Trial by Fire - a case of death penalty in Texas

[Caliga]

No, there is ZERO chance that everyone who is wrongfully put in jail will be released.

If we accept that there is a set of people who are in prison who ought not to be, then it is absolutely true that some subset of those people will NEVER be released. So for those people (granted, we don't know exactly which of them) there is a ZERO percent chance that they will be released, just like the guy who is put to death.

We all agree with this - we agree that out of n innocents in jail, the number who will be exonnerated is y, where y<n. Therefore, for some people it is certainly the case that there is no chance they will be released.

So the problem is the same. The only difference is that once we execute some particular person, THAT person can never be exonerated - but it doesn't change the fact that we know there are people who should not be in prison and will never be exonerated. We don't know which of them this is true for, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it is certainly the case that for some they are not going to be set free.

What you are saying is logically sound and I (think I) agree with it.  It's hard for me to even attempt to refute it though, because I don't understand the underlying rationale.  "It's okay to execute people because some people in prison--who are destined to *not* share that fate--do not deserve to be there" ? Is that essentially it?  Forgive me if it is not but I am trying to follow your line of thinking here.  It's hard for me to see how the first part of that statement connects to the second.  I am not trying to construct a strawman, just understand what you are basing what I assume is your pro-death penalty stance on.

[DontSayBanana]

So are you opposed to imprisonment on that same basis?

It's an acceptable risk in cases of imprisonment, because while we're limiting the inmate's right to liberty, the state still has a burden to uphold his life and health.  Life, however, is paramount, and shouldn't be placed on the line when there's any chance of the court convicting an innocent man.

[The Minsky Moment]

No, there is ZERO chance that everyone who is wrongfully put in jail will be released.

Indeed it is very difficult to get someone released from jail on actual innocence grounds, even assuming that sufficient evidence can be found to allow for such an application to be made.

[Berkut]

My stance is this.

We have decided that the state, under certain circumstances, has the right to deny someone various rights. In regards to criminal behavior, this commonly includes the right to basic freedom. We toss people in jail, sometimes for life, and we do so despite the fact that we know that some (hopefully very small) percentage of people we do that to we will be making a mistake, and for those people, many of them that mistake will never be rectified. They may spend their entire lives in jail, or eventually get out with a criminal record that will follow them forever, and this will be grossly unjust. But we are ok with that. We aren't happy with it, and we expend great effort to make sure it almost never happens, but we accept that sadly it is not completely avoidable.

I don't see how taking away someones right to life is any different. Is someone right to life somehow more sacred than their right to freedom? I don't think it is.

So the objection based on this chimera that someone put in jail for life *might* get set free, *might* get justice, is a false one. Some particular person might, but we know that there is a non-zero set of people who certainly will NOT ever be exonerated. Therefore, for them, the chance is in fact zero, just like for the guy who is executed.

I am actually not really pro-DP. I am not against it, really - I could live with or without it. I just don't think that the argument against it based on the idea that we will execute innocent people is logical unless you can reconcile it with the fact that we are willing to imprison innocent people.

I think the much better arguments against are:

1. It is too damn expensive, too much trouble, and is doesn't really deter anyway, or

2. Morally it is wrong to kill - that in fact the right to life IS more sacrosanct than the right to freedom, and the act of homicide, even when state-sanctioned, is to be avoided at any and all costs. That the act of killing is more damaging to society than it is helpful.

[Berkut]

So are you opposed to imprisonment on that same basis?

It's an acceptable risk in cases of imprisonment, because while we're limiting the inmate's right to liberty, the state still has a burden to uphold his life and health.  Life, however, is paramount, and shouldn't be placed on the line when there's any chance of the court convicting an innocent man.

A fair argument. I am not sure I agree with it, but at least it is consistent and logical, once you accept your basic premise.

[Caliga]

1. It is too damn expensive, too much trouble, and is doesn't really deter anyway, or

2. Morally it is wrong to kill - that in fact the right to life IS more sacrosanct than the right to freedom, and the act of homicide, even when state-sanctioned, is to be avoided at any and all costs. That the act of killing is more damaging to society than it is helpful.

I was actually getting ready to make a post where I tried to defend my anti-death penalty stance and I was going to use similar positions.  I thought about making this post earlier but didn't want you to think I was trying to deflect the issue.

I mean, it's not like I heard about the Willingham case and was like "OMG NOW I am opposed to the death penalty!"  I've been opposed to it for like 10 years.  It's one of the positions I still hold on to from when I was actually quite liberal, rather than the libertine I am now which I sometimes try to pass off as classical libertarianism. 

I guess maybe the better statement is "this is ONE OF THE REASONS I am opposed to the death penalty".  The main reason is that I am extremely wary of the state reserving the right to kill its own citizens, regardless of how badly they might have behaved.  I don't think, say, a serial killer DESERVES to live--so I don't think all humans have the inherent right to life.  If I thought that, I think I would also have to be a a pacifist unless I took the position that all Americans have the right to life (but non-Americans do not), in which case I think I would have to be a fascist.  I also absolutely disagree with the notion that the death penalty is a deterrent, simply because it defies common sense.  I mean, honestly how many people do you visualize having flash-forwards of the pending justice process in their heads as they choke someone to death?  Either they think they will get away with the crime (or else they would not commit it), or such thoughts do not even cross their rage-filled/drug addled/mentally unstable minds in the heat of the moment.

