Is this the travesty of justice many media outlets make it to be, or is this more nuanced?
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2015, 03:11:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2015, 03:16:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2015, 03:11:49 PM
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.
So you are fine with killing an innocent man because of procedural reasons? Wow.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2015, 03:20:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2015, 03:16:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2015, 03:11:49 PM
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.
So you are fine with killing an innocent man because of procedural reasons? Wow.
And how exactly did you get that from what I said?
I criticized the new evidence because it's based on cell mates recalling the witness said he had lied. They're discussing events that took places 9 and 18 years ago. It's not credible or reliable.
The conviction either stands or falls on its own, and I offered no opinion which way it should go. In fact I said such convictions are "pretty dubious".
If you're going to put off executions in US because of dubious convictions, you may as well just outlaw death penalty altogether.
Not only is he probably innocent, but Oklahoma is probably going to fuck up the execution and cause him to die slowly and painfully.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2015, 03:26:44 PM
And how exactly did you get that from what I said?
Let's face it: you are a monster.
Taking time to explain the legal procedure calmy is one thing, but you went totally overboard when you did not approve of Martinus' stance. There, you are beyond redemption.
Sadly I cannot help but feel a bit of relief it is not Texas looking horrible for once.
But yes more evidence the death penalty, while not too bad in theory, is pretty shit in reality.
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2015, 03:34:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2015, 03:26:44 PM
And how exactly did you get that from what I said?
Let's face it: you are a monster.
Taking time to explain the legal procedure calmy is one thing, but you went totally overboard when you did not approve of Martinus' stance. There, you are beyond redemption.
Yeah I did get a kick out of that.
Marty: Is it as bad as it looks? Somebody provide me with a more nuanced view.
BB: Provides a nuanced view.
Marty: YOU HAVE A NUANCED VIEW OF THIS OUTRAGE?!!! MONSTER!
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2015, 03:35:27 PM
Sadly I cannot help but feel a bit of relief it is not Texas looking horrible for once.
Just your mom's people.
I said this before, but I think being against death penalty because of innocence concerns is badly missing the point. Let's say Glossip is innocent, which given Oklahoma's penchant for sending innocent people to the death row is likely, would it be much less of a tragedy if he were sent to prison for life on exactly the same evidence? No one would think about him in that case, so maybe it will be easier on the rest of society to not witness this likely miscarriage of justice, but would it be much different for him? Either way you have your life taken away from you.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2015, 03:36:24 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2015, 03:34:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2015, 03:26:44 PM
And how exactly did you get that from what I said?
Let's face it: you are a monster.
Taking time to explain the legal procedure calmy is one thing, but you went totally overboard when you did not approve of Martinus' stance. There, you are beyond redemption.
Yeah I did get a kick out of that.
Marty: Is it as bad as it looks? Somebody provide me with a more nuanced view.
BB: Provides a nuanced view.
Marty: YOU HAVE A NUANCED VIEW OF THIS OUTRAGE?!!! MONSTER!
The expected response was: Yes, this is as bad as it looks. God damn Amerikkka. :P
Quote from: Fireblade on September 30, 2015, 03:33:40 PM
Not only is he probably innocent, but Oklahoma is probably going to fuck up the execution and cause him to die slowly and painfully.
Fireblade!
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2015, 03:47:52 PM
I said this before, but I think being against death penalty because of innocence concerns is badly missing the point. Let's say Glossip is innocent, which given Oklahoma's penchant for sending innocent people to the death row is likely, would it be much less of a tragedy if he were sent to prison for life on exactly the same evidence? No one would think about him in that case, so maybe it will be easier on the rest of society to not witness this likely miscarriage of justice, but would it be much different for him? Either way you have your life taken away from you.
So you are suggesting that the being in jail is the equivalent of being dead?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2015, 04:11:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2015, 03:47:52 PM
I said this before, but I think being against death penalty because of innocence concerns is badly missing the point. Let's say Glossip is innocent, which given Oklahoma's penchant for sending innocent people to the death row is likely, would it be much less of a tragedy if he were sent to prison for life on exactly the same evidence? No one would think about him in that case, so maybe it will be easier on the rest of society to not witness this likely miscarriage of justice, but would it be much different for him? Either way you have your life taken away from you.
So you are suggesting that the being in jail is the equivalent of being dead?
Being in prison for life without any realistic chance of getting out is not substantially different from being in prison for 15 years and then being put to death, as far as the severity of miscarriage of justice is concerned. If you oppose death penalty because innocent people may be executed, you're essentially saying "I can't be sure that he's guilty, let's send him to prison for life".
How exactly are you judging this? As far as I know you haven't been imprisoned for a long time or executed before.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2015, 04:17:35 PM
How exactly are you judging this? As far as I know you haven't been imprisoned for a long time or executed before.
