Campaign to abolish death penalty after deaths of innocents

[Mxylplyx]

Honestly this is BS that stems from a belief that even if you know for certain that a person is guilty of murder that they should not be put to death.

There are acceptable margins of error for everything. To claim that the death penalty is "special" and should be held to some impossible standard just means you oppose the death penalty in general.

As an obvious example for why your standard is full of it consider this: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2301811

Apparently even something as simply as ibuprofen has something like 1 in 100,000 people have a severe adverse reaction to it. If we applied the same standard you wish to apply to the death penalty to ibuprofen it should be banned from sale. While in reality you can walk into any Walmart and buy it no questions asked.

Uhh, yeah, killing someone because you believe they committed a crime that they didn't is KIND OF SPECIAL. I knowingly accept the risks of taking Ibuprofen when I take it. Are you suggesting I should accept the risk of being wrongly executed for murder every time I step out my front door? That is some of the most dumb ass logic I've ever seen.

Why don't you answer the question I posed? Are you willing to be that "margin of error" guy that gets wrongly executed? It's OK I guess so long as it's someone else, right?

 

[Mxylplyx]

For some reason nothing else is held to this standard (Even when death or serious injury can result).

The only logical conclusion is that people who present such perverted logic are really just opposed to the death penalty regardless of whether an innocent person could possibly die and are just trying to post-hoc justify it.

Are you that fucking dense? The fact that an innocent person can, and most certainly has been wrongly executed is exactly why I am opposed to it. Does it look like I'm mincing words? When there is an alternative available (life in prison), it is perfectly reasonable to expect a perfect standard when it comes to deciding whether our government is authorized to execute a human being. Releasing a wrongly incarcerated person based on a wrongful conviction is much more forgivable than sending an apology to their next of kin.

 

[nehalem256]

Are you that fucking dense? The fact that an innocent person can, and most certainly has been wrongly executed is exactly why I am opposed to it. Does it look like I'm mincing words? When there is an alternative available (life in prison), it is perfectly reasonable to expect a perfect standard when it comes to deciding whether our government is authorized to execute a human being. Releasing a wrongly incarcerated person based on a wrongful conviction is much more forgivable than sending an apology to their next of kin.

No its not. It is convenient excuse to use for people who don't want to execute someone even if there is zero doubt they are guilty.

 

[nehalem256]

Uhh, yeah, killing someone because you believe they committed a crime that they didn't is KIND OF SPECIAL.

There is nothing special other than you keep assuming they are actually innocent.

I knowingly accept the risks of taking Ibuprofen when I take it. Are you suggesting I should accept the risk of being wrongly executed for murder every time I step out my front door? That is some of the most dumb ass logic I've ever seen.

Which of course explains why they won $100m judgement.

I am suggesting that society allows innocent people to die when there death could have been prevented if we exercised your whole "expectation of perfection" belief elsewhere.

 

[nehalem256]

Consider this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

There is zero doubt to the guilt of the perpetrator. He was detained at the scene of the crime. Would you have a problem executing him?

 

[CountZero]

lol ... amnesty international as a credible source. hahahahahaha

I'm 100% for the death penalty, but I'm not confident it's being applied correctly and fairly. I would not be opposed to a good discussion around safeguards added to the system to prevent innocent people from getting convicted.... but the funny thing is that most of those who complain about the possibility of an innocent getting executed are using that possibility as a smokescreen. They oppose the penalty for anyone, on any grounds, regardless of their guilt.

I want more safeguards in place to prevent an innocent from getting convicted and executed, but I don't want to eliminate the death penalty for those who's guilt is not in question.

The problem is that those whose guilt is 100% not in question will plea out of death penalty. You would only go to trial on a death penalty case if a) you/your lawyer thought the evidence wasn't a slam dunk or b) you were innocent. These are the two cases where I don't think death penalty should be applied. On a pure theoretical basis I have no problem with the death penalty but in reality I think it is just too flawed to bother with. It doesn't work as a deterrent, it costs more than life imprisonment, just not worth it IMO.

 

[CountZero]

Consider this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

There is zero doubt to the guilt of the perpetrator. He was detained at the scene of the crime. Would you have a problem executing him?

I wouldn't have a problem with it but I'd rather he plea down to life without parole and save us all the money/time/effort. I don't care if he is killed but I think it is a waste of time. The best thing about death penalty is that, in cases like this, it can be used to prevent drawn out court cases via a plea.

 

[werepossum]

If it was hypothetically possible to have 100% certainty about a person's guilt about a calculated planned murder I would support the death penalty.


