US Committed Murder Tod...I Mean Carried Out the Death Penalty

[Nyoibo]

So what about every study on this saying that as a deterrent, the death penalty is worthless?

Then I'd say we have a new category for the Darwin awards.

[linguist]

One is one too many, but a murderer getting out on parole and killing someone else, or several someone elses, is a case of more innocent people dying. The death of one guilty person saves more lives under the current system.

so you're ok with the state-sanctioned murder of one to protect a hypothetical many? even if that one is innocent?

So, how many people have been proven innocent beyond doubt after having been executed as compared to the number of people executed overall? I've got no idea what the stats are, but I'd like to hear them and their sources.

according to our justice system, no should have to be proven innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt. they should be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. fashionlad posted some sources a few posts up, but the one i'm most familiar with is the case of cameron willingham. after his execution, multiple fire science experts have determined the arson investigation that led to his conviction was shoddy and based on outdated techniques, and that the fire he was accused of setting was in fact accidental. as for the number of innocent vs guilty executed, i can't say i know. i can't say that i care. not to sound like a broken record, but one innocent murdered by the state is too many, and until such time as we can be 100% assured that the executed is guilty, the state has no business killing people.

[Fashion Lad!]

So, how many people have been proven innocent beyond doubt after having been executed as compared to the number of people executed overall? I've got no idea what the stats are, but I'd like to hear them and their sources.

Rapscallion

From the website I quoted earlier. They gave 8 examples of people with strong evidence supporting their claims of innocence that were executed.

There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved.

But they did show a list of people who were possibly executed and were innocent. 2 people were innocent but later exonerated after execution. But those executions happened like 60 and 94 years ago.

We can't say that executing one innocent person is going to save other people's lives. We can't say that. It shouldn't be said. It cannot be proven.

[Rapscallion]

Are people that could have been innocent. The link I've included also contains their stories and why they are believed to have been wrongfully executed.

Link

Thanks - looks like seven likely candidates, but not proven, since as it says there's no real impetus for a case to be heard after death.

Says in there there's been over one thousand executions sicne 1976, so if we take the figure of one thousand then that's 0.7% of the executed people to be likely innocent.

To date, there are over 130 people that have spent time on death-row and were later taken off of death-row.

What I get from that is that the US system of double checks and appeals works. However, taken off death row and exhonorated are vastly different concepts. How many of those were actually released as free and unsullied, and how many just went back to the general prison population on appeals as having diminished responsibility at the time of the event (for example)?

I agree, one fuck-up when it comes to executing someone and that's too many.

One death of an innocent after releasing a known murderer is one too many.

Putting an innocent person to death, there's no coming back from that. None.

I wholeheartedly agree, and I wish I had a better answer to the problem. Well, actually I do - it's not to let the fuckers out of prison. "Oh, you killed someone, we'll let you out after fifteen years or so." Sod that - as a member of society I want to be protected. If that means killing those who threaten me or makign sure they're never released, fine.

It's not our place to decide if they deserve to die for what they've done. It's our job to make sure they are not in the general public to not harm anyone else.

Then who else can make that decision other than the members of society themselves?

And Raps, by your logic and the way our court system works, anyone who has murdered people could be up for execution. They are supposed to be convicted beyond any shadow of a doubt or they're innocent.

I've never claimed otherwise, unless my grammar was shoddy in some post earlier. I've always been of the mind that a death sentence should only exist where there is no doubt of guilt, that there was an intent and premeditation to kill someone.

I don't know about innocence in the case of a murder trial. Over here we have two main forms of murder - murder (premeditation and planned act) and manslaughter (usually reserved for walking in on your wife and the milkman in your bed and in a red rage clubbing one or the other to death with the bedside lamp). Manslaughter is sort of seen as a lesser form of murder, but it's still caused the death of another by lack of control. This is why I ask if the people taken off death row are back in the prison population (maybe clemency or a technicality such as manslaughter instead of murder) or if they were freed. For me, there are levels.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

We can't say that executing one innocent person is going to save other people's lives. We can't say that. It shouldn't be said. It cannot be proven.

No - but it can be proven that executing one guilty murderer will prevent that murderer from commiting the same crime.

