[Mentalist]

build robots to do it.

and, believe it or not, i'm only half kidding.

last semester I took a course in eyewitness psychology, and the stuff you learn about the legal system and its workings terrified me to no end.

the level to which your average jury member is DANGEROUSLY unqualified to deal with witness testimony and the amount of ignorance about basic things like perception that exist in the system, the amount of subtle biases that your average screening CAN'T eliminate, b/c the lawyers don't even know it's there.

Seriously, in a perfect world I would want the people making the life or death decision to be information-processing machines. the amount of personal involvement and teh resulting biases in the system is horrifying if you actually know about it.

[HoosierDaddy]

Here's the kicker, the stuff you learn about "EYEWITNESSES", such as their unreliability in law school, makes it easy for lawyers to shoot down eyewitness testimony fairly easily unless it is fairly solid.

Secondly, that's why you have 12 (or so, it varies) individual jurors and alternates.

Thirdly, that's why it's "beyond the shadow of a doubt", and doubt is easy as hell to raise.

I wouldn't trust my fate to a robot. Seriously, they can't take into consideration mitigating and aggravating factors the way that a person can.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 25 February 2009 - 01:40 AM

[masan's saddle]

Obdigore, on Feb 25 2009, 01:34 AM, said:

Masan's Delicious Saddle:

If someone was convicted with numerous rapes/murders, using DNA or numerous eye witnessess, you better belive I would throw the switch, inject the needle, or put the gun to the back of the head.

More than once ?
Do you think your zeal might come back to haunt you ?

I'm not a commie, pinko sprout muncher or anything, but the idea of someone else's blood on my hands doesn't sit too well with me. I'm not to sure on the legal definitions, but if you live in a state with the death penalty, all duly agreed by the state legislature, that was possibly voted in by your goodself, doesn't that mean that technically speaking you are "throwing the switch ? "

My knowledge of American state/ federal law is a bit crap really so some clarification from some colonial legal type might help.

[Mentalist]

HoosierDaddy, on Feb 24 2009, 08:39 PM, said:

Here's the kicker, the stuff you learn about "EYEWITNESSES", such as their unreliability in law school, makes it easy for lawyers to shoot down eyewitness testimony fairly easily unless it is fairly solid.

Secondly, that's why you have 12 (or so, it varies) individual jurors and alternates.

Thirdly, that's why it's "beyond the shadow of a doubt", and doubt is easy as hell to raise.

I wouldn't trust my fate to a robot. Seriously, they can't take into consideration mitigating and aggravating factors the way that a person can.

yet how many people are wrongdully convicted every year based on eyewitness testimony as the only evidence?

that's just the thing --justice is supposed to to be cold, hard, and devoid of emotion of any kind. If there's mitigating evidence, it should be presented as such and calculted rationally.
It is impossible to achieve perfectly rational decision-making among people. especially among random people that don't even know that they are biased.

for instance, studies show that regardless of whether the witnes is actually saying the truth, as long as they APPEAR convinced of what they are saying, the jurors will believe them.

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Mentalist, on Feb 25 2009, 02:36 AM, said:

build robots to do it.

and, believe it or not, i'm only half kidding.

last semester I took a course in eyewitness psychology, and the stuff you learn about the legal system and its workings terrified me to no end.

the level to which your average jury member is DANGEROUSLY unqualified to deal with witness testimony and the amount of ignorance about basic things like perception that exist in the system, the amount of subtle biases that your average screening CAN'T eliminate, b/c the lawyers don't even know it's there.

Seriously, in a perfect world I would want the people making the life or death decision to be information-processing machines. the amount of personal involvement and teh resulting biases in the system is horrifying if you actually know about it.

I agree with you. Being judged by a jury of your "peers" is ridiciolous. They don't know what they are doing!

[Obdigore]

masan's saddle, on Feb 24 2009, 08:44 PM, said:

Obdigore, on Feb 25 2009, 01:34 AM, said:

Masan's Delicious Saddle:

If someone was convicted with numerous rapes/murders, using DNA or numerous eye witnessess, you better belive I would throw the switch, inject the needle, or put the gun to the back of the head.

More than once ?
Do you think your zeal might come back to haunt you ?

I'm not a commie, pinko sprout muncher or anything, but the idea of someone else's blood on my hands doesn't sit too well with me. I'm not to sure on the legal definitions, but if you live in a state with the death penalty, all duly agreed by the state legislature, that was possibly voted in by your goodself, doesn't that mean that technically speaking you are "throwing the switch ? "

My knowledge of American state/ federal law is a bit crap really so some clarification from some colonial legal type might help.

Yes.
I wouldn't call it zeal, so much as doing what is needed to protect society.

