Is the death penalty morally wrong?

[jimmy eat jazz]

....you mean the kind O.J. Simpson got?

I'm obviously speaking in general terms. I'd expect a reasonable person to realize and acknowledge that.

Which explains why this obvious point was beyond your comprehension.

 

[Hotdog]

Explain your understanding of my response to that assertion many times on this board and I'll be happy to address any issues you have with my stand. I'm happy to stand by my previous statements, which have never been challenged, without having to repeat them.

Sorry, I don't spend much time in general discussion. So I have no idea what your stance.

We don't need to argue about it. There is nothing to argue about. A gun is a killing machine. That's it's purpose. End of story.

I'm not opposed to guns. I know they are necessary for many reasons. And those reasons are to kill your enemies. Life's hard, and it's messed up. Killing has to be done. Human beings force the hands of other human beings. Most of the time there is no way around it. It's sad reality about life.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

...so, repeat offenders of DUI who have killed innocent victims because of there refusal to change there ways....should continue living so they can kill and mane other innocent victims?

So you are advocating the death penalty for repeat DUI offenders?

Wow. Just . . . wow!

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

The idea I have bolded above always interests me. Are you saying that we are executing far too many innocent people of color or lower income? Is it that we let too many people of higher income and that are white get away with crimes that would deserve the death penalty too frequently? Is it a matter of people with means and of the "right" color getting more favorable sentences? Or should we be letting some people of color or with lower incomes skate to even out the percentages? I am always interested in hearing 1) how this comes to be and what is implied/inferred through such statements, and 2) what needs to be done about it, if anything.

I acknowlege that the justice system in the US is unfair, inequitably administered and systematically biased against certain groups, including principally those who cannot afford competent represtantion and certain minority groups, including and particularly blacks, and that it is likely to continue to be so, regarless of what progressive reforms might be made.

At the same time, the death penalty is the ULTIMATE punishment, one that is final and from which there can be no appeal.

Thus while we are constrained by the nature of the system, the limitations institutions that comprise it, and the limited understanding and prevailing prejudices of those who administer it, we are compelled to accept that this sytem produces inequitable outcomes (as much as we would wish otherwise), BUT while acknowledging the preceeding, one meausre we can take is to limit or eliminate the ability of this sytem to generate the ULIMTATE punishment in an unfair and inequitable manner. This much is simple--simply abolish the death penalty. It is the easiest fix available to us that will improve the results of this system in the short-term, one that can be done by fiat, while we work on fixing the other aspects of the system that produce such unfair and inequitable results, all of which is a much more complex and long-term struggle.

Does that help you understand better my position?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Some confess

And many confessions are false extracted using nefarious means.

There was a very good episode of This American Life on this topic, related to police interrogation tactics and how they can often, and frequently do, produce false confessions.

A confession, outside of context and supporting evidence, is by no means a certain statement of a person's guilt.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I asked you a question about this but you ignored or skipped it. See above.

See what you are saying sounds great from a purely philosophical standpoint. From an in-the-trenches standpoint it is much harder to remedy than just stopping the death penalty. I should like to hear your reasoning behind it, evidence for it (such as what percentage of blacks that receive the death penalty were innocent compared to the percentage of whites, etc.) and how to remedy it. I know there are some statistics on this topic out there. But I have also seen stats that show it is not as black and white (excuse the pun) as it is portrayed.

Edit:

I decided to google a bit and found this really good piece about it:

https://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/de...ite-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides#Conclusion

And I have a solution.

Require than in every state with the death penalty a panel of law experts be established to review only capital cases. They are given the facts of the case, with all names redacted (using only victim, defendent, etc.) and any details that may indicate race or even sex (such as names of schools if applicable, and street addresses, etc.) and the final verdict of the jury as to guilt. This panel would be cross-race and gender and consist of 5 or 7 individuals (more or less as warranted). They would then review the case academically according to the laws of the state and determine if the death penalty would be warranted based on precedent according to the case facts. If it is warranted it would be sent back to the trial judge as an option for sentencing. If it is not warranted, it is eliminated as a possible sentence entirely. This would not be that difficult to establish, would not be overly costly, and would go a long way to being fair to the defendents and victims alike. The panel could be built to represent the statistical makeup of the population of the state in general, but would be required to have at least 40% non-white.

In states with higher numbers of capital cases annually they could establish multiple panels. Could do so in other states as well. It could be a voted position or appointed. If they required a minimum of 5 panels, let's say, and they rotated through, then it would minimize the chances of lobbying of the panel. And if it kept the schedule of the panels secret.

The same panels could be used to periodically review case work of judges and find racial trends, which could be a way to police this issue among the trial judges themselves.

Why do you quote my reply to NCJazz as a basis for ignoring your question?

I tried to clarify my reasoning in another post.

As for what you argue above, my concerns about the unfair and inequitable manner of administering the death penalty is only one of many objections I have to it, each of which is sufficient in and of itself to oppose it.

That said, I do not believe that it is possible to eliminte the bias that plays into determining who gets the death penalty, regardless if we adopt such policies as you suggest above or others. As long as there exists the possiblity that the sytem incorporates systemic bias, or introduces the possiblity of executing an innocent person, then I don't care how much it reduces the possiblity of the preceding, I would oppose it on moral grounds, even assuming away my other objections.

