talkpolitics | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

I'm going to attempt to argue a theory here; many may jump on me for the real-world practice that goes on, but this is not about that.

In theory, I support the death penalty. This is an eye-for-an-eye sort of justice.
If you take anothers life, delibrately, in cold blood, in a pre-meditated fashion, you have lost your right to live, IMO.

Now, since this penalty is to be administered by the govt, there ought be some strict guidelines. Here is what I propose:

Either:
A) You are caught in the act by the authorities (but the person dies before he/she can be rushed to the hospital)
B) There is overwhelming evidence against you--personally I feel that four criteria would be met for this:

fingerprint
DNA
eye-witness
video of event (audio is a plus, but I feel these four are sufficient to ensure that the guilty party is the one being punished)

These strict requirements, are, to my knowledge, not required anyplace where the death penalty is enacted. Thus my theoretical support of the death penalty does not support the real-world way in which the death penalty is applied in the US (or elsewhere)

I recognize that in the US (and prolly elsewhere too) the death penalty is applied in a biased manner and that in too many cases the wrong person is executed. I feel that the criteria I laid out are sufficient to ensure no wrongful executions -- though, of course, I am open to hear contrary views on that.

Let us put aside issues of economic cost (which vary) and issues of how to execute (which vary) and focus on the question of: "Is execution for murder an acceptable punishment?"

I feel that it is; I feel that one forfits their right to live when they steal that right from another. I believe in human rights that are inherent but not absolute--the human rights that we all have are what we start with, but we do not necessarily retain them forever. We can lose them.

Thoughts?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I know that by themselves, each of the four things I listed are insufficient to confirm guilt. You will need to inform me (or at minimum link me) to the problems you think I have with my understanding of fingerprint evidence and DNA evidence.

Yes, video can be tampered and eyewitnesses can be mistaken; I know this; I'm not a fool.

But to my knowledge, our DNA is unique, just like our fingerprints. So yeah, if there's a rape-murder victim with John Doe's DNA inside her, his fingerprints on the murder weapon, a survellience video of him committing the crime, and a neighbor who saw John Doe fleeing the scene--I think his guilt can be safely concluded.

And this is *theory* not application.

And hey, what's your stance on the trial of KSM? Or Saddam Hussein? Should Hussein *not* have gotten the death penalty? Should KSM get life in prison?

All that fingerprint evidence and DNA evidence demonstrate is that at some time in the past, someone put fingerprints or DNA on the scene. Fingerprints stay around for a long, long time indeed. If you've got a murder weapon, that's not bad, unless it's something that a lot of people have touched. DNA? Well, yes, it's unique - but it's also damn hard to get a good sample. Rapes are a special case; I thought we were talking about murder only. Remember, you didn't say anything about murder weapons or rapes in the OP, which is what I was responding to.

I don't see the relevance of two specific cases if you're just talking about *theory*. Perhaps you should try to figure out what exactly you want to argue for before you continue.

This is why I insist upon all four criteria being present; if the DNA sample is available, and the crime is on camera, and the fingerprint is present, and one person can ID the perp....that sounds like very solid evidence.

I was more just curious your stance on those two specific cases. Since we may not have the 4 criteria I listed on those two specifics, but there seems to be more than enough guilt on the heads of those two--so I'm pondering what you think ought be done with people whose guilt is not in question.

It may sound like solid evidence, but it's not necessarily so. Especially troubling is your reliance on eyewitness testimony, which you know is laughably unreliable.

I think that everybody deserves a fair trial. I don't think that a systematic justification of the death penalty can be based on a single clear-cut case like Hussein, or Hitler, or Stalin, or (pick your oppressive murdering bastard).

I don't know if KSM is actually guilty, or has been tortured into admitting shit he didn't do. It's impossible to trust anything in that area anymore. So I'm not going to comment on it further.

Ok. And yeah, eye-witness is perhaps the least important of the four criteria I listed, given how aweful it can be--but I'm not relying on eye-witness testimony any more, or any less, than the other criteria. ALL must be present, IMO, for the DP to be justifiably applied.

But we may have reached an impass in our discussion. So be it.

That was rather civil. I'm disappointed. :p

On further reflection, I think you've got a much bigger mess on your hands. What do you think about this line of thought:

The thing with eyewitness testimony is, it's really easy for Authority to convince people (with leading questions and whatnot in early interviews) that they saw things they didn't see. This is especially true if, say, a police detective tells Johnny Eye-Witless that they've got the other three things already, and if this murderer is going to be punished justly, they need him to remember exactly what he saw (and so on and so forth).

So you'll want to make "eyewitness testimony" into "real eyewitness testimony". But "real eyewitness testimony" just means "I saw that person do it", which means that the person is actually guilty. So it's justifiable to put someone to death just in case they're actually guilty of murder... but that renders the other qualifications irrelevant and brings everything back to eyewitness testimony, doesn't it?

Real eyewitness testimony is just as important as actual video of the crime in question; if we have crystal clear video of the perp in question robbing a store, shooting the clerk, and walking out (and the clerk manages to get a couple of bits of the defendents DNA under his fingernails) and you find the murder weapon with DNA but no eye-witness....we can conclude the perp is guilty right?

