Death Penalty Dilemma
You have innocent people found guilty of capitol offenses and then executed. There is a great difficulty and expense involved in searching for evidence of innocence that may not exist. The state is disinclined to entertain proof that it makes mistakes, and is therefor disinclined to help in the search after the fact, or to hear any more arguments after all appeals have been exhausted and the execution carried out. Nevertheless, if it can be done, especially more than once, the state (people) would be more inclined to repeal the death penalty, preventing the possibility of it ever happening again.
On the other hand, you have an innocent person found guilty of a capital offense sitting alive on death row, awaiting execution after all appeals have been exhausted. There is great difficulty and expense involved in searching for evidence of innocence that may not exist. Nevertheless, if it can be done, it would save the life of an innocent person, but the state would be less inclined to repeal the death penalty because it would have before it evidence that the system works.
You have limited resources. Are they better spent trying to prove state fallibility in an effort to get the death penalty removed, or do you try to save a single life?
P.S. We assume it is better to have a 100 serial killers go free than to have one innocent person executed.
On the other hand, you have an innocent person found guilty of a capital offense sitting alive on death row, awaiting execution after all appeals have been exhausted. There is great difficulty and expense involved in searching for evidence of innocence that may not exist. Nevertheless, if it can be done, it would save the life of an innocent person, but the state would be less inclined to repeal the death penalty because it would have before it evidence that the system works.
You have limited resources. Are they better spent trying to prove state fallibility in an effort to get the death penalty removed, or do you try to save a single life?
P.S. We assume it is better to have a 100 serial killers go free than to have one innocent person executed.
Comments (51)
Why would we assume this? In what way is that better?
We assume it for the purposes of the dilemma.
I think you need more parameters. Are we trying to preserve the most innocent life? What would the 100 serial killers going free have to do with the structure of the dilemma you presented?
Is our goal to get the death penalty removed? Whats the priority?
Quoting James Riley
Actually the saying goes, it's better for 10 criminals to go free before an innocent person is harmed. But.. why are the criminals criminals. Because they break the law and harm innocent people. Lol. See they know people are stupid and they prove it by saying these things that people repeat. Lol. It's really not funny, I mean it is and will be, later.. but now is not later. I think anyway.
It is better to spend limited resource on eliminating the death penalty. Next best is proving that the state erred in its prosecution of specific capital cases, thus revoking the DP for those wrongly sentenced.
The state of Illinois found many of its capital convictions being overturned because of lack of evidence, or even falsified evidence. Eventually the state repealed the DP.
There are several problems about the DP: 1) it doesn't deter capital crimes; 2) the DP apparently seres oppressive purposes in some states; 3) it is somewhat ambiguous whether a life-time spent in a prison is more or less punishment than execution.
Notwithstanding the difficulty of proving it (including the resistance of the state), would not evidence that the state had killed X number of innocent people be more persuasive in the debate than evidence of a living person's innocence?
When I was young, people would always talk about what secrets might be lost if we were to destroy the rain forest. I thought how much more persuasive it would be if we could prove what had actually been lost. We can't, of course, and that's the point. For instance, there was a plant on this acre of this section of the rainforest that would cure all cancer with no side affects. But alas, we lost it because we violated Aldo Leopold's admonition that the first sign of intelligent tinkering is to keep all the parts.
The death penalty issue is similar, but with the actual possibility of providing proofs after the fact that would stop future mistakes. Granted, the state wants finality and, after having gone through countless appeals and lots of money and time and effort, it does not want to aid in the undermining of itself. But I would argue that any sovereign worthy of being American would not stand in the way of demonstrating it's fallibility if doing so would render it less fallible.
I appreciate the intellectual approach you are taking with this problem. But I think you may be barking up the wrong tree.
To rephrase, the dilemma is whether to use finite resources to exonerate the living, or whether to use them to vindicate the dead.
The problem is that the law (former law student here) does not have the same epistemological standards as science or philosophy or other disciplines. In science for example we have very reliable indicators such biomass which we can measure in metric units. Less biomass in kilograms = less forest = less life = less biodiversity, etc.
However, this is not the case in law. Legal concepts such as "guilt" or "innocence" lack objectivity because of the myriad of factors involved. The quality of your lawyer, the integrity of the police, the impartiality of your judge, the quality of the evidence all play a part.
