Gary Linnell in today's Daily Telegraph asserts that debate about capital punishment is taboo in Australia, a claim which is rather negated by the fact that his own death penalty advocacy is carried not only in the Tele but on Australia's mostly widely read online news site and will no doubt in due course be republished across the Murdoch print empire.
Nevertheless, he has a point at least to the extent that there has been a longstanding tacit bipartisan major political party consensus that capital punishment should not be adopted as policy in Australia.
Linnell also makes the legitimate point that there is a significant body of recent US research which appears to show, contrary to previous accepted wisdom, that the death penalty may in fact have a significant deterrent effect on homicide rates. However, true to his tabloid roots, Linnell fails to acknowledge even in passing that there is an almost equally extensive body of research disputing the findings of the pro-death penalty studies.
Personally, I would be inclined to support reintroduction of capital punishment for murder if it could be indisputably shown that it has a significant deterrent effect, but only with a number of caveats.
First, it should only apply to a carefully defined subset of "worst case" murders, for example murders involving infliction of torture or prolonged terror before death, or subsequent mutilation of the corpse; and gangland killings, which almost by definition involve a high level of calculation so that the rate may be expected to be particularly responsive to deterrent effects of the mode of punishment.
Secondly, there would need to be some carefully defined higher burden of proof than just the standard "beyond reasonable doubt". Apart from the argument that capital punishment doesn't deter homicide, the most persuasive argument against the death penalty IMO is that killing a convicted person forecloses any possibility of pardon and release if evidence of wrongful conviction subsequently emerges. The Lindy Chamberlain case is the most high profile local instance of wrongful murder conviction, but there are many other examples.
The traditional common law approach essentially forbids telling juries exactly what "beyond reasonable doubt" means, and research shows that outcomes in terms of what percentage level of certainty of guilt may satisfy it (to the extent that such a subjective concept is quantifiable at all) are quite variable and susceptible to a range of influences. It obviously means significantly more than just a 51% probability of guilt, but how much more? I don't have any clear idea of what sort of formulation of higher burden of proof in death penalty cases might be workable, but it should not be beyond human ingenuity to devise a workable one if indeed research ends up showing unequivocally that the death penalty does have a significant deterrent effect.
Thirdly, I would want to know that the deterrent effect of the death penalty was not solely an artefact of the employment of manifestly nasty and painful methods of execution. At least one of the US studies finds:
The empirical estimates suggest that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is driven primarily by executions conducted by electrocution. None of the other four methods of execution are found to have a statistically significant impact on the per-capita incidence of murder.
Although a particularly ruthless form of utilitarianism would hold that it doesn't matter, I would take a lot of convincing that it would be worth the social and psychological price if a significant reduction in the homicide rate could only be achieved not merely by infliction of the death penalty but by calculated state mandating of a particularly painful and/or gruesome death on the perpetrator.
The fact that it has a significant deterrent effect certainly isn't enough for me - it would have to be shown that it was the *only* effective way of significantly lowering homicide rates. After all, if, for instance, someone came up with a genetic test that accurately predicted the likelyhood of an unborn foetus growing up to become a murderer, then almost certainly aborting all such foetuses would significantly reduce the homicide rate, but it would harldy be an acceptable solution.
I also believe that even if the stats showed unambiguously that the death penalty was capable of lowering homicide rates in the U.S., it would mean relatively little for Australia, where homicide rates are always far far below those of the U.S.
(Read "already" for that last "always")
I agree at least with your second point NPOV. Australia's homicide rate is already significantly lower than the US, and I can't immediately think of a way we could ever have any reasonable level of certainty that US phenomena would necessarily transfer to the very different social and legal environment in this country. Nevertheless, at least in theory, my point holds. If (and I accept it's a very large if) it could be proven that the death penalty would have a significant deterrent effect if enacted in Australia, then I would support its introduction.
The funny thing about it as you identify Ken, is the bipartisan rejection. Perhaps I remember incorrectly, but I'm under the impression that there is majority public support for the death penalty.
My main objection is the risk of mistakes in conviction and my second objection is where the line should be drawn. The debate always revolves around horror murders (Sian kingi say) and hardened criminal murderers, but how does one distinguish are the margin between the pretty bad murderer and the fit of jealous rage, say.
