more than the person who kills a relative or friend in anger, or during the course of a robbery, because those types of homicides happen every day.

Name one serial or spree killer who has been paroled.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Yes I realise that this topic is about life in prison vs. death sentence, we also know that life in prison does not mean that in all states. What I am trying to find out is is that 3% listed in the above statistics 3% of all murderers period or 3% of those released back into society only? If you have a state that abolishes the death penalty, but allows for parole for life sentences then you will have some of these potential death row inmates back out on the streets within a few decades (maybe less). Now going by that how many of those would commit a repeat crime, is the 3% statistic accurate, or is that a low number due to inclusion of inmates who will never be released (if 50% will never be released due to death in prison or what not, and they say 3% will commit another crime that means that that 3% has to have been released but it is actually 6% of the total number of the 100% that were released so as you go from a pool of 1000 total lets say to a pool of 500 released, but the number of repeat offenses remain the same).

Now then if the 6% figure is correct on estimated number of people wrongly put to death, and 3% is the actual number, counting multiple victims of the 3% you might have a push on which would cost society in more innocent deaths. If however, the 3% is the total prison population convicted of murder not just those released then you could easily have a number as high as 6% (maybe even more) who would most likely take more than 1 victim each before they were caught again costing society more innocent lives than the death penalty does. Turning people's lives into numbers honestly makes me cringe, but when arguing which will save more lives in the end it is something you must do.

I am simply trying to understand the numbers, which would theoretically save more innocent lives not including opinions on how many deterance saves, simply how many repeat offenders cost vs how many are estimated to not deserve the death penalty (not speaking philosophically only legally).

Narith -

1. The 3% number is the number of convecited murderers that are repeat offenders. The stats don't differentiate between people murdered inside of prison and outside of prison.

2. Although I can't find hard numbers that delineate who the victims of recidivist murderers are, anecdotal evidence seems to suggest most of the victims are fellow inmates.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/repeat_murder.htm

3. To my knowledge, Tim is correct. I can find no evidence that a serial or spree killer has ever been released from prison.

4. Parole standards can be changed. If the death penalty was abolished, you can bet states would strengthen the life-without-parole sentencing guidelines..

[Partha]

now a seriel killer released that commits murder again will generally take more than 1 victim when caught

Do you have any idea how rare serial (many victims over a long period of time) and spree (many victims in a short period of time) killers are?

You hear about them more than the person who kills a relative or friend in anger, or during the course of a robbery, because those types of homicides happen every day.

Name one serial or spree killer who has been paroled.

I personally can't think of one, at least, not one who was paroled after conviction on the spree/serial killing. The only one I CAN think of that even remotely fits this is William Suff, the Lake Elsinore killer. He was convicted in the '70s of helping beat to death his two year old daughter, was released, after that he committed what police say is at least 13 and possibly as many as 22 murders of prostitutes.

But yeah, Embar and Tim are right here.