What's new
By:

My argument for the death penalty...

Eric, do you have a particular argument against capital punishment that you want to present? Is the possibility of error a big thing with you, or just a possible incidental consequence of the system, that you don't like? I mean, would you ever approve, in any circumstances, of an execution if you personally KNEW he was guilty?
 
I wonder if you'll provide some evidence for your claims?

Hopper said:
Depending on what you mean by "deliberate actions" here, this is either a bogus comparison or just plain false.

Anyone who frames somebody, perjures themselves, or commits some other unlawful action which results in, or even contributes to, a wrongful conviction is subject to criminal punishment.
Click to expand...

Actually, I specifically mentioned lying in court (technically, if you are not under oath, you can't commit perjury) as the one item that would result in criminal action.

"Subject to" is a great weasel-phrase. Has any prosecutor been tried for pursuing a conviction after, for example, withholding excupatory evidence, who did not also lie in court? If it has never happened, or happens once every century, are you in effect "subject to" it, as opposed to in theory?

Hopper said:
Anyone who acts deliberately in seeking a conviction (as all prosecutors do) but in good faith and without deception can not, and SHOULD not, be criminally punished. That is not a fair comparison to someone who has commited premeditated murder.
Click to expand...

I agree, nor do I recall ever comparing it to premeditated murder.
 
One Brow said:
"Subject to" is a great weasel-phrase.
Click to expand...

Your claim was that he "can't" be charged. My counter was simply that, yes, he can.

I don't care to research the statistics for convictions for perjury, obstructing justice, etc. But, obviously, the outrage over prosecutorial misconduct would be greater if a person was electrocuted as a result, as opposed to being wrongfully convicted of jaywalking and being ordered to pay a $25 fine.
 
Hopper said:
Eric, do you have a particular argument against capital punishment that you want to present? Is the possibility of error a big thing with you, or just a possible incidental consequence of the system, that you don't like? I mean, would you ever approve, in any circumstances, of an execution if you personally KNEW he was guilty?
Click to expand...

I have no philosophical objection to capital punishment. My objections are practical.

1) It can't be ameliorated if the conviction is overturned.
2) It seems to offer no deterrent effect.
3) It is generally more costly that life imprisonment.

Based on that, I think that perhaps being reserved for a higher standard than the usual "reeasonable doubt" might be appropriate.
 
I wouldn't want you to break your fingers doing research on Google.

Hopper said:
Your claim was that he "can't" be charged. My counter was simply that, yes, he can.
Click to expand...

Then you're wrong. He may be charged (there is legal authority to do so), but he can't be (personal and political considerations prevent it).

Hopper said:
I don't care to research the statistics for convictions for perjury, obstructing justice, etc. But, obviously, the outrage over prosecutorial misconduct would be greater if a person was electrocuted as a result, as opposed to wrongfully convicted of jaywalking and being ordered to pay a $25 fine.
Click to expand...

In reality, once the execution has occurred, all investigations, appeals, etc. are rendered moot. Such misconduct simply does not have the opportunity to be exposed after the fact.
 
One Brow said:
I have no philosophical objection to capital punishment. My objections are practical.

1) It can't be ameliorated if the conviction is overturned.
2) It seems to offer no deterrent effect.
3) It is generally more costly that life imprisonment.

Based on that, I think that perhaps being reserved for a higher standard than the usual "reeasonable doubt" might be appropriate.
Click to expand...

OK, fine, no one can really argue with "philosophical" objections, I spoze. But, if you want to hear another viewpoint, from someone who "philosophically" supports capital punishment in appropriate cases, we can "debate" your concerns, one at a time, if you want.
 
Since we probably agree philosophically (I did note that reserving capital punishment for a higher standard of guilt would alleviate some of my concerns), I'm not sure how that constitutes another viewpoint. I venture that our disagreements are more practical than philosophical.
 
One Brow said:
Then you're wrong. He may be charged (there is legal authority to do so), but he can't be (personal and political considerations prevent it).
Click to expand...

Heh, this is an absurd claim. Although it certainly happens (i.e., personal and political consideration result in non-prosecution), it does not happen in every case, and "can't" prosecute is NOT synonymous with "won't" prosecute in any event.
 
Last edited:
One Brow said:
Since we probably agree philosophically (I did note that reserving capital punishment for a higher standard of guilt would alleviate some of my concerns), I'm not sure how that constitutes another viewpoint. I venture that our disagreements are more practical than philosophical.
Click to expand...

My philosophical position has nothing to do with it, really, except to the extent I might be willing to "give" more for something I value than would someone who wants to destroy that thing in the first place.

1) It can't be ameliorated if the conviction is overturned.
Click to expand...
This is true, as you have since qualified it, after execution has occurred. A true tragedy, if and when it happens, so now what?
 
Last edited:
One Brown not that I don't believe you but just out of curiosity is there a source you had in mind for comparing the costs of execution versus the costs of life imprisonment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top