Missouri executes a man for the 1998 killing of a woman despite her family’s calls to spare his life

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, he was convicted for a capital crime, but I was assuming that government isn't flawed and doesn't make mistakes.

And considering that such a government, much less any such system of laws, can never possibly exist; even less, perhaps, a government or legal system incapable of being influenced by bias, corruption or injustice; what is your position on the idea of giving governments the right to determine which of its citizens is qualified to live or not?

The fact that government is flawed and can make such mistakes is problematic and seems unsolvable, which means that there isn't a perfect solution, but that doesn't mean that there aren't ways to mitigate it. We can't simply do away with government since it's necessary, but it's not necessary to make government bigger, and stronger, so we can mitigate the problem by keeping it as small and weak as possible, meaning without being nonexistent or too small and too weak.

Except there is one very obvious solution to this specific problem: don't allow any government the power to, by law, execute its citizens. At least, not as a result of reasonable judicial application of law.

 

[Stevicus]

Well, he was convicted for a capital crime, but I was assuming that government isn't flawed and doesn't make mistakes.

As you are correctly pointing out, which is what I think you're trying to do, there's a possibility that he actually didn't commit the capital crime that he was arrested for, charged with, convicted of, and executed for; if this is the case, then it would mean that government is flawed and does make mistakes, making my assumption false.

In reality, government can be flawed and can make mistakes, and if Marcellus Williams actually didn't commit the capital crime that he was convicted of & executed for, then this means that the life of an innocent person was taken and cannot be brought back; yes, this would indeed be a problem, but we don't know for a fact that he actually didn't commit the capital crime.

Ideally, no one who's innocent would be convicted and executed for a capital crime, but since we don't live in an ideal world, we have to seriously consider suspending executions for capital crimes in order to avoid taking 2 innocent lives (i.e., the murder victim, and the individual who was wrongly convicted and sentenced to be executed).

I'm basically not opposed to suspending executions for the sake of avoiding taking 2 innocent lives, but in principle I'm not in favor of outright banning executions, either.

It's not just a matter of government being flawed and making mistakes at a basic level, it's also about the possibility of racial bias, as the article mentions.

Well, I think it's a given that humans make mistakes, and since governments are comprised of humans, then governments make mistakes, too. Sometimes, I think the idea of "government" is presented as something impersonal and sterile, while failing to acknowledge the frail human element within.

As I mentioned upthread, there's the idea that's instilled in Americans from a young age that an accused person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. They even quoted that at the beginning of every episode of "Cops." It's repeated over and over and over, and people are largely led to believe that the process works.

But then, "proof" seems to be in the eye of the beholder, and that's where the problem comes in.

That seems to be a source of contention in other areas, too, not just with court cases determining guilt. It comes up in religious discussions, political debates, science, or just everyday events. "Can you prove that what you're saying is true?" is a common question one might hear.

Considering the significant number of people who were supposedly "proven guilty" yet were later proven to be innocent, it does make one wonder what actually constitutes "proof" in the eyes of a lawyer. Wouldn't it be preferable to have such questions decided by scientists as opposed to lawyers?

BTW George Floyd's death is essentially another example of government being flawed and making mistakes, and possibly as a result of racial bias (hence the BLM protests); I consider George Floyd's death at the hands of police to be an infringement of his 5th Amendment right to not be deprived of life, without due process of law.

I think law enforcement infringes on this 5th Amendment constitutional right whenever they kill anyone, especially by using lethal force (e.g. shooting at them), and this is also an example of government being flawed and/or making mistakes.

At least in George Floyd's case, he, his family, and society received justice for his death at the hands of law enforcement.

When law enforcement takes the life of someone, and law enforcement doesn't face any consequences for that by being charged for murder or manslaughter, not only is it an infringement on the victim's 5th Amendment constitutional right not to be deprived of life without due process of law, it's also an injustice.

The fact that government is flawed and can make such mistakes is problematic and seems unsolvable, which means that there isn't a perfect solution, but that doesn't mean that there aren't ways to mitigate it. We can't simply do away with government since it's necessary, but it's not necessary to make government bigger, and stronger, so we can mitigate the problem by keeping it as small and weak as possible, meaning without being nonexistent or too small and too weak.

