Death Penalty and Executions

[juliod]

Capital punishment frequently comes up as a topic of discussion in this forum. Typically, most people express dissatisfaction with the current system in the US. I'd like some comments on this proposal for reform.

There are usually two objections to the current system. Advocates of the death penalty think there are two many levels of appeal and that it takes too long and is too uncertain. Opponents complain that too many innocent people are convicted and that executions are often unnecessarily cruel.

My proposal is straightforward. It would be implements at the state level, where most executions take place. Basically it is composed to two provisions:

1) Prior to an execution, the Governor of the state must certify that the convict is in fact guilty and that execution is appropriate considering all the facts and compared to similar crimes. This duty would have to be done by the Governor personally and cannot be delegated.

2) The Governor of the state would personally carry out the execution. The Governor would have to personally operate the mechanism, the switch, button, or level than directly leads to death. The Governor must remain in full view of the prisoner until a pronouncement of death.

My goal is to increase the sense of personal responsability in capital cases. That is what I think is lacking, and what leads to all the problems with the death penalty. The governor is the Chief Executive, let them execute. That will be the motto of our movement.

Why are executions too cruel? It's because no one in actual authority is involved in them. They are carried out by anonymous prison officials who may be sadists in the first place. Even lethal injection, once thought to be a humane method, is now suspected of causing extreme pain and suffering in some, perhaps many, cases. If the Governor were doing the execution directly, they would want to be very sure that things were done right, if only for their own conscience.

Why are innocent people still being found on Death Row? It's because no one in actual authority actually cares. Judges, in my view, are a hopeless case. Politicians, OTOH, often need to make a posturing tough-on-crime stance. They would be less likely to ignore evidence of actual innocence if they had to personally and publicly state they they are convinced of the justice in this specific case. No more hiding behind a jury.

My plan would tie the chief executive more directly to the execution, both in decision and action. Since they would have no simple defense in case the convict were later shown to be innocent, the Governors would take these cases much more seriously and give them greater consideration (and not just whether it makes them look "tough").

Opponents of executions often seem frustrated that as the date of an impending execution comes up it is impossible to get anyone in authority to look at evidence of innocence. Governors won't meet with their representatives. Courts won't grant hearings. The problem is that often the evidence of innocence is quite convincing. If there were a high official who must tie his or her personal dignity, reputation, and honor to the guilt of the condemned, we would not have these issues.

I think if my proposal were implimented it would be very helpful in weeding out those miscarriages that plauge our capital system, and lead to a reduction in the need for multiple appeals and repeated rulings.

DanZ

[Cephus]

100 out of 4000 is 2.5%. If we follow your program and say it is OK for these people to be executed, than we can estimate that 2.5% of those we execute are INNOCENT. You seem to think this OK. I vehemently disagree.

Actually, the percentage is much lower. That's 4000 *CURRENTLY* on death row. Add in the extra thousand that have already been executed, from which those 100 would have been included, and you're under 2%. Of those 2%, how many are actually completely innocent people, or are they lifetime repeat offenders? I see no problem at all with a 2% error rate.

[Cephus]

Wern't you just talking ethics with me?

I don't think there's any ethical way one can argue that cold blooded murderers deserve to remain alive.

How would we improve the prosecution phase?

Hopefully you're not serious about this question...

Unless you have some genius system in mind, I am inclined to believe that this would be impossible. It would be very difficult to employ both a short AND fair prosecution. The lengthy appeals system helps ensure justice, and it's extensiveness has helped weed out a good number of innocent convicts who would have otherwise faced an unwarranted death.

Unfortunately, it looks like you are. The legal system in this country is an absolute mess. Fixing it would require a complete revamp and unfortunately, since it's the lawyers that stand to lose by any revamp, we'll never see one.

The current adversarial system is inherently flawed. The defense must defend their client, even if their client is demonstrably guilty. The prosecution must prosecute the defendant, even if the defendant is demonstrably innocent. Neither side seeks the truth, they seek victory at all costs. If that means the defense has to frame damning evidence in ways that make it *APPEAR* questionable so that the jury receives only a slanted view, so be it. The same with the prosecution. If the defense has clear evidence that their client is guilty, even if their client tells them straight out that they did it, they are neither encouraged, nor in many cases permitted to share that information with the prosecution.