[viper37]

I've got an open question, considering the response to death penalty challenges: do you guys believe the death penalty should be held to a higher standard of certainty than "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

No, I do not.
The verdict and the sentence are 2 different things imho.

[grumbler]

No, there is ZERO chance that everyone who is wrongfully put in jail will be released.

True but not relevant.

If we accept that there is a set of people who are in prison who ought not to be, then it is absolutely true that some subset of those people will NEVER be released. So for those people (granted, we don't know exactly which of them) there is a ZERO percent chance that they will be released, just like the guy who is put to death.

Untrue, but not relevant.  The fact that injustice may occur does not mean that we should avoid injustice where it is possible.  You are looking at entirely the wrong cause to justify your pre-selected pro-death-penalty stance, IMO.

We all agree with this - we agree that out of n innocents in jail, the number who will be exonnerated is y, where y<n. Therefore, for some people it is certainly the case that there is no chance they will be released.

We do not agree on this, of course, because it is faulty logic.  y<=n  That is a key difference in logic, though not relevant to the DP debate.

So the problem is the same. The only difference is that once we execute some particular person, THAT person can never be exonerated - but it doesn't change the fact that we know there are people who should not be in prison and will never be exonerated. We don't know which of them this is true for, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it is certainly the case that for some they are not going to be set free.

Your certainty is misplaced and illogical.  The death logic is precise.  Imprecision/= precision.

[Queequeg]

JESUS CHRIST.


WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS FUCK!?!!?!

I don't think simple disbarment is enough for him and the judge.  Is there some way they could serve jail time? The motherfucker deserves to rot. 

[grumbler]

My stance is this.

We have decided that the state, under certain circumstances, has the right to deny someone various rights.

We have done no such thing.  We have granted the state a limited power to restrict rights.

In regards to criminal behavior, this commonly includes the right to basic freedom. We toss people in jail, sometimes for life, and we do so despite the fact that we know that some (hopefully very small) percentage of people we do that to we will be making a mistake, and for those people, many of them that mistake will never be rectified. They may spend their entire lives in jail, or eventually get out with a criminal record that will follow them forever, and this will be grossly unjust. But we are ok with that. We aren't happy with it, and we expend great effort to make sure it almost never happens, but we accept that sadly it is not completely avoidable.

We do not know that mistakes will never be rectified.  We know it is unlikely, but we do not know it to be impossible.

I don't see how taking away someones right to life is any different. Is someone right to life somehow more sacred than their right to freedom? I don't think it is.

The difference is that the state caanot correct any miscarriage of justice if the innocent has been executed.  I don't consider this a particularly persuasive argument against the DP, but at least it is logically coherent, unlike the "I know for sure that some innocents cannot be exonerated, though I don't know why."

So the objection based on this chimera that someone put in jail for life *might* get set free, *might* get justice, is a false one. Some particular person might, but we know that there is a non-zero set of people who certainly will NOT ever be exonerated. Therefore, for them, the chance is in fact zero, just like for the guy who is executed.

Faulty logic repeated.

The argument to counter the "innodents may die" anti-DP argument is that dead murders cannot murder again.  Live, imprisoned, murderers can (and have) escaped from prison and murdered again.  Either decision on the DP will result in the death of innocents.  A person's stance, if the protection of innocents is the primary goal, must weight the likelihood of executing the innocent against the likelihood that not executing the guilty will result in the death of innocents.

[Kleves]

I mean, honestly how many people do you visualize having flash-forwards of the pending justice process in their heads as they choke someone to death?  Either they think they will get away with the crime (or else they would not commit it), or such thoughts do not even cross their rage-filled/drug addled/mentally unstable minds in the heat of the moment.

True, but might the threat of the death penalty not have some utility power after the crime has been commited? That is, it may have some value in bludgeoning suspects into a confession, or into pleading guilty, in order that they may avoid the death penalty.

[Caliga]

True, but might the threat of the death penalty not have some utility power after the crime has been commited? That is, it may have some value in bludgeoning suspects into a confession, or into pleading guilty, in order that they may avoid the death penalty.

Good point.  Hmmm... well what if we abolished it, but just didn't tell anyone?  Then we could still use it as a threat in that manner.

[viper37]

True, but might the threat of the death penalty not have some utility power after the crime has been commited? That is, it may have some value in bludgeoning suspects into a confession, or into pleading guilty, in order that they may avoid the death penalty.

Not really.  You can already achieve that much with any kind of sentencing.  I.e. the crime is worth 10 years in jail, you offer 5 and a possibility of parole in 3 years for good conduct.  If the crime is worth 20 years, you offer 10, if it's life imprisonment without possibility of parole you offer 25 years and parole at 2/3, etc.

Basically, if the guy knows you can't prove his guiltyness, he won't confess no matter how sweet is the deal.  Such plea are usually made during or just before the trial, when the guy knows there are evidences against him and he's already been charged and he risks some jail time.

That's what I think, but we have BB here that can confirm the process, unless he doesn't want to reveal some trade secret of his

[Barrister]

No real trade secrets to worry about, but I'm not sure what you're wondering about...

[Monoriu]

It must be scary for anyone who has an accidental fire in their homes.  How many more people did they convict of arson because of bogus science?  They should do a review of all the arson cases.  That Vasquez guy claimed to have investigated over a thousand cases. How many more wrongful convinctions are there?