Death Penalty and innocent people executed, what is your negligible / allowable number per year

[Lucky... 0]

Capital Punishment, a phenomenon that most civilized, industrialized countries have abandoned in the 1970's-1980's, has picked up speed in the US since the reinstatement in 1976 with Gregg V Georgia.

Why did the world weigh the cost of killing prisoners in the 70's-80's? I think the world underwent a conscience reform of a sort. I think the world awoke to gross civil unfairness as many racial atrocities were being abolished. Hell, in the US, it was a crime in 16 states in 1968 for a white woman to marry other than a white male. We had just come out of Brown v Board of Education where predominantly minority schools finally got some fiscal equity. There were so many civil revolutions occurring that it only seemed fair and timely that the art of the state killing people would come under fire.

So the US weighed it out and supposedly fixed it during their 4-year moratorium and commuted all death sentences to life. Since then we have executed over 1,000 people and the question of errors and humanity are now resurfacing. Recently the SCOTUS reviewed a case on the pain of the lethal injection and possible errors. There was a moratorium on executions for several months, now the killing machine has wound back up again.

So the battle goes on; continue killing or not.

The issues on each side go like this:

* Pro DP

- Save money not imprisoning them for 15 years
- Ensure they don't do it again, in or out of prison
- Revenge (Biblical or otherwise)
- Deserve it
- Create deterrence (general)

* Anti DP

- Inhumane
- Does society no real value
- Likely chance of eventual error
- Costs too much
- Depraves society as children watch the state kill people


Perhaps there are other reasons from either side, feel free to list them. As well, there are circular arguments such as from the pro side, abbreviate the process, but then you run a greater risk of killing an innocent person. Also, require a greater standard of proof, but we all know that when a person attends college for 7-10 years to learn how to skew the truth, this is also likely to lead to more deaths of innocent people.

So the question I have posted is not sarcasm or asked for semantic or shock value, not a rhetorical question either. I am asking legitimately; if the government came forward and claimed that there were most likely innocent people executed since Gregg v Georgia in 1976, but certainly before that, but that it was a necessary evil and they wanted to keep the innocent deaths low, what would your tolerance number be?

I think a great point from my side, the anti-DP side, is that deterrence has never been evidenced to reduce crime.

A great example of a blood-thirsty state that spent 4 million dollars to get nothing is with the Terry Nichols case. The feds had him forever, yet Oklahoma wanted to execute him, so they spent 4M on a trial that ended in more life sentences. Just think what 4M could have done for a poor state like Oklahoma; books for kids, a new school somewhere, new school buses, but no, blood-curdling revenge replaced all that.

What really cracks me up in regard to pro-DP guys is that they are willing go along with a standard of proof that allows for a, "maybe" to be convicted, that is obvious by the >200 overturned capital cases since Gregg, but to convince them that it is likely that innocent people have been executed and unlikely that there have been no innocent people executed is beyond their comprehension. Come on kids, convictions are often nothing more than wild-ass guesses, appeals mundane procedure and executions killing of a person based upon a signature; there isn't that much thought given to the whole process and you want a person's life to hinge on that?

Bottom line kids, if we execute we will execute the guilty along with the innocent; civilized countries have figured that out.

BTW, just 2 years ago we were executing people for capital crimes committed as 16 and 17 year olds, a custom practiced by only 7 or 8 countries in the world at that time.

Edited to add: That many of these people who are executed really need to be, just that the cost of killing an inocent person, ever, is not worth it.

[lawrocket 3]

Here's my take.

From a philosophical standpoint I am in favor of the death penalty. Recall that the penal system is just that - PENAL.

Furthermore, no just society treats all crimes the same. The punishments are differentiated by the seriousness of the crime.

There is but one crime that is the worst - premeditated murder. That is the worst. And there are even some forms of murder that are worse than others.

Thus, for the death penalty, I would propose a change. As it is now there are way too many crimes punishable by death in the US. Felony murder, for example. Accessory.

The accessory to a murder is not the triggerman. The triggerman is the worst of the worst. Save the death penalty for the triggerman, not the accessory.

