Export thread
The Death Penalty's Slow But Seemingly Sure Decline
#1
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
http://www.npr.org/2013/06/21/193902745/the-death-penaltys-slow-but-seemingly-sure-decline
Somewhat a spinoff of the "sickest thing" thread, somewhat a reply and being a jerk to Gasbandit's eloquent summary of this argument therein, somewhat because I was linked this article completely independent of the death penalty coming up here and thought it was interesting.
Also, glib one word response: "Good."
Somewhat a spinoff of the "sickest thing" thread, somewhat a reply and being a jerk to Gasbandit's eloquent summary of this argument therein, somewhat because I was linked this article completely independent of the death penalty coming up here and thought it was interesting.
Also, glib one word response: "Good."
#2
Tress
Tress
For me, the biggest problem has always been the possibility of executing the wrong person. That is a mistake that cannot be fixed or reversed. If the government lawfully sentences 100 murderers to death, and even 1 is actually innocent, then that is too much for me.
#3
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
Some people aren't worth keeping alive. They aren't rehabilitable, they aren't sorry for what they did, they openly say they'll do it again if they had the chance and they cost way more money than they're worth to keep around.
Glad I live in Texas.
Glad I live in Texas.
#4
Tress
Tress
I agree, but how do you determine who those people are, beyond a shadow of a doubt? Obviously this question would only apply to people who have not confessed and are not mentally retarded or disturbed.Some people aren't worth keeping alive. They aren't rehabilitable, they aren't sorry for what they did...
#5
Gilgamesh
Does it make mistakes? Sure.
Does it need improvement? Sure.
Is it what we have in place and better than the ones in place before it? Yep.
Gilgamesh
You trust the system.I agree, but how do you determine who those people are, beyond a shadow of a doubt? Obviously this question would only apply to people who have not confessed and are not mentally retarded or disturbed.
Does it make mistakes? Sure.
Does it need improvement? Sure.
Is it what we have in place and better than the ones in place before it? Yep.
#6
Tress
Tress
If it makes mistakes, I don't trust the system. Not with this.
#7
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
Any system anywhere anytime will make mistakes. It's part of being human. Nothing is perfect but again, for the type of people I described, I'm 100% for it.If it makes mistakes, I don't trust the system. Not with this.
#8
GasBandit
GasBandit
Funny how so many trends seem sure until suddenly they aren't. We're oohhhh so feckin civilized now, aren't we, eh? With our comfy prisons and soft judges and unenforced laws and declining use of the death penalty. There's a bad day a'comin, when we'll all look back at how smug we were in our grandiose assessment of ourselves, and wonder how we could have ever been so blind to the devastating storm coming in over the horizon.
#9
Dave
Dave
I disagree with your assessment, Gas. There's just way too many instances - even today with our DNA capabilities - where people are being jailed wrongly. Yes, race plays a part but by far the greatest threat to a suspect is their socioeconomic level. Those who can afford lawyers get off with startling frequency while those who have to rely on public defenders get railroaded because the PD's just can't keep up and can't spend the time necessary on cases. Add in the legions of politicians who keep making cuts to public defense programs as it makes them look "soft on crime" and you have a devastating storm already in our "justice" system.
#11
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
I have to agree with charlie. I worked as a co for 3 years in a concrete building with no ac it's like working in an oven. That's in one of the many prisons built in the late 1800 and early 1900s that still operate in texas
#12
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
And you got to go home in 8-12 hours.I have to agree with charlie. I worked as a co for 3 years in a concrete building with no ac it's like working in an oven. That's in one of the many prisons built in the late 1800 and early 1900s that still operate in texas
#13
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
The one I was at yes was 8-12, some are 12-16 (12 regular then 16 if you work overtime I believe)And you got to go home in 8-12 hours.
#14
PatrThom
--Patrick
*Defined as an instance where an active law is broken.
