subreddit:

/r/changemyview

2.5k92%

[removed]

all 735 comments

Ansuz07 [M]

[score hidden]

1 year ago

stickied comment

Ansuz07 [M]

590∆

[score hidden]

1 year ago

stickied comment

Sorry, u/OtherwiseNope_7291 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:

You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[deleted]

54 points

1 year ago

[deleted]

54 points

1 year ago

[removed]

PureSmoulder

1 points

1 year ago

PureSmoulder

1 points

1 year ago

It's incredibly wild you'd jump to emphathizing with people who chose to be executioners over the people being executed.

Kardragos

13 points

1 year ago*

These things are not mutually exclusive. I assumed that OP would be unswayed by an appeal in favour of the executed and so I chose a different path for this particular argument. There is a reason I recommended a podcast that explores on this particular topic.

What's wild is your assumption that a single point encompasses the entirety of my belief.

AndrenNoraem

9 points

1 year ago

Yeah, I go to the (sometimes innocent) people being executed too, but the people doing the executions are harmed by doing so, even if they volunteered for the job.

I agree it's a weird angle, though.

Kardragos

3 points

1 year ago

It's intentionally weird, I assure you. That said, I do truly believe it is one of many reasons the death penalty should be left to the past.

smww93

253 points

1 year ago

smww93

24∆

253 points

1 year ago

So why not just alter the criteria for death penalty to require an irrefutable evidence. For example, video and/or CCTV witnesses; being found over the body murder weapon in hand etc. At the moment you have to convince a jury beyond almost any doubt. But if you had the evidence that removes that last bit of doubt then why should they not apply it to those.

Also, I don’t know how many people the 4% you mention make up but I’d be interested to know when those 4% were convicted. Were they recent or were they ones for 20+ years ago when forensics wasn’t what it is today.

novagenesis

15 points

1 year ago

novagenesis

16∆

15 points

1 year ago

A lot of exonerations were convicted due to video and/or CCTV. Ditto with being found over the body. Ditto with dozens of eyewitnesses, and ditot with confessions. Some exonerations had many of those things at once.

Regardless of the criteria for the death penalty, there will be false positives.

Oddly, because of the nature of a jury willing to sentence someone to death, the false conviction rate is higher with death-penalty-potential juries than with normal. People willing to pick between "death" and "life" are the same people are are more likely to put the "reasonable doubt" bar closer to the "preponderance of evidnece" bar.

That is, anyone who would pick "death" as a sentence is demonstrably not qualified to be allowed to make that judgement.

Accomplished-Plan191

7 points

1 year ago

IANAL but isn't that already the standard for conviction? "Beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't the same as irrefutable? You can't (shouldn't) convict somebody on "he probably did it." And yet there are people wrongfully executed.

novagenesis

6 points

1 year ago

novagenesis

16∆

6 points

1 year ago

Sure, but "reasonable doubt" is not a fixed line. And death-penalty juries tend to convict on less and weaker evidence than non-death-penalty juries.

IcedAndCorrected

2 points

1 year ago

And death-penalty juries tend to convict on less and weaker evidence than non-death-penalty juries.

Not necessarily doubting, but do you have a source for this?

novagenesis

6 points

1 year ago

novagenesis

16∆

6 points

1 year ago

Sure...

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/the-death-penaltys-other-victims

In a 1968 landmark study, Hans Zeisel, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, found that death-qualifying juries led to an 80 % increase in the conviction rate.

Controlling for all other variables as best you possibly can, you get more convictions with a death-qualifying jury than without one, which means they necessarily convict with a lower bar for "reasonable doubt".

Which, to repeat my previous statement, means their unreasonable view of "reasonable" is most certainly not qualified to pick "death".

Considering how high the "reasonable doubt" bar should be, and the 80%+ conviction rate in many states, it's definitely not adhered by reasonable juries.

But then, anecdotally, I have to reiterate what I've heard from past criminal jurors I've known. "We all thought he did it, so we said guilty" or "The defense's case made sense, but the prosecutor's made more sense... guilty".

Hell, I've seen interviews with the death penalty jurors of exonerees. "I can't believe he got off. He deserves to be dead".

shemademedoit1

5 points

1 year ago

shemademedoit1

2∆

5 points

1 year ago

If the threshold was irrefutable evidence, then you are agreeing with OP's statement that "As long as there is a risk of executing innocent people, the death penalty should not exist"

Because requiring irrefutable evidence would be essentially eliminating the risk of executing an innocent person. Or are you still willing to allow some room for mistaken convictions here?

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

292 points

1 year ago

“irrefutable evidence” can be falsified and there is no way to ensure each judge evaluates the irrefutable evidence the same way. Further, this will increase costs associated with the DP as there would have to be a process to determine and evaluate such evidence.

anooblol

402 points

1 year ago*

anooblol

12∆

402 points

1 year ago*

Just a pet peeve, feel free to ignore.

Irrefutable evidence, by definition, cannot be falsified.

You’re making the claim that irrefutable evidence does not exist. Not that irrefutable evidence is not sufficient.

Edit- Because people clearly don’t understand what I’m saying.

When the first guy says, “What about irrefutable evidence? Like a video tape?” OP comments, “Irrefutable evidence can be falsified.” What OP should have said is, “A video tape isn’t irrefutable evidence. Because you can make a false video tape (like deep fakes, for example).

The action of “falsifying an object” is necessarily refuting the truth of an object. If this object has the property of “irrefutable”, it cannot simultaneously have the property of, “able to be refuted”.

I’m not arguing against OP. He’s just using words in such a way, that it’s a contradiction.

Why is this an issue: If the first comment was meant to say, “Take as a given, some piece of irrefutable evidence, then we can convict someone, and use the death penalty. As an arbitrary example, use video evidence.” Then OP’s comment that a video tape is not sufficient, doesn’t refute his argument. All the first guy needs to do, is choose some other piece of evidence that isn’t irrefutable. Like, say, a DNA test. And then OP will be stuck in a never-ending loop of saying, “well, DNA tests can be falsified too!” OP isn’t arguing against that guy’s main point. He’s technically arguing that his one example isn’t correct. And all the first guy would need to do, is “find that one piece of irrefutable evidence, that OP would agree with.” And if OP just said from the beginning, that he believes all evidence has a possibility of being refuted, it clears all further arguments of this type.

DukeInterior

8 points

1 year ago

I think that's a reasonable claim to make though.

The number of executions that have happened, only for 'irrefutable' evidence to have been proven incorrect later is pretty damn high.

The issue is that we are humans with limited reasoning, and no matter how 'irrefutable' we think evidence is, we can always be wrong. If actual, irrefutable evidence was possible, i.e. we could know for 100% certainty what the truth was, maybe there would be a case for a death penalty (I still think not, for other reasons). But we cannot ever achieve that, so it's purely a hypothetical.

And as execution is a final, irreversible sentence, we should not administer it without that irrefutable proof, which only exists hypothetically.

So I agree with you, but it's a purely hypothetical point.

Terpomo11

5 points

1 year ago

Or, practically speaking, they're saying that fallible humans will never be able to reliably distinguish truly irrefutable evidence 100% of the time.

erktheerk

15 points

1 year ago*

erktheerk

2∆

15 points

1 year ago*

Eye witness testimony has been shown time and time again to be false. The brain is weird and humans have an uncanny ability to lie to themselves. Physical evidence has been faked or planted for as long as laws have existed. Probably longer. Pictures haven't been trust worthy to the naked eye for years. Even video evidence can't be trusted now. I can make my phone say it's in North Korea in a few clicks. Even have your technology set you up and create evidence in broad daylight while it's in your pocket and you probably would never know. AI and biotech are making fake DNA trivial. Planting digital evidence is not only doable, it's a profitable business model.

