The Death Penalty is a Good Thing

[Gawd]

My_wan, in case you forgot, it is you who said that a judge has a much greater chance of sentencing an innocent person to jail than for someone to be murdered. I then showed you many ways that used logic and math in the wrong way and yet you still won't admit that you are wrong on this point.

Then, you attempt to conflate the main issue of this thread with your delusional "statistics". If someone is sentenced to decades in jail or even life, I argued that is torture and much worse than death, which is quick and much less expensive. The way you are arguing makes me think that you are chasing your own tail.

[my_wan]

My_wan, in case you forgot, it is you who said that a judge has a much greater chance of sentencing an innocent person to jail than for someone to be murdered. I then showed you many ways that used logic and math in the wrong way and yet you still won't admit that you are wrong on this point.

I did not say: "that a judge has a much greater chance of sentencing an innocent person to jail than for someone to be murdered". Although that statement happens to be true also, it means nothing. I said that giving a convict the death sentence is more likely to kill an innocent person (person being the convict) than the average citizen has of being murdered. I'll do the numbers again, without shortcutting around the average lifespan.

The question is which is more likely A or B:
A: A random person being murdered sometime in a 68 year lifetime.
B: That a random person already convicted of murder is in fact innocent, such that the death penalty would result in killing an innocent person.

We need two number. The first, A, is easy. The murder rate is 5.4 people per 100,000 people per year. For a 68 year lifespan that's 68*5.4 people per 100,000 people per average lifetime, or 367.2 per 100,000. That's comes to 367.2/100,000=0.003672 divided by 100 to get a percentage A=0.3672%.

Now B, the odds of an innocent convict given the death penalty is more difficult, but luckily we have some empirically justifiable lower limits. To see a paper on this subject read:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p ... ar_doc.pdf
Now, one study puts a lower limit at 2.3%. However, Risinger used data strictly limited to DNA exonerations in rape-murder cases, such that we 'know' they were absolutely innocent, not just a failure to prove guilt. Yet Risinger got a lower limit of 3.3% of defendants with strictly 'proved' innocents.

But hey, I'll give B at 0.5%, just so, no matter how pro death penalty you are, you can't possibly argue it is lower. So now, which is bigger A=0.3672% or B=0.5. In fact, with these numbers, which is stacked in the pro death penalty favor by a minimum of a factor of 6, you still get B is more like by 1.36 times than A for being murdered by any murderer running loose anytime in their entire lifespan. At a more realistic 3% false conviction rate B is over 8 times more likely than A. At a 5% false conviction rate B is 13.6 times more likely than A.

Now 'IIF' a judge had to decide between the death penalty or turning the murderer loose, then to hell with those numbers, kill them. Because the odds of that murderer murdering again would likely be higher than those numbers. But that's not the case. Giving a life sentence 'without the possibility of parole' gives effectively the same protection as killing them. And arguing parole, when no parole exist, is silly. Hence, without parole, there's no justification for multiplying the odds (B) with the odds of that convict murdering again or your personal risk.

Now note: If you try to claim B is supposed to be my risk, or the risk of the average citizen of being falsely prosecuted for capital murder, you are wrong. I am not giving my risk of being falsely prosecuted, because life without parole protects me as much as the state can effective protect me. Only the risk that whoever is convicted happens to be wrongly convicted is given, which is NOT my risk of being falsely convicted. It is the risk the "authority" (not me) takes in killing an innocent person when the death penalty is imposed.

Then, you attempt to conflate the main issue of this thread with your delusional "statistics". If someone is sentenced to decades in jail or even life, I argued that is torture and much worse than death, which is quick and much less expensive. The way you are arguing makes me think that you are chasing your own tail.

Did you not also argue that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than life in prison? The leads to a contradiction. Note, you are claiming both A) and B) below:
A) Life in prison is a harsher punishment (worse) than the death penalty.
B) The death penalty is a greater deterrent to crime than life in prison.
Hence this argument equates to claiming the lesser punishment is the greater deterrent.

I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent, else it would deter people from joining gangs with rivals out to impose that death penalty on you, or old west gun duals, etc. If I am falsely convicted, I want to live, because the possibility remains that I might get to prove my innocents, in fact I would choose to live even without that possibility. So why not dish out life without parole, the worse of the two choices by your claims, and allow me the possibility of proving my innocents? You get to punish the guilty more, by your reckoning, and give the innocent the possibility of 'proving' their innocents. It also happens to be cheaper than the death penalty, whether that's justifiable or not.

In fact, this extra expense we take for imposing the death penalty is the only reason we have empirically justifiable numbers on what percentage of death row inmates are 'factually' innocent. Numbers we don't have for any other crime category.