PatrThom
Agreed. As a society and a species, we can afford to lose a small percentage to these accidental convictions. Does it ruin families? Sure. Do I find it distasteful? Yep. But I believe wholeheartedly that there are times when killing someone would be perfectly justifiable...sometimes even before any crime* is committed.Any system anywhere anytime will make mistakes. It's part of being human. Nothing is perfect but again, for the type of people I described, I'm 100% for it.
--Patrick
*Defined as an instance where an active law is broken.
#15
Tress
It's real easy to be cavalier when it's not you or a loved one wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it was you.
Tress
Holy shit.Agreed. As a society and a species, we can afford to lose a small percentage to these accidental convictions.
It's real easy to be cavalier when it's not you or a loved one wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it was you.
#16
Bowielee
Bowielee
;I don't understand how people can be comfortable with "acceptable losses" when it comes to murdering innocent citizens.
#17
Charlie Don't Surf
haha, wow, you are a monster
Charlie Don't Surf
Agreed. As a society and a species, we can afford to lose a small percentage to these accidental convictions. Does it ruin families? Sure. Do I find it distasteful? Yep. But I believe wholeheartedly that there are times when killing someone would be perfectly justifiable...sometimes even before any crime* is committed.
--Patrick
*Defined as an instance where an active law is broken.
haha, wow, you are a monster
#18
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
You DID read my next sentence, right?It's real easy to be cavalier when it's not you or a loved one wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it was you.
I can unequivocally state that I'm one of the nicest, most tolerant, and compassionate human beings you might ever meet. This does not prevent me from being able to see the truth of the law of large numbers. It is inescapable Truth. You or I may not like it, but as we have often discussed around here, no amount of wishing or Faith can change Facts, no matter how distasteful.Does it ruin families? Sure. Do I find it distasteful? Yep.
--Patrick
#19
GasBandit
GasBandit
He just has the appropriate perspective on the actual value of human life. And the knowledge of what the lesser of two evils really is.
You couldn't have found a more subjective rebuttal. Granted, it could be called appropriate since you were responding to an opinion... but still "if it were you you'd feel different!" utterly fails to move most rational people.Holy shit.
It's real easy to be cavalier when it's not you or a loved one wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it was you.
"Way too many?" How many is it, or is that just your gut feeling? What number would be acceptable to you? Is there ANY number acceptable to you?I disagree with your assessment, Gas. There's just way too many instances - even today with our DNA capabilities - where people are being jailed wrongly.
And I don't understand how some people can be comfortable with letting someone who has a repeated, demonstrable tendency to horrific acts either out amongst the populace again or be maintained at their expense for the rest of their days.;I don't understand how people can be comfortable with "acceptable losses" when it comes to murdering innocent citizens.
#20
Dave
As to the second, no innocent person jailed is acceptable, but it's not a black & white issue in most cases. Almost all incarcerated say they are innocent or railroaded in some way. It's very, very hard to know sometimes where the truth of innocence ends and the self delusion or lies begins. But I do know that the lower sides of the socioeconomic spectrum are far more likely to be incarcerated for minor or stupid reasons and the punishments are more likely to be higher than their higher-tiered counterparts.
Dave
Do I have statistics? No. Is it just a gut feeling? No. I could cite specific cases but I'm not going to bother because your mind is made up (as is mine) and it would be a waste of time."Way too many?" How many is it, or is that just your gut feeling? What number would be acceptable to you? Is there ANY number acceptable to you?
As to the second, no innocent person jailed is acceptable, but it's not a black & white issue in most cases. Almost all incarcerated say they are innocent or railroaded in some way. It's very, very hard to know sometimes where the truth of innocence ends and the self delusion or lies begins. But I do know that the lower sides of the socioeconomic spectrum are far more likely to be incarcerated for minor or stupid reasons and the punishments are more likely to be higher than their higher-tiered counterparts.
#21
GasBandit
INTERNETS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT!
GasBandit
but I'm not going to bother because your mind is made up (as is mine) and it would be a waste of time.
INTERNETS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT!
#22
Bowielee
Bowielee
I'd rather a million guilty people rot in a cell than one innocent person die.He just has the appropriate perspective on the actual value of human life. And the knowledge of what the lesser of two evils really is.
