Two Death Penalty Questiosns

[toor]

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.

[AndysDaddy]

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

[carlo]

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

[BluffTHIS!]

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.

[coheedandcambria]

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.

[cwsiggy]

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

[Lestat]

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.

[David Sklansky]

"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.

[Lestat]

"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.

[David Sklansky]

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.