6 ms·

If we aren't going to abolish the death penalty, we should at least require a higher standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt to carry it out. It should

If we aren't going to abolish the death penalty, we should at least require a higher standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt to carry it out. It should require incontrovertible proof. Circumstantial evidence should not be allowed. Expert testimony should be barred. The evidence must be conclusive, plain, and certain to every member of the jury. This would allow you to execute, e.g., mass shooters who give themselves up, but make it extremely unlikely to irreversibly kill someone on the basis of junk science, induced or extorted testimony, or other fallible evidence.

ajross 2y ago
I think most people would agree with that stuff in isolation, but reasonable solutions aren't really addressing the problem. Support for the Death Penalty is a political shibboleth in the modern US. It's not going to change, realistically ever, absent a major demographic realignment in the way we sort our citizens into parties. Preaching to a choir of geeks looking for "solutions" is the wrong target.
- chris_wot 2y ago
  IMO, the only solution is to abolish it.
- Trill-I-Am 2y ago
  Plenty of states have banned it in the past 50 years. It's on the decline.
  - gibbetsandcrows 2y ago
    And some states while not having banned it outright have made it effectively impossible to carry out. Oregon IIRC had their execution chamber and death row dismantled when their last governor left office. Execution is still on the books though.
koenigdavidmj 2y ago
We don’t use the word reasonable anymore the way it was written originally, and the actual meaning is what you’re asking for, except for every conviction, not just capital ones. It doesn’t mean “a small but tolerable level of doubt”. It means doubt backed by reason. “Aliens made me do it” is doubt that is not backed by reason. “There is another plausible way that conforms to the evidence given that he came to possess that laptop” is reasonable doubt.
qingcharles 2y ago
There's almost never incontrovertible proof in a criminal trial. Even if the suspect is on camera confessing. The sheer number of people who confessed to crimes and were then found innocent through DNA evidence is perturbing.
- brewdad 2y ago
  Maybe that’s a clue that we should almost never be using the death penalty.
  - qingcharles 2y ago
    100%. I've seen so many wrongful convictions. A lot of those, the person wasn't necessarily innocent, but the trial process was so faulty that they did not receive the due process they were owed. The primary responsibility of a defense attorney isn't what a guilty defendant wants (to get off the charges), but it is to ensure that their client receives an absolutely fair trial with all the fairly-obtained evidence fairly presented.
- lm28469 2y ago
  > There's almost never incontrovertible proof in a criminal trial Having watched a few FBI interrogations and other true crime related videos there certainly are such proofs. I have a few of these come to mind, like the dude who killed his ex, took the house surveillance cameras down after the facts but didn't know they were backed up on servers, he was caught with the cameras in his truck shortly after. Most of these publicly known cases have a ridiculously long trail of proofs actually I'm not saying mistakes don't happen, they obviously do, but in many cases it's extremely easy to prove if someone's guilty or not. > Even if the suspect is on camera confessing. That's not enough in most countries
  - coryfklein 2y ago
    I wonder how one would encode such a level of burden of truth into the legal system such that the "really incontrovertible" cases are distinguishable from the "not really incontrovertible" ones.
edanm 2y ago
> It should require incontrovertible proof. There's really no such thing. Instead, there is a very high burden of proof, there's a lot of protections built into the process, and, most important, it's an adversarial process in which one side is standing up for the defendant. If the evidence isn't good enough, the defendant's lawyer can and must show that to the jury, with them making the final decision on who is right.
- ossyrial 2y ago
  > There's really no such thing. Which, in my opinion, is a fantastic argument against the death penalty. "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf
  - edanm 2y ago
    I completely agree. One of several reasons I'm against the death penalty. Then again, it's not like I'm super happy about someone being in prison for their whole life, if they're innocent. But practically speaking, there needs to be some way to incarcerate people.
  - Aaronstotle 2y ago
    I am currently of the belief that the death penalty should be reserved for the most extreme of the most extreme circumstances. The Boston Bomber & The Park School Shooter are two prime examples. There is a very high burden of proof for both of them and to my knowledge, no doubts as to their guilt. I personally find it morally reprehensible individuals like themselves are still gifted with life after the lives they ruined. Maybe this is a mindset I will grow out of as I grow older.
  - noworriesnate 2y ago
    I once met a man who told me he had killed his neighbor once. Here's the story: His neighbor was a kleptomaniac. He constantly broke in and stole stuff from the man I was talking to. The man I was talking to constantly reported it to the police, who said they could do nothing unless the man broke in. The man I was talking to eventually caught the thief breaking in, at which point he held him at gunpoint until the police came and arrested the thief. The man served his time in prison, eventually got out and went right back to his thieving ways. The man I was talking to waited until the guy broke in, then shot him to death. Problem solved, but what a stupid and roundabout way of solving it.

