A Skeptoid show on the Death Penalty?

[Trevor]

I don't always agree with Brian 100%, but I always appreciate his perspective and more importantly, I like the process he uses to arrive at his conclusions. I would like to hear his take on what is the real deal on the death penalty, including when, if ever, it is wise to use in our or any society.

Personally, I used to have the belief that the death penalty was justified, but only for first degree murder. I have since changed my mind, not because I no longer think it just, but because I now no longer have enough faith in the justice system to dole out such an irrevocable sentence. Mistakes get made, evidence does get falsified, and people do lie. I just don't trust the system enough. Conversely, I think people, especially criminals with life sentences, should have the right to commit suicide.

Regarding the death penalty, there are a lot of issues such as cost-benefit analysis, a measurable "deterrent" factor to potential criminals, and whether reform is possible/feasible.

[spacecat]

I also would like to hear what the oil companies have to say on this :D

I'm not sure what claims would be being "debunked" though. Whether it's a viable deterrent would be an interesting place to start.

[Eligbak]

Conversely, I think people, especially criminals with life sentences, should have the right to commit suicide.
That would be waaay to good for them.

Seriously, my - second, apart from the one Trevor has mentioned - principal opposition against the death penalty rests on the point that such people should be kept alive to serve as reminders, and just in case (sometimes unlikely) remorse and the will to reform are creeping up in their souls. Time heals a lot of wounds, but it also makes other things weigh harder on the mind - especially if you're really, really not going to lie on the beach again for at least 20 years.

My impression is that in the US, support for the death penalty is either religious, revenge (eye-for-an-eye) or for economic reasons. A "simple" solution for overflowing prisons would be to reduce the ridiculously high and frequent prison sentences for drug offences (allegedly >50% of inmates are serving time because of drugs). That makes room for murderers, child molesters and a few corrupt politicians/businessmen (I sometimes feel guilty for admiring the Chinese for executing those guys).

But I don't see how the death penalty could be fodder for a Skeptoid potcast, ah podcast, other than to dispell some myths that have presumably crept up around it. For or Against is ultimately a moral question.

[Safe-Keeper]

Too politicial. He's done one political episode I'm aware of, and that's the one on Tibet. Other than that, he's done one called Sarah Palin is not Stupid (the header is not to be taken litterally;)), which basically is about the need to look further than labels when determining the true motives of people. The only other one that comes close is the one about whether the Iraq invasion was for oil. Other than those, I can't think of any. So for him to do a podcat about the death penalty would be for him to wander too deep into political commentary, which is not what Skeptoid is all about. Pointing out the facts and myths about death penalty is better left to commentators that already dabble in politics, like Penn and Teller (not that they are the most objective source, but there you have it).

[Eligbak]

No, he shouldn't do political broadcasts, I totally agree. Unless people have a really sk(r)ewed perspective on the issues, like with Tibet. I appreciated that one.

I'm a great (yeah? yeah) fan of Dan Carlin (http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/csarchive), who does the political thing far better anyway. It strikes me that it's easier to be skeptic about long gone dead things, which is what most of the conspiracy/supernatural myths really are - they walk around like zombies that just refuse to die. (The most interesting are the ones that break the mold, like the "Lost Cosmonauts".) Most fads & fallacies betray themselves by their lingo (could be said of GW Bush, too :D ) There are only some really tough ones, like if WTC 7 really fell down by itself - it just looks so convincing. ;)

Politics, current politics especially, are mostly boring or totally stupid and depressing. At the very least, half of the news are political spin or misunterstandings - I'm kind of extrapolating here from the factoid (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139957) that half of all statistics "are" made up instantly. (Maybe I've just made one up just now)

It's all sort of the other way round - you can dismiss a myth in an instant (and of course it always pops up again, because it never really dies). Historians will spend centuries analyzing and evaluating the shockwaves of September 11, 2001, and nobody will ever be "right".

The present has more gradations to it than the past.
(I just made up my very own quote)

[Cainkane1]

I don't always agree with Brian 100%, but I always appreciate his perspective and more importantly, I like the process he uses to arrive at his conclusions. I would like to hear his take on what is the real deal on the death penalty, including when, if ever, it is wise to use in our or any society.

Personally, I used to have the belief that the death penalty was justified, but only for first degree murder. I have since changed my mind, not because I no longer think it just, but because I now no longer have enough faith in the justice system to dole out such an irrevocable sentence. Mistakes get made, evidence does get falsified, and people do lie. I just don't trust the system enough. Conversely, I think people, especially criminals with life sentences, should have the right to commit suicide.

Regarding the death penalty, there are a lot of issues such as cost-benefit analysis, a measurable "deterrent" factor to potential criminals, and whether reform is possible/feasible.
Georgia USA executed a man who kidnapped, raped and strangled an eleven year old girl to death. He was too nervous to eat his last meal. Am I supposed to feel sorry for him? He committed the crime in 1985 and wasn't executed until 2002. He was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Mistakes are made but not in his case. He was caught because a young boy who witnessed the kidnapping took down the tag number of the rapists truck. The man was arrested the same day. He was tried by a jury of his peers and was given several appeals after being found guilty.

In situations like this I am completely for the death penalty.

[Eligbak]

Georgia USA executed a man who kidnapped, raped and strangled an eleven year old girl to death. He was too nervous to eat his last meal. Am I supposed to feel sorry for him?
No, but are you supposed to feel sorry for the man who pulls the switch, gives the lethal injection or whatnot?

