Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 236 (198463)
04-12-2005 5:38 AM


In another thread, a couple posters argued that use of the death penalty inherently means that innocent people will be killed. They argued that because if the justice system is a human made and run system, and humans are fallible, the system will eventually have to fail and so innocents will end up being wrongly convicted.
This is actually a collection of fallacies, self-servingly arranged. But I want to move away from that and concentrate on something else they said... no one can devise such a system, and if they can then they'll probably get a Nobel Prize. How the heck can I resist that? Well honestly it is the person who gets such a system enacted not simply thought of which would deserve the prize, but I'll run with the gag.
Whereas most would seem excited to pursue such a challenge they actually used it as a reason for me not to proceed any further... hmmmmmmm. It gets me excited and I want to share the wealth. So let's go.
It seems to me the following scenario would be a concrete situation where knowledge of a person's guilt is assured:
A person is caught during the act of murder, or while trying to escape from the scene, with several direct witnesses, as well as concrete physical evidence tying him to the murder (weapon on him, evidence from scene on him, videotape of him at scene killing people), plus a confession from the person.
Am I correct that this would be enough for us to be certain he is guilty and that there is no chance (beyond him setting himself up) he could be innocent?
If so, if we created a system of evidentiary rules excluding the death penalty outside of cases with all of this evidence together, would we not have a system capable of executing only guilty parties?
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-12-2005 04:39 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 6:31 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 3 by Ben!, posted 04-12-2005 6:38 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 4 by AdminPhat, posted 04-12-2005 6:40 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 15 by Monk, posted 04-12-2005 9:29 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 18 by nator, posted 04-12-2005 10:50 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 24 by nator, posted 04-12-2005 11:22 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 54 by Taqless, posted 04-12-2005 5:00 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 101 by Ben!, posted 04-14-2005 2:00 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 234 by joshua221, posted 01-25-2006 10:45 AM Silent H has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 236 (198477)
04-12-2005 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
04-12-2005 5:38 AM


No that would not be enough. It could be a frame. Next!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 5:38 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 7:33 AM contracycle has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 3 of 236 (198480)
04-12-2005 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
04-12-2005 5:38 AM


Ever see Zoolander?
But seriously, shouldn't another criterion be "actually results in a single conviction" before you get the Nobel Prize? I think that might be important to the prize-awarding committee.
Well, I think I'll step out of the way now. Just trying to join in the "fun."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 5:38 AM Silent H has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 236 (198481)
04-12-2005 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
04-12-2005 5:38 AM


Lets Frame a Topic before continuing
Holmes, I don't quite understand the focus of this topic. Are you advocating the right of the State to allow the Death Penalty in certain obvious situations? Lets frame a topic before running with this one. How about renaming this as:
Is the Death Penalty ever a good option?
or perhaps
Capital Punishment: Pros and Cons
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-12-2005 03:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 5:38 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 7:32 AM AdminPhat has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 236 (198483)
04-12-2005 6:44 AM


Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminPhat, posted 04-12-2005 6:48 AM AdminPhat has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 236 (198485)
04-12-2005 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by AdminPhat
04-12-2005 6:44 AM


Pause and Regroup
I'll move it back to the coffeehouse once our topic starter has a definite focus. Man, you guys are quick!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AdminPhat, posted 04-12-2005 6:44 AM AdminPhat has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 7 of 236 (198498)
04-12-2005 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminPhat
04-12-2005 6:40 AM


Re: Lets Frame a Topic before continuing
How about renaming this as: Is the Death Penalty ever a good option?
or perhaps Capital Punishment: Pros and Cons
No those are both very broad subjects and my focus is extremely specific. It was claimed by two different posters that the existence of a death penalty in any judicial system MUST result in an innocent person being executed. That is to say there is absolutely no set of rules which can be made which would prevent innocent people from being executed.
They also said that if one could come up with such a set of rules they'd likely get a Nobel Prize. I am riffing on that claim to draw people into a discussion of what system could elminate the possibility of innocent people ever getting the death sentence, though there might be one available in the system.
To start with I have given an example case which I would hope is beyond dispute whether the person is guilty, in order to start crafting rules of evidence.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminPhat, posted 04-12-2005 6:40 AM AdminPhat has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 8 of 236 (198500)
04-12-2005 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by contracycle
04-12-2005 6:31 AM


No that would not be enough. It could be a frame. Next!
The guy framed himself?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 6:31 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AdminPhat, posted 04-12-2005 7:37 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 11 by Dr Jack, posted 04-12-2005 7:46 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 12 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 7:49 AM Silent H has replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 236 (198502)
04-12-2005 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Silent H
04-12-2005 7:33 AM


holmes writes:
It was claimed by two different posters that the existence of a death penalty in any judicial system MUST result in an innocent person being executed. That is to say there is absolutely no set of rules which can be made which would prevent innocent people from being executed.
They also said that if one could come up with such a set of rules they'd likely get a Nobel Prize. I am riffing on that claim to draw people into a discussion of what system could elminate the possibility of innocent people ever getting the death sentence, though there might be one available in the system.
To start with I have given an example case which I would hope is beyond dispute whether the person is guilty, in order to start crafting rules of evidence.
OK..lets roll with it.I renamed it, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 7:33 AM Silent H has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 236 (198503)
04-12-2005 7:40 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 11 of 236 (198506)
04-12-2005 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Silent H
04-12-2005 7:33 AM


Why would the guy have to have framed himself? Confessions are notoriously unreliable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 7:33 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 8:51 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 236 (198508)
04-12-2005 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Silent H
04-12-2005 7:33 AM


quote:
The guy framed himself?
No the cops.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 7:33 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 8:55 AM contracycle has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 13 of 236 (198517)
04-12-2005 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Jack
04-12-2005 7:46 AM


Confessions are notoriously unreliable.
Not undisputed confessions. I was not discussing cases where they have a "confession" which the accused now says was forced out of him or her.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Jack, posted 04-12-2005 7:46 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 14 of 236 (198519)
04-12-2005 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by contracycle
04-12-2005 7:49 AM


No the cops.
Let me get this straight, the cops for some inexplicable reason decides to frame a person by creating an "event", planting witnesses at the event, as well as some photographic evidence with a double made before the event, somehow capturing him right there, or capturing the "double" and switching the real guy for him later...
And then they get the guy to agree to their fake confession, even during the trial procedure?
That is a plausible scenario to you?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 7:49 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 9:55 AM Silent H has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 15 of 236 (198526)
04-12-2005 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
04-12-2005 5:38 AM


Sanity
holmes writes:
A person is caught during the act of murder, or while trying to escape from the scene, with several direct witnesses, as well as concrete physical evidence tying him to the murder (weapon on him, evidence from scene on him, videotape of him at scene killing people), plus a confession from the person.
Am I correct that this would be enough for us to be certain he is guilty and that there is no chance (beyond him setting himself up) he could be innocent?
No, it is not enough to ensure guilt. There would need to be a trial to determine sanity. Innocence by that reason is a possibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 5:38 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 11:17 AM Monk has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024