The Williams Execution

Having different standards of proof for different criminal punishments presents a whole host of moral and practical questions, not least of which is that the guilt phase of a trial is decided before the penalty phase. But it's not insurmountable I suppose, courts already apply different standards of proof in different scenarios and types of cases (criminal and civil cases have different standards of proof, for example).

As has been briefly touched on ITF in previous discussion, some non-US jurisdictions also have different types of verdicts available - "not guilty" and "not proven" as separate verdicts, for example. I don't know that you'd necessarily want to introduce "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" and "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt" as separate verdicts, though.

I have no idea about the specific case referred to in OP by the way, just commenting in general.

The appeals process is essentially what you describe.

Missouri supreme court essentially sanctioned a lynching which is why people are so upset at this specific situation. No burden of proof can out scale corruption

How many years of wrongful imprisonment would you equate to a wrongly decided death sentence?

Unlike you who would rather die than to submit to having your kid's finger cut off by force, I think I'd prefer several years in jail, especially followed by a multi million dollar settlement.

That wasn't the question. The question is how many years of unjust imprisonment are = 1 wrongful death sentence.

Personally i would prefer immediate death than life in prison if i am innocent and it's not even remotely close and no one i know and respect would even blink at choosing death over life in prison as an innocent, i can't even make up a model of a human being i would consider having dignity that wouldn't prefer immediate death immensely, like let me repeat it, it's incredible we even discuss the option.

Do you agree than a full life no parole lived in jail while innocent is at least an order of magnitude worse than a sweiflty executed death sentence if innocent?

life without freedom for decent people is incredibly, immensely worse than death. All people with dignity would die rather than rot in prison

Idk how it works in the Italian political system but it’s not like the death penalty and spending a ton of your life in jail are mutually exclusive. A lot of death row inmates spend 15+ years in jail before they are put to death. So your question is ill-formed.

Also I’d take life in prison because top outcomes are better versus top outcomes for death row. You can still be sent to jail for a long time and be released, but you never have the psychological torture of wondering if you’re going to die next month.

Lastly I just think your point is kind of stupid. I don’t think wanting to kill yourself instead of being in an uncomfotable situation with a chance of getting out is a noble thing. I don’t think it makes you a coward per se but I do think it makes you pretty weak. We don’t look at people who commit suicide as noble because it seems like they’re too weak to keep fighting. There’s something unvirtuous about that, no disrespect to anyone who has thought about it or known someone that did.

We don't have the death penalty because communism.

I wrote "swiftly executed" for a reason, the 15+ years waiting time is a monstrosity. People should be shot in their head in the appeal room 1 min after the judge denies the appeal.

You’re not the type of person that should be running any type of criminal justice system, you don’t have the temperament for it, apparently. I think your view of all this is incredibly evil actually.

Wait I thought your opinions were bad before but now I’m wondering if any of then are worth taking seriously at all if this is what you’re going to present us as your thoughts on the death penalty. This is like a 14 year old’s idea of a really deep view of the death penalty.

I truly believe life in prison is incredibly more evil than a swiftly executed death sentence. Like it's not even close at all, only sadist maniacs would even think of life in prison for someone society doesn't believe will ever be rediemable

Or like the view of many societies in the past, among them some societies which were crucials for humanity improvement like the romans.

did the Dems try to save this guy or did they help condemn him and then use him for cheap political points after the fact?

The death penalty is irreversible. That’s why it has been considered a punishment of last resort. People get appeals because it turns out the vast majority of people don’t agree with you and want to try to fight their way our prison.

The romans also tossed children into the wilderness as birth control, let’s bring that back as well Mr 3rd Trimester Abortions are Evil. Like Jesus what a horribly stupid argument bro. I hope that you just haven’t thought about this deeply enough.

Stealing a year of life is irreversible. Imprisoning someone for life and then later after he died recognizing he was innocent is irreversible.

There is no special irreversability in killing vs in stealing years. Killing is just stealing your life expectancy years, without the immense suffering (ie extremely negative vs death) of living in prison as innocent.

IF you get wrongfully killed at 40 while innocent you got stolen 45 years (if man, approx). Which is convertible in X years of unjust imprisonment, X depending on your preferences. For me X is a lot lower than 45, 15-20 , but you can even claim it's like 60 or whatever.

Anyway it's a number comparable to 45 and there is no qualitative difference. ANY unjust punishment is irreversible.

If instead we think in terms of paying damages, a death sentence is reversable: you can pay heirs for damages.

This is all hypothetical “ra ra ra, I’m so tough and stoic” bullshit. People have always had the choice of whether they want to waive their right to appeal, or even ask for the death penalty. Almost no one who is innocent does that, because getting sentenced to death isn’t the end. Even many prisoners take control of their lives in jail and become better people, on death row or otherwise.

You are sneaking in your premise that people’s preferences skew a certain way. That’s fine, if that’s your preference then you can kill yourself in jail if you ever get found guilty of murder. For the vast majority people would rather fight for a slim chance of getting out.

Now imagine if we had it your way. Now everyone is forced to live by your preference and morality, even though the vast majority fall on the other side of that. Furthermore we’re one step closer to mob mentality and bloodlust that has been the driving force behind so many of our problems.

I really doubt you are a libertarian to be honest, you sound like a mega reactionary with this take.

It's not stoicism , just being an actual fulfilled human being who values freedom.

Btw no in the current era and system they aren't given a choice of dying with dignity looking in the face of their executor on the spot when they get life no parole.

I don't sneak any preference, CHECK WHAT YOU ANSWERED TO, i asked skanskly preferences about the topic.

"killing yourself in jail" isn't an easy endeavour at all btw, they work hard to make it not easy for you. I am saying they should have shot you with the sentence, right there. That's closure.

And btw for many moral systems killing yourself IS NOT THE SAME as being killed by your enemy. You show a complete lack of morals by suggesting killing yourself is a similar option.

Before answering that question why are you specifying being innocent? Is there an afterlife you are trying to postpone?

I actually agree that life in prison is more cruel than the death penalty, which might have been the point at one time. Now its about that sweet revenue stream.

I am talking innocence because I thought the topic was about the risk of using unduly violence against someone who doesn't deserve it.

it we are talking about a guilty person I think his "rights" don't exist and society should just do whatever works best in efficiency, which happens to be the death penalty, swiftly executed.

but that the death penalty is obviously superior in case of guilt for everyone who isn't redeemable is so obvious that I thought we didn't need to discuss it.

I'd rather my daughter be killed immediately than being held hostage by talebans or Hamas for 20 years and I think most people would agree and I think it wouldn't be even close for most people.

Id rather my daughter held by Hamas than by the US govt lol

Except people all the time hold out hope for missing people that might be held by a kidnapper or a prisoner of war. Also that’s a completely different situation than what we’re talking about, which is an ideal criminal justice system. Getting captured by a terrorist group is waaaaaay different.

Meanwhile the point of my OP was derailed by a discussion as to whether death is worse than a life sentence. But the OP assumed it was worse, partly because it is irreversible and contended that the probability of innocence need only be a tiny number to escape execution even if it is too small to escape conviction. How can that not be correct?