Democrats introduce bill to end the death penalty

[grue 1]

turtlespeed

******
So what is your solution? No law enforcement?

No jury of your piers? No Judges? No law at all?

No system is perfect, this is a pretty damn good one, or at least it USED to be. Or maybe it just seemed to be.

My solution? Quit fucking murdering people in the name of the state, for starters.

That is a step in a process, not the solution.

What is the your solution.

I'm not being a smart ass. I am interested in what you see the solution being.

I, for one, am reluctantly looking forward to being present as a witness to the death of a guy named Miguel Oyola, when it happens. He was convicted of murdering a very good friend of mine as well as a good friend to a LOT of people on this forum site.

I would rather have my friend back, but that isn't possible.

I'll have to take what satisfaction I can, what closure I can, watching Miguel take his final breaths.

I'll just consider it a very late term abortion.

I'm at least tangentially familiar with the case you speak of for obvious reasons, and I won't try and change your mind on it.

My actual solutions on the matter? We've got overzealous cops and overzealous prosecutors who'll do whatever it takes to close a case, and they aren't held accountable when they fuck people over. That needs to stop, immediately. I'm sure there are a lot of reasons it happens, and perhaps those should be discussed and fixed.

Removing a lot of bullshit laws from the books (and ho-lee shit are there a lot of 'em I'd strike down given the opportunity) could reduce the amount of workload the police and prosecution have, which could potentially improve the quality of their work.

The prosecution not putting such an emphasis on winning cases (fictional movies lead me to believe all prosecutors keep track of their win/loss record. Everything in movies is true) would probably be good, and if their compensation is linked to that, something is definitely wrong.

so on, so forth.

cavete terrae.

[turtlespeed 226]

grue

The prosecution not putting such an emphasis on winning cases (fictional movies lead me to believe all prosecutors keep track of their win/loss record. Everything in movies is true) would probably be good, and if their compensation is linked to that, something is definitely wrong.

so on, so forth.

Next you are going to say that little league teams shouldn't keep score.

I partially agree, but if you look at the personality type that it takes to be a lawyer, what you ask for is unachievable.

As far as the BS laws - I agree. The law books have become WAY to voluminous.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[grue 1]

turtlespeed

Next you are going to say that little league teams shouldn't keep score.

Never. The lack of competition and "everyone wins" attitude that parents seem to be instilling is one of the reasons so many kids are cowardly little shits these days.

Quote

I partially agree, but if you look at the personality type that it takes to be a lawyer, what you ask for is unachievable.

Yeah I dunno how they'd do it. It certainly shouldn't be a factor in pay, though. Quality over quantity, etc.

Quote

As far as the BS laws - I agree. The law books have become WAY to voluminous.

It's ridiculous, and reflects poorly on the legislature AND the judicial world for not striking them down whenever they can.

cavete terrae.

[rehmwa 2]

jakee

Honestly, I don't see any problem with the absolutist statement on the DP. IMO there is no societal benefit (and no backsies) so there is no acceptable margin of error. People can still have a discussion over the premise.

I get that and sympathize.

But, life and death decisions (that whole alpha vs beta error balance) is made all the time

- what safety factor do we build into this bridge/balcony
- do we install airbags in this car - what kind of materials in the side panels
- the existence of motorcycles
- skydiving

these are life/death decisions made for assumably totally innocent users - and those 'acceptable' risk calculations are very well defined. And, Frankly, I suspect much more intentionally/negligently abused than those in the legal system.

I'd think those would be much more cut and dried than DP for heinous crimes

these aren't to compare, but just to demonstrate that the logic can be applied in what is the risk we take for the safety of those other 5 billion people


tangent - I'm gratified that there aren't any of the previously rather uncomprehending (i have other words for it) comments about incarceration being 'de facto' death penalties if society just looks away and lets the other inmates do it.

...
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

[rehmwa 2]

AndyBoyd

***I'm NOT a fan of the idea that the public servant's job is to convict. I think it "should" have been defined to get to the truth.

You are more correct than you realize. A prosecutor's responsibility is not, in fact, to get convictions. It is to "seek justice."

The ethics statement is admirable and exactly what I'd hope for...

yet the primary metric in assessing a successful career is "percent convictions"

it's a nice statement of intent, but is it true in real life practice?

...
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

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

- what safety factor do we build into this bridge/balcony
- do we install airbags in this car - what kind of materials in the side panels
- the existence of motorcycles
- skydiving

We need bridges. We need cars. People choose to ride motorbikes. People choose to skydive.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

jakee

We need bridges. We need cars. People choose to ride motorbikes. People choose to skydive.

not the point, it's about the calculated risk of choosing wrong. but I'll play

we need a safe society


We don't have to kill someone - we don't have to drive/skydive/ride motorbikes

it's a personal decision for us - it's a personal decision to commit crimes - I'd also accept "no, driving and skydiving, etc can kill others too"

Justice can be tampered with - construction projects can cut corners on safety and materials

(it's crappy exercise in disregarding my point - otherwise, I just keep extending the list until it contains a few items that you won't just blithely throw out - I thought motorcycles was the likely one)

We decide the safety factor to build into a bridge - you can extrapolate the cost in lives to have that bridge vs other options. Did you know mines and large scale construction projects will have a budget for potentially losing lives during construction? (the large collider project for example) - why shouldn't we quantify the acceptable beta risk for the DP?



