Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Giorgia · 03-06-2003, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorhis the Wolf
I fully suport the death penalty because dead men do no harm. People are charged and convicted based on evidence.

Things like fingerprints,DNA, hair and fiber samples, shoe and tire imprints, association with the victim and the location and if available eyewitness accounts.

There are real facts and connections to the person charged and the guilt of the offense.

It is evident from your post that you haven't been paying attention to the great number of innocent men released during the past few years (especially in Illinois) based on previously unavailable DNA evidence. For you to say

Quote:

Everyone is given their day in court and as far as the law in concerned they have never executed an innocent man.

shows that you have completely failed to think about the many innocent people who have been executed over time because modern-day scientific evicence was not available to exonorate them.

You don't have to read a lot of dry prose or look very far to learn more: Parade Magazine, Feb 23, 2003, "It Could Happen To Any Of Us" by Jack Newfield, describes the case of Ray Krone, who spent 10 years in prison -- much of it on Arizona's death row -- for a murder he did not commit. With a little bad luck, the author says, it could happen to any of us.

The "facts" that convicted him were a) he knew the victim, and b) his blood type ("O") was found at the scene. The real murderer went on to commit other crimes -- crimes which he may not have been able to commit if the police hadn't stopped looking for him because they mistakenly thought the perpetrator was Krone.

Ray Krone held a regular job, is white, and had many family and community connections (including a very wealthy cousin who spent an enormous amount of money proving Krone's innocence). I mention this because I believe you might come to a different conclusion about the death penalty if you do some thinking about the "justice" that is dealt to poor and/or black defendants.

Quote:

A modern court of law isn't some kind of Salem witch trial.

You also seem unaware of the cases in which modern DNA evidence presented in appeals was dismissed, and a known-innocent put to death because it was procedurally inconvenient for the higher court to admit a error had been made. Might as well be in Salem!

I used to be a death penalty supporter as well, until I realized that the number of innocent people sentenced to death is simply way, way too high a price to pay for allowing "vengeance" on the guilty ones.

Alonzo Fyfe · 03-07-2003, 04:33 AM

Murder is unjustified intentional killing. It is not sufficient that there be justification (a sound reason) to kill somebody, the person doing the killing must kill for that reason. Thus, if I should shoot some random person in a driveby shooting, only to have it discovered later that, quite by coincidence, this was somebody who deserved to die, this would not mitigate against the fact that I committed murder.

The three most common reasons offered for capital punishment do not justify killing.

1. Specific deterrence: capital punishment is justified to prevent the commission of a future crime.

Objection 1: Imagine a psychological test for high school students whereby it is shown that those who fail are as likely to commit a future crime as are those arrested for having committed that crime in the past. The ability to prevent a future crime would be the same in both cases. If it is permissible to kill to prevent a future crime, than we are just as justified in killing those highschool students who fail this test as we are those who have committed murder. Or, in other words, if preventing a future crime does not justify killing these high-school students, it does notjustify capital punishment for murderers.

Objection 2: (This is actually a way of rephrasing above), a person being executed to prevent a future crime is, in effect, being punished for a crime that he did not commit. Not only is he being presumed guilty (rather than being presumed innocent unless proved to be guilty), he is being presumed guilty of crime that does not exist.

Thus, killing to prevent a future crime counts as murder.

2. Retributive justice: Justice requires a punishment that fits the crime.

Objection 1: There is no such thing as "justice." If it does exist, what is it? What type of instrument can detect how much "justice" is contained within a particular action? Justice is a myth of our own design, and mythological properties can not justify a real-world execution.

Objection 2: I have demonstrated above that executions done in the name of preventing a future crime count as murder. If there is a "justice" that insists on a punishment fitting of a crime, than this "justice" is going to require the execution of a great many people. The absurdity of these types of conclusions argues against any notion that we may kill to serve justice.

Thus, killing to serve justice counts as murder.

3. General deterrence. Capital punishment is justified as a means of preserving social order.

Objection 1: There are orderly societies that do not have capital punishment.

Objection 2: There is no statistical evidence that capital punishment is a deterrence.

Objection 3: If capital punishment is really a deterrence, then why are most capital crimes committed by young males (those who have more of a life to lose through execution), rather than older individuals who will only lose a couple of years of their life? The fact that younger people commit more capital crimes than older people argues against the notion that capital punishment is a deterrent.