Therefore, there is no way to weigh the importance of the exonerated living vs the vindicated dead if "guilt" and "innocence" are not fit for purpose as reliable indicators of the right thing to do.
The thing is, I'm not looking to vindicate the dead. The dead are dead, and the state will be very happy to make that argument when asked to aid in proving the state screwed up in killing him. Rather, I'm looking to convince a sovereign of it's fallibility. Exoneration of a living innocent can be used by the state to prove it's case (i.e. the system works). Proving the state killed an innocent person would go further, in my opinion, to force the state to second-guess it's infallibility. And, where it is better that 100 serial killers go free than to kill an innocent man, the state would be forced to revise it's stated position on that point. Maybe "Well, we can afford to kill an innocent guy if it means we can kill all these dirt bags." That is a whole 'nother game.
An exoneration would be DNA proof and confession it was X that killed Y, not innocent Z. But the state might not even entertain that because, well, Z is dead. "Too late now!"
Even worse, the attorney's for W are more concerned about W, because he's still alive; not thinking that had they worked on Z there might not be any more Ws. So we end up looking at Ws for the rest of our lives.
However, to go back to what I was saying about the very murky and subjective concepts of law such as "guilt" and "innocence", due to current legal epistemological standards I am not sure proving the state killed an "innocent" person would be the smoking gun you make it out to be.
You really need to think hard about what "proof" means in a legal context. it is not the same as in a scientific context. The scientific context seems to be where you are coming from.
Having practiced law for over a decade, I have an idea. Those subjective concepts you address apply to any case, not just the one I propose. I've already stipped to the difficulty. It's difficult in any case. But difficulty aside, where are limited resources better spent?
Everything seems to turn on that single, 11-lettered, 5-syllabled, word. The death penalty presents itself as an option of punishment when innocent lives have been taken. This, to me, implies that the judicial system that sentences people to death, that system must itself be infallible. After all, if it isn't and it isn't, innocent people could be executed and that's exactly what capital punishment is reserved for. Basically, given that to be human is to err and we are human (right? :chin: ), we should use extreme caution when we're considering hangmen, firing squads, electricians, prison doctors, as an option - they're all, as the police are so fond of saying, "armed and dangerous."
I agree. Now, how best to get the state to stop? Trying to make it work, where, when successful, it gets to say "see, it works!" Or proving it failed, by it's own standards, and has killed the innocent?
I can understand the desire to get after a case of an innocent guy on death row, especially if you are the guy, or his loved ones, or you have great empathy. But, from an objective view of 10k feet, I think people should dump a metric shit ton of time, money and resources into showing the state to be a killer of innocent people.
That is not a very intellectual thing for me to say but the dilemma you pose, at the end, is about the real world and hard choices made in the real world. It is not so much about abstract concepts.
I understand as a career lawyer you might be protective of the institution you are a part of and that is where you and I probably diverge - I think Western common law has become an elitist sham that is molded by the upper echelons of society and excludes ordinary people. It is a system that works, but only insofar as it will not upset its fundamental tenats that belong in the 19th century.
What I don't understand is this: In the modern world, the ancient form of justice, an eye for an eye is viewed as barbaric and, more to the point, a miscarriage of justice and yet, capital punishment, which is just that - an eye for an eye - has many strong supporters. This kind of cognitive dissonance is going to do great harm if not tackled soon and with a "vengeance".
My concepts are not abstract. They are very, very real. Very real.
Quoting BigThoughtDropper
You don't understand anything if you think I'm a career lawyer. I haven't practiced law for over 20 years. Nor am I protective of it. See thread called "A Law is a Law is a Law."
Quoting BigThoughtDropper
We might actually agree on that, that has nothing to do with the question at hand.
Different arguments have been made support of punishment generally: Specific and General Deterrence, Incapacitation, Rehabilitation, Retribution (eye for an eye), and Restitution. The death penalty is not applicable to some of those, obviously, but the others still provide a reed to lean on for some folks. In the end, though, I think they could all be satisfied through life without parole.
I still can't get past the obvious inconsistency therein. If you feel appalled by someone's hand getting chopped off for having done the same thing to another person, you should be equally, if not more, disturbed by executions for the crime of murder.
