Do You Agree With This Statement?

IMO, capital crimes should have capital consequences. Dirt naps for those that murder, period. Punishment should be for the offender and a reminder to others that may follow suit.

 

Yeah, I agree. When I was a kid, that was what my dad said was the difference between Russia and America -- in Russia, they would rather imprison ten innocent people than let one criminal go free, and in America, we would rather let ten criminals go free than imprison one innocent person.

I don't know if that's really true, mind you. This was the late seventies. "Russia" and "evil" were a bit more synonymous in our culture at the time.

But I think the overall point still stands. I think that, all other things being equal, it's a greater injustice to imprison the innocent than it is to set the guilty free.

 

My honest opinion would be that I would scar myself forever for committing such an act towards an innocent person.

 

Agreed, it's not that ten murderers at large cannot do more damage than an imprisoned innocent, it's that a nation that will imprison innocents to get vengeance at one person is already morally corrupt.

 

Why? Wouldn't that mean the executioners need to die also? If the guilty were mentally corrected, so that they could never repeat the crime, why wouldnt you let them go free?

The deterrence argument has been debunked ages ago.

 

It's a greater injustice for those 10 guilty to go back out and commit more crimes against the public.

All the more reason to insure a fair trial, IMO.

The key is to give a person a fair trial. Too many of the innocent incarcerated people are there because of shoddy police work, poor counsel,etc. Fix these instead of letting known murderers go free.

The executioner isn't committing murder. You need to look up the definition of the word.
Justice, punishment. If I get caught stealing $1Million and promise never to do it again, should I not be punished? Capital punishment is for the crime that you committed, not future ones that you may or may not commit.

Really? What's the recidivism rate for executed murderers? Unless you believe in zombies, the answer is ZERO.

 

But the problem is not them being alive - the problem is their murder of another. I fail to see how killing them rectifies anything.

 

LOL That isnt relevant to deterrence.

 

Justice sometimes demands an eye for an eye, IMO. For example, if a rapist/murderer of a family member of mine was freed, I would personally hunt him down and execute him.

 

Deterrence:
noun: a negative motivational influence

Do you think 50kV is a "negative motivational influence"? I do.

 

Why?

Yes but why would that be the moral/right thing to do?

 

Because NOT doing so would be an abomination of justice.

 

Isn't the premeditated murder of an individual as an act of revenge an abomination of justice?

I don't believe that revenge can be rationalized as a component of justice.

 

Of course we should be doing everything we can to ensure completely fair trials, I'd not imprison anyone rather than just imprisoning an innocent, but that's not what reality looks like. A completely correct system would never have to deal with the hard question, the thread postulated that the question is already posed.

That we should ensure a fair trial is obvious regardless of the answer to the actual questions.

 

this^^

There is only one reason punishments exist, and that is to make sure it does not happen again (or not in the first place). This can be either by discouraging it or, apparently, to make it impossible to do again, which to some is the argument for capital punishment.

Arguments based in vengeance are as valid as arguing that any revenge is legal, which would make a mess.

 

You're stating the obvious. That which I state which cannot be refuted end up being facts. It remains to be seen which of my assertions are unable to be refuted.

That's obvious. That's why I never made it a sole criteria, but - rather - one of several assertions. I even numbered them because none of them are a "sole" criteria.

The exonerations of which you speak aren't the point, as I never asserted that the system was perfect with which to begin. In fact, the mere existence of cases of exoneration prove that we have a system which is constantly being improved so errors are not made.

The assertion made here is whether it is an unavoidable consequence of the Admiinstration of Justice to have error. And of course, it is. I have asserted that such imperfection is part of the risk of participating in society.

One can ameliorate such risk by avoiding what I would call "the near occasion of sin".

Except that you have no statistics, as only those who are exonerated provide you a percentage. And what percentage are exonerated?

Now you're being coy. To be unable to acknowledge that the OP's statement is not about "percentage of innocent to guilty", but - in fact - an attack on harsh sentences, like the Death Penalty.

There is no "margin of error" referenced by the OP. There is merely a blithe statement meant to carry a political message. Even if we were to entertain your (ridiculous) assertion wrt this matter, the OP makes no attempt to establish what the margin of error actually is - nor do you.

Which is de facto evidence that that OP isn't interested in margins at all. The OP is interested in tearing down how we administer punishment.

In contesting the merit of the accuracy of our Justice System, you undermine admininstration of Justice with the repeat offender as well, and actually condone creating them. It is the very heart of the matter at hand! My contention is that such repeat offenders create such a large percentage of the crime, that we need a justice system that LIMITS such opportunity!

That's not true. How could you have a proper jury if each member isn't willing to consider all the options of punishment available to them? If one didn't weed out jurors unwilling to administer the Death Penalty, it would never be sentenced.

Now that's bias. Simply because someone supports handing down a sentence of Death if it is deemed appropriate does not mean that they will.

However, someone who opposes any sentence of Death...

Red Herring. Appeals to Emotion to cite cases of imperfection is an argument that is circular here. I have already acknowledged imperfection. It is meaningless to the core of this discussion.

 

Depends on what the guilty were guilty of....some crimes are so odious that erring on the side of the perp is a terrible mistake...Bin Laden comes to mind.

 

I respectfully disagree. Revenge can be a component of justice, IMO.

My answer remains the same. If we've done everything to insure a fair trial, then shi ! happens. I'm not going to let 10 murderers go in the remote chance that we incarcerate an innocent person.

 

And when exactly do you think we've done "everything"? Are you living in some movie universe where the accused breaks down at the end of the hearing and clears everything up? Trials that meet my requirement for fair are rare, I believe you pointed that out too.

We are not discussing a remote chance that we get an innocent, the OP specifies a presumably 100% chance of getting an innocent given that one chooses that choice.

 

this is not a smart question

 

I noticed no one attempted to "explain" MY post, should I start a new thread?

 

Incarceration is not punishment but instead it is the isolation of an individual from society so that they cannot violate the rights of others in society. Incarceration provides the protection of society from an individual where the evidence is compelling that they have violated the rights of others and are likely to do so again. Incarceration is an infringment upon the right of liberty and therefore must be justified as such to ensure the greater rights of individuals in society. It is not vengeance or revenge.

There isn't a valid argument for capital punishment as it is not required to protect society from the actions of even the most violent of individuals. Life in prison, possibly in solitary confinement if circumstances dictate, provides the protection of the rights of individuals in society.

Vengeance and revenge have long since been removed from our judicial system as they do not relate to justice. Justice is about establishing the guilt of an individual related to the violation of the rights of others in society and then taking those steps necessary to prevent the guilty person from committing further violations of the rights of others in society. Justice is established in the courtroom and not in the sentencing by the court.

As the original OP suggests for justice to be served then it is better for 10 guilty people to go free than it is for one innocent person to be convicted. That is a hypothetical criteria established to ensure that justice is served in the courtroom. Sentencing is fundamentally unrelated in reality to justice. The protection of society is fundamental to sentencing and it is not revenge or vengeance that should be considered. If a person assaults another person and gouges out their eye we do not remove an eye for an eye as an example. That would be "vengeance" or "revenge" as a punishment. Instead we incarcerate the violent individual so that they cannot assault another person instead.

 

Oh, I agree to most of that. I think I mostly mixed up the words punishment and that other one.

But also, an eye for an eye is also meant to discourage "bad" behaviour by identifying that "bad behaviour" is behaviour you don't want done to you.

 

What does your post have to do with my thread?

 

So you would be okay with locking an innocent person in prison for the rest of their lives if it meant you would get bin Laden?