Objection 4: General deterrence effectively holds a person accountable for the actions of others. "We are not punishing you because of what you did, we are punishing you as a way of preventing these other people from doing the same thing." To which a response: "Why is it my fault that others might do the same thing?" is quite reasonable.

Thus, execution as a means of general deterrence counts as murder.

One last argument against the death penalty.

One argument against:

Most criminal acts involve rationalization; that is, reconceptualizing the action so that it conforms with society's moral standards. This is most often illustrated in rape cases, where the offender reconceptualizes his act as one carried out in the name of justice (she deserved it) or charity (really, she wanted it). But murderers also rationalize their actions. An attitude that killing another is never justified should have the effect of reducing the number of murders by cutting off this mental component that makes it possible for a person to commit murder. It may well be why societies that reject the death penalty tend to have lower murder rates.

The AntiChris · 03-07-2003, 05:24 AM

Alonzo Fyfe

Much as I share your disapproval of capital punishment, It seems to me that your objections could, at a stretch, be levelled at punishment of any kind.

Personally, I find your final "argument" the most compelling. It's always seemed to me that the death penalty only serves to legitimatise the dangerous notion that retributive killing can be justified.

Chris

Sarpedon · 03-07-2003, 05:25 AM

In my ideal imaginary country, there is the death penalty. Any capital crime in my country is punished first with OSTRACISM. This was an ancient greek practice by which a person had all his possessions siezed, and he was cast out of the city, never to return. If he did return, only then would the death penalty be applied. The way it would work is this: The ostracized person would be held for a certain amount of time. During this time he would be given access to communications so he can arrange for another country to accept him. Once the time is expired, he will be transported to that country. If he is unable to get another country to accept him, he will be transported to a neutral territory. On earth, the only territory that does not belong to any country is antarctica. Bad luck.

Vorhis the Wolf · 03-07-2003, 07:07 AM

Quote:

The "facts" that convicted him were a) he knew the victim, and b) his blood type ("O") was found at the scene. The real murderer went on to commit other crimes -- crimes which he may not have been able to commit if the police hadn't stopped looking for him because they mistakenly thought the perpetrator was Krone.

You are forgeting the most important thing that convicted him. That being a jury of 12 people who were convinced that he was guilty. I cant believe that it only took two coincidental facts to convict him. The prosecution had to have more that that because people arent that dumb.

Quote:

shows that you have completely failed to think about the many innocent people who have been executed over time because modern-day scientific evicence was not available to exonorate them

You have a good point, but the inquisition ended a few hunded years ago. Since then investegators have looked for fingerprints,witneses,motive, murder weapons, fiber samples,shoe prints and dozens of other things to link the victim to the crime. Ya' know, what they call "evidence".

Quote:

Ray Krone held a regular job, is white, and had many family and community connections (including a very wealthy cousin who spent an enormous amount of money proving Krone's innocence).

So did Ted Bundy. Being rich and white doesnt make you innocent.

Quote:

I mention this because I believe you might come to a different conclusion about the death penalty if you do some thinking about the "justice" that is dealt to poor and/or black defendants.

O.K. how do we get from talking about a rich white guy to the " "justice" that is dealt to poor and/or black defendants. "?? Everyone gets to face their accuser and get a chance to convince 12 strangers that they are innocent. It takes a unanimous vote to convict somene. People arent convicted because a judge doesnt like them or a cop harrassed them. People are convicted because an unbiased jury thinks that they are guilty based on the facts presented.

Quote:

You also seem unaware of the cases in which modern DNA evidence presented in appeals was dismissed, and a known-innocent put to death because it was procedurally inconvenient for the higher court to admit a error had been made. Might as well be in Salem!

DNA isnt the "get out of jail free" card. It is just one piece of evidence. Look at the D.C. sniper case. there is NO DNA evidence, but based on the fact that they had the credit cards of one of the victims,had the same caliber rife used in the killings, and made threatening phone calls to the police about the killings, chances are that they are guilty.

beth · 03-07-2003, 07:53 AM

I am both for and against it. I am for it if someone murders with callouseness and there are many witnesses or much proof that the accused is guilty. If someone were to murder someone I love, I would want them to die.

