5 ms·

I suppose the assumption you make is that the death penalty is meant as a deterrent. My world-view is that the death penalty is a form of punishment for seriou

I suppose the assumption you make is that the death penalty is meant as a deterrent. My world-view is that the death penalty is a form of punishment for serious crime. It is not meant as a deterrent, not meant as some "lesson" for others. And I, personally, see no problem with it as a form of penalty to be payed by some. (I also reject Blackstone's formulation)

DonaldFisk 10y ago
Regardless of whether it's a deterrent, there have been people sentenced to life imprisonment in the UK who were later shown not to have committed the murders they were sentenced for. Those people would have been hanged if we'd kept the death penalty. I presume there are also miscarriages of justice in the USA.
rimantas 10y ago
If you see no problem, how do you propose to revive those killed because trial went wrong and an innocent man was sentenced?
- gedy 10y ago
  The vast majority of trials are absolutely fair and this "what if?" argument is thrown up too often as an emotional argument, even in the cases of truly cruel and heinous crimes. I've been on a murder jury, and if anything the system is biased towards not convicting (as it should be).
  - denzil_correa 10y ago
    > this "what if?" argument is thrown up too often as an emotional argument The reason it is thrown up is because it does happen.
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    > The vast majority of trials You skirt the question. It said "those killed because trial went wrong and an innocent man was sentenced". So it asked exactly about those that you exclude.
    - laichzeit0 10y ago
      >If you see no problem, how do you propose to revive those killed because trial went wrong and an innocent man was sentenced? I don't. They are dead. They got unlucky. I reject the idea that we can't have capital punishment because sometimes the outcome of a trial is wrong. If you think this is a real problem then quantify it. Put down exactly what the percentage is (i.e. out of every X trials how many "go wrong" as you say). Then we can talk about a feasible upper bound. To say "If the percentage of people wrongly convicted is > 0% then we can never have a death penalty" is too idealistic. If it's 10% then it's obviously too high. Now we have a lower bound and an upper bound and can have a debate about what is an acceptable number of innocents dying. (again, 0 is infeasible). > One person is one person too many! This is the Blackstone principle. As I have said in the first post, I reject this. We both seem to disagree on a "first principle".
      - Noseshine 10y ago
        > Put down exactly what the percentage is. That statement makes no sense at all! There have been proven cases (headlines about people freed from death row more than once in the last few years; and no, that's not a sign that "the system works", quite the opposite), so there is no question that they exist. Asking the obviously impossible and completely unconnected question "how many exactly" makes no sense, what would that achieve, even if it were possible? One person is one person too many! I am all for weighing risk or cost vs. benefit, but what would be the benefit of killing people, apart from "revenge feeling"? Also paart from costs, because the death penalty AFAIK is very costly to the US taxpayer and I've read actually more expensive than life in prison. So zero benefit against killing even one innocent person. I'm not even someone who is dead set against killing.
      - vidarh 10y ago
        > To say "If the percentage of people wrongly convicted is > 0% then we can never have a death penalty" is too idealistic. Is it? It is exactly the view I hold. I propose that if you are willing to accept a higher rate, then on each conviction let us make it equally likely that the jury and prosecutor gets executed instead. 5% chance of killing an innocent? Only fair that the prosecutor and jury faces the same odds. Let's see how many are willing to take that risk if their own life is on the line.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deelowe 10y ago
Amnesty international has done a good bit of research into this and found numerous cases of innocent people being convicted and executed. Why would you not research this before taking such a strong stance in favor of taking another's life? This is one of the things everyone should research before picking a side.
- barry-cotter 10y ago
  The best argument I've ever read for the death penalty relied on this. People care about saving people from being killed by the state, they care much, much less about them having their lives totally destroyed by it. The resources devoted to exonerating people facing the death penalty dwarf those spent on helping people sentenced to life, or some lesser sentence that still destroys your life, like a ten year prison sentence.
bmh_ca 10y ago
> I suppose the assumption you make is that the death penalty is meant as a deterrent. Yes, but the assumption is not mine. It is an axiom of our criminal legal-justice system, namely: punishment deters future crimes. > My world-view is that the death penalty is a form of punishment for serious crime. It is not meant as a deterrent, not meant as some "lesson" for others. And I, personally, see no problem with it as a form of penalty to be payed by some. (I also reject Blackstone's formulation) Punishment without social purpose is sadism. I suspect I misunderstand your position. The answers to the following may help me understand. If you are advocating for punishment without a useful social purpose (like deterring future crimes): 1. Why limit the death penalty to serious crimes? 2. Why punish at all, if it achieves nothing? 3. What do you think the death penalty should achieve? It's just a thought exercise – no real need to reply.

