Child rapists can't be executed, Supreme Court rules

[Cynical Cat]

I'm all for execution for rape, as well as MORE crimes than currently. I don't understand how an execution, carried out deliberately and after due process, in the spirit of removing a dangerous person from society as well as serving as an example to others, is somehow "barbaric." We're not cutting hands off for stealing (although that does drop the theft rates).

Evidence for cutting off hands drops theft rates?

It's not I feel that the state doesn't have the right to kill, its that life imprisonment is just about as bad, cheaper, and reversible when a case gets fucked up and they get fucked up a lot. You can't unexecute innocent people.

Deterrent effects are hard to calculate. The US, for example, is one of the few Western countries that still executes people and it has a much higher violent crime rate than other countries. It also has a crappier social safety net, different cultural baggage, and more guns. Separating one factor for another is tricky, but while abduction can be an impulse crime, what to do with the victim afterwards isn't; and that's why there are things like Limbourgh Laws.

[Comrade Tortoise]

I'm all for execution for rape, as well as MORE crimes than currently. I don't understand how an execution, carried out deliberately and after due process, in the spirit of removing a dangerous person from society as well as serving as an example to others, is somehow "barbaric." We're not cutting hands off for stealing (although that does drop the theft rates).

And as for the "it gives the criminal more incentive to kill their victims." Do you think that the person is thinking "oh gee, I better not KILL them or I might get gassed. Better just rape them and nothing else; that way I can get a life sentence and hope for an overturn on appeal or parole in 20 years! Yeah, that sounds like a plan." Seems a bit elaborate. I wonder what the numbers are for crimes deterred by capital punishment vs. extra motivation for killing.. killings (don't know how to put that really).

Do you know how often we fuck up convictions? How often someone has to be rescued from death row by non-profit organizations? You want to expand this beyond the most depraved of crimes? We have probably executed thousands of innocent people, because NGOs literally cannot review every case or get their evidence heard on appeal.

Rapes are some of the hardest crimes to prosecute, and lead to an extraordinary number of false convictions because DNA is not involved as often as one might think, and there are massive consent issues, as we have argued about over AIM several times. You want to add DEATH to this? Are you nuts?

Then there is the lack of effect of the death penalty on actual murder rates. Death Penalty states consistently have higher murder rates than non-death penalty states, representing at the min a null effect, and at the worst a negative effect.

And as for your argument about killing victims, it is harder to get convicted if the victim does not live to testify against you. If you are going to die anyway, you may as well get rid of the witness and reduce your chance of being caught.

Hell, just about every professional organization that deals with rape victims has reached the consensus that the death penalty for rape stops people from reporting the crime because most rape victims are raped by someone they know and no one wants to be responsible for someone else dying.

[frigidmagi]

CT, we have only executed 3000 or so people since the death penalty was reinstated in the late 70s. Unless you're suggesting that our court system is so corrupt and incompetent that the vast majority of executed men are innocent, please dial back the hyperness.

Now as to the pre-70s ban, I feel throwing in things from 90 pr 80 years ago, isn't fair as things have dramatically changed since then.

Seperate note, it has been proven that innocent men have been executed. Our founding fathers declared it was better for a 100 guilty men to walk then a single innocent man to suffer. Do we still believe that? If so, what course of action should we take? If not? What do we believe in now and why?

[Comrade Tortoise]

CT, we have only executed 3000 or so people since the death penalty was reinstated in the late 70s. Unless you're suggesting that our court system is so corrupt and incompetent that the vast majority of executed men are innocent, please dial back the hyperness.

Now as to the pre-70s ban, I feel throwing in things from 90 pr 80 years ago, isn't fair as things have dramatically changed since then.

Seperate note, it has been proven that innocent men have been executed. Our founding fathers declared it was better for a 100 guilty men to walk then a single innocent man to suffer. Do we still believe that? If so, what course of action should we take? If not? What do we believe in now and why?

