Just Another Political Post.

[kandrathe]

The flip side is; Last year there was a violent sex offender who was released (accidentally) by the State and within a few weeks he had brutally raped and murdered a young college girl. What responsibility does the State have in protecting it's citizens? The innocent victims of death at the hands of the State might be the falsely accused, or the victims of the rightly accused who are released by the State among us..

[Occhidiangela]

I also want to comment on this bit from you earlier, Occhi:
Just looking for a little clarification - just how many innocent people have to get torched before you would lose sleep?  A hundred?  A thousand?  Half of those receiving the death penalty?  Is it ok as long as we get one who's really guilty?

I don't mind one bit your belief in the death penalty; however, arguments like you've put here make me cringe.  "Casualties of war" or "the price we pay for safety" are easy to believe in as long as it's not your relative or friend who's getting "torched incorrectly."

gekko
[right][snapback]89812[/snapback][/right]

The numbers are irrelevant. The percentages of wrongfully executed are well below any threshold of error any rational process control, in a process run by humans, can be expected to achieve. So no, I don't give a flying rat's hindquarter if it is 10 or 100. Given the burden of proof and, if you had bothered to read an earlier post, the amount of evidence that is NOT allowed to be considered, and the filtration process that is the appeals train, I don't see the numbers increasing geometrically as you illustrate, Chicken Little. The slope ain't that slippery.

As to if it is or was me, or my family, take your red herring bait and go fish somewhere else. I am not a criminal, nor are my family. We have a zero per cent chance of being executed for being First Degree Murderers, but a greater than zero chance of being killed or maimed by some lowlife scum.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
You do mean the original boucan, don't you?  You know, thin slices of long pig toasted over embers on a grill of green twigs.  The delicacy that gave the Caribbean its name  :lol:

--Pete
[right][snapback]89795[/snapback][/right]

Yes indeed, I named the delicacy that gave bucaneers their name, from the French boucanier. I thought the Caribbean got it's name from the Carib Indians, who became extinct at some point in the age of colonization. Source? Something I read in James Michener's, Caribbean, so it may be bogus.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Muslim terrorism also kills evil people....at least that is how they think of it.....
[right][snapback]89809[/snapback][/right]

BS, eppie, yet again.

Terrorists kill those they deem evil who have never comitted an act of evil other than being different from the arseholes who are doing the killing. The Death Penalty, with full forewarning and following due process, kills an evil person who has actually comitted an act of evil. The rare error in process (like a LIE told by a witness) can in very rare instances get a so called innocent party executed if the LIE -- hey, another evil act -- is not discovered.

Your reasoning smells of feces. Go take a mental bath. Or, shut up.

Occhi

[gekko]

The numbers are irrelevant.  The percentages of wrongfully executed are well below any threshold of error any rational process control, in a process run by humans, can be expected to achieve.  So no, I don't give a flying rat's hindquarter if it is 10 or 100.  Given the burden of proof and, if you had bothered to read an earlier post, the amount of evidence that is NOT allowed to be considered, and the filtration process that is the appeals train, I don't see the numbers increasing geometrically as you illustrate, Chicken Little.  The slope ain't that slippery.

As to if it is or was me, or my family, take your red herring bait and go fish somewhere else.  I am not a criminal, nor are my family.  We have a zero per cent chance of being executed for being First Degree Murderers, but a greater than zero chance of being killed or maimed by some lowlife scum.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Occhi
[right][snapback]89817[/snapback][/right]

First, I was not suggesting what the numbers are or could be. I was simply asking what you deem an acceptable rate of innocent people executed. How many innocent lives is it worth to execute one murderer?

Second, if you accept that innocent people are executed under the current system, how can you claim a zero percent chance of your family being falsely accused or convicted? By your own admission, the system executes innoncent people; and yet, somehow you and your family are magically immune?

I ask because everyone who I have ever heard use the line of reasoning you are defending here is always talking about someone's else's lives that they're just not that worried about. If you want to say you're willing to sacrifice innocent lives in order to keep executing murderers, I say it's not up to you to be selective about who gets sacrificed. That innocent person executed may not have been a family member of yours, but he/she was someone's son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister...

gekko

[Doc]

Now that I think about it seriously, I wouldn't live anywhere where I and others like me might be the minority with out any guns.

I couldn't live that way.

I intended my original statement as a joke. But it turns out I was being serious.

Guns keep minorities empowered enough for the majority to take them seriously.

[Occhidiangela]

Now that I think about it seriously, I wouldn't live anywhere where I and others like me might be the minority with out any guns.

I couldn't live that way.

I intended my original statement as a joke. But it turns out I was being serious.