If memory serves, you're pro-gun. Give a corpse a magnum or a bazooka. I'll take the bugger on with one hand tied behind my back. See who wins.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

so you're ok with the state-sanctioned murder of one to protect a hypothetical many? even if that one is innocent?

I'm OK with locking up people convicted of murder permenantly, and I think I would prefer that choice. Under the current system, where convicted murderers are let out after a decade or two, I don't think I'm safe and would prefer them to be executed.

Are you ok with murderers being let out and then killing again?

An anecdote.

By the way, the state executes - an act that is not illegal. Murder is illegal. Important definition.

Also, the courts in the UK and the US are generally not the sort where justice is meted out willy-nilly. The US system of appeals is proof of just how much work goes into defending people from the result of the prosecution.

according to our justice system, no should have to be proven innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt. they should be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I've never denied this as a system. In fact, I quite endorse it.

fashionlad posted some sources a few posts up, but the one i'm most familiar with is the case of cameron willingham. after his execution, multiple fire science experts have determined the arson investigation that led to his conviction was shoddy and based on outdated techniques, and that the fire he was accused of setting was in fact accidental. as for the number of innocent vs guilty executed, i can't say i know. i can't say that i care. not to sound like a broken record, but one innocent murdered by the state is too many, and until such time as we can be 100% assured that the executed is guilty, the state has no business killing people.

Donna Wilson in the above link was killed by a released killer who killed again. Another innocent on the hands of those who insist that a life sentence shouldn't mean life.

Rapscallion

[Fashion Lad!]

No - but it can be proven that executing one guilty murderer will prevent that murderer from commiting the same crime.

If memory serves, you're pro-gun. Give a corpse a magnum or a bazooka. I'll take the bugger on with one hand tied behind my back. See who wins.

Rapscallion

I'm pro-gun for people who are responsible individuals and for self-defense.

We could execute that one murderer. You're right, they will never kill again. We could execute one murderer without knowing all the facts behind what they did and they may have not been inclined to murder someone else. We can think we got our murder and execute him just to find out years down the road they were innocent. Not something I will accept. Make release laws tougher for convicted murders. DO NOT execute anyone! The consequences of being wrong are too final. It's cheaper to keep them in jail anyway.

[Rapscallion]

Killing someone when not for immediate self-defense is murder. I don't agree with any other wordy way of weaseling out of that.

Had a thought about this. Where do you stand on the military ordered to attack the enemy?

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

Hm, here's an interesting website full of lovely statistics: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidi...1/factors.html

So the older a person is, the less likely they are to become a repeat offender. So if you aren't going to give them a full life sentence in jail, at least odds are they won't commit more crime.

Violent offenders are the least likely to commit crime after jail.

Fact is, most older prisoners, when they finally get out of jail, just want to live out the rest of their lives in peace and don't want to be bothered or bother themselves with society. So most don't even pose a risk if we can hold them in jail until they are senior citizens. Or we could just hold them in jail until they die. Plenty of extremely reasonable options that aren't immediate irreversible actions.

[Rapscallion]

I'm pro-gun for people who are responsible individuals and for self-defense.

It would be self-defence - it would be the corpse of a known murderer!

We could execute that one murderer. You're right, they will never kill again. We could execute one murderer without knowing all the facts behind what they did and they may have not been inclined to murder someone else.

The UK and US systems are pretty tight. I apologise - I miscounted the number of 'likely' innocents in the article you linked. Turns out to be eight, or 0.8%. However, the chances of a mistake in the system, especially when it involved murder, is pretty slim.

We can think we got our murder and execute him just to find out years down the road they were innocent. Not something I will accept. Make release laws tougher for convicted murders. DO NOT execute anyone! The consequences of being wrong are too final. It's cheaper to keep them in jail anyway.

To a certain extent I agree wholeheartedly, except in the case of the release criteria. Why release a convicted murderer except when they're proven innocent?

While there's a system that says, "We'll let them out after a bit or we'll kill them," then I have to push for the 'kill them' mindset. It's self-presevration. When the option for life imprisonment becomes meaningful, I'd be all for it.