I am against it in some ways because I do think that many are sentenced to death with too little evidence. We just executed a man,Amos King, in this state. I believe he was framed. When a stay of execution was finally permitted for DNA testing, it was found that DNA evidence of the murder case was either destroyed or removed. I think that he should have been allowed a retrial or at least had the death sentence revoked. But they executed him anyway. Jeb Bush should have stepped into this case.

seanie · 03-07-2003, 08:02 AM

In the UK we've had many miscarriages of justice. There are a number of people in jail at the moment who should never have been convicted in the first place and many who languished for years before the truth was acknowledged.

One thing that's noticeable is that many of these cases involve the most horrific of crimes. It's the very horror of the crime that encourages police to take a few short cuts, the prosecution to conceal evidence from the defence, witnesses to embelish their accounts, and juries to convict on piss poor evidence.

And it's also the most horrific of crimes that people want the death penalty for.

fishbulb · 03-07-2003, 11:47 AM

A more relevant question than, "who deserves to die" is "who deserves to kill?"

Questions about proof of guilt are more or less irrelevant; sentencing an innocent person to life in prison under the horrific conditions that now exist in most prison systems, even in developed nations, is also cruel and horrific, yet it is done all the time. There is no such thing as proof beyond any doubt; the only way to avoid convicting innocents is to not convict anyone at all.

A fundamental question to ask is this: why do we punish people? If we punish people for revenge, then we must ask why we feel that we deserve to carry out revenge; why we are justified in taking action to "even the score" when we explicitly prohibit others from doing the same -- why is it that we may choose to kill someone we believe has killed a loved one, but someone who steals because he feels that he has been screwed by the system and the victim of his theft is directly responsible for that is labelled a criminal and punished for it? The only difference is that we have consensus on our side and the thief doesn't. But just because a sentiment is popular doesn't mean that it is right.

Also, if we choose to punish for revenge, whether that punishment takes the form of execution, imprisonment, or something else, then we must bear the full moral responsibility for every innocent person we punish in this way. This is both true of people who are innocent as a matter of law (i.e. wrongfully convicted) as well as those whose actions might actually be morally excusable -- but this takes us back to the question of who has the moral authority to decide what is and is not an acceptable reason for killing or otherwise hurting others.

I would like to live in a society where we punish people for four reasons: as a deterrent to others, to ensure community safety, to rehabilitate, and to obtain restitution. Since convictions are based on probabilities, punishments must also take these into account. That is to say, every punishment handed out by society must take into account the possibility that the convicted is in fact innocent, and also that the convicted is or may come to be genuinely sorry for his or her actions and wish to make restitution and become a positive element in his or her community. Consequently, the punishment's severity must be as low as possible while still standing a reasonable chance at achieving the above goals. This prevents unecessary cruelty to those mistakenly convicted. It also recognizes the value of life by refusing to throw away the remainder of a person's life just because it has been used for ill up to this point.

Up here, we have a sociopath named Paul Bernado. He was, along with his wife, convicted of raping, tortuing, and murdering two teenaged girls, and in raping and ultimately killing his sister in law. Most of this he recorded on video tape. It is completely understandable that people would feel outrage and hatred towards such a person, and would tend to feel that no punishment is severe enough. Maybe that's true. I must admit that I have similar feelings. Maybe Bernardo deserves to be slowly tortured to death. But I see no moral grounds on which I or anyone else can make that judgement, and that should not be the function of the justice system. It will not bring the girls back, it will not somehow even the score, and it will probably not help bring closure to the families and friends of the victim.

Bernardo is clearly a dangerous person and, for the sake of the community's safety, I would advocate imprisoning Bernardo indefinitely. Not for life without parole, not for X years, but until such a time as we can state with a high level of confidence that he is not likely to do such a thing again. At such time (and perhaps this time will never come) I think it would be appropriate to release him into the public, provided that he was willing to operate under continued supervision for as long as was deemed necessary, and that he was willing to do whatever he could to make some sort of restitution to the families and to the community. I admit that my gut reaction to his being released from prison would be one of discomfort, but I believe that justice is best served by protecting the community in a rational, level-headed way and not by exacting revenge or inflicting righteous punishment on those we deem deserving of such. Adopting such a system is, objectively, better for us as a community than our system of revenge and punishment. But it order to work, we have to grow up and accept that people sometimes do bad things--sometimes very bad things--but that doesn't mean that you can't still salvage something good from them.

