Score one against barbarism

[Relbeek Einre]

Or an individual can do unuseful things with their lives behind bars, like intentially file frivolous lawsuits to gum up the legal system, direct illegal activities outside and inside the prison, participate in illegal activities inside and outside of prison from the inside, ect. Many have.

That can happen, yes. Which is also a significant difference, ironically.

Well, his arguement was that its death either way one is just slower, soooo perhaps this doesnt directly respond to his ascertion.

And it's a false argument. Someone isolated is not someone killed. A state which isolates is not a state which murders. Rsak seems to argue that being imprisoned is tantamount to being dead... I simply disagree.

[Partha]

Is being imprioned for your natural life the same as being executed?

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

Your numbered points were not the innacurate generalizations I was referring to. I was specifically speaking about your innacurate commentary that the reality that you must acknowledge about our society is anything but pedantic in nature.

Vaulos,

1. In those situations the individuals have not been removed from society and do not apply to the model that we are discussing.

2. I was not trying to insinuate that Relbeek was arguing that the Death Penaly doesn't fit the crime. What we were trying to discuss was whether the goverment as the will of the community should have the right to enforce a punishment such as the Death Penalty. Because of this we have to look at the end result and we find that it is the same as imprisonment with the exception of control over the time of death, the removal of the individual from the community and society.

Once we have decided whether the application is within the power of the goverment we then have to decide which is more fitting with the morals and standards of the community which is where we factor in the error forgiveness of each style and the ability to commute. It is a very important difference in regards to which application the community is comfortable with, but not a factor in whether the sentence is or is not within the options available.

3) But that is not an equivalent comparison. The grounding in your example was not permanent until that death occurs. I find it sad some individuals have no problem letting the community deprive the freedom to live one's life, but have problems with actually ending the breath of that life. Life is not just being born and dying, but the content between as well. I honestly have to consider the denial of one to be equivalent to the denial of the other when discussing what rights and powers the goverment may use.

To summarize, if you feel that we should not be completely segregating some criminals from society for the most heinous crimes whether it be via imprisonment or execution then you disagree with the fundamental basis of this discussion which is that there are some lines once crossed make some individuals so dangerous to society without the possiblity of rehabilitation or redemption.

Relbeek has decided that no earthly being can be trusted with the judgement of where that line is and whether anyone has crossed it so the least permanent options must be used.

I believe that humans can be trusted with such a decision and even if we cannot be perfect in the judgement there is no one else to make that decision. The consequences of anarchy and chaos are much more severe then harm on innocents wrongfully punished what ever that punishment may be.

And to pull this back to the topic that started this thread, exuction of criminals who committed crimes as minors, I have to hold firm to the belief that some acts are so heinous that the punishment should be removal from the community. Whether it is commited by a minor or an adult the line was still crossed and the danger is present.

[Relbeek Einre]

Not to the prisoner...

[Rsak]

Partha,

No they are not the same, but the reality exists that for some prisoners imprisonment for their life is worse then a quick execution. For others it is better.

[Relbeek Einre]

Then you acknowledge that execution and life in prison are not identical! Thanks.

As a side note brought up by your last post, I'm not opposed to the state executing a prisoner who asks to be executed rather than face life in prison.

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

From the perspective of the prisoner No they are not the same.

From the perspective of the community they are the same in the model that we are discussing.

And while you may wish to take the feelings of the individual into question the model that we are discussing does not care about those feelings. The perspective of protection of the community is concerned with the best protection of the community and the least burden within their comfort level.

It has nothing to do with the feelings of the criminal but with the feelings of the community.

[Relbeek Einre]

Sorry, Rsak, I may have not communicated to you clearly that the model you are discussing is not one which I feel covers the important nuances regarding the death penalty, and I don't accept the model you are employing precisely because it is too flawed to be useful.

[Rsak]

Then you are welcome to point out those flaws or show where it can be improved.

However I doubt such a open discussion is possible with your position that no earthly being can be trusted to draw the line and who crossed over it. So since you have discarded this model, I challenge you to offer a better one to serve the same puprose of the protection of society and the community.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Since part of this debate revovled around the notion that capital punishment prevented murderers from creating "future victiims", here's some stats on the recidivism rates in the state of Washington.

http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivism20 ... rt2002.pdf

Note that if a person is convicted of murder, that person has one of the lowest rates of recidivism for all felons. An astonishingly low 0.2%. Also remember that the recidivism isn't specifically another murder, or even a violent assault. Merely the fact that the recidivist committed another felony.