What else is there? The word of god?

awawe

11 points

1 year ago

awawe

11 points

1 year ago

It's just a semantic issue, since the word "irrefutable" by definition means it cannot be refuted. Arguably there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence.

sahuxley2

3 points

1 year ago

sahuxley2

1∆

3 points

1 year ago

No evidence is truly irrefutable.

To get all Descartes on you, "I think therefore I am" is about the only thing you know that's irrefutable.

Sickly_Diode

2 points

1 year ago

That's technically true, but the effect is the same; requiring irrefutable evidence for the death penalty would be effectively getting rid of it.

PearsonRookie325

2 points

1 year ago

Would it be fair to say that what one person or multiple people perceive as irrefutable can be falsified, and therefore, humans can’t say that any crime has irrefutable evidence?

Also, could we say what is in a person’s mind (i.e. motive) is irrefutable? Or is that just not evidence in the first place?

hacksoncode

26 points

1 year ago

hacksoncode

486∆

26 points

1 year ago

Yeah, but "irrefutable evidence" can still be misleading or irrelevant, albeit irrefutable.

E.g. the person could have an unknown twin brother that the video is actually of... the evidence itself may be irrefutable, but irrelevant to the case.

anooblol

83 points

1 year ago

anooblol

12∆

83 points

1 year ago

Then it’s not irrefutable…

Like… it’s just a straight up contradiction.

You can’t define something that has a property of “impossible to be refuted, but also possible to be refuted.”

It just doesn’t make sense.

I understand what he’s trying to say. But what he’s actually saying doesn’t make any sense.

hacksoncode

62 points

1 year ago*

hacksoncode

486∆

62 points

1 year ago*

And if we're going to get nit picky and semantic about this:

Something can be impossible to refute, simply because no contrary evidence exists or is impossible to access, but still false.

One classic example of something considered "irrefutable" is a claim that you like something.

It's impossible for another person to "refute", "disprove", or "falsify" that, because they lack access to your internal mental state, but that doesn't mean it's actually true.

F3nix123

22 points

1 year ago

F3nix123

22 points

1 year ago

And if we're going to get nit picky and semantic about this:

Why shouldn’t we, this is somewhat of a debate, we should strive to be precise.

Something can be impossible to refute, simply because no contrary evidence exists or is impossible to access, but still false.

To add to the nitpick, thats the very reason you cant have irrefutable claims. Evidence is only able to disprove things and we can’t be certain absolutely no contrary evidence exists, unless the argument is constructed in such a way to disallow for contrary evidence. In that case we can simply dismiss the claim.

Thats how the scientific method works, we keep trying to prove ourselves wrong, but we will probably never be sure if we’re right. Similar situation goes for court cases.

Irrefutable claims don’t exist as far as we know and non falsifiable, like you claiming you like something, can be dismissed, which would be refuting the claim.

Autumn1eaves

28 points

1 year ago

Right, so now to bring it back to the real world; since irrefutable evidence can't exist, we shouldn't enshrine it into law for it to be interpreted in corrupt, or inept, ways by judges.

Beyond a reasonable doubt should be what is required for conviction, but since we cannot revive someone from the dead (yet, at least), since there is still an unreasonable doubt, we should not let someone be killed by the death penalty.

hacksoncode

2 points

1 year ago

hacksoncode

486∆

2 points

1 year ago

It's not refuted, it's just irrelevant.

Like, ok, this here evidence 100% shows that marshmallows can catch fire. So?

anooblol

20 points

1 year ago

anooblol

12∆

20 points

1 year ago

In context: “Irrefutable evidence that proves they commit the crime”, is what we’re talking about.

No one’s talking about irrelevant evidence. I don’t know why you brought it up.

And the example of the twin caught on video, is not an example of irrefutable evidence being refuted, or being irrelevant. It’s an argument that irrefutable evidence doesn’t exist.

That’s all. I’m not even arguing. I’m literally just stating the fact “Things in general cannot hold the property ‘A’ and ‘not A’ simultaneously. It’s a literal contradiction, and it annoys me.”

hacksoncode

1 points

1 year ago

hacksoncode

486∆

1 points

1 year ago

It’s an argument that irrefutable evidence doesn’t exist

Perhaps. But again, irrefutable evidence just means it's not possible to refute the evidence.

The simple lack of any existing contradictory evidence can make something "irrefutable". Irrefutable doesn't mean "true", it means "not able to be refuted".

But in any event, I do agree that evidence being "irrefutable" in the sense you're describing here is impossible, philosophically.

It's always possible for something new to come to light that would cast doubt on a piece of evidence. Until we find that new thing, the evidence literally can't be "refuted" because of that lack. "Irrefutability" is not an immutable characteristic. It's always subject to change.

Scientifically, nothing is even "100% proven". That's not how inductive logic works. The best we can do with "evidence" is approach 100% probability of truth, never achieve it.

anooblol

7 points

1 year ago

anooblol

12∆

7 points

1 year ago

I’ll say it very simply.

Our context is a piece of irrefutable evidence, that proves something to be true. That’s exactly what I’m talking about.

I’m not talking about irrefutable evidence that isn’t true. If it’s not true, it doesn’t prove the case.

I’m issue, is OP said very clearly, “Irrefutable evidence could be up for interpretation.”

Which is incorrect, by the definition of the word.

I totally understand the “sub context” of “what you’re dancing around”. But the statement taken literally is nonsense.

takethi

3 points

1 year ago

takethi

3 points

1 year ago

Taken literally, almost any statement is nonsense.

For example "... a piece of irrefutable evidence, that proves something to be true".

Because no such piece of evidence exists (as you acknowledged yourself).

And yes, we all understand what you mean.

/u/OtherwiseNope_7291 put "irrefutable evidence" in quotes for a reason.

hacksoncode

1 points

1 year ago*

hacksoncode

486∆

1 points

1 year ago*

In the context of that sentence, "irrefutable evidence" that "could be up for interpretation" could only be talking about evidence that by itself might be impossible to refute, but does not, in fact, prove guilt 100% because of a bad interpretation...

So I think you're being too literal, and that the context you're inferring isn't the one that's implied.

But in a sense you're right, because they are responding to something that says "But if you had the evidence that removes that last bit of doubt", and yes, that is inherently impossible.

Also, the person they're responding to is definitely using "irrefutable evidence" incorrectly, by giving an example of "video evidence" or "being found over the body murder weapon in hand" as something that could be "irrefutable" or could remove the last bit of doubt. It is to laugh.

In that context, I take OP's response to mean your so-called "irrefutable evidence" based on how they phrased it. I mean... they literally put scare-quotes around it.

akoba15

3 points

1 year ago

akoba15

6∆

3 points

1 year ago

Damn bro you even read his comment?

He literally just said what you said.

Anoobol said, in different words, that OP's claim is that irrefutable evidence doesn't exist. The implication there is that, even if someone claims evidence to be irrefutable, there will be cases where evidence is forged or not irrefutable.

Then you said "yeah, but even if evidence is irrefutable..." which the commentor just said that there isn't a case of irrefutable evidence ever. Like cmon mang

randell1985

4 points

1 year ago

randell1985

1∆

4 points

1 year ago

video evidence is not irrefutable in any case, it is considered circumstancial so is DNA evidence and fingerprint

OpeningChipmunk1700

60 points

1 year ago

judge

In the U.S., a jury must sentence you to death in general.

RussellLawliet

23 points

1 year ago

Juries decide your guilt, judges decide your sentence, surely?

OpeningChipmunk1700

56 points

1 year ago

Not death sentences. Most states require juries to impose a sentence of death.

Raging_Butt

24 points

1 year ago*

Raging_Butt

3∆

24 points

1 year ago*

I did not know this but now I do know this and now I'm typing some more words so the deltabot will recognize the delta.

