NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay this thread is not directed to anyone really other than people who oppose the death penalty on the basis of the idea that innocents may be killed, although if you want to reply, obviously go ahead.

I'm obviously pro-death penalty and actually for much lesser crimes than like serial rape and murder, but anyways that's really beside the point for the purposes of this thread. Personally I think the risk of a few innocents being killed (I think the number would be VERY low) is worth it in order to properly punish those deserving of it, but I digress.

Many people I've spoken to (Liberals, democrats, socialists, etc. etc.), basically leftists that oppose the death penalty purely on the idea that innocents may be killed due to an incorrect verdict or somesuch.

Although I don't agree, I can at least see what you mean if you are afraid an innocent might be killed if the verdict is guilty by circumstancial evidence and by only 1 or 2 eyewitnesses without particularly outstanding credubility, etc.

The one thing I don't understand is, why do these people still oppose the death penalty for those we are 100% sure of committed the crime? Let's say someone walks up in the middle of a crowd, pulls out a rifle and shoots down like 20 people in the crowd. There is really no question whatsoever of their guilt. Why not support the death penalty in cases such as these?

When I have brought up this idea, the response, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM (well about 5 people, this was at my school) have responded by single-mindedly repeating that they are afraid innocents will be killed. If the death penalty were only applied in cases where the guilt of the defendant is 100% certain, THEN YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT if your argument is that you fear for innocents! Is it that these left-wing idiots just don't listen and just spout off the same thing over and over again? Or is there really a rational explanation I'm missing here?

NOTE: THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY! IT IS REGARDING THE ISSUE OF INNOCENTS BEING KILLED IN ERROR THROUGH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT!

EDIT: You people seem to be obsessed with saying that a hundred people seeing the same thing doesn't mean it happened. That was merely an example of a clearcut case, obviously a place with a mass gathering would have cameras, as well as evidence such as the gun casings as well as matching the bullet to the firearm the criminal is carrying etc. I didn't feel it'd be necessary to say these because I thought you people would stick to the idea of the topic which is, IF A PERSON IS GUILTY FOR SURE, THEN WHY DO YOU STILL ARGUE THEY SHOULD NOT BE KILLED BECAUSE THEY MIGHT BE INNOCENT, WHEN IN FACT, THEY CAN'T BE INNOCENT BY DEFINITION IF THEY ARE GUILTY FOR SURE!

There is no such thing as 100% certainty. You'd be amazed at how misleading eyewitness accounts can be. Ask a hundred people the same question and you will get one hundred different answers.

Okay this thread is not directed to anyone really other than people who oppose the death penalty on the basis of the idea that innocents may be killed, although if you want to reply, obviously go ahead.

I'm obviously pro-death penalty and actually for much lesser crimes than like serial rape and murder, but anyways that's really beside the point for the purposes of this thread. Personally I think the risk of a few innocents being killed (I think the number would be VERY low) is worth it in order to properly punish those deserving of it, but I digress.

Many people I've spoken to (Liberals, democrats, socialists, etc. etc.), basically leftists that oppose the death penalty purely on the idea that innocents may be killed due to an incorrect verdict or somesuch.

Although I don't agree, I can at least see what you mean if you are afraid an innocent might be killed if the verdict is guilty by circumstancial evidence and by only 1 or 2 eyewitnesses without particularly outstanding credubility, etc.

The one thing I don't understand is, why do these people still oppose the death penalty for those we are 100% sure of committed the crime? Let's say someone walks up in the middle of a crowd, pulls out a rifle and shoots down like 20 people in the crowd. There is really no question whatsoever of their guilt. Why not support the death penalty in cases such as these?

When I have brought up this idea, the response, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM (well about 5 people, this was at my school) have responded by single-mindedly repeating that they are afraid innocents will be killed. If the death penalty were only applied in cases where the guilt of the defendant is 100% certain, THEN YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT if your argument is that you fear for innocents! Is it that these left-wing idiots just don't listen and just spout off the same thing over and over again? Or is there really a rational explanation I'm missing here?

NOTE: THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY! IT IS REGARDING THE ISSUE OF INNOCENTS BEING KILLED IN ERROR THROUGH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT!


Aw, but can you prove that we will implement a change so all courts even in Texas only kill when 100% certainty.

Also what about if a man looks like that another man and gunned down those people? Then you think there is 100% and so does the jury but he is innocent.

So its a slippery slope to say you can make it 100%. There will always be juries swayed by lawyers, heck, I still think OJ did it and the jury let him off.

And you lose your arguement when you call anyone a idiot.
So I'm finished speaking with you.

