What margin of error is acceptable to you in applying the death penalty?

Most conservatives, and some liberals, support the death penalty. The fact that it has been PROVEN that innocent people are put to death in our current system, seems not to erode their support.

So my question is this.

What is the acceptable margin of error in applying the death penalty before you would no longer support capital punishment?


None? 1%? 3%? 5% 7% even more?

 

Also, I might add. I am a liberal. But if we could assure 100% that innocent people do not get put to death, I would support the limited use of the death penalty for crimes so henious that the ultimate penalty is the only thing that really fits.

 

So what does killing someone who has surely committed a heinous crime and will 99.9% not commit anymore atrocities accomplish? I mean being 100% sure of someone being heinous probably costs more then to put them in prison for life or rehabilitate them for 25 years. I'm an anarchist and I don't think anyone should ever be cleanly murdered by any government society shouldn't get off with killing people so smugly. Creating a mentality that killing can be just a job is playing with fire and killing people without repercussions creates a very bad habit one which leads to mistakes.

 

No vote. Is this an MSNBC poll? Why not try using actual forensic techniques, assign reasonable probabilities to those techniques, and try again? For example, if the blood of the accused was found at the crime scene during a stabbing and there is no reasonable explanation, a reasonable assumption is something like 1 in a billion that it wasn't the accused. If fingerprints were found, if eyewitnesses saw the person, a compilation of multiple pieces of evidence, etc.

 

None. The court system is staffed by humans, and therefore can never be perfect. So, I oppose the death penalty because I oppose killing, and do not want the blood of an innocent person on my hands.

 

You are asking me to quantify something that is an intangible and cannot be quantified. My answer is if they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Now what is a reasonable doubt and where does that fit on your percentage? I have no idea. Lots of people in prison that were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and then later through DNA found to be innocent.

IMO I would save the death penalty for the worst of the worst... like the Green River Killer.

 

Supporters of capital punishment are often just angry ignorant folk, accompanied by a minority that see it as a last resort, however, the latter obviously, I being one of them, believe in no margin of error.

 

I am independent and agree with you 100%

But since there can not ever be 100% assurance, I do not support the Death Penalty.

 

To me the death penalty is not acceptable let along a margin of error. yes, I'm conservative, but I have never believed in the eye for an eye thing. That is simply childish.

 

And it has also been proven that guilty people are set free in our current system. Interestingly, this does not seem to bother you nearly as much. In fact, you guys don't even bring it up when you're complaining about the "wrongness" of the death penalty.

All or nothing is cowardice disguised as justice. It shows that you do not have enough faith in your own competence to get it right. And justice cannot survive in a climate of fear.

So are you just as worried about wrongfully imprisoning innocent people for years of their lives? Afterall, we know that this does happen. And it is just as irreversible as putting someone to death. All the state can really do to compensate them is offer them money. It can't give them those precious years of their life back. Imagine getting locked up at 20 years old for something you did not do and not getting out until you are 65 all because the system got it wrong. Do you want that hanging over your head? Is that not just as bad?

 

Hence, the problem with MSNBC polls. Everything in life is quantifiable. The validity of the assumption can certainly be questioned, however, I don't see the same level of academic rigor being applied to laws enforcing seat belts or taxation upon the cigarette industry. Simple suggestion, look at some academic journals to apply reasonable statistics. I certainly wouldn't want to assign a death penalty with a 3 % margin of error, however, a 0.0000001 % margin of error might be acceptable (i.e. DNA evidence).

 

I just as much do NOT want guilty people set free. But thats for another post. Why cant I ask a simple question without also displaying "dismay" at something else that you show interest in? If you want to make a thread about that, then by all means. Please do so.

But at the end of the day, I would rather be locked up for 20 years and get a massive settlement than be dead. At least SOME corrective form of action can be taken if I am alive.

 

Some time in the next fifty years prisons & the death penalty will become a thing of a bygone era & the penalty for committing a crime will be the forfeiture of who you are as the reprogramming & behavior modification chips implanted in the brain will make this possible. It is getting a bit late to still be executing prisoners.

 

I agree with the death penalty, but the only use for brain chips would be to get the average American to look outside of America for once.

Honestly, these conservatives keep complaining that their country is going downhill because of leftism etc, when the rest of the developed world (I see you're an Aussie too, compare us to America) is a sea of leftism.

Image, if you will, that the Titanic is sinking. And the idiots on the boat think they're sinking because they didn't hit enough icebergs.

 

The same as the margin for error in releasing murderers, rapists, and pedophiles from prison.

 

So... none, right?

 

This is a really good question, and carries great importance in the legal system. Unfortunately, the legal system is not really designed to take the margin of error into account. It's either "guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt" or "innocent". But perhaps there are times where we are not entirely sure, but the accused should still get some form of reduced punishment.

Obviously, the margin of error could be allowed to be more generous in war time.

I just saw the results of that poll. You are either all anti-death penalty or just plain stupid! There is no realistic way we can be absolutely certain that the accused commited the crime. Even with the most persuasive evidence, it could still be an elaborate framing.

 

Yes, you can be certain some people committed some crimes. For example, we do have conclusive evidence some dudes flew planes into the twin towers and killed a few thousand people. We also have irrefutable evidence Bush started an illegal and aggressive war in Iraq. So on and so forth.

 

How are your rantings against a former president even remotely related to the death penalty?

 

No margin of error. I oppose the death penalty.

 

What rantings were they? Are you saying Bush didnt start an illegal and aggressive war? Well, the reason I mention him is that his criminal activity is well documented and without doubt. The Nuremberg trials had Nazis executed for the same crime as aggressive warfare, thus Bush could be executed without a doubt if we apply international law the same was the US likes to think it does upon others.

 

For brain chip uses first will come the commercial profits for convenience such as a brain chip will allow you to make a phone call at any time without touching a device or saying a spoken word (kind of like telepathy), watch movies without a TV screen or download an education while you sleep (schools could become obsolete as well). Public demand & profiteering will make the brain chips an ordinary & essential part of life.

Second will come government involvement. The brain chip education kids receive will be regulated to ensure only nonviolent good citizens are produced & when it does not work the criminals can be fixed by reprogramming instead of executions.

Your analogy with the icebergs reminds me of free trade & the refusal of tariffs.

 

Absolute evidence, should get the death penalty.


Compelling circumstantial evidence should be eligible for life if it was a heinous act, or in the commission of a felony, like armed robbery.


DNA in some cases are very conclusive but we found a hair doesn’t do the guy any good that happened along before the crime was committed, or a killer who just happened to be a guest in your home or a passenger in your vehicle when it comes to fibers etc…

 

Killing a fetus is fine. Killing a grown adult who has an interest in being alive, is a lot more complicated.