When it becomes a contest between two lawyers rather than an attempt to ferret out the truth, that's where the legal system fails and why we have such a mess in the courtrooms today.

Based on Micatala's figures, it would be reasonable to assume that there are at LEAST five to ten innocent convicts in that lot, many of whom will probably be added to the number of unjust deaths.

I have no problem whatsoever with that tiny level of error, sorry.

Exactly. They were not worried about being arrested, they had absolutely no CHANCE of being arrested. The police system was busying itself with relief efforts, they did not have time to take looters into custody (where would they have taken them anyway? Most of the stations were underwater). The penal system in New Orleans completely fell apart, and consequently, so did it's citizens. Would there have been that many lootings under normal conditions?

I'm still not sure what this proved. There were lootings because there was opportunity. Take the LA Riots, there were plenty of police around, it didn't stop any looting there, did it? People were on TV wandering around carrying televisions and waving at the camera. Prison? So what.

Do you think that would have been the case had, theoretically, the police been authorized to shoot looters on sight? How many people would have risked death to get that brand new 19" television?

Of course the penal system/prison serves a deterrant effect... that is just common sense. Would you be worried about getting a speeding ticket if there were no police officers to enforce it? I know I wouldn't. Can you imagine the increase in crime if our justice system suddenly collapsed?

You're confusing police with prison. Police work for both imprisonment and the death penalty, remember. And honestly, no, I wouldn't drive like a maniac, I wouldn't rape, pillage or steal if there weren't any cops around. Maybe I've got something like, oh... ethics and morality on my side, I don't need someone keeping an eye on me to act like a civilized human being. It's kind of sad that you do.

Prison is hell, every former convict will tell you that. I believe you even said yourself that you would rather choose death.

Given the choice, certainly. I have no fear of death whatsoever and the thought of being locked up for the rest of my life doesn't appeal to me. But apparently, that's not the norm, judging from all the people on death row who are fighting to have their sentences commuted to life without the possibility of parole.

You would prefer to just as well die than spend five years or so in prison?

Nope. At least I'll be getting out in five years. It's the people who are never and can never get out that I'm talking about.

You can always free an innocent person from prison. You cannot bring back the dead.

You can't give back the time you've taken from them. Even if you find that someone you kept in prison for 50 years is innocent, how much comfort is that going to give the 80-year old man?

[McCulloch]

How would we improve the prosecution phase?

The legal system in this country is an absolute mess. Fixing it would require a complete revamp and unfortunately, since it's the lawyers that stand to lose by any revamp, we'll never see one.
The current adversarial system is inherently flawed. The defense must defend their client, even if their client is demonstrably guilty. The prosecution must prosecute the defendant, even if the defendant is demonstrably innocent. Neither side seeks the truth, they seek victory at all costs. If that means the defense has to frame damning evidence in ways that make it *APPEAR* questionable so that the jury receives only a slanted view, so be it. The same with the prosecution. If the defense has clear evidence that their client is guilty, even if their client tells them straight out that they did it, they are neither encouraged, nor in many cases permitted to share that information with the prosecution.
When it becomes a contest between two lawyers rather than an attempt to ferret out the truth, that's where the legal system fails and why we have such a mess in the courtrooms today.

Good! Point out the problem. Show the reasons why the problem will not be solved and then proceed as if the problem was not there.

[ENIGMA]

I see no problem at all with a 2% error rate.

What field of business do you work in?

If it's in computing, air-travel, medicine, power-generation, engineering... heck if it's in any field where an error can be fatal or crippling, could you let me know which company you work for?

As an atheist, I don't have an afterlife to comfort me if I end up as one of the millions of people in that 2% range.

[micatala]

You can't give back the time you've taken from them. Even if you find that someone you kept in prison for 50 years is innocent, how much comfort is that going to give the 80-year old man?

That depends on the person. The fact that you would rather die at 30 than be alive for 50 years in prison and then enjoy a few years of freedom is a rather ridiculous reason to foist your choice on everyone else. If a person is innocent and they are hoping to be exonerated and are willing to wait 5, 25 or even 50 years then we should give them that chance. No, we can't give them back all the years they missed for our mistake, but we can give them back something.

You seem to be saying since we can't give them back everything they lost, we might as well kill them. By this same logic, we should kill everyone who suffers any sort of unjust loss due to governmental mistakes. If someone loses a leg because the police inadvertently shot them, should we just kill them since we can't give them their leg back?

