Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, that could also apply to cases I've even witnessed. What's your point?
Properly Enforcing the Death Penalty
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
Derf
Well-known member
You've set up an impossible standard, one you've just admitted you can't follow. And because you can't know which are 100% proven and which aren't, Your only option is to do away with the death penalty in its entirety. Since the OP is about properly enforcing something you don't support at all, you have no business commenting on this thread--by your own admission.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Just because I haven't personally witnessed a case being proven beyond doubt doesn't equate to it not having happened. If that was your 'point' then it wasn't much of one. I've already given two cases where convicted people were proven innocent down the line. So it's not an 'impossible standard' and get over yourself.
Derf
Well-known member
Um...you use examples where cases were not proven 100% to say the standard of 100% is possible, and you complain about me not having much of a point?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I've used examples where an initial conviction was absolutely proven to be wrong. You do realize that absolute innocence can be proven as well as guilt, right? I used these examples as there are some who advocate that a conviction of guilt should lead to a swift execution afterwards, no appeals processes, nothing. Now, just to make this abundantly clear in case it's still tripping you or anyone else up. I am not against the process we have now where convictions are arrived at through stringent means and guilt is determined beyond reasonable doubt. What I'm contending is that executions only take place where guilt is incontrovertible and there's no doubt whatsoever. That way, there's no risk of putting an innocent person to death and that's good right? For the most part the correct decisions are made in terms of guilt/innocence but not always.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
See the above to Derf. I'm sure you'll find some way of twisting it to mean something I don't etc.
Because it would let too many guilty walk free.
Which deters other criminals from committing crime. Fewer criminals committing fewer crimes means fewer executions overall, which means that a judge is less likely to make a mistake, and less likely to put an innocent person to death, or to let a guilty man go free.
But with your position, there's no deterrent, only a place for criminals to learn from one another, and to learn to resent the system, the government, and it puts unnecessary strain on the rest of the population in order to provide for the criminals.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Why would it given that the yardstick for execution is 100% proof of guilt, not conviction itself. I've explained this multiple times now from my position. The rest is just supposition and would result in a percentage of innocent people being wrongfully executed.
The problem is that there are too many cases to begin with, because the system is incapable of dealing with crime, and since it is incapable of dealing with crime, the amount of crime keeps going up. It's a horrible feedback loop that cannot be solved by your position.
And the fact that there are so many cases is why there are so many cases where the judge gets it wrong.
Again, the only way you get to the point of having the minimal number of bad judgements (for both innocents being wrongly convicted, and criminals being wrongly set free), is to have a system that does not show pity or mercy to the convicted. Our current system is not the best in the world. One look at the number of crimes committed every year demonstrates that clearly. Lawyers say we have the best system not because it's a good and just system, but because we have the highest paid lawyers in the world. It's "the best" because it's so lucrative.
It's a clear conflict of interest. The "just-a-system" of America is a system that lines the pockets of lawyers and the government while shaking the civilian upside down to get every last cent out of his pockets.
The system I promote is designed to eliminate itself. It never will, because until Christ returns, there will always be criminals, but it doesn't try to perpetuate itself by inherently allowing for some crime, even provoking it in some cases.
Because 100% isn't possible most of the time.
But two or three witnesses IS possible 100% of the time.
No, it's not.
ALL systems, YOURS INCLUDED, result in a percentage of innocent people being wrongly executed.
The difference between my position and yours isn't whether some innocents will be killed or some guilty will be set free.
It's the ratio of HOW MANY will be, compared to how many will be correct judgements.
Your position seeks to eliminate innocent deaths, at the expense of letting many guilty go without proper punishment, and the result is a crime epidemic that just keeps getting bigger.
My position seeks to MINIMIZE, not eliminate (because it's impossible to do so, simply because humans, fallible beings, are part of the system), BOTH the number of innocents wrongly put to death, AND the number of guilty who go free. The result is that there are few crimes committed, and the criminals who do commit crimes are swiftly caught, evidence is brought to bear (Reasonable evidence from two or three witnesses, whether from
eyewitnesses, physical, or strong circumstantial evidence, shall suffice for conviction, but more evidence is better.), and the judge passes a sentence upon them, and they are punished within 24 hours of their conviction (with some exceptions related to theft related crimes). And then, assuming he was not executed for his crime, the person is let go. He isn't incarcerated for longer than it takes to determine guilt or innocence. He isn't locked up like an animal. He's punished like the human being he is, and then he returns to society, hopefully a changed man. No prisons needed. No need for "100% proof of guilt."