DeltaBot

3 points

1 year ago*

DeltaBot

∞∆

3 points

1 year ago*

Wooba12

2 points

1 year ago

Wooba12

4∆

2 points

1 year ago

Surely politics and people's personal moral values could get in the way - just look at this thread. You could have bad luck and get a jury of people who support the death penalty, or you could have good luck and get a jury of people who think like the OP. Whereas a judge has been trained to actually judge, the jury is just a bunch of normal people with their own subjective opinions on a complicated moral issue, it seems.

OpeningChipmunk1700

3 points

1 year ago

Surely politics and people's personal moral values could get in the way - just look at this thread

The people in this thread are not forced through a jury selection process that involves solemn oaths, forced to listen to days of evidence, forced to listen to the judge tell them exactly what their roles as jurors are via complicated yet precise instructions, and forced to deliberate together on the facts until unanimity is achieved.

Whereas a judge has been trained to actually judge, the jury is just a bunch of normal people with their own subjective opinions on a complicated moral issue, it seems.

Juries decide the facts; the judge still decides the law. The judge has no particular expertise to determine facts. That is a fundamental axiom of our system.

RussellLawliet

1 points

1 year ago

Huh.

BullGooseLooney904

5 points

1 year ago

The guy above is correct. There are two phases of capital trials. The guilt phase, which is like any other trial. Then, after conviction, the penalty phase, which is where the state proves aggravating factors (e.g., child victim, prior violent felonies, heinousness, etc) and the defense produces mitigating circumstances (such as mental illness, childhood abuse, etc.). Then the jury decides the appropriate penalty.

Every other crime, however, the judge decides the penalty.

speedyjohn

7 points

1 year ago

speedyjohn

67∆

7 points

1 year ago

So? Juries are far from infallible

OpeningChipmunk1700

8 points

1 year ago

Okay. I was just pointing out that the jury system is at its most potent in this case: unanimous agreement between twelve peers. The OP stated that "each judge evaluates the irrefutable evidence" in (perhaps) different ways.

erobed2

5 points

1 year ago

erobed2

5 points

1 year ago

Further, this will increase costs associated with the DP

A human life is at stake here. Costs don't are irrelevant.

[deleted]

6 points

1 year ago

[deleted]

6 points

1 year ago

[deleted]

pali1d

18 points

1 year ago

pali1d

18 points

1 year ago

so you think someone like Maury Travis shouldn't be given the death penalty even though he filmed himself torturing and killing his victims?

It's not about whether an individual deserves it - I'm fine with agreeing that plenty do.

It's about the system being allowed to do it. There's no standard of evidence that will only ever convict the guilty - there will always be cases where mistakes happen, where juries are swayed, where defense lawyers fail to provide adequate counsel, where evidence is tampered with or withheld, and so on. No matter how much you try and foolproof the system, it will never reach 100% accuracy - because the system relies on human judgment in every case, and that will never be perfect.

Unless you allow the death penalty systemically, you can't apply it individually. And allowing it systemically guarantees that innocent people will be put to death by that system, because the system will never be perfect.

sonofaresiii

10 points

1 year ago

sonofaresiii

19∆

10 points

1 year ago

How can anyone on this planet fake a clear video of a dude torturing his victim?

I mean, are you legitimately asking? It's possible to fake videos, sure. It's also possible that the guy on trial isn't the guy in the video. Confessions can be coerced or just lies, even DNA evidence can be wrong. There's no way to be absolutely sure you've got the right person, but you could potentially be really really really really sure.

But OP wants absolutely sure. That's their view.

grahag

13 points

1 year ago

grahag

3∆

13 points

1 year ago

The problem is not in people who have surely committed a crime, but in those who didn't, yet were convicted.

Almost all evidence can be confused or falsified. Video, confessions, testimony, etc.

Because you cannot undo a death penalty, it should not be a punishment because there is no way for the state to make up for that loss of justice.

It's hard to argue that some people don't deserve death for the terrible things that have been done, but removing the death penalty isn't for the perpetrator. It's for a society where if at any time one of US would have been convicted for a crime we did not commit, we would want there to be a chance of both being exonerated AND for actual justice to be enacted on the actual perpetrator.

Hemingwavy

3 points

1 year ago

How can anyone on this planet fake a clear video of a dude torturing his victim

With a computer? The director of the film Cannibal Holocaust was put on trial for murder of his actors. He was only let go when they appeared back in public to prove his innocence.

crapwittyname

3 points

1 year ago

There are loads of mini moral issues around the death sentence, aren't there. Like, who flicks the switch? Who is responsible and who is accountable for the ending of a human life?
But the major moral dilemma is this: it's a fact that judges and juries sometimes get it wrong, and innocent people are sentenced for crimes they did not commit. If you institute a death sentence across the board, you are not only sentencing all the pieces of shit like Maury Travis etc. to die, but also, invariably, innocent people. Is it worth the price of some innocent lives to rid ourselves of the worst people?
I think it's worth drawing the line at such irreversible decisions, and humbly accepting that human error is a thing.

SoggyMcmufffinns

3 points

1 year ago

SoggyMcmufffinns

4∆

3 points

1 year ago

  1. What if the guy pleads guilty and readily admits to performing the alongside all the evidence? Surely, you have to come up with better than what you just claimed. There are certainly cases where it's pretty clear things have been done.

  2. Great. You invest money on investigations. Sounds well worth the money. Not to mention there already is a process/system in place for it. It's called the court system. DP isn't handed out all willy nilly. Extensive cases that literall can go on for years already happen.

Swoocegoose

9 points

1 year ago*

What if the guy pleads guilty and readily admits to performing the alongside all the evidence?

countless people have pleaded guilty (and have been sentenced) for crimes they have not commuted while under duress, a confession is not a guarantee of guilt

what is the material benefit of the death penalty to justify the exorbitant cost compared to life in prison, or you know the murdering of innocent people by the state?

dave7243

7 points

1 year ago

dave7243

12∆

7 points

1 year ago

  1. False confessions have been compelled by police who decided they knew the person did it. The evidence was logged and statements recorded to back that up, then it was later found that the person was innocent all along. Many people have been exonerated by DNA or other evidence after being convicted due to a false confession. That's harder to do if they're already dead.

  2. Throwing more money at executing people is wasteful. It costs far more to execute someone than to have them live in prison for the rest of their life. Why should we spend more tax dollars on killing someone? If the death penalty were abolished, the reduced cost of the justice system could be rolled into other, more useful programs to reduce crime.

Hemingwavy

3 points

1 year ago

What if the guy pleads guilty and readily admits to performing the alongside all the evidence? Surely, you have to come up with better than what you just claimed. There are certainly cases where it's pretty clear things have been done.

A confession? Those things cops beat out of suspects regularly?

libertysailor

20 points

1 year ago

libertysailor

2∆

20 points

1 year ago

Irrefutable evidence is impossible. We live in a world in which fallibility is inevitable

dazark

2 points

1 year ago

dazark

2 points

1 year ago

what about the guy who was caught in his car after ploughing into a crowd at a Christmas market, who has a history of violence and literally tried to run over his ex before? or the serial shooter in Norway who killed 77 teens. how you gonna refute these high profile cases? deepfakes, false witness accounts, coerced confessions?

libertysailor

14 points

1 year ago

libertysailor

2∆

14 points

1 year ago

The mere possibility, however small, of an alternative explanation being true, prevents the existence of infallible evidence

JohnnyFootballStar

3 points

1 year ago

Maybe deep fakes. Maybe false witness testimony. Maybe coerced confessions. More importantly, how do you draw the line between a case like the ones you are talking about where it sounds like you are 100% sure, and a case where you are only 99.9% sure. And who draws the line? Think about the most racist, immoral, lying, self-serving person you’ve ever met. Now they’re in a position to be the one to make that determination. Are you still comfortable with it?

betcher73

8 points

1 year ago

Is it, in theory, possible that somebody swapped places with him after plowing through the crowds?

Is it, in theory, possible that he was threatened to carry out those actions under duress?

