Capital Punishment For Murderers

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]
Would public executions be a deterrent?

[/ QUOTE ]

To more executions? Probably.

[tdrot]

1. Will it dissuade others from committing murder?

The way the US currently carries out the DP does not seem to be a deterient because the number executed is small and the time between conviction and execution is long. It might be somewhat different if all convicted murders were given the death penalty, the appeals process took only 1 year and the executions were public. Given that this kind of a change is not likely to happen I would then say this is not an argument for the DP.

2. Is there more than a micro chance that the life sentence will allow an eventual release or escape?

This could be a reasonable argument for the death penalty, but the number of people that are released from prison who have sentences of life without parole is small. Then the number of those that murder again is even smaller. So I would say that the number of innocent people this group kills would likely be offset by the number of innocent people that are wrongly convicted and put to death.

3. Does it cost more to keep him alive?

I will take at face value the information in other posts that these costs are roughly even.

4. Is there more than a micro chance that the defendent is innocent?

We could change the law to state that DP cases must have conclusive DNA evidence or they can be convicted but no DP.
If we don't than my argument in two would seem to offset this issue.

5. I think there might be one more argument which is a life in prison sentence gets the whole public and family ordeal out of the way quicker. As it stands now, every year and a half or so the case has an appeal that needs to be decided. The families of the victims are then reminded of the whole thing and this goes on for 15 to 20 years. I think with life in prison without parole the appeal process is over sooner and if the conviction stands the murderer is sent to live out his life in prison.

By the way, I am in favor of the death penalty purely on an emotional level.

[LandonM]

On the issue of evidentiary aspects of death penalty cases, you can't really hamstring them to DNA alone, as not all death penalty qualified cases involve the transmission of DNA.

Conversely, it is pretty hard to impose the death penalty in good conscience based solely on lone eye wittiness testimony- however, any time someone is convicted based solely on the testimony of a governmentally employed "confidential informant" or a singular random eye witness (which happens with disturbing regularity), the chance that justice has been miscarried approaches 1.

This isn't to say that entirely guilty people aren't convicted on those very bases, but the one commonality that exists between almost every unjust conviction is that the conviction itself was predicated on the 'perceptions' of others, rather than the objectivity of science.

[flair1239]

How about this, it is not a good thing to give a governement more power than necessary. Also almost all governments seem subject to periods of corruption. Giving the governement the right to execute anybody (criminal or otherwise) will eventually result in abuse of that privelege. Therefore capital punishment should be avoided.

[Dot_the_Bot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


dude. Did you just go from pontificating about the futility of proving false negatives to, "...and its a cell block 4 thing, you wouldn't understand."

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, yeah. I did.
The validity of first hand experience doesn't logically correlate to 'proving a negative' in any way.

It is entirely possible for an outlook based on direct, topically focused experience to be more valid than those based on abstract theorems... And it is still impossible to prove a negative.

Show me where the two join up and I'll give ya a cookie.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH good! I LOVE cookies. Ummmm...both create their own separate arguments instead of dealing with the real topic?

Just kidding. Yes you can't prove a false negative. Yes, high IQ inmates kick ass at spaids, poker and chess (as do medicore IQ inmates as well).

The idea that the DP is a deterrent still hasn't any evidence to back it up.

[firecat]

Seeing the execution of Saddam Hussein on television - isn't it clear that we should be more concerned about how killing people reflects on ourselves than motivations of revenge or retribution. That a tyrant takes his leave of the world displaying dignity and courage, making us, by extension from his masked and leather-clad taunters, seem grubby and callous, is a disgraceful monument to this particular adventure.

I believe that legally authorised executions should be televised live. I have no doubt that the American people, for example, would very soon lose their appetite for the death penalty.

[Dot_the_Bot]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that legally authorised executions should be televised live. I have no doubt that the American people, for example, would very soon lose their appetite for the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think so? And Im not being antagonistic by saying that, I really wonder if public executions would be a turn off for people.

When I think about the popularity of the Salem witch trials, Professional Wrestling, Ultimate fighting Championships and "Faces of Death" volumes 1 through 20...I get frightened not only that the public may like public executions...but also by why they'd like them.

[Dot_the_Bot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. Is there more than a micro chance that the defendent is innocent?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're reluctant to execute somebody because you think they might be innocent, shouldn't you be equally reluctant to send them to prison for life?

[/ QUOTE ]

While both are a miscarriage of justice- one is irrevocable.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that there are no incidental costs incurred between trial to execution?

[/ QUOTE ]

None that are (or need to be) signficantly greater than the incidental costs for the judicial system to finally get to the point of "life without parole".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is definitely going beyond the scope of what actually started this discussion (see my post above), but I would argue that the burden of proof necessarily has to be higher than the burden of proof of life without parole. Even if we assume one is no more inhumane than the other, the latter is still possible to correct if a mistake is discovered.

[/ QUOTE ]

requiring a higher burden of proof doesnt mean it costs more to prosecute, it just means the jury will vote for the death penalty fewer times.

[citanul]

David,

I don't get this thread. I think it has a similar problem to other threads you have started.

My problem is that all your post does is make a statement, incredibly simplistic, naive, and well, unoriginal in content, about a random topic on which you are in no way expert.

I'm sure that you can't possibly be so silly as to think that your thoughts on this subject, as posted in the original post, are original, interesting, or possibly the effect you were going for is shocking?

However I also find it odd that you are completely glossing over the clear conflicts in your post that anyone with a moment to spare could find.

First and foremost, you skip two of the biggest standard issues in Law and Economics:

1) Your reasoning does not have anything in particular to do with only the one crime that you want to discuss. That is, there isn't really much reason why, with these factors as the key, one shouldn't just punish other random crimes with death that would otherwise have life in prison type penalties (or wouldn't). Proportionality be damned, offing violators certainly dissuades people from DUI, it's incredibly cheap to kill someone, so it's certainly cheaper than even a brief jail sentence, you can very reliably check if someone is DUI, etc.

2) There is nothing in the argument you present which implies that only the government should be capable of bestowing punishment. Private parties will frequently be put similar spots. Is it very easy to tell if you have a retarded or autistic kid? Is it then just and right to kill them because it would be cheaper than keeping them alive? Societal/Private burden becomes an easy point to make against this type of question.

As for conflicts in your original post, saying that "without high falootin philosphy or religion" and then jumping to (3) "Does it cost mor to keep him alive?" is pretty nuts. Someone against the death penalty would say "so?" Arbitrarily saying that money incentives existing means that "philisophical" ones don't seems silly.

Finally, I'm surprised that you believe it less silly to kill off a "sane" murderer than an "insane" one. meh.

c