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
If you have a system that doesn't allow any sort of appeals process upon conviction and one whereby a lone judge is the one to make a decision then the amount of wrongful decisions would increase, not decrease and that's in terms of both the innocent being convicted and the guilty allowed to go free. There's no such thing as a perfect system but for the most part it gets it right and yours would be chaos ran amok. As before, people are not convicted on a whim and certainly not at the the whim of one individual. If there's sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt then it's the evidence that speaks and that's how it should be. Stringently ascertained at that.
My system wouldn't have any wrongful executions because the benchmark for execution would be unequivocal guilt. No musing or contemplating on behalf of a sole judge or anything. The notion that this comes at the expense of guilty people going free is a complete strawman as explained in detail in a previous response to you.
Derf
Well-known member
Reasonable doubt is not no doubt at all. You say you are ok with our current system, but our current system does not require 100%. That would be beyond a shadow of doubt. So which is it for you? Reasonable doubt (<100%) or beyond a shadow of doubt (100%)?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I've already explained this to you and responses to others in what were forthright and clear terms. What's tripping you up? I'm well aware that to secure a conviction doesn't require absolute proof of guilt but proof beyond reasonable doubt and I'm not talking about changing that. I'm talking about only enacting an execution when 100% proof of guilt has been established. How can this be any more clear?
Derf
Well-known member
When I was on a jury once, the judge carefully instructed us on the "beyond reasonable doubt" criterion. He was adamant that we not consider it to be "no doubt whatsoever", because there is always some doubt. If there is some doubt, then 100% proof of guilt cannot be established. If it cannot be established, ever, then your standard for death penalty is unrealistic, and contradictory with your other assertion that you are ok with the system we have now, which does NOT provide 100% proof of guilt.
You could be more clear by not holding to two contradictory positions. But perhaps that doesn't bother you as much as it does me.
The judge is allowed to appeal his case to judges that are above him. If he doesn't think he's competent enough, or if the case he presides over exceeds his jurisdiction, he can appeal his case to a higher judge.
Why do you think a judge cannot confer with his peers, ask for wisdom from them? But yes, one point of accountability, so that if he makes a mistake, he can be held accountable.
No. It wouldn't. You're forgetting the deterrent of the death penalty, not to mention corporal punishment and restitution, which would lower the number of crimes being committed, which results in fewer chances for judges to make mistakes. Arthur, I'm not talking decreasing the crime rate by a few percentage points. I'm talking about nearly zero crime occurring overall, compared to the many millions of crimes committed every day with our current system.
We agree. Why do you keep repeating this?
No, it doesn't, and no, it wouldn't.
Arthur, if the system we have today got things right "for the most part," then we shouldn't see the crime epidemic we see. The quality of a criminal justice system can be measured by how little crime there is. We have literally thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, of crimes being committed every day. It's slow, inefficient, and does not punish people sufficiently. It even ignores many petty crimes, simply because law enforcement can't keep up with how much crime there is. And worse, people profit off of the crimes that are committed. It's no longer a justice system, now it's just a system.
No, it usually takes many months of deliberation, and then the punishment is not carried out perhaps for years. How can it be, when the punishment is time out for adults.
It's far too slow to effectively mete out justice to criminals, and that inefficiency, in addition to other things, is what has led to the crime rate being so high.
The current system disallows evidence that is "obtained illegally" that could potentially be the deciding factor in a case, and countless numbers of criminals have gotten off on that technicality alone.
Evidence is evidence. If it shows that someone committed a crime, you can't "disallow" it simply because the suspect doesn't like how it was obtained.
Obviously, there's a procedure to be followed, and if that procedure is violated, then it's a problem. But once evidence has been uncovered, simply disallowing it because of the violation of procedure only helps the criminal get away with his crime.