And if the person was arrested on the spot?

100 different witnesses might give 100 SLIGHTLY varying accounts, but the overhwleming majority (probably 99 of 100) will all point at the one man who perpetrated the crime.

who judges the 100% guilty? wasn't the point of the constitution to make our nation governed by laws and not by personalities?

And if the person was arrested on the spot?

100 different witnesses might give 100 SLIGHTLY varying accounts, but the overhwleming majority (probably 99 of 100) will all point at the one man who perpetrated the crime.
Wrong. Mass psychology is a funny thing. Still no, as you have no way of proving that he actually did it. Looks can be deceiving, so there is no such thing as 100% certainty.

If someone is convicted of murder, than yes, they need to be executed. If someone did walk into a crowd with a rifle and started shooting, there's no question he is guilty, and that he should be executed.

Now, to make a statement, you people are fools. You can not give someone the death penalty based on mere eyewitness accounts. They will always get off on appeal. There must be more, such as forensic evidence. In the modern world, it is very rare for someone who is innocent to get the death penalty because we have much higher standards of evidence. No one can be innocent when their DNA matches that found on the murder weapon right after someone saw them drop it. Even then though, there would have to be videotape of them with the weapon, or at least so many witnesses who saw the same thing that there is no question. That is why we base decisions on the idea of "beyond a reasonable doubt." If you have no reasonable doubt that they did it, then you should convict. With todays advanced technology, it is very unlikely an innocent person could possibly be convicted.

Aw, but can you prove that we will implement a change so all courts even in Texas only kill when 100% certainty.

Also what about if a man looks like that another man and gunned down those people? Then you think there is 100% and so does the jury but he is innocent.

So its a slippery slope to say you can make it 100%. There will always be juries swayed by lawyers, heck, I still think OJ did it and the jury let him off.

And you lose your arguement when you call anyone a idiot.
So I'm finished speaking with you.

Yea, he is done. Just as soon as he gets in the last word. And then leaves.

Well if this sort of a system were in place, then there WOULD be laws given to describe what 100% means, just to avoid some stupid lawyers trying to twist it.

So basically the basis of this argument for you guys is that even if an incident is captured on camera, in front of hundreds of witnesses, with DNA, fingerprint, etc. samples matching, gun match, as well as an arrest on the spot, it's still not good enough to convince you the person is guilty?

Interesting. How do you decide if a person is guilty?

Or do you have so little faith in yourself that you cannot bring yourself to say you are sure of something?

Now, to make a statement, you people are fools. You can not give someone the death penalty based on mere eyewitness accounts. They will always get off on appeal. There must be more, such as forensic evidence. In the modern world, it is very rare for someone who is innocent to get the death penalty because we have much higher standards of evidence. No one can be innocent when their DNA matches that found on the murder weapon right after someone saw them drop it. Even then though, there would have to be videotape of them with the weapon, or at least so many witnesses who saw the same thing that there is no question. That is why we base decisions on the idea of "beyond a reasonable doubt." If you have no reasonable doubt that they did it, then you should convict. With todays advanced technology, it is very unlikely an innocent person could possibly be convicted.

Have you ever heard of Ryan Matthews? He was convicted of murder, and sentenced to death, in spite of DNA evidence which showed, conclusively, that he was entirely innocent. He was acquitted, finally, a few weeks ago, after 7 years on Death Row, thanks only to a charitable campaign by a group of UK lawyers. Is a foreign charity a sufficient safeguard?

Edit: source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1292637,00.html).

A lot of us are anti-death penalty because we're anti-murder ... even if it's State sanctioned ...

A lot of us are anti-death penalty because we're anti-murder ... even if it's State sanctioned ...

Well this post wasn't directed at you then. I could argue with you about that too, but that'd be a subject for a different thread. If you'd like to discuss the death penalty as a whole, you can TG me or whatever.

As I said, this post is only to question those who oppose the death penalty purely on the fear for innocent lives.

My belief is not only that human-based judical systems are always in danger of making false judgements. It has happened in the past, it happens now and it will happen in the future. Watch "Minority Report" and you'll notice that even the most advanced technology does not free us of making mistakes. No human is 100% right in everything.

An additional argument is that the barbarism of the death penalty should not make a country drop to the same moral standard as the murderer himself, namely the belief that murder can bring justice or relief for the victim or it's family. As a wise person once said: "An eye for an eye and the world goes blind."

I don't expect an American to understand the compassionate understanding of human actions, even those that result in the death of another person. It is rarely the case that a murder is done in cold-blood and premediated and we are not machines. It is the belief of the civilized countries of the world that the death penalty infringes on human dignity and the basic human right to life, which is irrevokable by society.