Kinda blows holes in the generally held notion that murderers are animals and will go on to spread wanton destruction in society. It also blows holes in the argument that the death penalty has some kind of substantial protective quality for society.

[Relbeek Einre]

Then you are welcome to point out those flaws or show where it can be improved.

I did. I agree your model is, for purposes of protecting the community from the irredeemably dangerous, functionally adequate. However, we're talking about the moral, legal, ethical, societal and logistical implications of the death penalty, and your model bypasses all that and in the scope of that discussion your model is not useful. More useful ones were already in play, so I need not offer a new one.

I'm sorry you feel that my belief (as opposed to position) that no one is qualified to judge who lives and who dies eschews open discourse - and I'm also puzled as to why you would conclude that. Of course, you're free to challenge that position.

[Relbeek Einre]

Hmm, Embar, that seems to suggest that 1 in 500 murderers ever goes on to commit another felony in Washington, unless I'm seriously misreading the report.

What do you suppose the false conviction rate for capital murder is? Do you think it's better than 1 in 500?

[Kulaf]

Since part of this debate revovled around the notion that capital punishment prevented murderers from creating "future victiims", here's some stats on the recidivism rates in the state of Washington.

http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivism20 ... rt2002.pdf

Note that if a person is convicted of murder, that person has one of the lowest rates of recidivism for all felons. An astonishingly low 0.2%. Also remember that the recidivism isn't specifically another murder, or even a violent assault. Merely the fact that the recidivist committed another felony.

Kinda blows holes in the generally held notion that murderers are animals and will go on to spread wanton destruction in society. It also blows holes in the argument that the death penalty has some kind of substantial protective quality for society.

Well one of us is reading this wrong. This quote:

"For purposes of this report, the term “recidivism” includes any sentence in which the offender’s criminal history contains a prior felony sentence."

Seems to indicate to me that this report is looking at current convictions for the year and then looking back at whether those people have comited a felony in the past. To me that would mean that of the murder convictions in that report only 0.2% of said murders had been conviced of a felony in the past. It seems to me this report is not examining whether a person recomits a crime, but whether they comited any crime prior to their current conviction. Therefore I don't think it demonstrates anymore more than the fact that most murders in the state of WA for that period did not have a significant prior felony conviction rate.

I do not believe is demonstrates what you think it does.....either that or I am totally reading the report wrong.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Kulaf is correct.

I misread the reports definition of recidivism. The report is a study of felons who have criminal records, and therefore already are recidivists. So Kulaf's interpretation that of all the recidivists in Washington, only 0.2% of the recidvists have a murder conviction on their records. Which is much different than saying what I did, that of all convicted murderers, only 0.2 % go on to commit another felony. The data was not predictive in nature, but only decriptive.

However, there is another table in the report that gives information more pertinent to the topic, and has more of predictive value. It's the table that outlines Habitual Offender.. those criminals that commit the same crime twice (or more). It shows that of all the recidivists who are murderers, 3% of the murderers are repeat offenders.

Thanks for the correction Kulaf.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Hmm, Embar, that seems to suggest that 1 in 500 murderers ever goes on to commit another felony in Washington, unless I'm seriously misreading the report.

What do you suppose the false conviction rate for capital murder is? Do you think it's better than 1 in 500?

Hard to say, really, and people sometimes get caught up in the argument of what a conviction really means. Most people think that "conviction" means "he did it". That's not the case, even though most people equate it with such. A "Conviction" is the result of an administrative procuedure whereby most a person is determined to be someone who "most likely" committed the crime. Subtle difference.

Having said that, I can say the exoneration rate for capital cases in Illinois is a little shy of 6%. Some of those were certainly procedural exonerations (like prosecutorial malfeasance, police misconduct, etc). Some are most certainly based on innocence establishing evidence (semen in the victim doesn't match the convicted person, etc). But I don't know the what percentage is which for the exonerated.

[Narith]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I am curious. What percentage of the violent offenders were in for a first time offense? If it was only thier first time offense (though this does not mean it was thier only crime they commited only the first one they were caught at), then how does this skew the numbers on repeat offenses as they have only had the chance at one so far?