I'm making value judgment. If you're not sure about someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you should be neither executing the person nor sending them to prison for life. In our judicial system, we don't determine sentences based on probability of guilt. We don't go "Well, we usually give 20 years for armed robbery, but since we're only 50% sure you're actually guilty, we'll give you 10 years."
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2015, 03:20:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2015, 03:16:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2015, 03:11:49 PM
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.
So you are fine with killing an innocent man because of procedural reasons? Wow.
Innocent from a legal standpoint? Surely even Polish courts don't try to ascertain truth, but rather if the accused is legally responsible or not.
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2015, 04:23:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2015, 04:17:35 PM
How exactly are you judging this? As far as I know you haven't been imprisoned for a long time or executed before.
I'm making value judgment. If you're not sure about someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you should be neither executing the person nor sending them to prison for life. In our judicial system, we don't determine sentences based on probability of guilt. We don't go "Well, we usually give 20 years for armed robbery, but since we're only 50% sure you're actually guilty, we'll give you 10 years."
Yes, but the idea that being in jail is equivalent to being in jail seems odd. Most people in prison don't commit suicide and often fight the death penalty.
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2015, 04:23:49 PM
We don't go "Well, we usually give 20 years for armed robbery, but since we're only 50% sure you're actually guilty, we'll give you 10 years."
:shutup:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2015, 04:40:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2015, 04:23:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2015, 04:17:35 PM
How exactly are you judging this? As far as I know you haven't been imprisoned for a long time or executed before.
I'm making value judgment. If you're not sure about someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you should be neither executing the person nor sending them to prison for life. In our judicial system, we don't determine sentences based on probability of guilt. We don't go "Well, we usually give 20 years for armed robbery, but since we're only 50% sure you're actually guilty, we'll give you 10 years."
Yes, but the idea that being in jail is equivalent to being in jail seems odd. Most people in prison don't commit suicide and often fight the death penalty.
Extremely odd.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2015, 04:40:04 PM
Yes, but the idea that being in jail is equivalent to being in jail seems odd.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2015, 04:41:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2015, 04:23:49 PM
We don't go "Well, we usually give 20 years for armed robbery, but since we're only 50% sure you're actually guilty, we'll give you 10 years."
:shutup:
Oh, yeah. I forgot.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2015, 04:40:04 PM
Yes, but the idea that being in jail is equivalent to being in jail seems odd.
:hmm:
I suggest an experiment. Execute Jaron, and send Timmay to jail for life. After both sentences have been completed, ask them which was worse.
Oh, wait...
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 30, 2015, 04:02:10 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on September 30, 2015, 03:33:40 PM
Not only is he probably innocent, but Oklahoma is probably going to fuck up the execution and cause him to die slowly and painfully.
Fireblade!
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!"
I really don't understand why we can't just use a guillotine. Call it a Freedom Blade or something if you have to.
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2015, 03:47:52 PM
would it be much less of a tragedy if he were sent to prison for life on exactly the same evidence?
yes it would. For two things.
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.
2) With death penalty and the system of elected prosecutor you have in the US, it becomes a media circus and the da will be tempted to push for death penalty, even if there aren't tons of evidence* because they want to be seen as tough on crime
*I suspect that when there is "a ton" of proofs, there is some plea deal going on to avoid death penalty.
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2015, 10:28:57 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on September 30, 2015, 04:59:55 PM
I suggest an experiment. Execute Jaron, and send Timmay to jail for life. After both sentences have been completed, ask them which was worse.
Oh, wait...
Why me? :cry:
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2015, 10:33:20 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2015, 10:28:57 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2015, 10:28:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 01, 2015, 01:30:50 AM
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. :hug: That is exactly my point.
Quote from: DGuller on October 01, 2015, 06:38:26 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 01, 2015, 01:30:50 AM
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. :hug: 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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2015, 10:33:20 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2015, 10:28:57 PM
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. :)
Quote from: DGuller on October 01, 2015, 06:35:42 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2015, 07:55:19 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on October 01, 2015, 10:00:53 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2015, 07:55:19 AM
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).
What is the middle being fallaciously excluded here? That one can reasonably be okay with wrongful lifetime imprisonment, but not okay with wrongful execution?
Go DG, go!
I am so tired of making that argument.
Quote from: DGuller on October 01, 2015, 10:51:33 AM
That one can reasonably be okay with wrongful lifetime imprisonment, but not okay with wrongful execution?
Lesser of two evils?
If you're OK with a wrongful speeding ticket you are OK with wrongful execution.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2015, 03:16:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2015, 03:11:49 PM
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?
Quote from: DGuller on October 01, 2015, 10:51:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 01, 2015, 01:30:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 11:53:04 AM
Go DG, go!
I am so tired of making that argument.
Perhaps that's because it's stupid?