If we lessened the numbeer of crimes punishable by death, the chances of innocents are greatly diminished.

Death to McVeigh. Not to Nichols.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TheAnvil 0]

Interesting. I think the death penalty is used a bit often myself, but have no issue with it philosophically either.

Even with a narrower scope, I think judges and prosecutors,as gov't employees, need to take a REALLY close look at costs when they think about the death penalty. If it costs less to keep the bastard alive, then why go for it? WE'RE BROKE!

In some cases, like the recent scumbag who raped the Pena girl and confessed remorselessly, good riddance/burn in hell. THe world is a better place with him out of it.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Nigel 0]

I'm in totally in favor of the death penalty, but only for really serious crimes, such as:
Dropping litter ( my preference would be summary execution on the spot, with relatives being sent the bill for clean up).
Allowing your dog to crap on the sidewalk (same, but shoot the pooch first).
Seriously...I don't believe DP has any place in a civilized society, no matter how awful the crime. We think the Iranians are depraved for stoning adulterers, hanging gays etc and then we execute the mentally ill, the underaged - oh and the plain innocent! Time to grow up.....

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Here's my take.

From a philosophical standpoint I am in favor of the death penalty. Recall that the penal system is just that - PENAL.

Furthermore, no just society treats all crimes the same. The punishments are differentiated by the seriousness of the crime.

There is but one crime that is the worst - premeditated murder. That is the worst. And there are even some forms of murder that are worse than others.

Thus, for the death penalty, I would propose a change. As it is now there are way too many crimes punishable by death in the US. Felony murder, for example. Accessory.

The accessory to a murder is not the triggerman. The triggerman is the worst of the worst. Save the death penalty for the triggerman, not the accessory.

If we lessened the numbeer of crimes punishable by death, the chances of innocents are greatly diminished.

Death to McVeigh. Not to Nichols.

Agree 100%

I think that there are simply things that you can do for which you lose the right to remain alive. Depriving another person of that right in a premeditated fashion is such a thing.

[Nigel 0]

Is 'premeditated murder' really the worst crime? If A plans to abduct/murder little girl B, I agree.

But what if A witnesses a gangland crime, and the perp subsequently sets out (and lets it be known he is) to kill A. Isn't A entitled to take out bad guy pre-emptively, in self-defense? I think he is...which would be pre-meditated.

And isn't judicial execution premeditated...?

[birdlike 0]

I'll start right off by saying that I did not answer the poll. I find it to be completely flawed in its basic premise.

I support the death penalty but I don't do so by "agreeing" to a certain number of innocent people executed. I support it because I believe it is the right thing to do--to end the life of the kind of depraved being who would immorally and illegally end the life of another.

I think that the more of the rotten people that society removes from its midst--permanently removes, so as to be able to totally forget about them and put their existences behind us--the better. (That takes care of any argument for keeping them in a cell for life, as far as I'm concerned.)

Quote

Capital Punishment, a phenomenon that most civilized, industrialized countries have abandoned in the 1970's-1980's, has picked up speed in the US since the reinstatement in 1976 with Gregg V Georgia.

Right off the bat, you bias your post with an appeal to authority. "Civilized" by whose standards? Are you prepared to name a list of countries that you tar with the epithet "uncivilized"? Does being an "uncivilized" country mean that it is filled with lesser humans? Oh, I guess that it's the so-called "civilized" countries themselves that get to determine what the definition of "civilized" even is, and then proudly emblazon that appelation upon themselves.

Quote

Why did the world weigh the cost of killing prisoners in the 70's-80's? I think the world underwent a conscience reform of a sort.

If you think that the world's conscience has reformed itself, you've got another think coming. Have you [ilooked around at the world lately? You say that it operates under a reformed conscience? Holy shit.

Quote

Recently the SCOTUS reviewed a case on the pain of the lethal injection and possible errors.

The absolute last thing I care about when it comes to executing murderers is whether they feel pain when they are executed. If I had my way, murderers would be made to feel terror, anxiety, and at least as much pain as their victims were made by them to feel. An appeal to me on the basis of how the death penalty is unjust if the condemned feels pain is laughable, in my view.

