This is why I am on the fence about the death penalty

[Kerb Crawler]

People aren't perfect, why should the "system" be held to these lofty expectations?

We like to think that we're so advanced, but really, we're barely out of the caves. People kill, people die. Vengeance, too, is reality. Innocence is but a dream.

Protect your own, and try and keep your noses clean.

 

[Shatna]

People aren't perfect, why should the "system" be held to these lofty expectations?

Who's holding anything to lofty expectations? I just stated a fact. The system ain't perfect.

We like to think that we're so advanced, but really, we're barely out of the caves. People kill, people die. Vengeance, too, is reality. Innocence is but a dream.

Protect your own, and try and keep your noses clean.

That's beautfiul.

Of course, innocence as a concept may be a dream, but it is plausible (plausible, I say) that people can be convicted for crimes for which they are innocent. In fact, it has happened. So what I'm saying is, we could execute someone willy-nilly only to discover later that they didn't do the crime, and then what? Should society should set a number of 'gimmes' that would be acceptable so the death penalty system can run untrammeled? If so, what might that number be?

 

[RobL]

It costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives.

Not if I did it.

.45 to the back of the head. Then charge the famliy for the cost of the bullet, and sell his organs to the highest bidder on Ebay.

 

[WordInterrupted]

So what? Why is vengeance unacceptable?

Vengence is killing someone to make yourself feel better. Should we kill people just to feel good about ourselves?

 

[missmanners]

Should society should set a number of 'gimmes' that would be acceptable so the death penalty system can run untrammeled? If so, what might that number be?

I'm sure we could figure it out... lets use a little stats trick to determine the accpetable "oopsie we may have made a little mistake here" number, shall we dear?


So we need to find the probability of the dependant variables.... (ie: sympathetic jurors, faulty investigations, lying eye witnesses, etc ). And we need to define our sample (convicted killers on death row that didn't do it)
First we would need to maximize the likelihood or log-likelihood function (or to minimize the negative log-likelihood function.

We can define likelihood function as:

L = F(Y,Model) = in= 1 {p [yi, Model Parameters(xi)]}

In theory, we can compute the probability (now called L, the likelihood) of the specific dependent variable values to occur in our sample, given the respective regression model. Provided that all observations are independent of each other, this likelihood is the geometric sum (, across i = 1 to n cases) of probabilities for each individual observation (i) to occur, given the respective model and parameters for the x values. (The geometric sum means that we would multiply out the individual probabilities across cases..... but human error becomes entangled in here somewhere and it gets a little murky) It is also customary to express this function as a natural logarithm, in which case the geometric sum becomes a regular arithmetic sum (, across i = 1 to n cases).

The problem here is that given the respective model, the larger the likelihood of the model, the larger is the probability of the dependent variable values to occur in the sample. ........ and.....the actual computations for particular models here can become quite complicated because we need to "track" (compute) the probabilities of the y-values to occur (given the model and the respective x- values). And because of the indefinable human error factor involved, if the assumption of equal error variances across the range of the x variable(s) is violated, then the weighted least squares method will yield maximum likelihood estimates. .... and that one isn't nearly as exciting to work with.

I ADORE statistics, dont you?


mm

 

[Shatna]

There you go! Exactly the answer I was looking for!

 

[Caitriona]

^ heeheehee

You both make me laugh.

 

[missmanners]

There you go! Exactly the answer I was looking for!

Actually..... no, I dont think it was.


mm

 

[Kerb Crawler]

Who's holding anything to lofty expectations? I just stated a fact. The system ain't perfect.

Actually, Shat, I wasn't necessarily responding to you. It was more of a general comment post, AND it would appear that we were basically saying about the same thing.

That's beautfiul.

Ah, ok... I see you want to play.

Of course, innocence as a concept may be a dream, but it is plausible (plausible, I say) that people can be convicted for crimes for which they are innocent. In fact, it has happened. So what I'm saying is, we could execute someone willy-nilly only to discover later that they didn't do the crime, and then what? Should society should set a number of 'gimmes' that would be acceptable so the death penalty system can run untrammeled? If so, what might that number be?

That's like asking, what's the number of allowable 'gimmes' in airplane crashes, fatal car accidents, drive-by shootings, and death by chocolate.

And before you say "Gee, Mr. Wizard, those are completely random things that have no relation to to the topic whatsoever" I would ask you to consider the fact that those "accidents" are ALL directly related, and subject to, the flawed systems, creations, reactions, successes, and mistakes of man.
And like that (possibly-doomed) flight to Kalamazoo, the Judicial System is merely a conveyance - to Justice (although Justice is a little slippier destination to define than Kalamazoo.) - and it runs the same risk of derailment and distraction as a late train from Chicago.

