The Capital Punishment Debate

[Brad Sallows]

>But any rate, agree to disagree?

Yes.

I made my point harshly on purpose.  While people who favour the death penalty should acknowledge the cost of wrongful conviction, people like me who are against it should acknowledge the cost to victims and the people who loved them and be clear about what is being traded off.

 

[mariomike]

The death penalty could be a highly effective deterrent, though probably not of murder. 

I wouldn't know. But, there is this school of thought,

If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science

 

[brihard]

That is fine, we disagree and I suspect our views are not going to align any time soon.

I just feel if it is clear cut, clean verdict etc, then it is acceptable to execute murders. I also believe a waiting period should exist and if no new evidence, information or testimony comes forward to change the verdict then it should go forward.

Not all murderers would be executed or well I should say in my opinion should be executed in my view, in order to protect someone from being wrongfully convicted and executed.

But if it is an open and closed case, heck even with a prior criminal record etc.. string em up after the waiting period. Maybe I am a hardliner, maybe not, I do not know if it would curtail murders or not etc, I just feel it is right and just.

But any rate, agree to disagree?
Abdullah

The problem is, anyone wrongfully executed or exonerated while on death row was already proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s the highest standard of certainty that the legal system has. In theory it means we’re sure we got it right.

In practice that obviously isn’t the case. Within that risk lies too much moral hazard to chance it, IMO.

 

[YZT580]

beyond reasonable doubt = life sentence,no parole
death penalty should require either multiple eye witness or witnessed confession

 

[brihard]

beyond reasonable doubt = life sentence,no parole
death penalty should require either multiple eye witness or witnessed confession

Eyewitnesses and confessions are two of the more notoriously flawed types of evidence. There is plenty of very well conducted research demonstrating the problems with both generating false identifications/confessions.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

beyond reasonable doubt = life sentence,no parole
death penalty should require either multiple eye witness or witnessed confession

As long as it is a life sentence. Not ten years. Life should mean life.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers."

And maybe some innocents, as well.  You may never know.

 

[GR66]

There is no doubt in my mind that death would be a just punishment for many of those that commit the most heinous of crimes.  However, our justice system is not perfect and sometimes we make mistakes and convict innocent people for crimes they did not commit.  Sometimes that even includes cases where the defendant admits to the crime or there are witnesses who swear to the guilt of the defendant.

Since can't be absolutely 100% certain that we're not capable of making a horrible mistake by executing an innocent person of a crime they did not commit, then I'm willing to live with the fact that someone that rightly deserves to die for their crimes instead spends the rest of their life in custody instead.

I do agree with those others that have commented that a "life sentence" should really mean life behind bars for these people.

 

[ballz]

We've had this discussion before about types of evidence.

Types of evidence absolutely cannot play into it. Sentences need to be proportionate to the crime, aggravating / mitigating circumstances, etc. The fact that the evidence presented is different between two similar crimes does not mean one person should get a harsher sentence than the other. That undermines the principles of sentencing, and doesn't take an academic to see it is clearly unfair.

I had proposed before, without realizing it I guess, that I'd support the death penalty if a higher burden of proof was achieved. I had proposed you had to be found guilty of say, 3 or 4 heinous acts. The logic was that it starts to become statistically impossible that you could be found guilty of multiple offences for which you are not guilty.

But I've softened on that stance. If a burden of proof of "absolute" could be established, I'd support it. But the more and more I see of the state, the less I am inclined to trust it with that power. Even now we see some pretty slippery slope crap going on that doesn't involve executing people. I'd guess if we made a perfect system, it would still eventually erode and fall to our own stupidity. Father time is undefeated.

 

[mariomike]

Regarding Canada's last executions.

In December 1962, there were three men on death row at the Don Jail in Toronto.

Two were hanged back to back. That's pretty well known.

Most are not likely familiar with what happened to the third,

2015

Child killer, pedophile who confessed to three unsolved rapes was sentenced to death more than 50 years ago
https://www.mississauga.com/news-story/6062238-child-killer-pedophile-who-confessed-to-three-unsolved-rapes-was-sentenced-to-death-more-than-50-years-ago/
Convicted child killer and pedophile Gary Alexander McCorkell was given a second chance at life and he used it to rape more young boys.

 

[YZT580]

Accepting but not liking the fact that the potential for executing the wrong person is real, we are back to the problem of defining a suitable sentence.  There should be certain acts that, if committed, justify removing the perpetrator from civilised society for ever.  They have forfeited the right to be a part of society.  The death penalty accomplishes that.  Incarceration for life also accomplishes that.  It is expensive, and it also opens up the potential for that individual to influence others with whom he comes in contact either directly or via letter but at least society and the families of the victims are spared the possibility of being confronted by his freedom at a later date.  So remove the faint hope clause and change the definition of life to mean life behind bars and in a totally secure institution as well.  That is the promise that Pierre made and it is the minimum that should be acceptable.

 

[mariomike]

The death penalty accomplishes that. 

We haven't had a hanging in 57 years. Party politics aside, I doubt there will be another during my lifetime.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Best way to assert our sovereignty over Hans Island is to put a penal institution there. Establishes a year round presence, and removes a few cancer cells from the body. Win/win.