another botched execution.

[Revoltingest]

I consider that to be a rather negligible advantage considering how much time it takes to actually get through the execution.

I agree that it's negligible in the larger scheme of things. Even if the executions were done in an expedient (a la PRC) fashion, the deaths of a few innocents would affect few of us. But the significance to the individual on the receiving end of justice is great.

I favor the rights of the individual over the cravings of the larger society. One might say the rights of the few outweigh the needs of the many. (Take that, Spock! Ya egg suck'n pinko commie!)

 

[Koldo]

I agree that it's negligible in the larger scheme of things. Even if the executions were done in an expedient (a la PRC) fashion, the deaths of a few innocents would affect few of us. But the significance to the individual on the receiving end of justice is great.

I favor the rights of the individual over the cravings of the larger society. One might say the rights of the few outweigh the needs of the many. (Take that, Spock! Ya egg suck'n pinko commie!)

The jury is generally required to declare someone guilty if the evidence presented leads to that conclusion beyond a 'reasonable doubt'.
If, however, we were to uphold individual rights in the highest regard, the term used would be simply 'doubt', and not 'reasonable doubt'.
If there is 'doubt' there is a chance, no matter how small, no matter how far-fetched the explanation could be, no matter how unreasonable it appears to be, that this individual hasn't committed the crime in question. Since the standard is 'reasonable doubt' rather than 'doubt' that means we are willing to risk punishing a few innocents. And, honestly, I don't think the judiciary could work otherwise.

 

[Revoltingest]

The jury is generally required to declare someone guilty if the evidence presented leads to that conclusion beyond a 'reasonable doubt'.
If, however, we were to uphold individual rights in the highest regard, the term used would be simply 'doubt', and not 'reasonable doubt'.
If there is 'doubt' there is a chance, no matter how small, no matter how far-fetched the explanation could be, no matter how unreasonable it appears to be, that this individual hasn't committed the crime in question. Since the standard is 'reasonable doubt' rather than 'doubt' that means we are willing to risk punishing a few innocents. And, honestly, I don't think the judiciary could work otherwise.

The risk of punishing some innocents is unavoidable. This is why I favor being able to correct injustices when they're discovered.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Examples of people being freed after being put on the death row are irrelevant as to how many people are wrongfully executed.

How are they not relevant?

 

[Revoltingest]

How are they not relevant?

Aye, the number of such examples would shed light on the extent of wrongful convictions.

 

[Koldo]

How are they not relevant?

Please show me how you can conclude how many people ( I am not requiring an exact number ) have been wrongfully convicted and put to death by using the statistics of people that were freed after being put on the death row.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Please show me how you can conclude how many people ( I am not requiring an exact number ) have been wrongfully convicted and put to death by using the statistics of people that were freed after being put on the death row.

You can't, but they still count as those who were wrongfully put on death row.

 

[Koldo]

You can't, but they still count as those who were wrongfully put on death row.

Sure. And, so what?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Death is not reversible.

But the sentence is, because we don't practice summary execution.

However, it seems there are far more innocents who are at risk of being wrongfully put to death that you want to admit because you are so caught up on someone dying in prison. It happens, but not as often as you seem to be implying it does.

When you consider how many more people are in prison for any given sentence relative to the number of people who have been sentenced to death, the "far more innocents who are at risk" argument doesn't work as well for you as you'd like it to. As it is, we sentence an very low number of people to death in any given year, and execute far fewer than that. I wouldn't be surprised if wrongly convicted individuals dying in prison for causes other than execution happen far more often as I seem to be implying.

So, to you, it works, but how it works is just pointless and wasteful appeals?

No. That's not at all an accurate summary of my position.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news.....
Executions by firing squad poised to make comeback in Utah
I say the firing squad is more humane than lethal injection.
It's quicker, more reliable, & not subject to drug availability.

 

[Ingledsva]

In the news.....
Executions by firing squad poised to make comeback in Utah
I say the firing squad is more humane than lethal injection.
It's quicker, more reliable, & not subject to drug availability.