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2015, 01:02:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2015, 01:13:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 11:53:04 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 01:27:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 01, 2015, 01:33:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 01:27:14 PM
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.
Well, if I were innocent, I would much rather be in prison than be dead.
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 01:45:20 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 01, 2015, 01:33:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 01:27:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 01:27:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2015, 01:02:22 PM
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.
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. :P
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 02:04:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Fireblade on September 30, 2015, 05:47:23 PM
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!"
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 02:04:36 PM
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.
Quote from: MartinusWell, if I were innocent, I would much rather be in prison than be dead.
Animals generally possess a survival instinct. So what?
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2015, 02:09:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 02:04:36 PM
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.
Quote"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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 02:58:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2015, 02:09:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 02:04:36 PM
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.
Quote"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.
The idea, I assume, is that there is *more* injustice with the DP. Not that there is *no* injustice with imprisonment.
Any system of justoce is going to have injustice - the system ain't perfect. That's true with imprisionment and with the DP - admittedly. Your argument is sound as far as that goes. An argument that claimed that imprisonment would result in no injustice is incorrect.
Thing is, with imprisionment there is a chance for injustices to be corrected. With the DP, there is not, at least after the date of execution. So assuming that there are injustices, and assuming again that those injustices are discovered during the natural lifespan of the accused, then
in those particular cases with imprisionment those injustices can be corrected but with the DP they cannot, after the sentence has been carried out.
Now, it is pefectly reasonable to argue that the numbers who will benefit from this are small, and if you are willing to accept imperfection in the case of imprisionment, why not accept imperfection in the case of executions as well? The counter to that is that the above imperfections aren't the inevitable result of the court's process, but rather the result of choosing execution as the punishment - and so, avoidable. You can eliminate this possibility simply by not choosing execution as a punishment, without affecting the fairness of the court process in the slightest.
It is also perfectly reasonable to argue, as you have, that the extra attention and process paid to those who are to be executed makes it *more* likely that unjustly accused will be discovered. But that's a counter-argument, not really an attack on the logic of the original argument.
I guess the best solution would be to (1) abolish death penalty and (2) ensure that the type of resources currently dedicated to analyse DP convictions are dedicated to life (or long term) imprisonment convictions.
Marty, I don't disagree with your conclusions, although obviously reached in a different manner.
For me, the DP is simply not worth it. There is no evidence that it is an effective deterrent, and no evidence that the cost associated with it has anything near a countering benefit to society, or even the families of victims.
I think we have a inherently problematic justice system in a wide variety of ways that desperately need to be addressed, and getting hung up over the DP is a waste of valuable resources,.
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 03:31:54 PM
Marty, I don't disagree with your conclusions, although obviously reached in a different manner.
For me, the DP is simply not worth it. There is no evidence that it is an effective deterrent, and no evidence that the cost associated with it has anything near a countering benefit to society, or even the families of victims.
I think we have a inherently problematic justice system in a wide variety of ways that desperately need to be addressed, and getting hung up over the DP is a waste of valuable resources,.
I guess DP is more emotionally significant, as our visceral reaction killing people is stronger than to just locking them up.
Speaking of which, saw "Capote" this week - an excellent movie.
Listen to that Serial podcast I recommended. I bet you will find it interesting.
I can't help but think that the guy would have been better off getting the DP.
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 03:31:54 PMI think we have a inherently problematic justice system in a wide variety of ways that desperately need to be addressed
i think the biggest problem comes from the bottom rather than the top. U.S. society
wants to punish people. most people equate justice with large prison sentences or, with the most egregious crimes, execution. i've seen people criticize the prison system one day and complain a month later that a rapist didn't get jail time. people have to first change the way they view criminals.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 01, 2015, 04:02:46 PM
i think the biggest problem comes from the bottom rather than the top.
Yeah, very often.
If that is your biggest problem, your life is either very good, or very bad.
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 03:01:49 PM
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.
Agree completely with that
I agree with the first post by BB, I'm dubious on the value of evidence against Glossip but I don't think the new evidence is of meaningful evidential value. The evidence against him was the sole word of a man known to have physically murdered the victim, given to spare himself from the death penalty when he had been essentially caught red-handed and had no hope of escaping serious punishment. That to me "shouldn't be enough" to convict someone of a crime, which to me is the first major problem with what happened here--the sentence either way is just a consequence of a really shitty conviction.
I know that typically in our system it is the role of juries to evaluate situations where you have one person testifying one way, and the defendant basically rejecting said testimony in their defense. But I just don't understand convicting someone on a he said she said. Isn't that why rapes are so damn hard to get convictions on? I'm not sure why we're getting murder convictions on the same kind of evidence that often isn't enough for a prosecutor to even go to trial on a rape case.
