Should the death penalty's "appeals process" be scrapped?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... lann-roof/

So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals? Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?

I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes. If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all? The whole thing is "unfalsifiable," sure; but its critics obviously don't care about that or they wouldn't be making unfalsifiable claims about what's "really" motivating its advocates.

As well, it allows people who think saving convicts' lives justifies lying to say it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to "execute" folks. Nonsense. Bullets aren't that expensive. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through appeals. You're spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on marginally more certainty than the certainty that is considered certainty enough to throw people in the rape house. Who are they trying to impress? If it's people who do not think unfalsifiable deterrence is enough to justify the risk of doing such things to the innocent, why do they leave prisoners to rape and beat each other for the rest of their lives, or deny convicts welfare and jobs alike when they get out so they have no choice but to steal and end up in prison again?

The whole thing just strikes me as an attempt to "split the difference" and pander to a middle ground that doesn't exist. Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.

(The irony is, I think murderers have more reason to fear prison; whether they actually do or not; than many non-murderers. Even other criminals hate murderers' guts. But conmen and the like would thrive in prison... how do you scare people out of running scams other than by threatening to execute them?)

[Vistulange]

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/will-federal-government-actually-execute-dylann-roof/

So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals? Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?

I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes. If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all? The whole thing is "unfalsifiable," sure; but its critics obviously don't care about that or they wouldn't be making unfalsifiable claims about what's "really" motivating its advocates.

As well, it allows people who think saving convicts' lives justifies lying to say it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to "execute" folks. Nonsense. Bullets aren't that expensive. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through appeals. You're spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on marginally more certainty than the certainty that is considered certainty enough to throw people in the rape house. Who are they trying to impress? If it's people who do not think unfalsifiable deterrence is enough to justify the risk of doing such things to the innocent, why do they leave prisoners to rape and beat each other for the rest of their lives, or deny convicts welfare and jobs alike when they get out so they have no choice but to steal and end up in prison again?

The whole thing just strikes me as an attempt to "split the difference" and pander to a middle ground that doesn't exist. Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.

(The irony is, I think murderers have more reason to fear prison; whether they actually do or not; than many non-murderers. Even other criminals hate murderers' guts. But conmen and the like would thrive in prison... how do you scare people out of running scams other than by threatening to execute them?)

You see, there's this thing called due process. It tries to minimize the risk of executing an innocent, or hell, even in countries where there is no capital punishment, the conviction of innocents based upon fabricated evidence, mishandled evidence, police tampering with evidence, poorly handled trials (by the judge or the jury, where such exists), and so many things that can go wrong with a criminal (or civil, really) trial.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/will-federal-government-actually-execute-dylann-roof/

So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals? Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?

I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes. If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all? The whole thing is "unfalsifiable," sure; but its critics obviously don't care about that or they wouldn't be making unfalsifiable claims about what's "really" motivating its advocates.

As well, it allows people who think saving convicts' lives justifies lying to say it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to "execute" folks. Nonsense. Bullets aren't that expensive. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through appeals. You're spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on marginally more certainty than the certainty that is considered certainty enough to throw people in the rape house. Who are they trying to impress? If it's people who do not think unfalsifiable deterrence is enough to justify the risk of doing such things to the innocent, why do they leave prisoners to rape and beat each other for the rest of their lives, or deny convicts welfare and jobs alike when they get out so they have no choice but to steal and end up in prison again?

The whole thing just strikes me as an attempt to "split the difference" and pander to a middle ground that doesn't exist. Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.

(The irony is, I think murderers have more reason to fear prison; whether they actually do or not; than many non-murderers. Even other criminals hate murderers' guts. But conmen and the like would thrive in prison... how do you scare people out of running scams other than by threatening to execute them?)

You see, there's this thing called due process. It tries to minimize the risk of executing an innocent, or hell, even in countries where there is no capital punishment, the conviction of innocents based upon fabricated evidence, mishandled evidence, police tampering with evidence, poorly handled trials (by the judge or the jury, where such exists), and so many things that can go wrong with a criminal (or civil, really) trial.

Pretty much hits the nail on the head for what I think.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/will-federal-government-actually-execute-dylann-roof/

So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals? Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?

I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes. If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all? The whole thing is "unfalsifiable," sure; but its critics obviously don't care about that or they wouldn't be making unfalsifiable claims about what's "really" motivating its advocates.