As a generaly observation I can't see why a society that allows abortion and periodically imposes conscription should quibble at executing dangerous murderers.
I have no problem of supporting capital punishment when there is clear evidence for the murder. eg. Martin Bryant but not when the evidence is quite murky eg. Lindy Chamberlain.
Supporting capital punishment for deterrence is an evil concept.
It is so because once another murder is committed then the punishment loses all relevance.
Punishment fitting the crime is the only system of justice that is both useful and equitable.
And my argument there is that life in prison is surely a worse punishment that a quick painless death (despite the fact that the latter may be an intuitively more terrifying concept). That's at least partly because I'm quite certain there is no afterlife, as I suppose if believed in eternal suffering for wrongdoers, then at least life in prison would give more time to repent and gain forgiveness for whatever deity was to determine your ultimate fate).
At any rate, the general thrust of history has been away from capital punishment. I doubt that's going to change any time soon.
Linnell also makes the legitimate point that there is a significant body of recent US research which appears to show, contrary to previous accepted wisdom, that the death penalty may in fact have a significant deterrent effect on homicide rates. However, true to his tabloid roots, Linnell fails to acknowledge even in passing that there is an almost equally extensive body of research disputing the findings of the pro-death penalty studies.
I have an extreme case of scepticism as to the ability of these studies to generate meaningful results from the available data. The data is very noisy, and murder is an extremely rare crime with execution is an extremely rare response to murder. Additionally, there are variables such as press coverage which are rarely included (and very difficult to measure) in the regression analysis used in these studies.
Capital punishment is murder by the state legitimised by a law passed by maybe 50 people (or in the NT case by 16 people). The state is the representative of its population and so the population is responsible for state murder. I do not want to be taking someone's else's life unless it is in pure self defense of my own life (and even then I am not sure that I could do it). I certainly do not want to be a murderer by proxy.
NPOV, I guess that is what Gary gilmor thought, but I reckon if that is your theory you'd want to make death an option for the convicted murderer.
PF
But if my specified prerequisites were met, then by refusing to countenance the taking of life by the state you would by definition be choosing to avoid being a proxy killer of murderers and preferring instead to be a proxy killer of their innocent victims. Why would you make that choice?
I'd also respond to pedro that there is a big difference between abortion and capital punishment: even regardless of your opinion as to whether a sub-20-week-old foetus is morally equivalent to a born individual, the former is a decision by the woman carrying the foetus, the latter is a decision of the state.
I can be in no way morally responsible for the decision of woman to undergo an abortion, but I am indirectly morally responsible for the decisions of any government I help elect. On that basis I would certainly refuse to vote for any party that promised to introduce the death penalty.
And whether or not it is legitimate for states to impose conscription has always been a heated debate. Certainly I don't feel Australia has ever had a legitimate case for it: there is no reason to suppose that if the Australian government had not forcibly sent its citizens off to any of the past century's wars that there would be have been even greater death and suffering that eventually occurred.
No PF,
murder is the death of an innocent person.
Capital punishment is merely punishment fitting the crime of murder.
Ken, again, same thing - I'm not morally responsible for the actions of murderers. And further you are supposing that the death penalty is the only way in which murders can be prevented. If, of course, I vote for a government that intends to do nothing at all to keep murder rates low, then I would be partly morally culpable for murders that occur under its watch, but that's clearly not the case.
BTW, FWIW, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/international-polls-and-studies claims that 67% of Australians believe that convicted murders should not face the death penalty.
I'm willing to be of the 33% that believe otherwise, none of them have ever been falsely accused of murder.
Ken I am not reponsible for the garden variety murderer - she or he does not murder in my name but the state does. I cannot condone that. MK - define innocent. Is the murder by one gangland murderer of another gangland murder OK then because the victim is not "innocent"? Generally remember that most murders are committed by those cherubic faced nearest and dearest that one sits down to dinner with each evening. I am not sure we can adequately define a sliding scale of heinousness such that only those at the most heinous end can be murdered themsleves.
NPOV
OTO this Online Opinon article asserts:
One suspects that, as with all research, the answers you get depend on how the question is framed. In any event, although Linnell bases his "argument" in part on a contestable assertion that the Australian public supports the death penalty, my own argument is based solely on utilitarian/consequentialist considerations.
