Rrhain,
I agree with your point that we cannot guarantee death of only guilty people when imposing the death penalty. With that said, I have a question and a comment. Comment first.
In post 239, Phatboy writes:
Rrhain writes:
It isn't as if we are forced to administer the death penalty. There is imprisonment. What, therefore, is the possible justification for execution when we know that there will always be the chance that there is somebody who has been convicted but is actually innocent? Why skip to the end?
it costs too darn much to keep these people in prison for 70+ years ... Just zap em!
If we had unlimited funds, I would agree that there may be useful alternatives to the death penalty. But as Phatboy "eloquently" hints at, we have limited funds. If you use the money to imprison people for life, you simply pull those funds away from somewhere else.
Of course, there's no guarantee what programs those funds come from, so it's hard to judge the situation. But I don't think it's right to judge the practical matters of the death penalty vs. life imprisonment without addressing exactly these funding issues. If the redirected funds cause the death of more people than the number of innocent people who die on death row, then the alternative solution would be a failure.
In post 240, contracycle writes:
Are we not the richest society that ever lived? Do we not produce more food every year than our species can consume? Do we not waste vast quantitites of wealth and productive power on mere entertinament, mere travel, mere toys? What price human life for the richest human beings who have ever walked the earth? You need to get your moral priorities right.
I agree 100% with contra's statement, but not with his/her implied conclusion (that we should keep people imprisoned for life). We should be doing what we can to support those with basic needs (food, shelter, basic education). To spend so much money to save the life of a single person being killed for a crime he/she did not commit is absurd when so many people die "innocently" from disease, malnutrition, etc. (or even from "innocently" contracting diseases; use the money for education and research).
I don't know enough about the current leadership of our government to know what programs are most likely to be cut, but my gut tells me that military operations are deemed "necessary," while education, research, foreign aid are still treated more "optionally" and thus more likely to get budget cuts.
...
Next, here's a question about your logical argument. I don't understand how you can go from one premise to the next here, so I'd appreciate if you could explicate your thinking process on why this is OK.
In post 213, Rrhain writes:
Of 24 people on death row in Illinois, 13 were INNOCENT.
How do we know they were innocent in the end? They were released from jail.
and then follows up in
Since release from jail doesn't just happen but only comes after an investigation that indicates the person should not be in jail (...), I had assumed that it was obvious that their release from jail was indicative of just such an investigation which showed them to be innocent.
(bold mine)
Now, as far as I can understand, the same problem holds here--you cannot actually know that somebody is innocent with 100% accuracy. It's possible that some of these people were released yet guilty. There's no "perfect" system here either.
I guess your argument would be that the situation is correctable, because those people are still available to be punished (locked up for life); so it's not comparable to the death penalty (where you 'jump to the end').
But I'm not so sure. If you release somebody who is actually guilty, it's possible that they may kill. If that happens, then by releasing somebody, you've essentially executed an innocent person. If your logic is that we cannot spare even one innocent life, then, since the system for release is not 100% and it may result in the loss of innocent lives, that we should not do it.
My conclusion would be that a criminal justice system is flawed, whether it comes to conviction or failure to do so. There is no system where every innocent person is protected 100%; convicting and killing innocent people, as well as letting the guilty go free, and subsequently kill, are both real issues. Thus, demanding a system to avoid the death of innocent people is simply one that cannot be met.
I'd appreciate your comments.
Thanks!
Ben
http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/reports/pr101001_e.htm
Top 9 Pro Death Penalty Arguments