So, if you want to continue calling my "statistics" delusional, do the numbers your way and show why they are better or less "delusional". Here's the question you have to answer, with numbers showing your work.
Question: Which is more likely A or B:
A: A random person being murdered sometime in a 68 year lifetime.
B: That a random person already convicted of murder is in fact innocent, such that the death penalty would result in killing an innocent person.

Failing to give the numbers is tantamount to admission that you were just throwing the "delusional" label at me as a bullshit attack lacking substance.

[JimC]

I resurrected this thread from the depths because I found a very interesting article in today's Age: http://www.theage.com.au/world/america- ... 1aql8.html

As an aside, Simon Mann, the Age's US correspondent, is a few years younger than me. As a child, he lived 2 doors down from us, and I used to play with him and his sisters when I was a kid. Good journalist...

America losing the urge to kill

Simon Mann, Washington
February 12, 2011

Last year, 46 people were executed in America, less than half the number in 1999, the peak year since the US Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976.

''The death penalty is putting millions [of dollars] into getting one execution per state per year, if that,'' says Richard Dieter, of the Death Penalty Information Centre. ''It's just totally symbolic, totally political and that's an expensive thing to keep operating just because it plays well in sound bites.''

Five people have been put to death in 2011, including Wednesday's execution of a Missouri man who raped and killed an 11-year-old girl in 1991. Another six cases have been stayed, some because of challenges to lethal injection protocols, while the sentence of a second Missouri man was commuted after supporters produced evidence of his possible innocence.

Advertisement: Story continues below Plenty of wary politicians are citing mounting opposition to the death penalty, but increasingly they are advocating a pragmatic response to yawning state deficits, too.

A Maryland study suggested that a death sentence - with all the trials, appeals and incarceration it entailed - cost the state $US3 million, and more if the courts ultimately spared the prisoner, whereas a life sentence cost $US1 million.

An Indiana study put the cost differential as high as 10 times, while an investigation by New Jersey, which abolished the death penalty in 2007, found death sentences had cost taxpayers an extra $US253 million since 1983.

''That's not the end of the story,'' Mr Dieter tells The Saturday Age, ''but it is, in a time of financial crises, a foot in the door in terms of raising this issue. If you say 'I have a proposal to save the state millions of dollars', then you're going to get a hearing, at the very least.''

Cost was clearly a factor in New Mexico's decision two years ago to ditch the death penalty, as in Illinois, where legislators recently voted it out for new cases. (The Illinois governor is mulling whether to sign the bill.)

A similar move in Connecticut in 2009 was vetoed, but incoming governor Dan Malloy has said he will sign the bill.

Meanwhile, Maryland's governor has proposed an end to capital punishment in his state, where just five people have been executed since 1976.

Should all three states follow through, it would take to 18 those that have dropped capital punishment. Of the 32 remaining states, 20 have executed a total of just 10 people in the past two years. Several have not had an execution in more than five years.

A recent decision by some foreign-owned drug companies to withdraw sodium thiopental for use in executions has cast additional doubt over the system, although some states are considering locally made alternatives.

''In a nation where the prison system is so overused that the currency of imprisonment is largely devalued, the death penalty allows juries to make an emphatically punitive statement,'' says David Garland, a professor of law and sociology at New York University.

''Politicians give voters what they want by enacting capital punishment statutes, even when they will never be enforced [and] prosecutors use the threat of a death penalty as leverage to elicit plea bargains and co-operation.''

Increasingly at play, too, is the reluctance of victims' families to clamour for an eye for an eye, fearing lengthy appeals will anchor their hurt for years to come. As a result, prosecutors increasingly are urging life sentences ahead of the death penalty.

But the real ''game changer'' has been DNA, featuring in 17 of 90 death-row exonerations since the early 1990s and fuelling concerns about innocence in the minds of the public.

Even in Texas, the ''perennial leader in executions'', DNA evidence and other investigation errors are giving authorities pause. DNA tests have recently shown that a single strand of hair that placed Claude Jones at the scene of a murder did not belong to him. But Jones was executed in 2000. And last October, Anthony Graves was released after 16 years on death row when a review ''found not one piece of credible evidence'' linking him to the murder of a woman and her children.

Texas, responsible for nearly four out of every 10 executions since 1976, is now supporting a state-wide DNA case review through the Innocence Project of Texas.

Should more and more states opt out of the death penalty, some opponents contemplate that the Supreme Court could rule that it violates the Eighth Amendment, which bans ''cruel and unusual punishments''.

That may be many years down the road, but impartial observers such as Richard Dieter are adamant that the trends are ''not a blip''. ''They're a constant,'' he says. ''They're a change in the popular view of the death penalty. It's not opposition, but it is scepticism, a frustration with it, a disbelief that it can really be fixed.''