Ken, I was once briefly attracted to utilitarian moral frameworks until I saw they broke down completely under extreme scenarios, and rarely proved to be terribly useful under the sort of complex moral situations that happen every day.
The only hypothetical scenario in which I could imagine supporting the death penalty is:
a) your country has an exceptionally high murder rate
b) there is unambiguous evidence that use of the death penalty can dramatically lowering the murder rate
c) no other similarly effective method of lowering the murder rate can be determined
Australia fails on all three counts. Even if a) and b) were true for the U.S., I don't believe anyone has satisfactorily demonstrated c).
NPOV
The sort of argument I'm suggesting is really a hypothetical rule utilitarian analysis. The objections you raise are certainly applicable to attempts at act utilitarian moral calculus, but much less to rule utilitarian arguments.
murder by definition is killing an innocent person.
It shows a total disregard for human life.
THerefore the only punishment fitting the crime is capital punishment
I'm with Jacques on this. It's easy for me to think of people that I wouldn't have been too sad to see get the the death penalty throughout history, but allowing the government to do it seems to be just asking for trouble down the road. I'm sure, for example, the government would have bent over backwards to change the law for some of the gang rapes that have occurred given public opinion at the time. Similarly, it isn't hard for me to imagine the government going further down the chain by creating a bit hysteria for other things that they don't like either (think e.g,. evil drug dealer sells heroin to school kids who then overdose...."). So personally I'd far rather see the Eichmanns of the world sit in jail all their life than put up with the government having the power of death over others.
Speaking of drug dealers, supposedly Singapore's use of death penalty for drug traffickers has been very effective at keeping down illegal drug traffic, and arguably far more effective than any other possible measure. But are drug traffickers morally culpable for the death and suffering that may occur as a result of individuals using the drugs they transport? Any more so than someone who transports guns or cigarettes or skydiving equipment for a living being morally culpable for the death and suffering that may occur as a result of individuals using such products?
"murder by definition is killing an innocent person."
Innocent of what?
"It shows a total disregard for human life."
No, it shows an at least partial disregard for the life of at least one human at at least a single moment in time.
"THerefore the only punishment fitting the crime is capital punishment"
Well, apart from the shoddiness of your argument, this conclusion presumes that a punishment ought to "fit" a crime. Do parking inspectors come and park in your driveway? Does a rapist get raped? (okay, maybe they do, but not legally).
I can only imagine you are unaware that in these post-old-Testament times, crime and punishment has moved away from equal and opposite reactions. We generally go for deprivation of liberty as a substitute for the no-doubt-more-satisfying barbarity of direct retribution.
Its easy for me to think of people that I wouldnt have been too sad to see get the the death penalty throughout history
I used to think this, but the execution of Saddam Hussein has convinced me that that capital punishment is a cowardly unnecessary act irrespective of the person.
Just out of curiousity, who else here agrees that life inprisonment is a harsher punishment - i.e. it involves more suffering - than capital punishment?
NPOV - how could one possibly judge what was the harsher punishment? I mean being deprived of one's life, no matter how abject it may have been is absolute. And frankly I'd prefer to experience pain because at least it is a life experience rather than the void of not existing at all.
NPOV, I think that if I had a choice, I'd choose life imprisonment over the death penalty. If life imprisonment proved to be worse than what I expect, I should be able to work out a way of killing myself.
Elegant solution Ken!
It's more than a bit icky to think about, but I've always thought non-parolable lifers should be given the option of a painless, self-administered death.
Fair enough. Certainly I was given a choice between spending the rest of my life in pain and suffering and simply ending it now and then, I'd choose the latter, and indeed, were I to commit a murder and be thrown in gaol for it, I would quite possibly attempt to take my own life - it would only be for the sake of my family that I wouldn't (and indeed, I'm prepared to make the argument that the death penalty punishes the loved ones of a convicted criminal more than it does the criminal). Certainly if I had murdered my own family, it's hard to imagine I could have any reason for wanting to remain alive - but I would truly deserve the suffering that the consequent life in gaol would bring. On that basis I would object to voluntary choice of the death penalty, as it would effectively be a means of avoiding punishment.
FDB,
What are you on about.
raping rapists? How does that fir the crime? we are talking about punishment fitting the crime not doing the same thing to a perpetrator.
by the way a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye does not mean pulling out a tooth of someone who has taken a tooth out of you!!
