So, what's the deal with Richard Glossip?

[Martinus]

1) Eventually, there may be evidence the surface that would exonerate him and he'd still be alive.  He can be compensated with money for time served.  Eventually, if it costs too much, the State will adopt new practices to convict less innocents.

It's very unlikely there'd be any evidence that would "exonerate" him.  He's not charged with committing the murder, but rather with hiring the man who did commit the murder.  There's no DNA or forensic evidence that linked him to the murder, nor would there be if he did hire the killer.

As I said: either a conviction based on the word of the real killer who cut a deal to flip on Glossip in exchange for being spared the death penalty, or it isn't.

I had an impression that the discussion was more general, not specifically related to Glossip's case.

I have always found the argument (that is always touted on this board by a few people who are generally empathy-defficient) that wrongful execution is no different than wrongful imprisonment to be pure sophistry.

[Ideologue]

Admitted narcissist lectures fellows on lack of empathy.

Imprisonment is a form of torture.  A well-mounted execution isn't.  If one begins from the principle that torturing human beings should be avoided as a matter of course--an empathetic position--execution should be preferred to life or long-term imprisonment.  This is particularly true of American-style imprisonment, which involves slave labor, toxic and hazardous living conditions (particularly for weaker inmates), and only token efforts toward rehabilitation.  I'm somewhat more open to European imprisonment, with conditions more akin to a crappy motor hotel that you can't leave.

This is not to say that execution should be taken lightly (and even though I do think execution should be expanded to non-lethal acts like rape and very severe economic crimes, America's present approach to capital punishment is disastrously arbitrary and needs reform on that front first).  I've said previously that I'd like a sounder evidentiary basis for execution (something approaching certainty, rather than merely beyond a reasonable doubt)--of course, I'd also like the State to have the tools to know the facts of a case with certainty.  I've also said that criminal procedure should be amended to make innocence claims easier.

In any event, DGuller's point seems to have been entirely lost: it is irrational and a little immoral that while people can be bothered to give a shit when someone's life is snuffed out completely by the State, when the State merely locks them up and throws away the key--committing them to a death sentence that takes a few decades for nature to carry out--virtually nobody in America cares enough to even comment on it.

[DGuller]

1) Eventually, there may be evidence the surface that would exonerate him and he'd still be alive.  He can be compensated with money for time served.  Eventually, if it costs too much, the State will adopt new practices to convict less innocents.

That seems like an extremely flimsy argument.  Who's going to be looking for exonerating evidence anyway?  The guy is locked away, out of sight and out of mind.  Again, you shouldn't be sentencing people out of consideration that you're not even that sure of their guilt.

[DGuller]

In any event, DGuller's point seems to have been entirely lost: it is irrational and a little immoral that while people can be bothered to give a shit when someone's life is snuffed out completely by the State, when the State merely locks them up and throws away the key--committing them to a death sentence that takes a few decades for nature to carry out--virtually nobody in America cares enough to even comment on it.

Thank you, Ide. That is exactly my point.

[Malthus]

In any event, DGuller's point seems to have been entirely lost: it is irrational and a little immoral that while people can be bothered to give a shit when someone's life is snuffed out completely by the State, when the State merely locks them up and throws away the key--committing them to a death sentence that takes a few decades for nature to carry out--virtually nobody in America cares enough to even comment on it.

Thank you, Ide. That is exactly my point.

The obvious reason people give a shit about an execution is that an execution brings the issue of their existence to the attention of the public, who otherwise would never hear about this person or his alleged crime if they were simply rotting in prision.

It has nothing to do with the comparative morality of the two forms of punishment, and it isn't "irrational" at all - it is a natural and predictable function of the fact that the state executing someone makes news, while the state continuing to imprision someone generally does not.

If the argument is that there is no effective difference between execution or prision, or even that prision is worse, one possible solution would be to offer those convicted of serious enough offences the choice.

[viper37]

1) Eventually, there may be evidence the surface that would exonerate him and he'd still be alive.  He can be compensated with money for time served.  Eventually, if it costs too much, the State will adopt new practices to convict less innocents.

It's very unlikely there'd be any evidence that would "exonerate" him.  He's not charged with committing the murder, but rather with hiring the man who did commit the murder.  There's no DNA or forensic evidence that linked him to the murder, nor would there be if he did hire the killer.

As I said: either a conviction based on the word of the real killer who cut a deal to flip on Glossip in exchange for being spared the death penalty, or it isn't.

I was talking on general principles, not the specifics of the case, which I do not know, except for your explanations.