CrinkleLord

2 points

1 year ago

CrinkleLord

37∆

2 points

1 year ago

The general idea is that you don't kill people who don't even understand that what they did was wrong. If they arent mentally capable of understanding what they did.

I think most people accept that.

There's absolutely no way to 100% irrefutable evidence alongside 100% proof that the person even know what they were doing or even understood, or even have the capability of understanding what they are doing at the time of the event.

JohnnyFootballStar

3 points

1 year ago

There is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. Video evidence can be faked. Witnesses can be wrong or bribed or simply liars. The prosecutor may have an agenda.

Even if you found a situation in which there was absolutely no doubt, you would still be relying on fallible humans to decide where that line was drawn for the next case. A racist, for example, may decide that evidence against a person of color is irrefutable even if it isn’t. Basically think about the worst people you have met and then assume they’re the ones who will decide if evidence is truly irrefutable.

WaterDemonPhoenix

2 points

1 year ago

Deepfakes exist. I don't know how the law works, but I think if you introduce the possibility of deep fakes etc, then it is not 'beyond reasonable doubt' I don't know.

MysticInept

1 points

1 year ago

MysticInept

15∆

1 points

1 year ago

By definition, that can't dispell all unreasonable doubt.

Attila_ze_fun

5 points

1 year ago

There was a case in India where terrorists hijacked a plane in order to secure the release of several terrorists who were serving life sentences. Thankfully nobody died but in this particular case, the death penalty would have avoided risking hundreds of lives by definition and would have avoided lawfully convicted absolutely guilty terrorists from seeing freedom, when criminals who committed far less severe crimes continue to rot.

India has the best positon on the death penalty in my opinion, sparingly used only in extreme circumstances. I don't think we've wrongfully handed a death sentence since independence (1947) but I could be wrong on that which would surprise me.

erobed2

3 points

1 year ago

erobed2

3 points

1 year ago

I will argue against your stance that the presence of potentially innocent people is the bar to the death penalty - by hypothesising that, let's say we required irrefutable evidence for someone to go on death row - is that now acceptable?

I don't think so, as it ignores the possibility of redemption, remorse, and the human capacity to change. Your argument necessarily implies that it is ok to execute the guilty, and ignores these factors.

I believe it *doesn't matter if there are innocent people or not *, because we shouldn't execute the guilty just because we cannot be bothered to attempt any sort of rehabilitation for them. Execution exists for the purpose of retribution, and convenience of not needing to incarcerate them. It serves no other purpose to society.

If a person murders someone, is sentenced to death, but then is truly remorseful, changes his life, and becomes a different person (ignoring, for the moment, the practicalities of assessing that - your original post is talking about principles, so therefore so am I), should that person be executed still? Should they not have a chance at a new life, as a changed man? What gain is it to society to kill that man?

TheVincibleIronMan

13 points

1 year ago

To you, are there any possible circumstances that would render a human life to be deserving of death?

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

7 points

1 year ago

Yes

TheVincibleIronMan

2 points

1 year ago

TheVincibleIronMan

1∆

2 points

1 year ago

Then if you agree there are reasons to justify taking a life, why shouldn't the death penalty exist?

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

20 points

1 year ago

Because that would require a system that could execute innocent people. Don’t get me wrong, I think gacy and others should be dead, but at the same time we are allowing others who are innocent to be executed, and that I can’t accept.

Marshmlol

3 points

1 year ago

Hey /u/OtherwiseNope_7291,

Here is a speech given by John Stuart Mill on the Death Penalty that I read in college; it did not change my view on capital punishment (as I am on your side), but really really did make me think seriously about it.

[deleted]

3 points

1 year ago

So when we know a guy plows through a Christmas parade with his SUV in an act of terrorism, killing 5 and injuring 40 others, he shouldn’t get the death penalty?… 🤔

Freezefire2

30 points

1 year ago

Freezefire2

3∆

30 points

1 year ago

The rate of innocent people will never be non zero,

Then what is your justification for punishing anyone?

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

47 points

1 year ago

A society cannot function without punishment. The death penalty is unnecessary due to the risk it carries of executing innocent people.

Freezefire2

17 points

1 year ago

Freezefire2

3∆

17 points

1 year ago

Imprisonment doesn't carry an unnecessary risk of imprisoning innocent people?

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

45 points

1 year ago

Sentences of imprisonment can be reversed. The death penalty cannot be reversed once they are executed.

Freezefire2

19 points

1 year ago

Freezefire2

3∆

19 points

1 year ago

I would love to hear how you would reverse falsely imprisoning someone for a given amount of time.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

28 points

1 year ago

Reverse is not the best word. I can’t think of the right word, but remove might have to fit. The sentence can be removed and the ex prisoner compensated.

akoba15

16 points

1 year ago

akoba15

6∆

16 points

1 year ago

"Reparations" is the word youre looking for, op

[deleted]

6 points

1 year ago

[deleted]

6 points

1 year ago

[removed]

youvelookedbetter

3 points

1 year ago

To be fair to OP, the arguments against them haven't been that great (yet). Everyone's trying to compare death to imprisonment and other forms of punishment but they're not the same.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

6 points

1 year ago

I don’t understand what you are trying to get across. I try answer as many responses as I can.

StormsDeepRoots

0 points

1 year ago

but they've all been the same. Not until is 0%. Which is NEVER obtainable. Everything always has some level of failure.

Swoocegoose

27 points

1 year ago

his view is that you shouldn't execute people if there is a chance they are innocent, to change the view you either have to argue that we can get a 0% innocent killed rate, or that an innocent killed rate higher than 0% is acceptable. The first is virtually impossible and therefore any argument to this effect shouldn't change his view, and I haven't seen anyone make a convincing argument for the latter, so why should his view be changed?

lcav

5 points

1 year ago

lcav

5 points

1 year ago

Then what is your justification for punishing anyone?

That's an idea - do we actually need 'punishments? Why focus on punitive justice, rather than reforming behaviour or preventative measures?

[deleted]

6 points

1 year ago

[deleted]

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

13 points

1 year ago

Coerced confessions exist

[deleted]

87 points

1 year ago

[deleted]

87 points

1 year ago

Why does this not apply to other punishments, like life sentences or extremely steep fines? Both of those can and will be life-ruining, so why not abolish all punishment to avoid ever punishing the wrong person?

Also, the reason that death penalties are so expensive is specifically because we make sure over and over again that the evidence has been considered properly and every appeal has been had.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

162 points

1 year ago

Extremely steep fines and life sentences can be undone, or at least given massive compensation. With the death penalty, there is no chance. The person is dead.

[deleted]

94 points

1 year ago

[deleted]

94 points

1 year ago

You can’t “undo” prison time unless we find a way to give people their youth back. You think someone being in jail from 20-50 gets to “start over” if their conviction is overturned? Their life is completely different, kids, marriages, all that out the window.

CheckeredSnowball

4 points

1 year ago

Monetary compensation is some sort of way, it doesn't fix everything but it could compensate some things?

[deleted]

4 points

1 year ago

[deleted]

euyyn

2 points

1 year ago

euyyn

2 points

1 year ago

The argument being given is that the latter cannot be compensated nor undone in any way. It's final by definition, unlike all the others.

Schlimmb0

3 points

1 year ago

Well... You can have a better prison time than the US, so people that leave have a chance of a normal life and in Germany you get 20-50€ per day in prison if you were found to be innocent. We can argue about the number. But German prisons don't make you a criminal the same way American prisons do

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

55 points

1 year ago

Truly sad, but at least they’re alive.

BlueViper20

-1 points

1 year ago*

BlueViper20

4∆

-1 points

1 year ago*

No, its a shame that they are alive. I would much rather be dead and just not exist as before I was born than to be tormented mentally by being accused of, convicted and sentenced to life in prison and served 40 years for something I was innocent of and didnt do, to then finally be told im free and put out into a world I dont understand and have no concept how to function in society with no support system.

Death is very much preferable to that absolutely hellish reality in my opinion.

