4 ms·

FTA: > Maybe in the grand scheme of things, the fate of one man on death row doesn’t seem so important; I completely disagree, though the author points this ou

FTA: > Maybe in the grand scheme of things, the fate of one man on death row doesn’t seem so important; I completely disagree, though the author points this out. But while I am in the favor of the death penalty in certain cases (until we have a way to rehabilitate even the most degenerate murderers), the death of even one innocent should stop us from using it unless there is incontrovertible evidence and proof of both guilt and the inability to rehabilitate. This article points out obvious reasonable doubt, and I seriously am baffled as to why the California Democrats won't even consider it or even justify their position. Maybe there's more to the story, but this all seemed incredibly persuasive to me.

cup 8y ago
Sounds like you're in favour of something that can never be done in a fashion that you demand. So how can you be in favour of it?
- natecavanaugh 8y ago
  Having incontrovertible evidence and proof that there's no hope of rehabilitation? I think there are obvious cases where someone is beyond help, but I think it comes down to setting defined standards (some of which we have, but I think we should be more explicit on those standards and slower to execute), even though it costs the tax payers more. I have known and lived with a former hitman who was truly rehabilitated and redeemed, but I have seen cases where to me, that's so unlikely to happen that until we have some way to guarantee that they cannot hurt another, they should probably be executed. I'm not saying it's an easy problem to solve. Solitary confinement may be the only way to protect others from being killed, but then you can debate how torturous that is compared to death. And some would argue that torture is what they deserve, but I don't think that way. I guess I'm in favor of the ideal, but I'm also pragmatic enough to realize that we should aim for the goal of favoring life while we may have to make gradual steps in getting there. When I was younger I was far more staunchly of a death penalty advocate, but the older I get, the more I value life in general and the hope of redemption. Unfortunately, I think like with animals (I hate saying it this way), but currently there are times you have to put them down, either to end their suffering or the suffering of others. But like I said, this is a view I'm constantly re-evaluating, as when it comes to a person's life, I don't think we should ever take that lightly. Especially if it's baked into the legal system and administered by the government.
  - lb1lf 8y ago
    -Incontrovertible evidence has been shown to be not quite as incontrovertible as initially believed many a time. Besides, how can one really prove that someone will not change in the future? It will all come down to conjecture and guesswork. Life in prison is both cheaper (for the state, or at least that's what I seem to recall - the reason being that the death penalty involves much more judicial toing and froing, as it should!) AND offers the option to find out at a later time that the state has made a mistake. While I do not believe one can fully compensate anyone for years behind bars, at least one can release them, rather than telling the bereaved that 'Oops, we were wrong - but at least you now know he was innocent, right? Proof our legal system works? Right?' However, it would seem to this outsider (I've never been a -hm- client of the US penal system, neither am I a citizen) that the US is more focused on punishment than on rehabilitation; I believe a lot can be done about the recidivism rate by shifting the focus more towards using prison as a means to prepare the inmates for return to society, rather than simply as a means of keeping them away from the general public. (Then again, for that to really happen, the general public's attitudes would need to change, too - I live in Norway, one of the most rehabilitation-focused of countries - while our recidivism rate is among the lowest there is, there's still considerable stigma associated with being an ex-convict.)
    - natecavanaugh 8y ago