We are talking about a person who wilfully and wantonly murders another human being.
The punishment fitting the crime is the life of the murderer.
ken - good response, although as I understand it, gaols go out of their way to make it difficult for inmates to commit suicide. I wonder what stats there are on suicide rates among servers of life sentences.
"The punishment fitting the crime is the life of the murderer."
Repeatedly saying so doesn't make it so. How does it fit any better than life in prison?
because the person has errr taken the life of an innocent person disregarding any understanding of what the life of human beings mean.
Murder is always the worst of all crimes.
Thus it's befitting to use the worst of all punishments? Okay, there's a species of logic there, but in this case the branch of philosophy I'd be looking to is ethics.
"but the execution of Saddam Hussein"
I don't think Saddam should have got it either (and, for that matter, nor do I think Martin Bryant should). Keeping Saddam alive may well have served some beneficial purpose and killing him served essentially no purpose (are we trying scare people away from become nasty dictators in countries far away from ours?).
Alternatively, given the time and circumstance, I'm still not going to shed any tears for Adolph Eichmann.
"Are drug traffickers morally culpable for the death and suffering that may occur as a result of individuals using the drugs they transport?"
At least one reason that can be used in poorer Asian regions for this is that you have large amounts of people with essentially no education who really can't evaluate what they take personally well (think of what you'd believe if you had grade 2 education and lived in a country village with others like yourself). Lots of people in poor parts of China, for example, think that expensive cigarettes don't kill you. Similarly, you can find Indonesia cigarette packets (or at least you used to be able to) that tell you smoking is good for you (apparently it helps Asthma, according to the packet). As for why rich places like Singapore do -- I think they really do believe you can kill the chicken to scare the monkey (as the Chinese idiom goes), and they obviously have longer memories about what having vast amounts of addicts does to you. I'd love to see a study looking at the extent that they believe the drug transporters are responsible in some of the richer more liberal countries.
While, in the face of deaths on the roads, I cannot mourn the likes of Saddam and Eichmann et al, I have a certain doubt that the death penalty is the ultimate deterrent.
Just off the top of my head, I really think that a far better deterrent for the likes of S&E above would be to have them jailed for the term of their natural life, but put on display and availability as targets for rotten eggs, tomatoes and other abuse for the entertainment of the masses on the weekends.
Far more a deterrent to the likes of Mugabe in Zim and the SLORC junta in Burma I would have thought.
BTW, what do the victims of these think?
I think it's useful to have the whole life-for-life, tooth-for-tooth stuff put in context.
Most of this stuff we've rejected long ago. It appears to condone slavery, and requires the death penalty for, e.g. for attacking or cursing one's parents.
I'm no biblical scholar, but I used to know someone who was, and his interpretation of this was that it was an attempt to limit or eliminate previous practices that were worse. For example, it says that you can buy a slave, but you can only keep him for seven years, and after that he's free. And you can't capture any new slaves. The eye-for-eye thing he interpreted as a limitation rather than a requirement, that you could no longer take a life for an eye.
In any case, for anyone who calls themself a Christian, the eye-for-eye clauses were explicitly revoked:
Having said all this, I find it peculiar that Michael Kalecki pretends not to understand what FDB is talking about.
Enough of this religion stuff, and back to main argument.
Ken, it's reasonable to look at it from a utilitarian perspective. Let's look at what a rational actor might do.
Let's say that there's a range of payoffs for committing a murder. The highest payoff is +1, where you get the maximum benefit and don't get caught. The lowest payoff is -1, where you get caught and get some maximum penalty.
The death penalty/life imprisonment argument is about what penalty gives the most negative payoff. Let's say that the death penalty is -1, and life in prison is -0.9, even though NPOV provides a reasonable argument that it's really the other way around.
How much incentive not to commit murder does that extra bit of penalty provide? Maybe a bit.
But if you're going to approach the problem from this angle, you have to bring in some more utilitarianism.
The biggest factor in determining the utility of the murder is not actually whether the worst outcome results in a payoff off of -0.9 or -1.0, it's the chances of getting caught. Increase the chances of getting caught, and the payoff for murder decreases, and by much more than the difference between -1 and -0.9. NPOV has been alluding to this all along.
