Theocracy alive and well in Utah (and considerations of the death penalty)

6 months to one year later, when I'm asked to pull the guy out of a line-up, or identify him at his trial? Not sure enough to kill somebody for it.

How does that follow? The only people that can prove your guilt or innocence are the jury. If you didn't have a jury, it's because it wasn't provable that you committed the crime.If you confess, you don't generally get the death penalty. If the judge wants you to die, he has to convene a jury to decide, I believe. Only juries can give the death penalty. Yes, it's called "presumption of innocence", and it's a basic fundamental law of jurisprudence in this country. Maybe you've heard of it.

seems you updated while i was editing. go to previous post

Well, that's all I'm saying, I guess. "Eye for an eye" may be a theoretically just way to operate, in some opinions, but in practical use it's just not possible.

xwhydoyoureyesx responds to me:

quote:

---

Why exactly does it cost more to kill someone than to house them for the rest of their lives?

---

Because trials are expensive. It is the very rare case that goes straight from conviction to execution. The Tim McVeigh's who waive appeals are few and far between.It costs about $2-3 million to execute a person as it goes through the process of trial and appeal. Given that it costs about $25,000/year to house somebody in jail, a person would need to live for about 80 years in jail in order to have it cost as much as execution.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

You know the killer. You grew up with him. He said, "Howdy," when in walked in the door-- then killed your friend. The point is, you claim it is NEVER possible to be sure. It is possible.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

And I'm somehow supposed to be sure that he doesn't have an identical twin, or a clone, or even just somebody that really , really looks like him?I mean, I can be as sure that he's the killer as I am that I was alive yesterday, or that there's no God - but that's not absolute certainty. That's only tentative certainty. You can be as certain as you like, but I can always construct scenarios that, while ludicrous and improbable, are always possible. So long as there's another possible scenario besides "he did it" we can't be absolutely sure he did it.Basically I'm saying that while I'm sure know, there's no way that any of us could know that we'll always be sure that he did it. Given that we're talking about someone's life, I think life in prison is a reasonable compromise in the light of our tentative knowledge.

Respectfully, crash, you are playing the creationist's "its only a theory" card. You and I both know we can't get absolute certainty on anything. But it is special pleading to give that fact increased relevance in one case. The science is the same. The evidence is the same. The logic is the same.I haven't checked his figures, but if Rhhain's cost analysis is accurate then that is good enough reason to eliminate the death penalty. It is a nice and neat pragmatic reason-- no need to get into this messy morality and theory of knowledge.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

You know the killer. You grew up with him. He said, "Howdy," when in walked in the door-- then killed your friend. The point is, you claim it is NEVER possible to be sure. It is possible.

---

Does the jury know the guy? Do they have any way of knowing Crash isn't lying when he fingers the guy at the trial?The people who have to make the decision are the ones who can't be sure.

quote:

---

They discovered that 13 innocent men were up on the chopping block.

---

I can remember at least one case a while ago where the DA and the cops in a case where DNA evidence might have shown someone to be innocent, but the man had gone through all of his appeals and they refused to re open the case or give the man a new trial. This was just when DNA was starting to be used in criminal investigations.They were more interested in their conviction record than in learning the truth and possibly saving an innocent life.It is already well-known that the death penalty is meted out disproportionately to black men compared to all other offender groups with identical or worse crimes.The death penalty is revenge, pure and simple. It is not justice.

Hi !Wise

Yes, that's my point. No, what gives it special relevance is that a person's life is on the line. All knowledge may be tentative but you can't tentatively execute someone. Death is absolute. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect absolute knowledge if you're going to absolutely execute someone. Since you can't have that kind of knowledge, execution is unreasonable.What's hard to grasp about that? Is it unreasonable to demand absolute certainty if you're going to give the absolute punishment?

quote:

---

You know the killer. You grew up with him. He said, "Howdy," when in walked in the door-- then killed your friend. The point is, you claim it is NEVER possible to be sure. It is possible.

---

hypothetical situations can be used to argue anything, but our judicial system doesn't allow for a scale of confidence. where would the cut off point be in certainty be?i think cash is right in that in the real world the death penalty just doesn't work. just like communism... hooray for everyone being provided for, but you always have circumstances that you can't account for.on a bit of a different topic, i see the judicial system as a means to protect society first and foremost. punishment isn't really a means to protect society unless it's used as a form of rehabilitation.

quote:

---

No, what gives it special relevance is that a person's life is on the line.

---

I'd consider that the case anyway. I fail to see why life in prison is considered the more humane option.

quote:

---

Death is absolute.

---

Yes it is. So is life in prison. You can't take that back either, if you've made a mistake. And what consolation is that? "Oops, we're sorry. You didn't do it after all. But at least you lived a full life-- caged in a little cell." Sorry. That doesn't work for me.

quote:

---

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect absolute knowledge if you're going to absolutely execute someone.

---

If the issue hinges on the irreversibility of captital punishment then by the same logic, you should require absolute knowledge if you are going to remove someone's dignity forever. Any sentence to prison is irreversible and will haunt the convicted until death-- whether guilty or innocent and pardoned.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Yes it is. So is life in prison. You can't take that back either, if you've made a mistake.

---

Now who's thinking in absolutes? If ten years ago a man was convicted to life in prison, and it turns out now that he was innocent, you can let him out of jail. He lost ten years, and that sucks. But he can at least go live the rest of his life a free man.If ten years ago he was executed, well... there's not a whole Hell of a lot you can do to fix things.