The Williams Execution
Those who my previous writings should know that I am against it. As are many others. Except Unlike most of them, it is not because I am morally opposed to the death sentence or because I think there is a good chance that he is innocent. Rather it is because the probability of non guilt should be much lower for a death sentence than for a guilty verdict. How can rational people disagree with that? Yet you almost never see that argument invoked when a court or governor make a decision. I say that "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but not beyond a 'shadow of a doubt' should be an OFFICIAL mitigating circumstance that stops an execution. You need not be opposed to executions in general or have a strong opinion that the person is innocent to invoke it and settle for a life sentence.
No, the argument that unjust imprisonment isn't reversible doesn't require you to agree with me about death being preferably than life in jail.
Once you execute someone, they are dead. You can’t bring them back to life.
If you imprison someone, they can be released.
If Nelson Mandela had been executed instead of sentenced to life in prison, he never would have been able to be president. People do amazing things after they are released from jail sometimes, and sometimes they just live normal lives.
Basically you are admitting that you know i am the only one using logic properly in this topic in this thread but it's very harsh for you to say so explicitly.
The "line in the sand" of reversibility in particular is completly faulty, yet it convinced a ton of people (not only here, it's the number 1 objection you always hear when discussing the death penalty).
But anyway yes, if you ever accept even a single case when the state can kill someone, you can never use the "ethically, the state can't k
I would agree that the line between "incarceration" and "murder" exists on the slippery slope rather than being completely different. To accept the possibility of wrongfully jailing a man for life isn't that different from accepting the possibility of wrongfully killing a man. The former will happen, especially if in penal systems with a soft spot for jailing people for life.
Of course, when you jail people, there is a greater chance you will discover when and where you went wrong. That is important. It is harder for the dead to make their case, and it is harder for others to make it on behalf of the dead.
I'd say that is a good argument against using death sentences often, but I'm unconvinced that it is a good argument for never using them at all. In a hypothetical scenario where we jail Hitler, it is not as if we would have any doubts in regards to his crimes against humanity.
At this point this is not not really a matter of logic however, it is more about attitudes, opinions and emotions.
Look at it this way, if they are guilty then life in prison is way worse than a bullet to the head and if they are innocent then at least they have a chance to get out. The Apache people were appalled at imprisonment, torturing their enemies to death was all in great fun but locking someone in a cage was considered barbaric.
I would agree that the line between "incarceration" and "murder" exists on the slippery slope rather than being completely different. To accept the possibility of wrongfully jailing a man for life isn't that different from accepting the possibility of wrongfully killing a man. The former will happen, especially if in penal systems with a soft spot for jailing people for life.
Of course, when you jail people, there is a greater chance you will discover when and where you went wrong. That is import
I don't think a hitler is a kind of good example because certainty isn't that rare, Hitler alive might be useful to be tortured to reveal secrets or to show his supporters their leader becoming just a weak man behind bars and whatnot.
the death penalty is useful for repeated offenders, in those cases the chances of having caught an innocent are basically nil.
the vast majority of violent, antisocial, destructive crimes are committed by a small minority of people who are serial criminals.
you often have even video evidence these days.
you know all those times someone "already known to law enforcement" ends up doing something really really bad? well those are the people we should all have executed at the first time we had a chance.
think of it like 3 times and you are dead instead of "strike out".
the obsession with single, extremely "mediatic" cases where the perpetrator isn't 100% certain is a way to mess up with the concept itself. I could even be ok with no death penalty for the first offence no matter how monstrous.
but members of violent gangs or terrorist organizations and so on should all be executed for example and you are not going to execute an innocent ever when you do that.
being a part of a criminal organization that regularly wages violence should be more than enough to deserve the death penalty
Look at it this way, if they are guilty then life in prison is way worse than a bullet to the head and if they are innocent then at least they have a chance to get out. The Apache people were appalled at imprisonment, torturing their enemies to death was all in great fun but locking someone in a cage was considered barbaric.
The idea of demonstrations against the evils of incarceration in favor of the humane approach of simply killing people is dark, but still amusing.
We are in 5th place in the execution category, come on USA we can do better!