      I agree that our legal system, in fact our general culture, views justice through the eyes of punishment, and I think it's unfortunate, though even punishment should be viewed as a way to bring about correction. And the death penalty for sure is about retribution for the most part. But there are so many cases of murderers who both have killed many outside and continue to murder and assault inside, and they seemingly will continue to be a threat to society. With our current abilities, what do you propose we do to either rehabilitate or protect others from those kinds of folks? Also, justice is also about repaying a debt. But how can someone ever repay something they've stolen if what they've stolen is priceless and can't be replaced? Like it or not, some families do want that to be repaid with the killer no longer being allowed to live the rest of his life. I'm not agreeing that's right, but in any direction, there are going to be flaws. And I do think there are cases of incontrovertible evidence (I mean, do we really think Charles Manson and Richard Ramirez were coerced into confessing? They're basically proud of what they've done). But I think it's a matter of setting the bar higher for requirements. Lastly, in those cases where there is a lot of cost of going back and forth, at least some small part of that is also caused by activists who believe on ideological grounds that the state should never take a life, even if the murderer would prefer death. I'm not claiming that makes a large statistical portion of it, but to me the cost factor really is the least important aspect of the discussion when we're talking about people's lives. I do think the US would benefit from some of Norway's policies, but (and I think it was Norway where even murder didn't come with a life sentence; correct me if I'm wrong) some of them, culturally seem abhorrent to us in that it's possible to murder and steal a life, but then be able to walk around free because some bureaucrat says he's fine now. I think both systems allow for possible abuse and injustice, but it does seem to work for you guys. I'm also of the belief that while I think humans all generally share a common set of ideals and virtues, policies that work in one society may not work in another.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  Parent poster had a mildly healthy distinction between theory and practice. Unfortunately it overlooks the reality that people in power will misuse it, even if the law requires 100% certainty as proposed.
  - natecavanaugh 8y ago
    I do recognize that people in power will misuse it, but that is true of any sort of punishment or rehabilitation. Back when you could have people committed, even though that was ostensibly for rehabilitation, it could be abused for someone else to benefit. I think we all know that power of any kind, even a child's seemingly limited power over their parents can be abused to falsely claim abuse (I've actually known children who've done this) and imprison their parents or punish them. However, I think the best answer we have so far is checks and balances, not necessarily eliminating the thing itself. This side of heaven, I don't think there's a perfect solution, but I do think we should keep it as our goal to get as close as possible.
GuiA 8y ago
> I am in the favor of the death penalty in certain cases > the death of even one innocent should stop us from using it In the real world, "0% false positives" isn't really feasible.
- lb1lf 8y ago
  > In the real world, "0% false positives" isn't really feasible. -Which, IMHO, is the only argument one really needs against the death penalty. Having it basically ensures The State WILL murder innocents on occasion.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >In the real world, "0% false positives" isn't really feasible. Executing 0% of those false positives is absolutely feasible though, and all civilized countries have already adopted it for decades...
  - b6 8y ago
    I wasn't aware we'd enjoyed a split second of civilization in the entire history of the earth. Could you list the civilized countries for me?
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Those that don't legally murder their citizens, for one. It might not be the litmus test of civilization, but it would be a good start (assuming the abolition of slavery, human sacrifice, and such as already surpassed as a bar).
      - natecavanaugh 8y ago
        1. Legally murder is an oxymoron. Murder is the unlawful killing of another. Unless you believe cases of self-defense also count as murder, but the right language, pedantically speaking would be, legally kill. 2. Do you really believe there is never a justifiable reason for the state to kill a human being? I'm just curious, honestly.