[Cavemonster]

Georgia USA executed a man who kidnapped, raped and strangled an eleven year old girl to death. He was too nervous to eat his last meal. Am I supposed to feel sorry for him? He committed the crime in 1985 and wasn't executed until 2002. He was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There are two questions to ask.
1) What does his, and any, execution accomplish?
2) Is it possible, with our justice system, to achieve 100% certainty that every executed criminal is truly guilty.

For #1, execution doesn't keep children safe. Life without parole accomplishes that just as well. It doesn't keep others from committing that crime. As far as I know, studies don't support the deterrent effect of the death penalty for those kinds of offenses. It doesn't save the taxpayer money, it's incredibly expensive to execute someone. So the one real remaining benefit is the catharsis it offers the family, and to a lesser extent, society at large.

The answer to #2 is a flat no. There are false and forced confessions, planted evidence, false witnesses, a large incentive for many facets of the justice system to make a serious conviction happen. We know it has happened in the past, and we haven't yet developed safeguards adequate to prevent it.

So let's combine these two answers. How much family and societal catharsis is it worth to falsely execute a man with no chance to clear his name. If 1 in 1000 were falsely accused, is his loss and his family's suffering acceptable in the face of those other 1000 families getting their catharsis?

[Eligbak]

There are two questions to ask.
1) What does his, and any, execution accomplish?
It sends a message that We don't tolerate murderers, rapists etc. here, and may ease the suffering of the victim's family, although I'm not sure about that, really. The best thing is that the criminal will definitely not escape, we won't have to feed and clothe him. The lifers have no need for rehabilitation because they won't enter society again.

If you think that Ted Bundy deserved everything that was done to him, and much much more - howabout a little torture first? - then the only problem is how we deliver him from life to death without feeling guilty for having murdered him in return. Because that's what it is, institutionalized murder. And we've always felt slightly guilty about it - the executioners of olden times used to wear their masks for a reason. I think it was to spare the audience from having to identify with the killer (executioner) as he was about to do his act, and at the same time protect the henchman from beeing seen as a murderer. But that's just disguise, really - if it's being done in your name, you are just as guilty as the person who does the deed, orders it, approves the law that allows it. Everything else is a masquerade to diffuse responsibility.

[Van00uber]

personally, I find the death penlty to be primative, hypocritical and immoral solution, as Ghandi said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

[znhunter]

Yo,
Brian usually doesn't do politics (I don't know why, don't ask me)!

[majamin]

Regarding the death penalty, there are a lot of issues such as cost-benefit analysis, a measurable "deterrent" factor to potential criminals, and whether reform is possible/feasible.

Skeptoid focuses on clearing up more or less common misconceptions and falsehoods, not as another responder mentioned, politics topics. Brian's strategy seems to be to foster critical thinking skills through mundane (but interesting) topics, rather than to broach sensitive topics that would turn more people away. Having said that, armed with critical thinking skills, there is nothing to stop those people from thinking about those sensitive topics afterwards.

As for capital punishment, since probability of sending an innocent person to death is non-zero, it will eventually happen. The moral burden of executing an innocent person being so severe, I think it is irresponsible to continue this act of punishment.

Majamin

[Soapy Sam]

But it's ok to go on sending the wrong people to jail for life?

Maybe, instead of constantly pointing out that the system is unreliable, we might try to fix it?

Once fixed, if we have a cast iron case- He was seen to do it, caught on vid doing it and admitted doing it, would you hang him then, or would you think of another reason not to?

(Welcome to the forum , by the way. I'm not attacking you, just the old canard about imperfect systems. Cars kill thousands of people daily around the world, but we don't do away with them because they are imperfect; we try to improve them.)

[Tomtomkent]

Meh, have opinions on this matter, but wont bore you with them. I will just offer an answer to the original question: would this make a good episode? In my opinion no, as it is too much about the belief in what is or is not justified, as opposed to the analysis of data. Just my opinionthough, Mr Dunning should continue to make which ever podcasts he wants.

[majamin]

But it's ok to go on sending the wrong people to jail for life?


Of course it's not ok ... your implication is a non-sequitur. It's wrong to send innocent people to death *and* it's wrong to send innocent people to jail.


Maybe, instead of constantly pointing out that the system is unreliable, we might try to fix it?


My contention is that the system can *never* be perfectly reliable in *all* cases, so that an execution of an innocent person is inevitable. And yes, I do think that the death penalty is much worse than a jail sentence.


Once fixed, if we have a cast iron case- He was seen to do it, caught on vid doing it and admitted doing it, would you hang him then, or would you think of another reason not to?


Yes, there will be cases where there is no ambiguity. My argument does not rely on these kinds of cases.


(Welcome to the forum , by the way. I'm not attacking you, just the old canard about imperfect systems. Cars kill thousands of people daily around the world, but we don't do away with them because they are imperfect; we try to improve them.)

We should be worried about car deaths *and* capital punishment deaths. However, accidental deaths caused by car accidents are unfortunate and should be mitigated, deaths by capital punishment can be stopped instantly; by the flick of a pen.

Thanks for the welcome. And don't worry, I assume that people here intend not to attack each other, but pose good arguments for good conversations.

I guess I should say something to the the original post (for etiquette sakes) ... I think that it would be possible to have a Skeptoid episode on this topic. The ideas that I have proposed here maybe a place to start for such an episode.