Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

Both of these questions are directed only to those who believe that the death penalty is sometimes warranted.

1. First assume that the death penalty is not a deterrent to other criminals. Many say that. I don't know if it is true. But if assuming that would make you opposed to the death penalty you are not eligible for this question. However there are other reasons, aside from deterrence, that some argue makes the death penalty an appropriate punishment in some cases. If you are one of those people I ask you:

What error rate would you tolerate? How many innocent people out of a thousand would have to be executed before you would change your stance and oppose the death penalty? Say those are your only two choices, accept the error rate or eliminate the punishment.

2. This question is for those who say deterrence is by far the most important reason for the death penalty. If so, a relatively high error rate could be tolerated if it could be shown that even more lives are saved because the death penalty scares off future murderers. Thus if 1000 executions save 25 people from getting murdered, it would seem worth it if eleven of those executions were of innocent men (though usually dirtbags). My question is do you think there is a one to one correspondance? If not, saving a hundred people from future murder is worth falsely executing how many people?

For those who are in favor of the death penalty for both deterrence and other reasons, I have no question for you. But if you want to pretend to be eligible for these questions, go ahead and answer them.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

1. i would favor the death penalty in some cases if the error rate was zero or as humanly close as possible. if u could somehow show the error rate was less than one in 10 million i would be fine with it. short of that certainty i say eliminate.

edit- i take back 1 in 10 million. if the error rate was less than the chance of a convicted 1st degree murderer escaping and killing again i could accept it.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

1) The important consideration is the perceived error rate, not the actual one. If it were generally accepted that only one in ten million cases were errors most people would be happy, even if the actual error rate were several percent.

2) Tried to pretend, could not manage it. Personally I think justice is a civilised form of social revenge. It feels real good to see a load of terrorists get the death penalty, doesn’t matter if they are innocent as long as I don’t find out. Guess I am just warped.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

Re: Question two. A study done at Harvard found that the use of cell phones while driving increases productivity by 42 billion dollars a year; however, using cell phones while driving also results in the loss of 42 billion dollars a year as the result of death, injury, and property damage. Therefore, using cell phones while driving should not be a concern since it's not "worth it" to change the behavior.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

[ QUOTE ]
Re: Question two. A study done at Harvard found that the use of cell phones while driving increases productivity by 42 billion dollars a year; however, using cell phones while driving also results in the loss of 42 billion dollars a year as the result of death, injury, and property damage. Therefore, using cell phones while driving should not be a concern since it's not "worth it" to change the behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely this a great arguement for legislating for hands free sets to be compulsory in cars. You get all the benefits and non of the downs.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

Well, I'm really trying to understand what "worth it" means. However, the death penalty may be an effective deterrent for cell phone use.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

Maybe you could come up with some questions for those of us who think the death penalty is not appropriate under any circumstances.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

1- Zero

Currently, such rate doesn't exist. I would like to have a system that warranties that every man executed is guilty 100%, no doubts. If any doubt at all, then the man is not executed. And by this, I mean certainty in the scientific sense, not certainty by interpretation of a specific group of jurors. Guiltness almost proved in a mathematical sense.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

1. Assuming the alernative to the Death Penalty was Life in prison with no chance of parole. I would be happy with 1 in 1,000 (maybe 1 in 10,000). People who are sentenced to Death receive more appeals and legal services then any other criminal (and deservedly so), they have the best chance of proving themselves innocent. Even after they have exhausted their appeals the average deathrow inmate is given about 10 years before they are executed. From an innocent mans point of view would you rather have life in prison with 5% Chance of being released. Or a 10% chance to be released but failing that death in 10 years. I would probably choose the latter as life without parole doesnt seem like that much different from death to me. So IMO, it is in the interests of a falsely convicted individual to get the death penalty as opposed to life in prison.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

This is an interesting line of thought that hadn't occured to me before. One that I can see some merit in.

However, I would still choose a life sentence over death in ten years, as I would still be hoping that a correction could be made. Just this week there was a story of a man wrongly convicted 18 years ago being freed on new DNA evidence.

Add in the apparent biases in race, gender, economic levels, and who knows what else by juries, judges and prosecutors and there is no way I can justify the death penalty in my mind.
--
Scott

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

The death penalty says more about us than the criminal. To assume that compensation, justice or such matters is only in the hands of human beings is short-sighted and truly unnerving.

To think of death as the ultimate punishment is statement to our lack of knowledge and dearth of understanding.

Those who are active in propagating this type of "penalty" will surely tie a karmic bond with the victim which will have to be addressed. The hangman and the hangee will surely meet again. This should not be thought of as a threat but as fact.