As well, it allows people who think saving convicts' lives justifies lying to say it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to "execute" folks. Nonsense. Bullets aren't that expensive. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through appeals. You're spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on marginally more certainty than the certainty that is considered certainty enough to throw people in the rape house. Who are they trying to impress? If it's people who do not think unfalsifiable deterrence is enough to justify the risk of doing such things to the innocent, why do they leave prisoners to rape and beat each other for the rest of their lives, or deny convicts welfare and jobs alike when they get out so they have no choice but to steal and end up in prison again?

The whole thing just strikes me as an attempt to "split the difference" and pander to a middle ground that doesn't exist. Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.

(The irony is, I think murderers have more reason to fear prison; whether they actually do or not; than many non-murderers. Even other criminals hate murderers' guts. But conmen and the like would thrive in prison... how do you scare people out of running scams other than by threatening to execute them?)

You see, there's this thing called due process. It tries to minimize the risk of executing an innocent, or hell, even in countries where there is no capital punishment, the conviction of innocents based upon fabricated evidence, mishandled evidence, police tampering with evidence, poorly handled trials (by the judge or the jury, where such exists), and so many things that can go wrong with a criminal (or civil, really) trial.

Would you prefer they get raped by their cellmate, beaten by the guards, let out into a society where no one wants to hire them, be denied welfare so they've no option but to steal again, end up in prison again, and have the whole cycle repeat itself for the rest of their lives?

[Page]

The death penalty shouldn't exist and prisoners shouldn't be at risk of bodily harm. It works just fine for Norway.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

You see, there's this thing called due process. It tries to minimize the risk of executing an innocent, or hell, even in countries where there is no capital punishment, the conviction of innocents based upon fabricated evidence, mishandled evidence, police tampering with evidence, poorly handled trials (by the judge or the jury, where such exists), and so many things that can go wrong with a criminal (or civil, really) trial.

Would you prefer they get raped by their cellmate, beaten by the guards, let out into a society where no one wants to hire them, be denied welfare so they've no option but to steal again, end up in prison again, and have the whole cycle repeat itself for the rest of their lives?

I’d rather they not be dead, I’d also rather we made life for convicted felons easier once they get out of prison so as to make their transition back into society easier and decrease their chances of recidivism.

[Page]

You see, there's this thing called due process. It tries to minimize the risk of executing an innocent, or hell, even in countries where there is no capital punishment, the conviction of innocents based upon fabricated evidence, mishandled evidence, police tampering with evidence, poorly handled trials (by the judge or the jury, where such exists), and so many things that can go wrong with a criminal (or civil, really) trial.

Would you prefer they get raped by their cellmate, beaten by the guards, let out into a society where no one wants to hire them, be denied welfare so they've no option but to steal again, end up in prison again, and have the whole cycle repeat itself for the rest of their lives?

False dichotomy, not only do we not have to kill people, we don't have to do any of those things either.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

The death penalty shouldn't exist and prisoners shouldn't be at risk of bodily harm. It works just fine for Norway.

Norway got there by having a unionized work force and therefore good enough working conditions that people feel less need to resort to crime. I admire what they've achieved, and all countries should strive to imitate it, but if we reduce deterrence before we get there, we have no way of knowing how many more people would resort to crime without fear holding them back.

[Gormwood]

Given that people on death row have been found innocent years after their conviction or even postmortem, no. Just because some psychopaths use it as an excuse to put off their execution doesn't mean cutting off the last resort of people potentially cheated by the criminal justice system.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The death penalty should be abolished.

Abolishing the appeals process would taint executions with the possibility of the accused being innocent after all. In a few cases they'd even be demonstrated innocent in the time after their execution, when they would otherwise have been alive and appealing.

It's an accelerationist argument, and those generally go wrong. But there it is. No appeals would make execution less attractive to the public, possibly, leading to the sooner abolition of the death penalty.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Given that people on death row have been found innocent years after their conviction or even postmortem, no. Just because some psychopaths use it as an excuse to put off their execution doesn't mean cutting off the last resort of people potentially cheated by the criminal justice system.

People have been executed even when the appeals process agreed with their conviction. The risk of them being executed is still there, just somewhat reduced at the expense of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars and a several year delay. If the risk is not acceptable, why not make the workplace more appealing, welfare more accessible, and prison more humane and the death penalty sought more sparingly? Again, whose interests does this supposed "middle ground" serve?