Quote

There was a moratorium on executions for several months, now the killing machine has wound back up again.

Oooh, "the killing machine! Is this another liberal appeal to emotions? I'd never have guessed. Why not sprinkle in some descriptions of "the shiny, lethal needle, so practiced in its art of snuffing out life with its treacly venom worming its way into the victim's veins"?

Quote

So the question I have posted is not sarcasm or asked for semantic or shock value, not a rhetorical question either. I am asking legitimately; if the government came forward and claimed that there were most likely innocent people executed since Gregg v Georgia in 1976, but certainly before that, but that it was a necessary evil and they wanted to keep the innocent deaths low, what would your tolerance number be?

To me, it's a completely flawed question. It's not as though the government can hold a referendum, ask us our threshold number, come up with an average, and then somehow be able to hold to that average or under, anyway! The innocents who get executed are not exectued on purpose, so the system is not able to control how many. The government could not make a valid "promise" that the number of innocents executed would be kept under a given predetermined number.

So this is a pointless exercise. I don't agree to ANY innocents executed. That's the whole point, for me. I expect that we will do the BEST THAT WE CAN to be FAIR, because I have absolutely ZERO desire for ANYONE who is not guilty to be executed.

The difference between me and death penalty opponents is that I understand that we must accept that a certain number of mistakes will be made by any human system.

We know that in aviation, a certain number of mistakes will occur and get people killed. Sometimes they are even done by malfeasance, as when companies falsify maintenance records and parts fail and lead to fatal crashes. That does not mean we should declare a moratorium or end to the system of putting planes in the air, because we know that when it does work properly, the system has a purpose and accomplishes a desired outcome. Same with the death penalty.

Quote

I think a great point from my side, the anti-DP side, is that deterrence has never been evidenced to reduce crime.

I think that this is one of the weakest points for the anti side, as deterrence is not now, nor has it ever been, the main purpose for the penal system. And if the failure of execution to act as a deterrent is a cause to end execution, why then is the failure of life in prison to deter murder (in those jurisdictions where that is the greatest penalty) not also seen as something that should be ended? This is a logical question that you must answer if your point is to have validity. You used failure to deter as a challenge to one penalty, but not another. If deterrence is a prerequesite to a penalty being used, why do you still advocate any penalties that fail to deter?

I think that your question ought not to be about how many innocents are executed, but rather, whether the thing that the death penalty does is something we should want done.

Quote

What really cracks me up in regard to pro-DP guys is that they are willing go along with a standard of proof that allows for a, "maybe" to be convicted, that is obvious by the >200 overturned capital cases since Gregg.

I would ask you to go through each of the 200 cases you mention and tell us if they were overturned because of definitive exculpatory evidence (like DNA, even though even that can be wrong or falsified or scammed and is not 100% proof against corrupt use or tampering) that PROVED the condemned to be INNOCENT.

And tell us if there are any of those 200 that still appear to be guilty, but wrangled a reprieve because of some Miranda flaw or some other bullshit technicality.

Quote

Bottom line kids, if we execute we will execute the guilty along with the innocent; civilized countries have figured that out.

You are actually prepared to refer to the U.S. as a non-civilized country because of the death penalty. I think that says unflattering things about the rationality of your approach to this issue.

Quote

Edited to add: That many of these people who are executed really need to be, just that the cost of killing an inocent person, ever, is not worth it.

What about the cost of an innocent person being murdered in prison by a person who might otherwise have been executed? It begins to be clear that even keeping people in prison cannot be justified because of the risk to innocents.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[crozby 0]

None.

Afghanistan
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
China
Comoros
Congo
Cuba
Dominica
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya
Malawi
Malaysia
Mongolia
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Palestinian Authority
Qatar
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United States
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

(http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html)

Nuff said...

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Even with a narrower scope, I think judges and prosecutors,as gov't employees, need to take a REALLY close look at costs when they think about the death penalty. If it costs less to keep the bastard alive, then why go for it? WE'RE BROKE!

If a society will modify what it is calling justice based on the financial concerns of meting it out, then what that society has is not justice.