Honestly, this argument is sounding like a more and more like a desperate attempt to 'just stick to mah guns' regardless of the logic of the position.

I don't think there's any ethical way one can argue that cold blooded murderers deserve to remain alive.

Another straw man.

I will let others who want to address whether murderers 'deserve' to remain alive do so.

My position is that, even if we agree for the sake of argument that some criminals 'deserve' death say under the principle of forfeiture, it is better for society in the long run not to give them what they deserve, especially because we end up giving others a death they do NOT deserve.

Actually, the percentage is much lower. That's 4000 *CURRENTLY* on death row. Add in the extra thousand that have already been executed, from which those 100 would have been included, and you're under 2%. Of those 2%, how many are actually completely innocent people, or are they lifetime repeat offenders? I see no problem at all with a 2% error rate.

A reasonable point. Yes, it is only an estimate based on the figures at hand.

My point would be that, even a fraction of a percent error rate when we are talking fatal consequences, is definitely not acceptable.

I don't think we would accept even a .5% error rate in other areas when the consequences are death. Imagine if .5% of all airline passengers ended up dieing due to 'mistakes' of the government run air traffic control system?

The fact that you think this is OK is incredibly sad, in my view.

Your position is tantamount to saying that it is OK to commit the grave injustice of executing innocent people to achieve the 'supposedly just' outcome of executing the guilty, even though there are other punishments that are arguably and objectively every bit as 'just' as the death penalty, and do not suffer from the problems that have been raised concerning the death penalty.

[Cephus]

Good! Point out the problem. Show the reasons why the problem will not be solved and then proceed as if the problem was not there.

The problem isn't the death penalty, but you don't see all the anti-death penalty people running out to fix the problem, they'd rather whine about the death penalty. They generally don't care if innocent people are sent to prison, it has nothing to do with innocents being punished, they just don't want them put to death.

It's purely an emotional, not a rational issue for most anti-DPers.

[micatala]

The problem isn't the death penalty, but you don't see all the anti-death penalty people running out to fix the problem, they'd rather whine about the death penalty.

The death penalty isn't the only problem, but it is a problem and it is after all the topic of this thread. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that we don't want to solve the other problems just because we happen to be discussing the problems with the death penalty.

Also, I wouldn't classify what any of the death penalty opponents are saying here as whining. We have brought up what we think are legitimate and documented problems with the death penalty, and pointed out that the death penalty does not provide any benefit to society vis-a-vis other forms of punishment. No whining here.

They generally don't care if innocent people are sent to prison,

An unjustified assumption on your part.

Certainly, we should do all we can to avoid punishing innocent people, and I have certainly never said that we should not. As has been pointed out repeatedly, if you punish an innocent person with death, you remove ANY AND ALL potential for recompense. That is one major difference between the death penalty and all other forms of punishment.

You are the only one I have seen here that has said that you don't care if the innocent get punished.

it has nothing to do with innocents being punished,

Not so. True, it is not solely about the innocent being punished, but a large part of the opposition expressed here does relate to innocent people being punished in the ultimate way.

It is predominantly about advocating for what is perceived to be a more just and civilized society, where violence, vengeance, and retribution are less a part of our interactions with each other. THus, your contention that . . . .

It's purely an emotional, not a rational issue for most anti-DPers.

does not seem to me to be supported by the discussion occurring in this thread, anyway. It is about ethics, about how to best promote a more civilized and less violent society, about being fair, about not violating peoples most basic human rights, about not responding to wrongs with further sometimes more egregious wrongs.

Yes, those of us who are anti-DPers do at times get passionate about it, but it does not follow that our opposition is rooted purely in emotion. As I think we have shown, our opposition is rooted in rationally held beliefs about what is just, and about the most effective ways to promote a just society.

No, the death penalty is not the only problem or obstacle to a more just and civilized society, but it is, in my view, a fairly big one, not only in a symbolic sense, but also in a cultural and pragmatic sense. I am not going to apologize for trying to address what I see as a grave problem just because doing so will not solve all the other problems we have. That would be silly.

[MagusYanam]

I've done nothing of the sort. It's justice. To the criminal, it's punishment, to society, it's taking out the trash. To the families of the victims, it might even be revenge. The same act can be different things to different people, I'm sure even you can see that. However, it is primarily justice and that's where we can focus if you'd like.