Giorgia · 03-10-2003, 09:02 PM

Giorgia on 3/6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "facts" that convicted him were a) he knew the victim, and b) his blood type ("O") was found at the scene.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vorhis the Wolf:

You are forgeting the most important thing that convicted him. That being a jury of 12 people who were convinced that he was guilty. I cant believe that it only took two coincidental facts to convict him. The prosecution had to have more that that because people arent that dumb.

Giorgia on 3/10:

a) Did you read the article I quoted?
b) Yes, people ARE that dumb, AND they can be easily manipulated (see answers b) and c) in next paragraph).
c) And those two "coincidental facts"? The victim was a bartender, i.e., many, many people "knew" her, and, type "O" blood is the most common type of blood on earth.
==============================================

Giorgia on 3/6:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shows that you have completely failed to think about the many innocent people who have been executed over time because modern-day scientific evicence was not available to exonerate them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vorhis the Wolf

You have a good point, but the inquisition ended a few hunded years ago. Since then investegators have looked for fingerprints,witneses,motive, murder weapons, fiber samples,shoe prints and dozens of other things to link the victim to the crime. Ya' know, what they call "evidence".

Giorgia on 3/10:

a) The Inquisition had nothing to do with crime: it had to do with persecuting infidels (protestants, etc.).
b) InvestIgators mis-handle evidence; witnesSes mis-perceive, forget, and lie; murder weapons are often not found; many, many are prosecuted via circumstantial evidence.
c) Evidence (prior to DNA) could easily be manipulated -- especially by a DA seeking re-election or by a police department seeking to solve a heinous crime where getting "somebody" was more important than getting the "right" somebody.
==============================================

Giorgia on 3/6:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Krone held a regular job, is white, and had many family and community connections (including a very wealthy cousin who spent an enormous amount of money proving Krone's innocence).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vorhis the Wolf

So did Ted Bundy. Being rich and white doesnt make you innocent.

Giorgia on 3/10:

Who said anything about Krone being "rich"? He would be DEAD now if he didn't happen to have a wealthy COUSIN -- and he still spent a decade in jail for a crime he didn't commit.
==============================================

Giorgia on 3/6:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mention this because I believe you might come to a different conclusion about the death penalty if you do some thinking about the "justice" that is dealt to poor and/or black defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vorhis the Wolf

O.K. how do we get from talking about a rich white guy to the " "justice" that is dealt to poor and/or black defendants. "?? Everyone gets to face their accuser and get a chance to convince 12 strangers that they are innocent. It takes a unanimous vote to convict somene. People arent convicted because a judge doesnt like them or a cop harrassed them. People are convicted because an unbiased jury thinks that they are guilty based on the facts presented.

Giorgia on 3/10:

Goodness gracious! Where is this moon you're from?

a) I wasn't talking about a rich white guy, YOU were.
b) Do you really, really believe that a black man in the South has a "chance to convince 12 strangers that [they] are innocent"? Or that this same black man would be "convicted because an unbiased jury thinks that [they] are guilty based on the facts presented"?
c) You obviously are completely unfamiliar with the statistics which show the hugely disproportionate number of African Americans convicted of crimes, and the same disproportionate number who are subsequently given the death penalty.

And yes, NOW I'm comparing the probability of an innocent black man or even an innocent, poor, white man of being convicted versus the same probability of a guilty, rich, white or black man (remember OJ?) being convicted.
==============================================

Giorgia on 3/6:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You also seem unaware of the cases in which modern DNA evidence presented in appeals was dismissed, and a known-innocent put to death because it was procedurally inconvenient for the higher court to admit a error had been made. Might as well be in Salem!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vorhis the Wolf

DNA isnt the "get out of jail free" card. It is just one piece of evidence.

