patrick.net

i think we should have a 'judge dredd' society of instant law enforcement for efficiency's sake... especially summary capital punishment... sure, a lot of innocent people will also be killed by mistake, but we must make society safe for the other innocent people... you know it makes sense...

Peter P said...
For capital crimes, I agree that the convicts be given expedited appeals within three months. If the the appeal fails, execution should be carried out promptly.

What about the times when its been shown that the person didn't commit the crime? At least with 'Life' if evidence, years down the road, shows that person X didn't do it, at least you can release them.
Not so possible with a corpse.

New Thread: Some Indicators

What about the times when its been shown that the person didn’t commit the crime? At least with ‘Life’ if evidence, years down the road, shows that person X didn’t do it, at least you can release them.
Not so possible with a corpse.

Do you know how many innocent people die every day? There may be errors but I think they will prove to be statistically insignificant.

but how many innocent people die at the deliberate hand of another? i think it's then called murder or manslaughter and carries some penalties, even from negligence and workplace safety issues... we're talking human social intent and action here, not random accidents from hurricanes and landslides and vehicles turning over...

Governor George Ryan (Illinois) first gained national attention in the area of capital punishment when, as governor, he declared a moratorium on his state's death penalty in 2000. "We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system — 13 people have been exonerated and 12 have been put to death. There is a flaw in the system, without question, and it needs to be studied. [2]. Ryan called for a commission to study the issue, while noting, "I still believe the death penalty is a proper response to heinous crimes, but I want to make sure ... that the person who is put to death is absolutely guilty."

The issue had garnered the attention of the public when a death row inmate, Anthony Porter, who had spent 15 years on death row and was within two days of being executed, was exonerated with the help of a group of student journalists at Northwestern University who had uncovered evidence that was used to prove his innocence. In 1999 Porter was released, charges were subsequently dropped, and another person, Alstory Simon, confessed and pleaded guilty to the crime Porter had been erroneously convicted of.

Ultimately, on January 11, 2003 just days before leaving office, Ryan commuted (to "life" terms) the sentences of everyone on or waiting to be sent to Illinois' Death Row — a total of 167 convicts — due to his belief that the death penalty could not be administered fairly. He also pardoned four inmates, Aaron Patterson, Madison Hobley and Leroy Orange (who were released), and Stanley Howard (who remained in prison due to a separate conviction). These were four of ten death row inmates known as the "Death Row 10," due to widely reported claims that the confessions that they had given in their respective cases had been coerced through police torture.

Peter P,

You are keen on avoiding moral hazards. Setting up a system whereby swift punishment also effectively silences any possible follow-on defence or eventual retraction of wrongful charges creates a terrible moral hazard. The former IL governor is only the tip of the iceberg of what type of corruption unchecked executions could unleash.

There are plenty of historical examples of how well high-volume state executions plays out. I'm a pragmatist. I don't want criminals on the street. I don't want the state to be the criminal. There has to be a balance.

Randy, of course. If it is so easy it would have been implemented already. :)

Randy,

Yup, that's why I don't actually advocate capital punishment or a speedy trial process. I'm just arguing that if capital punishment was to exist, its deterrence aspect can be made much more effective.

Sadly, the ancient Chinese concept of punishing the family amounts to collective guilt. Exile or death or slavery are often punishments of families unfortunate enough to have an emperor upsetting member. These punishments are indeed only accorded upon perceived acts of treason. Punishment for ordinary crimes are cruel, but don't involve punishing the rest of the family.

well, it's not a question of 'it would have already been implemented already', it's a case of respecting basic human rights and the increasing appreciation of such. many more countries have continued to ban the death penalty than instate it as a mark of increasing civilisation. why is it OK for the state to murder someone who has committed murder? isn't there a paradox in there somewhere? apart from the possibility of corruption re short term or summary trials à la judge dredd -- US officials at all levels are already horribly corrupt and biased, they would start taking out their political enemies and anyone they didn't like with frame ups, where the victim would be dead before they could mount a reasonable defence. apart from the indecency of 'wild west' social conditions which create underclasses in the first place...

i got lots more...