ajross 2y ago

I think most people would agree with that stuff in isolation, but reasonable solutions aren't really addressing the problem. Support for the Death Penalty is a political shibboleth in the modern US. It's not going to change, realistically ever, absent a major demographic realignment in the way we sort our citizens into parties. Preaching to a choir of geeks looking for "solutions" is the wrong target.

chris_wot 2y ago
IMO, the only solution is to abolish it.
Trill-I-Am 2y ago
Plenty of states have banned it in the past 50 years. It's on the decline.
- gibbetsandcrows 2y ago
  And some states while not having banned it outright have made it effectively impossible to carry out. Oregon IIRC had their execution chamber and death row dismantled when their last governor left office. Execution is still on the books though.

koenigdavidmj 2y ago

We don’t use the word reasonable anymore the way it was written originally, and the actual meaning is what you’re asking for, except for every conviction, not just capital ones. It doesn’t mean “a small but tolerable level of doubt”. It means doubt backed by reason. “Aliens made me do it” is doubt that is not backed by reason. “There is another plausible way that conforms to the evidence given that he came to possess that laptop” is reasonable doubt.

qingcharles 2y ago

There's almost never incontrovertible proof in a criminal trial. Even if the suspect is on camera confessing. The sheer number of people who confessed to crimes and were then found innocent through DNA evidence is perturbing.

brewdad 2y ago
Maybe that’s a clue that we should almost never be using the death penalty.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  100%. I've seen so many wrongful convictions. A lot of those, the person wasn't necessarily innocent, but the trial process was so faulty that they did not receive the due process they were owed. The primary responsibility of a defense attorney isn't what a guilty defendant wants (to get off the charges), but it is to ensure that their client receives an absolutely fair trial with all the fairly-obtained evidence fairly presented.
lm28469 2y ago
> There's almost never incontrovertible proof in a criminal trial Having watched a few FBI interrogations and other true crime related videos there certainly are such proofs. I have a few of these come to mind, like the dude who killed his ex, took the house surveillance cameras down after the facts but didn't know they were backed up on servers, he was caught with the cameras in his truck shortly after. Most of these publicly known cases have a ridiculously long trail of proofs actually I'm not saying mistakes don't happen, they obviously do, but in many cases it's extremely easy to prove if someone's guilty or not. > Even if the suspect is on camera confessing. That's not enough in most countries
- coryfklein 2y ago
  I wonder how one would encode such a level of burden of truth into the legal system such that the "really incontrovertible" cases are distinguishable from the "not really incontrovertible" ones.

edanm 2y ago

> It should require incontrovertible proof. There's really no such thing. Instead, there is a very high burden of proof, there's a lot of protections built into the process, and, most important, it's an adversarial process in which one side is standing up for the defendant. If the evidence isn't good enough, the defendant's lawyer can and must show that to the jury, with them making the final decision on who is right.

ossyrial 2y ago
> There's really no such thing. Which, in my opinion, is a fantastic argument against the death penalty. "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf
- edanm 2y ago
  I completely agree. One of several reasons I'm against the death penalty. Then again, it's not like I'm super happy about someone being in prison for their whole life, if they're innocent. But practically speaking, there needs to be some way to incarcerate people.
- Aaronstotle 2y ago
  I am currently of the belief that the death penalty should be reserved for the most extreme of the most extreme circumstances. The Boston Bomber & The Park School Shooter are two prime examples. There is a very high burden of proof for both of them and to my knowledge, no doubts as to their guilt. I personally find it morally reprehensible individuals like themselves are still gifted with life after the lives they ruined. Maybe this is a mindset I will grow out of as I grow older.
- noworriesnate 2y ago
  I once met a man who told me he had killed his neighbor once. Here's the story: His neighbor was a kleptomaniac. He constantly broke in and stole stuff from the man I was talking to. The man I was talking to constantly reported it to the police, who said they could do nothing unless the man broke in. The man I was talking to eventually caught the thief breaking in, at which point he held him at gunpoint until the police came and arrested the thief. The man served his time in prison, eventually got out and went right back to his thieving ways. The man I was talking to waited until the guy broke in, then shot him to death. Problem solved, but what a stupid and roundabout way of solving it.