Dallas Morning News Revaluates their position on capital punishment

[Almo]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-toy_01edi.ART.State.Edition1.43b925d.html

In my opinion, a very well-written editorial on the nature of the death penalty. Quite noteable since it is a reversal of a position long held by that paper.

[Lonewulf]

*Applauds the article.*

There was a nice little paradox explained on Penn and Teller's "Bullspit*" that I actually kinda liked.

The logic goes like this:

1) If a man kills enough innocent people, he becomes guilty of serial murder and should be executed.

2) The State commits it's actions in the name of the people (through a representative Democratic Republic).

3) Thus, if the government kills a person, it does so in the name of the people.

4) If the government executes innocent people enough times, it is guilty of serial murder.

5) There are not enough measures to ensure that you are executing only guilty individuals. (And yes, even DNA testing is not a perfect tool, especially under political pressure and through a rushed desire for conviction.)

Thus, you have a paradox. If you support the death penalty, then The People become, through representation, guilty enough to be sentenced to death.


*Spelling changed to not upset fragile mentalities.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I lived in Dallas for about 6 months in 2003. The Dallas Morning News is not a bad newspaper, but it did have a heavy right-wing leaning (unlike that vast conspiracy of the left-wing media). Texas doesn't have any issue with giving a person a "fair" trial then hanging them afterwards. It's refreshing to see this newspaper has a change of heart.

I always liked George Carlin take on Texas executions: "Texans execute the most people than any other state, the good news is that there are less Texans"

Charlie (no problem with real Texans, just pseudo ones) Monoxide

[Katana]

While I cheer the ideas expressed in the article, it strikes me as odd that a newspaper will have a position on anything.

Is that its role?

ETA: I'm distinguishing a statement made on behalf of the entire organization from, say, an opinion piece by an individual.

[hgc]

While I cheer the ideas expressed in the article, it strikes me as odd that a newspaper will have a position on anything.

Is that its role?

ETA: I'm distinguishing a statement made on behalf of the entire organization from, say, an opinion piece by an individual.


Yes, newspapers traditionally take positions. It's known as publishing editorials. These are distinguished from opinion columns and letters to the editor in that they are not signed, but rather represent the view of the newspaper (its Editorial Board) officially.

[Katana]

Yes, newspapers traditionally take positions. It's known as publishing editorials.


I know, but I just find it odd.

It's like when the Boston Globe comes out in favor of a particular political candidate. Why? It's a newspaper.

[hgc]

I know, but I just find it odd.

It's like when the Boston Globe comes out in favor of a particular political candidate. Why? It's a newspaper.


Actually, the supposed non-partisanship you are accustomed to with U.S. newspapers is an evolutionary development. Prior to 60-70 years ago, newspapers were usually very political in their slant. They were known as "Democratic" or "Republican" papers in many cases.

[PopeTom]

From the article:

Seventeen years later, a federal judge overturned the conviction, finding that prosecutors had drugged Mr. Willis with powerful anti-psychotic medication during his trial and then used his glazed appearance to characterize him as "cold-hearted." They also suppressed evidence and introduced neither physical proof nor eyewitnesses in the trial – and his court-appointed lawyers mounted a lousy defense.


The defendant was drugged and prosecutors suppressed evidence?
I'm hoping they, at the very least, lose their job. At the very most find themselves on trial. Has a prosecutors win:loss ratio always been more important then seeing that justice is done and that the only person punished for a crime is the person who committed it?

[brodski]

I know, but I just find it odd.

It's like when the Boston Globe comes out in favor of a particular political candidate. Why? It's a newspaper.

Because that’s what newspapers do. Newspapers are not there to just report the news, they are there to interpret the news. I don’t know about in eth USA, but this side of eth pond newspapers specifically compete on their political views (a position is taken by the paper to appeal to a certain section of the market). Indeed it was taken as gospel in many economic circles that Newspapers could not effectively compete on price, as consumers wanted a particular political view from their newspapers, a desire which would override petty price concerns.
When Murdoch took over the Times and dropped it’s price by around 70% for a period of time, a period which saw the circulation of the Times grow at eth expense of other papers with differing or even opposing ideological bents, this theory was shot to pieces.

[billydkid]

*Applauds the article.*

There was a nice little paradox explained on Penn and Teller's "Bullspit*" that I actually kinda liked.

The logic goes like this:

1) If a man kills enough innocent people, he becomes guilty of serial murder and should be executed.

2) The State commits it's actions in the name of the people (through a representative Democratic Republic).

3) Thus, if the government kills a person, it does so in the name of the people.

4) If the government executes innocent people enough times, it is guilty of serial murder.

5) There are not enough measures to ensure that you are executing only guilty individuals. (And yes, even DNA testing is not a perfect tool, especially under political pressure and through a rushed desire for conviction.)

Thus, you have a paradox. If you support the death penalty, then The People become, through representation, guilty enough to be sentenced to death.