Yes, it would. And if you think it wouldn't, then you clearly don't understand what "fallible human" means.
I would agree that wrongful executions would be few and far in between. But they would happen, simply because humans are fallible and make mistakes, not to mention that humanity is basically evil.
You keep changing the term you use, and it's extremely confusing. What does "unequivocal guilt" even mean?
Do you think that contemplating evidence is a bad thing?
Why do you think that judges would be musing in cases where there's a potential for an innocent life to be wrongly taken?
What do you think that the judge's job is? Just a place to mess around? No, his job is to judge, and to judge rightly. He will have tools at his disposal to rightly determine who is guilty and who is not. And he isn't alone, he has peers he can confer with, judges who, like him, are TRAINED how to judge, to get their feedback about a case.
It's not a straw man.
The system we have now does it. It lets guilty people go free, relatively speaking, in the interest of not punishing the innocent.
The guilty are not punished, simply locked up, while the innocent are punished by providing for them.
How many times have you seen police camera videos where the police officers are chasing or trying to talk to a suspect, and you hear them say "we just wanna talk, you're not in trouble or anything, you're not going to jail," even though he's wanted for some small crime? I see it all to often. (Perhaps I watch too many cop camera videos!)
How many times are criminals released on bail, pending a later court date? How many of those never show up?
You think that the system we have now doesn't come at the expense of the guilty going free?
Get real.
Derf
Well-known member
This is an important point, as a jury can't be legally held accountable for a poor judgment. They all disappear back into civilian life the same, whether they judged righteously or not, only to appear on another jury with no questions allowed about prior jury decisions.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I was talking about people convicted being allowed to appeal the decision, not the judge.
A judge most certainly should have access to counsel and expert assistance where it comes to deciphering the evidence, logistics etc. But if it comes down to his ruling alone where it comes to accountability then mistakes are inevitable. He may be conscientious, intelligent and of sound moral character but errors will still happen and not necessarily his fault. His advisors may have made mistakes, things misconstrued and the judge may make a decision in good faith that he believes is correct so what when it's actually in error? Charge him with a crime?
There's more to suggest that the DP isn't much of a deterrent at all. The national research council found that an overwhelming majority of criminologists found it to be ineffective and that states that did't have it also had lower crime rates.
It does get it right for the most part at least in terms of convictions. It has its flaws absolutely and it could certainly do with plenty of improvements but no system is going to eradicate crime. Thousands of crimes will be committed each day from minor/petty to the far more serious and the DP isn't going to alter that.
Serious cases take time and frankly, so they should unless it's an open and shut case. Not to say that I don't disagree that it could be speeded up a bit.
Procedures do have to be followed but I do get your point that evidence should count first and foremost regardless of how obtained and I agree with that.
The point is that the evidence would prove either guilt/innocence so human fallibility would be removed from the equation. It would be corroborated where there would be no room for doubt whatsoever. That's not going to happen in all cases obviously or even most but it has happened as noted in a couple of high profile cases I mentioned earlier.
Well, might change the terms but they all mean the same. Unequivocal means leaving no doubt, unambiguous.
Where it comes to the judge and evidence/accountability then addressed earlier in my response.
There are most assuredly shortcomings in our respective systems but to claim that they let the guilty go free in the interest of not punishing the innocent is an exaggeration in want of support. There are too many technicalities and we've had a range of cases recently over here that have come to prominence that highlight several flaws in the system. Offenders being allowed out on probation and improperly monitored and who shouldn't have been let out at all to start with etc. A chief in the Metropolitan police who abused women for twenty years until finally brought to account etc. There's a lot of issues and no denying it.
Frankly, though, prison is hardly a picnic and I sure would';t want to get locked up by any stretch so it's hardly a lack of punishment. Don't watch cop shows to be honest and Brooklyn nine nine doesn't count...
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
The judge was right to instruct you in such a manner as you're not in a position to determine absolute guilt. That's not your or any other juror's job unless it's an absolutely open and shut case in which case a jury is pretty superfluous anyway. There are cases where guilt/innocence has been established beyond a shadow of doubt and that should be the yardstick, certainly in cases of the DP being enacted. Unequivocal guilt. It's not possible to establish that in all cases and nobody is arguing that it is. There's no contradiction.