To clarify, I should have said pre-ban, and/or worldwide. Still, I will concede that note.

[frigidmagi]

Again pre-ban shouldn't count in my opinion and last I checked the topic is US executions. Not the rest of the world. Let's set up our own camp site before we bug the others about theirs.

[The Cleric]

Evidence for cutting off hands drops theft rates?

I missed adding the "I would imagine" in there, which completely changes the point of that part. That's what I get for posting buzzed.

[The Cleric]

Do you know how often we fuck up convictions? How often someone has to be rescued from death row by non-profit organizations? You want to expand this beyond the most depraved of crimes? We have probably executed thousands of innocent people, because NGOs literally cannot review every case or get their evidence heard on appeal.

No, I don't know the hard numbers. Please provide some (recent cases, say, past 20 years please. Forensics has come a long way).

Rapes are some of the hardest crimes to prosecute, and lead to an extraordinary number of false convictions because DNA is not involved as often as one might think, and there are massive consent issues, as we have argued about over AIM several times. You want to add DEATH to this? Are you nuts?

So the problem is with the trial process, and not with the sentencing. So we need to fix the trial. Doesn't change what SHOULD happen to rapists.

Then there is the lack of effect of the death penalty on actual murder rates. Death Penalty states consistently have higher murder rates than non-death penalty states, representing at the min a null effect, and at the worst a negative effect.

You know, I've heard this before, but never been able to find any hard numbers on it that aren't skewed by a multitude of other factors (high poverty being a giant #1).

And as for your argument about killing victims, it is harder to get convicted if the victim does not live to testify against you. If you are going to die anyway, you may as well get rid of the witness and reduce your chance of being caught.

How is that any different than now? Killing the victim helps ensure that there's no one to testify and avoid jail time all together. Adding stiffer penalties wouldn't do much to change that.

Hell, just about every professional organization that deals with rape victims has reached the consensus that the death penalty for rape stops people from reporting the crime because most rape victims are raped by someone they know and no one wants to be responsible for someone else dying.

I would, I know that for damn sure. And it wouldn't be an automatic sentence like for treason, just like manslaughter carries different punishment than murder 1.

[The Cleric]

It's not I feel that the state doesn't have the right to kill, its that life imprisonment is just about as bad, cheaper, and reversible when a case gets fucked up and they get fucked up a lot. You can't unexecute innocent people.

The only reason it's cheaper to house prisoners over execution is the massive, drawn out appeals process involved with a death sentence. If it was faster from the gavel to the chair, it would be FAR less expensive (prisoner housing being horrifically expensive as it is).

[Cynical Cat]

It's not I feel that the state doesn't have the right to kill, its that life imprisonment is just about as bad, cheaper, and reversible when a case gets fucked up and they get fucked up a lot. You can't unexecute innocent people.

The only reason it's cheaper to house prisoners over execution is the massive, drawn out appeals process involved with a death sentence. If it was faster from the gavel to the chair, it would be FAR less expensive (prisoner housing being horrifically expensive as it is).

No shit it would be faster. The reason we don't is because we don't want to kill innocent men and we get innocent men on death row all the time. Illinois suspended the death penalty in 2000 because more men were getting exonerated off death row than executed since they restored the death penalty in the 70s. Out of 25 people on death row, 13 were found to be innocent and 12 were executed and that's in Illinois. Now imagine how its like in Texas, with its notoriously crappy legal system and express way to the death chamber. That's with the current system. You want to grease the rails and make it easier to execute innocent men?

[Rukia]

Now imagine how its like in Texas, with its notoriously crappy legal system and express way to the death chamber.

The "expressway" to the chair is based on heinous crimes where there are at least three credible eye witnesses. I think that is acceptable. If three people saw you kill another person, you should get a front of the line pass.

[Cynical Cat]

Now imagine how its like in Texas, with its notoriously crappy legal system and express way to the death chamber.