Some of us aren't that appalled by it, if it's proved out to our personal, subjective, self-righteous satisfaction. But that never happens so I'm against it. I'm too fallible to want to live with the possibility, so why bother? I've often said, if I was governor and the last hope for a convict, I might be willing to pull the trigger myself but I damn sure would never let an executioner do the job for me. If I don't have what it takes to stare them in the eye when I kill them, then it won't be done on my watch.
Unless, you assume that the legal system can allow such a thing, in which case it becomes a question about politics. Can the government be embarrassed into making a change? What will embarrass it more: an exonerated living or vindicated dead? As you say the latter is a much more impactful "cause celebre" for the anti-death penalty party. I think this is obvious.
The problem is the route to vindicating an executed prisoner on death row. We could turn our resources towards this but what possible good could that do? Prisoners on death row spend an average of 10 years awaiting execution. After execution, witness evidence is even harder to obtain or rely on than prior to execution.
You are bouncing around within the parameters. I guess that's a good thing, since some folks wouldn't even acknowledge them, or keep their eye on the ball. But, now that you see them, and find the answer obvious, are we to let the difficulties I already stipulated to, and which you outline in your final paragraph, stop us from the effort? Has anyone ever tried? (Honest question, I don't know). But it seems to me that if all the resources spent the living were spent on the dead, we might quicker arrive at that point where there are not any more dead.
Whether it's a political decision, or a court in response to some living convict's defense pointing to all the innocent dead, it might kill the death penalty.
I'd be happy if I knew Amnesty.org or some other outfit had at least tossed it on the table at their monthly strategy meeting. However, because "we" (?) never hear how the state F'd up, I'm guessing it hasn't been tried. Or are the anti-death penalty organizations agreeing with the state that the system works? Or have they crunched the numbers and decided resources are better spent on the living? (I'd like to see those meeting minutes.)
Yeah, that debate has been going on for a long time. I think we came down on the side of not punishing an innocent man.
That almost sounds like an insanity defense, in that the person lacked the mens rea, or an ability to control themselves. That is actually and argument against the death penalty. If my genes or biology made me do it, then it wasn't me.
You present 2 scenarios with same problem:
1. Multiple innocent people waiting for execution on one side
2. Single innocent person waiting to get executed on another side
Assuming these scenarios are happening in same time then I would choose first scenario by spending resources on proving state fallibility because odds are I'm going to save more than one person even if proving state fallibility fails.
And Yes, I do think that if gene editing/gene therapy of human adults will ever actually become possible to such an extent, then theoretically, *maybe* it could eventually be possible to alter the genes and/or biology of mentally and psychologically healthy, decent, and well-behaved people in order to turn them into brutal, sadistic, sociopathic criminals and even serial killers. So, Yes, I do stand by what I said that who we are is probably to a very large extent a factor of our genes and/or our biology.
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/what-if-its-not-their-fault-the-myth-of-free-will/
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/no-you-dont-have-free-will-and-this-is-why/
Yeah, I was not saying they are the same. It just "almost sounds like" in that the person is disclaiming responsibility beyond the tradition defenses of "I didn't do it" or "I was justified in doing it." The law has not gone so far as to excuse a murder based on genes or biology made me do it. There are "heat of passion" defenses and whatnot, that are similar, but just being a killer, well, hell, we're all killers. Even Gandhi stepped on stuff.
Taking testosterone out of the equation might help.
I'm going to roll with that, because, I confess, I didn't understand the rest. But it is late in the day for me.
I'm assuming proving individual cases count as "this person is not guilty and will not be executed"
Otherwise it depends on how many resources you have and how much it costs per case.
There are female killers but it is possible testosterone plays a part in those too? I don't know. Hard to see it with a poisoning or whatnot. Heat of passion, or anger or rage, maybe.
Sad but true. It's quite possible that I don't fully grasp the issue though. I mean I have some idea of people demanding an eye for an eye justice - the hurt from a wrong refuses to go away unless blood is shed - but then...what of the notions of forgiveness and mercy?
Even that is too cognitive. The eye for an eye thing is more visceral, and comes from rage, and anger, (which are really just manifestations of fear). So it's not like the hurt will go away if vengeance is exacted. A person is not even thinking about hurt or how to get rid of it. The hurt doesn't even register when they are looking to inflict pain on their "enemy." I totally understand it.
