I don't buy this, it's the specific effect of the death penalty that the left object to, and they seem to think that it might not be any more effective than long prison times. I don't know any lefties who think the appropriate penalty for murder would be a fine.
On this issue I'm a right winger and would support the death penalty, as I think are most of my fellow citizens. But I also don't think it would be much more of a deterrent than a lifetime in prison. On personal introspection I find the idea of a lifetime in prison, prevented from committing suicide, much worse than the idea of being executed. But I appreciate that that's not how everybody feels. If it was I'd be in favour of long prison sentences.
I think the left genuinely worry about the idea of executing innocent people. For me the chances of getting a reprieve in such cases seem about commensurate with the chances of being wrongly convicted in the first place, justice systems always make mistakes. So it's a wash.
Definitely the right seem to be more in favour of harsh prison sentences for almost all crimes, but I think that the right see crime as a matter of personal evil, whereas the left see thieves at least as victims of an unjust system.
It's probably the same with tax fraud, but mirrored. Not much to explain there, surely?
Would you support the death penalty for anyone who had a role in putting a person later exonerated on death row, or actually to death? Or can anyone invoke the "It was a mistake" defense? The only capital punishment I would consider supporting (as a non-liberal) would be when applied to government officials who kill the innocent. That would include the execution of wars of aggression.
"Since 1973, at least 200 people have been exonerated from death row in the U.S., according to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). A 2014 study estimated that at least 4% of those sentenced to death are innocent. These numbers don’t demonstrate the full scope of the impact that the death penalty has on the problem of wrongful conviction as the threat of the death penalty causes innocent people to plead guilty and induces false testimony from witnesses." — Innocence Project
> Would you support the death penalty for anyone who had a role in putting a person later exonerated
Of course not, that would make government and the law impossible, and I'm largely in favour of both.
> 4% of those sentenced to death are innocent
That sounds acceptable, no legal system can be perfect. I think a very liberal man once said that it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.
It doesn't seem any worse that the victims of miscarriages end up dead rather than locked up forever.
And I suspect that those 4% are mostly innocent in a fairly technical sense. The interesting number would be how many people who'd never hurt a fly were on death row. Not terribly many, I'd hazard? Unless your legal system is very very broken.
But I absolutely take your point about the plea bargain thing. As a European that looks very strange and wrong to me, but generally speaking the law turns out to be sensibly designed , so I'd have to read an essay by someone who thinks plea bargaining is a good thing to form any sort of strong opinion.
Suspicions don't have much probative value. DNA often proves innocence, which is very technical and very conclusive. I don't share your nonchalance about innocent people being imprisoned and killed.
I'm not nonchalant about it, I think it's very bad! But we don't get to have a perfect legal system, so we have to make a tradeoff if we want to have a legal system at all. And I do want one and I presume you do too. So what's the appropriate tradeoff?
Yeah, I want to see that documentary about bioethicists’ lame rationalizations for allowing over a million people die. That seems like a documentary worth making.
My libertarian observation is that it's a wash. The Left supported prosecution of those who invaded the capital, while the Right supported pardoning even those convicted of violent crimes. The Right supports violent acts by militarized government agents, while the Left objects. Both sides support violence whose ends they think justify the means.
I am not sure that 'don't care' is the best way to put it, but there are a good many who put violence in the 'nothing can be done about' bin. (They've given up on the idea that it is economic hardship causing the crime, and if it is all systematic racism, well that's always there ...)
Seems like the probability of consequences, be they positive or negative, plays a role.
Probability, latency and severity all matter.
I don't buy this, it's the specific effect of the death penalty that the left object to, and they seem to think that it might not be any more effective than long prison times. I don't know any lefties who think the appropriate penalty for murder would be a fine.
On this issue I'm a right winger and would support the death penalty, as I think are most of my fellow citizens. But I also don't think it would be much more of a deterrent than a lifetime in prison. On personal introspection I find the idea of a lifetime in prison, prevented from committing suicide, much worse than the idea of being executed. But I appreciate that that's not how everybody feels. If it was I'd be in favour of long prison sentences.
I think the left genuinely worry about the idea of executing innocent people. For me the chances of getting a reprieve in such cases seem about commensurate with the chances of being wrongly convicted in the first place, justice systems always make mistakes. So it's a wash.
Definitely the right seem to be more in favour of harsh prison sentences for almost all crimes, but I think that the right see crime as a matter of personal evil, whereas the left see thieves at least as victims of an unjust system.
It's probably the same with tax fraud, but mirrored. Not much to explain there, surely?
Would you support the death penalty for anyone who had a role in putting a person later exonerated on death row, or actually to death? Or can anyone invoke the "It was a mistake" defense? The only capital punishment I would consider supporting (as a non-liberal) would be when applied to government officials who kill the innocent. That would include the execution of wars of aggression.
"Since 1973, at least 200 people have been exonerated from death row in the U.S., according to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). A 2014 study estimated that at least 4% of those sentenced to death are innocent. These numbers don’t demonstrate the full scope of the impact that the death penalty has on the problem of wrongful conviction as the threat of the death penalty causes innocent people to plead guilty and induces false testimony from witnesses." — Innocence Project
> Would you support the death penalty for anyone who had a role in putting a person later exonerated
Of course not, that would make government and the law impossible, and I'm largely in favour of both.
> 4% of those sentenced to death are innocent
That sounds acceptable, no legal system can be perfect. I think a very liberal man once said that it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.
It doesn't seem any worse that the victims of miscarriages end up dead rather than locked up forever.
And I suspect that those 4% are mostly innocent in a fairly technical sense. The interesting number would be how many people who'd never hurt a fly were on death row. Not terribly many, I'd hazard? Unless your legal system is very very broken.
But I absolutely take your point about the plea bargain thing. As a European that looks very strange and wrong to me, but generally speaking the law turns out to be sensibly designed , so I'd have to read an essay by someone who thinks plea bargaining is a good thing to form any sort of strong opinion.
Suspicions don't have much probative value. DNA often proves innocence, which is very technical and very conclusive. I don't share your nonchalance about innocent people being imprisoned and killed.
I'm not nonchalant about it, I think it's very bad! But we don't get to have a perfect legal system, so we have to make a tradeoff if we want to have a legal system at all. And I do want one and I presume you do too. So what's the appropriate tradeoff?
That subsequently exonerated people sometimes end up on death row, if not some actually executed, deters me from supporting capital punishment.
Yeah, I want to see that documentary about bioethicists’ lame rationalizations for allowing over a million people die. That seems like a documentary worth making.
Wait, the left doesn't care about violent crime. Is that true, lefties?
My libertarian observation is that it's a wash. The Left supported prosecution of those who invaded the capital, while the Right supported pardoning even those convicted of violent crimes. The Right supports violent acts by militarized government agents, while the Left objects. Both sides support violence whose ends they think justify the means.
Good points. Political tribes have a/im/moral positions all their own.
I am not sure that 'don't care' is the best way to put it, but there are a good many who put violence in the 'nothing can be done about' bin. (They've given up on the idea that it is economic hardship causing the crime, and if it is all systematic racism, well that's always there ...)
Thanks for the explanation. It now makes perfect sense.