The "expressway" to the chair is based on heinous crimes where there are at least three credible eye witnesses. I think that is acceptable. If three people saw you kill another person, you should get a front of the line pass.

If eyewitness testimony wasn't known to be unreliable, if Texas's legal system wasn't notoriously crappy, and if they didn't have a system were they try to execute as many people as they could that would be a rebuttal.

[SirNitram]

Frankly, I think DNA evidence should be considered a minimum for the death penalty. The results of the various non-profit groups which re-examine old cases with new DNA techniques tell me there's good reason for this.

[Comrade Tortoise]

No, I don't know the hard numbers. Please provide some (recent cases, say, past 20 years please. Forensics has come a long way).

Here ya go

These are cases only where DNA evidence was available to be used. In a lot of cases, there is no DNA evidence that is usable.

here have been 218 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 32 states; since 2000, there have been 155 exonerations.

• 16 of the 218 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.

• The average length of time served by exonerees is 12 years. The total number of years served is approximately 2,694.

• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 26.

Races of the 218 exonerees:

134 African Americans
59 Caucasians
19 Latinos
1 Asian American
5 whose race is unknown

• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 84 of the DNA exoneration cases.

• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.

So the problem is with the trial process, and not with the sentencing. So we need to fix the trial. Doesn't change what SHOULD happen to rapists.

We can hand-wring about what rapists deserve all day. We wont get anywhere seeing as I know we have different views on what the nature of a prison system should be in our own ideal little worlds. The reality of the situation is that this is a policy question, and the reality of that is that you have solve problems within the system you have, not the one you would build from the ground up. We are not going to be able to fix the glaring problems of our court system due to inertia alone.

Getting rid of execution is the best we can do.

You know, I've heard this before, but never been able to find any hard numbers on it that aren't skewed by a multitude of other factors (high poverty being a giant #1).

There ya go. At best, no effect. I would have to go through and systematically run a few statistical tests, ANCOVA might work. I would also have to account for the states that have the DP but dont use it.

How is that any different than now? Killing the victim helps ensure that there's no one to testify and avoid jail time all together. Adding stiffer penalties wouldn't do much to change that.

WIth death on the line? If the penalty is the same, so is the risk involved in criminal activity. The only way to mitigate the risk is to reduce your chance of being caught.

I would, I know that for damn sure. And it wouldn't be an automatic sentence like for treason, just like manslaughter carries different punishment than murder 1.

You might. But someone who has been disempowered? Someone who has been violated and have had their control taken from them? People in that state are easily manipulated and dont know which way is up half the time. Little kids are even worse in this respect.

[General Havoc]

No shit it would be faster. The reason we don't is because we don't want to kill innocent men and we get innocent men on death row all the time. Illinois suspended the death penalty in 2000 because more men were getting exonerated off death row than executed since they restored the death penalty in the 70s. Out of 25 people on death row, 13 were found to be innocent and 12 were executed and that's in Illinois. Now imagine how its like in Texas, with its notoriously crappy legal system and express way to the death chamber. That's with the current system. You want to grease the rails and make it easier to execute innocent men?

No, I want the right goddamn men to be executed.

I'm sick and tired of this relativistic attitude towards the Death Penalty, like it's impossible to know the truth, therefore taking any action is immoral. We get innocent people in prison all the time? The solution is not to abolish the Death Penalty. The solution is to fix the fucking justice system so that the right people are getting convicted in the first place. The Death Penalty is not the reason why innocent people are being locked up. Flawed and unfair trials, tainted juries, and incompetent defense attorneys are the reason for that. If we take the position that we have the mortal requirement to abolish a judicial punishment across the board because of mistakes made in convicting people, then why are we stopping at the Death Penalty? Because it's perceived as being irreversible? Ask some guy who's done thirty years in prison how 'reversible' his punishment was. If we're being moral and outraged about wrongfully convicted felons, then don't we have the same moral requirement to abolish life imprisonment as well? And long-term sentencing?