Guns keep minorities empowered enough for the majority to take them seriously.
[right][snapback]89822[/snapback][/right]

That is why the Colt 1873 Peacemaker was called "The Great Equalizer" by some. It pretty much forced one to take seriously anyone carrying it.

Occhi

[Doc]

That is why the Colt 1873 Peacemaker was called "The Great Equalizer" by some.  It pretty much forced one to take seriously anyone carrying it.

Occhi
[right][snapback]89824[/snapback][/right]

Big iron.

[Occhidiangela]

First, I was not suggesting what the numbers are or could be.  I was simply asking what you deem an acceptable rate of innocent people executed.  How many innocent lives is it worth to execute one murderer?

Second, if you accept that innocent people are executed under the current system, how can you claim a zero percent chance of your family being falsely accused or convicted?  By your own admission, the system executes innoncent people; and yet, somehow you and your family are magically immune?

I ask because everyone who I have ever heard use the line of reasoning you are defending here is always talking about someone's else's lives that they're just not that worried about.  If you want to say you're willing to sacrifice innocent lives in order to keep executing murderers, I say it's not up to you to be selective about who gets sacrificed.  That innocent person executed may not have been a family member of yours, but he/she was someone's son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister...

gekko
[right][snapback]89820[/snapback][/right]

Don't try to put words in my mouth, gekko. I admit nothing. The zero percent chance is due to how we conduct our lives, where we live, and how we live. I leave to you to attempt to grasp how that works. Your theoretical "it could happen to anyone" is horrid logic. It doesn't happen to "anyone." You have to have a risk exposure profile to even have a chance of being tied to a First Degree Murder case. Myth busting 101: it does not happen to "just anyone" and if you know as many cops as I do, you can learn an awful lot about "false arrests" and how one winnows a suspect list.

As to this abstraction:

I was simply asking what you deem an acceptable rate of innocent people executed. How many innocent lives is it worth to execute one murderer?

The question is based on a false premise that there is a number threshold that triggers a go no go decision. This is not a math exercise, where one looks for limits and thresholds. The process is the key, and the process keeps the number low. This is a problem in industrial engineering, not math, and in process control, as well as process improvement.

By my own understanding, it appears that some have been executed, an extremely small percentage, well below 1% of convicted First Degree Murderers, who may not have done the killing they were convicted for. (As to other crimes that did not end up on the charge sheet, that's is a whole different can of worms.)

Per my earlier comments: in summary, I don't care. I am not foolish enough to expect zero defects from anything human. The incidence is so rare, contrary to the picture the media and pundits who oppose the death penalty wish to paint, that it meets, as I said previously, the good enough standard.

Why do I have to repeat myself, I wonder? I am not asking you to take my position. Do you understand that? So, how about you stop trying to get me to take your position. The points you raise have never moved me before, and they continue not to move me. They are irrelevant.

I am not doing any sacrificing, gekko, our detailed due process of law does. Plus, please don't confuse me with the mythical "everyone else" who supports the death penalty. I am not everyone else. I am me, and this is my position.

That innocent person executed may not have been a family member of yours, but he/she was someone's son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister...

So what? I'll ignore your presumption of innocence, rat hole not worth wasting time over. Every one is born, everyone has a family, functional or otherwise. That fact does not influence the process. It is an appeal to emotion, a zero defects appeal. I repeat, I am not fool enough to buy into the zero defects myth.

If my cousin somehow got framed and executed (after a dozen year's time of death row) for a murder he didn't commit, well

Sucks to be him, and sucks to be me to lose my cousin, likewise his family. What do I do? I help take care of his family, and we get on with our lives. (Though I might pull an OJ and go hunting for whoever framed him . . .)

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Muslim terrorism also kills evil people....at least that is how they think of it.....
[right][snapback]89809[/snapback][/right]

I must too say BS, eppie. Terrorists attack the collective "they" to which they are opposed, so soldiers and babies are equally legitimate targets in their world view.

Terrorism is a violent political act of attention seeking. The Terrorist seeks to commit the MOST outrageous and heinous acts for possibly two or three reasons; 1] to show you that your government is powerless to prevent terrorism and protect you, 2] to provoke the State into a disproportionate authoritarian response, and 3] to make you ask yourself "Why are they doing this and what can we do to make them stop?"

[--Pete]

Hi,

I have had to make this distinction on the lounge before; it appears that there was no reasons to make it to you, as the intent of your post was not to make such a claim!  Semi-apologies for blowhardism. :)
[right][snapback]89800[/snapback][/right]

No apology needed. I was clearly not clear enough in my 'l' vs. 'L' distinction. I was using 'liberal' in its common usage, you were using it in its more precisely defined poli-sci usage. I have that problem all the time (from the opposite perspective) with technical terms.

