I read an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday(no link-you'll just have to believe me!) regarding a temporary halt in the state of Illinois of all executions. The governor was alarmed that 11 prisoners on death row have been released in recent years, and he has started an inquiry as to how these men made it to death row when they were innocent.

That is eleven people who would have been executed unjustly. Does this bother anybody else??

Does the "benefit" to the state of the death penalty as a deterrant outweigh the risk that an innocent person is executed?

Should we really even be applying such a Utilitarian viewpoint at all in allowing executions to be carried out in this country? Can we really say that it is more important that the greater "good" for the greatest number of people be the goal of our justice system??

I may be the only one on this board that opposes the death penalty, but I would like to understand the viewpoint of those who do--I never close my mind on any point of view and am always ready to change it.

I just have a real hard time with innocent people being executed, and then having to accept that more lives are saved by the death penalty, and that somehow this larger number of "saved" people is more important than the pure Schmuk that got railroaded.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 22, 2000

Answers

FutureShock,

Just a comment. We humanoids have 5,000 years of recorded history, who knows how much prior to that, yet how far have we really come along the path of "evolution?"

Not fully sure of how the system works elsewhere, but in the Los Angeles area, the elected District Attorneys will do anything to make a name for themselves and thereby ensure their re-election.

Draw your own conclusions.

-- Richard (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), March 22, 2000.

FutureShock,

Just a comment. We humanoids have 5,000 years of recorded history, who knows how much prior to that, yet how far have we really come along the path of "evolution?"

Not fully sure of how the system works elsewhere, but in the Los Angeles area, the elected District Attorneys will do anything to make a name for themselves and thereby ensure their re-election.

Draw your own conclusions.

-- Richard (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), March 22, 2000.

Why does the death of one innocent bother so many people? Why do they not raise up when millions are being murdered for nothing more than a difference in skin color or ethnicity or religious belief? Eleven men...

We lost more in the past eight years of misguided Foriegn policy at the hands of a Demented, Morally Deficit, 'Supreme Leader' than all inmates, innocent or not, put to death in the past twenty years. Did anyone cry for them? Are they even remembered? You look in the mirror and answer that one my freinds... Bet the Name Carla Wray Tucker has more meaning than that of Sgt Jason Pringle, late of the 82nd Airborne. More people heard about the 'Born Again' girl who was "cruelly put to death by Gov. George W. Bush" Did we forget that she participated gleefully in a brutal double axe murder?

Sgt. Pringle on the other hand, was a 24 year old (married, with children) medic who's 'chute didn't open during a jump into Kosovo... Protest all you want for protection of human lives... just remember who to protest for...

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@aol.com), March 22, 2000.

"Why does the death of one innocent bother so many people? "

If we as a society stop "worrying" about innocent people being put to death, then we are doomed.

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), March 22, 2000.

I agree!! If there is the chance an innocent person can be executed, there should be no death penalty - especially when the quality of one's defense is determined to a great extent by just who you can afford and I don't think I need to give examples.

-- eileen (tjfarrar@bellsouth.net), March 22, 2000.

Billy Boy:

I could not speak my opinion on all the injustice in the world in a single post. I know there will always be the death of innocents-it is unfortunate, but a part of human nature.

What I CAN do is speak my peace in a free country, and make my vote count for change.

It is strange that you bring up the case of an execution in which the woman WAS guilty-the storm around that one was wether or not emotional abuse drove her to commit the crime.

My post speaks clearly to those on death row who are innocent.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.com), March 22, 2000.

FutureShock:

As I read the literature, there is no indication anyone can find that the death penalty is a deterrent to anything, and a lot of evidence that it is not. I suppose it's possible that invoking the death penalty is cheaper than keeping that person incarcerated for life, though that would mean a LOT of years in prison, since the legal process to get someone put to death is itself prohibitively expensive, and meanwhile the condemned must be maintained in reasonable health and comfort.

I also think keeping an innocent person locked up (even on death row) for 30 years and then letting him go has had, shall we say, some influence on the total quality of his life.

On the whole, our law enforcement professionals are fairly competent. But they'll never be perfect, and while one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, clearly the system rewards convictions. Finding people innocent makes the cops look bad, you know?

While I oppose the death penalty, I'm even more strongly opposed to locking people up for commiting victimless crimes. I read somewhere (no, I don't remember where) that the US has a far higher percentage of citizens in prison than any other country. And that 65% of them are drug offenders. Outrageous.