Now - I'm just saying we need to decide the Beta risk, and it's not rational to just say it's zero. That's all. I'd like it to be a LOT smaller than, say, the beta risk for life in prison - which you acknowledge as practical, but not philosophically palatable (as I also do).

...
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

[Southern_Man 0]

rehmwa

not the point, it's about the calculated risk of choosing wrong. but I'll play

we need a safe society


We don't have to kill someone - we don't have to drive/skydive/ride motorbikes

it's a personal decision for us - it's a personal decision to commit crimes - I'd also accept "no, driving and skydiving, etc can kill others too"

Justice can be tampered with - construction projects can cut corners on safety and materials

(it's crappy exercise in disregarding my point - otherwise, I just keep extending the list until it contains a few items that you won't just blithely throw out - I thought motorcycles was the likely one)

We decide the safety factor to build into a bridge - you can extrapolate the cost in lives to have that bridge vs other options. Did you know mines and large scale construction projects will have a budget for potentially losing lives during construction? (the large collider project for example) - why shouldn't we quantify the acceptable beta risk for the DP?



Now - I'm just saying we need to decide the Beta risk, and it's not rational to just say it's zero. That's all. I'd like it to be a LOT smaller than, say, the beta risk for life in prison - which you acknowledge as practical, but not philosophically palatable (as I also do).

The death penalty does nothing to further a safe society.

The errors that are built into our system of justice (especially as they relate to wrongful convictions in death penalty cases) are systematic. They are not "faults" of the system so much as they are "features" of it.

While it might be possible to restructure our entire system of justice so that those errors were not so much a part of the system, to continue to advocate for the death penalty in the current system is unconscionable.

Frankly, the only ways I see to lower the possibilities of wrongful convictions would exacerbate the common problems with the death penalty system already (costs too much, takes too long to go through appeals). Limiting resources and appeals will only increase the number of innocent people the state puts to death.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

not the point, it's about the calculated risk of choosing wrong. but I'll play

The point is risk vs reward.

You accept the risk of all those things because the reward is worth it. Let's keep this within the justice system (because I honestly have no idea how you think any of those other things are connected), you accept the risk that armed police might shoot innocent people because (to some degree) you need armed police to counteract armed criminals. You accept the risk that innocent people might be imprisoned or even die in prison because you need a way to remove criminals from society. You accept the risk of deciding to execute an innocent person because... there is no because.

Quote

why shouldn't we quantify the acceptable beta risk for the DP?

It's putting the cart before the horse.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

jakee

You accept the risk of deciding to execute an innocent person because... there is no because.

It's putting the cart before the horse.

conclusion before analysis - interesting

thanks for a good discussion, we've hit a dead end here

...
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

[DanG 1]

Quote

Now - I'm just saying we need to decide the Beta risk, and it's not rational to just say it's zero.

Maybe I misunderstand your point, if so I apologise.

What you seem to not understand is that people have decided the Beta risk for the death penalty, and they've decided that it is zero. Therefore, the only way to logically continue is to not have a death penalty. By insisting that we accept a non-zero Beta risk, you're begging the question about keeping the death penalty option.

Now, if we assume that society simply must have a death penalty, then I agreee that we should determine an acceptable Beta risk. Let's say we can live with one false execution per million executions. Great, now what do we do with that number? The problem with the death penalty is that once you're indentified a false execution, it's too late to do anything about it.

- Dan G

[Bolas 5]

So the "if it saves just one child" debate tactic is being applied to prisoners now?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[jakee 1,610]

rehmwa

***You accept the risk of deciding to execute an innocent person because... there is no because.

It's putting the cart before the horse.

conclusion before analysis - interesting

No, what you're doing is called begging the question.

Debating what the acceptable risk is for the death penalty means assuming that there is a consequent benefit. You haven't yet argued that point.

Edit:

Quote

thanks for a good discussion, we've hit a dead end here

I didn't read Dan's reply before I wrote the first part of this post. So we independently both saw the exact same fallacy in your argument. Kinda suggests that the dead end is of your making, don't you think?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

jakee

I didn't read Dan's reply before I wrote the first part of this post. So we independently both saw the exact same fallacy in your argument. Kinda suggests that the dead end is of your making, don't you think?

what fallacy - I've not drawn a conclusion. you guys have.

no - Mine is a discussion. Even if it's a "beg the question". that's fine, maybe the result is essentially zero. But you are supposed to 'arrive' at zero, you don't 'start' at zero and create the argument.

you guys are starting at zero, that's a dead end.

either way though, result is the same, stifled discussion

this was one of our better exchanges though, seriously. I'm out of here before it degrades to the normal stuff. Don't expect to solve the world's problems here.

...
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

[Bolas 5]

jakee

Debating what the acceptable risk is for the death penalty means assuming that there is a consequent benefit. You haven't yet argued that point.

Deterrence. Finality. Justice. Safety of others in society and those in prison.

Some animals just need to be put down.