Giorgia on 3/10:

You again missed my point:

a) In more than one case, THE HIGH COURT REFUSED EVEN TO LET THE DEFENSE HAVE THE DNA TESTED, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH SUGGESTED THAT SUCH TESTING WOULD PROVE THE MAN'S INNOCENCE!
b) DNA IS a compelling "get out of jail free" card when it irrefutably shows that the person in jail could not possibly be the accused rapist/murderer.
==============================================

Personal PS: check your profile: Xians spell it that way; atheists spell it athEIst...

inmeitrust · 03-10-2003, 11:50 PM

It seems the general idea here is that punishing people for their actions is immoral and shouldn't be done. Alonzo says their is no such thing as justice. I guess all incarceration should be eliminated to stop trying to acheive the mythology of justice.

Sarpedon wants to put an ad out: Unstable killer needing residence. Countries wanting to see if he's better wanted. Please send air fare.

Race, of all things, is brought into the discussion. The capacity to kill knows no racial boundries. In a group of people that believe in evolution and fundamental roots of man coming from common ancestors, how do we differentiate on such shallow topics. Most black murder victims were killed by a black male. The victim's race should have no bearing on why we prosecute someone. If a jury convicts based on bigotry, it has nothing to do with the prescribed punishment of a crime. Fix the court, not the consequence.

Fishbulb only wants certain portions of our population to be exposed to murderers (corrections, health care workers, other inmates). Only after they have not killed some of these people do we let murderers out amongst the general population, as if the workers attending to a killer's needs are more expendable.

Finally, I believe there are societies that don't have the death penalty that have murderers. Murderers don't learn how to behave from the society. They can't follow the rules of society. That's why they can murder with no remorse.

As I follow some of these arguments, it sounds like we shouldn't put down vicious animals when they become uncontrolable. Heck, since nearly all criminals become recidivists, the whole rehabilitation thing isn't working. Why put them in jail in the first place?

It sounds as if a vast majority of these posters have never been exposed to the underbelly of human society. They don't understand that we can't apply rational thought to the irrational. Our ideas of punishment and consequence doesn't mean the same to the hard core criminal. I am chagrined to think an otherwise logical group would dismiss logic only when a human is involved. Maybe we should pray to god that killers don't kill again instead of solving the problem ourselves.

View Poll Results: Are you For or Ggainst the Death Penalty
Yes. I support the death penalty	32	19.88%
No. I do not support the death penalty	120	74.53%
I don't know.	9	5.59%
Voters: 161. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-07-2003, 04:33 AM	#82
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	Murder is unjustified intentional killing. It is not sufficient that there be justification (a sound reason) to kill somebody, the person doing the killing must kill for that reason. Thus, if I should shoot some random person in a driveby shooting, only to have it discovered later that, quite by coincidence, this was somebody who deserved to die, this would not mitigate against the fact that I committed murder. The three most common reasons offered for capital punishment do not justify killing. 1. Specific deterrence: capital punishment is justified to prevent the commission of a future crime. Objection 1: Imagine a psychological test for high school students whereby it is shown that those who fail are as likely to commit a future crime as are those arrested for having committed that crime in the past. The ability to prevent a future crime would be the same in both cases. If it is permissible to kill to prevent a future crime, than we are just as justified in killing those highschool students who fail this test as we are those who have committed murder. Or, in other words, if preventing a future crime does not justify killing these high-school students, it does notjustify capital punishment for murderers. Objection 2: (This is actually a way of rephrasing above), a person being executed to prevent a future crime is, in effect, being punished for a crime that he did not commit. Not only is he being presumed guilty (rather than being presumed innocent unless proved to be guilty), he is being presumed guilty of crime that does not exist. Thus, killing to prevent a future crime counts as murder. 2. Retributive justice: Justice requires a punishment that fits the crime. Objection 1: There is no such thing as "justice." If it does exist, what is it? What type of instrument can detect how much "justice" is contained within a particular action? Justice is a myth of our own design, and mythological properties can not justify a real-world execution. Objection 2: I have demonstrated above that executions done in the name of preventing a future crime count as murder. If there is a "justice" that insists on a punishment fitting of a crime, than this "justice" is going to require the execution of a great many people. The absurdity of these types of conclusions argues against any notion that we may kill to serve justice. Thus, killing to serve justice counts as murder. 3. General deterrence. Capital punishment is justified as a means of preserving social order. Objection 1: There are orderly societies that do not have capital punishment. Objection 2: There is no statistical evidence that capital punishment is a deterrence. Objection 3: If capital punishment is really a deterrence, then why are most capital crimes committed by young males (those who have more of a life to lose through execution), rather than older individuals who will only lose a couple of years of their life? The fact that younger people commit more capital crimes than older people argues against the notion that capital punishment is a deterrent. Objection 4: General deterrence effectively holds a person accountable for the actions of others. "We are not punishing you because of what you did, we are punishing you as a way of preventing these other people from doing the same thing." To which a response: "Why is it my fault that others might do the same thing?" is quite reasonable. Thus, execution as a means of general deterrence counts as murder. One last argument against the death penalty. One argument against: Most criminal acts involve rationalization; that is, reconceptualizing the action so that it conforms with society's moral standards. This is most often illustrated in rape cases, where the offender reconceptualizes his act as one carried out in the name of justice (she deserved it) or charity (really, she wanted it). But murderers also rationalize their actions. An attitude that killing another is never justified should have the effect of reducing the number of murders by cutting off this mental component that makes it possible for a person to commit murder. It may well be why societies that reject the death penalty tend to have lower murder rates.

