My argument for the death penalty...

[Hopper]

The only relevant deterrence effect is the difference between life in prison or death.

Deterrence is only one consideration when assessing punishment, and even then there are two types to be considered, i.e., (1) general deterrence--designed to deter the public at large from committing the same acts done by the person bein punished, and (2) specific deterrence---designed to deter the particular individual from repeating his crimes. Whatever general deterrence effect the execution of Ted Bundy may have generated, one thing's for sure: Ole Teddy aint gunna be snuffin no more wimminz. Even murderers givin life can (and have) commited murder after bein sentenced--of prison officials, other prisoners, or civilians after escape. Wouldn't happen if ya smoked they sorry ***, because they would have been "specifically deterred," 100% guaranteed.

 

[Hopper]

The only relevant deterrence effect is the difference between life in prison or death.

And there's another "deterrent" effect of the death penalty, which I brought up earlier in this thread (which was, of course, totally sidestepped by Kicky and Biley). If I recall correctly, even in Kansas the cost of prosecuting a capital crime where the death penalty is NOT sought is said to be $700,000 per trial.

I don't know about capital crimes in particular, but, for crime in general, probably 80-90% of all "convictions" are obtained by way of a guilty plea, which means there is no trial, and hence no "cost" of trial. Even a murderer who is "undeterred" at the time of committing murder can be "deterred" once his sorry *** has been caught. Many, if not most, of them don't want to risk the death penalty (when it can be legitimately threatened) and will exchange a guilty plea for a guarantee of "only" life without parole.

If it doesn't deter the crime itself, the death penalty can deter an expensive trial. Of course this threat is only credible if you (1) have a death penalty option, to begin with, and (2) fry a guy now and then to ensure they'll believe you're willing to enforce it, even if it does cost more. The ultimate savings in legal expenses in the long run probably far exceeds the cost of the (few) death penalty cases actually tried.

If the worst that could happen to a murderer was for him to receive a life sentence, he would never agree to plead guilty AND accept that penalty. He would have absolutely nuthin to gain, and everything to lose, if he by-passed his chance for a trial.

This really addresses the "more costly" argument more than a deterence argument, but they're related.

 

[Hopper]

Of course, any deterrent effect is reduced the more you reduce the horror of it. Back in the old days of hangins, guillotine beheadins, breakin guys on the wheel, and such, executions were public, and generally drew big crowds. People would bring they little chillinz to watch. Part of it was just the spectacle and festival of it all, I spect, but there was another, educational, aspect to it.

Very few 5 and 6 year old kids who see a guy's head fallin into a basket and then watch his neck just keep gushin out blood fail to be strongly impressed. Sumthin they remember years later, even at times when they seriously wanna off some guy, ya know? Talkin for my own damn self, they's probably 3-4 homeys I woulda stuck a pitchfork in by the time I was age 12, except for I didn't wanna git strung up like them guys I had seen down at the town square.

Even back in the 30's and 40's before movies they would show newsreels (either before or after the cartoon, I forget now), showin some sorry soul bein fried in the electric chair, the top of his head smokin, his face expandin like a balloon, and alla that. Kids loved it, but it terrified them, too, of course.

Not now, though. No one is allowed to broadcast executions, not even if it's just stickin a needle in some guy's arm and watchin him quietly lay there, instead of dancin on the end of a rope for a good long spell. Young-uns can't be deterred by sumthin they can't even see, generally speakin. So, ya see, that why the murder rate just keeps climbin, they way I figure it.

 

[One Brow]

Thanks for the compliments.

Jeez, Eric, cmon. You make a claim that is totally unsupported,

There are a variety of websites that regularly point out cases where prosecutors have withheld exculpatory evidence, relied on testimony they knew to be suspect, etc., with no action being taken against them.

and now you think I have some burden to disprove it?

If you had two examples from the last ten years, I'll revoke what I am saying.

Do you honestly believe that no one has ever been criminally charged for obstruction of justice?

I am specifically discussing prosecutors who have not lied in court, but committed other breaches through negligence or disregard.