[Gawd]

Nothing new in that article. Just kill the person without all those useless red tape appeals that are what really drain the entire justice system. Of course you may kill some false positives, but that's just life. There are false positives no matter if its the death penalty or jail. If Americans are really that worried about killing innocent people, we wouldn't have Iraq now, would we?

[Rum]

Nothing new in that article. Just kill the person without all those useless red tape appeals that are what really drain the entire justice system. Of course you may kill some false positives, but that's just life. There are false positives no matter if its the death penalty or jail. If Americans are really that worried about killing innocent people, we wouldn't have Iraq now, would we?

You are a genius.

[JimC]

Nothing new in that article. Just kill the person without all those useless red tape appeals that are what really drain the entire justice system. Of course you may kill some false positives, but that's just life. There are false positives no matter if its the death penalty or jail. If Americans are really that worried about killing innocent people, we wouldn't have Iraq now, would we?

Well, you are probably correct that it is the series of appeals that are responsible for the cost differential. However, given the reality of innocent people being possibly executed, and the political realities of the US, this will not change. Given that, a purely pragmatic approach would see the cheaper alternative of a life sentence being a better choice.

[Hermit]

Nothing new in that article. Just kill the person without all those useless red tape appeals that are what really drain the entire justice system. Of course you may kill some false positives, but that's just life. There are false positives no matter if its the death penalty or jail. If Americans are really that worried about killing innocent people, we wouldn't have Iraq now, would we?

...the reality...

I think you lost him there.

[Atheist-Lite]

Kill them all and let evolution sort it out?

[Gawd]

Nothing new in that article. Just kill the person without all those useless red tape appeals that are what really drain the entire justice system. Of course you may kill some false positives, but that's just life. There are false positives no matter if its the death penalty or jail. If Americans are really that worried about killing innocent people, we wouldn't have Iraq now, would we?

Well, you are probably correct that it is the series of appeals that are responsible for the cost differential. However, given the reality of innocent people being possibly executed, and the political realities of the US, this will not change. Given that, a purely pragmatic approach would see the cheaper alternative of a life sentence being a better choice.

Or, you could just send them to Guantamano Bay where Americans gladly allow torture and murder. It's even cheaper than regular jail! No lawyers!

You can't honestly expect me to take you seriously when you say Americans are afraid of killing innocent people.

[mistermack]

Nothing new in that article. Just kill the person without all those useless red tape appeals that are what really drain the entire justice system. Of course you may kill some false positives, but that's just life. There are false positives no matter if its the death penalty or jail. If Americans are really that worried about killing innocent people, we wouldn't have Iraq now, would we?

Well, you are probably correct that it is the series of appeals that are responsible for the cost differential. However, given the reality of innocent people being possibly executed, and the political realities of the US, this will not change. Given that, a purely pragmatic approach would see the cheaper alternative of a life sentence being a better choice.

Or, you could just send them to Guantamano Bay where Americans gladly allow torture and murder. It's even cheaper than regular jail! No lawyers!

You can't honestly expect me to take you seriously when you say Americans are afraid of killing innocent people.

It's perfectly logical. They are afraid of killing innocent AMERICANS because that could possibly be THEM. No such problem with killing Iraqis.
And kill an innocent Iraqi, it's not going to be on the tv to upset people. It will be ignored by the media.
.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm generally against the death penalty, but molestation is one of the two exceptions I'd make. If you rape children, you should die.

[Jason]

While I agree that molestation of children is a heinous crime, I think there are degrees of severity which preclude all forms from being labelled 'rape'. I do not, however, support the death penalty for any crime but that's another issue.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Children cannot give legal consent; that alone renders all sexual intercourse with a child rape legally speaking, it seems to me. And given the particularly vulnerable and fragile mental state of children, who are after all in the process of forming their own personality, I don't have an issue with killing someone evil enough to emotionally brand someone for life.

I know my opinion isn't going to be shared by many people, and that's cool. It's just my opinion: molesters are trash, and like all trash, they should be disposed of.

[FBM]

Children cannot give legal consent; that alone renders all sexual intercourse with a child rape legally speaking, it seems to me. And given the particularly vulnerable and fragile mental state of children, who are after all in the process of forming their own personality, I don't have an issue with killing someone evil enough to emotionally brand someone for life.

I know my opinion isn't going to be shared by many people, and that's cool. It's just my opinion: molesters are trash, and like all trash, they should be disposed of.

I don't like killing for any reason, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over doing in a serial pedophile who shows no remorse and is almost certainly beyond rehabilitation. H. sapiens is better off without them, IMO.

[normal]

I'm not very keen on the death penalty, but I think there should be an opening in the law to remove the hands and genitals of pedos and mass murderers