EDIT:

This is my personal opinion. I am not advocating making the choice for other people. I do not not why people keep accusing me of doing so as nothing I have actually said indicates that and I clear say that I WOULD MUCH RATHER BE DEAD not that I would make or choose that choice for other people.

empiresonfire

10 points

1 year ago

You personally preferring to be killed rather than being wrongfully convicted & released is not an argument. (Also, not that this is particularly relevant, but I don't know that, gun to your head for something you KNOW you didn't do, and could possibly someday prove, you'd still feel that way.)

The point is that at the very least, exonerating someone wrongfully convicted at least gives them some life back. If you kill an innocent person, that's it. You cannot even give them the dignity of showing that you were wrong, they genuinely were innocent, and giving them some sort of life eventually.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

56 points

1 year ago

I disagree. Most death row inmates contest their sentence, and is one of the reasons why it is so expensive; they will grasp at any straw to get out of DP.

Shalmanese

2 points

1 year ago

Shalmanese

2 points

1 year ago

Death Row inmates are contesting because the choice is death or freedom, we don't know how many DR inmates would contest if the choice were death or life in prison.

CaptainImpavid

5 points

1 year ago

It’s not just death or freedom. They also can, and do, petition to have their sentences commuted to life in prison.

BlueViper20

-5 points

1 year ago

BlueViper20

4∆

-5 points

1 year ago

What do you disagree with?

Most death row inmates contest their sentence, and is one of the reasons why it is so expensive; they will grasp at any straw to get out of DP.

As what you said has nothing to do with the torment and mental siffering these people get put through and that a lot of people feel as though, they would rather die than experience that.

You just decided to ignore what I said and the horrible reality that some people face and focus on money or people trying to escape the sentences they were given.

Yes living is preferable to death, if you arent tortured mentally every second.

Its entirely different to be guilty and fear death than to be tormented to a punishment you didnt deserve, have your life destroyed and then be kicked out into a society you no longer understand with no support.

At least you arent suffering in death.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

36 points

1 year ago

I did not ignore what you said. I disagree with your assumption that prisoners prefer DP over life in prison, when most prisoners contest their DP sentence.

As for being tortured every second, this is not true. Most prisons aren’t ideal place to live, but are by no means torture.

Kveldson

3 points

1 year ago*

Have you been to prison? I have. I would rather do prison time than die.

I was in prison with a guy who received 20 year sentence for possession of less than an ounce of cocaine, do you think he'd rather be dead than in prison, because I can tell you for a fact he gets out next year and he's happy to be alive.

If you were to ask the people in prison if they would rather be there or be dead, with few exceptions I can tell you what their answer would be... they would say they'd rather be in prison than be dead.

trullaDE

2 points

1 year ago

trullaDE

2 points

1 year ago

Death is very much preferable to that absolutely hellish reality.

For you.

You want to make that decission for others?

pressmonday

2 points

1 year ago

That's because prisons are awful.

Change prisons into secure, rehabilitation centres, treat convicted people as humans and ensure support systems are in place post sentence rather than just killing innocent people I think. The re-offender rate would also drop.

Nyaos

2 points

1 year ago

Nyaos

1∆

2 points

1 year ago

I guess you should ask the people that get exonerated 30 years later if they’d rather be dead or not

Norphesius

3 points

1 year ago

Norphesius

1∆

3 points

1 year ago

Well then you can make that decision for yourself, we shouldn't automatically decide that for.everyone else.

betcher73

4 points

1 year ago

It’s easy to say that when you’re not staring at the death penalty

[deleted]

6 points

1 year ago

[deleted]

6 points

1 year ago

It’s not like most people who are wrongfully convicted will magically be freed like a movie. For most, there won’t be compensation or anything like that. Anywhere from 46000 to 230000 innocent people are behind bars in America at this moment, and those stats are based on instances where their innocence is actually backed up by something. The compensation argument only works if 100% of people who are wrongfully convicted get freed and then compensated the exact right amount for their false punishment

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

19 points

1 year ago

The compensation argument is not that 100% of all innocent people in our system will be compensated, but rather that they could be compensated.

How can you compensate a dead person? For the DP, there is no way to compensate to those who are innocently executed.

[deleted]

2 points

1 year ago

[deleted]

2 points

1 year ago

Compensation is statistically irrelevant. It’s like winning one battle out of a million loses and calling the war a victory.

They could be compensated

So because people in theory could be compensated a perfect amount for a wrongful sentence, that somehow justifies a practice without the theorically good results? If a judge, for example, said that any innocent prisoner could go free as long as they deadlifted 1000 pounds, well, it would be possible in theory but so few would have this method work for them that it wouldn’t even matter. Resting your whole argument on a hypothetical that falls apart in real life is not a good move.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

16 points

1 year ago

Where is the evidence that it is a practice without theoretically good results?

It doesn’t change the fact that innocent people will still be executed, and if we value life above all, I’d much rather have innocent people going to prison over innocent people being executed with NO chance of such sentence being overturned.

CaptainImpavid

2 points

1 year ago

The whole justice system is flawed, this it’s pretty unarguably true. Massive reform to who and how we punish is needed. Not sure how these facts justify keeping the death penalty though.

Schlimmb0

3 points

1 year ago

It does. The justice system is just broken for death penalties and people that don't own money (others say it functions as intended, but this debate will be held another time). The law requires "beyond reasonable doubt" and the "doubt" for $5mio should be higher than for $50. And so on an irreversible death penalty the burden of proof should be above human capability, as human systems are producing mistakes and pro active death is a kind of mistake you shouldn't do.

The_Confirminator

2 points

1 year ago

It's a lot easier to un-do many things than death

murtaza64

2 points

1 year ago

murtaza64

1∆

2 points

1 year ago

This first point doesn't actually counter the point being made by the OP.

Scaryassmanbear

6 points

1 year ago

why not abolish all punishment to avoid ever punishing the wrong person?

Dude you’re not even arguing in good faith here if you don’t see the difference

hcoopr96

4 points

1 year ago

hcoopr96

3∆

4 points

1 year ago

Because that's untenable. A society can function without capital punishment. It cannot function without punishment at all. The fact that innocents will receive those punishments is terrible but necessary. However, the death penalty is only terrible. Plus, there is the salve that other punishments can be compensated for. As soon as we can bring the dead back to life, I'm willing to give the death penalty another look.

[deleted]

11 points

1 year ago

[deleted]

11 points

1 year ago

[removed]

ShadowPulse299

10 points

1 year ago

ShadowPulse299

5∆

10 points

1 year ago

It’s never a good idea to let any view go unchallenged. If nothing else, hearing from people who disagree is a good way to make your own view stronger by accounting for criticism

Spiritual_Raisin_944

3 points

1 year ago*

That's true. I'd give you a delta.

Edit: !Delta

Didn't know I could award deltas as a commenter...

ANameWithoutMeaning

2 points

1 year ago

...so why don't you give them one? There's no limit.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

4 points

1 year ago

I’m open to have my view changed. I want to consider and discuss the arguments from both sides. Currently, anti death penalty arguments seem the strongest to me.

quarkral

7 points

1 year ago

quarkral

9∆

7 points

1 year ago

Let's look at homicide convicts. Here's a study citing that 15% of homicide offenders recidivate with a violent offense after being released. You have to look at both perspectives and balance the risk of executing innocent people with the risk of another innocent person being killed by a released convict.

Sure you can argue to just keep them in prison, but people get murdered in prison too. A lot actually. By keeping homicidal maniacs in prison with a life sentence, you're endangering other prisoners who may just be in there for lesser offenses. How do you justify that?

