3 ms·

I don't think this really iimplicates the death penalty specifically. Those 4% would still spend their lives in prison, and prison is a terrible place to be. I

I don't think this really iimplicates the death penalty specifically. Those 4% would still spend their lives in prison, and prison is a terrible place to be. I think the argument he's making is a good one, specifically for changing the way things are done with regard to prosecutions. Punishing innocent people is unjust, regardless what the punishment is. First and foremost, I think prosecutors who can be definitively proven to have lied or withheld evidence to get a conviction should be handed the same sentence they attempted to get in the prosecution. Same goes for police, investigators and non-coerced witnesses. This would eliminate a good degree of the perverse incentive in the system, death penalty or no. Beyond that, I think we have too much faith in forensics and expert witnesses. I believe in the death penalty, and generally speaking corporal punishment. But I don't believe in using the death penalty as punishment, only as a way to remove otherwise uncorrectable violent people from society. So I'd support rules that only allow it on a second or later offense. But I do believe it should apply potentially to all haenous violent crimes, including rape, unlawful detention, armed robbery and the like, given repeated violations by the same individual. I also happen to believe that prison is barbaric and should be abolished.

colonCapitalDee 4y ago
> Those 4% would still spend their lives in prison, and prison is a terrible place to be. You're missing the point. If someone is incarcerated and later found to be innocent, they can be released. If someone is executed and later found to be innocent, nothing can be done.
- clcaev 4y ago
  nothing brings back their lost years, family, health, or occupation
- notch898c 4y ago
  Don't death row inmates get the most exhaustive appeals process of practically any class of prisoners? Honestly if I were innocent I think I'd prefer to be on death row which has the most costly (to the state) and exhaustive of all the appeals processes. This change could counterintuitively condemn more innocent people.
chmod775 4y ago
> I don't think this really iimplicates the death penalty specifically. Those 4% would still spend their lives in prison, and prison is a terrible place to be. You can set a prisoner free and try to compensate them for being wrongfully imprisoned. You can't un-kill someone.
tshaddox 4y ago
Yeah, the whole “death is the only irreversible punishment” is pretty weak. 60 years in prison starting at age 18 is pretty darn irreversible too.
OkayPhysicist 4y ago
Yeah, what I always try to bring up when people point out the possibility of executing innocent people is that the people on death row get the best shot at proving their innocence that society is willing to give them. No one else in prison gets more legal representation made available to them, both from the state and various non-profit groups. If somebody can't get off death row, it's not a matter of could, it's that they would have spent the rest of their life behind bars. So while, yes, convicting innocent people of crimes is evil, and absolutely must be avoided at all cost, it's not really a compelling argument against the death penalty, unless you have a really sunshine-and-roses view on rotting in a jail cell. My personal view is that the death penalty should mostly be reserved for cases where the question of a trial isn't so much "did this person commit this act" as much as it is "did the act this person commit constitute a capital offense". War criminals are the quintessential example. It's public knowledge that the suspect was in charge of a group of soldiers, and those soldiers took certain actions. The war crime tribunal isn't trying to figure out if you did it, they're trying to figure out if they should kill you for it.
- calvinmorrison 4y ago
  Why can't we just admit we don't need any war tribunal? We won we get to kill your King and anyone else we like. Right by conquest.

colonCapitalDee 4y ago

> Those 4% would still spend their lives in prison, and prison is a terrible place to be. You're missing the point. If someone is incarcerated and later found to be innocent, they can be released. If someone is executed and later found to be innocent, nothing can be done.

clcaev 4y ago
nothing brings back their lost years, family, health, or occupation
notch898c 4y ago
Don't death row inmates get the most exhaustive appeals process of practically any class of prisoners? Honestly if I were innocent I think I'd prefer to be on death row which has the most costly (to the state) and exhaustive of all the appeals processes. This change could counterintuitively condemn more innocent people.

chmod775 4y ago

> I don't think this really iimplicates the death penalty specifically. Those 4% would still spend their lives in prison, and prison is a terrible place to be. You can set a prisoner free and try to compensate them for being wrongfully imprisoned. You can't un-kill someone.

tshaddox 4y ago

Yeah, the whole “death is the only irreversible punishment” is pretty weak. 60 years in prison starting at age 18 is pretty darn irreversible too.

OkayPhysicist 4y ago

Yeah, what I always try to bring up when people point out the possibility of executing innocent people is that the people on death row get the best shot at proving their innocence that society is willing to give them. No one else in prison gets more legal representation made available to them, both from the state and various non-profit groups. If somebody can't get off death row, it's not a matter of could, it's that they would have spent the rest of their life behind bars. So while, yes, convicting innocent people of crimes is evil, and absolutely must be avoided at all cost, it's not really a compelling argument against the death penalty, unless you have a really sunshine-and-roses view on rotting in a jail cell. My personal view is that the death penalty should mostly be reserved for cases where the question of a trial isn't so much "did this person commit this act" as much as it is "did the act this person commit constitute a capital offense". War criminals are the quintessential example. It's public knowledge that the suspect was in charge of a group of soldiers, and those soldiers took certain actions. The war crime tribunal isn't trying to figure out if you did it, they're trying to figure out if they should kill you for it.

calvinmorrison 4y ago
Why can't we just admit we don't need any war tribunal? We won we get to kill your King and anyone else we like. Right by conquest.