[viper37]

That seems like an extremely flimsy argument.  Who's going to be looking for exonerating evidence anyway?

I know you guys don't have an effective justice system like the canadian one, but even there, you must have defense lawyers and various groups acting in the defense on wrongfully convicted people.

[DGuller]

If the argument is that there is no effective difference between execution or prision, or even that prision is worse, one possible solution would be to offer those convicted of serious enough offences the choice.

My argument is that being against death penalty because of the possibility of wrongful conviction is misplaced.  If you can't be certain enough in someone's guilt to execute them, then sending some to prison for life with that same level of certainty shouldn't be all that different on the scale of moral acceptability.  Otherwise what you're essentially saying is "I can't be sure he's guilty, so let's imprison him for life now and see how it goes".  If you think people are being wrongfully convicted, then your issue is with the verdict part of the criminal justice system, not the sentencing part.

[Malthus]

If the argument is that there is no effective difference between execution or prision, or even that prision is worse, one possible solution would be to offer those convicted of serious enough offences the choice.

My argument is that being against death penalty because of the possibility of wrongful conviction is misplaced.  If you can't be certain enough in someone's guilt to execute them, then sending some to prison for life with that same level of certainty shouldn't be all that different on the scale of moral acceptability.  Otherwise what you're essentially saying is "I can't be sure he's guilty, so let's imprison him for life now and see how it goes".  If you think people are being wrongfully convicted, then your issue is with the verdict part of the criminal justice system, not the sentencing part.

I think the fallacy here is the excluded middle.

I for one am sure that some percentage of people every year are wrongfully convicted - simply because the system of justice is, of necessity, not perfect. Of course, it is impossible to tell exactly who has been wronfully convicted.

That being the case, execution has greater finality to it than prision - while of course one cannot hand back the years spent wrongfully imprisioned any more than one can be brought back from the dead, a person wrongfully imprisioned could still be compensated in other ways, which is preferable to ... being dead.

Now, the chance may be small that anyone will ever successfully prove that a particular wrongfully convicted person will be exonerated before he or she dies in prision - but it does happen. It isn't an irrational position to hold that having that possibility available is more just than not having that possibility available (it also isn't an irrational position to hold that the chance is small enough that, as a society, we can live with it, and execute people).

[DGuller]

What is the middle being fallaciously excluded here?  That one can reasonably be okay with wrongful lifetime imprisonment, but not okay with wrongful execution?

[Berkut]

Go DG, go!

I am so tired of making that argument.

[Eddie Teach]

That one can reasonably be okay with wrongful lifetime imprisonment, but not okay with wrongful execution?

Lesser of two evils?

[The Brain]

If you're OK with a wrongful speeding ticket you are OK with wrongful execution.

[Berkut]

Is this the travesty of justice many media outlets make it to be, or is this more nuanced?

Here's a good summary:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/09/richard-glossip-and-the-death-penalty/408217/

My very quick take: convictions based on bought testimony are pretty dubious, but the "new evidence" being presented has no merit.  The conviction must either stand or fall on its own.

Is the "new evidence" you are talking about the testimony of the cell mates who are saying that the killer admitted to them that the convicted had no role?

Or something else?

[Malthus]

What is the middle being fallaciously excluded here?  That one can reasonably be okay with wrongful lifetime imprisonment, but not okay with wrongful execution?

The notion that there is no point in being concerned about the fact that the system isn't perfect - in short, that if the concern is wrongful convictions, the only solution is to ensure that the system becomes perfect so they don't happen. The middle that is being excluded is that one can accept an imperfect system with imperfect results and still care about attempting to make amends when the results happen to not be perfect.   

Your quote is "I can't be sure he's guilty, so let's imprison him for life now and see how it goes". 

The point is that no-one can tell, in any particular case, whether that individual person is - or is not - potentially wrongfully convicted: it isn't generally the case that people don't care to be "sure", but rather, that they are "sure", but events prove them wrong . Of course, in every case the ideal is that they are convicted beyond reasonable doubt, and that this means they are actually guilty. However, reality (as I assume we all would agree) doesn't live up to that standard of perfection - despite our best efforts, people can, and are, wrongfully convicted. Sometimes it is because the system failed somehow, but sometimes the system worked fine but the evidence was misleading or crutial evidence was absent. 

When the system works as it should, people convict accused people because they are sure "beyond reasonable doubt" they are guilty. Unfortunately, sometimes they are wrong, and there is no way to know in advance which cases will be wrong. I don't understand why caring about this possibility - which we all I assume admit - is morally or rationally incorrect.