IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags death penalty , death penalty issues

Reply
Old 30th November 2022, 12:18 PM   #441
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,304
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
It's a somewhat tangental argument, but court costs and time are not extreme. It's the lawyers, experts etc who jack them both into oblivion, and force people to forfeit their rights because they can't afford to do otherwise. A wholesale streamlining of the process is long overdue.
.....
What do you mean by "streamlining?" The system is already heavily "streamlined" in favor of the prosecution. Many accused criminals don't even go to trial. The take a deal "or else." The appeals process starts with the premise that the accused has been found guilty, and it's up to him to prove otherwise. How would "streamlining" benefit somebody who has been falsely accused or overcharged or whose rights have been violated?

Last edited by Bob001; 30th November 2022 at 12:21 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2022, 01:01 PM   #442
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 8,160
Well hell, if we're going to keep the death penalty, let's see if we can make it pay for itself.

As we know, DP advocates love to cry out their old cliché, "and I'd th'ow the switch m'self!" I think they are, most of them, perfectly sincere about that.

So let's have a lottery for the privilege of executing criminals. Not just by selling cheap scratch-offs, but charging several thou per ticket. Winners could (and would! and how!) be media stars, on talk radio & Facebook & Twitter & tv & Mar a Lago. Heck, they might even get laid.

The grand payoff would come when they discover that they have been taken to meet the condemned man alone and barehanded in some quiet place, and that they must wreak justice then and there, or forfeit everything.

Provided the condemned man agrees.
__________________
If you would learn a man's character, give him authority.

If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.

Last edited by sackett; 30th November 2022 at 01:04 PM. Reason: Trying to be very clear.
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2022, 01:48 PM   #443
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,945
About one in nine death row inmates

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What do you mean by "streamlining?" The system is already heavily "streamlined" in favor of the prosecution. Many accused criminals don't even go to trial. The take a deal "or else." The appeals process starts with the premise that the accused has been found guilty, and it's up to him to prove otherwise. How would "streamlining" benefit somebody who has been falsely accused or overcharged or whose rights have been violated?
Indeed AEDPA is a major impediment to those who have been wrongfully convicted, and citations may be found upthread.

Regarding the question of winning the lottery, since 1973, for every eight death row inmates executed, one is released from prison. Individual states vary. "For every three people executed in Florida, one innocent person on Death Row has been exonerated and released."
EDT
See comment #207 for a couple of good links that discuss AEDPA.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 30th November 2022 at 02:09 PM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2022, 02:02 PM   #444
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,304
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Indeed AEDPA is a major impediment to those who have been wrongfully convicted, and citations may be found upthread.
....
Okay, I'm convinced.
https://www.criminallegalnews.org/ne...incarceration/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2022, 02:31 PM   #445
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 5,314
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What do you mean by "streamlining?" The system is already heavily "streamlined" in favor of the prosecution. Many accused criminals don't even go to trial. The take a deal "or else." The appeals process starts with the premise that the accused has been found guilty, and it's up to him to prove otherwise. How would "streamlining" benefit somebody who has been falsely accused or overcharged or whose rights have been violated?
It's odd. There is merit to streamlining the process as what forces a lot of pleas is how expensive and time consuming it is to actually litigate a case. However, it needs to be accompanied by a more restorative outlook on the remedial consequences and removing a lot of the adversarial aspects of the system. Just removing safeguards for the accused without addressing the picture as a whole is regressive policy masquerading as efficiency.
Suddenly is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2022, 07:52 PM   #446
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 79,916
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Not addressed to me, but how about public tax savings in the upkeep of a citizen who has basically no rights and is treated like an unloved pet? There is a school of thought that thinks that is torture.
The answer to that is that incarcerated criminals are entitled to the same basic human rights as everyone else and should never be treated like an unloved pet or subject to torture.
__________________
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2022, 10:35 PM   #447
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section
Posts: 21,170
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Indeed AEDPA is a major impediment to those who have been wrongfully convicted, and citations may be found upthread.

Regarding the question of winning the lottery, since 1973, for every eight death row inmates executed, one is released from prison. Individual states vary. "For every three people executed in Florida, one innocent person on Death Row has been exonerated and released."
EDT
See comment #207 for a couple of good links that discuss AEDPA.
That 1 in 9 number is pretty sensationalistic. The article flubs it, calling it 1 in 8, which you rightly corrected, but most sources (who cite their work) peg it as more like 1 in 25. Still frighteningly high, but an organization dedicated to the matter shouldn't be quite that far off the mark if it wants to be considered credible or authoritative?

https://www.newsweek.com/one-25-exec...-claims-248889
__________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2022, 07:49 AM   #448
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,945
a double shot of sobering numbers

I do not take the 1 in 9 number as an error estimate. I usually refer back to Samuel Gross's work in this area, which suggests a 4% error value in death penalty cases. There is also an interview with Professor Gross (U. Michigan law) here. "Remember, the people who were exonerated in 2016 were not convicted in 2016. The convictions occurred on an average about 8 and a half to 9 years earlier." This is a sobering number in a different way.