No, I'm sorry, it is not a sufficient argument to abolish the death penalty based on the fact that justice is imperfect. If we are concerned that innocent men are being executed, then we should improve the justice system to the point where we are as certain as we can be that nobody innocent is being convicted. We do not abolish the death penalty, we do not abolish any sentencing on those guidelines.

We can hand-wring about what rapists deserve all day. We wont get anywhere seeing as I know we have different views on what the nature of a prison system should be in our own ideal little worlds. The reality of the situation is that this is a policy question, and the reality of that is that you have solve problems within the system you have, not the one you would build from the ground up. We are not going to be able to fix the glaring problems of our court system due to inertia alone.

Getting rid of execution is the best we can do.

I absolutely, unequivocally, utterly reject this notion, root and branch. By that logic, getting rid of execution is not the best we can do. Getting rid of sentencing is. It is very easy to cynically wring one's hands in the air and claim that nothing can ever be fixed, that the system is impermeable and that the "glaring problems of our court system" can never be resolved. The notion that because the justice system is and forever will be corrupt, that the death penalty is immoral is a noxious fallacy as I see it. That is akin to declaring that because the DMV has been utterly unable to ensure that every person with a driver's license is absolutely qualified to drive and will not make egregious mistakes while doing so, Automobiles should be banned.

The best we can do is to fix the justice system so that innocent people are no longer convicted. It is not to throw our hands up and say "Since justice is impossible, we will no longer make even a pretense of trying to apply it."

[Cynical Cat]

No, I want the right goddamn men to be executed.

I'm sick and tired of this relativistic attitude towards the Death Penalty, like it's impossible to know the truth, therefore taking any action is immoral. We get innocent people in prison all the time? The solution is not to abolish the Death Penalty. The solution is to fix the fucking justice system so that the right people are getting convicted in the first place. The Death Penalty is not the reason why innocent people are being locked up. Flawed and unfair trials, tainted juries, and incompetent defense attorneys are the reason for that. If we take the position that we have the mortal requirement to abolish a judicial punishment across the board because of mistakes made in convicting people, then why are we stopping at the Death Penalty? Because it's perceived as being irreversible? Ask some guy who's done thirty years in prison how 'reversible' his punishment was. If we're being moral and outraged about wrongfully convicted felons, then don't we have the same moral requirement to abolish life imprisonment as well? And long-term sentencing?

No, I'm sorry, it is not a sufficient argument to abolish the death penalty based on the fact that justice is imperfect. If we are concerned that innocent men are being executed, then we should improve the justice system to the point where we are as certain as we can be that nobody innocent is being convicted. We do not abolish the death penalty, we do not abolish any sentencing on those guidelines.

Nice fucking strawman. We have options other than fucking executing people. Our options aren't execution or nothing. There's this thing called life imprisonment, which isn't a walk in the park. Most countries use it. There is strong evidence of a very high number of false convictions in death penalty cases. The solution isn't to wish for a magical judicial system reform that will prevent all innocent people from being convicted. One can work to minimize the convictions of innocent people, but that doesn't change the current problem.

As for a guy who has spent a long time in prison for a crime that he hasn't committed, no compensation is going to be enough, but he can have part of his life back. It's better than no part of it. And why should we execute the fuckers? Life imprisonment is cheaper, can be reversed, and not anything I would wish other than the worst of scum. Why the need for executions when we have other options and we know that we have a high error rate? Giving some scum bag the needle as opposed to letting him rot isn't a big enough improvement to be worth the extra expense and the risk of executing some poor innocent bastard.

Like say Stofsk.

[General Havoc]

Nice fucking strawman.

Like say Stofsk.

How rare it is for someone to write my reply for me...

[Cynical Cat]

How rare it is for someone to write my reply for me...

Nice complete lack of counter argument.