This means that we're not going to mitigate this problematic situation if we don't put in the effort to vote for smaller government and encourage others to do the same, but being opposed to bigger and stronger government is not something I can make a case for to anyone who agrees (with the statement) that not committing a capital crime is an irrefutable way to avoid being executed, because they think that government isn't flawed and doesn't make mistakes.

Perhaps the problem in the George Floyd and other such outrageous cases of police brutality and murder is that maybe the government isn't strong enough to be able to police itself. I won't argue over the size of it, whether it's bigger or smaller, but the main issue is whether it can act swiftly enough and transparently enough to rein in its own bad elements and ensure that justice is done and the Constitution is obeyed.

One thing I remember about the Floyd case was that it took a few days after the incident before Chauvin and the other officers were actually charged with a crime. I remember thinking during that time that it was a mistake for them to delay like that. They should have acted swiftly and transparently, but they really didn't.

 

[PureX]

And considering that such a government, much less any such system of laws, can never possibly exist; even less, perhaps, a government or legal system incapable of being influenced by bias, corruption or injustice; what is your position on the idea of giving governments the right to determine which of its citizens is qualified to live or not?


Except there is one very obvious solution to this specific problem: don't allow any government the power to, by law, execute its citizens. At least, not as a result of reasonable judicial application of law.

It's a reasonable argument but it's based the application of ideological hypotheticals. And that's not the world we live in.

There are times when we can know without any hint of doubt that Mr. X brutally murdered a dozen people. And we also can surmise by the nature of those crimes and the nature of Mr. X that if Mr. X ever escapes or is released from prison, he will kill even more people. And in fact, he may well kill people while he is in prison.

There is no logical or ethical reason I can think of not to rid ourselves of Mr. X and the existential threat that he poses to all living human beings so long as he continues living. And if our legal system is so flawed that we cannot ever reasonably ascertain that someone like Mr. X is truly guilty, then we need to fix our system. Not force it to irrationally keep Mr. X alive. And put everyone else at risk.

But these are exceptional circumstances. And anything short of them warrants a less extreme solution. IMO

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's a reasonable argument but it's based the application of ideological hypotheticals. And that's not the world we live in.

Seems to be any argument drawn from the idea that we can know, with 100% surety, that a person is guilty of a crime, is punished fairly, and their death is deserved, seems to me to one drawn from a much more wild hypothetical world than the world we live in.

There are times when we can know without any hint of doubt that Mr. X brutally murdered a dozen people. And we also can surmise by the nature of those crimes and the nature of Mr. X that if Mr. X ever escapes or is released from prison, he will kill even more people. And in fact, he may well kill people while he is in prison.

It's weird that you called out my argument as hypothetical-based, then you give an entirely hypothetical argument.

I maintain that allowing the state to kill its own citizens as a matter of reasonable application of law DOES result in far more harm and societal cost than the vanishingly small number of cases you hypothesise would make it worth it.

There is no logical or ethical reason I can think of not to rid ourselves of Mr. X and the existential threat that he poses to all living human beings so long as he continues living.

Except the logical and ethical position I stated: that giving states the right to execute their citizens, by law, can never be considered just due to the fact that disinformation, bias and injustice can never, ever be ruled out at any stage. It's trivial to point out that there are people in society who society would definitely be better off if they were killed - that's obvious. The issue is that there exists no system in reality where handing over that power to an external authority will NOT result in a significant cost and the deaths of innocent people.

In a hypothetical scenario where we absolutely, definitely know for certain that Mr X did it, and Mr X will do it again, and Mr X poses a threat even if incarcerated for life, maybe. But Mr X literally doesn't exist. We live in a reality, where Mr X may not have done it, and Mr X may not do it again, and Mr X may not pose a threat if incarcerated for life.

And if our legal system is so flawed that we cannot ever reasonably ascertain that someone like Mr. X is truly guilty, then we need to fix our system.

You can't fix a system to remove literally all doubt from it. That's why judicial review, appeals and courts exist in the first place. You can't remove uncertainty from the equation. At least, almost never.