He continued, "This [the existence of wrongful convictions?] is a serious problem. Maybe 2% of convicted criminal defendants are innocent, maybe it’s 4% or 3% or criminal convictions – we don’t know – but it’s a lot of people. Even if it’s 1%, that’s tens of thousands of innocent defendants convicted each year across the country. The exonerations that we know about are only a small proportion of the wrongful convictions that occur."
EDT
While we are on the subject of "sensationalistic" and just plain wrong numbers, it is worth recalling that Scalia quoted a NYT Op Ed indicating that the rate was 0.027%. As stated in the PNAS article linked above, "In fact, the claim is silly. Scalia’s ratio is derived by taking the number of known exonerations at the time, which were limited almost entirely to a small subset of murder and rape cases, using it as a measure of all false convictions (known and unknown), and dividing it by the number of all felony convictions for all crimes, from drug possession and burglary to car theft and income tax evasion." See this link for more discussion.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 1st December 2022 at 08:04 AM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2023, 08:17 AM   #449
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,945
De Santis and the requirement for unanimous juries

""If just one juror vetoes it, then you end up not getting the sentence," DeSantis said during remarks delivered at the Florida Sheriffs Association Conference. "Maybe eight out of 12 have to agree, or something, but we can't be in a situation where one person can just derail this."" [url="https://reason.com/2023/01/24/ron-desantis-says-florida-shouldnt-require-unanimous-juries-in-death-penalty-cases/?utm_medium=email"]. At Reason Eric Bohm wrote, "But strong emotions are not the best guides for policy making—and that's especially true in situations where the stakes are quite literally life and death. As Reason's CJ Ciaramella noted in 2020, Florida has had more exonerations of death row inmates than any other state in the country: roughly one for every three executions carried out. That ought to inspire more humility, not aggressiveness, in deciding when the state should be allowed to kill."

The Guardian wrote, "Referring to Parkland, DeSantis said, wrongly: “And so I think you had an 11 to one decision, where the 11 said he should get capital punishment. One said no. And we don’t know what went into that. But I do think there are people who get on these juries who never intend to administer capital punishment.”" (highlighting mine). From what I have read the vote was 9 to 3 in favor of the death penalty for Mr. Cruz.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 25th January 2023 at 08:20 AM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2023, 08:40 AM   #450
ahhell
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 5,058
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
""If just one juror vetoes it, then you end up not getting the sentence," DeSantis said during remarks delivered at the Florida Sheriffs Association Conference. "Maybe eight out of 12 have to agree, or something, but we can't be in a situation where one person can just derail this."" [url="https://reason.com/2023/01/24/ron-desantis-says-florida-shouldnt-require-unanimous-juries-in-death-penalty-cases/?utm_medium=email"]. At Reason Eric Bohm wrote, "But strong emotions are not the best guides for policy making—and that's especially true in situations where the stakes are quite literally life and death. As Reason's CJ Ciaramella noted in 2020, Florida has had more exonerations of death row inmates than any other state in the country: roughly one for every three executions carried out. That ought to inspire more humility, not aggressiveness, in deciding when the state should be allowed to kill."

The Guardian wrote, "Referring to Parkland, DeSantis said, wrongly: “And so I think you had an 11 to one decision, where the 11 said he should get capital punishment. One said no. And we don’t know what went into that. But I do think there are people who get on these juries who never intend to administer capital punishment.”" (highlighting mine). From what I have read the vote was 9 to 3 in favor of the death penalty for Mr. Cruz.
There's a point there when it comes to lesser crimes and sentences. I spent a week on a jury once becasue 1 of 12 people wouldn't change their mind. The first vote was 10-2, the seconde was 11-1. It was a relatively petty crime.

A. We should not use the Death Penalty.
B. If we continue to, we should the unanimous requirement for murder convictions.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2023, 01:54 PM   #451
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,471
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
There's a point there when it comes to lesser crimes and sentences. I spent a week on a jury once becasue 1 of 12 people wouldn't change their mind. The first vote was 10-2, the seconde was 11-1. It was a relatively petty crime.

A. We should not use the Death Penalty.
B. If we continue to, we should the unanimous requirement for murder convictions.

I agree with A.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2023, 08:24 PM   #452
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,945
penalty phase

I think that DeSantis was just concerned about the penalty phase of the trial. I still don't much care for his use of alternative facts.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:37 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.