...

Then you are using a far different definition of justice than I am. The death penalty, in and of itself, *IS* justice. It is a just penalty for a certain segment of the criminal population who have given up their rights to life via their actions. Rehabilitation and reconciliation are not parts of justice as far as I'm concerned.

Let's. I think we can both agree that justice encompasses more than revenge and more than 'taking out the trash'. If you can come up with a stipulation for 'justice' that I can accept, then maybe we'll be on firmer ground debating the ethical validity of capital punishment.

On the other hand, I at least did propose that a comprehensive definition of 'justice' must include rehabilitation and reconciliation, and this idea has been advanced by some of the greatest ethical and practical thinkers (and doers) of our time: President Lincoln, Archbishop Tutu, Mahatma Gandhi and Reverend King. 'With malice toward none; with charity for all', and all that. Satyagraha and non-violent and non-vengeful resistance have been shown to work wonders. Tutu's ministries of reconciliation have worked wonders in South Africa... I could go on, but I believe my point here is made.

You're certainly welcome to your opinions, as are Pojman and Harris, but to argue that your opinions are fact is a bit silly. To try to impose your opinions on others is even worse. I have read quite a bit on ethics, in fact, but that's neither here nor there. I'm talking about the real world, not contemplating your navel in ivory towers.

You're right; this is the real world. Here, ethics and their application don't just amount to navel contemplation. But for the issue to be done full justice (pun very much intended), some ethical theory is needed. I proposed that by a widely accepted standard (ethics of respect for persons), the death penalty can be considered a moral wrong.

Also, you are right that opinion is not fact. However, you are ignoring that opinion - this goes for normative opinion as well - can also be right or wrong. If they are right and can be arrived at through valid ethical reasoning, than people should accept them logically and we won't need to 'impose' them. For example, I think we can both agree that murder is wrong.

Certainly, you don't put people who shoplift to death and no one has suggested that you should. The death penalty is reserved for a certain, very specific segment of the criminal population who have commited crimes that are defined by SOCIETY as so heinous that the criminal forfeits their life.

There are portions of the world where speaking out against the society is deemed heinous enough to forfeit one's life. Is this justified, in your opinion? I think we are agreed that murder deserves a stronger punishment than exercise of free speech, but do you really think that appealing to the authority of the powers-that-be (even if the powers-that-be are excessively authoritarian) is a good way to resolve this issue?

And you don't get to say that because the law doesn't agree with your philosophy, your philosophy wins. Of course, I said nothing of the sort, I said that because the majority says it's right, that makes it LEGAL.

I didn't say that because the law doesn't agree with my philosophy, my philosophy wins. But I think that if a law is wrong (segregation, for example, or - as I argue - the death penalty), we have a moral duty to repeal or change it.

Then why can we point out examples across the board of liberals wanting to fund far-reaching public and social programs that give money to the irresponsible? Don't teach responsibility, just throw money at the problem after the fact.

Who do you think it is that teaches people to become responsible, intellectually and morally (or are at the very least trying)? It's the teachers in the public schools, who are by and large (gasp) political liberals! Guess how they work and on whose money? That's right - public money for social programmes.

Conservatives moan and bitch about the lack of efficacy in public schooling, but (and I know this from firsthand experience) most of this lack of efficacy is centred in the lack of funding for the public schools.

The only reason you haven't seen evidence of it is that the death penalty isn't properly used. If it was, I am certain that it would have more of a deterrent effect than it currently does. You simply do not wish to acknowledge that possibility, which I suppose is your right, but that doesn't change the fact that the death penalty is currently carried out in such a neutered form that if there was any possible deterrent effect, it would be negligent today.

Fine - this is still speculation, and I'll take it for what it's worth, rest assured. But that doesn't change the fact that if you're measuring the death penalty by its deterrent effect (I don't and I don't think you do, either), it is neither useful nor efficient and needs either to change or die itself.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I'm still not sure what this proved. There were lootings because there was opportunity. Take the LA Riots, there were plenty of police around, it didn't stop any looting there, did it? People were on TV wandering around carrying televisions and waving at the camera. Prison? So what.

Why was there opportunity? Because the justice system was currently disabled. The looters looted because there was no law to stop them. A+B=C.