The fact of the matter is SHIT HAPPENS and innocent people are killed, trampled, falsely accused/imprisoned, and grossly misrepresented everyday. This is not a by-product of modern society. This has been going on since Time Immemorial.

That it is sad and unfortunate is a given, but someone is always in the wrong place at the wrong time, guilty or not, and for every person who has Destiny smile upon them, someone else is being shit upon by Fate.

We do the best we can, and a trial, as judged by a jury of our peers, is the best we've got right now. Mistakes will be made because the jury is a representation of a flawed humanity - just as the crime was a mistake to begin with. Therefore, is it not to be expected that the sentencing be equally flawed? (At least until we create the robots that can peel back our skull caps and scoop out, taste, and analyze the honest-to-God truth. And, of course, since WE build those robots THEY'LL STILL BE FLAWED! ARGH!)

Capitol punishment is a must. (It is not a sense of vengeance that drives us to kill cockroaches, Wordin. We are just looking for security, no matter how false and fleeting.) I don't think we should scrap a system just because a few unfortunates (by comparison) were wrongly wrapped up in something that didn't concern them.
And, like the animals at the pound, we can't save everyone. (Not even God could do that.)

'The good of the many outweighs the good of the one,' right?

It's like my dad used to tell me 'The best way to stay out of those situations is to stay out of those situations.' (Easier said then done, I'll admit.)

What I would like to see, as someone mentioned above, is to figure out a more immediate and definite form of punishment that is not drawn out, exhausting families, funds, and resources out of some PC, misguided concession to "criminal's rights" after they have taken away the life of the victim.

'Eye for an eye,' and all that. THAT's fair. THAT's justice. THAT's real.

And if there's a way (for victim's families and society) to profit from it, so be it. I say let's televise the shit. Let's televise the trial, televise the verdict, televise the sentencing - the ULTIMATE REALITY SHOW. Bring those fucking scumbags into every living room, let the kids (potential criminals) watch this shit, let it affect them and SCARE them. Let's have big business sponsor the shit, and then as SOON as the verdict is read, if it is guilty, KILL THE FUCKER ON THE SPOT. You could even get creative with the marketing. Set up the show as a season of 22 episodes with the final episode the verdict/sentencing and possible execution. Nobody knows what's going to happen until game time. THEN FRY THEIR ASS ON NATIONAL TV. Be done with the shit. No more whining about appeals. No more whining about being treated unfairly. This is it, THIS is the deal. You will be judged, you will be sentenced, and if you fucked up bad enough, you will be DEAD. NEXT FUCKING CASE!

(The irony of this sensationalism further breeding more extreme criminals just to get their "15 minutes" is not lost upon me.)

And yes, my opinions, too, are flawed. This is implied by my associations, upbringing, and perspection. It's where I'm coming from, and it's all I have.

Perhaps my views are a bit jaded and extreme. I'm just tired of hearing about all these people getting away with shit, killing kids for a pair of shoes, raping and murdering helpless grandmothers, and devaluing human life in the pursuit of moral bankruptcy. There must be a reckoning. That 'God will sort them out in due time' is not enough. I want results and "peace" NOW. Our time on this rock is too short to be fucking around with - mollycoddling - the few who fuck it up for the rest of us.

 

[Shatna]

I'm not "playing", KC. Lighten thou up.

Interesting answer. But let me ask you this: were you wrongly accused of a crime, convicted and sent to death row, would you peacefully submit to execution anyway, reasoning that, hey, "someone is always in the wrong place at the wrong time, guilty or not, and for every person who has Destiny smile upon them, someone else is being shit upon by Fate", and "I'd like pizza as my last meal"?

Or maybe macaroni. Your choice!

 

[SilentBtViolent]

I think the death penalty is a bad idea because it sets a bad example.

"Don't kill people because it's wrong, but we will kill you if you do it."

What??

 

[missmanners]

If everyone cared and nobody cried
If everyone loved and nobody lied
If everyone shared and swallowed their pride
We’d see the day when nobody died



mm

 

[WordInterrupted]

I would make just one change:

If everyone cared and nobody cried
If everyone loved and nobody lied
If everyone shared and swallowed their pride
We’d see the day when nobody died
Except for Wordin's suicide

 

[Kerb Crawler]

I'm not "playing", KC. Lighten thou up.

Interesting answer. But let me ask you this: were you wrongly accused of a crime, convicted and sent to death row, would you peacefully submit to execution anyway, reasoning that, hey, "someone is always in the wrong place at the wrong time, guilty or not, and for every person who has Destiny smile upon them, someone else is being shit upon by Fate", and "I'd like pizza as my last meal"?

Or maybe macaroni. Your choice!

Therein lies the question.

There is no PERFECT solution that takes into account all scenarios and pleases everybody. However, in order to affect HONEST and LONG-LASTING change, to send a message, a line MUST be drawn... No exemptions, no exceptions.