*Spelling changed to not upset fragile mentalities.If you are not very careful, you might almost not be disgusted with the libertarian point of view.

[Beerina]

> Thus, you have a paradox. If you support the death penalty, then The
> People become, through representation, guilty enough to be sentenced to death.

I'm sure this will come about just as soon as soon as The People are declared guilty for increasing taxes on The Rich, which is to say, robbery (taking of private property without permission, under threat of violence).

[Katana]

Actually, the supposed non-partisanship you are accustomed to with U.S. newspapers is an evolutionary development. Prior to 60-70 years ago, newspapers were usually very political in their slant. They were known as "Democratic" or "Republican" papers in many cases.

Because that’s what newspapers do. Newspapers are not there to just report the news, they are there to interpret the news. I don’t know about in eth USA, but this side of eth pond newspapers specifically compete on their political views (a position is taken by the paper to appeal to a certain section of the market). Indeed it was taken as gospel in many economic circles that Newspapers could not effectively compete on price, as consumers wanted a particular political view from their newspapers, a desire which would override petty price concerns.
When Murdoch took over the Times and dropped it’s price by around 70% for a period of time, a period which saw the circulation of the Times grow at eth expense of other papers with differing or even opposing ideological bents, this theory was shot to pieces.


Hmm. Interesting.

[toddjh]

Personally, I would rather have a newspaper acknowledge and publish its biases rather than aspire to an unrealistic level of objectivity.

[BPSCG]

I read the Lincoln-Douglas debates some years ago; yes, they're actually available in book form, and I highly recommend them. The edition I had noted that different newspapers, who were there taking the debates down in shorthand, had different interpretations of crowd reaction, depending on whether they were Republican or Democratic newspapers. A Republican newspaper might note "scattered applause" in parentheses, referring to a point made by Douglas, while a Democratic newspaper might call the same reaction "strong applause and cheering." One debate evidently ended with Lincoln being carried out on the shoulders of his supporters (they did stuff like that back in 1858), which a Republican newspaper duly noted. A Democratic newspaper, OTOH, said that Lincoln had been so thoroughly whipped by Douglas in the debate that he fainted and collapsed and had to be carried out unconsious.

Newspapers were a lot more fun back then.

[Lonewulf]

If you are not very careful, you might almost not be disgusted with the libertarian point of view.

If I arrive at the conclusion that libertarianism is a good point of view and a solid economic theory, then it will be because of more than just Penn and Teller stating it. Unlike what you seem to be suggesting, thanks.

I am opposed to the death penalty because of my own opinion. Penn and Teller made a suitable, adequate, and impressive argument, but in no way is my opinion developed solely on them. People are allowed to listen to arguments, even by biased sources, compare them with actual evidence and actual reality, and then still develop an individual view.

And personally, I can see some of the arguments behind libertarianism. I don't quite necessarily see why I should see it as "disgusting". Idealistic, maybe, but "disgusting"? Now that's biase for you!

[Lonewulf]

Hmm. Interesting.

See "The Federalist", which was kinda like a newspaper...

For instance, Worker's Unions would have their own newspapers that focused mainly on worker's and worker's rights.

[strathmeyer]

Thus, you have a paradox. If you support the death penalty, then The People become, through representation, guilty enough to be sentenced to death.

How is this a paradox? You're just applying this to one thing the government does. Why not all the other things? Ooops, then the argument doesn't really work then. Oh, well, at least we all feel like better people by pretending something others do is wrong.

[Fronzel]

There was a nice little paradox explained on Penn and Teller's "Bullspit*" that I actually kinda liked.


I had problems with that episode. They said it is never right to take another person's life. No problem with that except it seems to contradict what they said in the episode about Gun Control.

[brodski]

Hmm. Interesting.

For me too, I didn't realise that US newspapers where supposedly editorially neutral.

I subscribe to the theory that all writing is biased, so it’s good to have a clear flag for what that bias will be. However I can see the arguments for neutrality. In the UK broadcast news (Tv and radio) is supposedly neutral.

[Lonewulf]

How is this a paradox? You're just applying this to one thing the government does. Why not all the other things? Ooops, then the argument doesn't really work then.

:confused:

Oh, well, at least we all feel like better people by pretending something others do is wrong.

You seem to feel like you've scored points here. How?

[Lonewulf]

I had problems with that episode. They said it is never right to take another person's life. No problem with that except it seems to contradict what they said in the episode about Gun Control.

Well, they suggested it strongly, but I don't think they stated it blatantly (I.E., they never said the exact words, "It's never right to ever take a life, period, end of story"). But yeah, every episode they have they have just one little portion that's not completely correct, is a bit overstated, or is too emotional.

For me personally, I don't think that taking an innocent life is justifiable when you have any kind of measure to avoid doing it. Doubly so if the method of killing is more expensive than imprisonment.

[Katana]

For me personally, I don't think that taking an innocent life is justifiable when you have any kind of measure to avoid doing it.