cup 8y ago

Sounds like you're in favour of something that can never be done in a fashion that you demand. So how can you be in favour of it?

natecavanaugh 8y ago
Having incontrovertible evidence and proof that there's no hope of rehabilitation? I think there are obvious cases where someone is beyond help, but I think it comes down to setting defined standards (some of which we have, but I think we should be more explicit on those standards and slower to execute), even though it costs the tax payers more. I have known and lived with a former hitman who was truly rehabilitated and redeemed, but I have seen cases where to me, that's so unlikely to happen that until we have some way to guarantee that they cannot hurt another, they should probably be executed. I'm not saying it's an easy problem to solve. Solitary confinement may be the only way to protect others from being killed, but then you can debate how torturous that is compared to death. And some would argue that torture is what they deserve, but I don't think that way. I guess I'm in favor of the ideal, but I'm also pragmatic enough to realize that we should aim for the goal of favoring life while we may have to make gradual steps in getting there. When I was younger I was far more staunchly of a death penalty advocate, but the older I get, the more I value life in general and the hope of redemption. Unfortunately, I think like with animals (I hate saying it this way), but currently there are times you have to put them down, either to end their suffering or the suffering of others. But like I said, this is a view I'm constantly re-evaluating, as when it comes to a person's life, I don't think we should ever take that lightly. Especially if it's baked into the legal system and administered by the government.
- lb1lf 8y ago
  -Incontrovertible evidence has been shown to be not quite as incontrovertible as initially believed many a time. Besides, how can one really prove that someone will not change in the future? It will all come down to conjecture and guesswork. Life in prison is both cheaper (for the state, or at least that's what I seem to recall - the reason being that the death penalty involves much more judicial toing and froing, as it should!) AND offers the option to find out at a later time that the state has made a mistake. While I do not believe one can fully compensate anyone for years behind bars, at least one can release them, rather than telling the bereaved that 'Oops, we were wrong - but at least you now know he was innocent, right? Proof our legal system works? Right?' However, it would seem to this outsider (I've never been a -hm- client of the US penal system, neither am I a citizen) that the US is more focused on punishment than on rehabilitation; I believe a lot can be done about the recidivism rate by shifting the focus more towards using prison as a means to prepare the inmates for return to society, rather than simply as a means of keeping them away from the general public. (Then again, for that to really happen, the general public's attitudes would need to change, too - I live in Norway, one of the most rehabilitation-focused of countries - while our recidivism rate is among the lowest there is, there's still considerable stigma associated with being an ex-convict.)
  - natecavanaugh 8y ago
    I agree that our legal system, in fact our general culture, views justice through the eyes of punishment, and I think it's unfortunate, though even punishment should be viewed as a way to bring about correction. And the death penalty for sure is about retribution for the most part. But there are so many cases of murderers who both have killed many outside and continue to murder and assault inside, and they seemingly will continue to be a threat to society. With our current abilities, what do you propose we do to either rehabilitate or protect others from those kinds of folks? Also, justice is also about repaying a debt. But how can someone ever repay something they've stolen if what they've stolen is priceless and can't be replaced? Like it or not, some families do want that to be repaid with the killer no longer being allowed to live the rest of his life. I'm not agreeing that's right, but in any direction, there are going to be flaws. And I do think there are cases of incontrovertible evidence (I mean, do we really think Charles Manson and Richard Ramirez were coerced into confessing? They're basically proud of what they've done). But I think it's a matter of setting the bar higher for requirements. Lastly, in those cases where there is a lot of cost of going back and forth, at least some small part of that is also caused by activists who believe on ideological grounds that the state should never take a life, even if the murderer would prefer death. I'm not claiming that makes a large statistical portion of it, but to me the cost factor really is the least important aspect of the discussion when we're talking about people's lives. I do think the US would benefit from some of Norway's policies, but (and I think it was Norway where even murder didn't come with a life sentence; correct me if I'm wrong) some of them, culturally seem abhorrent to us in that it's possible to murder and steal a life, but then be able to walk around free because some bureaucrat says he's fine now. I think both systems allow for possible abuse and injustice, but it does seem to work for you guys. I'm also of the belief that while I think humans all generally share a common set of ideals and virtues, policies that work in one society may not work in another.
fjsolwmv 8y ago
Parent poster had a mildly healthy distinction between theory and practice. Unfortunately it overlooks the reality that people in power will misuse it, even if the law requires 100% certainty as proposed.
- natecavanaugh 8y ago
  I do recognize that people in power will misuse it, but that is true of any sort of punishment or rehabilitation. Back when you could have people committed, even though that was ostensibly for rehabilitation, it could be abused for someone else to benefit. I think we all know that power of any kind, even a child's seemingly limited power over their parents can be abused to falsely claim abuse (I've actually known children who've done this) and imprison their parents or punish them. However, I think the best answer we have so far is checks and balances, not necessarily eliminating the thing itself. This side of heaven, I don't think there's a perfect solution, but I do think we should keep it as our goal to get as close as possible.

GuiA 8y ago

> I am in the favor of the death penalty in certain cases > the death of even one innocent should stop us from using it In the real world, "0% false positives" isn't really feasible.

lb1lf 8y ago
> In the real world, "0% false positives" isn't really feasible. -Which, IMHO, is the only argument one really needs against the death penalty. Having it basically ensures The State WILL murder innocents on occasion.
coldtea 8y ago
>In the real world, "0% false positives" isn't really feasible. Executing 0% of those false positives is absolutely feasible though, and all civilized countries have already adopted it for decades...
- b6 8y ago
  I wasn't aware we'd enjoyed a split second of civilization in the entire history of the earth. Could you list the civilized countries for me?
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Those that don't legally murder their citizens, for one. It might not be the litmus test of civilization, but it would be a good start (assuming the abolition of slavery, human sacrifice, and such as already surpassed as a bar).
    - natecavanaugh 8y ago
      1. Legally murder is an oxymoron. Murder is the unlawful killing of another. Unless you believe cases of self-defense also count as murder, but the right language, pedantically speaking would be, legally kill. 2. Do you really believe there is never a justifiable reason for the state to kill a human being? I'm just curious, honestly.