Plus, with lasers they can set it up for one clean kill shot. (Since people seem to be worried about the murderer not dying right away.) They can even make it so no one knows who actually fired the shot, by using electronics, and a computer. Several push buttons, - the computer randomly chooses, - no one knows who triggered the shot.

*

 

[Revoltingest]

Plus, with lasers they can set it up for one clean kill shot. (Since people seem to be worried about the murderer not dying right away.) They can even make it so no one knows who actually fired the shot, by using electronics, and a computer. Several push buttons, - the computer randomly chooses, - no one knows who triggered the shot.
*

I say the obsession with preventing the shooters from being certain they fired a killing bullet is silly.
They could even auction off the right to be in the squad. It would help defray the costs.
And were I to be shot, I'd rather have a head shot for instantaneous death, instead of shock & bleed out.

 

[Ingledsva]

I say the obsession with preventing the shooters from being certain they fired a killing bullet is silly.
They could even auction off the right to be in the squad. It would help defray the costs.
And were I to be shot, I'd rather have a head shot for instantaneous death, instead of shock & bleed out.

Oh I agree with you. LOL!

But these cover the objections that people have been bringing up.

*

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh I agree with you. LOL!
But these cover the objections that people have been bringing up.
*

I'd bid $20 to put a bullet between the eyes of a certain poster who is in reality vicious psychopathic serial killer & molester of small animals.

 

[suncowiam]

Please show me how you can conclude how many people ( I am not requiring an exact number ) have been wrongfully convicted and put to death by using the statistics of people that were freed after being put on the death row.

# of innocent people that was placed on death row > 0

With that assertion, could one assume the following?

# of innocent people executed >= 0

As opposed to:

# of innocent of death row = 0
Then
# of innocent executed = 0

How is it not relavent the number of innocent people placed on death row?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Plus, with lasers they can set it up for one clean kill shot. (Since people seem to be worried about the murderer not dying right away.) They can even make it so no one knows who actually fired the shot, by using electronics, and a computer. Several push buttons, - the computer randomly chooses, - no one knows who triggered the shot.

This still does not do away with the fact that innocent people are put to death.
It still does not acknowledge that no sharpshooter is 100% accurate. Missing the "bullseye" by even less than an inch can mean the difference between a quick kill and bleeding out to death.
It's best to err to side of caution and prevent the mistake of allowing the state to murder an innocent life. Or just do away with the whole hypocrisy of the state allowing itself to kill while telling everyone else they cannot kill.
There are hardly anymore kings to assault the sovereignty of, and a crime rarely ever does actually harm the public at large. Violent offenders should be put away, but putting them down is just too risky of putting down someone who is innocent (so is prison, but you can set someone free of a prison sentence, you cannot undo death).

 

[Poisonshady313]

# of innocent people that was placed on death row > 0

With that assertion, could one assume the following?

# of innocent people sentenced to death >= 0

As opposed to:

# of innocent of death row = 0
Then
# of innocent sentenced to death = 0

How is it not relavent the number of innocent people placed on death row?

Either this post is painfully redundant, or you are misusing the word "sentenced".

 

[suncowiam]

Either this post is painfully redundant, or you are misusing the word "sentenced".

You're right. Let me update.

Thanks

 

[Poisonshady313]

You're right. Let me update.

Thanks

# of innocent people that was placed on death row > 0

With that assertion, could one assume the following?

# of innocent people executed >= 0

As opposed to:

# of innocent of death row = 0
Then
# of innocent executed = 0

How is it not relavent the number of innocent people placed on death row?

Much better.

To address your first question, no, one could not assume the following. Not based solely on the provided premise. One could assume only that it's possible.

 

[suncowiam]

Much better.

To address your first question, no, one could not assume the following. Not based solely on the provided premise. One could assume only that it's possible.

I'm asserting the actual number of innocents to be greater or equal to zero. Which also means the probability is greater or equal to zero.

Having the possibility of innocent people on death row is relevant. I showed how changing the input from 0 to greater than 0 affects the output from 0 to greater or equal to 0.