[General Havoc]

I do not consider the implication that Death Penalty advocates are at fault for the Stofsk case to be worthy of reply. In fact, I find that particular argument to be repugnant. Your other points, such as Life Imprisonment, or the broken justice system, I addressed in my original post. So explain to me what exactly I should reply to, and I will.

[Cynical Cat]

No, you didn't address life imprisonment. You said we should work for a magical future where we never wrongly convict someone and not worry about executing innocent people because the justice system will be "better". You then equated unjustly imprisoning someone as being as bad as executing him. I rebutted that and you pretended it never happened.

You have not answered why the death penalty is necessary, why the expense and the deadly and irreversible consequences of error are worth employing it when we have other options. You never addressed this. You created a strawman. Here, let me refresh your memory:

If we take the position that we have the mortal requirement to abolish a judicial punishment across the board because of mistakes made in convicting people, then why are we stopping at the Death Penalty? Because it's perceived as being irreversible? Ask some guy who's done thirty years in prison how 'reversible' his punishment was. If we're being moral and outraged about wrongfully convicted felons, then don't we have the same moral requirement to abolish life imprisonment as well? And long-term sentencing?

News flash: losing years of your life aren't equivalent to ending it. There is no monetary compensation, no counseling, nothing that can be done to mitigate the damage in the latter case. There are no additional years in which to have a life. Improvements in the judicial system are wonderful. We all want them. No one likes the idea of false convictions. But it doesn't solve the problem of executing innocent people, just reduces their numbers. So why keep the death penalty? What good comes from it that is worth the damage it can do and the expense?

I brought up Stofsk because we know him. He's a man unjustly convicted of murder and who can have a life if he's freed, but certainly not if he's executed. A human face on the people you dismiss. Australia maybe fucked up, but at least they don't execute him so there the opportunity to save the rest of his life exists, a chance that wouldn't exist if he was executed.

[frigidmagi]

CT, if you don't mind is there any data on the average age per state?

[Comrade Tortoise]

The solution is not to abolish the Death Penalty. The solution is to fix the fucking justice system so that the right people are getting convicted in the first place.

Do you have a solution for this? One that will, you know, actually happen?

If we're being moral and outraged about wrongfully convicted felons, then don't we have the same moral requirement to abolish life imprisonment as well? And long-term sentencing?

We can say "oops" and let someone out of prison if we find them to be wrongfully imprisoned. We cant do that if a person is dead. We can pay them a shitload of money for damages, we can do any number of others things in order to make recompense for that. We cannot do that after KCL is injected into someone's blood stream.

The best we can do is to fix the justice system so that innocent people are no longer convicted. It is not to throw our hands up and say "Since justice is impossible, we will no longer make even a pretense of trying to apply it."

Gee, that begs the question that execution is justice now doesnt it? Well, so long as we are dealing in pipe-dreams, I suppose I get to detail my ideal judicial system that completely rehabilitates all criminals and allows them to be released into society again. Oh, wait, that is a pipe dream. Just like the idea of a perfect judicial system free of error.

[The Silence and I]

I think I can safely state that no justice system can guarentee 100% accuracy. Error always exists, all we can do is reduce it as far as we can, and even that changes from day to day and across different groups of people. Even if a justice system can be created with a theoretical error rate approaching zero, as long as people are involved that system will work sub-optimally and actual error will exceed theoretical error. Never mind the odds against constructing such a nearly flawless system in the first place.

Why do I state what should be obvious? Because it leads to a certain conclusion I'm interested in: if error exists, however small, then in the case of a justice system eventually someone will be wrongly convicted. This is inevitable. If you want to allow executions then you have to ask yourself where the threshold is--what magnitude of error is acceptable. Is it acceptable to wrongfully execute 1 in 10? What about 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? At what point does it become acceptable to make such an unnecessary mistake? We have other options--life imprisonment isn't letting someone off the hook for damn sure! Unless you can provide a rational, provable, verifiable and practical answer to the question, it is folly to let your emotions lead you to what you think the answer should be.