As I've said before: Allowing a convicted criminal to appeal his case undermines the authority given to the judge, and adds unnecessary delay to resolving a case.
Then what's the problem?
Mistakes are inevitable regardless of the system, Arthur, including yours, so this isn't an argument at all, let alone against my position. ANY system that contains as part of the systeml, fallible humans, will inevitably result in those humans making mistakes. Adding MORE humans to solve the problem will only result in MORE mistakes being made than having FEWER humans involved.
And besides, being able to confer with one's peers already resolves your perceived problem, because it adds more people to the discussion, while still retaining the benefits of having a single point of accountability, which often rightly motivates, and makes it easier to bring justice if a wrong judgement has been made.
And so adding more people solves the problem? Is that your point? Because having peers to compare notes with is already adding plenty of people.
So why put accountability on them? You've just defeated your entire argument of having multiple points of accountability.
And so more people is supposed to prevent that?
But that's not what the system I promote is based on. (In other words, this is a straw man.)
It's not based on "good faith" decisions.
It's based on "two or three witnesses."
It's based on "you eye shall not pity, life shall be for life, hand for hand, foot for foot, eye for eye, tooth for tooth."
It's based on "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
It's based on "love your neighbor as yourself."
Based on "two or thee witnesses," which God Himself guarantees "shall establish a matter."
It's not "I believe this is what happened for no reason whatsoever, therefore whatever I say goes."
It's "I believe this is what happened, based on the testimony of these multiple witnesses (evidence, testimony, logic, reason, whatever the case may be), and so the punishment according to the law is [(restitution/corporal punishment/execution/any combination of these, depending on the case)]."
Yes. Judges can be tried for judicial negligence.
Sure there is.
So you're calling God a liar?
Because God does in fact promise that the death penalty is a reliable deterrent:
"So you shall put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously." Deut. 17:12-13
"So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you." Deut. 13:11
We agree, Arthur, the death penalty as executed through American courts is not much of a deterrent. Wise King Solomon 2,900 years ago explained why this is so:
Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Eccl. 8:11
When a murderer is executed, three appeals and 12 years after his crime, society has largely forgotten about him. His death has almost no deterrent effect on crime. Further, a life sentence cannot be executed speedily. The swift death penalty deters crime and aids evangelism. Thus Christians, in obedience to God, should support the death penalty.
No, it doesn't.
It's a completely broken system, Arthur.
You can't improve a completely broken system to be just.
Duh, Arthur. Thanks for catching up to the rest of us.
We're well aware of that fact.
That's why the goal should not be to eradicate crime, but to deter it.
If most people don't want to commit a crime because they fear the punishment, then in all likelihood, most people won't commit a crime. And so the ones who do will be punished, and likely won't do it again, because they experienced the punishment firsthand, and know how painful it is. Of course, if they committed a capital crime, then of course they'll not be able to commit the same or similar crime again (which reduces the amount of crime committed later, by the way).
I don't think you read what I said earlier.
I stated very clearly that MILLIONS of crimes are being committed every day CURRENTLY.
I'll take thousands of crimes per day over millions ANY DAY, especially if it's brought about by a swift and painful enforcement of the death penalty, and of corporal punishment, and of restitution punishments.
Certainly not the one as executed through America's courts today.
But a swift and painful death penalty would do wonders. I can almost guarantee you that crime would drop to ALMOST ZERO overnight for a given nation if the death penalty were properly implemented in ANY nation, not just America.
You're basing your arguments off of our current system, not off of what the system would be like.
To give you an idea: It would be so efficient that instead of having to deal with hundreds of cases per day, it would have to deal with only a few, and the resources of an entire department, region, state, or even the nation itself as a whole, could be brought to bear on a case if necessary. The system is not bogged down by convicts appealing their cases for years on end, or by needless jury trials, or by lawyers duking it out in front of the judge.
It's the judge, the accused, the accuser, the witnesses, the evidence, and the investigators.
With the current system, that's not possible.
Good.
Yes, that's what that "two or three witnesses" is all about, Arthur.