Yes, the occasional innocent may die as a result of an execution system being in place, but many more would die as a result of a killer being released.

Rapscallion

[BroomJockey]

Yes, the occasional innocent may die as a result of an execution system being in place, but many more would die as a result of a killer being released.

Rapscallion

The entire basis of the US legal system rests on a simple premise:

It is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than to send a single innocent to jail.

So how many guilty men should go free to balance the taking of an innocent life, in that equation?

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Yes? Under the current system, murderers (the worst ones) are given a chance to go back out on the streets and kill (quite probably) more than the occasional innocent executed in error. Numerically, it's the better option for least innocent life lost. I'd reserve execution for the very worst cases where it's proven beyond doubt, but I'd very much like it to be used.


Rapscallion

And that is exactly my point. That is math even I can work out.

And I'm with you there on the mentally ill thing, too. Take Andrea Yeats over here (drowned her children in a bathtub). I scandalized just about everyone I know when I commented that my heart was breaking for her. It was. That story is tragic in about a thousand different ways.

However, give her soft treatment because she is sick? Well, no. Give her humane treatment, by all means. However, she is way too sick to be out ever again. Should she die or spend her life locked away? Well, if she will never get out, lock her away. She isn't going to harm any adults, most likely. And clearly, keep her away from anyone she COULD harm. I'm okay with that (although when I imagine myself in her place, I would be begging for death, but that is just my take on it.) Execute her? I am frankly okay with that, too. It's a capital offense for a reason. But understand that revenge has NOTHING TO DO with my feelings on the matter.

If the decision were mine, I'd probably opt to lock her up forever. If she asked for the death penalty, I'd give it to her.

[Rapscallion]

The entire basis of the US legal system rests on a simple premise:

It is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than to send a single innocent to jail.

So how many guilty men should go free to balance the taking of an innocent life, in that equation?

Do you really think that premise to be correct?

I'm a realist and know the above to be an ideal. My ideal is that there should be no innocents killed by murder, or - when we get to reality - that the minimum number of innocents should be killed by murderers. I know for a fact that the occasional innocent will die in a death penalty situation, but I also know that in a catch and release system there will be more innocents killed by released murderers.

With a catch and release system backed up by the death penalty for the worst cases, such as the majority of the US states as I understand it, my odds of survival are best if an occasional innocent dies. It's regrettable, but the numbers are in my favour as far as I can see it - I'm more likely to be murdered than accused of and executed for being a murderer.

My real preference is for permanent incarceration, thus allowing the chance of successful appeal for those who are innocent.

Rapscallion

[linguist]

With a catch and release system backed up by the death penalty for the worst cases, such as the majority of the US states as I understand it, my odds of survival are best if an occasional innocent dies. It's regrettable, but the numbers are in my favour as far as I can see it - I'm more likely to be murdered than accused of and executed for being a murderer.

would you feel differently if the accused was a relative? sure, they're about to be murdered by the state for a crime they didn't commit, but it's okay because their death means some hypothetical future victim won't be killed by someone else?

[BroomJockey]

Do you really think that premise to be correct?

For this case, my beliefs are irrelevant. It's the premise of the US Adversarial Legal system. It's better for a guilty person to go free due to fancy lawyering than for an innocent person to go to jail due to shitty lawyering, or a guilty person going free on weak evidence than an innocent person being convicted on weak evidence. "Reasonable doubt." We are talking about the US legal system, and people have repeatedly stated they'd rather an innocent person be executed than a killer to be released on parole. I find that to be directly analogous to the position that lawyers are supposed to take about convictions, only directly opposite. When we're talking about something permanent, is any doubt unreasonable? I'd think that a single case of an innocent person being executed shows that there is always doubt. After all, that person was found guilty enough to be convicted, lose all their appeals, and be put to death, but then exonerated afterwards. If there's always that possibility, and better the guilty go free, then I ask again, using that, how many guilty people do you think is appropriate for one innocent to be executed?

Because I gotta say, 111 found innocent while waiting to be killed, and 12 actually killed before their innocence was proved (just from what I found on a quick search: source New York Times), even if the ratio stayed the same, you'd need 1200 murderers freed just to make up for the innocents killed.