Glad that we've reached an understanding :)

--Pete

[--Pete]

bah. Double post.

This thread has hit the threaded view limit. let confusion reign ;)

--Pete

[gekko]

I am not asking you to take my position. Do you understand that? So, how about you stop trying to get me to take your position. The points you raise have never moved me before, and they continue not to move me. They are irrelevant.
[right][snapback]89827[/snapback][/right]

Occhi, I am not asking you to take my position. Do you understand that? So how about you stop trying to get me to take your position. The points you raise have never moved me before, and they continue to not move me. They are, however, relevant.

I'm not stupid, Occhi. I know that I'm not going to change anyone's mind regarding such topics as the death penalty on an internet forum. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm unwilling to use this forum as a means of disucussing the issue. How about you? Either you expect to change someone's mind here or you're merely engaging in a discussion - in either case, why do you have a problem with my doing to same?

The process is the key, and the process keeps the number low. This is a problem in industrial engineering, not math, and in process control, as well as process improvement.
[right][snapback]89827[/snapback][/right]

What's one way we measure the effectiveness of a process? The obvious (though not the only, or even the best) answer is by the results. Before you can whether a process is good enough, you need to decide on an acceptable worst case scenario. If one is unwilling to accept even a single innocent person being executed, then one must insist on an absolutely foolproof process. Since we can never have an absolutely foolproof process, the only solution is to scrap the process entirely. That's where my opinion on this subject stems from - since the death penalty is so final, so irreversible, I refuse to accept even a statistically insignificant percentage of mistakes. In my opinion, the death penalty is not enough of a deterrant beyond other penalties to warrant taking a single innocent life. I do respect that there are other opinions on this subject, however.

gekko

[Occhidiangela]

1.   Since we can never have an absolutely foolproof process, the only solution is to scrap the process entirely. 

2.  That's where my opinion on this subject stems from - since the death penalty is so final, so irreversible, I refuse to accept even a statistically insignificant percentage of mistakes. 

3. In my opinion, the death penalty is not enough of a deterrant beyond other penalties to warrant taking a single innocent life.  I do respect that there are other opinions on this subject, however.

gekko
[right][snapback]89833[/snapback][/right]

Your points were numbered for simplicity in reply. No words changed.

1. False. Any claim to have an "only" option is no option at all. One option is to scrap the process. The other is to improve the process. The process is good enough, and if it can be improved, I am all for it, and yet it will still only be good enough. That is good enough for me.

2. Nice fancy words for a demand for zero defects. You don't pay for it, I don't pay for it, we can't expect it. That is no reason to throw our hands in the air and give up, to quit.

Note: you included another zero defects assumption.

If one is unwilling to accept even a single innocent person being executed, then one must insist on an absolutely foolproof process.

You successfully set up a straw man for your zero defects game, so at least the crows won't eat the corn from your field of dreams. :wacko:

Zero defects is as useful an underlying premise for any decision as isentropic power generation.

3. Deterrence isn't the issue with me, I can't deter a murder that already happened. Justice and punishment is the issue. I don't feel like feeding a murderer for the next 40 years of his or her life, I want to feed him or her to the worms.

Are we done now?

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

I also want to comment on this bit from you earlier, Occhi:
Just looking for a little clarification - just how many innocent people have to get torched before you would lose sleep?  A hundred?  A thousand?  Half of those receiving the death penalty?  Is it ok as long as we get one who's really guilty?
[right][snapback]89812[/snapback][/right]

I can't answer for Occhi, but here's my slant on it:

Consider two probabilities. The probability of getting killed by a criminal who either beats the rap or gets out early on probation, and the probability of being executed for a crime you did not commit. Your probability of being killed through a crime related event is the sum of those two probabilities. What you want to do is minimize that sum.

But the two are related. If the system is too lenient for fear of punishing the innocent, then crime goes up and the probability of being a victim of a criminal goes up. That is exactly the situation the USA has right now. If the system is too harsh for fear of releasing the guilty, then the possibility of being a victim of the state goes up. That was the situation a century or so ago in most of the world. The number of mistakenly executed people is exactly the number that will minimize the sum.

Now, the death penalty crap is a red herring in this argument. So small a number of crimes are capital crimes and second so seldom is the death penalty imposed (much less carried out) that the odds of a criminal being executed (59 out of a population of nearly three hundred thousand million (thanks, Occhi)) are lower than those of his dying in a traffic accident (about 40,000 out of the same population).

If even as many as ten percent of those executed were indeed innocent, it would take about twenty years before the "A hundred?" that you give as a lower limit would be reached.

If you really want to get indignant about a real problem, try drinking and driving or unwed mother cats. Both are significantly more worth thinking about than the capital punishment which you are as indignant about as you are ignorant about.