What is your point, anyway? That the State is out to deliberately execute innocent people because they are (in your mind) absolutely immune from accountability?

Certainly not. They are out to execute people they believe are guilty. The prosecutors don't think the evidence is exculpatory, because the defendant is guilty, so it can't be exonerate him. They don't need to follow up on another lead, because the defendant is guilty, so any new evidence would be a waste of time or money. The people that are elected and paid to vigorously prosecute defendants are also in charge of deciding which evidence is to be turned over to the defendants. Never attribute to malice what can ascribed to stupidity or belief.

Don't go Write4u on me, now, eh?

Now you're just being mean.

 

[One Brow]

As for the second point, what "better safeguards" do you have in mind? You mentioned a "higher standard of proof," is that it? What standard would you propose?

I'm not sure. I like the catch-phrase "beyond a shadow of a doubt", but I don't know what that would translate to legally.

 

[One Brow]

Even murderers givin life can (and have) commited murder after bein sentenced--of prison officials, other prisoners, or civilians after escape. Wouldn't happen if ya smoked they sorry ***, because they would have been "specifically deterred," 100% guaranteed.

Agreed.

 

[One Brow]

Your argument about using the death penalty as leverage to avoid trials should also be weighed into the argument.

So, ya see, that why the murder rate just keeps climbin, they way I figure it.

Last I checked, the murder closely followed the percetage of the population that were young males, coupled with a couple of other factors. I seem to recall arguments that public executions tend to make people value the life of others less, so I'm not sure that they form a valuable deterrent.

 

[billyshelby]

And there's another "deterrent" effect of the death penalty, which I brought up earlier in this thread (which was, of course, totally sidestepped by Kicky and Biley). If I recall correctly, even in Kansas the cost of prosecuting a capital crime where the death penalty is NOT sought is said to be $700,000 per trial.

I don't know about capital crimes in particular, but, for crime in general, probably 80-90% of all "convictions" are obtained by way of a guilty plea, which means there is no trial, and hence no "cost" of trial. Even a murderer who is "undeterred" at the time of committing murder can be "deterred" once his sorry *** has been caught. Many, if not most, of them don't want to risk the death penalty (when it can be legitimately threatened) and will exchange a guilty plea for a guarantee of "only" life without parole.

If it doesn't deter the crime itself, the death penalty can deter an expensive trial. Of course this threat is only credible if you (1) have a death penalty option, to begin with, and (2) fry a guy now and then to ensure they'll believe you're willing to enforce it, even if it does cost more. The ultimate savings in legal expenses in the long run probably far exceeds the cost of the (few) death penalty cases actually tried.

If the worst that could happen to a murderer was for him to receive a life sentence, he would never agree to plead guilty AND accept that penalty. He would have absolutely nuthin to gain, and everything to lose, if he by-passed his chance for a trial.

This really addresses the "more costly" argument more than a deterence argument, but they're related.

I've never seen anyone try so hard to be smarter than the world and come out dumber by miles. EVERY single one of your arguments is addressed and rebutted in the California study that Peterzz pointed out. That study is one of 10 or so on the page YOU linked but apparently can't be bothered to read. The people doing these studies aren't spending five minutes like you dreaming up common sense answers to stuff (and based on your opinion about the return of medieval execution policies, I wouldn't say common sense is strength of yours.) They've actually factored in the few questions your intellect can muster.

You might want to refer to p. 144 of the California Study. You won't learn anything, and you'll quibble with their use of a semicolon, but these studies have factored in what the difference would be if all trials were LWOP as just one example, or for the 'special circumstance' Death Penalty options, etc. But by all means, keep burying your head in the sand to facts and build your sand castles of rhetoric in the air.

 

[billyshelby]

Of course, any deterrent effect is reduced the more you reduce the horror of it. Back in the old days of hangins, guillotine beheadins, breakin guys on the wheel, and such, executions were public, and generally drew big crowds. People would bring they little chillinz to watch. Part of it was just the spectacle and festival of it all, I spect, but there was another, educational, aspect to it.

