So, what's the deal with Richard Glossip?

[Martinus]

Admitted narcissist lectures fellows on lack of empathy.

Isn't one of the tell-tale signs of narcissism the inability to admit that one has a problem?

I'm more a histrionic than a narcissist.

[Martinus]

Go DG, go!

I am so tired of making that argument.

Perhaps that's because it's stupid?

[Berkut]

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.

Personally, I don't think that is wrong or irrational.

However, my objection is to the argument that the DP is wrong because it results in innocent people being put to death -with the difference being that the DP is final while some other form of punishment is not.

While that is true, we know that absent the DP, any punishment system results in innocent people being punished. We of course endeavor to make that number as small as possible, but we know that it is never zero. And lets assume, for the sake of the discussion, that when we talk about those unjustly convicted, we exclude those who are unjustly convicted, but eventually exonerated - let's assume that there is some magical system that allows us to perfectly compensate such cases such that the injustice is perfectly resolved.

That still leaves us with an inevitable number of people like you are talking about - people who are unjustly convicted, and whom there will never be any exoneration. They will serve their term, whether that be life of 10 years or whatever, and it will never be the case that they will eventually see justice. As you said, we have no idea how many of them there are, and we have no way of knowing WHICH of them they are, but we know the number is some number greater than zero.

Therefore, the argument that the DP is unique in that it is "permanent" is false. It is no more or less permanent in the overall sense that we are talking a out than being sentenced and never seeing exoneration, which we absolutely know happens in some percentage of all cases, DP and otherwise. Presumably, (and reasonably) in fact at a vastly greater rate than in DP cases, given the greater attention given to DP cases.

I think there are good reasons to be against the DP. I've mostly become an advocate of getting rid of it myself. But the argument that we should ditch it because execution is permanent while imprisonment is not is not a good argument from a logical standpoint.

[Berkut]

Go DG, go!

I am so tired of making that argument.

Perhaps that's because it's stupid?

I am always on solid ground when it comes to legal issues to just make sure I am on whichever side of the argument you are furthest from, so I think I will be ok.

[Grey Fox]

I think there are good reasons to be against the DP. I've mostly become an advocate of getting rid of it myself. But the argument that we should ditch it because execution is permanent while imprisonment is not is not a good argument from a logical standpoint.

But imprisonment doesn't have to be permanent, there is an option there to correct an error while with the DP, there is none.

In an infinite universe with an infinite number of galaxies, stars & planets, the chances of humanity existing is 0. Therefore humanity does not exist.

[Berkut]

I think there are good reasons to be against the DP. I've mostly become an advocate of getting rid of it myself. But the argument that we should ditch it because execution is permanent while imprisonment is not is not a good argument from a logical standpoint.

But imprisonment doesn't have to be permanent, there is an option there to correct an error while with the DP, there is none.

But we know that in fact in some cases that option will never actually happen. So from the overall perspective, it doesn't matter that it is possible in some particular case, we know that overall there will be cases where the error will never be corrected, hence it is just as much a problem as the DP in the argument for the argument that we should not have the DP because it results in innocent people being executed. Both DP and non-DP penalties suffer from that exact same issue.

In a more practical sense, think of it like this:

Out of 100 people getting the DP, and 100 people getting LIP.

Lets say that 4 DP people are innocent, and two of them are executed before their innocence can be proven. Therefore, DP is bad because it is too permanent - two people we put to death who did not deserve to be.

Lets say that 8 LIP people are innocent, and 4 of them are exonerated (and compensated) at some point before their sentence is up, leaving 4 who are unjustly punished without recourse.

We don't know if those are the actual average numbers or not. But unless you are arguing that the LIP number is actually zero, the argument that the DP is especially bad due to the permanence of it is fallacious. They both have that problem, and in neither case can the *overall* problem ever be eliminated.

[Martinus]

Well, if I were innocent, I would much rather be in prison than be dead.

[Grey Fox]

I think there are good reasons to be against the DP. I've mostly become an advocate of getting rid of it myself. But the argument that we should ditch it because execution is permanent while imprisonment is not is not a good argument from a logical standpoint.

But imprisonment doesn't have to be permanent, there is an option there to correct an error while with the DP, there is none.