Also as Embar said above it seems to suggest that 3% of murderers are repeat offenders of the same type of crime, now if you place that on a national average what percentage of murder convictions are death row sentences? Of those what percentage do you believe may be innocent? Of the 3% of murderers how many victims are estimated (ie. only 1 victim per repeat offense or higher? I believe it to be higher as 1 means that no repeat offender has taken more than 1 life ever on thier repeat offense).

I geuss what I am trying to break down how many victims estimated are created by repeat offenders compared to how many murderers are on death row estimated to be innocent, or at least not deserving of the death penalty (this is not a philisophical question of does anyone deserve to die at all, it is how many in the eyes of the law are not guilty enough to deserve the death penalty).

[Narith]

Oh also what percentage of murderers are even given a second chance? If you subtract the number of murderers who never are able to leave prison due to death in the system, serving multiple life terms, ect, then you probably come closer to an actual number of repeat offenders.

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

You have stated it is flawed, but have not stated where it is flawed with any specificity.

However, we're talking about the moral, legal, ethical, societal and logistical implications of the death penalty, and your model bypasses all that and in the scope of that discussion your model is not useful.

All of the things you mention are accounted in the burden/comfort level decision that society must make.

I'm sorry you feel that my belief (as opposed to position) that no one is qualified to judge who lives and who dies eschews open discourse - and I'm also puzled as to why you would conclude that.

And the difference was so trivial that it meritted clarification?

But to respond, if you go back and read the "thoughtful, rational, logical post" you will see that it begins with the basis and reason for protection of society. That basis depends on some earthly being or group to be able to draw the line and decide when people cross over it. You have stated your disbelief that any earthly being is qualified to perform such a service.

Due to this disbelief you must also acknowledge that you also have a disbelief in whether the servere punishment of removal from society and the community should be used. Arguing over whether Execution or Imprisonment is the better way to deal out that punishment is moot.

Your stated disbelief in conjunction with your offered evidence which is not applicable since it does not fit the model or conjecture that does not show understanding of the model leads me to conclude that you do not believe certain acts are so heinous that no redemption or rehabilitaiton is possible. This makes any meaningful discussion with you over the application of this model meaningless.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I am curious. What percentage of the violent offenders were in for a first time offense? If it was only thier first time offense (though this does not mean it was thier only crime they commited only the first one they were caught at), then how does this skew the numbers on repeat offenses as they have only had the chance at one so far?

Also as Embar said above it seems to suggest that 3% of murderers are repeat offenders of the same type of crime, now if you place that on a national average what percentage of murder convictions are death row sentences? Of those what percentage do you believe may be innocent? Of the 3% of murderers how many victims are estimated (ie. only 1 victim per repeat offense or higher? I believe it to be higher as 1 means that no repeat offender has taken more than 1 life ever on thier repeat offense).

I geuss what I am trying to break down how many victims estimated are created by repeat offenders compared to how many murderers are on death row estimated to be innocent, or at least not deserving of the death penalty (this is not a philisophical question of does anyone deserve to die at all, it is how many in the eyes of the law are not guilty enough to deserve the death penalty).

Lets go through the mental exercise, but first we have to make some assumptions as best me may.

From the Illinois data, lets assume that 6% of all capital convictions are wrongful convictions.

From the Washington data, lets assume that 3% of murderers are habitual offenders.

Since 1976 (the year the death penalty was available to the States again), there have been 952 executions. Using the 6% number, that means 57 might have been exonerated, leaving 895 "guilty" murderers.

Now, how many "future victims" did those 57 save?

Well, lets look again at the numbers. If 3% of the convicted murderers go on to commit another murder, and we have 895 murderers, then about 27 "future victims" would be spared.

So from this data, it costs us the lives of two wrongfully convicted people in order to save one "future victim".

[Relbeek Einre]

Due to this disbelief you must also acknowledge that you also have a disbelief in whether the servere punishment of removal from society and the community should be used.

Bzzt, wrong. Only if we accept your postulate that life in prison and execution are morally, ethically, and practically equivalent is this logical leap within a league of accurate. And, as I've said several times before, I don't accept this postulate, and have explained why.

It's the moment you start shifting into the "you must admit x" and "you have to accept y" when y and x are not remotely inescapable logical conclusions that the time is nigh for me to exit the discussion, as we're fast approaching the point where Rsak reverts to form.

But it was a pretty good run, Rsak. Keep it up.