With time, distance, objectivity, we know the vengeance will not make the hurt go away. We might get a short-lived "high", but when it goes away, we are still back to hurting. The state, however, can aid a victim in getting their pound of flesh, and then feel justified in saying "Okay, we did justice for you, now quit stewing and get back to work." But even the state is more inclined to just exhaust our energy and resources to the point where we are too beaten to engage in self-help (vengeance). The state wants peace and really only cares about us to the extent it can keep the peace and get everyone back in the saddle.
Forgiveness comes with time, and an understanding that it can prevent us from being victimized twice. If we can't get over the wrong then it gets more wrong. The only way to stop that, is to forgive, even if only for our own sake, and moving on.
Mercy is for the objective person, like the state, or for the person who has mature heart. It's hard to see mercy while hurting. But if one can, then great.
Quoting James Riley
The irony!
Quoting James Riley
:rofl:
Quoting James Riley
:ok: :up: I suspected as much but it's comforting to know there are others who think the same way.
Quoting James Riley
You mean forgive but don't forget?
Quoting James Riley
Is there any other acceptable state of mind?
Look, I'm just confused (as you are it seems) about judicial killings. Here's something to ponder upon: I've been told that Scandinavian countries have very low crime rates and this includes crimes that carry mandatory death sentences in other regions; plus, Scandinavia scores high on the happiness index. This surely speaks volumes on the rationale, stated/proposed, for capital punishment. It seems there's a very important lesson to learn from our Scandinavian brothers and sisters - a peaceful society with acceptable crime rates is possible without resorting to extreme forms of punishment such as executions, and that's our window of opportunity to distance ourselves from the controversy-mired modes of justice (the death penalty). Why would anyone want a problematic method of doing things when what's desired can be had without it?
Indeed! But here's something to think about. Take Christianity, a religion, in which Divine Mercy figures prominently in the relationship between sinner and the Almighty. Yet, Christianity has, to my knowledge, a list of unforgivable sins. Go figure!
This is incorrect.
No sin is "unforgivable" as long as once asks for forgiveness.
What you are referring to is Jewish doctrine and/or out of context interpretation.
If you scroll down, unforgivable sin is refusal to ask for forgiveness or to claim that work of the holy is the work of the unholy, both of which means no forgiveness and it thus not forgiven.
I don't know the answer to that, but, if true, I suspect it's not biological.
I probably should have used another word, like "relate" or "I'm feeling it".
Quoting TheMadFool
Well, that's true too, but I was thinking more about how, if a person does you wrong, you only make it worse by carrying it around after it's useful life (whatever that is). Thus, you get screwed twice.
Quoting TheMadFool
We've all been pretty subjective all our lives, especially about things the closer they are.
Quoting TheMadFool
I don't know. It could be that something that is "working" actually works better in an environment that has other ills that go along with it. When you have more freedom from, you might lose a little freedom to. For instance, I think the measure of a country's freedom could be directly and proportionally measured by how difficult it is to get away with crime unseen. Imagine what kind of country we would live in if there was no crime? No thanks.
Anyway, I'm going to step back from The Philosophy Forum for a while. I like this community and I want to reassess my approach. As I start to get comfortable with a place, I start getting flip and less (for lack of a better word) professional. Besides, I've got a metric shit ton of reading I've been turned on to.
Till I knock on yer door.
With the death penalty, we add a finality into the mix.
Doesn't seem quite right, for a legal system having to deal equally with everyone.
At least, I wouldn't vote the death penalty in, unless I was prepared to face the music myself — killing of an innocent by a death penalty that's on me, thus rendering me guilty with finality.
Maybe I'm just culturally biased.
I don't believe black women are more violent than non-black women. But if they were, and if one were precluded from looking at one possible reason out of fear or considerations of political correctness, nothing is stopping the from eliminating other possible reasons. I think if a real scientist started with socio/cultural influences, they might find the culprit. The only thing they would then have to fear is what their own actions might have contributed to those influences.
Not sure if that is true, or if enough time has elapsed for Arkansas to ruminate on it, but it could be I was wrong.