We combine this with a system that makes it maximally difficult for an ex-con to reintegrate into society. You're required to advertise your ex-con status on every job application. You lose your right forever to vote, own a gun, hold most public offices, etc, even if you weren't convicted of a violent crime. There is no "rehabilitation period" after which (with good behavior) your record is expunged. Unless you return to crime, your career opportunities are, uh, reduced. Is it any wonder recidivism is about 90%?

Yes, part of the problem ultimately derives from the US being a more heterogeneous, fairly balkanized society. Lots of different value systems and opportunity for friction between them. But entirely too much is due to our punishment orientation, combined with our determination to eradicate *sin* via the legal system.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 22, 2000.

It's GODS fault,not mine or Yours.So,do not sweat the small Stuff.

-- We Have (no@guilt.trip), March 22, 2000.

Flint

I agree with you on your stance regarding non-violent drug offenders. We need serious revisions in the drug laws.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 22, 2000.

I disagree with the basic premise that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. I DO agree that the way America carries out the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, as it is so far removed from the person's crime it serves no object lesson for would-be criminals.

How does executing some 50 year old for a crime he committed 20 years ago deter anyone? I doubt it does at all. What should be done is to have the trial, appeals, and carrying out of sentance take place in no more than ONE YEAR or so. That way people would remember reading about the crime when the sentance was carried out, associating the two (and giving a lesson to the criminals friends as well).

Yes, very likely some innocent man will die at the hands of the state. Overall however, if the crime rate decreases, more innocent lives should be saved than lost. Or would you rather have one innocent man in prison and NOT executed by the state with 9 dead innocents at the hands of criminals than 9 criminals and one innocent man executed? (Obviously I'm pulling the numbers out of the air, but the point should be clear. If this scenario is close to reality (big if) I think it would be immoral NOT to enforce the death penalty as above.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 22, 2000.

Frank:

If there's one thing we've learned from all our studies of criminal behavior, it's that certainty of apprehension is a far better deterrent than magnitude (or speed) of penalty. If the prepetrator has excellent reason to believe he'll get away with it (and he does, unfortunately), it's a lot less important to him what or when you might do unto him if he's caught.

Ever drive drunk? Most people have, many many times over. Ever get a DUI conviction? Very few people have. Willing to risk it this once? Damn right. They can raise the DUI penalty sky high, but it's moot if you're never stopped, or rather if you *believe* from experience that you'll never be stopped.

Since ever other person would need to be a cop to make apprehension truly probable, and since those who *are* caught are simply regarded as being dumber than we are anyway, I don't think swift justice contributes that much. I wish I had better answers to this problem,

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 22, 2000.

You raise an interesting point in your "driving drunk" question, Flint. MOST folks are never caught. I would argue that the same holds true of folks who are caught for other crimes. They've done it before and felt the law would never catch up to them. "I'm not guilty" is a joke to anyone that hears this line in prison. In addition, Flint, you present a good argument for the death penalty when you state, correctly, that there IS no REAL life AFTER prison. The "prison" experience is much like the war experience. EVERYONE died there...it's just taking some longer than others.

Regarding your original question, Future Shock, I'm pretty wishy- washy on the subject. I live in Texas, and we have the death penalty here. I somewhat agree with Flint that the death penalty in itself doesn't do much to deter crime. If folks are inclined to commit crimes and have been successful on previous occasions, they think NOT of the death penalty. On the other hand, I have those three almost grown kids that keep me up-to-date on society. I hear about how so- and-so was busted for this-and-that, and how so-and-so was innocent on this particular occasion . Of course even the kids know that so-and-so was guilty as hell on OTHER occasions.

Why is it that I've never been to jail and don't know anyone that has been? Have we always simply been in the right place at the right time and those who ARE in jail were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time? I don't think so.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 22, 2000.

I'm glad DNA testing is now available and helpful to those in the criminal process. It certainly does help to save some people in even the most iron clad of cases. The death penalty is wrong for an innocent person, but than again, so is life in prison, and yet, you don't want to eliminate that, do you? Hopefully someday a definative lie detector will be invented...and then all this will go the way of the dinosaur. (imagine when THAT item goes to the public market... jealous spouses alone would bring in millions)

In the meantime, I still would advocate the death penalty for confesssed killers, and for those caught on camera or who commit the crime infront of many witnesses. The ones where people are convicted on circumstantial evidence (OJ..if he had been convicted, for example) shouldn't qualify..(I don't think they do anyhow, do they?)

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), March 22, 2000.

