4 ms·

I'm in favor of the death penalty, though not rabidly so. I do think we should strongly scrutinize how these verdicts are arrived at. In trying to research whet

I'm in favor of the death penalty, though not rabidly so. I do think we should strongly scrutinize how these verdicts are arrived at. In trying to research whether they are fair, I've found people arguing statistics both ways. I don't think I agree with your statement, however. It IS terrible to execute an innocent person. However, you're assuming that bad outweighs whatever good may be done by executing the guilty. Whether there IS any good done is arguable, but until you determine that, you're saying "Pros - Cons < 0" without knowing the value of the pros. The fact that prisoners maintain their innocence is really not surprising. I think this is a basic fact about human nature: we are frequently dishonest, especially when trying to maintain a positive view of ourselves. This quote from "How To Win Friends and Influence People" gives a striking example to make that point: <quote> When Crowley was captured, Police Commissioner E. P. Mulrooney declared that the two-gun desperado was one of the most dangerous criminals ever encountered in the history of New York. "He will kill," said the Commissioner, "at the drop of a feather." But how did "Two Gun" Crowley regard himself? We know, because while the police were firing into his apartment, he wrote a letter addressed "To whom it may concern." And, as he wrote, the blood flowing from his wounds left a crimson trail on the paper. In his letter Crowley said: "Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one -- one that would do nobody any harm." A short time before this, Crowley had been having a necking party with his girl friend on a country road out on Long Island. Suddenly a policeman walked up to the car and said: "Let me see your license." Without saying a word, Crowley drew his gun and cut the policeman down with a shower of lead. As the dying officer fell, Crowley leaped out of the car, grabbed the officer's revolver, and fired another bullet into the prostrate body. And that was the killer who said: "Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one -- one that would do nobody any harm." </quote>

exit 15y ago
> Whether there IS any good done is arguable, but until you determine that, you're saying "Pros - Cons < 0" without knowing the value of the pros. whereas you don't know the cons, and you continue to kill innocent people.
za 15y ago
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-troy-davis http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-troy-davis I think your point on human nature applies equally to those executing a justice system. Capital punishment shows arrogance.
- billybob 15y ago
  Yes, judges and juries are also flawed humans. But by that logic, executing a justice system at all shows arrogance. If you have convictions, try as you might, you will have some false convictions. Imagine you have convicted someone of multiple cold-blooded murders and believe they would murder again. You realize that it's possible the conviction was in error, but you've done your best to investigate, present and argue the evidence, and the jury was unanimous. What now? Imagine you keep this person in jail for 70 years until their death. Was that kinder than executing them? Is it worse to die, or to live every day in captivity for 70 years? Yes, you retained the ability to reverse the conviction while they were alive, but that ability has an expiration date. Once they're dead, you have given them a life of suffering instead of death. Even if you reverse the conviction during their life, you may have deprived them of decades of free life. You can't give that back. This issue is tricky. I can respect opinions on both sides. And I don't think it helps to say "my opponents in this debate are arrogant."
  - za 15y ago
    My bad.

exit 15y ago

> Whether there IS any good done is arguable, but until you determine that, you're saying "Pros - Cons < 0" without knowing the value of the pros. whereas you don't know the cons, and you continue to kill innocent people.

za 15y ago

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-troy-davis http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-troy-davis I think your point on human nature applies equally to those executing a justice system. Capital punishment shows arrogance.

billybob 15y ago
Yes, judges and juries are also flawed humans. But by that logic, executing a justice system at all shows arrogance. If you have convictions, try as you might, you will have some false convictions. Imagine you have convicted someone of multiple cold-blooded murders and believe they would murder again. You realize that it's possible the conviction was in error, but you've done your best to investigate, present and argue the evidence, and the jury was unanimous. What now? Imagine you keep this person in jail for 70 years until their death. Was that kinder than executing them? Is it worse to die, or to live every day in captivity for 70 years? Yes, you retained the ability to reverse the conviction while they were alive, but that ability has an expiration date. Once they're dead, you have given them a life of suffering instead of death. Even if you reverse the conviction during their life, you may have deprived them of decades of free life. You can't give that back. This issue is tricky. I can respect opinions on both sides. And I don't think it helps to say "my opponents in this debate are arrogant."
- za 15y ago
  My bad.