NeedToUseYou
Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stella40
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
It seems the primary argument here is if one person is wrongly put to death then we shouldn't have a death penalty.
Not true. The thread is about, unless I'm mistaken, the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent against crime. However the possibility of executing an innocent person is a real possibility whenever you have the death penalty.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
It doesn't really seem to hinge around the concept of the death penalty. As in if it were a 100% accurate going off the reasons given in most of the arguments most would be fine with it(why point out the individual failures, if ones is opposed to the concept). But here is what many apparently are missing about probability of death. Almost every item you buy or interact with has an acceptable risk of death attached to it. Your car for example could be way way way safer than it is, but the auto industry simply calculates the cost of the increase in safety or reliability versus the cost of litigation. This isn't just the Auto Industry though, it is every industry, it is in the building guidlines, everything.
I'm sorry, call me stupid if you wish, but I fail to see how anything here either justifies the death penalty or even explains the concept.
'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' - THIS is the concept of the death penalty.
Arguing about the probability of death to me is ridiculous. Can't you see that if this justifies the death penalty it also justifies killing? Wouldn't this be just the dream ticket for defense lawyers?
"Yes well my client did actually run over Mr X's little boy and killed him. But we cannot overlook that walking along the street is a risky business, and it is possible to get killed."
"Yes, my client did point the gun at Mr X and pulled the trigger, but he never really meant to kill him. You know, we could die at any time, and I guess Mr X was just a little unfortunate to be killed by the bullet hitting him in the wrong place."
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
What's my point? Well, the argument that one must attain 0 percent probability in regards to life death decisions when possible is non sense. Your heaters they sell at Wal-Mart for example, some models come with two safety fuses some come with one, the consumer doesn't no the difference, so they buy a heater that is cheaper by 0.25. The manufacturer knows that a few of those single fuse heaters will end up not working right, and the fuse won't blow before catching fire. And they know it will eventually lead to someones death. But they've run the numbers and decided the savings outweigh the cost of litigation. Factories, I worked in could make them much safer, and healthier. But they weigh the cost of a new 1,000,000 dollar machine versus the chance a worker will kill themselves working with a less safe model. They don't change the filters as oftern as they could, lead to increased fumes being breathed in. We produce power with coal and other dirty energy sources because a few people dying off early wieghed against the benefit of cheap energy is apparently worth it.
Oh right. I get you. So it doesn't matter that a few innocent people are executed so that society can have the benefit of having the death penalty?
Okay, let me put another argument to you, using the same logic. Why don't we just stop prosecuting murderers who kill people by guns? I mean, not many people get murdered anyway and it's a necessary part of being able to have a gun and live in a safe society, isn't it?
Oh, and while we're at it. We don't really have to prosecute those murderers who stab their victims to death. I mean, not many people get stabbed to death. And you know, knives are wonderful things, think of all the things they can cut and chop up, and they are really essential items in the kitchen aren't they now?
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
The point is life and death decisions based on probability of failure are incorporated into every aspect of your daily life. There aren't many things that don't rely on probability of causing death or injury(catastrophic isolated failutre) in determining the ideal model. And everything could be made safer, if the premise was reducing death to zero. Unfortunately it makes it unaffordable.
I really don't know what to write here. Three cups of coffee later and I still don't get the point.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Thus why the assumption that, in order for the death penalty to be a valid recourse, the probability of wrongful death must equal zero, is not a real world viewpoint, as nothing else we interact with holds up to this standard.
You know, I've been anti-death penalty all along, I've taken a strong interest in this (I wanted to study law but didn't have the opportunity) since 1996-1997 and aside from the costs issue, the myth that it deters crime, and this desire for retribution (not justice, but retribution) and to see someone else 'get it' I've yet to hear one valid argument from anyone who is pro-death penalty to justify their reasoning.
And I'm sorry, the death penalty has been around for thousands of years, and it hasn't stopped anybody being killed unlawfully. Thinking that it does isn't really very realistic, is it?
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
If that is to be the argument, then whoever is adhering to that viewpoint has a shitload of work to get to, before the single digit death totals inflicted by the legal system are a concern.
Unfortunately in any real world system, a probability for wrongful death, is an absolute necessity.
A shitload of work? Okay, innocent people aside, I'm going to give you and all the pro-death penalty people some names and let's see what work you can come up with to justify the death penalty.