Flint,

Would you be willing to drunk drive if the penalty was the death penalty, enforced as soon as your urine test came back positive? Really? I wouldn't. Nor would I wish the death penalty for that offense, but it shows people will factor punishment into their behavior. Similarly, I won't drive in a carpool lane because the fine is 271 dollars, but if it was twenty? I'd probably risk it if there were no "points" put on to your DMV report. The time saved would probably make up for the cost of the crime on the rare occasions you were caught. Criminals, I believe, operate under the same gain/loss philosophy... maybe their gains and losses aren't defined appropriately, but they're there.

The other thing about the death penalty is that it ASSURES society that that particular criminal will NEVER commit another crime. Even in prison someone with "life" could still kill another rehabilitable prisoner, for example, or give multiple people AIDS, if so afflicted. With the death penalty, his crimes against society stop.

I'm not saying I think it's great, but no solution to dealing with murderers is.

Still in support of the DP,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 22, 2000.

Frank:

Just for grins, let's generalize.

1) People are often thoughtless and irresponsible. They lie, cheat, steal and drive drunk. They make foolish decisions that injure not just themselves, but endanger the life, liberty and property of others. Always have, always will.

2) People are selfish and prefer double standards in their favor. The are willing to say and do things they aren't willing to allow others to say and do. They don't appreciate being told what to do or think, but are excessively fond of telling *others* what to do or think.

3) People are great rationalizers. When they break the rules, they can *always* find easily sufficient mitigating circumstances to justify it.

4) People are not tolerant. If they are injured in some way, they want redress and punishment of the offender. If they injure someone else in the same way, they are angry at the *other* person's lack of tolerance. They are sensitive to "injustice", defined as *somebody else* getting away with something. Getting away with the same thing themselves is not considered unjust.

5) At some point, passing and enforcing more and more laws reaches a point of diminishing returns, beyond which we are criminalizing behavior more than changing it. At that point, we suffer social damage from having so many "criminals", we have an economic effect from keeping so many incarcerated, we have a chilling effect because the average citizen cannot hope to know all the laws (ignorance is no excuse, right?) and can be apprehended and punished almost at will should the authorities take a dislike to him for some reason.

We also grow an army of lawyers, many of whom are specialists at finding technically legal ways (according to the precise wording of the law) to do things that are illegal according to the intent of the law.

The result is a trend toward a police state, the courts are swamped, the legislatures are busy passing laws to patch the loopholes opened by the previous patch to close loopholes opened by the *previous* patch ad infinitum.

Next, we combine all this with the sheer inaccuracy of the system. Cops make mistakes, judges make mistakes. Both of them have strong prejudices. Evidence is faked, planted, "lost", or ignored. Confessions are forced, or swept under the rug. And "exit polls" after the OJ verdict showed 87% of blacks and only 2% of whites approving of the verdict. And all of them watched the same proceedings and saw the same evidence. You want to *trust* your fate to such a system?

Let me pick the jury, and I'll decide the case before a single fact is presented. Most cases don't go to a jury, and lawyers wangle deals with one another, or battle over which judge will hear the case. As society becomes more litigious, the pressures on the legal system increase to the point where dispensation of "justice" is nearly arbitrary. In tort cases, the legal system is like a lottery with multimillion dollar jackpots at stake. There are people who sue for a living and do quite well.

And despite all this, the large majority of crimes go unpunished. In the minority of instances where apprehension occurs, conviction rates are strongly inversely proportional to the wealth of the accused.

Increasing the penalty (death for DUI, or more realistically 3 strikes rules) has proved counterproductive. When juries feel the punishment is excessive for the crime, they tend to find clearly guilty people innocent as the lesser of two evils. And still we set a new record daily for percentage of citizens jailed or criminalized.

Anyway, my dislike of the death penalty is not because I don't think anyone deserves to be put to death. Some do, and should be. But (especially recent) experience has shown that the intense pressure to find *someone* guilty of a murder has resulted in a disturbing number of incorrect convictions. The implication is that there are some significant shortcomings to our methods (which is where I started this post). If person A commits a murder, I'm not comfortable putting *person B* to death, regardless of how thoroughly Person A deserved death, if only we'd convicted the right person.

And while I don't know how the law should relate to citizens generally, I do know that whatever we're doing in the US ain't working. There's gotta be a better way.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 23, 2000.

Thank you, Flint, for an excellent summation of your very cogent views.