You couldn't have found a more subjective rebuttal. Granted, it could be called appropriate since you were responding to an opinion... but still "if it were you you'd feel different!" utterly fails to move most rational people.
"Way too many?" How many is it, or is that just your gut feeling? What number would be acceptable to you? Is there ANY number acceptable to you?
And I don't understand how some people can be comfortable with letting someone who has a repeated, demonstrable tendency to horrific acts either out amongst the populace again or be maintained at their expense for the rest of their days.
#23
GasBandit
GasBandit
If they actually rotted, maybe we'd be getting somewhere.I'd rather a million guilty people rot in a cell than one innocent person die.
#24
Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington
Truthfully, as a 'rational' person, there is no argument that could sway me to support the death penalty. I believe it is wrong, I don't believe we have the right to determine when a human life should end. This isn't to say all killing is wrong: self defense, war, etc. But once we have control of their freedom, even if it was demonstrable to me that beyond a shadow of a doubt they were guilty of some heinous shit, that it would be far cheaper to execute them than sustain their lives, I would still be opposed to execution.
It conflicts too greatly with how I see life. Obviously this is more philosophical for me than some in this thread, but even points like Gas' statement that PatrThom has the 'appropriate perspective on the actual value of human life' is a statement of belief. That is not something that has an according-to-Hoyle value.
I think this conversation also has to do with one's view on what justice is, but I haven't even had my coffee yet this morning, so I'll leave it there for now.
It conflicts too greatly with how I see life. Obviously this is more philosophical for me than some in this thread, but even points like Gas' statement that PatrThom has the 'appropriate perspective on the actual value of human life' is a statement of belief. That is not something that has an according-to-Hoyle value.
I think this conversation also has to do with one's view on what justice is, but I haven't even had my coffee yet this morning, so I'll leave it there for now.
#25
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
Given the cost of the appeals process, is there any monetary savings between the death penalty or life w/o parole?
One could build a couple more Supermax style prisons for the truly hopeless cases. No visitors, no radio, TV, or books/magazines/newspapers. No contact with another human being for the rest of their life. They will be permitted a continued existence only. Food, clothing and basic hygiene needs will be met, but nothing else. Ever.
One could build a couple more Supermax style prisons for the truly hopeless cases. No visitors, no radio, TV, or books/magazines/newspapers. No contact with another human being for the rest of their life. They will be permitted a continued existence only. Food, clothing and basic hygiene needs will be met, but nothing else. Ever.
#26
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I'd rather die.Given the cost of the appeals process, is there any monetary savings between the death penalty or life w/o parole?
One could build a couple more Supermax style prisons for the truly hopeless cases. No visitors, no radio, TV, or books/magazines/newspapers. No contact with another human being for the rest of their life. They will be permitted a continued existence only. Food, clothing and basic hygiene needs will be met, but nothing else. Ever.
#27
PatrThom
I'm sure many of us have had people immediately and instantly start hating you/unfriending you/etc. the moment you came out as gay/pro-life/Christian/whatever even though it's not like you weren't already those things months and months previously while you were still best friends. BUT now they know, and so now they hate you.
--Patrick
PatrThom
Aren't we all, in our own way? I'm sure we could easily find ways to hate and absolutely despise each other (chewing too loudly, clipping toenails in bed, leaving hair on the soap, empty milk cartons in the fridge, whatever). We are all still going to be exactly the same people after the discovery.haha, wow, you are a monster
I'm sure many of us have had people immediately and instantly start hating you/unfriending you/etc. the moment you came out as gay/pro-life/Christian/whatever even though it's not like you weren't already those things months and months previously while you were still best friends. BUT now they know, and so now they hate you.
--Patrick
#29
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
(chewing too loudly, clipping toenails in bed, leaving hair on the soap, empty milk cartons in the fridge, whatever).