03-07-2003, 05:24 AM	#83
The AntiChris Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: UK Posts: 5,932	Alonzo Fyfe Much as I share your disapproval of capital punishment, It seems to me that your objections could, at a stretch, be levelled at punishment of any kind. Personally, I find your final "argument" the most compelling. It's always seemed to me that the death penalty only serves to legitimatise the dangerous notion that retributive killing can be justified. Chris

03-07-2003, 05:25 AM	#84
Sarpedon Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota, the least controversial state in the le Posts: 8,446	In my ideal imaginary country, there is the death penalty. Any capital crime in my country is punished first with OSTRACISM. This was an ancient greek practice by which a person had all his possessions siezed, and he was cast out of the city, never to return. If he did return, only then would the death penalty be applied. The way it would work is this: The ostracized person would be held for a certain amount of time. During this time he would be given access to communications so he can arrange for another country to accept him. Once the time is expired, he will be transported to that country. If he is unable to get another country to accept him, he will be transported to a neutral territory. On earth, the only territory that does not belong to any country is antarctica. Bad luck.

03-07-2003, 07:53 AM	#86
beth Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: where orange blossoms bloom... Posts: 1,802	I am both for and against it. I am for it if someone murders with callouseness and there are many witnesses or much proof that the accused is guilty. If someone were to murder someone I love, I would want them to die. I am against it in some ways because I do think that many are sentenced to death with too little evidence. We just executed a man,Amos King, in this state. I believe he was framed. When a stay of execution was finally permitted for DNA testing, it was found that DNA evidence of the murder case was either destroyed or removed. I think that he should have been allowed a retrial or at least had the death sentence revoked. But they executed him anyway. Jeb Bush should have stepped into this case.

03-07-2003, 08:02 AM	#87
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	In the UK we've had many miscarriages of justice. There are a number of people in jail at the moment who should never have been convicted in the first place and many who languished for years before the truth was acknowledged. One thing that's noticeable is that many of these cases involve the most horrific of crimes. It's the very horror of the crime that encourages police to take a few short cuts, the prosecution to conceal evidence from the defence, witnesses to embelish their accounts, and juries to convict on piss poor evidence. And it's also the most horrific of crimes that people want the death penalty for.