The compassionate society will take on the karma of the criminal and in fact of each other. By bringing this (compassion) to the event a proper and more far reaching action will come about.

regards,
carlo

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

I am going to give an answer to both questions from my catholic point of view. The Catholic Church teaches that the death penalty is wrong in most cases because the means exist to protect society from such criminals via secure incarceration. Thus my position is that it should only be applied to those who kill multiple times in different incidents, or more than one person in the same criminal act where evidence of same is not circumstantial, demonstrating that they are a danger to other inmates/guards in correctional facilities, and that they pose an extreme danger were they to escape. This standard, killing more than one person in the same act or differenct incidents, should except in the case where someone is somehow "framed", make their execution error free.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

There are people saying that since there is a slight chance that the criminal guilty he should not be subject to the death penalty. But he is still subject to spending the rest of his life in a maximum security prison, suffering with the fact that he is innocent. Putting him to death sounds like a mercy killing.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

We just need a Pre-Crimes unit like in the Minority report. Oh wait even that was flawed.........

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

This is most likely wrong.
The thing that distracts the drivers is not the thing they hold in their hand, it is the conversation.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

The DS question is stating that each life has an equal value. You've attempted to change the meaning to equating life with money. Two different issues.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

Does each life have equal value? 25 does not equal 11.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does each life have equal value? 25 does not equal 11.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. 25 > 11, which is why Dan Slansky said it would be okay.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does each life have equal value?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do they to you?

I've discussed this question several times on these forums but I don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent nor do I support it as punishment.

[ QUOTE ]
25 does not equal 11.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true. If 14 less people are killed is it worth having the death penalty (hypothetically 25 less murders due to the death penalty because it's a deterrent to murder while 11 innocent people are killed by the state because of the death penalty)? Big difference between saving lives and saving money.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

Okay, now in terms of worth, which are more "worthy," the innocent or the guilty?

Unlike David, I will not assume that the innocent are usually "dirtbags."

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, now in terms of worth, which are more "worthy," the innocent or the guilty?

[/ QUOTE ]


Innocent people die when they are murdered by those who are guilty of capital crimes that result in the death penalty.

Innocent people are also wrongly conviceted of murder and given the death penalty.

Therefore innocent people are murdered by people who are guilty of capital crimes that result in the death penalty and innocent people are murdered when put to death by the state when they're wrongly convicted.

If less innocent people are murdered overall is it worth it for the state to murder guilty people when they're correctly convicted of taking another life? This is in lieu of incarceration most likely without parole for the rest of ones life.

So I guess your question is do I place a higher value on innocent people than guilty people in such circumstances? Yes.

I see your question as a "red herring" more or less but I guess your trying to state that all life has equal value irregardless of whether or not they murder other people. I don't agree but that seems to be a side issue but I could be convinced otherwise. I think society has more or less decided that the lives of people guilty of murdering others does not have the same value as those that don't murder other people for the most part by the mere fact that laws demand that those guilty of murder be removed from society one way or the other.


I'll amend my statement to state that the question relates to the value of innocent lives. At least that's how I interpret it.

I sort of think your trying to get me to defend the death penalty. I'm opposed to the death penalty. I prefer the incarceration without parole in lieu of the death penalty for those that murder the innocent.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

No, I'm not trying to get you to change your mind. In fact, I'm opposed to the death penalty as well; however, I am trying to arrive at some understanding of what constitutes "worth" and how it relates to hunman lives.

Or perhaps even a bit closer, what exactly does "worth it" mean in this type of discussion?

Thanks For Not Answering My Question
 

I wasn't trying to be overly philosophical here, especially on question One. Which I originally planned to simply be "what error rate would you tolerate". Then I realized that I had to stipulate no deterrence or people's varying answers could be related to differnce of opionions about deterence. Which made me think of question Two.

Re: Thanks For Not Answering My Question
 

You're welcome. But, I'm not sure you can quite pose the question without inviting some attempts to understand what is being asked; however, Adios and I are probably not the ones who should be attempting to answer it anyway since we both oppose the death penalty. That's one reason I skipped to question two since I have no answer for question one.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

I'm willing to accept whatever the existing error rate is with an eye towards continuing to improve upon the system. As we do in other things:

What error rate would you accept for wrongly convicting a child molester?

What error rate would you accept for air travel fatalities?

Why should we need a lower tolerance for error when dealing with the death penalty?

So my answer is: Whatever the existing rate happens to be.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

What error rate would you tollerate if it were you who was on trial for a capital crime?

PairTheBoard

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

"I'm willing to accept whatever the existing error rate is with an eye towards continuing to improve upon the system. As we do in other things:

What error rate would you accept for wrongly convicting a child molester?

What error rate would you accept for air travel fatalities?

Why should we need a lower tolerance for error when dealing with the death penalty?

So my answer is: Whatever the existing rate happens to be. "

I hope a lot of forumites read this post. Because it is a perfect example of words that seem intelligent enough on the surface but are in fact just plain dumb. Words like these are common in the hands of people trained in English but not logic.

"I'm willing to accept whatever the existing error rate is with an eye towards continuing to improve upon the system. As we do in other things:"

The question obviously assumes that the present rate, or no death penalty, are the only two choices. And even if they weren't, the answer is a lie. Suppose the error rate is 10% and improves by .2% per decade?

"What error rate would you accept for wrongly convicting a child molester?

What error rate would you accept for air travel fatalities?

Why should we need a lower tolerance for error when dealing with the death penalty?"