If the defendant pleads insanity then you can never be 100% sure.

(In fact I bet it would be easy to find lots of epistemologists who would tell you that even with videotape, DNA, shell casings, 100 eyewitnesses, and a confession, you can't be 100% sure, regardless of plea.)

My problem with the death penalty is that I don't believe anyone has the right to kill. Government reveals its true nature as a user of systematic violence when it employs the death penalty. The death penalty is a way to scare the people into submission by reminding them that the government does not value life and will kill those who oppose it.

I understand the point of this thread.

And I agree then, that the "small number of innocents" argument is not enough to wholly oppose the death penalty, though it is the most blatant.

Thus, I oppose the death penalty on the much broader reason that it's wrong to kill unless absolutely necessary, and I have yet to see any reason why death is necessary in place of "life in prison without possibility of parole, solitary confinement if deemed a hazard".

Besides, unless you just want vengeance, but that really isn't the government's place, is it?

And don't give me any bull about deterrence, murderers do not sit down and say, "Well, since I'll only rot in jail my whole life, I guess it's worth it". Life in jail is more than enough deterrance, death does not make pre-meditated killers any more hesitant.


Thus, it comes down to, what is so good about the death penalty at all???

So its a slippery slope to say you can make it 100%. There will always be juries swayed by lawyers, heck, I still think OJ did it and the jury let him off.
We all do.

If the death penalty were only applied in cases where the guilt of the defendant is 100% certain, THEN YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT

You are grossly mistaken. I am conservative and I do not support the death penalty.

Your assumption is flawed because in every case, death penalty or not, guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt'. That means they must be 100% sure before punishing someone. If a court is not 100% sure then no punishment of any sort is delt.

Yet it still produces errors. Far too many errors.

The reason I do not support the death penalty however is only partially because of this.

The primary reason the death penalty is indefensible is because punishment is not vengeance or a pay-back for the victim. Punishment is a deterrent to discourage someone contemplating the crime.

The death penalty is executed so sporadically and after so much time that few people could actually cite it as a deterrent. It is positioned as vengeance and pay-backs. Those are not admirable qualities. Accountability and vengeance are nothing at all similar to each other yet people draw some sort of sick moral equivalence.

Both of these considered together make the death panalty insufferable.

There is no just way of ensuring that only the guilty receive the death penalty. Either some guilty people wont get the death penalty while those comitted lesser crimes do, or innocent people will get the death penalty.

Look, you can argue all you want about the philosophical idea that no matter what evidence there is, you can't be 100% sure that someone is guilty, but you can be sure enough that if it happened 99999999999999 billion times over, every single one of those would still be accurate, would 99.9 (infinitely repeating) make you happier?

If we stick to the basis of the idea that we can't be 100% sure of someone's guilt, then we can never convict someone really...

Anyways though, I don't believe the insanity defense is valid AT ALL. Why should I care if you're mentally stable or not? You did the crime, so you should suffer the consequences.

About what you guys saying that courts already ensure that it's 100% sure, that's far from true. A jury could pass a verdict by only a very very small number of votes (1 or 2), yet despite the fact that close to half of the jurors thought he was innocent, he would still be sentenced as guilty.

If as I stated before, someone has multiple eyewitness testimony, video evidence, DNA evidence, evidence from firearms, etc. etc. and you would still argue that they might be innocent, then I sure as hell would NEVER trust you to make any sort of a decision about the guilt of a suspect.

Bozzy (and others, just he's the latest person to post irrelevantly), you didn't read the rest of my post obviously. Please do so and then reconsider whether your post even belongs here. It doesn't. If you want to start a separate debate about the death penalty, feel free to make a new thread and I'll discuss it with you there.

Capital punishment.
The death penalty.

In the British Virgin Islands

If you kill someone
someone will kill you.

If you stab someone to death
someone will stab you to death.

If you shoot someone in the head
someone will shoot you in the head.

If you shoot someone in the heart
someone will shoot you in the heart.

If you strangle someone to death
someone will strangle you to death.

They have one of the lowest
murder rates oround.

So how do you plan to institute this? Would it be up the jury to choose between "not guilt," "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," and "guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt"?
Or is it the judge's discretion?
Or do you come up with a whole separate "Murder 0" charge or somesuch?

None of them seem like great suggestions to me.

And if the person was arrested on the spot?

100 different witnesses might give 100 SLIGHTLY varying accounts, but the overhwleming majority (probably 99 of 100) will all point at the one man who perpetrated the crime.