The LA riots are a COMPLETELY different case, triggered by the Rodney King verdict and social/economic problems in the area.

Do you think that would have been the case had, theoretically, the police been authorized to shoot looters on sight? How many people would have risked death to get that brand new 19" television?

Now robbery is punishable by death?

But honestly, I don't think there were many cops around to do the shooting...

You're confusing police with prison. Police work for both imprisonment and the death penalty, remember. And honestly, no, I wouldn't drive like a maniac, I wouldn't rape, pillage or steal if there weren't any cops around. Maybe I've got something like, oh... ethics and morality on my side, I don't need someone keeping an eye on me to act like a civilized human being. It's kind of sad that you do.

So theoretically, you say we could completely abolish the justice system and society would go on peacefully as if nothing had ever happened? No uprisings, no violence, no reckless acts of self-indulgence?

Have you ever read a history book? What happens when a country/empire's government crumbles? The exact things I just mentioned.

Here you are opperating under the assumption that EVERYONE has do-good morals such as yourself. That is obviously not the case. But really, you cannot honestly tell me you would not cut a few corners under absolutely no threat of punishment? I would most certainly not rob or pillage, or anything of that sort, but what is stopping me from, oh say, driving to school at 90mph? And stop signs? Hah, who needs those?

The prison/justice system deters crime. The death penalty, as is statistically proven, INCREASES it.

[MagusYanam]

So theoretically, you say we could completely abolish the justice system and society would go on peacefully as if nothing had ever happened? No uprisings, no violence, no reckless acts of self-indulgence?

Have you ever read a history book? What happens when a country/empire's government crumbles? The exact things I just mentioned.

Here you are opperating under the assumption that EVERYONE has do-good morals such as yourself. That is obviously not the case. But really, you cannot honestly tell me you would not cut a few corners under absolutely no threat of punishment? I would most certainly not rob or pillage, or anything of that sort, but what is stopping me from, oh say, driving to school at 90mph? And stop signs? Hah, who needs those?

Ahh, Glaukon's Challenge to Socrates! Worded a bit differently than in the original, but an interesting thought-experiment nonetheless. If there were no impediments to our acting immorally - no police, no socialisation, no authority to punish wrongdoing - would we continue to behave morally or would we sink into a kind of Hobbesian state of nature?

I'm inclined to say that there are quite a few (like Cephus) who would continue to behave morally. They would be preyed upon constantly by the less admirable portions of humanity, however.

IMHO, it's for the benefit of everyone in general that the justice system is in place, though that doesn't mean it can by any stretch of the imagination override or replace personal morality.

The prison/justice system deters crime. The death penalty, as is statistically proven, INCREASES it.

Please, show some figures to back this claim. The ones that I've seen have shown a statistically insignificant increase in crime with the reinstatement of capital punishment. Personally, I don't think the deterrence argument works either way, because all it amounts to, ultimately, is speculation.

Unfortunately, it looks like you are. The legal system in this country is an absolute mess. Fixing it would require a complete revamp and unfortunately, since it's the lawyers that stand to lose by any revamp, we'll never see one.

The current adversarial system is inherently flawed. The defense must defend their client, even if their client is demonstrably guilty. The prosecution must prosecute the defendant, even if the defendant is demonstrably innocent. Neither side seeks the truth, they seek victory at all costs. If that means the defense has to frame damning evidence in ways that make it *APPEAR* questionable so that the jury receives only a slanted view, so be it. The same with the prosecution. If the defense has clear evidence that their client is guilty, even if their client tells them straight out that they did it, they are neither encouraged, nor in many cases permitted to share that information with the prosecution.

When it becomes a contest between two lawyers rather than an attempt to ferret out the truth, that's where the legal system fails and why we have such a mess in the courtrooms today.

I agree completely with this, but the question is, how would a system work in which the evidence stands on its own?

Based on Micatala's figures, it would be reasonable to assume that there are at LEAST five to ten innocent convicts in that lot, many of whom will probably be added to the number of unjust deaths.

I have no problem whatsoever with that tiny level of error, sorry.

So, let me get this straight. Someone kills in cold blood five or ten innocent people and you say they are to be killed in retribution. The state kills in cold blood five or ten innocent people and you say it's a 'tiny level of error' with which you 'have no problem'. Well, I beg your pardon, but there seem to be quite a few fatal flaws in your logic.