03-07-2003, 11:47 AM	#88
fishbulb Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 792	A more relevant question than, "who deserves to die" is "who deserves to kill?" Questions about proof of guilt are more or less irrelevant; sentencing an innocent person to life in prison under the horrific conditions that now exist in most prison systems, even in developed nations, is also cruel and horrific, yet it is done all the time. There is no such thing as proof beyond any doubt; the only way to avoid convicting innocents is to not convict anyone at all. A fundamental question to ask is this: why do we punish people? If we punish people for revenge, then we must ask why we feel that we deserve to carry out revenge; why we are justified in taking action to "even the score" when we explicitly prohibit others from doing the same -- why is it that we may choose to kill someone we believe has killed a loved one, but someone who steals because he feels that he has been screwed by the system and the victim of his theft is directly responsible for that is labelled a criminal and punished for it? The only difference is that we have consensus on our side and the thief doesn't. But just because a sentiment is popular doesn't mean that it is right. Also, if we choose to punish for revenge, whether that punishment takes the form of execution, imprisonment, or something else, then we must bear the full moral responsibility for every innocent person we punish in this way. This is both true of people who are innocent as a matter of law (i.e. wrongfully convicted) as well as those whose actions might actually be morally excusable -- but this takes us back to the question of who has the moral authority to decide what is and is not an acceptable reason for killing or otherwise hurting others. I would like to live in a society where we punish people for four reasons: as a deterrent to others, to ensure community safety, to rehabilitate, and to obtain restitution. Since convictions are based on probabilities, punishments must also take these into account. That is to say, every punishment handed out by society must take into account the possibility that the convicted is in fact innocent, and also that the convicted is or may come to be genuinely sorry for his or her actions and wish to make restitution and become a positive element in his or her community. Consequently, the punishment's severity must be as low as possible while still standing a reasonable chance at achieving the above goals. This prevents unecessary cruelty to those mistakenly convicted. It also recognizes the value of life by refusing to throw away the remainder of a person's life just because it has been used for ill up to this point. Up here, we have a sociopath named Paul Bernado. He was, along with his wife, convicted of raping, tortuing, and murdering two teenaged girls, and in raping and ultimately killing his sister in law. Most of this he recorded on video tape. It is completely understandable that people would feel outrage and hatred towards such a person, and would tend to feel that no punishment is severe enough. Maybe that's true. I must admit that I have similar feelings. Maybe Bernardo deserves to be slowly tortured to death. But I see no moral grounds on which I or anyone else can make that judgement, and that should not be the function of the justice system. It will not bring the girls back, it will not somehow even the score, and it will probably not help bring closure to the families and friends of the victim. Bernardo is clearly a dangerous person and, for the sake of the community's safety, I would advocate imprisoning Bernardo indefinitely. Not for life without parole, not for X years, but until such a time as we can state with a high level of confidence that he is not likely to do such a thing again. At such time (and perhaps this time will never come) I think it would be appropriate to release him into the public, provided that he was willing to operate under continued supervision for as long as was deemed necessary, and that he was willing to do whatever he could to make some sort of restitution to the families and to the community. I admit that my gut reaction to his being released from prison would be one of discomfort, but I believe that justice is best served by protecting the community in a rational, level-headed way and not by exacting revenge or inflicting righteous punishment on those we deem deserving of such. Adopting such a system is, objectively, better for us as a community than our system of revenge and punishment. But it order to work, we have to grow up and accept that people sometimes do bad things--sometimes very bad things--but that doesn't mean that you can't still salvage something good from them.