>> I do know that whatever we're doing in the US ain't working. There's gotta be a better way. <<

The more we try to make the death penalty rational and just, the more irrational and defective the system seems to become. Sadly, every time I approach the issue of crime and punishment in order to discover where sanity lies, I come away thinking there is no clear path either forward or back. Criminal behavior itself leads to no-win situations.

The best we can do sometimes is to reduce, contain, control or channel criminal behavior. But a statistical improvement is so much less satisfying than preventing crime, reforming criminals as useful members of society, or upholding some ideal of perfect justice. No one but a wonk gets excited about a 6% reduction of criminal activity. I wish I could.

I do believe that simply by decriminalizing certain drugs and putting them under controls similar to alcohol we could free up hundreds of thousands of jail cells. Then we could redirect the money now used for incarceration to beef up the treatment of drug addiction. That alone would be a big step ahead, in my view.

But that is only a part of the larger picture. Just as the death penalty is a small side issue compared to the 1.7 million in prisons in the USA.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), March 23, 2000.

Brian, Flint, Frank:

Thanks for your posts. I wanted to stimulate some debate and you all have presented interesting points.

I am with you Brian-Decriminalization of certain drugs is the way to go-I know many in recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction who have benefited from treatment centers who have received government subsidies. I would rather see the money given to them, flawed as they may be, then going to prison where rehabilitation is a joke.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 23, 2000.

Flint, you said,

"At some point, passing and enforcing more and more laws reaches a point of diminishing returns, beyond which we are criminalizing behavior more than changing it. "

I agree completely. It seems that our society is making everything illegal, so that even "normal" citizens can be petty criminals at some point during the day (jaywalking, parking tickets as examples). Under these conditions it's not suprising that people become disillusioned with the criminal justice system. The unfortunate result is a downward spiral: police can't get convictions, so they invent evidence to bolster their cases which leads to even more mistrust on the part of the public, etc.

If (again big if) society could reverse this trend and only punish crimes that really violate the rights of others, there would be far fewer "criminals", a less overworked police force, and probably a more trusting citizenry. I would still like to see the DP applied for the reasons in my last post.

Also, I've only served on a jury once, and went in with a pretty cynical attitude towards the judicial system, but must say that when we were deciding that man's fate, we went over everything REALLY thoroughly. I would trust MY fate to the jury he had.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 23, 2000.

kritter, I agree that DNA testing is one of the best things to help the innocent, and many have been set free as a result. But if those people were innocent, then the true culprit is out there running around, and may never be found. Not to good.

When you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person convicted murdered his victims, I'm all for the death penalty; Karla Faye Tucker, the pretty born-again killer, got what she deserved. But if the evidence is circumstantial or by a witness, don't put them to death. Witnesses are notorious for being wrong.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 23, 2000.

Subject: OT-Death Penalty-Is even one death of the wrong person acceptable?

This is a no brainer. It depends entirely upon whether you believe in the sanctity of human life. If you dont it can be discussed as a social or crime management issue. If you do the answer is no death penality; innocent or otherwise.

I don't want to get "Flint-like" [he can do that himself]; but I have a question; If you don't consider life to be sacred, why does it matter whether a person is innocent or guilty of a crime?

Please note that I am not referring to my philosophy, just asking a question that interests me.

Best wishes,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 23, 2000.

A lot of good points have been made, but somehow it all seems too abstract, too theoretical. Let's bring it down to earth.

1. Your job is executioner. Strangers alleged to have committed horrible crimes come before you. Time to pull the switch. How do you feel?

2. A loved one is wrongly convicted and executed. How do you feel?

3. A loved one is murdered. The murderer turns out to have been previously convicted for what in some states is a capital offense. How do you feel?

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 23, 2000.

Good evening David:

Your points are well taken; yet you reduce it to an emotional level. Is that how we should handle it? I was interested in whether people actually had a moral/philosophical basis for their opinions? You are correct, it could only be an emotional response. Thanks for bringing that up.

Pull the switch; stick the needle would be better

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 23, 2000.

Hello Z,
In posing the questions, I had in mind the tendency to think of an unusual event (such as a murder) as affecting "other people." In all three situations, those who lose their lives are bound to be loved ones or friends of someone.

My intent was not to reduce the issue to emotion, but to ask which of [1,2] or [3] seem morally less repugnant.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 23, 2000.

The one Book we hold Dear (right or wrong) says "There is nothing, another human can do to you". To what? Separate us, from our Creation. You have to believe on a Higher. I would have difficulty in placing another Human behind Human Bars. But also believe there is a Satan Force among us, to entice Humans into all forms of evil. We can only pray for guidance. Signed, Your Granny.