The bottom line is this: There are costs to society (in utility terms, not just direct dollar cost) of imposing a death penalty, and there are costs to society of increasing the chances of murderers getting caught. That's the utility question you really need to address, Ken.
Sorry, I left something implied there that I should have stated explicitly:
Assuming that your goal is to reduce the murder rate, which approach has the least (utility) cost?
SJ, a policy that "increase the chanches of murderers getting caught" is certainly one the possible alternatives to the death penalty as a deterrent, and I would tend to agree that such a policy is a) morally preferable and b) more likely to succeed, however surely the ideal policies are those that lead to the decrease in the likelihood of people being in a position where they would genuinely intend to go through with a murder. Certainly there's no obvious reason why the U.S. could not lower its murder rate to that of most other Western nations, with simply a combination of efforts to a) reduce excessive handgun proliferation* and b) improve the lots of the socio-economic groups among which murder rates are highest (i.e. poor, predominantly African-American neighbourhoods). I would doubt it could achieve all that much by simply increasing the level of police, unless there really are substantial parts of the U.S. that are badly under-policed.
* Just the very fact that a handgun can easily be obtained must be surely make a significant difference here, as almost all other weapons presumably put the would-be murderer at higher risk of being caught and/or turned upon by the intended victim.
What would be a suitable punishment for a judge and jury in the event they wrongly send someone to the execution chamber? Surely some type of punishment is warranted as an incentive to get it right.
Yup, mela, to me that's a given - any judge who sentences a man to death, who after his death is found innocent, should be charged with manslaughter and disbarred.
SJ,
Jesus is not revoking the eye for eye he is telling Jews that their tradition has misinterpreted it i.e. He is telling them what it is NOT
Melaleuca,
A very simple way to ensure no-one gets sent to the chamber is to ensure only people where the evidence is incontrovertible gets thus sentenced.
Where there is any doubt they go to prison, mind you that was said at 5
Except no evidence is "incontrovertible". Even crystal clear film footage of someone committing a murder is not immune to the possibility of being forged. Juries are responsible simply for determining guilt "beyond reasonable doubt". If there is reasonable doubt, the defendent goes free. If not, a suitable punishment is determined. Adding some third layer - "beyond even barely reasonable doubt" - seems pointless, potentially dangerous, and unnecessarily complicated.
No evidence is incontrovertible.
Ever heard of eyewitnesses to a murder.
Don't you believe Martin Bryant killed those people or was that not beyond reasonable doubt?
Eyewitnesses are frequently highly unreliable. I'm not even sure if courts are allowed to hand down a guilty plea if the only evidence evailable is eyewitness testimony.
And sure, I'd accept that Martin Bryant's guilt is beyond reasonable doubt.
But it's still conceivable that at some point in the future it's determined that he was, for instance, brainwashed into carrying out the homocides, and had no level of conscious control over his actions.
At any rate, it seems like you're now suggesting that cases like Martin Bryants that are beyond reasonable doubt should be suitable for death penalty sentences, but other cases that are not entirely beyond reasonable doubt should be suitable for jail sentences. In otherwords, you're significantly lowering the standard of evidence required to convict someone.
NPOV I am saying exactly what I said in 5.
I have never advocated the death sentence unless the evidence is incontrovertible which is usually the case when eyewitnesses are around for example
Well ok, name me one case where the evidence is incontrovertible. I've already given you an example whereby the evidence of Martin Bryant's guilt is not incontrovertible. Beyond reasonable doubt sure, but not incontrovertible.
sorry if you think Martin Bryant is not incontrovertible then the word loses its meaning
Not at all - mathematics and logic are full of incontrovertible proofs.
And at any rate, unless you think you can prove that my hypothesis is physically impossible, it remains as an example whereby the verdict of 1st degree murder is controvertible. It's just that given the complete lack of evidence to support it, it's far too unlikely to qualify as a case of "reasonable doubt".
BTW, do any law historians here know of any classic examples of cases where the evidence was clearly "beyond reasonable doubt" at the time of the trial, but where later evidence surfaced to demonstrate the (possible) innocence of the convicted?
The work of the Innocence Project in the US shows just how fallible the justice system is, even in advanced liberal democracies:
"There have been 220 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.
The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 32 states; since 2000, there have been 156 exonerations.
17 of the 220 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.
The average length of time served by exonerees is 12 years. The total number of years served is approximately 2,724.
The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 26."