Absolutely. What I really found disturbing in the story is that a Supreme Court justice could defend it.

Pathetic.

[strathmeyer]

:confused:

You seem to feel like you've scored points here. How?

Huh? What are you confused about? How come if I kidnap you it's wrong, but it's alright for the government to do it? Taking property? Taxes? But killing is wrong because then the government's just like the bad guys! Are you still confused?

Who is keeping score? Or are you suggesting that I shouldn't speak to people with different ideas than me because that will make them not like me?

[ponderingturtle]

I read the Lincoln-Douglas debates some years ago; yes, they're actually available in book form, and I highly recommend them. The edition I had noted that different newspapers, who were there taking the debates down in shorthand, had different interpretations of crowd reaction, depending on whether they were Republican or Democratic newspapers. A Republican newspaper might note "scattered applause" in parentheses, referring to a point made by Douglas, while a Democratic newspaper might call the same reaction "strong applause and cheering." One debate evidently ended with Lincoln being carried out on the shoulders of his supporters (they did stuff like that back in 1858), which a Republican newspaper duly noted. A Democratic newspaper, OTOH, said that Lincoln had been so thoroughly whipped by Douglas in the debate that he fainted and collapsed and had to be carried out unconsious.

Newspapers were a lot more fun back then.

Hey look at the whole Fatty Arbucle event. It is great that someone got their life ruined becuase it made for a good news story and they had a damn the facts full speed ahead attitude.

[Lonewulf]

Huh? What are you confused about? How come if I kidnap you it's wrong, but it's alright for the government to do it? Taking property? Taxes? But killing is wrong because then the government's just like the bad guys! Are you still confused?

When one lives in the country, they sign over certain privileges; kinda like a contract. But they can expect freedom and a certain amount of security.The idea that the government can kill innocent people at any point of time undermines such an idea.

There is a key difference between taxes and injecting an innocent person with a life-ending toxin, or don't you agree?

But that's fine, then. Execute the executioner and the people directly behind the murder of any innocent people, instead.

Who is keeping score?

Dunno.

Or are you suggesting that I shouldn't speak to people with different ideas than me because that will make them not like me?

When did I suggest that?

[strathmeyer]

When one lives in the country, they sign over certain privileges; kinda like a contract. But they can expect freedom and a certain amount of security.The idea that the government can kill innocent people at any point of time undermines such an idea.

By your argument, since the government can take too much money in taxes from me, taxes should be illegal.

[a_unique_person]

Seventeen years later, a federal judge overturned the conviction, finding that prosecutors had drugged Mr. Willis with powerful anti-psychotic medication during his trial and then used his glazed appearance to characterize him as "cold-hearted." They also suppressed evidence and introduced neither physical proof nor eyewitnesses in the trial – and his court-appointed lawyers mounted a lousy defense



Evidence like this seems to indicate that prosecutors will do everything they can do gain a conviction. If so, then it's not just people accused of murder who don't get justice.

[timhau]

I have to say that the current position of the Dallas Morning News is pretty darn close to the position I've held for a long, long time. I don't buy the "It cheapens human life" -argument and I'm not sure what to make of the hoopla about DP being a deterrent or not; I just haven't seen a justice system I'd trust with the decision over life and death, and I doubt I'll ever see one as long as it's humans who make up the system.

[Lonewulf]

By your argument, since the government can take too much money in taxes from me, taxes should be illegal.

If the government has taken so much money from those that are impoverished that the impoverished have starved to death because of government intervention? If there were people that actually died thanks to this government decision?

Then yes, we should work to resolve that. Do you disagree?

For me, it's the occam's razor of government change: Which is more likely -- changing the entire court system, changing the lawyers and judges, to try to prevent all of the corruption that leads to the ending of innocent human lives...

...Or just simply ending the death penalty, which already puts people on death row for years at a time, and seems to have no problem with suddenly exonerating someone thanks to DNA evidence. (I'd also add that not only is it expensive to kill every individual person, but also that those killed are such an extremely small number that I really don't think that it matters to end the death penalty anyways).

The latter is a policy that's much easier to enact.

And no, this isn't necessarily a false dichotomy. There are other things you can do. One of them is nothing at all; I do not agree that this is a good thing. Another thing is to try to get more relevant and reliable tests to convict the right killers; but even then, I'd be skeptical. The DNA test is considered to be accurate; lie detectors were considered to be accurate. But neither truly is.

DNA tests may be a good tool, but it is not perfect, and as long as court systems act like they are perfect, testimony and contrary evidence often get pushed aside, especially for high-profile cases. DNA tests often are the trump card, the one thing that sways the opinion, even if all evidence is contrary to the DNA. As such, I do not trust it's use.

A new tool, unless it is absolutely perfect in determining guilt, is one I would distrust even more if it was considered to be more perfect than DNA testing, simply because the jury and judge would be even more willing to overlook compelling counter-evidence.