[Thepeopl]

The death penalty shouldn't exist and prisoners shouldn't be at risk of bodily harm. It works just fine for Norway.

Norway got there by having a unionized work force and therefore good enough working conditions that people feel less need to resort to crime. I admire what they've achieved, and all countries should strive to imitate it, but if we reduce deterrence before we get there, we have no way of knowing how many more people would resort to crime without fear holding them back.

Death penalty, harsh punishment doesn't deter murderers, criminals or conmen.
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-02- ... 16030?nw=0

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and- ... lty-states

Yes death penalty appeal should be scrapped. Easiest way of doing that is scrapping the death penalty.

Death row is very expensive. You could use that money to resocialize convicts. Let them train social help dogs, who can open fridges, help with laundry etc for disabled people. Training dogs has proven to be beneficial to convicts and brings down aggression in prisons.
https://can-do-canines.org/our-dogs/prison-program/

[Forsher]

You will never be able to convince me that life without the possibility of parole is a less cruel sentence than "you shall be taken from this place and hanged". However, either way, we should be sure that we're being a prick to the right person so... no, appeals shouldn't be scrapped in death penalty cases.

(I would suggest death penalties apply only in cases with exceedingly clear evidence and/or confessions. That last point probably sounds bizarre but, remember, I hold life sentences to be infinitely more fucked up than death sentences.

I suspect most anti death penalty advocates wouldn't have too many problems with abolishing life sentences either.)

[Ifreann]

Prison is bad, therefore the state should have far greater power to kill people it doesn't like. Strange, strange reasoning.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Given that people on death row have been found innocent years after their conviction or even postmortem, no. Just because some psychopaths use it as an excuse to put off their execution doesn't mean cutting off the last resort of people potentially cheated by the criminal justice system.

People have been executed even when the appeals process agreed with their conviction. The risk of them being executed is still there, just somewhat reduced at the expense of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars and a several year delay. If the risk is not acceptable, why not make the workplace more appealing, welfare more accessible, and prison more humane and the death penalty sought more sparingly? Again, whose interests does this supposed "middle ground" serve?

Well making it more expensive for the State makes it sought "more sparingly". The delay might also make it less satisfying for ... everyone who is in favor of it. Making it also less sought.

[The Two Jerseys]

No, everyone is entitled to an appeal.

But we should limit the number of appeals they can file so that they can't just keep throwing stuff at the wall until something sticks. One appeal all the way up to SCOTUS, that's all they should get.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I think death "penalty" without appeal should be an option for any prisoner given a long sentence.

Reducing the rate of prison suicides would focus more attention on those that are really murders.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

You will never be able to convince me that life without the possibility of parole is a less cruel sentence than "you shall be taken from this place and hanged". However, either way, we should be sure that we're being a prick to the right person so... no, appeals shouldn't be scrapped in death penalty cases.

(I would suggest death penalties apply only in cases with exceedingly clear evidence and/or confessions. That last point probably sounds bizarre but, remember, I hold life sentences to be infinitely more fucked up than death sentences.

I suspect most anti death penalty advocates wouldn't have too many problems with abolishing life sentences either.)

Actually, the most popular alternative to the death penalty is "life without parole." Not that anyone who gets parole; or anyone who gets let out because their sentence "wasn't" a life sentence; is going to qualify for a job or welfare. The public denied them those things of its own accord. So every prison sentence essentially is a life sentence, be it for a decade or for half a month.

That said, I'd be wary of a confession exception. Prisoners can falsely confess if they expect more leniency than if they were falsely convicted anyway. That sounds less like a way to deter criminals and more like a means to silence falsely-confessing prisoners before they can tell other prisoners that's what they did.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

People have been executed even when the appeals process agreed with their conviction. The risk of them being executed is still there, just somewhat reduced at the expense of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars and a several year delay. If the risk is not acceptable, why not make the workplace more appealing, welfare more accessible, and prison more humane and the death penalty sought more sparingly? Again, whose interests does this supposed "middle ground" serve?

Well making it more expensive for the State makes it sought "more sparingly". The delay might also make it less satisfying for ... everyone who is in favor of it. Making it also less sought.