--Patrick
one of these things is not like the otherBut I believe wholeheartedly that there are times when killing someone would be perfectly justifiable...sometimes even before any crime* is committed
#30
GasBandit
GasBandit
Right now, no there isn't. Which isn't as it should be.Given the cost of the appeals process, is there any monetary savings between the death penalty or life w/o parole?
#31
Cog
Cog
Gasbandit is right about that some people should die. But how can you simply see the possibility of a innocent person getting killed and say "shit happens"?. There are some cases when we can be 100% sure that someone is guilty (dna, several witnesses, etc), why don't you just kill those cases?
#32
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
Since that's still barbaric and cruel and unusual punishment.why don't you just kill those cases?
#33
GasBandit
And really, the way our justice system works, certainty doesn't enter into sentencing - only how heinous and egregious the crime of which they have been convicted.
Remember, we have a legal system, not a justice system. It's going to get it wrong sometimes. The guilty go free, the innocent are convicted, and we put up with all of it because the alternatives are either anarchy or a police state.[DOUBLEPOST=1372449568][/DOUBLEPOST]
GasBandit
Because there have been cases where we were "100% sure" someone was guilty and they weren't. The only, only way to ensure no one is put to death who is later found to be innocent is not to put anyone to death at all, and that's just a price many are not willing to pay.Gasbandit is right about that some people should die. But how can you simply see the possibility of a innocent person getting killed and say "shit happens"?. There are some cases when we can be 100% sure that someone is guilty (dna, several witnesses, etc), why don't you just kill those cases?
And really, the way our justice system works, certainty doesn't enter into sentencing - only how heinous and egregious the crime of which they have been convicted.
Remember, we have a legal system, not a justice system. It's going to get it wrong sometimes. The guilty go free, the innocent are convicted, and we put up with all of it because the alternatives are either anarchy or a police state.[DOUBLEPOST=1372449568][/DOUBLEPOST]
"Cruel and unusual" is a silly term. If it isn't cruel, it isn't really punishment, and if it isn't unusual, it has no impact. Does punishment concern someone who is "routinely" punished?Since that's still barbaric and cruel and unusual punishment.
#34
Cog
Yes it is. But for people like Gas, life in general is not important (or some lives are more important than others). So, taking that into consideration, he should agree that if you are going to kill someone, at least you have to be sure. Not reasonably sure, but 100% sure. (I should start using the reply button)
Cog
Since that's still barbaric and cruel and unusual punishment.
Yes it is. But for people like Gas, life in general is not important (or some lives are more important than others). So, taking that into consideration, he should agree that if you are going to kill someone, at least you have to be sure. Not reasonably sure, but 100% sure. (I should start using the reply button)
#35
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Really? where is the pain and humiliation?Since that's still barbaric and cruel and unusual punishment.
#36
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Killing is absolutely heinous and morally wrong and should never be done, and to prove it we're gonna kill you back.
#37
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
At least it puts a stop to recidivism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuff
If the death penalty is ever stopped again, they better have a plan in place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuff
If the death penalty is ever stopped again, they better have a plan in place.
#38
GasBandit
*note: this argument only applies if you oppose capital punishment but do not oppose corporal punishment. If you do happen to oppose corporal punishment then studies indicate you might have a head injury.
GasBandit
The one state that should have been reliably depended on to kill a killer. GJ Texas.[DOUBLEPOST=1372454013][/DOUBLEPOST]At least it puts a stop to recidivism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuff
If the death penalty is ever stopped again, they better have a plan in place.
Never hit your brother! To prove it's wrong to hit your brother, we, your parents, much larger and more physically capable of inflicting pain, are going to hit you.Killing is absolutely heinous and morally wrong and should never be done, and to prove it we're gonna kill you back.
*note: this argument only applies if you oppose capital punishment but do not oppose corporal punishment. If you do happen to oppose corporal punishment then studies indicate you might have a head injury.
#39
Ravenpoe
I do, in fact, oppose corporal punishment. I don't think solving conflict through violence is a good message to spread.