Very few 5 and 6 year old kids who see a guy's head fallin into a basket and then watch his neck just keep gushin out blood fail to be strongly impressed. Sumthin they remember years later, even at times when they seriously wanna off some guy, ya know? Talkin for my own damn self, they's probably 3-4 homeys I woulda stuck a pitchfork in by the time I was age 12, except for I didn't wanna git strung up like them guys I had seen down at the town square.

Even back in the 30's and 40's before movies they would show newsreels (either before or after the cartoon, I forget now), showin some sorry soul bein fried in the electric chair, the top of his head smokin, his face expandin like a balloon, and alla that. Kids loved it, but it terrified them, too, of course.

Not now, though. No one is allowed to broadcast executions, not even if it's just stickin a needle in some guy's arm and watchin him quietly lay there, instead of dancin on the end of a rope for a good long spell. Young-uns can't be deterred by sumthin they can't even see, generally speakin. So, ya see, that why the murder rate just keeps climbin, they way I figure it.

Quoted for posterity. Let's bring back televised executions. And make them grizzlier. We'll have the most peaceful society on Earth. Except, you know, when we're boiling a convict in oil on national television. And when the inevitable mistake gets made, we can just point to the drastically reduced murder rates around the country and shrug, 'accidents happen.'

 

[Gameface]

We can make a sport out of coming up with new and creative ways to kill people for the sake of public entertainment, eh, I mean deterrence. Then, as the public executions become more popular, and profitable, we'll have to include more crimes in the capital punishment worthy category so that the viewing audience doesn't have to go a day without watching some scumbag get offed in the name of public good, justice and safety.

"Come on kids, it's time to see why you need to listen to mom and dad. This scumbag j-walker is about to fight for his life against this other scumbag who didn't pay his parking tickets."

 

[Hopper]

If you had two examples from the last ten years, I'll revoke what I am saying.

Every state has it's own laws and there are federal criminal laws, providing for punishment by death, when appropriate, which can be applied to prosecutors, judges, or anyone else who deprives someone of their constitutional rights (such the right to a fair trial) under "color of law" (i.e., in some kinda official capacity). These kinds of cases can be hard to prove, especially against prosecutors, but they can be, and have been, enforced.

Here in my state of Illinois alone, I remember at least one relatively recent case where, among others, 3 prosecutors were indicted on criminal charges for framin a guy. Here's a [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/13/us/ex-prosecutors-and-deputies-in-death-row-case-are-charged-with-framing-defendant.html?pagewanted=2"]LINK [/URL]to a NY Times article about the case.

But to me the whole issue is tangential. Prosecutorial misconduct, and outright corruption, is a serious problem in this country, and it is committed in ALL cases, not just DP cases. Should we therefore eliminate ALL laws, so prosecutors can't frame people?

I don't think so. That issue should be confronted head-on, not by backing off from crime prosecution altogether, just to insure that no innocent man is ever convicted. The public outrage and response should be against the conduct itself; public pressure to enforce the existing laws against prosecutorial abuse is the appropriate remedy. The answer is not to say that, since trials are sometimes unfair, there should be no trials.

 

[One Brow]

Your example involved lying in court, which I have acknowledged is a line that, when prosecutors cross it, does result in criminal charges. Another example of that would be Mike Nifong of the Duke case.

But to me the whole issue is tangential. Prosecutorial misconduct, and outright corruption, is a serious problem in this country, and it is committed in ALL cases, not just DP cases. Should we therefore eliminate ALL laws, so prosecutors can't frame people?

I don't think so.

Neither do I. However, when discussing the one type of punishment where prosecutor malfeasance can result in a punishment that can never be ameliorated or corrected, the potential of that malfeasance deserves special weight.

The public outrage and response should be against the conduct itself, public pressure to enforce the existing laws against prosecutorial abuse is the appropriate remedy.

If public outrage fails to engage, then what? I haven't heard of any massive public backlash against the three prosecutors you mentioned.