DonaldFisk 10y ago

Regardless of whether it's a deterrent, there have been people sentenced to life imprisonment in the UK who were later shown not to have committed the murders they were sentenced for. Those people would have been hanged if we'd kept the death penalty. I presume there are also miscarriages of justice in the USA.

rimantas 10y ago

If you see no problem, how do you propose to revive those killed because trial went wrong and an innocent man was sentenced?

gedy 10y ago
The vast majority of trials are absolutely fair and this "what if?" argument is thrown up too often as an emotional argument, even in the cases of truly cruel and heinous crimes. I've been on a murder jury, and if anything the system is biased towards not convicting (as it should be).
- denzil_correa 10y ago
  > this "what if?" argument is thrown up too often as an emotional argument The reason it is thrown up is because it does happen.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  > The vast majority of trials You skirt the question. It said "those killed because trial went wrong and an innocent man was sentenced". So it asked exactly about those that you exclude.
  - laichzeit0 10y ago
    >If you see no problem, how do you propose to revive those killed because trial went wrong and an innocent man was sentenced? I don't. They are dead. They got unlucky. I reject the idea that we can't have capital punishment because sometimes the outcome of a trial is wrong. If you think this is a real problem then quantify it. Put down exactly what the percentage is (i.e. out of every X trials how many "go wrong" as you say). Then we can talk about a feasible upper bound. To say "If the percentage of people wrongly convicted is > 0% then we can never have a death penalty" is too idealistic. If it's 10% then it's obviously too high. Now we have a lower bound and an upper bound and can have a debate about what is an acceptable number of innocents dying. (again, 0 is infeasible). > One person is one person too many! This is the Blackstone principle. As I have said in the first post, I reject this. We both seem to disagree on a "first principle".
    - Noseshine 10y ago
      > Put down exactly what the percentage is. That statement makes no sense at all! There have been proven cases (headlines about people freed from death row more than once in the last few years; and no, that's not a sign that "the system works", quite the opposite), so there is no question that they exist. Asking the obviously impossible and completely unconnected question "how many exactly" makes no sense, what would that achieve, even if it were possible? One person is one person too many! I am all for weighing risk or cost vs. benefit, but what would be the benefit of killing people, apart from "revenge feeling"? Also paart from costs, because the death penalty AFAIK is very costly to the US taxpayer and I've read actually more expensive than life in prison. So zero benefit against killing even one innocent person. I'm not even someone who is dead set against killing.
    - vidarh 10y ago
      > To say "If the percentage of people wrongly convicted is > 0% then we can never have a death penalty" is too idealistic. Is it? It is exactly the view I hold. I propose that if you are willing to accept a higher rate, then on each conviction let us make it equally likely that the jury and prosecutor gets executed instead. 5% chance of killing an innocent? Only fair that the prosecutor and jury faces the same odds. Let's see how many are willing to take that risk if their own life is on the line.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deelowe 10y ago

Amnesty international has done a good bit of research into this and found numerous cases of innocent people being convicted and executed. Why would you not research this before taking such a strong stance in favor of taking another's life? This is one of the things everyone should research before picking a side.

barry-cotter 10y ago
The best argument I've ever read for the death penalty relied on this. People care about saving people from being killed by the state, they care much, much less about them having their lives totally destroyed by it. The resources devoted to exonerating people facing the death penalty dwarf those spent on helping people sentenced to life, or some lesser sentence that still destroys your life, like a ten year prison sentence.

bmh_ca 10y ago

> I suppose the assumption you make is that the death penalty is meant as a deterrent. Yes, but the assumption is not mine. It is an axiom of our criminal legal-justice system, namely: punishment deters future crimes. > My world-view is that the death penalty is a form of punishment for serious crime. It is not meant as a deterrent, not meant as some "lesson" for others. And I, personally, see no problem with it as a form of penalty to be payed by some. (I also reject Blackstone's formulation) Punishment without social purpose is sadism. I suspect I misunderstand your position. The answers to the following may help me understand. If you are advocating for punishment without a useful social purpose (like deterring future crimes): 1. Why limit the death penalty to serious crimes? 2. Why punish at all, if it achieves nothing? 3. What do you think the death penalty should achieve? It's just a thought exercise – no real need to reply.