Ravenpoe
The one state that should have been reliably depended on to kill a killer. GJ Texas.[DOUBLEPOST=1372454013][/DOUBLEPOST]
Never hit your brother! To prove it's wrong to hit your brother, we, your parents, much larger and more physically capable of inflicting pain, are going to hit you.
*note: this argument only applies if you oppose capital punishment but do not oppose corporal punishment. If you do happen to oppose corporal punishment then studies indicate you might have a head injury.
I do, in fact, oppose corporal punishment. I don't think solving conflict through violence is a good message to spread.
#40
PatrThom
You just put the two of them next to one another in a quote, that's all.
--Patrick
PatrThom
You are correct. One was a list of reasons why one person might hate another. The other was a comment about justifiable homicide.one of these things is not like the other
You just put the two of them next to one another in a quote, that's all.
I would argue that our legal system only cares whether or not you are convicted, regardless of guilt/innocence or how heinous a crime might be.the way our justice system works, certainty doesn't enter into sentencing - only how heinous and egregious the crime of which they have been convicted.
I suppose you could make it elective. Ask a convicted prisoner once a year (or so) whether or not they want to continue their sentence or be put to death instead. Unfortunately this would mean people would commit crimes just so they could be put to death...tantamount to State sponsorship of assisted suicide, except that some might argue whether the State should be in any way at fault for the crime the defendant had to commit in order to get convicted.I'd rather die.That's kinda the point.
--Patrick
#41
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
Well, no. That's the other part of the equation. You're not going to get it that easy. Once you're here, you're going to live out your days forgotten and alone. Your time is up when God decides it is, not you, not the state.I suppose you could make it elective. Ask a convicted prisoner once a year (or so) whether or not they want to continue their sentence or be put to death instead. Unfortunately this would mean people would commit crimes just so they could be put to death...tantamount to State sponsorship of assisted suicide, except that some might argue whether the State should be in any way at fault for the crime the defendant had to commit in order to get convicted.
#42
Tress
Tress
U.S. reviewing 27 death penalty convictions for FBI forensic testimony errors
TL;DR version:
The FBI found 27 cases where their own experts' testimony "went beyond" the actual science and exaggerated the validity of their forensics, which led (in part) to convictions.
Maybe they would have been convicted without the testimony, maybe not, but I find it disheartening (to say the least) the number of times people were convicted based on bullshit evidence.
By Spencer S. Hsu, Published: July 17 E-mail the writer
An unprecedented federal review of old criminal cases has uncovered as many as 27 death penalty convictions in which FBI forensic experts may have mistakenly linked defendants to crimes with exaggerated scientific testimony, U.S. officials said.
The review led to an 11th-hour stay of execution in Mississippi in May.
It is not known how many of the cases involve errors, how many led to wrongful convictions or how many mistakes may now jeopardize valid convictions. Those questions will be explored as the review continues.
The discovery of the more than two dozen capital cases promises that the examination could become a factor in the debate over the death penalty. Some opponents have long held that the execution of a person confirmed to be innocent would crystallize doubts about capital punishment. But if DNA or other testing confirms all convictions, it would strengthen proponents’ arguments that the system works.
FBI officials discussed the review’s scope as they prepare to disclose its first results later this summer. The death row cases are among the first 120 convictions identified as potentially problematic among more than 21,700 FBI Laboratory files being examined. The review was announced last July by the FBI and the Justice Department, in consultation with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL).
The unusual collaboration came after The Washington Post reported last year that authorities had known for years that flawed forensic work by FBI hair examiners may have led to convictions of potentially innocent people, but officials had not aggressively investigated problems or notified defendants.
At issue is a once-widespread practice by which some FBI experts exaggerated the significance of “matches” drawn from microscopic analysis of hair found at crime scenes.
Since at least the 1970s, written FBI Laboratory reports typically stated that a hair association could not be used as positive identification. However, on the witness stand, several agents for years went beyond the science and testified that their hair analysis was a near-certain match.
The new review listed examples of scientifically invalid testimony, including claiming to associate a hair with a single person “to the exclusion of all others,” or to state or suggest a probability for such a match from past casework.