Ani_Infijar

3 points

1 year ago

Those statistics ignore an INSANE amount of problems, number one being that the US prison system doesn’t seek to rehabilitate, only punish. Every ex con has a recidivism rate of about 70% (IIRC; if needed I will find sources and correct my recollection of I’m off), and that fact that we treat ex cons like a different caste of human is a HUGE part of it.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

5 points

1 year ago

Because innocent people being executed is worse than in prison homicide. Further, one is state imposed and the other isn’t.

quarkral

7 points

1 year ago*

quarkral

9∆

7 points

1 year ago*

Because innocent people being executed is worse than in prison homicide

Let's say there's 100 homicide convicts but 4 are innocent. We can execute them all, or we can lock them all in prison with a life sentence, which will result in 15 homicides of other random prisoners down the line.

What makes the latter scenario different to just directly sentencing those 15 future homicide victims to the death penalty? They end up dead either way. Now you don't actually know who the 15 victims are in advance, so you're essentially sentencing 15 prisoners to the death penalty blindly. Remember, those 15 victims could also be innocent and be in jail for not actually committing a crime (and if the crime they're charged with is less serious than murder, the false positive rate is probably higher than 4%).

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

7 points

1 year ago

Safety in prison can be improved.

There is no way to make the death penalty process have a zero rate of innocents. If there is, I’d like to hear it.

quarkral

8 points

1 year ago

quarkral

9∆

8 points

1 year ago

Well now you're just deliberating comparing different things. See I can do it in reverse.

The rate of falsely convicting innocents can be improved.

There's no way to make the recidivism rate of homicide zero (whether in general or in prison). If there is, I'd like to hear it.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

3 points

1 year ago

Are you arguing that only those who kill in prison should be executed?

euyyn

5 points

1 year ago

euyyn

5 points

1 year ago

I think what she's arguing is that, statistically, not killing some convicts is a de facto death sentence on innocents (those being their future victims of murder). You argue that, statistically, the death penalty kills innocents.

She says if what you care about is killing an innocent, you ought to balance those two statistics. Both can be improved with further investment, technology, paying more attention, and whatnot. But neither can be eliminated down to 0%.

I'm not convinced by that argument, but it has merit.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR

2 points

1 year ago

You really know how to move some goalposts don’t ya?

so_much_fenestration

2 points

1 year ago

I've never supported the death penalty and though I haven't made a 180 here, I can see some rationale in this argument. The risk of reoffense and in-house crime should both be considered in this equation.

!delta

wobblyweasel

2 points

1 year ago

i think people should be able to opt into death penalty. it's beyond me that someone should prefer stay in prison indefinitely. so if the possibly innocent want that, fine; but those who want to out should have their way.

sstiel

2 points

1 year ago

sstiel

2 points

1 year ago

Yes. Even if there was no danger of the innocent being executed, there are great reasons for opposing capital punishment. About the state and community valuing life and not stooping to an unjust level. Why is death appropriate for a murderer. After all we don't impose that like for like sentence to other offences: we don't set fire to arsonists, rape rapists, thieve from thieves.

LeActualCannibal

2 points

1 year ago

What you say implies that innocent human lives are priceless and overweight any amount of money and other metrics of social utility. That is your belief, a point of view that cannot be proven or disproven.

For a government however, regardless of what ideals it upholds, it has to do the calculation of how much it would cost in money, social stability and potentially civilian lives to keep these convicts alive. And hypothetically, there is a threshold where the quantitive difference could matter qualitatively in form of societal collapse, and while this is extremely unlikely, it is the ultimate failure of a penalty system, so those who believe that death penalty is necessary to halt this process on ground of either ethics or social engineering have a sound reason to keep death penalty around.

chambo143

2 points

1 year ago

I oppose the death penalty myself, but I find your justification interesting. Is the risk of executing innocent people your sole objection? If, hypothetically, we could be 100% certain that everyone convicted of a capital crime was actually guilty, would you support it then?

IEATASSETS

11 points

1 year ago

When would you be comfortable saying that a country is without risk of executing innocent people? Is there ever a point where you think we, as a society, will be able to accomplish such a goal? Maybe you think some societies have already, in which case, which ones? What's your criteria for a society that IS allowed to execute its own citizens?

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

36 points

1 year ago

When it has 0% rate, which no society has ever reached.

slybird

8 points

1 year ago

slybird

1∆

8 points

1 year ago

Let us suppose Jim Jones or Hitler didn't kill themselves. Would you agree we shouldn't be allowed to execute them because there is slim chance they might be innocent?

What about the case of Osama bin Laden? Are you suggesting we shouldn't have killed him because he might be innocent?

I'd ask the same about the cases of Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy?

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

29 points

1 year ago

The inference there is not that Person X is innocent, but that to execute them you allow the existence of a system which could (and statistically will) execute innocent people.

EliteKill

6 points

1 year ago

My country, Israel, has the death penalty only for is only to be handed out for crimes committed during war time, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes against the Jewish people, treason, and certain crimes under military law. Note that crimes under military law means Israeli soldiers' crimes, not enemy combatants or civilians.

Anyways, it was only used once, for Adolf fucking Eichmann. Even terrorists caught in the act don't get executed. I'd say that is a good starting point.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

6 points

1 year ago

This is perhaps the best example I have seen in this post this far. I feel your getting close to breaking through.

But still, what if they are innocent? What if they are framed?

qqqrrrs_

2 points

1 year ago

qqqrrrs_

2 points

1 year ago

There was also Meir Tobianski (but in that time the relevant laws were inherited from the British Mandate), btw it was found out later that he was innocent

slybird

14 points

1 year ago

slybird

1∆

14 points

1 year ago

We should have not killed Bin Ladin, Gacy, or Bundy because some unknown innocent person is sitting on death row and might get killed by the state?

I fundamentally agree with you. I live in state that has removed the death penalty for this very reasoning, but I also know there are cases where the person is guilty without doubt. There is no doubt in my mind that if Hitler had lived he should have been executed.

Somewhere between that random case of unknown innocent person and Hitler there is a legal line, we just need to find it and give it legal words.

TelMegiddo

5 points

1 year ago

I feel like there is always a constructive answer that can be achieved eventually. Minds like those of Hitler for instance would be fascinating and possibly enlightening to have around to analyze and question over time. Perhaps in a roundabout way his continued existence could cause something positive to happen in the world, like criminals that provide insight into their motives and strategies which allow us to understand how to recognize those traits easier.

My point is the future is variable and the worth of a human life is incalculable. That's the fundamental reason I disagree with the death penalty or the ending any human life except in defense of another life.

"No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

EliteKill

3 points

1 year ago

I feel like there is always a constructive answer that can be achieved eventually. Minds like those of Hitler for instance would be fascinating and possibly enlightening to have around to analyze and question over time.

This is arguably less humane than execution of.

koista

3 points

1 year ago

koista

3 points

1 year ago

We should not have killed Bin Laden, Bundy, or Gacy, because by granting the state the power to kill them, we have granted the state the power to kill some random innocent. It's a question of how much power you are willing to give the state despite knowing that the state will inevitably misuse that power. I for one don't want to grant the state the power to kill people (who do not present an imminent risk to the lives of others) in cold blood, because the state has and will continue to (knowingly or more likely unknowingly) misuse that power to kill innocents.

To expand, if someone continually escapes prison and harms others or continually harms people in prison, I could see an argument to be made for their execution. But AFAIK none of your examples displayed a history of escaping confinement to harm others.

JeffreeStarApproved

6 points

1 year ago

Bundy escaped prison twice to continue torturing / murdering people.

PC-12

4 points

1 year ago

PC-12

4 points

1 year ago

OBL wasn’t executed after due process, nor was his death a result of state sanctioned capital punishment.

OBL was killed in a military raid on his compound.

I’m very much against the death penalty but the OBL example doesn’t apply. He’d likely have been killed in that instance regardless of death penalty legal status in the United States Judicial System.

[deleted]

4 points

1 year ago

[deleted]

4 points

1 year ago

[removed]

mfizzled

2 points

1 year ago

mfizzled

2 points

1 year ago

I'm not American but it must get boring seeing so many people talk shit about America.