The irony, of course, of stepping up to that line of thought would be reckoning with the flipside of that, should your number (or the number of a loved one) come up in that particular "lottery."

I was playing devil's advocate from the point of view of society (as my mind reckons it) as a whole.

There is no "I" in society. (Well, actually, there is, but you know what I mean.)

Society cares not for the individual. Society only cares about one thing: the successful and continued furthering of society.

***

Shat, I understand exactly what you're saying, I do. I see the world as you do, but I try and detach a bit and consider things outside myself (which isn't to say you don't), and my personal petty concerns and trappings. It is those excesses, needs, and material pursuits that breed the greed, jealousy, hatred, and dark thoughts. Criminals are a problem, but oftimes the "cure's" just as bad as the disease.
We, collectively, are not wired to just accept and let go. It is human nature to FIGHT, to fight for our rights, to fight for our freedom, to fight for what we believe is right, to fight for our life and lives of our loved ones. But how can everybody's individual point of view and needs be right, justified, and adhered to? They can't. There are just too many dissenting voices, too many distractions, and too many selfish agendas to consider.

Self-preservation means "keeping your nose clean." Your life is precious, as is everybody else's. Don't fuck it up. We only get one shot, and we are NONE of us guaranteed a tomorrow.

Someone's always in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could be me, it could be you. But I'll always hope it wasn't.

 

[Laker_Girl]

In my opinion, if you're truly innocent you will shout until your lungs collapse and your vocal cords are in shreds. Very, very rarely are the truly innocent of any and everything set to die.

 

[The Question]

I think the death penalty is a bad idea because it sets a bad example.

"Don't kill people because it's wrong, but we will kill you if you do it."

What??

Actually, the way it works is this:

"Don't take a life if you don't want to get yours taken."

There's no "example" in the sense of a parent raising a child; the example is in display of consequences. You murder, you'll lose what you took. Simple as that.

 

[The Question]

That's the part of the process that makes the execution of innocent people less likely. Even with appeals, many death row convictions are based on circumstantial evidence; there's no way to be certain that the defendant is guilty. The possibility of executing an innocent person alone should be enough to make the death penalty unacceptable.

Guess that's the sad state of human logic showing its colors, isn't it? Maybe if jurors weren't as susceptible to emotional hocus-pocus and faulty reasoning, fewer innocent people would be convicted and fewer guilty ones would walk.

And I'm sure you'll tell us, won't you, just how easy it is to be wrongfully convicted of murder? Or how many of those on Death Row are actually innocent? I'm not saying it can't happen, because clearly it can, but I'd like to know just how common you think such a thing is.

 

[WordInterrupted]

In my opinion, if you're truly innocent you will shout until your lungs collapse and your vocal cords are in shreds. Very, very rarely are the truly innocent of any and everything set to die.

As usual, you have no evidence. You just choose to believe whatever feels best to you.

Guess that's the sad state of human logic showing its colors, isn't it? Maybe if jurors weren't as susceptible to emotional hocus-pocus and faulty reasoning, fewer innocent people would be convicted and fewer guilty ones would walk.

And I'm sure you'll tell us, won't you, just how easy it is to be wrongfully convicted of murder? Or how many of those on Death Row are actually innocent? I'm not saying it can't happen, because clearly it can, but I'd like to know just how common you think such a thing is.

DNA testing in rape cases has revealed hundreds of wrongful convictions, many based on mistaken eyewitness testimony.

Here's a breakdown of convictions in captial cases:

Since 1973, 1,861 cases, thirty-five percent, of all death row cases were destructed for process reasons. From those 1861 cases, as many as 52 of those cases were invalidated based on some evidence of innocence. Even with those destructions, further studies demonstrated that at least twenty-three innocent persons were executed since 1900. Additionally, another 350 cases, out of the 7,200 cases, were considered "wrongly convicted". That is almost four cases per year in which an innocent person was convicted for a murder (Death Penalty and Sentencing Information 1).

Source

 

[Anubis]

I'm with Wordin on this one.

One innocent person is one too many.

 

[The Question]

As usual, you have no evidence. You just choose to believe whatever feels best to you.

Irony, O Irony.

DNA testing in rape cases has revealed hundreds of wrongful convictions, many based on mistaken eyewitness testimony.

And are these cases leading to capital punishment? If anything, this only demonstrates a flawed approach to evaluating the evidence in rape cases, which usually translates to "guilty upon accusation until proven innocent."

Here's a breakdown of convictions in captial cases:

Source

Okay, four people a year are wrongfully convicted. How many people are murdered each year, and can you demonstrate a reason for that that's more direct and compelling than it being on account of the deterrent of the consequences of murder being insufficiently impressed upon potential murderers?