Whatever the findings of the review, the initiative is pushing state and local labs to take similar measures.
For instance, the Texas Forensic Science Commission on Friday directed all labs under its jurisdiction to take the first step to scrutinize hair cases, in a state that has executed more defendants than any other since 1982.
Separately, FBI officials said their intention is to review and disclose problems in capital cases even after a defendant has been executed.
“We didn’t do this to be a model for anyone — other than when there’s a problem, you have to face it, and you have to figure how to fix it, move forward and make sure it doesn’t happen again,” FBI general counsel Andrew Weissmann said. “That tone and approach is set from the very top of this building,” he said, referring to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.
An unprecedented federal review of old criminal cases has uncovered as many as 27 death penalty convictions in which FBI forensic experts may have mistakenly linked defendants to crimes with exaggerated scientific testimony, U.S. officials said.
The review led to an 11th-hour stay of execution in Mississippi in May.
It is not known how many of the cases involve errors, how many led to wrongful convictions or how many mistakes may now jeopardize valid convictions. Those questions will be explored as the review continues.
The discovery of the more than two dozen capital cases promises that the examination could become a factor in the debate over the death penalty. Some opponents have long held that the execution of a person confirmed to be innocent would crystallize doubts about capital punishment. But if DNA or other testing confirms all convictions, it would strengthen proponents’ arguments that the system works.
FBI officials discussed the review’s scope as they prepare to disclose its first results later this summer. The death row cases are among the first 120 convictions identified as potentially problematic among more than 21,700 FBI Laboratory files being examined. The review was announced last July by the FBI and the Justice Department, in consultation with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL).
The unusual collaboration came after The Washington Post reported last year that authorities had known for years that flawed forensic work by FBI hair examiners may have led to convictions of potentially innocent people, but officials had not aggressively investigated problems or notified defendants.
At issue is a once-widespread practice by which some FBI experts exaggerated the significance of “matches” drawn from microscopic analysis of hair found at crime scenes.
Since at least the 1970s, written FBI Laboratory reports typically stated that a hair association could not be used as positive identification. However, on the witness stand, several agents for years went beyond the science and testified that their hair analysis was a near-certain match.
The new review listed examples of scientifically invalid testimony, including claiming to associate a hair with a single person “to the exclusion of all others,” or to state or suggest a probability for such a match from past casework.
Whatever the findings of the review, the initiative is pushing state and local labs to take similar measures.
For instance, the Texas Forensic Science Commission on Friday directed all labs under its jurisdiction to take the first step to scrutinize hair cases, in a state that has executed more defendants than any other since 1982.
Separately, FBI officials said their intention is to review and disclose problems in capital cases even after a defendant has been executed.
“We didn’t do this to be a model for anyone — other than when there’s a problem, you have to face it, and you have to figure how to fix it, move forward and make sure it doesn’t happen again,” FBI general counsel Andrew Weissmann said. “That tone and approach is set from the very top of this building,” he said, referring to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.
TL;DR version:
The FBI found 27 cases where their own experts' testimony "went beyond" the actual science and exaggerated the validity of their forensics, which led (in part) to convictions.
Maybe they would have been convicted without the testimony, maybe not, but I find it disheartening (to say the least) the number of times people were convicted based on bullshit evidence.
#43
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
The biggest BS that I've ever heard about in forensics, is matching a bullet to a batch of bullets to make a conviction. Lead is lead, and if there is any difference in lead from different mines, those tons of lead become millions of bullets.
#44
Bubble181
Err, it depends on when and where, but all bullets are supposed to have a serial number of their batch micro-encrypted on them starting 2015 or 2016 or something.
Bubble181
The biggest BS that I've ever heard about in forensics, is matching a bullet to a batch of bullets to make a conviction. Lead is lead, and if there is any difference in lead from different mines, those tons of lead become millions of bullets.
Err, it depends on when and where, but all bullets are supposed to have a serial number of their batch micro-encrypted on them starting 2015 or 2016 or something.