Hi,
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
gekko,Sep 21 2005, 06:18 AM Wrote:I also want to comment on this bit from you earlier, Occhi:I can't answer for Occhi, but here's my slant on it:
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]
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
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?