 

[Hotdog]

How dumb do you have to be to confess to something you didn't do? Especially something like Murder. If people do confess to thing they don't do, then maybe they deserve to be eliminated from the gene pool.

 

[fishonjazz]

And many confessions are false extracted using nefarious means.

There was a very good episode of This American Life on this topic, related to police interrogation tactics and how they can often, and frequently do, produce false confessions.

A confession, outside of context and supporting evidence, is by no means a certain statement of a person's guilt.

Ya some confession are coerced.

Some confessions are offered up freely and some murderers actually want the death penalty.
I say give it to them

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Ya some confession are coerced.

Some confessions are offered up freely and some murderers actually want the death penalty.
I say give it to them

And you are 100% confident, or close to it, that we (society and law enforcement entitties and members of judicial system) have the ability to distinguish between true and false confessions?

 

[Gameface]

How dumb do you have to be to confess to something you didn't do? Especially something like Murder. If people do confess to thing they don't do, then maybe they deserve to be eliminated from the gene pool.

Yeah, you're advocating for their death, let's send them to your house. You can kill them, clean up the mess and dispose of the body. Because it's all good as far as you're concerned, right?

 

[fishonjazz]

And you are 100% confident, or close to it, that we (society and law enforcement entitties and members of judicial system) have the ability to distinguish between true and false confessions?

Well to me it doesn't matter if they are true or false if the person wants the death penalty and wants the judge or jury to believe they are guilty.
Give em what they want I say.
(I also support assisted suicide)

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

How dumb do you have to be to confess to something you didn't do? Especially something like Murder. If people do confess to thing they don't do, then maybe they deserve to be eliminated from the gene pool.

Two comments:

1. You don't have to be dumb at all. There are, for example, quite rational reasons to confess to something one did not commit. Say, the choices are cop to guilt and receive a lighter sentence, or roll the dice with a public defender and risk a much, much more severe sentence. I suggest that before you make blanket statements like this one, you make at least some effort to undertand it beyond cliche'd talking points.

2. I hope you don't mean what you say about eliminating false confessors from the gene pool (I assume you don't). This is a very uncharitable position and once can hope that it is never, evern internalized within how the judicial system operates.

 

[Hotdog]

Yeah, you're advocating for their death, let's send them to your house. You can kill them, clean up the mess and dispose of the body. Because it's all good as far as you're concerned, right?

Well, I don't need to do it. There are plenty of people who enjoy killing who are sitting in jail. We'll just call them the designated killers. For example: if you rape and murder and young child, we send you into a room with someone who will willing rape and murder you back.

Eye for an eye

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Well to me it doesn't matter if they are true or false if the person wants the death penalty and wants the judge or jury to believe they are guilty.
Give em what they want I say.
(I also support assisted suicide)

I guess I just find this to be a very cold blooded, uncharitable and unreasonable position.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Well, I don't need to do it. There are plenty of people who enjoy killing who are sitting in jail. We'll just call them the designated killers. For example: if you rape and murder and young child, we send you into a room with someone who will willing rape and murder you back.

Eye for an eye

I can only conclude that you're trollling here or just trying to be provacative. Such an unreasonable, unfeeling position just has to be taken for effect's sake, right?

 

[Gameface]

I can only conclude that you're trollling here or just trying to be provacative. Such an unreasonable, unfeeling position just has to be taken for effect's sake, right?

Yeah, I think I'm gonna spit the bait back out.

 

[Hotdog]

Two comments:

1. You don't have to be dumb at all. There are, for example, quite rational reasons to confess to something one did not commit. Say, the choices are cop to guilt and receive a lighter sentence, or roll the dice with a public defender and risk a much, much more severe sentence. I suggest that before you make blanket statements like this one, you make at least some effort to undertand it beyond cliche'd talking points.

2. I hope you don't mean what you say about eliminating false confessors from the gene pool (I assume you don't). This is a very uncharitable position and once can hope that it is never, evern internalized within how the judicial system operates.

Well then change the stupid laws that say your sentence can be bargained with depending on if you confess or not. Change the way people get interrogated, and who are allowed to take confessions, and how those confessions are to be received.

Buts still though. I can guarantee that no cop or any body on this planet will get me to say I did something I didn't do, unless I'm in some other country and they are physically beating the life out of me. Even then it's not likely. Seriously, you are really dumb if you let some detective talk you into confessing something you didn't do. I'll take my chances with a public defender over just out right saying I did it, and guaranteeing I go to jail and get the death penalty. How much worse does it get than that?

 

[Hotdog]

I can only conclude that you're trollling here or just trying to be provacative. Such an unreasonable, unfeeling position just has to be taken for effect's sake, right?

No I'm not trolling.

I have no sympathy for the violent disgusting freaks on this planet. I'm all for exterminating them.

 

[Gameface]

No I'm not trolling.

I have no sympathy for the violent disgusting freaks on this planet. I'm all for exterminating them.

Then you are a violent disgusting freak, imho.

 

[fishonjazz]

I guess I just find this to be a very cold blooded, uncharitable and unreasonable position.

Im pro choice.
Someone wants to die then I think it should be their right.

I think it's kind of selfish to force someone to live who doesn't want to.

I would be pissed if I wanted the death penalty and was told that I couldn't get it and instead was forced to live miserably in prison for the rest of my life.
To me that is cold blooded, uncharitable, and unreasonable