03-10-2003, 09:02 PM	#89
Giorgia Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: leaving Colorado soon, I hope Posts: 259	Giorgia on 3/6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "facts" that convicted him were a) he knew the victim, and b) his blood type ("O") was found at the scene. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vorhis the Wolf: You are forgeting the most important thing that convicted him. That being a jury of 12 people who were convinced that he was guilty. I cant believe that it only took two coincidental facts to convict him. The prosecution had to have more that that because people arent that dumb. Giorgia on 3/10: a) Did you read the article I quoted? b) Yes, people ARE that dumb, AND they can be easily manipulated (see answers b) and c) in next paragraph). c) And those two "coincidental facts"? The victim was a bartender, i.e., many, many people "knew" her, and, type "O" blood is the most common type of blood on earth. ============================================== Giorgia on 3/6: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- shows that you have completely failed to think about the many innocent people who have been executed over time because modern-day scientific evicence was not available to exonerate them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vorhis the Wolf You have a good point, but the inquisition ended a few hunded years ago. Since then investegators have looked for fingerprints,witneses,motive, murder weapons, fiber samples,shoe prints and dozens of other things to link the victim to the crime. Ya' know, what they call "evidence". Giorgia on 3/10: a) The Inquisition had nothing to do with crime: it had to do with persecuting infidels (protestants, etc.). b) InvestIgators mis-handle evidence; witnesSes mis-perceive, forget, and lie; murder weapons are often not found; many, many are prosecuted via circumstantial evidence. c) Evidence (prior to DNA) could easily be manipulated -- especially by a DA seeking re-election or by a police department seeking to solve a heinous crime where getting "somebody" was more important than getting the "right" somebody. ============================================== Giorgia on 3/6: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ray Krone held a regular job, is white, and had many family and community connections (including a very wealthy cousin who spent an enormous amount of money proving Krone's innocence). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vorhis the Wolf So did Ted Bundy. Being rich and white doesnt make you innocent. Giorgia on 3/10: Who said anything about Krone being "rich"? He would be DEAD now if he didn't happen to have a wealthy COUSIN -- and he still spent a decade in jail for a crime he didn't commit. ============================================== Giorgia on 3/6: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I mention this because I believe you might come to a different conclusion about the death penalty if you do some thinking about the "justice" that is dealt to poor and/or black defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vorhis the Wolf O.K. how do we get from talking about a rich white guy to the " "justice" that is dealt to poor and/or black defendants. "?? Everyone gets to face their accuser and get a chance to convince 12 strangers that they are innocent. It takes a unanimous vote to convict somene. People arent convicted because a judge doesnt like them or a cop harrassed them. People are convicted because an unbiased jury thinks that they are guilty based on the facts presented. Giorgia on 3/10: Goodness gracious! Where is this moon you're from? a) I wasn't talking about a rich white guy, YOU were. b) Do you really, really believe that a black man in the South has a "chance to convince 12 strangers that [they] are innocent"? Or that this same black man would be "convicted because an unbiased jury thinks that [they] are guilty based on the facts presented"? c) You obviously are completely unfamiliar with the statistics which show the hugely disproportionate number of African Americans convicted of crimes, and the same disproportionate number who are subsequently given the death penalty. And yes, NOW I'm comparing the probability of an innocent black man or even an innocent, poor, white man of being convicted versus the same probability of a guilty, rich, white or black man (remember OJ?) being convicted. ============================================== Giorgia on 3/6: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You also seem unaware of the cases in which modern DNA evidence presented in appeals was dismissed, and a known-innocent put to death because it was procedurally inconvenient for the higher court to admit a error had been made. Might as well be in Salem! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vorhis the Wolf DNA isnt the "get out of jail free" card. It is just one piece of evidence. Giorgia on 3/10: You again missed my point: a) In more than one case, THE HIGH COURT REFUSED EVEN TO LET THE DEFENSE HAVE THE DNA TESTED, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH SUGGESTED THAT SUCH TESTING WOULD PROVE THE MAN'S INNOCENCE! b) DNA IS a compelling "get out of jail free" card when it irrefutably shows that the person in jail could not possibly be the accused rapist/murderer. ============================================== Personal PS: check your profile: Xians spell it that way; atheists spell it athEIst...

03-10-2003, 11:50 PM	#90
inmeitrust Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 483	It seems the general idea here is that punishing people for their actions is immoral and shouldn't be done. Alonzo says their is no such thing as justice. I guess all incarceration should be eliminated to stop trying to acheive the mythology of justice. Sarpedon wants to put an ad out: Unstable killer needing residence. Countries wanting to see if he's better wanted. Please send air fare. Race, of all things, is brought into the discussion. The capacity to kill knows no racial boundries. In a group of people that believe in evolution and fundamental roots of man coming from common ancestors, how do we differentiate on such shallow topics. Most black murder victims were killed by a black male. The victim's race should have no bearing on why we prosecute someone. If a jury convicts based on bigotry, it has nothing to do with the prescribed punishment of a crime. Fix the court, not the consequence. Fishbulb only wants certain portions of our population to be exposed to murderers (corrections, health care workers, other inmates). Only after they have not killed some of these people do we let murderers out amongst the general population, as if the workers attending to a killer's needs are more expendable. Finally, I believe there are societies that don't have the death penalty that have murderers. Murderers don't learn how to behave from the society. They can't follow the rules of society. That's why they can murder with no remorse. As I follow some of these arguments, it sounds like we shouldn't put down vicious animals when they become uncontrolable. Heck, since nearly all criminals become recidivists, the whole rehabilitation thing isn't working. Why put them in jail in the first place? It sounds as if a vast majority of these posters have never been exposed to the underbelly of human society. They don't understand that we can't apply rational thought to the irrational. Our ideas of punishment and consequence doesn't mean the same to the hard core criminal. I am chagrined to think an otherwise logical group would dismiss logic only when a human is involved. Maybe we should pray to god that killers don't kill again instead of solving the problem ourselves.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.