Expert says fire for which man was executed was not arson

apdst · Aug 27, 2009

Kandahar said:
Except you didn't just say that more prisoners died in general prison than on death row, which is obvious. You said:

This is patently false.

Obviously, it's not false.

Kandahar · Aug 27, 2009

apdst said:
Obviously, it's not false.

Perhaps you should learn what "more likely" means before you make such ridiculous claims; English must not be your first language. At any rate, whatever point you were attempting to make is completely irrelevant to the thread.

apdst · Aug 27, 2009

Kandahar said:
Perhaps you should learn what "more likely" means before you make such ridiculous claims; English must not be your first language. At any rate, whatever point you were attempting to make is completely irrelevant to the thread.

Perhaps you should cut the cry baby **** and produce more docs and fewer personal attacks.

Kandahar · Aug 27, 2009

apdst said:
Perhaps you should cut the cry baby **** and produce more docs and fewer personal attacks.

More docs for WHAT? For Christ's sake. Learn how to formulate an argument if you expect a response from now on.

Middleground · Aug 27, 2009

RightinNYC said:
This of course assumes that you place no value on the lives that are saved via deterrence resulting from the death penalty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?_r=1

Did you read the article? Even the title says "it's a debate."

Although there might be interesting findings in the "deterrence" aspect, there is nothing concrete supporting your point. Not even close. In fact, I'm left with the same feeling I have had about the death penalty as before.

The studies have been the subject of sharp criticism, much of it from legal scholars who say that the theories of economists do not apply to the violent world of crime and punishment. Critics of the studies say they are based on faulty premises, insufficient data and flawed methodologies.

and

Critics say the larger factors are impossible to disentangle from whatever effects executions may have. They add that the new studies’ conclusions are skewed by data from a few anomalous jurisdictions, notably Texas, and by a failure to distinguish among various kinds of homicide.

There is also a classic economics question lurking in the background, Professor Wolfers said. “Capital punishment is very expensive,” he said, “so if you choose to spend money on capital punishment you are choosing not to spend it somewhere else, like policing.”

A few things are perfectly clear, though:

a) Innocents have died in the hands of the state.
b) Execution is far more expense than a life sentence.

apdst · Aug 27, 2009

Kandahar said:
More docs for WHAT? For Christ's sake. Learn how to formulate an argument if you expect a response from now on.

And, if you going to say that I'm wrong, you need to be just as able to support your claims. Just saying I'm wrong and insulting me, just isn't enough.

RightinNYC · Aug 28, 2009

Kandahar said:
Except you didn't just say that more prisoners died in general prison than on death row, which is obvious. You said:

This is patently false.

I think what he's trying to claim is that the odds of a person being killed while part of the general population are higher than the odds of being executed while on death row. I think he may actually be right on this one, as I've heard it many times before and know that the vast majority of people on death row are there for quite a long time.

Don't know what he thinks it proves, but there you are.

Middleground said:
Did you read the article? Even the title says "it's a debate."

Although there might be interesting findings in the "deterrence" aspect, there is nothing concrete supporting your point. Not even close. In fact, I'm left with the same feeling I have had about the death penalty as before.

There's a debate, but as the article notes, According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. When a dozen independent studies all come to the same conclusion, I consider that pretty strong evidence in favor of something.

a) Innocents have died in the hands of the state.
b) Execution is far more expense than a life sentence.

The people dying in the excess murders that occur due to a lack of deterrence are also innocents. And while you're right that it costs more to execute someone than to sentence them to life in prison, you're essentially putting a dollar value on an innocent person's life.

I understand that there are innocent people who are executed, but we need to put this in perspective. For every innocent person who is executed, there are 100 innocent people serving life sentences who will die in jail and 1000 innocent people serving other terms of incarceration who will never be exonerated.

All that being said, I myself would support some restrictions on the death penalty's use, such as only employing it in cases where there was incontrovertible evidence or an admissible confession, so as to reduce the risk of innocent people being executed.

First Thought · Aug 28, 2009

apdst said:
But, at the same time, there's a big difference between reading a report and looking at the actual fire scene.

There should not be much difference if the report was filled out properly.

Kandahar · Aug 28, 2009

RightinNYC said:
I think what he's trying to claim is that the odds of a person being killed while part of the general population are higher than the odds of being executed while on death row. I think he may actually be right on this one, as I've heard it many times before and know that the vast majority of people on death row are there for quite a long time.