And technically, if your state does have and uses the death penalty, 51% of your state must agree to it, and be willing to voice that.

@Grimhilde - the 'joke' is - the jurys are the people stupid enough not to find a way out of it. Those aren't the 'peers' of most of us. Ha Ha.

[drinksinbars]

masan's saddle, on Feb 25 2009, 01:23 AM, said:

Just to expand this topic slightly.
I have just been perusing through this thread for a while and I noticed that the words "society", "government" and " beliefs" keep popping up quite regularly. Perhaps illustrating that the majority ( not all !) of people posting believe in the democratic process, the maintenance of the rule of law and the preservation of "society" ( polite or otherwise).

This being the case, would people ( as tax paying voters and valuable members of the society they claim to represent), be willing to be the ones who " flick the switch "/ " push the button "/ " release the trapdoor " ?

It would be a bit like jury service, you get a summons in the post and BINGO ! a couple of weeks later after having plenty of time to think about it, you get to look into the eyes of a murderer, as the light fades, and YOU end their life. A hearty pat on the back and the knowledge that YOU are the hand of society's justice.

Maybe some of you could, I could not.

Surely as an enlightened and " civilised " society we should not be demanding something that we are not willing to do ourselves, the reality of which would be to most, to horrifying to comprehend.

Or not.............discuss or summit

i wouldnt necessarily volunteer but if it was necessary then perhaps but i would think the best way would be to use it constructively, and i am not really joking just making a point, but if someone was sentenced to die and you are trying to rehabilitate another person i would have a group of people nearing their last strike or even doing life but trying to makes amends, throw the switch to hammer home the consequence of their actions. Sort of like "One day you will be in the chair if you continue on this path" type scenario. cruel i suppose, but i think it would have more effect.

Mentalist, on Feb 25 2009, 01:36 AM, said:

build robots to do it.

and, believe it or not, i'm only half kidding.

last semester I took a course in eyewitness psychology, and the stuff you learn about the legal system and its workings terrified me to no end.

the level to which your average jury member is DANGEROUSLY unqualified to deal with witness testimony and the amount of ignorance about basic things like perception that exist in the system, the amount of subtle biases that your average screening CAN'T eliminate, b/c the lawyers don't even know it's there.

Seriously, in a perfect world I would want the people making the life or death decision to be information-processing machines. the amount of personal involvement and teh resulting biases in the system is horrifying if you actually know about it.

you could certainly build things to kill people, they do that already, but jedgement and basis of fact? perhaps removing the lawyers and having a system that displayed facts instead and people made the judgement, increasing the number of jurors in response to the seriousness of the crime, or using people who are qualified for it, making it a job rather than a service. i wouldnt trust a program with peoples lives in this manner.

[Mentalist]

DiBs, people are people.

I don't believe that a person can be fully, 100% rational.
hence my suggestion about machines.

[drinksinbars]

Mentalist, on Feb 25 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

DiBs, people are people.

I don't believe that a person can be fully, 100% rational.
hence my suggestion about machines.

true, but you dont give a builder a scalpel. For serious decisions regarding life or death people should have the necessary qualifications to determine appropriate guilt and punishment.

[Mentalist]

lo, but that's exactlty what the current system's doing!

you give 12 random people the power to decide if a person's guilty or not--people that have little to no knowledge of the way the system's supposed to work, and who are likely to fall back on common sense when makinf their conclusions--the common sense that so often proves to be erroneaous (sp?)

I fail to see what's the big distinction between a proffessional trained to make a guilty/not guilty decision and a machine built for same purpose, if you provide them with the same information. what exactly makes being judged by other people so special?

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Mezla PigDog, on Feb 25 2009, 12:05 AM, said:

There is nothing quite like an internet discussion board or the tabloid news to make me wish that a nuclear holocaust or global warming would just hurry up and wipe the human race off the face of the planet!

Correction: Watching an hour of Patrick Kielty's "comedy." That's enough to drive you to start the nuclear holocaust yourself.

On topic:

There are always going to be cases where people are imprisoned falsely, and with the death penalty, there's always the chance of innocent people being executed. I just cant condone that. From a rational point of view, can you honestly say you would give your consent to to the statement that you are willing to risk the chance of being killed for something you didnt do in return for real criminals being killed too? I wouldnt. I do not see that the state can say murder is wrong and then perform it on a citizen, when there is the alternative of locking them up for life. In the US alone, at least 15 people have been wrongfully executed since 1992. What would you say if one of those people was your mother?

The lex talionis style argument that "he killed someone, he should be killed" is absurd. What if the murder committed genocide, do we kill him millions of times over? Will it stop him killing again more effectively than being locked up in a room by himself for his entire life? Will it deter future criminals? No.