Some things are too important to do on the cheap.

And let's face it, all the disingenuousness aside, the only reason that it "costs more" to apply the death penalty is because we (a) keep them alive for a couple of decades on death row, which is at least as costly, or more so, than keeping a non-capital inmate alive for that number of years, (b) allow them a ridiculous amount of appeal, I mean, so much that it makes a mockery out of the fact that they were convicted in the first place.

If we did the trial, took maybe a second look at it (damn it, not a whole new trial, made sure everything looked kosher, and then had at it with the execution (and not paying doctors or shit like that to administer it, just a bullet in the head or a hanging), it would not be expensive.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[normiss 622]

So you won't vote in a silly on-line poll because "I find it to be completely flawed in its basic premise."

But yet a system that will take innocent lives (or ANY life for that matter) that is at minimum equally as flawed you're in support of??? That's a sad statement in my views.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

So you won't vote in a silly on-line poll because "I find it to be completely flawed in its basic premise."

But yet a system that will take innocent lives (or ANY life for that matter) that is at minimum equally as flawed you're in support of??? That's a sad statement in my views.

I said that the poll is completely flawed. YOU said that the "system that will take innocent lives ... is at minimum equally (emphasis mine) flawed."

I don't agree that the flaws in the death penalty system are "equal" to "completely"!

Every system can do undue harm to innocent people. The system of administering life in prison can leave innocent people to be killed in prison by the same violent offenders whom you would not execute. Why won't you address that as a flaw in the system that you prefer?

The fact is, you are acting as though it is the purpose of the death penalty system to execute innocents. First of all, it's a rare thing; second, it is something the system TRIES NOT to do; third, why not agree that murderers do deserve death, and work on a better way to enforce that punishent accurately and fairly? It seems lots of people take that moment to suddenly say that mankind can't do any better. Pish.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

So you won't vote in a silly on-line poll because "I find it to be completely flawed in its basic premise."

Why can't I say that I don't think the poll is valid since answering "none" would be taken to mean that I oppose the death penalty when it really means that I fully support the death penalty but would not shut it down just because the number of innocents that could be wrongly executed would be > 0 ?

I guess it's time for me to state, folks, that the idea of executing an innocent person is horrid to me, and I find it troubling. I just don't agree that the death penalty need be scrapped and stopped because of that, any more than I would say, "Set all inmates free tomorrow because some number of inmates > 0 is in there for crimes they didn't commit."

This is a textbook example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Lindsey 0]

Why throw the baby out with the bath water?

If the problem is in mistakingly executing people who did not commit the crime they were convicted of, then THAT's the problem that needs to be addressed, imho. Lawrocket has some good insight as far as that goes. That was a good post...worth re-reading.

:)
linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[klingeme 0]

Quote

There is but one crime that is the worst - premeditated murder. That is the worst. And there are even some forms of murder that are worse than others.

Thus, for the death penalty, I would propose a change. As it is now there are way too many crimes punishable by death in the US. Felony murder, for example. Accessory.

The accessory to a murder is not the triggerman.

If you hire someone to kill someone, I think that makes you an accessory. Just becuase you did not have the balls to pull the trigger yourself, in my opinion, you are as much of a murderer as the persone who actually carried out the action.

[normiss 622]

I don't agree that all murderers deserve death. I think that no one "deserves" death. I do fully support their permanent removal from our society.
I simply cannot support the killing of another human being outside of war and self defense. It's just not something I agree with after growing older and seeing things differently. I used to support it...then I did some research into our "justice" system. It isn't "all that" contrary to common belief. We all take for granted that our system "works". With typically very little knowledge or understanding of how the system actually works and the politics applied to it. A "typical" person simply cannot afford the defense required to properly take on a serious legal case, which in the long run leads to convictions.
I don't disagree that there ARE guilty people and people that deserve the harshest penalty we can impose, I just don't agree that death should be that penalty.
I'm disappointed that so many others value life so little.

[rehmwa 2]

Can you convert the choices to a percentage?