The odds of a death row prisoner dying are 100%, unless they are found to be innocent or somehow escape. The odds of someone in the general prison population dying in prison are considerably less than 100%.

RightinNYC said:
There's a debate, but as the article notes, According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. When a dozen independent studies all come to the same conclusion, I consider that pretty strong evidence in favor of something.

This ignores the opportunity cost of spending all that extra taxpayer money on death row appeals instead of on more police.

RightinNYC said:
All that being said, I myself would support some restrictions on the death penalty's use, such as only employing it in cases where there was incontrovertible evidence or an admissible confession, so as to reduce the risk of innocent people being executed.

What do you mean by "incontrovertible evidence"? Courts already have found defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...and sometimes they're wrong.

RightinNYC · Aug 28, 2009

Kandahar said:
The odds of a death row prisoner dying are 100%, unless they are found to be innocent or somehow escape. The odds of someone in the general prison population dying in prison are considerably less than 100%.

Again, I think the comparison is supposed to be between the odds of being executed on death row and being killed in prison.

There are 3,263 people on death row in the US. There were 37 people executed in 2008, which means that the odds of being executed on death row are [some number calculation/year/person/whatever]. Supposedly, that number is lower than [number of people in prison/number of people killed in prison/year/person/whatever].

That's what I think the originator of that statement was going for.

This ignores the opportunity cost of spending all that extra taxpayer money on death row appeals instead of on more police.

I don't think you can count that cost like that, as you could say the same about the opportunity cost of spending that extra money on catching/incarcerating the additional murderers who otherwise would have been deterred from committing murder. Further, I doubt that a dozen studies all missed that relatively simple variable.

What do you mean by "incontrovertible evidence"? Courts already have found defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...and sometimes they're wrong.

I mean incontrovertible evidence as in 10 eyewitnesses to a guy who walked into a church and shot 5 people before being tackled and arrested. Situations where there is no argument for "you got the wrong guy."

In those cases, I think the probability of getting it wrong is essentially nil.

Kandahar · Aug 28, 2009

RightinNYC said:
Again, I think the comparison is supposed to be between the odds of being executed on death row and being killed in prison.

There are 3,263 people on death row in the US. There were 37 people executed in 2008, which means that the odds of being executed on death row are [some number calculation/year/person/whatever]. Supposedly, that number is lower than [number of people in prison/number of people killed in prison/year/person/whatever].

That's what I think the originator of that statement was going for.

Ah, I see. I too have no idea what he was trying to prove with that statement, but at least it makes a bit more sense now.

RightinNYC said:
I don't think you can count that cost like that, as you could say the same about the opportunity cost of spending that extra money on catching/incarcerating the additional murderers who otherwise would have been deterred from committing murder. Further, I doubt that a dozen studies all missed that relatively simple variable.

Every dollar that law enforcement spends on X is one dollar less they can spend on Y. So let's assume that executing people (and the costs associated with that) prevents murders. This is not necessarily a sufficient argument for going down that path if there are other ways to spend that money that prevent MORE murders. There is a very strong negative correlation between police presence and crime, whereas the studies I've seen suggest a much weaker negative correlation between executions and crime.

RightinNYC said:
I mean incontrovertible evidence as in 10 eyewitnesses to a guy who walked into a church and shot 5 people before being tackled and arrested. Situations where there is no argument for "you got the wrong guy."

In those cases, I think the probability of getting it wrong is essentially nil.

That would call for a standard of proof that is even stricter than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Since the justice system already essentially says that you're being unreasonable if you doubt the convict's guilt, I don't know what legally-enforceable standard of proof could possibly be stricter than that.

RightinNYC · Aug 28, 2009

Kandahar said:
Every dollar that law enforcement spends on X is one dollar less they can spend on Y. So let's assume that executing people (and the costs associated with that) prevents murders. This is not necessarily a sufficient argument for going down that path if there are other ways to spend that money that prevent MORE murders. There is a very strong negative correlation between police presence and crime, whereas the studies I've seen suggest a much weaker negative correlation between executions and crime.

The numbers on this are very unclear, but let's use the 2m v. 1m claim that I've seen thrown around.

You're pointing out that if we had that extra $1m to spend on enforcement, it would result in less crime. I'm arguing that the crime prevented by that extra $1m would be far less than the 3-18 murders that would be deterred by spending the extra $1m on the death penalty.

