Guido:
Why?
I don't know.
All I know is that when I do the mental calculus, my threshold for the innocent:guilty ratio, it's nonzero.
Put differently, what do you perceive to be the rewards for killing the guilty vs. the costs of killing the innocent?
I don't know that one could quantify it exactly. Let's imagine that I get 1 point of satisfaction in knowing that a guilty asshole is executed. Let's imagine that I get 1 point of anguish when an innocent is executed.
Let's imagine then that 1 anguish point = 57 satisfaction points. In that case, as long as we have greater than a 56 out of 57 "hit" rate in determining guilt, then I am ok with the system.
I don't know what the actual numbers are for me. For some of you, 1 anguish point equals infinity satisfaction points. That's cool too. I say we vote on it.
If I had to guess, I would say that I could sleep at night with a hit rate in the 99.9% range. NOTE: That's executions mind you - not death row inmates.
Just to frame where I am coming from, if there was absolute certainty that someone was guilty of heinous, savage brutality, I would have no qualms about executing them for purely moral reasons.
I get where you are coming from. Like anything else though, the tolerance level is a continuum. You are at the "absolute certainty" end. I'm at some point less than that. I don't have any problem with elevating the threshold to something beyond "reasonable doubt". If we can do something more to ensure that we're only killing bad guys - let's have at it.
But not killing bad guys? No thanks.
That really isn't an example of the system working, that is an example of science proving that the system was broken in numerous instances.
I guess I just don't agree. The appeals process is in place to catch mistakes (since we know that SOME mistakes will be made). When the appeals process catches mistakes - that's a good thing. It's less good than not making the mistake in the first place, but still a good thing in context.
Given the fallability inherrent in the system (let's say we get it wrong 0.01% of the time -- which I think is a conservative estimate), I can't really identify why the benefits outweigh the risks.
For you, they probably don't. That's why we should vote on it.
Its not cost. There are numerous credible studies that indicate that the appeals process is more expensive than just locking them up and throwing away the key.
Fucking lawyers man. But we already struck a healthy compromise. If we catch you on tape - you get no appeals.
As someone else pointed out - in general it seems pretty bad form when death penalty opponents jack up the number and cost of appeals, and then whine about how expensive it is.
It costs less than $10 to actually execute someone. But I agree with you - in the current system, the lengthy appeals process is necessary to make sure we are killing the right guy or gal. So I'm ok with it being more expensive.
Its not safety. Locking them up protects the public almost as much as killing them does (prison breaks do happen, so killing them is a little more effective on that front, but escapes are so rare that I don't really factor them in much; plus, there is nothing to say that a prison break is any more or less likely during the years that the person is processing their appeals).
What's the repeat offender rate for murderers who are ultimately released? Is it non-zero? What's the repeat offender rate for murderers that are executed? Which is safer?
Your argument here presumes that the alternative to the death penalty is going to be life imprisonment without parole. I don't know that I agree with that.
However, as another possible compromise - perhaps we can work something out on this front. I'll trade in the death penalty for a life sentence in a 4 x 4 x 4 box that they are never allowed out of. And they only get to drink water and a basic, bland diet. No TV. No lifting weights. No getting butt raped. No butt raping. Just sit in your fucking box until you die.
At least then, if we find out that we fuct up, we could let you out of the box and give you a lifetime supply of Twinkies or something to smooth things over.
Would you agree to that? If so, then we're done.
Its not deterrence. This one is at least arguable, but I tend to buy the studies that say it has no deterring effect.
I've seen studies that say there is no deterrent effect. I've seen studies that say that every execution stops 8 innocent people from being murdered. WTF do I know?
I have problems with trying to address this question because I don't know how people are going to come out and say that they WOULD have committed murder if it wasn't for their fear of the death penalty.
I'm more than comfortable with the execution deterring one criminal from ever committing another crime.
I consider this to be the only really good argument advanced by the pro-death penalty camp, but on the whole, I find it unpersausive.
You are such a lawyer.
We don't need arguments. We have the numbers on our side.
I just think the death penalty loses whenever you do the math.
Of course it does, when you are weighting the variables according to your own biases.
Not unsurprisingly, when I do the math, the death penalty almost always wins.
We could have a cage match to decide whose opinion wins - or we can just leave it to the Legislatures and the people we elect to implement our will.
I understand that advocacy for your position is a good thing - in the long run, you might change enough minds to become the majority on this issue. That's cool. You don't persuade me, but I'm kind of a stubborn asshole about some things.
In the meantime, if the majority of the people in your state are on board with killing criminals for various crimes - let's just hope that they are killing the right people.
In this case, I think they got the right guy. So I'm ok with that if that's how you crazy Californians want to handle it.