It's been documented that when a condtion of confusion (such as a shot fired), eye witnesses hardly get a right description, often misidentifying people in the line up. Eyewitnesses are not very useful. Forensics is.

Anyways, one could argue who gives another man the right to decide another man's life? Morally speaking.

If all you want to discuss in this thread is the "number of innocents" argument, then fine, you've made your point, I guess, in that small percentage of cases where guilt is proven without doubt, then you are right...


If that's all you wanted to prove, okay then. In that small minority of cases, then I guess we need another reason to oppose the death penalty. There ya have it.

If the defendant pleads insanity then you can never be 100% sure.


Of course, that's right. We now live in a world where we make excuses for the criminals.

If a man's print is found on a rifle that killed 30 people and the act of shooting them was caught on 5 sets of videotape, and the suspect was placed firing the rifle in question by 30 witnesses during the crime and a satellite due to GPS, which infact took high resolution pictures of his face, than yes, HE IS 100% guilty. When people start looking for excuses for the man's actions, that is where the doubt comes into play.

"The gun told him to pull the trigger".

"He couldn't control his mind controlling his hand holding the gun, and pulling the trigger, yet this same mind has him pleading insanity so he can get let off".

Wouldn't crazies not plead innocent?


I support the death penalty because as of now there is no deterrent for criminals; a slap on the hand and on their merry way they go! I'll just play the racial card, and cry racial injustice!

You commit rape, buh-bye.

You commit murder, buh-bye.

Oh, and if your plea mentions anything along the means of insanity, you are deported to countries that welcome you and will "put you in a home and rehabilitate you".

Now that's a kick-ass judicial system!

I support the death penalty because as of now there is no deterrent for criminals; a slap on the hand and on their merry way they go!

A life rotting in prison is not deterrent? Yeah, that's a slap on the hand alright.

A life rotting in prison is not deterrent? Yeah, that's a slap on the hand alright.


Free food and T.V.

Hot damn, some motels don't even have that.

Free food and T.V.

Hot damn, some motels don't even have that.


Free food, TV, and a large man ass-raping you.

Some motels don't even have that!

The Dostyovesky-Camus principle:

Capital Punishment is unjust even on retributionalist assumptions because the anticipatory suffering of the acused far outweighs that of his victim.

With all of the screaming in bold type and caps, LordaeronII seems to be more than a bit unhinged.

Perhaps it's time to sit down in a warmly-lit room with a nice cup of Earl Grey and a prozac.

Capital punishment.
The death penalty.

In the British Virgin Islands

If you kill someone
someone will kill you.

If you stab someone to death
someone will stab you to death.

If you shoot someone in the head
someone will shoot you in the head.

If you shoot someone in the heart
someone will shoot you in the heart.

If you strangle someone to death
someone will strangle you to death.

They have one of the lowest
murder rates oround.
Not for long when the British law lords put a stop to it.
And they have a pretty high rate of violent crime and murder, that's why there are over 300 people on death row!
They have a mandatory death penalty for murder at present.
If it's wrong for you to kill why is it ok for the state to do it?
If you kill some one who murdered your wife that would be murder so you would also be killed. So they can do it but you can't. Hmm, nice system.

Look, you can argue all you want about the philosophical idea that no matter what evidence there is, you can't be 100% sure that someone is guilty, but you can be sure enough that if it happened 99999999999999 billion times over, every single one of those would still be accurate, would 99.9 (infinitely repeating) make you happier?.


You grossly overestimate the efficiency of the system. Rather than use %, why don't you just tell me how many innocent victims lives your system would be worth? One? Ten? One hundred? One thousand?


If we stick to the basis of the idea that we can't be 100% sure of someone's guilt, then we can never convict someone really...

Nut in the event of an error they can be released. Death however, is currently irreversible.


About what you guys saying that courts already ensure that it's 100% sure, that's far from true. A jury could pass a verdict by only a very very small number of votes (1 or 2), yet despite the fact that close to half of the jurors thought he was innocent, he would still be sentenced as guilty.

Be careful, your ignorance is showing. You really have no idea how a jury works.

Bozzy (and others, just he's the latest person to post irrelevantly), you didn't read the rest of my post obviously. Please do so and then reconsider whether your post even belongs here. It doesn't. If you want to start a separate debate about the death penalty, feel free to make a new thread and I'll discuss it with you there.

Funny, I never considered the defence of the life of an innocent from a magolithic system irrelevant. Maybe you could start your next post by telling me how many insignificant innocent people you would be willing to sacrafice for your deadly justice system.

A lot of us are anti-death penalty because we're anti-murder ... even if it's State sanctioned ...

I *hope* you're also anti-abortion?