@oob - it's interesting if the defining factor is 'lives'. What if the state executed a a mass murderer and 3 people benefited from their organs being transplanted so net result +2 lives - that ok?
Yup, the calculation gets morally difficult very quickly and I'm glad I'm not having to make these kinds of decisions.
is a long term cost saving really impossible from a well legislated and run system involving capital punishment?
I think it is because the cost of the legal appeals etc that I think most people would want to allow to condemmed people is far in excess of the cost of just locking them up forever. ...but I haven't worked it out.
@cody - snap :).
@Graham - BRD is no other logical explanation (say .91 probability). That wouldn't be negated because a Judge decided the evidence wasn't more compelling i.e. =>.95.
@oob - agreed :).
Been interesting, cheers.
BRD is no other logical explanation (say .91 probability). That wouldn't be negated because a Judge decided the evidence wasn't more compelling i.e. =>.95.
I'd hope "beyond reasonable doubt" is slightly stricter criteria than a 1 in 10 chance they are innocent. 😯
My point is that when you introduce "degrees of guilt" it is quite possible you will end up with more guilty people going free on appeal and more innocent people being wrongly convicted - which is very much the opposite of what you are trying to achieve.
On the flip side, how would you feel if the convicted murderer of your child was deemed "less guilty" and as a result got a lesser sentence because they weren't caught on CCTV doing it?
deepreddave - Member@cody - I'm exploring the arguments in favour to counter the reasons given against, rather than advocating either per se. Can you explain what imprisoning people and severely restricting their quality of life until they die achieves?
1) it is a punishment
2) it protects society from a criminal
3) if it turns out they were innocent, you can let them out, and attempt to help them rebuild their life.
@Graham - I think studies tend to suggest c90% when judges/juries are asked to put a number on BRD.
I don't see why failure to meet an even higher burden of proof would negate a lower test. Our legal system produces inconsistencies now and it's not less guilty, it's that the weight of evidence is less - very different.
I think studies tend to suggest c90%
That's frightening - and if true heavily supports the case people were making about wrongful convictions.
I don't see why a second, higher burden of proof automatically negates the lower one...
It doesn't "negate it" but would mean that appeal lawyers could point at it and say "Look although the jury found my client guilty, the judge clearly thought the evidence was inconclusive".
In a similar but different version, take a look at the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven ]"the bastard verdict"[/url] in Scots Law
I've sat on a jury and we were specifically that it was not our job to interpret the law, that's the judges job.Having served on a jury I wouldn't let one decide more than they do now! In fact I'd favour a basic exam before you served and having a legally trained person appointed to assist every jury with interpreting the law
@ahwiles - If the only difference is the ability to overturn an injustice whilst someone is alive then I get that however you can't reverse the enormous damage already done anymore than you can eradicate reoffending on release or fund whatever education/healthcare that could have been paid with the costs saved via capital punishment.
I can understand the justification for capital punishment in very extreme cases where the evidence is incontrovertible; after that it's very complex and subjective.
@Graham - [url= http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/beyond_reasonable_doubt/ ]Camb Uni[/url] Interesting read.
@scotroutes - yep but ime it didn't stop 2 jurors deciding based on facts' never presented in court.
That is interesting, thanks.
deepreddave - Member
... however you can't reverse the enormous damage already done...
reverse? no. compensate? possibly.
I can understand the justification for capital punishment in very extreme cases where the evidence is incontrovertible
personally, so can I. I would have no moral problem with the uk courts sentencing certain people to death, but i've got a bit of a vicious streak, so it's probably a good idea that i have no input to sentencing guidelines.
if we're only talking about 'extreme cases', we can't even pretend there'd be a meaningful cost saving. how many cases a year would class as 'extreme' ...? 1? 20? it's a small number, by definition. the potential savings are small.
@ahwiles - ..[i]i've got a bit of a vicious streak, so it's probably a good idea that i have no input to sentencing guidelines[/i]. Haha. The older I get the less tolerant I become!
..[i] the potential savings are small[/i]. Inclined to agree.
All this talk about higher burned of proof or 'in some cases' etc. are still missing the point...
Go back a few pages, to my earlier comments, if you're still even thinking down this line it means you're still in one of the groups that thinks killing the criminal (whatever burned of proof) is the [i]right[/i] response.
But I see no convincing arguments why it is the [i]right[/i] thing to do, only that it's possibly the 'least worst' because it might save money etc.
I don't think killing people is the [i]right[/i] response, nor do I think it can ever be the right response if you want to remain a just and enlightened society.
