Democrats introduce bill to end the death penalty

[kelpdiver 2]

regulator

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.

If you could be 100% confident in their guilt, then there may not be any reason. And if you could be 100% confident, then the high expense of executing someone rather than life of prison would also go down dramatically, and it actually would save "taxpayer taxes."

But you can't be, and if you subscribe to the Americans ideals of justice that presume innocence and would rather let criminals free than sanction the innocent, then you have to give up the emotional argument here.

[Bolas 5]

normiss

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

The problem with this whole line of thinking is that the focus is so great on the intended audience that society as a whole is negatively impacted.

It's pretty much #2 behind "zero tolerance" on the Good Intentions Highway to Hell.

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

[AndyBoyd 0]

rehmwa

******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?

I've never been a prosecutor, so it's hard to say for certain. The majority of the prosecutors I've run into are ethical people. There is always a minority who push the envelope. I know that's a wishy-washy answer, but that's all I've got. There's no way to answer your question with a clear "yes" or "no."

[kelpdiver 2]

AndyBoyd

I've never been a prosecutor, so it's hard to say for certain. The majority of the prosecutors I've run into are ethical people. There is always a minority who push the envelope. I know that's a wishy-washy answer, but that's all I've got. There's no way to answer your question with a clear "yes" or "no."

Even in San Francisco, we see DA's being measured on their conviction rates. There's no metric for playing fair.

I would hope that in a case where fairly clear evidence shows that exonerates the defendant, that the DA would move to dismiss. But it's more about the grey areas where evidence comes in that would cast a little doubt, maybe enough to cast reasonable doubt in a couple jurors - I question if they would take any action.

[champu 1]

Bolas

***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.

I don't think we actually execute enough people anymore and we certainly don't do it summarily enough anymore for it to be considered much of a deterrence. The probability that you actually get the death penalty if you get caught is smaller than the probability of getting caught in the first place, and criminals generally don't plan on getting caught.

The biggest reason we execute people is because it's a tradition. At a time when huge prisons weren't really a workable idea and people generally didn't have the spare time to posthumously exonerate people, I'm sure it seemed like a solution without much of a downside. Plus, it gave people something to come watch, and it probably made victims and/or victims families feel better briefly.

/edited to add: And here's a thought... how do you think it would feel to be one of the victim's family members, they convict someone, sentence to death, you witness the execution, and then years later evidence turns up that the person you watched executed couldn't have done it.

[wmw999 2,600]

Quote

Even in San Francisco, we see DA's being measured on their conviction rates. There's no metric for playing fair.

I would hope that in a case where fairly clear evidence shows that exonerates the defendant, that the DA would move to dismiss. But it's more about the grey areas where evidence comes in that would cast a little doubt, maybe enough to cast reasonable doubt in a couple jurors - I question if they would take any action.

And when you then consider the "he's a bad guy, he's guilty of something effect, it does get a little worse.

There's no formal punishment for being an asshole, or when you don't get caught doing something illegal. That second? Well, whenever I exceed the speed limit I'm glad for it. Even if I think it's a stupid speed limit, it's there.

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)

[normiss 905]

I don't see any purpose in it.

It costs more.
It takes a life sentence to complete.
So long as they never return (true life sentence as in federal prisons also in FL) to society in any way.

The vengeance that so many want on those evil bad murdering men is better served slow an painful. Over a whole lifetime.

Then everybody is happy.

[rehmwa 2]

regulator

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.

this is a bogus argument - and hurts the validity of people arguing that the DP should be a viable option.

I don't care if they live or not as long as they aren't allowed to do it again. The purpose of justice is not "punishment of the criminal" (that's put there for the simple minded to embrace and is vaguely associated with deterrence, and possibly an unhealthy misread of what some consider 'closure for the victims'). Justice is to ensure that the crime is not repeated - i.e., it's to protect the rest of society from a known threat.

we protect the innocent, that's the goal -

(IMHO - there is no such thing as 'justice' for a crime already committed - justice would be the crime is never committed in the first place. There is only responding to injustice to try and make sure it never happens again. Injustice happens, you can't reverse it, you can only respond after the fact. The "Scales" of justice is absolute PR bullshit - you don't balance, you protect)

If you get rid of the social manipulation crap (I call these 2ndary efforts at best, counterproductive in many cases): punish/getting even, solace/closure for the victims, rehabilitation, making an example, etc etc etc - the question distills down very simply...

So how do we best protect the rest of the people from this type of act? (or similar acts)



The balancing act these guys are trying to argue is all about protecting the innocent.

- DP for the known criminal would certainly 'protect the innocent' from repeating the crime. (most cases)

- But DP for an innocent, accidentally? that's not protecting the innocent either.....

it all comes down to the level of certainty of guilt before using DP....(or, in some cases argued here - an "absolute" certainty only, which may be unobtainable)

...
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]

normiss

The vengeance that so many want on those evil bad murdering men is better served slow an painful. Over a whole lifetime.

1 - calling out people as wanting Vengeance is belittling. society has trained people in that from the beginning. "Scales" indeed. I don't find it productive at all.

2 - then saying it's a crueler punishment to have them rot forever is a completely vengeful statement of itself. Isn't that just feeding the problem inherent in the discussion?