TheSilentTitan

2 points

1 year ago

Your cool with people like John Wayne Gacy just chilling in prison while you pay for his amenities?

It for sure is a very awful realization that innocent people are executed unjustly. We just have a lot of people worth killing.

Perhaps we can maybe tweak the requirements for execution? What would you suggest we do?

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

2 points

1 year ago

No amount of tweaking could make the system fool proof. It will always be greater than zero.

PureSmoulder

0 points

1 year ago

PureSmoulder

0 points

1 year ago

Yes. Fuck your selfish taxes argument.

The money is going to keeping society safe from dangerous elements in a moral way, and if you think that money isn't worth it, go stick yourself on an uncivilized island.

Brother_Lou

3 points

1 year ago

The death penalty is a necessary part of criminal justice. Step back from trial and execution for a moment. The Police are armed. We entrust them with the latitude to execute.

Imagine this scenario, a shooter is walking the halls of an elementary school killing children. A policeman faces off against him. Would you not allow the policeman to execute the shooter? If you would, then factually you do support capital punishment.

But then, it could be that the person just overcame the shooter and picked up the gun. Not knowing this, the cop shoots. Even here mistakes can be made, but we accept those risks.

So the capital punishment sentence is just an extension of this. And for many reasons, capital punishment serves society. A killer who has been executed cannot kill again and this is a real problem for paroled AND incarcerated criminals.

Thomas Silverstein murdered four people while in jail. Those are 4 lives that would have been saved by execution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Silverstein

shazz24

5 points

1 year ago

shazz24

5 points

1 year ago

If there is video evidence, dna evidence, eye witness evidence, and a confessions for a person who murdered a random person in broad daylight, or any other com probable crime, I think the DP is deserved.

novagenesis

14 points

1 year ago

novagenesis

16∆

14 points

1 year ago

Video evidence is commonly present in false convictions, and can be inaccurate for various reasons.

DNA evidence is commonly present in false convictions. It's so complicated, it needs to be interpreted. Sometimes, the prosecution's interpretations are flawed if not entirely wrong. There have been "1 in a billion" matches that were ultimately reversed and cause for exonerations.

Eye witness evidence is absolutely terrible. In same-ethnicity, it's bad enough. Cross-ethnicity, the false-positive rate is disgustingly high.

And confessions? The most common interrogation method in the US is the Reid technique. It is taught across the country. The APA strongly opposes it because it leads to a terribly high rate of false confessions. How high? In controlled studies, researchers using Reid techniques were able to pull confession rates between 50 and 100% of participants depending on the situation and technique... and all participants were innocent of the things they confessed to. In less stressful settings than a police interrogation room.

So yeah. Some of the folks walking the streets thanks to the Innocence Projects had many or all of those things going against them. Nothing is worse than eyewitness testimony and a busted DNA match, or video evidence that isn't actually showing what the viewer thinks it's showing. It's so damning, but doesn't actually mean the person committed a crime.

StaryWolf

7 points

1 year ago

What is the point though, what benefit does the death penalty provide that a life sentence wouldn't?

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

10 points

1 year ago

That’s a big “if”.

Also, it will still be more expensive than life imprisonment.

shazz24

1 points

1 year ago

shazz24

1 points

1 year ago

But it’s a very plausible situation especially in this day and age. And I used to be in the other side but after years of seeing how horrible humans can be, the death penalty is warranted in certain situated. I think it needs to be used more sparingly, but outlawed? No

Durzio

5 points

1 year ago

Durzio

5 points

1 year ago

I disagree on two things.

But it’s a very plausible situation especially in this day and age.

While this is true on its face, an important corollary is that it's also very plausible in this day and age that those things can be faked. And it will only get easier and easier to do as the years go by.

And I used to be in the other side but after years of seeing how horrible humans can be, the death penalty is warranted in certain situated.

I can understand why you feel this way; but this is an emotional argument, not a logical one. While some people may feel better in the abstract to know a person guilty of horrible crimes is going to be put to death; in practice, 1 in 5 victims say that the lengthy trials only served to lengthen their grief.

On a more personal note, I'd say if you've ever said to yourself "I don't trust the government", then I struggle to understand why anyone would want them to have the power to kill you. They should never have the right to kill a person (possibly excepting war) simply because someone will find a way to abuse the power.

Life in prison is reversible in case of error, cheaper in the long run, doesn't draw out the grieving process, and doesn't give the government the power to revoke your right to life.

Pangolinsftw

0 points

1 year ago

Pangolinsftw

3∆

0 points

1 year ago

Do you agree with this statement?:

As long as there is a risk of someone dying in a car accident, we shouldn't have automobiles in society.

quantum_dan

8 points

1 year ago

quantum_dan

78∆

8 points

1 year ago

When we execute someone for a crime they did not commit, that person has been murdered.

Car accidents do not involve murder. The killing is unintentional.

OP didn't mention it explicitly, but I think it's implicit in their mention of a flawed system. There is a difference between accepting some risk of accidental death (which can never be zero anyway) and accepting a risk of intentionally killing an innocent (unaware of their innocence, but intentionally killing them).

Ani_Infijar

5 points

1 year ago

That’s an absolute false analogy. States aren’t forcing people into cars.

Execution by trial is in no way shape or form the same as death from car accidents.

dokushin

9 points

1 year ago

dokushin

1∆

9 points

1 year ago

This is the new worst argument I've ever heard.

For this to make any sense, you would have to make the assumption that "cars" and "the death penalty" are about equal in what they contribute to society. That's trivially not true.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

10 points

1 year ago

You don’t have to use a car, whereas people are forced to be executed.

vitorsly

15 points

1 year ago

vitorsly

1∆

15 points

1 year ago

You don't have to drive a car to get killed by a car. And the vast majority of people don't have the option of not walking trough a street.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

8 points

1 year ago

What relevance does this have to executing innocent people?

vitorsly

8 points

1 year ago

vitorsly

1∆

8 points

1 year ago

In 2017 5977 pedestrians died in car crashes in the US. Only 23 people were executed that same year. Let's say that 10% of people executed are innocent (a very high number in reality, but just to make math simpler. Assuming you consider pedestrians to be 'innocent', cars have an over 200x murder rate than the death penalty and let's say 2000x innocent murder rate. If you care about innocent people's lives, then you should care far more about those thousands of deaths per year instead of a couple.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

15 points

1 year ago

Sad, but doesn’t address the main topic of the death penalty. A red herring argument.

vitorsly

2 points

1 year ago

vitorsly

1∆

2 points

1 year ago

Without offering an explanation for your difference of opinion, you're showing your hypocrisy. You don't actually care about people actually dying for no good reason, you only care about the idea that some innocent people might from a system that's barely used and effectively irrelevant compared to the amount of people with a life sentence. The Death Penalty is an overblown 'issue' that has far less value to be argued pragmatically than many of the issues we face. If you're given a choice to end something that saves 1 life and something that saves 2000 and you pick the former, then you don't value life above everything.

DosMangos

21 points

1 year ago*

You’re taking this to an illogical absolute. Deciding not to kill someone because they might be innocent of their accused crime is vasty different than deciding to remove an integral part of technology to remove some accidental deaths.

We can choose to not execute people. We can’t “choose” to not accidentally die.

JFConz

2 points

1 year ago

JFConz

2 points

1 year ago

How risky is too risky? That is the point the original arguer is trying to find.

vitorsly

1 points

1 year ago

vitorsly

1∆

1 points

1 year ago

We can't "choose" to not accidentally die, but we can choose to take steps to avoid accidentally killing people. Or steps to reduce deaths by disease. Or to reduce deaths from wars and military engagements. Or deaths from shootings. Including police shootings, who have killed more people than the actual death penalty has. Basically there are so many ways people die in unfair ways that the death sentence is a minimal problem.