hey, bap, the only countries where the death penalty is being brought back apart from the US are fundamentalist Muslim countries under sha'ria law...

you've got a lot more in common with yer mates than you realised ;)

let's see what's in common with both:
- fundamentalist religious populace and theocratic rulers who make frequent reference to allah or god as their guiding principle
- introduction of strong religious elements into secular life, e.g. the 10 commandments in schools and court houses, school prayer, banning stem cell research, banning gay marriages, etc
- strong proponents of the death penalty
- intolerance of other religions and fervent patriotism tending to irrationality
- monotheistic middle eastern religion with the old testament as the basis
- belief in prophets and saviours
- large numbers of ordinary citizens possess guns and use them
- leaders of both countries in bed with each other, e.g. 'Bandar Bush' the Saudi prince who is an honorary member of the Bush family, and the bin Ladens who were involved in Carlyle and have a trillion dollars in the US stock market and were about to get the green light to run US ports by Bush, hmm...

hell, bap, these guys are practically your cousins... you should step out on the porch and say howdy to yer kin when they come on by to visit with ya...

oops, did i step over the line that time? bap won't like me as much now...

DS,

The Bin Ladens are wealthy, but they don't have a trillion dollars by any measurement. The GDP of Saudi Arabia is less than half a trillion a year.

The Bin Ladens are wealthy, but they don’t have a trillion dollars by any measurement. The GDP of Saudi Arabia is less than half a trillion a year.

the saudis as a whole have invested a trillion into the US stock market over the years, by the report i've read. in round figures. given that their GDP is half a trillion a year, and much of it is oil revenue, they have to plough it somewhere. given that a handful of families control most of the wealth, it would only take a few years to invest it back into the US stock market to that amount. but i'm only quoting a figure i've read, you are free to double-check other sources... my sentence was perhaps a little prone to being read inaccurately, as i'm conflating the house of saud etc with the bin ladens in one line -- it was a quick sentence, but meant it to mean the wealth of saudi arabia.

DS,

When you say "and the bin Ladens who were involved in Carlyle and have a trillion dollars in the US stock market and were about to get the green light to run US ports by Bush, hmm…" it's hard to read it as something other than you surmising that the Bin Ladens have a trillion dollars in the US stock market. I'm not sure you can conflate the Bin Ladens directly with the Sauds. The Bin Ladens may have become extremely wealthy and influential with Saudi patrons, but they're not the rulers of Saudi Arabia.

I'm not familiar with Middleeastern finance but I would be interested to find out more, so please do post your source.

My general sense of the situation is that although the Sauds control the oil revenue, they plow much of the money back in charities and administrative budgets and shopping trips to UAE and such. Although they control the finances of the country, they have a big population (more than half of whom can't work and can't even drive to the grocery store by themselves) to support and no other industry but oil revenues. So I think $1 trillion invested in the US sounds a wee bit on the high side, especially when it makes sense for them to invest much of their surplus in the Middleeast or in Europe, rather than in the more distant and hostile US.

yeah, it's a poor and hastily written sentence -- my apologies...

more research actually suggests it's only half a trillion in the US, or $420 billion, and a total of about $760 billion, or 3/4 of a trillion, in the US and Europe combined.

(According to the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, a pro-Saudi think tank which tries to emphasize the importance of Saudi money to the United States -- Tanya C. Hsu , “The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment” Sept. 23, 2003.)

so only half a trillion. sorry.

one of the reasons many ordinary Saudis are so pissed off with things is that their real wages have been chopped by 2/3 since the 1980s.

note that 60% of overseas investment by saudi arabia is in the US, tho...

Hmm, I can't comment on the amount, though I guess the number could go either ways.

"one of the reasons many ordinary Saudis are so pissed off with things is that their real wages have been chopped by 2/3 since the 1980s."

For some reason, I thought it was much worse than that. My impression was that Saudi Arabia was once on par per capita with the US, but is now less than 1/2 of that. Also, given that need to desalinate their water and don't let their women drive, the cost of living would be a lot higher. Since their males are generally not trained in the sciences of making new stuff, their women can't even do anything outside of the home, and they have a huge population boom -- I will agree with you that the Sauds have gotten themselves into quite a situation.