Not force it to irrationally keep Mr. X alive. And put everyone else at risk.

There's nothing irrational about locking someone up for life.

But these are exceptional circumstances. And anything short of them warrants a less extreme solution. IMO

I would argue it's an entirely imaginary scenario that bears practically no relation to reality whatsoever. You might as well be arguing that if Superman existed we need not worry about people dying from volcanoes.

 

[Koldo]

Another case on a long list of examples as to why the death penalty is both unnecessary

Unnecessary for what?

and an affront to human decency.

Why?

 

[Koldo]

Seems to be any argument drawn from the idea that we can know, with 100% surety, that a person is guilty of a crime, is punished fairly, and their death is deserved, seems to me to one drawn from a much more wild hypothetical world than the world we live in.


It's weird that you called out my argument as hypothetical-based, then you give an entirely hypothetical argument.

I maintain that allowing the state to kill its own citizens as a matter of reasonable application of law DOES result in far more harm and societal cost than the vanishingly small number of cases you hypothesise would make it worth it.


Except the logical and ethical position I stated: that giving states the right to execute their citizens, by law, can never be considered just due to the fact that disinformation, bias and injustice can never, ever be ruled out at any stage. It's trivial to point out that there are people in society who society would definitely be better off if they were killed - that's obvious. The issue is that there exists no system in reality where handing over that power to an external authority will NOT result in a significant cost and the deaths of innocent people.

In a hypothetical scenario where we absolutely, definitely know for certain that Mr X did it, and Mr X will do it again, and Mr X poses a threat even if incarcerated for life, maybe. But Mr X literally doesn't exist. We live in a reality, where Mr X may not have done it, and Mr X may not do it again, and Mr X may not pose a threat if incarcerated for life.


You can't fix a system to remove literally all doubt from it. That's why judicial review, appeals and courts exist in the first place. You can't remove uncertainty from the equation. At least, almost never.


There's nothing irrational about locking someone up for life.


I would argue it's an entirely imaginary scenario that bears practically no relation to reality whatsoever. You might as well be arguing that if Superman existed we need not worry about people dying from volcanoes.

But locking up an innocent for life is particularly cruel too. Wouln't it follow then that the State ought not to have the power to lock up people for life then? And the same goes for lesser times such 30 years, 20 years... even a decade is a lot. So where do we stop and say it is alright to lock up innocent people?

 

[PureX]

Seems to be any argument drawn from the idea that we can know, with 100% surety, that a person is guilty of a crime, is punished fairly, and their death is deserved, seems to me to one drawn from a much more wild hypothetical world than the world we live in.

I agree, but it was YOUR ideal, not mine. You were using it to claim that we should never execute anyone because we could always get it wrong. I agree that we could always get it wrong. But we don't always get it wrong. And in fact, we often do get it right. And in some instances, that is close enough to warrant eliminating the very evident danger.

It's weird that you called out my argument as hypothetical-based, then you give an entirely hypothetical argument.

I gave a specific instance. Not a hypothetical. When our level of surety is high, and the level of danger posed is high enough, reason (not perfectionism) dictates that we 'hang Mr. X'.

I maintain that allowing the state to kill its own citizens as a matter of reasonable application of law DOES result in far more harm and societal cost than the vanishingly small number of cases you hypothesise would make it worth it.

The state is not killing anyone. WE ARE. The state is simply acting on our behalf.

Except the logical and ethical position I stated: that giving states the right to execute their citizens, by law, can never be considered just due to the fact that disinformation, bias and injustice can never, ever be ruled out at any stage.

Again, you are basing you position of ideological perfectionism (i.e., the state's imperfectionism). I am rejecting that as unattainably unrealistic. That is not the world we inhabit. In the world we inhabit, RELATIVE ACCURACY is what matters, and what works best. Not perfectionism.

It's trivial to point out that there are people in society who society would definitely be better off if they were killed - that's obvious. The issue is that there exists no system in reality where handing over that power to an external authority will NOT result in a significant cost and the deaths of innocent people.

That's incorrect. There is no PERFECT system that ...,. Which is exactly why should not be trying to persue, ore reject such a "perfect" system. And instead, employ a reasonably (relatively) accurate and effective system.