...
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've never been a prosecutor, so it's hard to say for certain. The majority of the prosecutors I've run into are ethical people. There is always a minority who push the envelope. I know that's a wishy-washy answer, but that's all I've got. There's no way to answer your question with a clear "yes" or "no."

I think it's a GREAT answer and very true. The stereotype that people here are using that the system is corrupted is just that. A stereotype - and not justified in a general discussion. Only when proved on individual cases - and that's a different crime altogether and should not be part of a DP discussion. Simply speaking, if a case is forged from falsehoods that leads to the DP of an innocent, it's simply murder, and those responsible need to go on trial also for that crime.

...
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]

Fully agreed....yet some people will never get past the "eye for an eye" attitude.
Some people needs a killin'. Makes 'em feel all justified or something. I don't understand where the blood lust comes from.

[rehmwa 2]

normiss

Some people needs a killin'. Makes 'em feel all justified or something. I don't understand where the blood lust comes from.

still putting out there in a belittling way. Let me ask a question to get more inside your intent. I might be misreading you.

Does your opinion differentiate between people that:

1 - consider DP to be a viable means of justice and protecting society from killers and psychopaths vs
2 - those that want the killers and psychopaths to "pay" for what they've done

or do you just think everyone that is for the DP deep down actual falls into category #2 (despite what they state directly)

(BTW, I do "understand" them, I suspect you do too. It's a pretty simple concept and you are smart. I just don't agree with it)


Edit/Tangent:
I'd like to think that the people in #2 don't realize that, if they want to buy into the whole "balance" thing, they have two options. One, is that if someone commits a horrible act, they should have a horrible act committed on them. The other option (overlooked) is that is someone commits a horrible act on a family, then another balance is for that family to have a wonderful act committed on them.

I think both are bullshit. But if someone is that simple minded, I'd prefer they live with the idea you balance a negative with a positive. rather than a negative act with a negative consequence.

...
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]

I don't mean it as belittling, just that there are a lot of folks that flat out refuse to consider any other form of a sentence than death.

I do think there is a clear difference in your examples.

I think there are those with a vengeful attitude with the death penalty.

I just don't understand how they get to that perspective.

[rehmwa 2]

normiss

I just don't understand how they get to that perspective.

Thanks for the clarification.

Confusing justice with vengeance is pretty common. We've had a lot of threads on just that.

Look at what justice used to be.
Look at religious texts (really a rehash of old style justice)
Look at how movie "heros" get "justice" (that's NOT justice)

Justice is more about being the protector and guardian of humanity.
Vengeance is really about just making the individual feel better.

it's about perspective and how that drives us. Even if they results the same in so many cases, it's still different and important

but the overlap can get pretty fuzzy. but the rationalization can get pretty fuzzy. but arguments can get confused by emotion

...
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

I don't care if they live or not as long as they aren't allowed to do it again. The purpose of justice is not "punishment of the criminal" (that's put there for the simple minded to embrace and is vaguely associated with deterrence, and possibly an unhealthy misread of what some consider 'closure for the victims'). Justice is to ensure that the crime is not repeated - i.e., it's to protect the rest of society from a known threat.

we protect the innocent, that's the goal -

I have to disagree. IMO, punishing the criminal is a perfectly legitimate goal of the justice system. For the vast majority of cases, the crminal will one day be let back into society, including murder and rape cases. In those cases, the system needs to punish bad behavior. Yes, the ulimate goal is to make sure the punishment makes the criminal and others reluctant to commit the crime again, but prison is still punishment.

Quote

If you get rid of the social manipulation crap (I call these 2ndary efforts at best, counterproductive in many cases): punish/getting even, solace/closure for the victims, rehabilitation, making an example, etc etc etc - the question distills down very simply...

Except closure for the victims, all of those things help achieve your ultimate goal of protecting the innocent in society. I think calling them 'social manipulation crap' ignored the fact that they are the very means to achieve the ends of protecting society.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Except closure for the victims, all of those things help achieve your ultimate goal of protecting the innocent in society

one can argue the closure for the victims is a means of keeping the victims from becoming predators seeking revenge - I can make an argument for all of them, some convincing, some thin....

nothing you posted is really in conflict, IMO, I'm just highlighting my opinion of the top priority. If, as you say, pursue those secondary effects with the goal of supporting the primary, it's not a contradiction.

Start treating those 2ndary items as pure, independent goals, then I believe we are losing sight of the real responsibility.

another way to say it.. yes, prison IS punishment (no kidding), but that's not the purpose, it's the consequence of protecting us from predators

...
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

but that's not the purpose, it's the consequence of protecting us from predators

I think we're generally in agreement. I guess where I deviate is the idea that protecting the innocent is the only purpose of the judicial system. If that were the case, the logical conclusion would be life in prison or death for all criminals. In order to be confident that we can protect society, we also have to believe that prison has some rehabilitative and/or deterent effects.

- Dan G

[normiss 905]

Fully agree.

I don't believe the DP does any of those things.
It certainly hasn't made an impact on the number of murders.

[champu 1]

normiss

I just don't understand how they get to that perspective.

Probably because they didn't arrive there after a philosophical journey. As I said in post #155, I think the biggest reason we execute people is because it's a tradition.