I don't believe it's possible right now. If you look around the google machine you can find enough cases of people on death row or who were executed when there was evidence that cast doubt on the justification for the sentence.


Some people do deserve to die. However, enough people who don't (or have enough questionable circumstances to cast doubt on a death penalty) are sentenced to death or are actually executed that I have serious reservations about the death penalty right now.

I support the death penalty, but I so agree with the bolded. The last thread on this subject I saw had some people I certainly didn't think deserved the death penalty, assuming the anti-death penalty article was honest.

 

[gingermeggs]

There are shades of grey, black and white.

When the evidence shows the guilt, it was intentional and a life was taken; there should be no remorse.

#1 Thou shalt not kill........................................................

 

[gingermeggs]

There are a number of advocacy groups that would throw lots of resources at proving an executed man innocent because it would do wonders for their PR campaigns. The best example I can think of was a guy who was fried in Virginia named Roger Keith Coleman. A lot of people acted as if it was a known fact that he was innocent. Eventually Virginia agreed to post execution DNA testing and the results were that he was guilty as hell. Whoops!

What we ought to do is fix the appeals process so that it's easier to introduce actual evidence of innocence but much harder to nitpick procedural BS. Under our current system it's disturbingly difficult to present new evidence, but if god forbid a prosecutor forgets to dot an "i" or cross a "t" that can get a conviction thrown out. It's insane.

Anyone that mentions the name "God" and is pro-death penalty should get some Psychiatric help sooner rather then later.

NEVER include me in your "we"............

 

[Agent11]

Society has done lots of horrendous things we humans took quite some time to cease doing. Longevity of a practice is no justification.



Says who? And what do you mean by humane? To whom? The person to be executed? Or the next of kin of the victim?

I would rather die than be locked in a cage with the scum of society for the rest of my life.

As for the if 1 innocent is executed you must remove the punishment argument, I reject it. Even if 5 innocents are executed per 1000 it would not be a reason to remove the death penalty.
Our legal system gives you every chance to prove your innocence.

A good parallel would be over the counter medication. For example children's Motrin.http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2301811

Stevens–Johnson syndrome is a rare condition, with a reported incidence of around 2.6[3] to 6.1[2] cases per million people per year. In the United States, there are about 300 new diagnoses per year. The condition is more common in adults than in children. Women are affected more often than men, with cases occurring at a two to one (2:1) ratio.[2]

Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) (also known as "Lyell's syndrome"[1]) is a rare, life-threatening skin condition that is usually caused by a reaction to drugs.[2] The top layer of skin (the epidermis) detaches from the lower layers of the skin (the dermis) all over the body.
TEN is a more severe form of Stevens–Johnson syndrome. There is debate about whether it falls on a spectrum of disease that includes erythema multiforme.[3][4] Some authors consider that there is an overlap between the two syndromes (usually between 10% and 30% of skin detachment).
The incidence is between 0.4 and 1.3 cases per million each year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens–Johnson_syndrome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_epidermal_necrolysis

Yet western medicine still focuses on potentially deadly medications, knowing that a percentage of people will be stricken with disfiguring or fatal complications. The reality is life is not perfect. The benefit of medications outweigh the risk to a small percentage of the population. The same applies with the death penalty and the possibility of executing innocents, however I do feel there should be standards of evidence a prosecutor must meet in order to pursue a death penalty conviction, for instance physical evidence and multiple eye witness testimony rather than a purely circumstantial case.

 

[Doppel]

The notion that everyone's life has inherent value is offensive and immoral. The kinds of people who are capable of committing crimes like this are not the same as us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_murders



There's another quote that I absolutely love from an old death penalty case in Maryland. The criminal who was on trial was a drug dealer who'd order the contract killing of two witnesses in a federal drug case. As the prosecution put it:



I support the death penalty because I value human life. Not imposing a uniquely terrible penalty on those who commit murder cheapens the value of the lives of decent, non-murderous people.

Wow, definitely don't want to read that link. Read the intro

Some people are evil and they are monsters and not humans by any normal definition of it, but I still would be against the death penalty. I find it much simpler to be against it in all cases than start to invite caveats.

And as gingermeggs says, I also have a major issue with God-fearing people seeming to have no qualms with killing a person who is now of zero threat to society.

 

[monovillage]

Anyone that mentions the name "God" and is pro-death penalty should get some Psychiatric help sooner rather then later.

NEVER include me in your "we"............

God damn you're a stupid fucker and I support the death penalty.

 

[irishScott]

I have no issue with eliminating the death penalty, so long as we eliminate parole along with it.

 

[irishScott]

#1 Thou shalt not murder........................................................

Fixed for the literal translation.