In a hypothetical scenario where we absolutely, definitely know for certain that Mr X did it, and Mr X will do it again, and Mr X poses a threat even if incarcerated for life, maybe. But Mr X literally doesn't exist.

Of course he does. There have been quite a few of them over the years.

We live in a reality, where Mr X may not have done it, and Mr X may not do it again, and Mr X may not pose a threat if incarcerated for life.

We do not have the luxury of wallowing in that much lack of control. We do have these killers among us, and we do need to try and control their murderous aspirations.

There's nothing irrational about locking someone up for life.

There is of they continue to pose a real threat to the humans around them.

I would argue it's an entirely imaginary scenario that bears practically no relation to reality whatsoever.

Actually, there are several killers that would fit this scenario in our prison system at any given time. Anyone that has killed people repeatedly and randomly, or has killed as many strangers as possible would pose an existential threat to all humanity.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The victim's family even wanted him to live. There's a chance he could have been innocent.

I don't really know much about this case to be able to comment on the details, but I don't think it should matter in terms of sentencing what the family personally wants when it comes to such cases. If we went by the family's wishes, we'd have people being let out or a reduced sentence and others being executed for the same crimes.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Another case on a long list of examples as to why the death penalty is both unnecessary and an affront to human decency.

I think "people" like Adam Britton still being able to breathe is both unnecessary and an affront to human (and animal) dignity and I defy anyone to say otherwise there, but this thread isn't about his case...(Thank the Gods, as this board doesn't have the stomach for that.)

 

[Twilight Hue]

There were definite trends against the death penalty in the U.S. for quite a number of years, and numerous states still prohibit the death penalty. For a few years in the 1970s, it seemed as if the death penalty was a thing of the past, but then it got reinstated and expanded.

Crime was pretty high back in those years, and I've known more than a few people who wanted to bring back public hanging. Unfortunately, there are too many people who seem to be rather bloodthirsty. They'll say that it's all about "justice" and that the guilty must suffer. They've also been led to believe that our system is nearly foolproof, that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Kids learn this stuff in school even before they stop believing in Santa Claus. So, it's permanently imprinted on people's consciousness that if a person is convicted in a court of law, they therefore must be considered proven guilty and subject to punishment, as if it's some kind of commandment from God.

Well, sure, if a lawyer or judge says it, then we know it must be true.

Well I figure if Trump as an example can be convicted in a court of law and is guilty, I see no difference with this line of reasoning just as well with death row convicts. They were all convicted in a court of law being pretty much the bottom line and sentenced post appeals process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unnecessary for what?

You really do not know? It is not necessary for justice. It is not necessary for law and order. It is not necessary for anything. It is only good for vengeance and that should never a state position.

Why?

Because there is always the possibility that you or a loved one of yours could be on the wrong end of an immoral prosecution. And refusing to look at the evidence when a man's life is on the line is immoral.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I figure if Trump as an example can be convicted in a court of law and is guilty, I see no difference with this line of reasoning just as well with death row convicts. They were all convicted in a court of law being pretty much the bottom line and sentenced post appeals process.

Yes Trump is a convicted felon at this point in time. There is a possibility that he could appeal and get it reversed, but since the evidence against him is very strong that is very dubious. For this man a governor changed the laws on his own whim to get the execution done. Just think of how Trump's wealth and position have aided him. Without all of his ties he would be in prison right now. He would be appealing. This man has been in prison and his appeals have been cut short. If that happened to Trump he could appeal again later. This man can't. He's dead due to the state. How would you feel if it was found that the two unreliable witnesses against him were lying for the reward and a lenient sentence? Those that witnessed against Trump got nothing for the most part. I simply cannot see killing a man on such weak evidence. Of course he is the wrong color so there is that.

 

[Koldo]

You really do not know? It is not necessary for justice.

That's a personal opinion.

It is not necessary for law and order. It is not necessary for anything. It is only good for vengeance and that should never a state position.

Because there is always the possibility that you or a loved one of yours could be on the wrong end of an immoral prosecution.