It is rare that you find so a clear example of fuzzy thinking. Stop if it isn't immediately apparent and figure it out yourself.

Anyway the answer of course, is that in the case of the death penalty, the downside to the remedy of turning the error rate into zero is that the convicted get life in prison. The downside to the remedy of assuring a zero error rate fore child molestors is that all child molestors go free. To insure no airline fatalities we must give up airplanes and cripple our economy.

One of the hallmarks of good thinking is the ability to see when an anology is good or bad. I think that ability can be learned. So do it.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

"Anyway the answer of course, is that in the case of the death penalty, the downside to the remedy of turning the error rate into zero is that the convicted get life in prison. The downside to the remedy of assuring a zero error rate fore child molestors is that all child molestors go free. To insure no airline fatalities we must give up airplanes and cripple our economy."

So can I assume that with respect to air travel and child molesters; we agree that the downsides of eliminating risk altogether is unacceptable?

I'm just saying I feel the same away about the death penalty. When I perform the same analogy, I conclude that zero risk (i.e. life in prison for ALL convicted), is also unacceptable, and a burden to society.

So other than our differing values and the fact that you are correct in stating air travel's impact on the economy is greater than the costs of supporting ALL convicted murderers for the rest of their natural lives (but still an economic burden).

By the way, my questions were not irrelevant.

There IS an unacceptable risk for air travel. It just so happens that it is currently within our tolerance. One could also debate whether or not the current risk of losing astronaut's lives is acceptable or not.

It would seem you are accusing me of fuzzy thinking because my risk tolerance of executing an innocent happens to be higher than yours.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

You are not calculating pot odds. Freeing a guilty child molestor is much worse than letting someone who might deserve to die, rot in prison.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are not calculating pot odds. Freeing a guilty child molestor is much worse than letting someone who might deserve to die, rot in prison.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you say. Logically, this would seem an indisputable statement, but it still must be classed as opinion. I'm sure you could find a parent somewhere who would be willing to let a child "molestor" go free, if it would mean their child's "killer" be put to death.

What I'm saying is don't let child molestors go free, but also be willing to accept the current risk that an innocent might wrongly be executed, with an eye toward implenting ways to reduce errors (we have come a long way scientifically, but I acknowledge our judicial system has some ways to go towards achieving this. But hey, it's still the best process in the world and I wouldn't trade it for any other country's).

It sounds like you already have an answer to your question and want to impose it on me. It's ok for you to choose zero. But if mine is some higher percentage, it doesn't mean I suffer from fuzzy thinking.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

But zero percent risk is not attainable and it's doubtful it ever will be. Hence the reason this question needs to be asked and answered.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

Don't get further involved in this thread unless he offers you $200. (Then hold out for $300.)

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

1) If deterrance is the only reason you support the death penalty, and there is proof it doesn't do that then even a 0% error rate would not meet the standard. Only other criteria would make it worth it like closure for the families etc.

2)To the question of how many innocents to die in order to save other innocents i think at least one more person should be saved than sacrificed or your more or less just saying that the group you saved is in some way better than those you sacrifice.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

You are trying to wiggle out of your error. By saying that it is not an indisputable fact that a freed child molester is worse than a spared murderer. True. But don't expect anyone to believe that your original post made this off the wall assumption.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

[ QUOTE ]
But zero percent risk is not attainable and it's doubtful it ever will be. Hence the reason this question needs to be asked and answered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it will in the future. And I think right now there are cases where the 100% guilty is quite clear.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

"You are trying to wiggle out of your error... " " But don't expect anyone to believe that your original post made this off the wall assumption. "

You are correct. My original reply was very sloppy indeed. I have a lot to learn about both logical thinking and debating techniques. I just found out about this forum and I'm hoping reading it will help me to improve in these areas.

Your skills as a logician are well known, but I never would have guessed you to be such a worthy debator as well (I am not merely talking about this thread).

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway the answer of course, is that in the case of the death penalty, the downside to the remedy of turning the error rate into zero is that the convicted get life in prison.

[/ QUOTE ]


my question is not applicable today and might never be, but if it cost substantialy more to incarcerate someone for life as opposed to executing them (say 10 to 1), would most people here be willing to tolerate more error or at least some?

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

I favour the death penalty in certain situations in principle. However, I do not like even 1 person executed who is in fact innocent. So maybe I should say that I am opposed to the death penalty as it is enforced today.

I don't think I would change my view on the death penalty based on the number of wrongly executed people. I do already feel, however, that a jury trial or trial by judge is insufficient in determining whether or not someone truly deserves the death penalty.

There needs to be a foolproof (as much as can be) way of determining guilt and i do not feel the current system we have of determining guilt is sufficient.. even in non-death penalty cases.

I do feel that there are crimes that deserve the death penalty. These people should be put to death if we can determine for a certainty that they were the ones who committed those crimes.

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get further involved in this thread unless he offers you $200. (Then hold out for $300.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking about raising him on the Turn.

PairTheBoard

Re: Two Death Penalty Questiosns
 

You are about to go far.