--Pete

[Doc]

Hi,
I can't answer for Occhi, but here's my slant on it:

Consider two probabilities.  The probability of getting killed by a criminal who either beats the rap or gets out early on probation, and the probability of being executed for a crime you did not commit. Your probability of being killed through a crime related event is the sum of those two probabilities.  What you want to do is minimize that sum.

But the two are related.  If the system is too lenient for fear of punishing the innocent, then crime goes up and the probability of being a victim of a criminal goes up.  That is exactly the situation the USA has right now.  If the system is too harsh for fear of releasing the guilty, then the possibility of being a victim of the state goes up.  That was the situation a century or so ago in most of the world.  The number of mistakenly executed people is exactly the number that will minimize the sum.

Now, the death penalty crap is a red herring in this argument.  So small a number of crimes are capital crimes and second so seldom is the death penalty imposed (much less carried out) that the odds of a criminal being executed (59 out of a population of nearly three hundred thousand) are lower than those of his dying in a traffic accident (about 40,000 out of the same population).

If even as many as ten percent of those executed were indeed innocent, it would take about twenty years before the "A hundred?" that you give as a lower limit would be reached.

If you really want to get indignant about a real problem, try drinking and driving or unwed mother cats.  Both are significantly more worth thinking about than the capital punishment which you are as indignant about as you are ignorant about.

--Pete
[right][snapback]89838[/snapback][/right]

Drunk drivers should be publicly executed if they kill somebody. First offense. Don't give them a chance to notch their bumper with a few more innocent people.

And if they paralyse somebody, they should have their own spine crushed. With a heavy blunt object.

Drinking and driving is a 100% preventable crime. It should never happen.

Stupid #$%&ing morons...

[--Pete]

Hi,

Drunk drivers should be publicly executed if they kill somebody. First offense. Don't give them a chance to notch their bumper with a few more innocent people.

And if they paralyse somebody, they should have their own spine crushed. With a heavy blunt object.

Drinking and driving is a 100% preventable crime. It should never happen.

Stupid #$%&ing morons...
[right][snapback]89841[/snapback][/right]

You are thinking retribution (and in a very Biblical 'eye for en eye' sense). Try thinking prevention: permanent loss of license for DUI. And that should be all driver's licenses in the 50 states and territories. Stiff jail sentences for driving without a license if the reason you have no license is loss for DUI. And a squad car stationed across the street from every bar and tavern, pulling everyone over as soon as they leave the parking lot. Probable cause? Gee, now just why did those people go to a bar in the first place.

And any crime performed under the influence should be compounded rather than excused by that fact.

The problem with your retribution scheme is that it only cuts in *after* an innocent is harmed. And there is no deterrent in it, because everybody knows that "I can handle my booze and it's the other guy who loses control." The decision to drive when drunk should be taken away before the person gets drunk in the first place and is no longer capable of rationally making that decision.

BTW, places that have such a zero tolerance policy on DUI seem to get along just fine.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Now, the death penalty crap is a red herring in this argument.  So small a number of crimes are capital crimes and second so seldom is the death penalty imposed (much less carried out) that the odds of a criminal being executed (59 out of a population of nearly three hundred thousand) are lower than those of his dying in a traffic accident (about 40,000 out of the same population).

[right][snapback]89838[/snapback][/right]

I think you meant 300,000,000, or three hundred million. ;)

EDIT: The nonsense sentence of "life in prison without chance for parole" is to me a cruel and unusual punishment per the Constitution and prohibition therein. All those thus sentenced should, in my opinion, be put to death sooner rather than later via wastage on the public dime. My opinion is a minority opinion, of course.

I understand the position pro that scheme, that anyone can be redeemend, even in the bastions of despair that are American prisons.

The system ain't perfect, go figure. :wacko:

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

EVIL DOUBLE POST! :angry:

[gekko]

Oddly enough, Pete, my train of thought follows yours very closely.

If I saw a significant reduction in crime where the death penalty exists, I would certainly reconsider my position. However, when I conisder my odds of being a victim - of the state or of some criminal - I see things this way:

My chances of being the victim of some criminal exists whether we execute murderers or not. My chances of being wrongly executed by the state exist only if the state executes people.

I do freely admit that the numbers are small - that is self-evident. Believe it or not, my questions and the numbers I threw out were born of an honest curiosity to see what people here consider an acceptable threshold. Does everyone consider the current system good enough, as Occhi does?

Personally, I am more interested in the question of live in prison vs. the death penalty - how much more of a deterrant is one vs. the other? How cruel or humane is one vs. the other? Should public taxes be used to keep dangerous offendors alive for 50+ years?

gekko