RoR: Forum

Post 0

Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 9:33am

Link

Edit

Wow. I would have thought Henry Ford to be with Thomas Edison on frying killers. I am happy to be wrong on that.

I am opposed to capital punishment. In my classes in criminal justice, I have learned many empirical facts to support the rational arguments. One weakness in the case against capital punishment is that there is no proven example of an innocent person excuted. I know that seems odd, but the usually responsible opponents of capital punishment admit this. The counter to that is that we don't want to know. The Supreme Court recently denied a motion to release DNA evidence from a defendant who was executed in Virginia.

There are two broad sets of arguments against capital punishment. The largest of them is that two wrongs don't make a right. Along the subsidiary paths are discussions of what kind of person you become when you take a life. Not only does it affect the people who carry out the execution, but we also know that news of executions actually correlates with increases in violent crime.

The second set rests on the fallibility of the process. We know for a stone cold objectively solid fact that eye-witness testimony is the least reliable evidence. Yet, prosecutors rely on it to sway juries. More subtly, DNA laboratories contracting to the police and prosecutors have been investigated over their sloppy work. At least one was found to have reported the result that the prosecutor wanted without having the data to support the conclusion.

Finally, it is important to differentiate "killing" from "execution." Among the muddles and confusions, proponents of capital punishment want to argue whether and when it is justice to kill someone who is attacking you. To me, the difference in those questions is epistemological and qualitative.

Post 1

Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 10:39am

Link

Edit

I'm against it as well. It has never been applied consistently. Texas record in death-penalty cases is a national embarrassment.

Post 2

Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 12:06pm

Link

Edit

Fallibility of conviction is one of the strongest arguments for abolishing the death penalty even among those who think that it is a deterrent, but I have never heard the argument from them that, "I am subject to the same chance of miscarriage of justice as anyone else and because I think it leads to more social order I'll take the miniscule chance that I may be wrongly convicted."

If the death penalty does, in fact, deter murder then this to me is a valid argument. This approach takes the argument into the personal (i.e. "selfish") realm instead of the more nebulous social view.

I am a fence-sitter on this issue probably because from my point of view if I were sentenced to life without parole it would be comparable to execution.

Sam

Post 3

Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 1:14pm

Link

Edit

I just liked it since it summed up my views exactly. :)

-- Bridget

Post 4

Friday, December 22, 2006 - 1:39am

Link

Edit

Sam Erica wrote: If the death penalty does, in fact, deter murder then this to me is a valid argument.

Generally speaking, the numbers show that 85% of murders are committed in the heat of passion (or the course of another crime) by someone known to the victim. Of the remainder, 85% go unsolved because they are professional work. Generally speaking, the death penalty is not a deterrant.

If there were zero penalty, I would have killed a lot of people by now, but only if a lot of other people hadn't already killed me first. It is not so much that there is a death penalty per se, but a prohibition that allows us all to live together.

That raises another issue. See new thread on Politeness.

Post 5

Friday, December 22, 2006 - 4:30am

Link

Edit

Michael Marotta wrote:

Generally speaking, the numbers show that 85% of murders are committed in the heat of passion (or the course of another crime) by someone known to the victim.

Second degree murder isn't a capital crime in most jurisdictions. Death is generally reserved for first degree murder, and in many jurisdictions, **reserved for only the most cold-blooded of offenders or where "special or aggravating" circumstances exist. But I know of no jurisdiction where "heat of passion" or felony murders (absent special circumstances) carry the death penalty.

Generally speaking, the death penalty is not a deterrant.

Though that may well be a true statement, if you're basing that on the second-degree murder stats that you cited, then your premise is faulty. But perhaps it's not so much about deterrence and/or punishment as it is about waste disposal. Someone who has proven himself a serious threat to others' lives can, under the current system(s), either be warehoused (life w/o parole) or disposed of.(put to death). I must admit that, although I'm not a committed fan of the death penalty, the latter does often seem the more rational option (absent a better, third option -- perhaps that's something to be explored).

I've heard all of the arguments, pro and con, and like Mr. Erica, I'm still on the fence. I would say that the death penalty should only be considered when, in addition to the **criteria I mentioned above, there is also physical evidence of the defendant's guilt that is as close to incontrovertible as possible. Scott Petersen could not have been sentenced to death had this been the standard.

Summer

(Edited by Summer Serravillo on 12/22, 5:05am)

Post 6

Friday, December 22, 2006 - 8:15am

Link

Edit

Chris Baker wrote:

It has never been applied consistently.

Ex abusu non arguitur in usum.

SmS

Post 7

Friday, December 22, 2006 - 9:18am

Link

Edit

Michael Marotta disturbingly wrote:

If there were zero penalty, I would have killed a lot of people by now

Could you please elaborate?

Post 8

Friday, December 22, 2006 - 10:11am

Link

Edit

John Armaos

Michael Marotta disturbingly wrote:

If there were zero penalty, I would have killed a lot of people by now

Could you please elaborate?

Someone as polite as Mr. Marotta would never do such a thing. (See new thread on Politeness)

;o)

(Edited by Summer Serravillo on 12/22, 10:26am)

Post 9

Friday, December 22, 2006 - 10:17pm

Link

Edit

Michael Marotta disturbingly wrote:If there were zero penalty, I would have killed a lot of people by now
John Armaos inquired: Could you please elaborate?

I already did:

... but only if a lot of other people hadn't already killed me first. It is not so much that there is a death penalty per se, but a prohibition that allows us all to live together.

I was thinking of "the monster of the Id" from Forbidden Planet. Given unlimited power -- which is to say, to act without consequences -- who among us would be restrained?

Well, I would. As a younger person, I would not have been. Wisdom is not so much a matter of insight -- though there is that -- but of accretion. You (or I, since I am speaking of myself) gather the elements that constitute wisdom. A couple of years back when I first joined SOLO, we lived even deeper in the country and we would wake up to mice. Our cats would have them cornered, chasing them about the kitchen. We'd get up, get a margarine container and plop it over the little guy, slip a cardboard under it, and put him outside where he belonged. It was probably the same little grey guy coming back in...

As a younger person, enlivened by Ayn Rand, I would have killed subjectivist whim-worshippers or social metaphysical collectivists or whoever, but for the social constraints.

Summer Serravillo wrote: Death is generally reserved for first degree murder, ... if you're basing that on the second-degree murder stats that you cited, then your premise is faulty.

Duh. Thanks. I guess that leaves a lot unanswered.

Summer, I slept on this, so here is an edit. (I got only a B+ this term in Criminal Law, a direct hit on my 3.94 grade point. The truth is that I have no head for criminal law. I got by disassembling questions and identifying elements, but the essence of the thing escaped me.)
Michigan Compiled Laws 750.316 First degree murder; penalty; definitions.
Sec. 316.
(1) A person who commits any of the following is guilty of first degree murder and shall be punished by imprisonment for life:
(a) Murder perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or any other willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.
(b) Murder committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, criminal sexual conduct in the first, second, or third degree, child abuse in the first degree, a major controlled substance offense, robbery, carjacking, breaking and entering of a dwelling, home invasion in the first or second degree, larceny of any kind, extortion, kidnapping, vulnerable adult abuse in the first and second degree under section 145n, torture under section 85, or aggravated stalking under section 411i.
(c) A murder of a peace officer or a corrections officer committed while the peace officer or corrections officer is lawfully engaged in the performance of any of his or her duties as a peace officer or corrections officer, knowing that the peace officer or corrections officer is a peace officer or corrections officer engaged in the performance of his or her duty as a peace officer or corrections officer.

In Michigan, you cannot "accidentally" kill a policeman, or "accidentally" kill someone during a robbery.

We do not know about the premeditated murders -- or any other crime; or any other action -- not committed because the perpertrator (or "actor") weighed the risk-benefit ratio and chose not to.

One way to look at this is to compare states with and without the death penalty. It seems not to make a difference in the homicide rate. The same is true of nations.

See the Topic in Science on "Individualism and Determination." If we are all determined to be individuals, does social law make any sense at all?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/23, 7:08am)

Post 10

Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 1:29pm

Link

Edit

I was thinking of "the monster of the Id" from Forbidden Planet. Given unlimited power -- which is to say, to act without consequences -- who among us would be restrained?

Well, I would. As a younger person, I would not have been. Wisdom is not so much a matter of insight -- though there is that -- but of accretion. You (or I, since I am speaking of myself) gather the elements that constitute wisdom. A couple of years back when I first joined SOLO, we lived even deeper in the country and we would wake up to mice. Our cats would have them cornered, chasing them about the kitchen. We'd get up, get a margarine container and plop it over the little guy, slip a cardboard under it, and put him outside where he belonged. It was probably the same little grey guy coming back in...

Huh? [/scratches head in bewilderment]

Post 11

Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 3:01pm

Link

Edit

<g> John,

Incredibly, I understand what MM is talking about. Michael's use of wisdom enabled him to keep from destroying the mouse. He'd just let it go outside. I'm hoping that's not what he'd do with human predators, however.

Michael M,

Do you think human nature is hopelessly brutal at is core? In other words, do you agree with this?:

I was thinking of "the monster of the Id" from Forbidden Planet. Given unlimited power -- which is to say, to act without consequences -- who among us would be restrained?

Examples of complete control, while exercising utter restraint, can be easily found throughout history.

Post 12

Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 12:46pm

Link

Edit

Any philosophical discussion that doesn't take into consideration the constraints of reality is a complete waste of time (not to mention I personally can't stand metaphors in any philosophical discussion, best to leave that stuff to works of fiction). There is no such thing as unlimited power. Even dictatorial tyrants in history have had their lives come to a brutal end at the hands of angry hordes. There is no such thing as committing murder without consequences. The monster from Forbidden Planet is a work of fiction, he doesn't exist.

Post 13

Monday, December 25, 2006 - 9:10am

Link

Edit

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/25, 9:52am)

Post 14

Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 9:37am

Link

Edit

I always felt it was good to have a death penalty as a method of getting something from guilty parties - i.e. confess and tell us where the bodies are, and we can take the death penalty off the table. I think just having it there as one ultimate punishment that can be used when necessary provides an added benefit as a consequence. Plus, there are heinous cases where I feel it should be applied.