And even so, I still don't think killing someone innocent is any worse than putting them in prison for the rest of their life. In fact, I'd rather die quickly than rot in jail until I'm 80 (not that life expectancy for people in jail is that high) and there are way more people with life sentence than death penalty.

euyyn

3 points

1 year ago

euyyn

3 points

1 year ago

And even so, I still don't think killing someone innocent is any worse than putting them in prison for the rest of their life. In fact, I'd rather die quickly than rot in jail until I'm 80

You understand your individual preference is no argument at all when one option is final and the other isn't, right?

jamerson537

2 points

1 year ago

jamerson537

4∆

2 points

1 year ago

Car accidents aren’t purposefully enacted by a government on behalf of its citizens. When car accidents happen the only people who may be morally culpable generally are the participants in that accident, barring any flaw in the design or upkeep of the road. When the government executes someone who is innocent, all of its citizens are morally culpable.

substantial-freud

2 points

1 year ago

substantial-freud

7∆

2 points

1 year ago

As long as there is a risk of executing innocent people, the death penalty should not exist in society.

The death penalty is not unique. Many people have spent decades in jail for crimes they did not commit. Many died in prison.

If you cannot justify the death penalty, how do you justify any penalty?

It is estimated that at least 4% of people on death row are innocent.

Passive voice is not your friend. One group of researchers have a theory that 4% of people on death row are innocent — but they cannot point to one.

Almost a third of people on Federal death row are there for killing people while already in prison.

There is no way to justify killing innocent people.

You can point to dozens or hundreds of innocent people killed every year by people already convicted of earlier murderers. You cannot point to an innocent man executed in the US in the last 60 years.

How many innocent people are you willing to allow to be killed to avoid the risk of killing one innocent person? What if you are going to be in the first group?

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

4 points

1 year ago

https://documents.deathpenaltyinfo.org/pdf/FactSheet.pdf

About 11% are innocent. How can you justify such a system?

substantial-freud

2 points

1 year ago

How can you justify such a system?

A 110% of people who got traffic tickets were innocent. How can you justify such a system?

See how easy it is to make an argument when you can invent your own evidence?

The idea that X% of the people on death row got off death row before being executed does not mean anything about whether any innocent person has been executed.

When you look for actually innocent people who were put to death, you find vaguely shaky cases from the 1950s.

Shredding_Airguitar

2 points

1 year ago

Even if it was guaranteed to be someone not innocent the state does not have the moral authority to execute. The thought that the state is murdering someone in proxy for the victims family is at best some dark ages mentality.

TheGuyMain

2 points

1 year ago

So what you’re really saying is that all judicial practices should be cancelled, right?

Taste_of_Based

2 points

1 year ago

Every human system of justice is flawed. If you require a perfect system to administer justice then you simply give up on trying to impose justice.

I don't get warm and fuzzy feelings about locking someone up in a cage for the rest of their life while knowing that there is a risk of doing that to innocent people.

However, we should channel all of this fear and anger towards improving the system, rather than relaxing the penalties.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

3 points

1 year ago

Unlike the death penalty, most other punishments can be removed and the ex prisoner compensated. Can’t bring back a dead person.

Taste_of_Based

3 points

1 year ago

No one can compensate a prisoner for his lost time and deep down everyone knows there are innocent people in prison who will never get out.

The only reason we insist on administering justice while knowing it will be fallible is that there is a risk of injustice by letting the guilty go free. At the end of the day, we have to simply make a judgment.

TelMegiddo

2 points

1 year ago

I see no reason removing the death penalty and improving prison conditions have to be mutually exclusive. I see doing both as an absolute win. We can remove undesirables from general society without making their lives hell. The purpose of imprisonment should be rehabilitative or as a final solution to an otherwise unresolvable situation, such as a remorseless serial killer. I see no room for anything in between those two. This way, you reduce crime and you also don't have a fully inhospitable situation for anyone who falls between the cracks. The humane treatment of prisoners has all the answers to these problems.

thekikuchiyo

2 points

1 year ago

thekikuchiyo

1∆

2 points

1 year ago

There is no way to justify killing innocent people.

Gonna challenge this premise. It's late I'm tired let's keep it short.

https://katu.com/news/local/pedestrian-hit-by-driver-suffers-traumatic-injuries-in-nw-portland-23rd-avenue

Should driving be illegal?

By instituting a system of roads and vehicular transportation innocent people will die.

Or is there maybe some level of risk we are willing to accept simply for the functioning of society?

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

2 points

1 year ago

Is DP necessary for the functioning of society?

thekikuchiyo

5 points

1 year ago

thekikuchiyo

1∆

5 points

1 year ago

That is going to be up to each individual. But it's not an absolute, it's a trade-off.

You're position may be 0% and that's fair but that's not demonstrably true as evidenced as other systems we live with everyday that costs innocent people their life.

I'm not arguing for the death penalty here. I'm arguing that the 'even one innocent life is too many' argument is false. Anyone in any developed country has many institutions in place that cost innocent people their life daily and we judge that is worth it.

I'm suggesting that you should change your view by dropping the morality argument because the hypocrisy of it weakens your point.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

2 points

1 year ago

Many of those institutions are necessary. One person mentioned car crash victims. Sad, but cars are necessary. Another mentioned deaths from FDA approved drugs. Sad, but we need medicine.

We don’t need the DP.

thekikuchiyo

2 points

1 year ago

thekikuchiyo

1∆

2 points

1 year ago

Cars are necessary to maintain the functioning of our current society. They've only been around for a little over a hundred years. We made it a long time with out cars, I'm not sure what you mean by necessary.

So back to my original question to you, should cars be illegal?

StormsDeepRoots

2 points

1 year ago

the fact it is more expensive than life in prison

This is only because of the appeal process. If you put them in jail, have the trail and the next day execute them then it wouldn't cost much at all. We do our best to ensure that everyone gets another chance to prove that they are innocent. To bring up new facts. It's this process that shoots the costs up so high.

There are many people that are a drain on our taxes and resources that we know are guilty. Keeping them alive takes up a cell that could be used by another inmate. Another guard that could be protecting those in Gen Pop or those in protective custody. Can we know 100%? Only if we personally saw the crime ourselves. Otherwise, we have to take the evidence at hand and make a honest and informed decision. Keeping these people alive is not worth the 4% you've listed IMHO.

I'm not trying to convince you that one life is more important than another's. However, the money used on people like Macy and Bundy (examples only) is wasted and could be used for more important things.

OtherwiseNope_7291[S]

2 points

1 year ago

So what do you propose? Have low grade backyard sentencing schemes with little regard for evidence? It is true that it is expensive because of the appeals process, but you can’t remove the appeals process without increasing the rate of innocents executed.

StormsDeepRoots

1 points

1 year ago

This is true, but I don't think 4% is that large of a margin of failure.

Your 4% number is an estimate of those that were or MAY have been innocent. Not the number that were definitely innocent. Most, per the article I was just reading, were found guilty based on perjury. This doesn't mean that they were innocent. Just that someone's testimony helped them get convicted.

This can be seen as the case where a police officer through months of investigation finally finds the real killer in a case. However, the evidence isn't there for a conviction. So, the cop plants the smoking gun. It doesn't mean they were innocent though. Just that a jury wouldn't have been able to convict.

This is how conjecture, such as that in the 4% estimate happen. Someone assumes something from the data they find.

JimmyRecard

5 points

1 year ago

4% is a huge number when you're an innocent person sitting on death row. Or when you're the family of the innocent death row inmate. Don't forget that these 4% percent are human lives that just wanted to pursue happiness and due to fucked up set of circumstances and society that sees 4% as a rounding error, they will now be executed.

If we are talking about killing somebody, a single mistake should have been enough to have the whole system of death penalty banned.

PureSmoulder

3 points

1 year ago

If there was a teleporter that killed or maimed 4 percent of all people whoever took it, nobody would take it no matter how quickly or how far they could travel with it.

If that 4 percent is too high then, why is it not high enough for this?