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/351.php
No doubt these exonerations represent only a small fraction of all wrongful convictions.
Talk about incontrovertible evidence of guilt is meaningless since plain, fallible folk like you and I must judge what is incontrovertible.
Oh, and before some naive commenter pipes up with the suggestion that modern forensics produce evidence that is "infallible" or "incontrovertible:
"The Detroit Police Departments crime lab was closed this week after officials revealed that serious testing errors in the lab could have sent innocent people to prison. The lab will undergo a more thorough review before it can be reopened."
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
I think it makes more sense for boffins in white coats to poke and prod (figuratively speaking) convicted killers to find out as much as we can about them. Hopefully we could use the information gleaned to develop strategies that prevent the production of murderers in the first place.
The only condition on which I would endorse the death penalty is that, post-trial, the State could elect to prosecute for a death sentence, which would be before a new jury who would have to be convinced that it was beyond all reasonable doubt that the person was guilty and deserving of death, as opposed to merely life.
This would also take care of the 'where do we draw the line' argument.
But even with this, and my visceral reactions to many crimes aside, I don't know if I would be comfortable with it.
On the rule-utilitarian side (I think), I suspect it costs more to sustain a lifer for 20-40 years than it does to have such a second 'mini-trial' and kill them.
Patrick Says:
You're thinking just of dollar cost. That's not what utilitarianism is about. For example, it would cost less in dollars to let old people starve to death rather than pay them a pension. Nevertheless, we choose to pay pensions. Utility is hard to define and to measure, but it's not anything like what you're thinking of.
Now for an anecdote. The thing that completely changed my mind about the death penalty occurred on a flight between Melbourne and Sydney, in 1996 or 1997. The only two magazines left by the time the stewardess got to me were some lame fashion rag and a copy of the Western Australian Law Society journal. I picked the journal.
There was a story in it about a capital case in South Africa. Some guy was murdered in his house, and a number of witnesses saw the defendant enter the deceased's house shortly before the murder. The defendant refused to plead (i.e. did not claim to be guilty or not guilty), did not testify at his trial, and called no witnesses.
The defendant was found guilty and the death sentence was pronounced. The judge asked for final words from the defendant, at which point he said something like "I didn't do it, I was in jail when it happened".
The judge then undertook his own investigation with the cooperation of the police, and established that the defendant had been in custody for drunk and disorderly conduct at the time of the murder, and the defendant could not possibly have been guilty.
There was no legal way for the judge to overturn his own verdict, but to his credit he successfully petitioned for a pardon.
The thing is, it would have been much easier for the judge and police who helped him to simply ignore the unfairness, and if there had been any kind of political pressure on them, they probably would have.
Bottom line: trials don't conform to the shit you see on TV.
Tell us Ken, would you be personally willing to pull the lever that caused someone else's death?
With the greatest respect incontrovertible is not and has never been beyond reasonable doubt.
Most people, though I note at least one, would regard the Bryant case as incontrovertible. We had eyewitnesses seeing him murder people.
Indirect evidence is not incontrovertible.
You use the death penalty when there is NO doubt.
you cannot possibly use it if there is.
"You use the death penalty when there is NO doubt.
you cannot possibly use it if there is."
Except, say, all those times when you can and do. Even with a guilty plea there can be doubt. Then there's doubt about things other than guilt - mitigating factors etc. If you were to be rigorous and consistent in applying your "only when there's NO doubt" clause, you'd find yourself arguing for a theoretical death penalty which will NEVER be carried out. Fine by me, but I'm happier with the shortcut.
post modernists might have trouble both those people in the real world wouldn't.
Alright Homer, now what are you talking about?
Alright Homer, tell us what conditions must exist for there to be NO DOUBT.
Just an aside on Bryant...
Firstly, he has a moderate intellectual disability with a mental age around 10 years old. It is not entirely clear he understood what death actually meant, although he probably did. It should also be noted that he was a ward of the court at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, officially a child under protection of the state. Every one of his guns was registered and individually approved by a magistrate, despite a history of violence.
Secondly, the particular crime of mass killing is one particularly unsuited to the death penalty (not that I think ANYTHING is suited to the death penalty). Amok arose in Malaysia. Once life becomes unlivable you take your weapon and kill until you are cut down, regaining you honor in the process. The British stopped it within a few years by the judicious use of lunatic asylums. No honor in being declared insane, you see. Easiest way to avoid further amok? Keep them alive and make the humiliation public. Now, if someone can just explain that to the US...