A man is guilty or innocent based on the testimony of two or three witnesses (and if more is provided, well hey, no one will complain about that).
You cannot remove human fallibility from any system that inherently contains humans as part of the system. You can minimize it, sure. But you cannot completely eliminate it. Hence the "two or three witnesses" (weighing the evidence).
"Two or three witnesses" IS corroboration, Arthur.
Then you'd never get a conviction ever, because according to lawyers, if there's any hesitancy in deciding whether someone is innocent or guilty, that's "doubt."
It will never happen.
Guarantee you if you were to ask any of the people involved in those cases if there was ever any doubt about the evidence, there'd be some.
Why do you think the standard of "two or three witnesses" could not be unambiguous?
I gave you examples.
Because of the inefficiency of the system.
Flaws that I guarantee can't be fixed without massive changes to the entire system to the point where it would be easier to just form a new one.
They were let out according to the law.
Too many. Easier to get a whole new wineskin than to put new wine into an old one.
Jeffrey Dahmer raped, killed and ate parts of at least thirteen men. As punishment, the government was planning to feed, clothe, educate, medicate, entertain, and legally represent him for the rest of his life in an expensive climate-controlled facility. Families of his victims would pay taxes, in part, to keep Dahmer comfortable, warm in winter and cool in summer. That type of punishment is supposed to scare and deter other potential mass murderers?
Get real.
Of course you wouldn't. Neither would I.
But that's not a good standard for how we should determine how to punish criminals.
It's not a sufficient punishment for crimes, and it's inhumane to boot.
Locking people up like animals in a zoo, so that they can be fed, clothed, educated, medicated, entertained, and legally represented for the rest of their lives in an expensive climate controlled facility funded by his victims and their families and the rest of society through their tax dollars so that they can stay warm in winter and cool in summer, is NOT a good way to punish someone. Forcing people to pay restitution for crimes involvingn posessions, including money, flogging criminals guilty of assault and mutilation for crimes where a victim is permanently injured, and the death penalty for capital crimes, are MUCH more serious punishments, and are GUARANTEED by God Himself to deter most criminals from committing such crimes.
It's not harsh enough, nor swift enough, nor painful enough, and God says to visit those in prison, and is the One who sets the captives free, not one who locks people up.
I'm talking about youtube channels dedicated to police cameras, such as dash cams and police body cameras.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Then how many innocent lives would have been lost if those wrongfully convicted weren't allowed to appeal? Plenty is what.
I'm going to break some of the rest of this down as it's getting parsed to bits. You acknowledge that a judge has right to counsel from peers and experts before making his ruling which in fairness, he would have to have. Everyone involved could arrive at the same conclusion based on the evidence available at the time so a judge can make what appears to be the correct decision with all of the information at his disposal at the time. Further down the line new evidence can come to light that undermines his former ruling so then what? Haul him up and charge him with being accountable for a mistake cos that sounds like scapegoating. There shouldn't be a single point of accountability unless someone is found to be utterly irresponsible and tampering with the legal process, especially if you want cases fast tracked without recourse for the convicted to appeal.
If two or three witnesses are enough to establish a strong likelihood or guilt/innocence then well and good. If they aren't then more is obviously required. You've already acknowledged that more than three is okay.
Judicial negligence is one thing and see above.
There really isn't and okay, we have a different system to ones that primitive bronze age tribes were limited to but under yours there'd be people carted off to a swift execution who weren't even guilty of the crime. That's as acceptable as letting someone off on a technicality, that is to say not at all.
Your hyperbole about it being a completely broken system is just your own supposition. It has faults as outlined already and improvements do need making but it's not as bad as you like to exaggerate.
Your guarantees that your ideal of the DP would practically result in zero crime is nothing but hot air, no matter how much you may ardently believe such to be the case.
Cases where guilt/innocence are proved beyond doubt remove human fallibility from the equation.
You talk about prison being insufficient punishment and call it inhumane? Which is it? You make it sound like something that nobody would want on the one hand (which I sure wouldn't) and then make it sound like a picnic. It isn't. I've seen enough on prisons from my country to America to along with being friends with someone who's served time to know fine well I would't wanna spend a single day in one.