[Public_Domain]

[ShepherdsDog]

genetically they may be like us, but the hardwiring in the brain isn't the same. I doubt there's any humanity in them to damage.

[Public_Domain]

[andyt]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

genetically they may be like us, but the hardwiring in the brain isn't the same. I doubt there's any humanity in them to damage.

They have lots of company to varying degrees. I think all of us carry some Bernardo or Olson in us - at least the rage and capability to kill part. They might be more outliers in this trait, but as I say, they've got lots of company.

[BartSimpson]

The thing to do to prove either point is to draw up two lists:

1. A list of murderers who've killed again in prison or after their release from prison.

2. A list of murderers who've killed again after being put to death.

The list with a 'zero' at the end will tell you which process makes innocent people safer.

As to who is put to death the one thing I truly insist on is that no one should EVER be put to death on circumstantial evidence. I don't care how 'logical' it is that a certain person could be the only person to do the crime if there's no actual evidence to prove it then put the person in jail for life. In all of the cases where people have been wrongly executed it's because they were executed on circumstantial evidence and when actual physical evidence was later analyzed they were exonerated.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The thing to do to prove either point is to draw up two lists:

1. A list of murderers who've killed again in prison or after their release from prison.

2. A list of murderers who've killed again after being put to death.

The list with a 'zero' at the end will tell you which process makes innocent people safer.

As to who is put to death the one thing I truly insist on is that no one should EVER be put to death on circumstantial evidence. I don't care how 'logical' it is that a certain person could be the only person to do the crime if there's no actual evidence to prove it then put the person in jail for life. In all of the cases where people have been wrongly executed it's because they were executed on circumstantial evidence and when actual physical evidence was later analyzed they were exonerated.

The thing to do to ensure that the innocent are never wrongly executed is to draw up two lists:

1: A list of people wrongly executed where the death penalty is applied.

2: A list of people wrongly executed where the death penalty is not applied.

The list with a 'zero' at the end will tell you which process has the fewest wrongful executions.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The thing to do to prove either point is to draw up two lists:

1. A list of murderers who've killed again in prison or after their release from prison.

2. A list of murderers who've killed again after being put to death.

The list with a 'zero' at the end will tell you which process makes innocent people safer.

As to who is put to death the one thing I truly insist on is that no one should EVER be put to death on circumstantial evidence. I don't care how 'logical' it is that a certain person could be the only person to do the crime if there's no actual evidence to prove it then put the person in jail for life. In all of the cases where people have been wrongly executed it's because they were executed on circumstantial evidence and when actual physical evidence was later analyzed they were exonerated.

You're missing a list there - all the people put to death who were innocent. Included a best estimate of those who were likely innocent but never investigated.

Ps, just read Hurley's post - he said it better than me.

If you're not going to kill on circumstantial evidence, you won't be killing many people. Physical evidence can't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, only exclude it. Then read what forensic associations say about reliability of physical evidence. CSI is just a TV show. Eye witness testimony has been shown to be very problematic. So basically you've got video evidence - pretty rare.

The (supposed) rapist on death row who was exonerated by DNA was not convicted on circumstantial evidence, but on the evidence of his victim.

Since you'll be killing so few people under your scheme, much cheaper to just abolish the death penalty and have life w/o possibility of parole.

[Chumley]

A: Compile a list of people wrongly executed.
B: Compile of list of people murdered by people murdered by repeat offenders.

If A is larger than B then legal execution has killed more innocents and so is the greater evil.
If B is far greater than A then bring back capitol punishment.

If

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The thing to do to prove either point is to draw up two lists:

1. A list of murderers who've killed again in prison or after their release from prison.

2. A list of murderers who've killed again after being put to death.

The list with a 'zero' at the end will tell you which process makes innocent people safer.

As to who is put to death the one thing I truly insist on is that no one should EVER be put to death on circumstantial evidence. I don't care how 'logical' it is that a certain person could be the only person to do the crime if there's no actual evidence to prove it then put the person in jail for life. In all of the cases where people have been wrongly executed it's because they were executed on circumstantial evidence and when actual physical evidence was later analyzed they were exonerated.

You're missing a list there - all the people put to death who were innocent. Included a best estimate of those who were likely innocent but never investigated.

Ps, just read Hurley's post - he said it better than me.

If you're not going to kill on circumstantial evidence, you won't be killing many people. Physical evidence can't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, only exclude it. Then read what forensic associations say about reliability of physical evidence. CSI is just a TV show. Eye witness testimony has been shown to be very problematic. So basically you've got video evidence - pretty rare.

The (supposed) rapist on death row who was exonerated by DNA was not convicted on circumstantial evidence, but on the evidence of his victim.

Since you'll be killing so few people under your scheme, much cheaper to just abolish the death penalty and have life w/o possibility of parole.

[andyt]

Chumley Chumley:

A: Compile a list of people wrongly executed.
B: Compile of list of people murdered by people murdered by repeat offenders.

If A is larger than B then legal execution has killed more innocents and so is the greater evil.
If B is far greater than A then bring back capitol punishment.

You are one sick puppy if you're willing to make a calculation like that. But, in that case the death penalty would be abolished, since A is the much bigger list.

[BartSimpson]

Hurley and Andy, are you both saying that in cases where there's solid physical evidence and even a confession (such as in the case of Timothy McVeigh) you're opposed to the death penalty?

[hurley_108]

Chumley Chumley:

A: Compile a list of people wrongly executed.
B: Compile of list of people murdered by people murdered by repeat offenders.

If A is larger than B then legal execution has killed more innocents and so is the greater evil.
If B is far greater than A then bring back capitol punishment.

If A>0, then the government is depriving innocent people of the right to life, and that's just absolutely unacceptable. End of argument, do not count list B.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hurley and Andy, are you both saying that in cases where there's solid physical evidence and even a confession (such as in the case of Timothy McVeigh) you're opposed to the death penalty?

Yes.

[ASLplease]

we ought to titrate the laws and penalties for maximum benefit to society. All this idealogical wrestling is a bunch of BS.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hurley and Andy, are you both saying that in cases where there's solid physical evidence and even a confession (such as in the case of Timothy McVeigh) you're opposed to the death penalty?

Yes. Killing to show killing is wrong is like fucking for virginity. I did my share of the latter, prefer to leave the former to the southern barbarians.

[andyt]

ASLplease ASLplease:

we ought to titrate the laws and penalties for maximum benefit to society. All this idealogical wrestling is a bunch of BS.

Titrate away. In this test tube we have the US, in this one all the other western democracies without the death penalty. Compare the concentrations of crime in each, specifically crimes that merit the death penalty in the tube marked US.