Or into ice cream sandwiches. That would be nice too.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

If we did the trial, took maybe a second look at it (damn it, not a whole new trial, made sure everything looked kosher, and then had at it with the execution (and not paying doctors or shit like that to administer it, just a bullet in the head or a hanging), it would not be expensive.

Here are some cases from the Innocence Project of people who were proven to be INNOCENT by DNA testing. All served years on death row, in one case 18 years, before being exonerated. None were released because of "failure to read them their Miranda rights or some such technicality". None were exonerated by "the System", in fact in every case "the System" fought to keep them in prison, on death row. They were exonerated by lawyers and law students, mostly working pro bono.
Keep in mind that these people were exonerated because evidence was still available to be tested. Until recently many jurisdictions routinely destroyed evidence after conviction, and for many there is now no way to test their claims of innocence. Who can believe these are the only innocent people in prison, or on death row.

All of you who are so quick to call for death, so bloodthirsty, click on the links. Read the stories of how these people have had years stolen from them, and nearly their lives. Look at their pictures. And think, if it were up to you they would have had a bullet in their brain long ago. We can't give them back the years, but at least they can try to salvage something of a life with the time they have left.

Don

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/54.php
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1176.php
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/77.php
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/149.php
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/176.php
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/184.php
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/190.php
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/192.php
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/196.php (this guy was the 100th death row inmate to be freed because of actual innocence)
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/206.php
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/576.php (this guy served 21 yrs in prison, 18 yrs on death row, for something he didn't do)
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/219.php
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/265.php (this guy died of cancer in prison, months before the testing that proved his innocence could be completed)
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/282.php
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/294.php
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/295.php

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[DescensionX 0]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=292&scid

[tbrown 26]

I don't trust the state to fill a fucking pothole. so why on earth would I want to allow the state to take anyone's life. The only exception I would make is in allowing the police to kill a person on the spot, when that person is posing a mortal danger to others. Even then, it should be subject to revue afterwards.

Because I don't trust the state, under any party.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[birdlike 0]

Quote

I'm disappointed that so many others value life so little.

What disappoints me is people arguing for the "value" of the life of a person who brings nothing but death and despair. Not every life is of equivalent value to every other life just because it's a life!

Is the life of a guy who dedicates it to robbing and murdering worth just as much to you ("sanctified"?) a the life of a blood donor who's a disease-curing doctor and a pilot for Angel Flight who tutors schoolkids for free in his spare time? Come on.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Erroll 49]

Quote

Quote

I'm disappointed that so many others value life so little.

What disappoints me is people arguing for the "value" of the life of a person who brings nothing but death and despair. Not every life is of equivalent value to every other life just because it's a life!

Is the life of a guy who dedicates it to robbing and murdering worth just as much to you ("sanctified"?) a the life of a blood donor who's a disease-curing doctor and a pilot for Angel Flight who tutors schoolkids for free in his spare time? Come on.

How about the fetus that hasn't had a chance to decide which one of the above he intended to be?

[normiss 622]

Who shall we choose to make such decisions?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm disappointed that so many others value life so little.

What disappoints me is people arguing for the "value" of the life of a person who brings nothing but death and despair. Not every life is of equivalent value to every other life just because it's a life!

Is the life of a guy who dedicates it to robbing and murdering worth just as much to you ("sanctified"?) a the life of a blood donor who's a disease-curing doctor and a pilot for Angel Flight who tutors schoolkids for free in his spare time? Come on.

How about the fetus that hasn't had a chance to decide which one of the above he intended to be?

OK, let's have some fun with this.
Let's say you're intractibly opposed to abortion. Now let's say we could go back in time, intercept Hitler's mother while she was pregnant with him, and abort him in the fetal stage. Would you sanction that?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

OK, let's have some fun with this.
Let's say you're intractibly opposed to abortion. Now let's say we could go back in time, intercept Hitler's mother while she was pregnant with him, and abort him in the fetal stage. Would you sanction that?

what an odd question - if you could travel back in time, why not go back a little further and just keep his mom and dad from hooking up in the first place?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

The question posed is what it is. Pretend it's in philosophy class, and this is the question the prof directs you to answer.