Jerome Bowden in Alabama, Dalton Prejean in Louisiana, Ricky Ray Rector in Arkansas.
What justification can you give for these people to be executed?
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
I'm not saying one can't be opposed to the death penalty for valid philosophical reasons, but the probability zero argument doesn't hold up under any other circumstance so it doesn't seem to apply. But if one wishes to keep that viewpoint, then I'm loathe to see the full list of objections.
My friend, you appear to have missed the point completely. Let me now illustrate to you and others this 'shitload of work' that I have already gotten through which forms the basis of my arguments.
Let's start right at the beginning. American law. It is, like in the United Kingdom, known as 'case law'. This means the law is applied on the basis of statutes and court rulings as principles which are applicable to specific cases.
In 38 US states you have statutes which allow for the imposition of the death penalty for certain offences - premeditated murder is one of these offences, if it is 'especially cruel, heinous or callous' (here off the top of my head I'm quoting the exact wording of the California statutes), which is whatever state it is, from Washington and California in the west to Georgia, Virginia and Florida in the east is a premeditated murder with an additional motivation - financial gain, a sexual motive, murder of a child, a US serviceman, a law enforcement officer, etc.
Prosecutors in any of these states MAY seek the death penalty and secure a conviction against the accused which proves BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that the crime was premeditated and carries the specific set of circumstances which makes the murder especially cruel, heinous or callous. This is the basic principle of the death penalty. This is why the Furman case in 1976 was instrumental to the reintroduction of the death penalty making it constitutional, and this is why in every capital trial the trial has two phases - the guilt-innocence phase (to establish guilt or innocence) and the penalty phase (to establish aggravating factors which would justify the death penalty and mitigating factors which wouldn't).
Now my argument is that time and time again prosecutors and juries fail to establish - beyond reasonable doubt - that a murder was fully premeditated, and that it was cruel, callous or especially heinous.
Examples?
Cathy Lynn Henderson, scheduled to be executed today in Texas for the 1994 murder of 3 month old Brandon Baugh who she was babysitting. She claimed she accidentally dropped the baby on his head. The prosecution have failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she planned to murder this child.
Jerome Bowden, Ricky Ray Rector, Dalton Prejean and others - executed despite having clear evidence of mental retardation.
Wilford Berry in Ohio, one of those executed despite histories of mental illness.
Here I'm not arguing about innocence, but about the failure to establish premeditation beyond all reasonable doubt, the basic principle of the death penalty.
Then I can reverse my argument and cite California vs. Menendez in 1996 where two brothers blasted their parents to death with a shotgun for the insurance money, but had enough money to hire a team of lawyers to construct a brilliant defense claiming child abuse as a mitigating factor to get off with a life sentence. It took three trials, but it worked.
Therefore I have to conclude that far from being a deterrent (which IMO the Menendez case above proves it isn't) the application of the death penalty in the United States is unjust, unfair, arbitrary, and for the good name of the American justice system should be abolished as soon as possible.
I read about half of your reply but stopped because you weren't responding to what it was my intention to point out.
My whole point there was several posters were using as a point in there argument that 1 wrongful death would mean the death penalty was invalid. I pointed out most of our society and everything we interact with has a PREVENTABLE to a large degree probability for causing wrongful death.
I have not to this point argued for or against the death penalty, my objection was to that one point of logic used to invalidate the death penalty.
In other words GM for instance knows by building a car a certain way it will result in x number of deaths, but GM knows if it built it another way (usually more costly), it would reduce that total. So, the implication is that society as rule accepts small losses of life to benefit the common "good" constantly.
My view is an observation not a stance, I think that is were you are misreading me. I didn't object to the death penalty or defend it, rather was pointing out that acceptable largely preventable probability of death is a common feature of society.
There is a difference there. And I do think it applies, in that as the number of appeals increases to give the "guilty a better chance to defend themselves the cost rises. Same as the manufacturer building a car, and waying the offset of probabilty of death versus cost.. Again I'm not saying it's right but it is a fundamental part of the way society presently works.
Really my whole point is and was that these issues are entirely a moral and philosophical issue, and posters throwing in probabilties, and stating only a policy with a failure of zero is acceptable isn't applied anywhere else.
|
RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime - 
Profile
)
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread