Hi CW
The disparity of sentencing outcomes between black and white convicted murderers in the USA is well know; I'm happy to discuss it or answer any questions I can, but would first direct you here for background;
http://web2.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510462003?open&of=ENG-2AM
I totally agree with you regarding eye-witness evidence, indeed would suggest eye-witness evidence is up their with military intelligence as oxymoron's go.
I also would agree with you that, even for those who agree with the death penalty in certain cases, there is sound cause for a moratorium.
The system is incapable of constantly delivering a verdict without error - more murderers have been CLEARED of the original charges than people executed since they starting judicial killing in the USA again, which indicates convictions are just not safe... and to assume those cleared on appeal presents 100% of the wrongly convicted is to ignore the fact the American legal system - as a statistical certainty - kills innocent people.
Likewise, I think you'll likely be rather appalled at the racial disparity in sentencing outcomes as it shows there is systemic albeit unintentional racial bias in the legal system to such a serious extent that people die as a result.
I think only in Illinois, after a College project revealed the lack of certainty in murder convictions, has a moratorium been declared.
It is a pitty that most politicians are far too afraid of a backlash from voters, or far too lazy to try to explain why it is necessary, to consider imposing a moratorium although there are clear reasons to do so.
And it is the fact that votes seem more precious than justice that is saddest of all.
However, until that 100% surety can be achieved, I think a moratorium should be issued, until all these issues can be worked out. That may never be.
And that last sentence is why some people oppose moratoriums. It is very unlikely once imposed a 'new' death penalty would ever arise because of the difficulty of justifying it and making it free from the current dangers.
As has been established, although one is quite free to side with the death penalty because you feel it is right, creating a logical argument as to why it is right in a court of law without resorting to unsubstantiated assertion or religious belief is very hard indeed.
As those in support of the DP are in support either because they erroneously think it works or because of a belief it is right, some of those who hold beliefs more important than justice will oppose even a temporary moratorium.
Narkissos
Okay, I'll "fess up". Not only do I think the death penalty is wrong, outside of the most extreme cases or where there is a real risk of re-offending I think the Dutch have it right (and they don't apply what I'm about to explain to the worst cases or the riskier ones).
Despite the fact people typically only serve seven years for a run-of-the-mill murder, the Dutch system is so focused on rehabilitation and reintegration that we are statistically indistinguishable from a country with 'life term' sentences for murder like the UK.
In other words you can have a society where a murderer is normally rehabilitated and returned to society as a participating member and still not have a higher murder rate.
If someone has murdered, society has a simple choice; lose another life (in jail or by execution) or try and reclaim a life. I just happen to think the latter is better.
Of course, being a godless humanist cynic, I have a very definite 'boot on the other foot' sensation in a discussion such as this. (that's a joke about me, not anyone else)
Ross
I disagree.in the latter case someone who is a known offender has been released back into the community. They have already offended.
Weigh them!
You already have a murder victim and a destroyed family.
An innocent person killed by a miscarriage of justice results in;
- One dead body
- One destroyed family
- One mistake
A murder released in error to kill again results in;
- One dead body
- One destroyed family
- One mistake
... yet with the miscarriage of justice the State becomes a murderer, albeit in error, by using a judicial system the State KNOWS is prone to this error.
Continuing with a system of punishment that will invariably kill innocent people is not a good example for the State to set. I find it worse than the tragicness of a murder who manages to kill again because it institutionalises injustice.
I think that's worse.
If CP was limited to mass-murderers or psychopaths, would that help? After all, it's expected that a dog which has "turned" is now broken.
Look, you can equate dogs to humans. I don't. Colour me speciesist. I just ate some pig and enjoyed it a lot, and the pig didn't do me any harm either.
Killing (of humans unless acting in self defence to prevent immediate danger) is wrong, therefore killing (of humans unless acting in self defence to prevent immediate danger) is wrong.
I value human life, even of those that don't value human life as I value human life not because I expect it in return but because it is a moral principle. I can define 'human life' for anyone wanting to turn this into an abortion AND death penalty debate too (not you Ross, but there's always one).
Being pragmatic I'd be happy to see limiting the death penalty as an initial goal in countries where it exists, but the goal is abolition.
A broken thing of value is often kept; you might find out how to fix it. Thus the rule I would apply to a dangerous dog would in no way apply to a dangerous human. I value the human more.
I wonder what the proportion of mistaken sentences leading to CP compared to re-offending murderers, is?
http://members.cox.net/jalbert13/death.html
http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/mike.list
How many innocent people must a government kill before it becomes wrong Ross?
There is no total statistical overview. Obviously 'under-reporting' caused by cases no longer being investigated once someone is dead would be significant. Some people don't have the means, personal or within their friends and families to pursue appeals successfully, be it financial or of sufficient determination and ability. Their appeals of innocent end when they are killed. Some come to light through studies of old cases by students, activists and legislators. The moratorium in Illinois was due to so many concerns with convictions of such a large number of men on death row (highlighted by a College class-assignment) they had to stop killing people it was so obvious the system was utterly screwed.
Read the links. Think about how the competence of the defence team is so frequently called into question.
If it all boils down to the competence of your representation, how can we pretend the death penalty is an efficient way of dealing out justice?
That isn't a rhetorical question ;-)
Yes, if you allow murderers who are unlikely to re-offend to be released, they will kill people.
http://www.intellectualloafing.com/discussionsfolder/myessaysfolder/deathpenaltyfolder/deathpenaltyessaysectwo.htm gives 9% as the number of Death Row prisoners with previous homicide convictions. If we for the sake of argument presume all of these resulted in imprisonment and release after satisfying 'low-risk' criteria, that's bad.
If we double that figure just for the hell of it and apply it to the number of inmates on DR, that's about 700 people per year. That's about 5% of murders.
So, does being 5% safer by killing people make it a good idea?
'Cause every criminal psychologist will tell you, many murderers (i.e. the really dangerous ones we are talking about, not drunk-drive/bar-fight/abusive-partner-killing murderers) can be predicted.
Obviously it is not a precise science, but it is, unlike the law, a science, and if we accept a few innocent dead people are okay if we are 5% safer, then maybe a few more innocent people who-are-very-likely-to-commit-murder being killed could get us a whole 10% safer.
And give the radical pro-death penalty lobby more opportunities to stand outside prisons waving placards and cheering.
Now, again, personally speaking, I would rather live in a society that takes the risk of being 5% more likely to be murdered (well, maybe in Europe; 5% of 0.0114375/1000 to 0.012009375/1000 is bugger all but 0.044/1000 to 0.0462/1000 just lets you sleep safe at nights, doesn't it?
But I doubt there is the focus on rehabilitation and reintegration there is in Holland. You can attend college and get qualifications whilst serving time in Holland, indeed, they'll encourage you to do it if you've no profession or education. They can make sure someone leaves with a skill, be it academic or vocational, they did not have before. For some it will be their first qualification.
With efficient rehabilitation in prison, high-quality probation systems and tagging programmes, you would impact on that figure. I can't find a figure for re-offending murderers outside of the US (or rather for the UK or NL) and it's late and I am tired so I'll just emphasise; killing is wrong because killing is wrong. As to whether dog kind has the same rights as human kind, wee, you save the wee doggies if ye' wish, but if I can I'll try to save my fellow man (and I know you're like this too, don;t get me wrong, that line was delivered with a wry smile and a twinkle over a very fine glass of scotch).
So there are circumstances where you see CP as being viable, then?
Whilst I appreciate your stance is from personally held moral ethics, it seems that there is a limit somewhere
Indeed there is. If society is so affected by violence one has no safety, or the costs of crime are impacting on the very health of the nation, you have to use different rules.
I am well aware that the set of morals I am trying to live by would in some areas and time periods have been as useless as a chocolate kettle. But, I think we can afford the luxury of other standards now.
We don't send kids down coal mines (although if we are not careful we wear Nike's made by children in sweatshops). We hold all races equal. We move toward sexual equality that allows equal opportunity AND recognition of the difference between men and women. We don't chop hands off thieves or imprison someone for life for stealing a 'Mars bar' (talking about Europe here; no "three-strikes" rule).
And maybe it's time to accept killing people is wrong because killing people is wrong.
Has it similarly been shown that there is a difference in murder rates as a result of terminal incarceration?
Yah; the comparison is between places with imprisonment and places with execution; there is no real difference, ergo, unless one produces a set for, say, murderers being let to go free, one can't state whether imprisonment makes a difference to murder rates either, compared to the other studied group. There's not a 'control' figure; you can just see that locking 'em up leads to as many murders as killing 'em.
No, I actually meant slicing them up, even if this is done in a none invasive manner, such as CAT scans. I suspect that our court-systems would overrule in the favour of the prisoner if one decided they didn't want to submit to it.
Oh I'd be quite happy for non-invasive treatments on grounds of public good, and requiring MRI et. al. is as acceptable as requiring a DNA sample for me.
However, we are now talking about a small set of the murderers; those who are mentally ill and killed due to that.
What are you suggesting? Electronically tagging them and releasing them back into the wild, or setting up an artificial habitat behind Plexiglas, where they can scratch their arses?
I would suggest that depending on your outlook these options (in addition to terminal incarceration) aren't all that humane for the recipient, either.
Actually I'm not suggesting anything new; do you think they kill or release the criminally insane who pose a risk to the public in the UK or Holland? Nah, they stick them in secure medical institutions. They are treated and studied.
Most murderers pose no risk of re-offending. Serve time for the crime to check whether it WAS just a one off aberration, then become a useful member of society again. Some were ticking bombs because of background. Just like you can gentle a puppy that has been brutalised and become aggressive SOME of the time, so you can humans. A decent prison system can and does do this in some countries. We are not inventing the wheel, these are real solutions that work today and have done for years.
Some were economically driven murders. Not all of these are because of a bad background. But still they might be returnable to society, especially if they are, maybe for the first time, able to have a decent job outside of jail. Oh, and electronic tagging is a very useful way of balancing public safety with rehabilitation.
As for the collie; unless you wish to assert the dog has linguistic, telepathic, or precognitive abilities, the likely explanation, even though it as unromantic as a stick, is it reacted to the owners emotional state.
All that requires is eyes, ears and a nose.
But are you seriously trying to compare a dog panicking for a few minutes because it got spooked by a distraught owner before it dies (without knowing it is going to die) with the weeks and years a convicted murderer can await execution, knowing they will die?
Of course, we could 'streamline' the dp, as some people advocate, but as it is error prone anyway, it would be a tad unwise.
And 'turning' dogs can be studied.
Example; Toby, my brother's dog. He loved me, but once when I was rough-housing with my brothers kids, he bit me. He had done, for him, the right thing.
Example; Maverick, a friend's father-in-laws dog, was trained to be aggressive by someone who knew shit about training guard dogs. He was simply dangerous and had bitten (properly) members of the family and strangers; he frequently nipped and snapped. Nothing made any difference, not that incompetent dolt who ruined the dog actually tried to get him trained or treated properly. He even went for me, and I normally surprise timid dog or cat owners (the pet is normally timid I mean) by the fact they come say hello and annoy others by finding a place to scratch (they didn't know about for 15 years) on their beloved pet that has the thing on its side drooling in pleasure with a leg kicking. Any, Maverick attacking me in a dark field with dog-phobic girlfriend on one side and friend ineffectively tugging at leah on other, with a dog hanging off my baggy jumper. An Alsatian. A big'un. Not good. Thank god for baggy jumpers I say. Then, months later, he REALLY savaged a business partner of the owner. It's a dog; kill it.
Mollie; a horse my brother owned. She became uncontrollably violent; striking with her hooves and biting anyone who got near. The vet found a tumour after she was euthanized.
Fred was a good guy. Everyone loved him. When he saw that creep hit his girlfriend, well, maybe it was the drink. He's never done anything like that before even, but he smashed the bottle and struck out at the guy, who was far bigger than him. Blood everywhere; the guy bled out before the paramedics even got theerl. Do we kill Fred Ross? Or do we imprison him until we're sure it was a moment of madness and help him rebuild his life and rejoin society?
John was always a trouble maker. His dad, his uncles, his friends, his 'gang', they all 'contributed to his delinquency'. His mum still says if he'd been sorted out the first time he went to jail, given a way out, ways of earning a living without crime, he'd have never ended up killing the other dealer. Do we kill John Ross? Or do we imprison him until we're sure he can live without crime and help him rebuild his life and rejoin society?
Bert was utterly unexceptional until he killed sixteen people in Wal-Mart. No one knows why. He's in cell 3. Do we kill Bert Ross? Or do we study him and figure out why people do that, and maybe STOP it happening sometimes. Maybe it is too late for him; maybe the Vapo-tron ethical dociliser that will, definitively, cure him, yet retain his pre-psychotic personality will help. But they won't invent it for twenty years yet. Do we kill Bert Ross?
Of course, there are the evil fucks who kill and eat (or whatever) dozens. Smart as you or I and better read. Not mad... unless one can define being having no concern for other humans as madness. Evaded detection for fifteen years. Laughs at us now... do we kill the evil fucks? Yeah, that would really put them off being serial killers et. al., Not. And killing people is wrong because killing people is wrong.
But surely, if the main issue is public safety, it doesn't matter which of these options we choose?
Err, the main issue is killing people is wrong because killing people is wrong. The fact it doesn't make a measurable difference to public safety just highlights that killing murderers is a choice based on emotion.
Which I've said all along.
And life is not life. Human life is human life. But a live human bastoclyst is not (unless one enters arguments concerning ensoulment at conception) a live full-term baby. E. coli life is E. coli life. Dog life is dog life. Get up to whales, dolphins, elephants and the great apes and we will get to something which approximates human life in terms of complexity of cerebral processes and shows emergent sophoncy that make me put them in a different pot to either dogs or humans. But that's besides the point; pot driven asides alert!
what about a medical system that recommends the release of "patients" who then go on to re-offend? We can't guarantee that from happening, either.
Err, yes, I've already addressed that. I find genuine accidents more moral than government sanctioned executions which invariably WILL result in the death of innocent people. You don't have to agree.
So we're happy for them to rot to death,
How do 'treat' and 'study', with rehabilitation, if safe, as a goal equate to rotting to death? I may have been hyperbolic with an earlier statement I suppose, I hope my view is clear now.
and we're happy for them to off themselves.
Yup.
So far the only thing we take issue with is the system intervening in a medically safe and relatively pain-free manner (though I don't see the idea of someone hanging themselves with torn off strips of bedlinen being all that humane, either...)?
Suicide is a decision. Not a verdict. If it's wrong, then it's a persons own error effecting themself. Not a un-safe conviction resulting in an inoccent person dying.
And I'd all be in favour of, after screening by an ethics committee, prisoners wishing to die to be allowed to do so in a humane manner. And you've not read the link way earlier on lethal injection if you say 'medically safe and relatively pain-free manner'.
Do you believe our overcrowded jail system succeeds in that?
Same question: in particular for murderers?
Oh god, you need to sort out the prisons, and rehabilitation doesn't apply just to murderers as one of my above examples makes clear; applying it (especially to violent crime) will cut crime and reduce the number of those who get gang-banged and criminalised to the point they take life.
And yes, it would cost money. But killing people is wrong, so killing people is wrong. And it works quite well here, thank you. It can be done, and obviously even better than here.
It seems that a majority of the US citizens prefer CP. Is that not their right?
Yup, which I've emphasised, and made clear it is not a 'moral issue', bizzarely, unless one says two similar but divergent (or convergent more likely) cultures can competently pass moral judgement on the other and it have any meaning in the different culture. Doesn't mean I have to shut-up if I think it is wrong though. You know me.
Is it not also true to say that in such reformed countries there is still a proportion of the populace that agrees with the concept of CP?
Of course; Germany is about 25% in favour, France c. 40%, Italy <5%, UK c.10%, maybe 15%; it's late so these are from memory.
But the USA is changing;
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
You don't really have a particularly large pool of evidence to construct a theory from, though, do you?
How far do we go back? Do we decide that we can only judge people by today's standards? How long has Britain been CP-free, for example? Long enough to be sure of the outcome? Or can we go back to some of the so-called ancient civilisations, such as Rome and Greece?
Oh, I know the faults in my argument; it's half the fun. But the point IS, killing people is wrong because killing people is wrong.
And my theory (well, it's obviously not my conception) is supported by data.
(Added)
And, like I say, I didn't make it up;
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=15&did=410#IntroductionoftheDeathPenalty
In 1958, the Supreme Court had decided in Trop v. Dulles (356 U.S. 86), that the Eighth Amendment contained an "evolving standard of decency that marked the progress of a maturing society." Although Trop was not a death penalty case, abolitionists applied the Court's logic to executions and maintained that the United States had, in fact, progressed to a point that its "standard of decency" should no longer tolerate the death penalty. (Bohm, 1999)
(End Added)
In the absence of a better theory or any other theory (looks under door mat, opens cupboard), and in the light of the history of the death penalty (see above site), I'm happy with it.
And I want someone else to explain the USA/China/Iran thing; I'm sure someone could come up with a far funnier explanation, even if they didn't mean to.
All the best Ross, as you can see, i can type the hind legs off a donkey when I've had a smoke, especially of Sativa as tonight. (oh, that was a 'hope you're well best wishes' all the best, not a 'bye' all the best).
(Added)
Oh, if killing people for murder IS okay, why can't anyone go watch it or see it on TV?