-- The Book Sez (nothing@notherhuman.com), March 23, 2000.

David:

Sorry that I didn't read that correctly. Yet the point about emotion is on part of the equation. I now see what you meant.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 23, 2000.

No problem, Z. I realized that my original answer was a little vague, but I thought that might result in a richer variety of responses.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 23, 2000.

Z:

For me, this IS a no-brainer, as I believe in the sanctity of all human life. Killing is wrong-period. I cringe every time I hear someone is being executed. Murder is murder-and the death penalty is murder.

David:

If it were my loved one, at first I would probably want to kill the creep or let my government do it for me. When I settled down, I am sure I would not want the government to do this.

One of the toughest things to do is forgive, especially a crime so despicable, and it takes a great deal of humility and spiritual maturity to forgive something like this. If you are able to reach forgiveness, it is the greatest gift in the world to give to yourself.

IMO, if I were to lead the charge to have the perp killed, that would be on my soul, and it is a karma I woudl have to carry. I believe that where there is no forgiveness there is no freedom-as long as I hold hatred or resentment toward someone, I am bound to them.

I posted this question because I know it IS an emotional one, and I truly like to attempt to understand those who believe the opposite of myself.

I am somewhat surprised at the few people who posted in favor of the death penalty. I have also learned more about my fellow TBers.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 23, 2000.

FutureShock, you said,

"For me, this IS a no-brainer, as I believe in the sanctity of all human life. Killing is wrong-period."

As an (hopefully real-world) example then, say a criminal has 6 hostages and begins killing them one by one. On the fourth hostage he puts the gun to the person's head and comes into the sights of a police sharpshooter. Are you saying that you would tell the sharpshooter not to fire as that would be murder? Should three more innocent people have to die for the sake of the one criminal?

I don't think so. There is a difference between killing and murder. One is justified by society, and the other isn't. The death penalty can fit into this category as well, as it stops the criminal from committing further crimes.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 24, 2000.

Frank:

Your intelligent discourse is refreshing. You are right, I did not make a distinction between murder and killing and I should have done this.

I am going to disagree with you and not be disagreeable-I still believe the DP is murder. Who knows, though, as I have been graced with the ability to keep my mind open and to change it if it needs changing.

Thinks for your input to this thread.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 24, 2000.

Frank:

I believe there are two separate issues here, and you are doggedly ignoring one of them.

1) Is the State justified, *in principle*, in executing people for the commission of certain types of crimes? OK, your answer is yes they are. And in principle, I agree.

2) How good is our system at identifying, convicting, and executing the *right person*? The recent development of DNA techniques indicates we aren't very accurate at all. Your answer is to pretend this never happens.

Let's say I'm the one killing those people. Do you think it's OK for *you* to be executed for *my* crime? Whether you choose to address this or not, your position boils down to support for executing someone, anyone, for certain crimes. If we get the right person, so much the better. But *someone* should be executed, one way or the other.

Like it or not, this is a *necessary* implication of your position. There are whole books about WHY we convict and execute the wrong person so often, but the bottom line is that we DO. And so far, nobody has been able to propose any changes likely to make the system more accurate.

If you believe that executing the wrong person all too often is an *acceptable* price to pay in exchange for the ones we get right, then at least you should be honest enough to come out and say so.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 24, 2000.

Flint,

Give me a break. I don't think I'm "doggedly ignoring" anything. If you'd have asked me to address it I would have. To your points:

1) "Amendment V (to U.S. Constitution)

No person shall be held to answer for a ***capital***, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury"

I've cut and pasted the beginning of the fifth amendment to show that it's not just me who believed capital punishment was accepatble, but the founding fathers as well. If you disagree with the meaning of "capital" crime please reply! If you disagree with an amendment to the Bill of Rights, you could probably find a good job with the current administration. My point is that during the time in this country that the citizenry were most concerned with individual liberty and the abuse of government power, they still believed capital punishment was acceptable, as do I.

2) In a prior post on *this thread* I replied, "Yes, very likely some innocent man will die at the hands of the state. Overall however, if the crime rate decreases, more innocent lives should be saved than lost. Or would you rather have one innocent man in prison and NOT executed by the state with 9 dead innocents at the hands of criminals than 9 criminals and one innocent man executed? (Obviously I'm pulling the numbers out of the air, but the point should be clear. If this scenario is close to reality (big if) I think it would be immoral NOT to enforce the death penalty as above. "

Personally I wouldn't say I was "doggedly ignoring" the issue even if someone had *asked* me to specifically address it, which they hadn't.