It seems like any one of the criteria could be missing and the others would suffice, but the idea of needing all four is to serve as a check and balance--it's unlikely all would be tampered/forged/misleading.

The question is about whether its ok, once certainty is determined; not how to go about determining certainty.

I think you're missing my point. We can conclude that the accused is guilty, by your measures, just in case the accused is actually guilty, since you want to rule out faked evidence. But that makes your evidentiary standard meaningless, since it's just a complicated way of saying "that guy is actually guilty".

Now, if you want to talk about whether the death penalty is permissible given an uncontroversially guilty agent, that's a different kettle of fish entirely. You might find Montague's Punishment as Societal Defense enlightening here, or any of the proportionality literature by Jeff MacMahon.

IMO, a quick albeit humiliating death was too easy an escape for Saddam. Such people should rot in the darnedest darned jail for ages until they start seeing E.T.s.

Ah, but my stance is that he doesn't deserve even the satisfaction of a warm meal, or a happy shit; life in prison might not be the most fun, but it is life. One may still feel pleasure while one is alive, even if imprisoned. Yet I am not for torturing one who is imprisoned, so, to deprive them of pleasure (which I feel they gave up the right to have) but not be cruel (via torture) we execute Saddam.

Then serve him cold unhappy shit.

Oh I'm sure one could feel pleasure in jail. At first it's painful but once he gets used to it, he'll like it.

Or so I was told. ;)

Invent a toilet seat that jabs your ass cheeks uncomfortably when you sit on it, thus either annoying the prisoner or forcing them to constantly squat and hover over the toilet causing strain to their hamstrings etc.

I'm sure if we get creative we can find all manner of ways of making prison pretty unpleasant for people xD

Yeah, but then you are devolving into torture; I agree with what a guy named Bruce once told me: we deserve better than to turn our population into torturers.

Turning them into a population of executioners? ;P

Could you point me to irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for murder in the USA? I'm not aware this was ever even a charge.

I mean you don't try somebody in Japan for a murder in England.

While he may have ordered the deaths of Kurds and other people's in his own nation, as a citizen of a nation where the death penalty has been banned for many decades, I should be able to charge your Presidents, Governors and Judges for capitol crimes?

Holy shit.

I wish! ;)

Crimes against humanity?

Can we not execute genocidal or ethnic cleansing despots?
How many Kurds did he kill?

Crimes of Saddam Hussein (http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm) approximate he is responsible for approximately 200,000 deaths, including Kurds and Kuwaitis. Other sources have slightly higher or lower figures but 200,000 is about average.

Now consider the freedomizing efforts of the coalition of the willing who are personally responsible for approximately 655,000 indiscriminate Iraqi deaths (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/11/iraq.iraq). With that kind of freedom I completely understand why the tyranny of Saddam might be preferable.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I did not support the idea of invading Iraq, I do not think we were justified in going in.
However, I'm also not going to defend the right of Saddam Hussein to be a murdering jackass.

So how about the case of Slobodan Milosevic?
We, the world community, should engage in and actively stop genocidal dictators--but we shouldn't kill 650,000 civilians in the process. I mean, yeah; that's obvious....right?

On the one hand, Saddam Hussein was arrested and held by Americans for crimes committed in a foreign jurisdiction. He was tried and executed by Iraqis in what was a very speedy proceeding in a country so devastated by the freedomizing that they still have basic infrastructure issues. Not just water and power, but law and order too. Somehow with American assistance they managed to pull it together and issue swift justice.

On another hand, Slobodan Milosevic was being tried for war crimes (a trial that lasted over 5years), including genocide, at the ICC in Hague, Holland. He died of natural causes in the War Criminal Prison.

This entry is about capital punishment. This thread is assuming that genocidal maniacs not only deserve execution, but assumes they will get execution when convicted. By hanging, electric chair, lethal injection, guillotine, gun squad, etc. But an execution never the less.

At the modern international tribunals, capital punishment is banned, and conviction results in a sentence for a term of years. The convicted person serves his or her sentence in a national prison system, whose country has agreed with the tribunal to effect execution of sentence.

Not saying that rotting is prison is a better solution then chopping off their head. Not saying it is more or less humane. What I am saying is lowering the justice to the level of the crime is vendetta disguised as justice.

Use of the death penalty around the world (as of June 2009).
Blue... Abolished for all offenses (94)
Green... Abolished for all offenses except under special circumstances (10)
Orange... Retains, though not used for at least 10 years (35)
Red... Retains death penalty (58)* *Note that, while laws vary between U.S. states, it is considered retentionist because the federal death penalty is still in active use.

"What I am saying is lowering the justice to the level of the crime is vendetta disguised as justice."

Your language is loaded; you imply that it is lowering the level of justice. A life for a life (an eye for an eye style justice) is more just, to some, than a life behind bars for a life.

yes. Steal from me I steal from you is silly.
Rape my loved ones and I'll rape you.
Speed on my treet I'll speed on yours.
this isn't justice. It's chaos.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only