I think we just need a fundamental rework of the criminal justice system in terms of avoiding wrongful convictions. Our system is geared toward speed and "conclusions" far too much right now. Didn't Canada have a similar problem and they revamped theirs to specifically try and eliminate wrongful convictions back in the 90s or something? What did they do there? And is there a way we could apply it here in the United States? I do know that in Virginia at least the commonwealth did seriously beef up the death penalty process to make sure that the defendants have extremely good counsel. That alone I think had so many prosecutors in the State basically get scared off of even pursuing death penalty cases, when faced with having to litigate against attorneys that don't fall asleep in court a lot of prosecutors here would rather not bother. Which is kinda scary to me, that the same guys who were routinely taking cases capital dramatically reduced that when faced with competent opposing counsel.
Philosophically I've never had a problem with the concept of the state killing someone for a crime. I don't actually know or care about the deterrent effect (well, I know the data suggests it probably has no deterrent effect), or the "vengeance for the victim" aspect. To me it's more of a justice concept, the whole justice system is built around it but it seems to never get brought up in these discussions. Instead we talk about either rehabilitation or deterrence. I think how you handle inmates should focus on both of those (and vastly more on rehabilitation than we do now in the United States), but the actual sentences, that should be based on the ancient concepts of justice that underpin the entire system. For many crimes I believe the most just punishment is death.
That's the high-level, legal philosophy opinion. From an applied perspective I think even a much more robust criminal justice system is far too flawed to allow the death penalty as a regular punishment. I'd be okay with keeping it for extreme edge cases, like treason, serial killers, terrorists (basically all of whom cannot really be convicted without nigh-certainty of their guilt.) But it should largely be off the table as a punishment. Ordinary murder with aggravating factors just isn't enough to warrant the practical clusterfuck that is the death penalty.
I reject the concept that you can "fix" years taken away in prison. Time is a resource that you can't buy back, once gone it's lost for ever. The quality of life in your typical American prison, especially for someone convicted of a serious crime and likely to be imprisoned in a maximum security prison where they spend significant time in a cell every day, is so low that it's aptly viewed as "lost time." Money doesn't fix that when it's been done to you unjustly. Your punishment may not "permanent" in the sense that after death you're gone, but it is permanent in that you lose years you never get back.
That being said, within reason I agree with Marti if I was innocent I'd rather be given a life sentence than a death sentence. Life sentence gives mo a longer time window to prove my innocence, and if it ever got to be too much it's not like you can't kill yourself in prison. That being said I do think the damage of incarceration is probably pretty easy to understand, it's been studied and written about by psychologists for ages. Humans are social animals. In prison you either lose access to socialization (if you're the worst of the worst criminal, the kind that can't behave and has to be locked down forever) which is known to basically cause insanity in social mammals, or you have normal society replaced by one in which you are in constant fear of being attacked or killed by the antisocial people you have to live with. Constant stress like that has to wear on your psyche no different than the constant physiological stresses of combat contribute to wearing down the psychological health of soldiers. Prison is deeply psychologically damaging and to me someone who spends 50 years in prison, then dies of natural causes, for a crime they didn't commit, probably had a worse outcome than someone who was in prison for 7-15 years and then executed for a crime they didn't commit.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 02, 2015, 04:15:45 PM
I think we just need a fundamental rework of the criminal justice system in terms of avoiding wrongful convictions. Our system is geared toward speed and "conclusions" far too much right now. Didn't Canada have a similar problem and they revamped theirs to specifically try and eliminate wrongful convictions back in the 90s or something? What did they do there? And is there a way we could apply it here in the United States? I do know that in Virginia at least the commonwealth did seriously beef up the death penalty process to make sure that the defendants have extremely good counsel. That alone I think had so many prosecutors in the State basically get scared off of even pursuing death penalty cases, when faced with having to litigate against attorneys that don't fall asleep in court a lot of prosecutors here would rather not bother. Which is kinda scary to me, that the same guys who were routinely taking cases capital dramatically reduced that when faced with competent opposing counsel.
:yes:
Perhaps ironically, one of the biggest things changes was that using "jailhouse informants" is now extremely rare.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 01, 2015, 04:02:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 03:31:54 PMI think we have a inherently problematic justice system in a wide variety of ways that desperately need to be addressed
i think the biggest problem comes from the bottom rather than the top. U.S. society wants to punish people. most people equate justice with large prison sentences or, with the most egregious crimes, execution. i've seen people criticize the prison system one day and complain a month later that a rapist didn't get jail time. people have to first change the way they view criminals.
I think this is the crux of the problem. Before we can really make changes to the system we need to alter the way people view the criminal justice system. We need to convince people that rehabilitative programs are not only viable alternative to merciless imprisonment but a superior one. We also need to remove the stigma of former criminals in the mind of the public. It doesn't do us much good to damn a person to menial jobs for the rest of his life because he did one year in the pen.