Boy, that is a giant broad sweeping generalization statement - which is obviously wrong.

 

You are correct that most times we should consider options that may go wrong - but other times we should not.  Examples are to be found in everything from space travel to legal strategies and all things in between.

 

But basically there are two variables that combine to give rise to situations where even a small chance of error is unacceptable:

 

1.  When the cost of the error is great.

2.  When the benefit of the risky strategy is small.

 

(You will recognize this as part of a basic risk/benefit analysis)

 

In the case of the death penalty, both elements apply.  The cost of the error is tremendous:  the execution of an innocent human.  The benefit of the death penalty over a life sentence is small, if even present at all.

 

So even though the chance of error is small, why would we take that chance with a human life when there is very little benefit to this strategy?

 

 

Not necessarily.

 

Three distinctions:

 

1.  There is no doubt of the identity of the fetus.  We are certain that we are killing the correct fetus, but we do not know with 100% certainty that the convict is guilty, or specifically worthy of the death penalty.

 

2.  Most people, and certainly those who support abortion rights, do not value fetal life as much as they value born human life.  Why else would many abortion opponents consider "rape" an acceptable cause for abortion?  A fetus has not yet earned full human status.  How much human status one loses by committing heinous crimes is a matter of opinion, and varies quite a bit, apparantly.

 

3.  Nobody is in favor of abortion; nobody looks forward to killing fetuses.  All but sociopaths acknowledge that abortion is morally unpleasant at the very least.  It is an undesireable action taken out of some degree of necessity.  If there were a way to have an "abortion" that didn't involve killing a fetus, it would be preferred by all.  An execution, however, is not a necessity.  It is a perfectly avoidable killing undertaken for the sole purpose of killing.  It is a want, not a need.  Supporters celebrate after an execution; you will never see a celebration after an abortion.

 

Come to think of it, I don't think they are the same at all.

 

 

 

Good example.

 

Of course, not on the tape is the fact that the defendant's family is being held by FARC, and the family will be tortured and killed if the defendant doesn't go through with the robbery/murder, or doesn't confess, or doesn't say he will do it again.

 

Also not on the tape is the fact that the defendant suffers from complete mental defect.

 

Also not on the tape is the fact that the defendant had just discovered that the three victims had raped and murdered his wife.

 

And, of course, the defendant has an unknown evil identical twin (the goatee was shaved off for the occasion).  He only confessed because he was tortured by the police.

 

Also important is that the video footage was hacked by Russian spies to cover up that this was actually an espionage operation, and the defendant is being framed.  He confessed because he likes the attention.

 

So yeah, he might not be guilty.

 

Moreover, your scenario is so extremely unlikely that it cannot possibly make up more than a very tiny percentage of criminal cases.  If we were to institute a super-duper-beyond-all-conceivable-doubt-at-all standard for death penalty cases, then we would be down to just a very small portion of criminals eligible for the death penalties.  The result of this is that any deterrant effect is drastically reduced, as are all other benefits as well.  What remains is the tremendous expense of maintaining the death penalty system.

 

The cost/benefit analysis in that case clearly argues for not bothering with the death penalty at all.

 

 

Simple - humans are not dogs or horses to be put down when they are inconvenient.  Even murderers retain their status as moral objects.

 

The justice system does not judge people on their value system to society (at least not justice systems in the British tradition).  Instead, it is built around the idea of punishment for a specific act, applied equally to all.  If we were to take the "value to society" approach, we would nuke Alabama for the betterment of the country, and allow Bill Gates and LeBron James to murder as many people as they desire.

 

And to judge guilt around a specific act, there is the fundamental underlying principal of intent.  With some exceptions, all criminal convictions require that an person intentionally committed an act he knew to be wrong.  The basic rule is that without criminal intent there can be no crime.  If you lack the ability to tell right from wrong, then you are incapable of committing a crime.  This is the underpinning both for the insanity defense and the juvenile justice system.  The criminally insane, as well as children, lack the capacity to tell right from wrong, and therefore cannot commit a crime.

 

Once we cross into the territory of executing humans because they have the mental equivalent of a broken leg, then we have crossed into dangerous territory indeed.

 

 

Almost by definition, everybody is either a net asset or a net detriment to society.  And arguably, most people are net detriments, if only by failing to contribute more.

 

This line of thought is a giant mental step towards the justification for category-based involuntary euthanisia.

 

Jeffrey Dahmer, for instance, was found NOT to be "insane" for legal purposes, and was convicted of his crimes.  Yet most of us would agree that he was a complete loon.  Similarly, if your farmboy was raised completely isolated from societal morality, it is quite possible that he could be insane for purposes of criminal culpability while being perfectly normal in all other respects.

 

The reason we don't put legally insane folk in prison is because prison is punishment, and the legally insane didn't commit a crime.  Of course, in that case we usually deem them a danger to society, and put them in criminal mental hospitals, which are basically prisons run by nurse Ratchet.  So not exactly a walk in the park either.  And, usually, these medical/judicial commitments do not have an end term - as discovered by Mr. Nicholson.  A manslaughter convicion might get you 5-10 years, but a not guilty by reason of mental defect fo the same act gets you potentially a lifetime in a mental hospital.

 

 

 

But when you put down a crazy dog, you aren't "punishing" the dog at all.  You are removing a threat.  There is no moral judgement.  This is the exact reason we don't punish the insane.  Instead, we put them in mental hospitals, which is the moral equivalent of putting them down.  It's not like we just let them loose.

 

 

KBK wrote: Why should a person who stands up in court and admits they can't control themselves

 

But that isn't what legal insanity is.  Those guys go to prison, and for a long time.

 

 

And societies have/do applied that theory.  But if the execution isn't for committing a crime, but for generally being a threat to society due to mental defect, why wait until they actually kill somebody?

 

You kill a rabid dog immediately - you don't wait until they bite somebody.  So if we apply the rabid dog theory, we should go ahead and put down anybody determined to be a threat to society right away, instead of waiting for them to actually do something wrong.

 

 

 

But they can avoid the death penalty in places that have it. Not the propper reward for claiming to temporarily go out of their heads. Surely they are a threat that needs removing? KBK

 

I think you misunderstood my point here.  "Can't control themselves" is not what makes you "insane" for this purpose.  That just makes you a likely repeat offender.  "Insane" is somebody who has no understanding of the moral implications of their crime.  It is a right/wrong issue, not an impulse control issue.  People who declare that they can't control themselves are convicted of crimes and given long sentences (or executed). 

 

Moreover, the insanity defense isn't a "reward" for "claiming" anything.  Despite what you see on TV, the insanity defense is very difficult to establish - as I mentioned earlier, Jeffrey Dahmer tried and failed.  He was legally sane.  And temporary insanity is even more difficult still - in those jurisdictions that even allow that defense at all.

 

The truth is that the insanity defense is a favorite on TV, but is actually rarely successful in real life, and when it is successful usually leads to a result that most people would not consider "success."  Sure, there is the odd exception where you get a result that doesn't seem right, but that is no different than with any other part of the justice system.

 

And if the defense fails, it fails - you don't get to avoid a death penalty just because you asserted a failed insanity defense.  That just isn't how it works.

 

And to take it further - is your position then also that we should execute children of any age that commit what would otherwise be considered murder?  If a 4-year-old grabs a gun, laughs, points it as his mother and shoots, should we execute the kid?  It was clearly intentional.  The kid is obviously a threat to society.

 

 

Not the lawyers?

 

I am shocked.