I think the correlation is actually much stronger the other way around.

That would call for a standard of proof that is even stricter than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Since the justice system already essentially says that you're being unreasonable if you doubt the convict's guilt, I don't know what standard of proof could possibly be stricter than that.

It's possible - just call it "beyond all doubt." It doesn't sound like there's much room there, but I do think there is a clear difference between your average case of "we think he murdered her, all the evidence points to it, fry him" and "we know he murdered her, he was caught in the act by 3 cops, a judge, a priest, and ashton kutcher."

Kandahar · Aug 28, 2009

RightinNYC said:
It's possible - just call it "beyond all doubt." It doesn't sound like there's much room there, but I do think there is a clear difference between your average case of "we think he murdered her, all the evidence points to it, fry him" and "we know he murdered her, he was caught in the act by 3 cops, a judge, a priest, and ashton kutcher."

I don't see how that's any different than "beyond a reasonable doubt." An unreasonable person, by definition, could still doubt the person's guilt in your example.

RightinNYC · Aug 28, 2009

Kandahar said:
I don't see how that's any different than "beyond a reasonable doubt." An unreasonable person, by definition, could still doubt the person's guilt in your example.

Because "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "beyond all doubt."

If you were presented with a murder case where the person being charged had been seen fighting with the victim earlier that night, had said "you'll get yours later," had the murder weapon discovered in his closet, and had no alibi, most people would vote to convict on the grounds that the person almost certainly did it.

I'm envisioning a question posed to the jury (or judge) post-conviction that says "do you believe that there is any possible way that this person could be innocent of this crime?"

I can see a reasonable person voting to convict and yet answering "yes" to that question. It's simply creating an additional tier of proof.

Kandahar · Aug 28, 2009

RightinNYC said:
Because "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "beyond all doubt."

It means that your doubts are unreasonable. Anyone can have unreasonable doubts regardless of the amount of evidence.

RightinNYC said:
If you were presented with a murder case where the person being charged had been seen fighting with the victim earlier that night, had said "you'll get yours later," had the murder weapon discovered in his closet, and had no alibi, most people would vote to convict on the grounds that the person almost certainly did it.

I'm envisioning a question posed to the jury (or judge) post-conviction that says "do you believe that there is any possible way that this person could be innocent of this crime?"

I can see a reasonable person voting to convict and yet answering "yes" to that question. It's simply creating an additional tier of proof.

At the very least, I think you'd need an entirely separate jury for that, for psychological reasons. How many jurors would honestly be willing to send someone to prison for the rest of their lives, and then claim they aren't 100% sure? Not very many.

Middleground · Aug 28, 2009

RightinNYC said:
There's a debate, but as the article notes, According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. When a dozen independent studies all come to the same conclusion, I consider that pretty strong evidence in favor of something.

I don't care if it's one or a hundred studies, there's not nearly enough evidence to make a positive conclusion. Do you not think I could find a dozen studies that come to the conclusion that the death penalty does not work? I am sure they are out there. Besides, all of the ones noted in this article come from research done by economists, and according to many, they are seriously flawed. That is what I take from reading the article in it's entirety.

Now here is something for you to read. Twelve studies done by economists convinces you that the death does deter, but amongst experts, 88.2%--a resounding majoity--think it does not.

The results reveal that most experts do not believe that the death penalty or the carrying out of executions serve as deterrents to murder, nor do they believe that existing empirical research supports the deterrence theory. In fact, the authors report that 88.2% of respondents do not think that the death penalty deters murder—a level of consensus comparable to the agreement among scientists regarding global climate change. At the same time, only 9.2% of surveyed experts indicated that they believed the death penalty results in a significant drop in murder cases (56.6% completely disagreed with that statement, while 32.9% thought the correlation between capital punishment and lower homicide numbers to be “largely inaccurate”; 1.3% were uncertain)

A Clear Scientific Consensus that the Death Penalty does NOT Deter | Human Rights Now - Amnesty International USA Blog

Expert says fire for which man was executed was not arson

apdst

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

apdst

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Middleground

2-Lipped Beaver!

apdst

RightinNYC

Girthless

First Thought

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

RightinNYC

Girthless

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

RightinNYC

Girthless

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

RightinNYC

Girthless

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Middleground

2-Lipped Beaver!