Murder!

[MissBarbara]

The whole argument of innocent people being mistakenly given the death penalty in the past simply does not go to the point of the present for me.

That's like saying we can't build something because we couldn't 10, 20 or 100 years ago. In almost all cases now the death penalty is not given unless there is overwhelming evidence to the point that there is no doubt as to the perpetrators guilt.  This generally does include DNA.  Add this with the fact that by US law there is an automatic appeal on the sentence when passed.

If for every person sentenced to death there was 100% certainty that he was guilty of the crime for which he was sentenced, then your argument might have merit. "Overwhelming evidence" is not certainty. And when it comes to executing a human being, much more than "overwhelming evidence" -- overwhelming evidence evaluated by human beings -- must be required. And since that will never be provided, that argues strongly against capital punishment.

No one will ever convince me. 

Yes, that's very clear.

But the steadfastness of your refusal to consider other possibilities gives no strength to your argument.

There are simply some cases in which it is correct to say "you are unfit to be considered worthy of life, and what you have done forfeits your right to breath."

"Some cases"? Meaning, not all? In which case, who decides?

[anvil]

MissBarbara,

For all the death row or life-sentence convicts subsequently freed by DNA testing, there are very likely just as many, and probably more, whose cases were not re-examined using more modern science, including people who were executed for crimes they did not commit.

That's quite an assumption. Anything to validate it? Just curious.

It also sounds like you are lumping those who face the death penalty with those serving a life sentence. Are you against both?
 

I'll ask you the same question you asked me. Given the imperfect system, and the likelihood that an innocent person might be executed, "is that one saved life not worth having Capital Punishment off the books?"

Well first off MissSocrates, you answered my question with a question and attempted to dodge the bullet

We live in an imperfect world and by extension of your logic, we should do nothing in fear of making a mistake, assuming you actually believe that.

So my answer is(at the moment and subject to change) that I would rather have it on the books  for prevention and rely on the good judgment of 12 citizens to make their best decision. That with the long process of appeals is in my opinion the best we can do atm.

It protects the majority at all times and gives the accused the best and longest time for justice to act on his behalf.

The other option does not protect the public to its best and does not change " due process" as it exists today for the accused.

So it really boils down to protecting the public as best we can or not, whilst giving the accused the best possible " due process" no matter what.

So how about a direct answer to my question?

[MissBarbara]

MissBarbara,

For all the death row or life-sentence convicts subsequently freed by DNA testing, there are very likely just as many, and probably more, whose cases were not re-examined using more modern science, including people who were executed for crimes they did not commit.

That's quite an assumption. Anything to validate it? Just curious.

Yes, it's an assumption. But it's a logically sound assumption.

It also sounds like you are lumping those who face the death penalty with those serving a life sentence. Are you against both?
 

Of course not. I specifically stated, more than once, my support for life sentences without the possibility of parole.

The only reason I "lumped them together" is because DNA evidence used to exonerate previously convicted suspects almost exclusively applies to those sentenced to prison terms. Those executed are already dead.

I'll ask you the same question you asked me. Given the imperfect system, and the likelihood that an innocent person might be executed, "is that one saved life not worth having Capital Punishment off the books?"

Well first off MissSocrates, you answered my question with a question and attempted to dodge the bullet

I'll take "MissSocrates" as a compliment. But without the hemlock and the corrupting the young boys of Athens thing.

Read what I wrote in its entirety, and not the little section you excerpted. I answered your question, and I subsequently posed your question back to you to both expose the flaw in your reasoning and to demonstrate that this is a complex, not one that can be decided by unlikely hypotheticals like the one you posed. 

We live in an imperfect world and by extension of your logic, we should do nothing in fear of making a mistake, assuming you actually believe that.

So my answer is(at the moment and subject to change) that I would rather have it on the books  for prevention and rely on the good judgment of 12 citizens to make their best decision. That with the long process of appeals is in my opinion the best we can do atm.

I don't believe that, and you illogically extended my logic.

The "mistake" is the wrongful killing of a human being. That's a mistake that demands more than hypotheticals, or extreme improbabilities.

Yes, "we live in an imperfect world." And the mere fact of that imperfection demands the utmost care so that we do not commit the mistake of wrongfully killing a fellow human being.

And the imperfections flaw the system. A suspect is convicted at a trial. The trial is presided over by a judge, a fallible human being; it is conducted by attorneys, who are fallible human beings; it involves the use of evidence, which is evaluated by fallible human beings; and the outcome is determined by 12 jurors, who are fallible human beings.

That's the system, and it's likely the best system available. And yet, when it comes to executing a human being, a much higher standard must be demanded.

So how about a direct answer to my question?

Your question, in a nutshell, is this: Isn't it worthwhile to execute someone, rather than sentence him to life in prison without the possibility of parole, in the fear that that convict might, somehow or other, escape or be released from prison, and then murder an innocent person?

My direct, unequivocal, and plainly-stated answer, for the reasons I outlined above and in my previous posts on this topic, is: No.

[anvil]

MissBarbara, it was in fact meant as a compliment.

However, in fact you put the accent on the wrong syllable as to my question.

So my answer is(at the moment and subject to change) that I would rather have it on the books  for PREVENTION and rely on the good judgment of 12 citizens to make their best decision. That with the long process of appeals is in my opinion the best we can do atm.

Pleast note the caps are to help clarify my question.

Moral Relavitism,, interesting concept. I've not heard it before. However it is what I call Situational Reality.

[HppyHrryHrdn]

This whole post started from Indonesia planning on executing drug smugglers.  So unless you live there or plan to smuggle drugs in. "It is not your circus and they are not your monkeys" if you live in a state with the death penalty and you don't like it move or work to change the laws.  Better yet don't do anything that will bring the wrath of the state down on you.  I live in a state with it. I don't agree with it  for financial reasons. (Cost more  than putting them in a 6x10 cell and letting them see no one ever again).  So I don't do anything that would put me on the state's radar. If it gets too bad I will move  to somewhere more welcoming of my way of life.

[Elizabeth]

If you want to see Draconian Laws in Effect, just look toward Singapore.
There crime and punishment laws are some of the toughest in the world.
And that being said, there crime is extremely low to non-existent, due to the severity of the punishment. (example: that American kid who was to 10 ten lashes with a cane for "graffiti").

Love,
Liz