It's also an interesting phenomenon that while execution is known to create martyrs, jail almost never does.
I'm willing to bet that Saddam is still a hero to many, and will be for some time. If he had been thrown in jail cell and "left to rot" as it were, it seems more likely that previous supporters would soon come to see him as little more than a pathetic failure (even if they never acknowledge his actual status as a brutal tyrant with minimal respect for human rights).
by gingo you cn find some extraordinary excuses to excuse people murdering people.
Mel,
Seeing someone murder is pretty clear cut
Try googling "unreliability of eyewitness", Michael.
If anything circumstantial evidence is more reliable.
Homer says:
"Seeing someone murder is pretty clear cut"
No it isn't. In fact incorrect eyewitness accounts are the leading cause of wrongful convictions.
"Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing."
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
Now stop making absurd and clearly false claims Mr Paxton.
Mel,
Sorry old son but that isn't eyewitnesses.
You cannot be an eyewitness in poor lighting for example.
Perhaps you need to read through the link.
I failed to see any clearcut evidence provided in it to convict a person.
"You cannot be an eyewitness in poor lighting"
I take it there's not much of troll moderation policy at Club Troppo then...
I suspect we are talking at cross purposes here.
Lee Harvey Oswald would NOT have been sentenced to death as evidence was circumstantial.
Jack Ruby would have.
Martin Bryant would have whereas Lindy Chamberlain would not have.
Despite the fact than in modern court cases, circumstantial evidence is often evaluated at accuracy rates of over 90%, whereas there's plenty of studies showing eyewitness evidence being as little as 50% reliable?
Homer says:
"You cannot be an eyewitness in poor lighting for example."
It isn't only the lighting that's none too bright on this thread :)
AS per my link, cross race eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable irrespective of other factors.
Also, some eyewitnesses simply lie for a variety of reasons. In Homer-land a lying jailhouse snitch would be sufficient to send a man to the gas chamber simply on the basis of his word.
Ken,
It is rather easy for a lawyer to show a eyewitness is lying. Just ask any practising barrister.
Mel,
I have given two examples of eyewitness evidence which you have completely ignored.
I do believe we actually agree on when people should not be given capital punishment unless you believe eyewitnesses to the Oswald murder was unreliable!
If the defendant has not representation then capital punishment would or should be automatically negated.
WTF? Are you serious?
You don't get it. Nobody is claiming that all eyewitness testimony is wrong. Just that a significant minority is.
Ken,
as I said talk to any competent barrister.
I am not claiming a significant minority for all cases.
You don't get it inded you do not even understand the argument that was made way back at no. 5
Homer, here is a little secret; barristers (competent or not) are not magic. While they may be a good judge of a persons honesty, they cannot 100% of the time a) be correct and b) prove that a person is lying in a court of law.
In the real world, innocent people have spent time of death row having been convicted, in part, because of the word of a witness who lied.
Ken,
go talk to a barrister who practices.
These days of forensics is entirely different to yesteryear.
Even in eyewitness evidence it has to be verified by forensic evidence.
I still note you do not quibble with my examples of eyewitness defence which I might say are cases where there is NO doubt not cases of beyond reasonable doubt.
Homer, you're doing a running retreat here. First, eyewitness evidence is good enough. Then the light needs to be good for it to count. After that, the defence needs to have a good lawyer. Now it needs to be backed up with forensic evidence.
I guess what you're trying to say is that seeing someone murder isn't that clear cut.
I'm not going to talk to a barrister, because I feel that the burden of proof lies with the person making the ludicrous statement which was offered with no evidence. And even if you found a barrister who thought that he was an infallible lie detector, all what you would have demonstrated was that barrister's can be deluded.
Ken,
Sorry but I am not going to continue this.
From no.5 I have been consistent.
Others have brought in what they thought was 'eyewitness accounts.
you still won't accept either of the two cases I have put forward as examples of what I am talking about.
If you actually bother to read those aaid cases that Mel brought up have a guess from what age they were?
Times have changed and for the better
In medieval times Homer could have expected the death penalty for crimes against both logic and the King's English. At the very least he would've got the rack ;)