But we know that in fact in some cases that option will never actually happen. So from the overall perspective, it doesn't matter that it is possible in some particular case, we know that overall there will be cases where the error will never be corrected, hence it is just as much a problem as the DP in the argument for the argument that we should not have the DP because it results in innocent people being executed. Both DP and non-DP penalties suffer from that exact same issue.

In a more practical sense, think of it like this:

Out of 100 people getting the DP, and 100 people getting LIP.

Lets say that 4 DP people are innocent, and two of them are executed before their innocence can be proven. Therefore, DP is bad because it is too permanent - two people we put to death who did not deserve to be.

Lets say that 8 LIP people are innocent, and 4 of them are exonerated (and compensated) at some point before their sentence is up, leaving 4 who are unjustly punished without recourse.

We don't know if those are the actual average numbers or not. But unless you are arguing that the LIP number is actually zero, the argument that the DP is especially bad due to the permanence of it is fallacious. They both have that problem, and in neither case can the *overall* problem ever be eliminated.

We should try tho.

[Malthus]

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.

Personally, I don't think that is wrong or irrational.

However, my objection is to the argument that the DP is wrong because it results in innocent people being put to death -with the difference being that the DP is final while some other form of punishment is not.

While that is true, we know that absent the DP, any punishment system results in innocent people being punished. We of course endeavor to make that number as small as possible, but we know that it is never zero. And lets assume, for the sake of the discussion, that when we talk about those unjustly convicted, we exclude those who are unjustly convicted, but eventually exonerated - let's assume that there is some magical system that allows us to perfectly compensate such cases such that the injustice is perfectly resolved.

That still leaves us with an inevitable number of people like you are talking about - people who are unjustly convicted, and whom there will never be any exoneration. They will serve their term, whether that be life of 10 years or whatever, and it will never be the case that they will eventually see justice. As you said, we have no idea how many of them there are, and we have no way of knowing WHICH of them they are, but we know the number is some number greater than zero.

Therefore, the argument that the DP is unique in that it is "permanent" is false. It is no more or less permanent in the overall sense that we are talking a out than being sentenced and never seeing exoneration, which we absolutely know happens in some percentage of all cases, DP and otherwise. Presumably, (and reasonably) in fact at a vastly greater rate than in DP cases, given the greater attention given to DP cases.

I think there are good reasons to be against the DP. I've mostly become an advocate of getting rid of it myself. But the argument that we should ditch it because execution is permanent while imprisonment is not is not a good argument from a logical standpoint.

Assume all of your hypotheticals are true.

There will be two groups: (1) those who are convicted, are innocent, but whose innocence is never 'discovered' by the authorities; and (2) those who are convicted, who are innocent, and whose innocence *is* 'discovered' by the authorities.

Yes, I agree, in the case of both imprisionment *and* the DP, those in group (1) are in exactly the same situation - no justice for them.

However (and again accepting that all your hypotheticals are true), the case isn't the same for group (2). In the case of group (2), those who are executed can never be compensated, while those who are imprisioned can (assuming they haven't died of old age before their innocence is 'discovered').

Why should the sad fate of those in group (1) make us not care what happens to those in group (2)?  I'm not clear on the logic here.

[Berkut]

Malthus, it absolutely does not. But it isn't a question of whether we care or not, we should care very much indeed. It is just that even with all that caring, we know that the system will still inevitably fail in some (hopefully small) percentage of the cases. Higher if BB is involved, of course.

However, lets talk about that group 2 (and this is a different argument than the one I dismissed).

Lets divide group 2 into 2 groups:

A) Those who get the DP
B) Those who get LIP

For group A, some of them will have the discovery happened before they are put to death. Lets call this group A1.

The rest will be put to death, and only afterwards will we find out that they were innocent. Lets call this group A2.

Group B presumably are all going to eventually be exonerated.

Here is the thing - which group would you rather be in on conviction, group A or group B, considering that in fact you don't know which A group you will eventually end up in, and in fact don't even know if you are going to be in the exonerated group at all?

Oddly enough, there is a good chance you would much rather be in group A than group B - group A is going to get probably an order of magnitude greater amount of attention paid to their case than group B. Presumably, since you know you are innocent, then you also know there is at least a reasonable chance that given enough attention, you ought to be exonerated, right?