I mean provisions that it be used only on cases where you have reason to believe there is actually deterrence value. Deterrence is hard to prove or disprove generally, but that doesn't mean you can't have reason to suspect that, let's say, some criminal those who would thrive in prison seek to imitate, has more reason to be executed than, let's say, someone who you know is going to be the bottom of even criminals' social pecking order and therefore is already being made an example of anyway.

Right now the key factor in execution isn't how much of a deterrence message an individual's execution would send but how badly the public wants them to be executed. The same public, of course, that refuses to provide jobs or welfare to ex-convicts.

[Vassenor]

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/will-federal-government-actually-execute-dylann-roof/

So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals? Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?

I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes. If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all? The whole thing is "unfalsifiable," sure; but its critics obviously don't care about that or they wouldn't be making unfalsifiable claims about what's "really" motivating its advocates.

As well, it allows people who think saving convicts' lives justifies lying to say it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to "execute" folks. Nonsense. Bullets aren't that expensive. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through appeals. You're spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on marginally more certainty than the certainty that is considered certainty enough to throw people in the rape house. Who are they trying to impress? If it's people who do not think unfalsifiable deterrence is enough to justify the risk of doing such things to the innocent, why do they leave prisoners to rape and beat each other for the rest of their lives, or deny convicts welfare and jobs alike when they get out so they have no choice but to steal and end up in prison again?

The whole thing just strikes me as an attempt to "split the difference" and pander to a middle ground that doesn't exist. Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.

(The irony is, I think murderers have more reason to fear prison; whether they actually do or not; than many non-murderers. Even other criminals hate murderers' guts. But conmen and the like would thrive in prison... how do you scare people out of running scams other than by threatening to execute them?)

Here's the thing though. While theoretically the shorter delay between sentence being passed and carried out is supposed to improve the deterrent effect, supposedly to the tune of one less murder for every 2.75 years the gap is reduced by, (Shepherd, 2004) in practice it doesn't really seem work that way. Heck, even as far back as the 1970s there was some debate about whether capital punishment in and of itself was a deterrent against crime (Ehrlich, 1973, Passel and Taylor, 1977).

There's also the argument to be made that in order for capital punishment to be effective as a deterrent, it must be the mandatory sentence for a given offence, rather than only being given out when sufficient aggravating factors are present (Donohue and Wolfers, 2006).

Sources:

Shepherd J M (2004) Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment in The Journal of Legal Studies Vol 33(2) pp.283-321

Ehrlich I (1973) The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death - https://www.nber.org/papers/w0018

Passell P and Taylor JB (1977) The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Another View - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/su ... 1.335.1428

Donohue JJ and Wolfers J (2006) Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate - https://www.nber.org/papers/w11982

[Sundiata]

Honestly, the death penalty should be scrapped. It's an egregious assault on the dignity of human beings. The state should not deal in death.

[Gravlen]

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/will-federal-government-actually-execute-dylann-roof/

So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals?

I agree, the prison condition in the US is unacceptable. Is your solution to do away with prisons entirely?

Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?

That makes no sense. Do you labor under the delusion that trial judges aren't told to get it right?

I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes.

No, the point of the death penalty is to kill the person.

No really. That's the point of it. It's not about deterrence, it's about elimination.

If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all?

Yep, there should be no death penalty at all.

Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.

That has nothing to do with appeals, which is what you claim to be the main topic of your thread, but... swell?

[Thepeopl]

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nor ... &r=US&IR=T

See, no life imprisonment unless you are not rehabilitated. Then you are in prison until death.

No death penalty, no harsh punishment.
Woodworking, recording studios, courses to prepare inmates to participate in society.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

If there is absolutely no doubt as to Dylann Roof's guilt and motives, then what is the point of having an appeals process? And what's all this nonsense about lethal injections and "humane" executions? Just take him out to a field and execute him the same way his victims died, in a hail of bullets at the hands of a firing squad.

I do think an appeals process is absolutely appropriate for cases where there is reasonable doubt. This is not one of those cases. I don't think the appeals process should be scrapped just because the prison system is broken and as a result, more men than women are raped in the United States while woke feminists such as Sharon Osbourne and Big Red who claim to be in favor of "gender equality" laugh and joke about it.

[Salandriagado]

Well, yes, obviously. Along with the death penalty. Because that's the only option that doesn't end with state-sanctioned killings of innocent people.