Surely it is also the case I could wrongfully spend 40 years (max jail time in Brazil) in prison. Does this mean no one should be sentenced for 40 years? How about 30, 20, 10... ? Where do you draw the line and say it is alright if an innocent is wrongfully convicted?

And refusing to look at the evidence when a man's life is on the line is immoral.

What does refusing to look at the evidence has to do with the death penalty per se? You clearly don't mean that it only happens when it comes down to the death penalty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a personal opinion.

Prove it.

Surely it is also the case I could wrongfully spend 40 years (max jail time in Brazil) in prison. Does this mean no one should be sentenced for 40 years? How about 30, 20, 10... ? Where do you draw the line and say it is alright if an innocent is wrongfully convicted?

Dude, you are not paying attention. That is a fail on your part

What does refusing to look at the evidence has to do with the death penalty per se? You clearly don't mean that it only happens when it comes down to the death penalty.

No, it is wrong every time that it happens. But there are remedies for those people. How are you going to fix things for a dead man?

 

[Koldo]

Prove it.

Retributive justice is best served when there is proportionality between the crime and the punishment, and the death penalty is a better match for murder than the alternative (jail time). If you don't care about retributive justice, that's simply your personal opinion.

Dude, you are not paying attention. That is a fail on your part

There is nothing to comment here so...

No, it is wrong every time that it happens. But there are remedies for those people. How are you going to fix things for a dead man?

What remedies once the innocent is dead after wrongfully staying in prison for 40 years (perhaps even dying there)? How would you fix that?

 

[Stevicus]

Well I figure if Trump as an example can be convicted in a court of law and is guilty, I see no difference with this line of reasoning just as well with death row convicts. They were all convicted in a court of law being pretty much the bottom line and sentenced post appeals process.

I'm not sure what Trump has to do with it, although listening to him talk, he would say it's all a "witch hunt" and politically motivated.

Or, one can look at an opposite situation, where someone might be declared not guilty, even if there's a strong probability of their guilt (i.e. O.J. Simpson). If we're operating under the assumption that lawyers and judges can never make mistakes, then the police should have been out there looking for the "real killers."

Another interesting aspect is how mobsters can get away with crimes they commit, yet in the cases of Luciano and Genovese, they were somehow framed for crimes they didn't commit. They couldn't get them on the crimes they actually did, but they were able to frame them for crimes they didn't do. However, in general, organized crime has been allowed to flourish and run unabated, while the authorities use all their resources to go after candy thieves, pot smokers, and other petty criminals.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes Trump is a convicted felon at this point in time. There is a possibility that he could appeal and get it reversed, but since the evidence against him is very strong that is very dubious. For this man a governor changed the laws on his own whim to get the execution done. Just think of how Trump's wealth and position have aided him. Without all of his ties he would be in prison right now. He would be appealing. This man has been in prison and his appeals have been cut short. If that happened to Trump he could appeal again later. This man can't. He's dead due to the state. How would you feel if it was found that the two unreliable witnesses against him were lying for the reward and a lenient sentence? Those that witnessed against Trump got nothing for the most part. I simply cannot see killing a man on such weak evidence. Of course he is the wrong color so there is that.

Well the court system is designed to convict a person beyond a reasonable doubt.

Maybe it's just hearsay now.

 

[Stevicus]

Well the court system is designed to convict a person beyond a reasonable doubt.

That appears to be the illusion they try to propagate, but it doesn't seem to be all that true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the court system is designed to convict a person beyond a reasonable doubt.

Maybe it's just hearsay now.

Yes, courts have always been less than perfect. Science is like that in a way. In the sciences facts are conditional. Even gravity could possibly be shown to be wrong. I can no longer see execution being justifiable because there are too many cases where we have been found to be wrong after the fact. And as I have pointed out, though there are remedies for mistaken incarcerations there is no remedy for "Oops, I killed you and you were not really guilty".

 

[Subduction Zone]

That appears to be the illusion they try to propagate, but it doesn't seem to be all that true.

I am going to disagree to an extent. In this case I do not think that it was "beyond a reasonable doubt". But even when it is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that is not good enough for me. Even in cases where the case appears to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" there are people that were innocent.