Of course this doesn't even get into the mess of our legal system where the reality is that even if you are innocent you should really just plead guilty anyway, since by the time a murder trial goes to trial, the odds of you being acquitted are poor.

[Malthus]

Malthus, it absolutely does not.

Then I'm not sure what the counter-argument is. Those against the DP are, in effect, saying (or at least those making the argument you disagree with are saying), in effect, "the DP is permanent and those in [group (2)] could never be compensated if they were executed". Why is this not a good argument from a logical position? Noting that those in [group (1)] wouldn't be compensated, either, whether they were imprisioned or executed, while 100% true, doesn't strike me as a persuasive rebuttal.   

[grumbler]

Hamilcar!

I told you guys Oklahoma would figure out a way to fuck it up.

"Hey.. hey Cletus.. them thar protocols say we should use potassium chloride, but all we gots is this damn potassium acetate."
"Well hell Jim Bob, it's all potassium!"

[Ideologue]

Oddly enough, there is a good chance you would much rather be in group A than group B - group A is going to get probably an order of magnitude greater amount of attention paid to their case than group B. Presumably, since you know you are innocent, then you also know there is at least a reasonable chance that given enough attention, you ought to be exonerated, right?

Well, I don't know if I'd go that far, but this is the crux of the point.  Because people will actually pay attention to recipients of the death penalty, there are more resources/publicity available to them than Jack the Third Striker who's spending the next 20 years in jail.  No one cares about Jack the Third Striker dying in his 17th year.  But if you execute him in his 7th, the whole left shrieks with agony, as if what was done to him is an order of magnitude worse.

Americans are willing to absolutely destroy the lives of their fellow citizens, as long as they don't have to think about the destruction they're causing.  This is the immorality I referred to--which doesn't rely on the DP being especially bad.

That's why the system that needs to be focused on is the legislative, investigative, and judicial apparatus at the intake: the crappy laws that overpenalize stupid shit and underpenalize other things; the poor internal intelligence service that cannot generate airtight cases (or, perhaps even more importantly, provide exculpation for those falsely accused); and the overburdened, underfunded court system corrupted by racism, classism, and callous, monstrous indifference.  After that, we need to start repairing prison conditions.

At that point, the question of whether the death penalty is worse than incarceration becomes moot.

Well, if I were innocent, I would much rather be in prison than be dead.

Animals generally possess a survival instinct.  So what?

[Berkut]

Malthus, it absolutely does not.

Then I'm not sure what the counter-argument is. Those against the DP are, in effect, saying (or at least those making the argument you disagree with are saying), in effect, "the DP is permanent and those in [group (2)] could never be compensated if they were executed". Why is this not a good argument from a logical position? Noting that those in [group (1)] wouldn't be compensated, either, whether they were imprisioned or executed, while 100% true, doesn't strike me as a persuasive rebuttal.   

Because if the argument is that "Penalty X should not be used because we know that it results in people never being exonerated who should be" is the argument, then it logically applies equally as well to penalties that are not the death penalty.

You either tolerate the fact that there will in fact be cases where innocent people are punished as a unfortunate result of an imperfect judicial system, or you do not tolerate it - in which case the character of the punishment is not longer the issue, as they are all equally "bad" in the sense that they are all going to be applied unjustly at times.

"the DP is permanent and those in [group (2)] could never be compensated if they were executed"

And neither can those in group 1. So the claim that the DP is somehow "different' in the overall evaluation of "Punishments that result in unjust outcomes" is false. It isn't different. With the DP or without, you have the same problem. Get rid of the DP, and you still have a system that results in people being unjustly convicted who will never be exonerated.

LIP is permanent for those who are in group 1, and since we know there are people in group 1, then the objection on the basis of the existence of group 2 is not a consistent argument.

[Berkut]

Looking at this case in particular, it seems kind of interesting.

I think it is rather likely that Glossip contributed or even instigated the murder. At the VERY least he was involved in trying to cover it up, which looks rather suspicious.

However, I don't think one should ever be able to secure a conviction based primarily on the testimony of someone else who was directly culpable for the crime, and has something very much to gain by implicating someone else. I can't say that I can see anything that ought to result in the verdict being overturned, but on the other hand (assuming the facts as presented to the jury are substantially as I understand them) I would never vote to convict on 1st degree murder had I been on that jury.