Moving on after my mini-rant, are there statistics on the ratio of correct to incorrect executions? Also, I've heard that in general a person is caught only one time in ten they commit a crime (I really doubt that this included murder though). I think I would need real numbers for these two items before I could say that the enforcement of the DP was immoral. Again, if more innocent people are killed by letting the guilty go (or stay in prison to commit more crimes against fellow prisoners) is that better than having the state execute an occasional innocent man and lowering the overall crime rate? No, at least probably not to the next victims' families.

I personally am willing to accept that occasionally an innocent person dies at the hands of the state (and in one particular case about 2000 years ago I'm actually grateful for it). You're right in that to believe in the DP you must accept this will occasionally happen. I also believe (as apparently did the founding fathers ((appeal to authority)) that it is better overall for society than not having the death penalty.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 25, 2000.

Frank:

OK, that seems clear enough. Your position is that when it comes to crimes you feel deserve the death penalty, there may be no minimum level of accuracy at all -- that it really doesn't matter how many innocent people are executed, in the *hopes* that we get the right one every now and then. As I wrote earlier, such crimes deserve the death penalty for *someone*, and if it's the right person so much the better.

But hey, most of the people we execute incorrectly were probably pretty bad people in their own right, and no great loss to society. [grin]

And oddly enough, I agree with your position on the whole. Any time you institute an imperfect justice system, you get imperfect justice. Perfection is impossible, yet justice remains important. I'm just bothered that definitive evidence is showing so many on death row were the wrong person. Capital punishment makes legal mistakes so damn hard to rectify when you discover them later, you know?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 25, 2000.

Flint:

A very serious question.

If you don't consider life to be sacred, why does it matter whether a person is innocent or guilty of a crime?

You have ignored it; I presume because it is difficult. It, of course, has no meaning in a system where punishment's only value is to suppress crime [either by elimination or removal]. The only value is the final social effect. Lower crime. If a few innocent people are lost; it is for a greater cause. Or does it cause greater social disruption. That is the question.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 25, 2000.

Z:

Uh, I was under the impression that I've been addressing that question all along. Maybe I'm not using the right code phrases to do so?

Let's start nearer the beginning. Do we feel that a society ought to be able to enforce (or attempt to enforce) any prohibitions against anything? Or should people be permitted to do anything they wish to one another? If so, there will unavoidably be victims of such behavior. Probably a high percentage. Do we feel a high degree of victimization is a price worth paying, in order to fully appreciate the joys of anarchy?

Of course, as soon as you decide society should be permitted to discourage the most disruptive behavior, you are making a somewhat different tradeoff. Presumably, you can reduce social disruption, but at the expense of punishing some percentage of innocent people (and of course the additional cost of a justice and enforcement mechanism). There can never (that we know of) be a perfect system for administering justice. Are the inevitable mistakes acceptable? Do they become *more* acceptable if we bend all efforts to minimize their frequency?

And finally, given that some mistakes will sneak through, should we do all we can to make such mistakes as reversible as possible? What costs are inherent in this?

Earlier I addressed a subset of these questions -- can a point be reached where that society is trying to define and enforce *too many* prohibitions, and what costs are associated with that?

As far as I can see, the death penalty argument is strictly a moral issue. From a social perspective, the number of people executed is infinitesimal, and any subsequent crimes so prevented are WAY lost in the noise. Probably we'd need executions to reach somewhere around 10% of ALL deaths from all causes before it would rival cancer or heart attacks as being worth of significant consideration.

My feeling is that up to a certain point, a justice system serves a positive social function. There's some ideal point "below" which not enough prohibition is done, and antisocial acts are unduly rewarded, and "above" which too much is attempted and at the very least the members of the society come to regard the justice system as a threat rather than a benefit. I think we're above the ideal right now.

If your primary concern is with the "sacredness" of life, then you'd be better advised to focus on slippery bathtubs than on executions.

-- Flint (flingc@mindspring.com), March 25, 2000.

Flint,

I wouldn't say accuracy in unimportant, but perfection is unattainable. An example could be vaccines. The polio vaccine has dropped cases of severe paralytic polio to near nothing, but OTOH rarely a vaccinated person will *contract* polio. Should we not administer vaccines because one innocent person suffers even though many more are saved? It's sad, but to some extent all societal endeavors are geared toward the greatest good.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 25, 2000.