Or would you be content with keeping a dog alive that has attacked and killed other people and dogs?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

if we assume that society simply must have a death penalty, then I agree that we should determine an acceptable Beta risk. Let's say we can live with one false execution per million executions. Great, now what do we do with that number?

that's the question isn't it?

Quote

What you seem to not understand is that people have decided the Beta risk for the death penalty, and they've decided that it is zero

I don't see why you guys have to phrase everything as an insult. What's the point of that?

(MY entire point here was exactly that people have decided it's zero. Most don't seem to have any rationale though beyond the shallow input (ditto on the other side), but I'm hoping those that actually have been thoughtful about it want to flesh it out beyond more than just some 'bumper' sticker level concepts. It's a bit much to ask on such a visceral issue, but I'm always surprised at who sometimes comes forth with good discussions that are not just the same thing we always get.)

As I said - dead end.

...
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

[normiss 905]

Personally, I see it as being applied to human life.

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

what fallacy

Begging the question. Otherwise known as assuming the premise. Demanding to discuss what level of risk is acceptable in death penalty sentencing means assuming that the DP has a societal benefit that makes some level of risk acceptable.

Quote

you guys are starting at zero, that's a dead end.

No, you're starting at part two of the process. You can't demand to discuss what level of risk is acceptable before demonstrating that the taking risk is neccessary, or even beneficial.

And you certainly can't compare wrongful execution to skydiving and then complain that someone else isn't discussing it properly.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

Quote

I don't see why you guys have to phrase everything as an insult.

No insult intended, and frankly I'm not sure how you saw what I said as insulting, but either way I'm sorry. It's rare we get to have a grown-up discussion around here, and I certainly didn't mean to derail this one. When I said, "you don't understand" I didn't mean that it was because you were stupid, but more likely that people were talking past each other. I'll try to explain below.

I don't think we're at a dead end, I think we're conflating two different discussions into one. The first discussion is: should we have a death penalty? The second discussion is: assuming we have a death penalty, what level of false executions can we tolerate? What's confusing is that any answer to the second leads you straight back to the first. If the answer to the second discussion is zero (regardless of how you get there) then the answer to the first discussion is no. Logically there is no other choice (ignoring the fact that the premise of the second discussion is now invalid). If the answer to the second discussion is some non-zero number (regardless of what that number is) then both discussions can proceed. In this case, the answer to the first discussion needs to be a cost/benefit analysis. So far, there does not seem to be a strong benefit argument. This is why one can still argue against the death penalty even if after accepting a non-zero Beta risk. Any Beta risk is a cost. If there is no benefit, then you have to conclude that we shouldn't have a death penalty.

I can understand wanting to stick to the second argument. I'm not sure that is possible, since any answer to the second argument leads you right back to the first.

- Dan G

[regulator 0]

jakee

Quote

- what safety factor do we build into this bridge/balcony
- do we install airbags in this car - what kind of materials in the side panels
- the existence of motorcycles
- skydiving

We need bridges. We need cars. People choose to ride motorbikes. People choose to skydive.

And people choose to murder others. Why do they get to live full lives while their victims sometimes suffered indignities far exceeding the bullshit existance they live in prison off taxpayers taxes.

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

Deterrence.

Show that it's a deterrent.

Quote

Finality. Justice.

Define finality. Define justice.

Quote

Safety of others in society and those in prison.

What difference does it make to the safety of people in society? Prison will always be dangerous - though the concept of executing inmates for their own safety is amusing.

Quote

Or would you be content with keeping a dog alive that has attacked and killed other people and dogs?

I think that the argument over whether dogs and people are different is one that I would win quite easily. Do you really want to have it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

Why do they get to live full lives

A life in prison isn't a full life.

Why do they get it? Because police, crime labs, prosecutors, juries and judges aren't perfect.

Quote

while their victims sometimes suffered indignities far exceeding the bullshit existance they live in prison

It's a fool's errand to try and match suffering for suffering. For some murderers executing them doesn't come close to matching what they inflicted on their victims.

Quote

off taxpayers taxes.

You can pay for them to live in prison or you can pay for them to live on death row, pay for their extended appeals and pay for their execution. Either way, you're paying.

Unless you take away all the appeals, but then you'll be letting more murderers get away clean.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Bolas 5]

jakee

It's a fool's errand to try and match suffering for suffering. For some murderers executing them doesn't come close to matching what they inflicted on their victims.

No one's talking about eye for an eye.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[wmw999 2,600]

Given that eyewitnesses are some of the least reliable witnesses (unless they personally know the perpetrator, and even then you have to sort through whether they're telling the truth, maybe it only really happened if it's on video. And even then, it's not that hard

Confessions can be extracted from people who aren't guilty, prosecutors who are rewarded for convictions can be very honestly convinced that someone is guilty -- because it's in their best interest to have someone guilty, preferably in custody.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jakee 1,610]

Bolas

***

Quote

while their victims sometimes suffered indignities far exceeding the bullshit existance they live in prison

It's a fool's errand to try and match suffering for suffering. For some murderers executing them doesn't come close to matching what they inflicted on their victims.

No one's talking about eye for an eye.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?