What IS the issue is the insufficient punishments meted out to criminals. When a child rapist gets 3 years, it's obviously disgusting and causes outrage. But if they were locked up forever, I doubt we'd be arguing for them to be executed, as there really would be any point.

[HoosierDaddy]

Mentalist, on Feb 25 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

lo, but that's exactlty what the current system's doing!

you give 12 random people the power to decide if a person's guilty or not--people that have little to no knowledge of the way the system's supposed to work, and who are likely to fall back on common sense when makinf their conclusions--the common sense that so often proves to be erroneaous (sp?)

I fail to see what's the big distinction between a proffessional trained to make a guilty/not guilty decision and a machine built for same purpose, if you provide them with the same information. what exactly makes being judged by other people so special?

That is patently incorrect. The judge offers "Judicial Instructions", which detail very highly what the crime's components are and the law stating so, it is then the jurors, who have taken notes throughout the trial's responsibility to discuss the facts of the case and whether or not a guilty please, non-guilty plea, or a hung jury results.

[Cause]

How much do jurors get payed? It must be very shit having to be picked

[HoosierDaddy]

Not much at all, I think $7.00 an hour or so? Plus, transportation costs.

[T'lan Coltaine]

to the beggining of the forum.

the capital punishment is a huge debate right now. your right certain crimnals should face the sentance however most cristians and other religion members belive that none can take gods place and kill a man. I myself am an agnostic person. the argument for captial punishment is that fact that some people do attrotious crimes and that they should be punished by death however for those atrose crimes- in my opinion- death isnt enough. Think on it capital punishment has to be painless no matter waht-human rights law or somthin cant rember what english teacher said.

Having a quick painful death or spending all of your life till you die in prision, seeing no loved ones, deprived of anything fun, eating the same measly grub all day,a pointless life eat-sleep-eat-sleep, in my opinion this is worse, i agree with aportion death is truly nothing to fear, luckly the religion members do not complain to this =/.



I might be a bit lacking in knowledge as i am only 14 and to all those religion members out there no discrimination or insult intended.

[Grimjust Bearegular]

T'lan Coltaine, on Feb 26 2009, 12:12 AM, said:

to the beggining of the forum.

the capital punishment is a huge debate right now. your right certain crimnals should face the sentance however most cristians and other religion members belive that none can take gods place and kill a man. I myself am an agnostic person. the argument for captial punishment is that fact that some people do attrotious crimes and that they should be punished by death however for those atrose crimes- in my opinion- death isnt enough. Think on it capital punishment has to be painless no matter waht-human rights law or somthin cant rember what english teacher said.

Having a quick painful death or spending all of your life till you die in prision, seeing no loved ones, deprived of anything fun, eating the same measly grub all day,a pointless life eat-sleep-eat-sleep, in my opinion this is worse, i agree with aportion death is truly nothing to fear, luckly the religion members do not complain to this =/.



I might be a bit lacking in knowledge as i am only 14 and to all those religion members out there no discrimination or insult intended.

yeah, I agree with you there. The whole "life sentence is more humane"- argument really doesn't fly with me, because it isn't. An entire lifetime in prison is torture, capital punishment is the way to go IMO.

But when I think about it, there isn't much difference between a life sentence and capital punishment - the outcome is the same. The difference is just how long you have to suffer.

A "friend" of mine wrote a paper on capital punishment. It was ridicolously bad. She stated that capital punishment was murder and that it would entice regular citizens to "take the law into their own hands". She used this expression like 7-8 times. Is there any truth to this?

[T'lan Coltaine]

well techinicly the citzen's are the people the crime was inflicted againsy and the law is there to do there bidding so i wouldnt say entirley correct

[Morgoth]

Grimhilde, on Feb 26 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

T'lan Coltaine, on Feb 26 2009, 12:12 AM, said:

to the beggining of the forum.

the capital punishment is a huge debate right now. your right certain crimnals should face the sentance however most cristians and other religion members belive that none can take gods place and kill a man. I myself am an agnostic person. the argument for captial punishment is that fact that some people do attrotious crimes and that they should be punished by death however for those atrose crimes- in my opinion- death isnt enough. Think on it capital punishment has to be painless no matter waht-human rights law or somthin cant rember what english teacher said.

Having a quick painful death or spending all of your life till you die in prision, seeing no loved ones, deprived of anything fun, eating the same measly grub all day,a pointless life eat-sleep-eat-sleep, in my opinion this is worse, i agree with aportion death is truly nothing to fear, luckly the religion members do not complain to this =/.



I might be a bit lacking in knowledge as i am only 14 and to all those religion members out there no discrimination or insult intended.

yeah, I agree with you there. The whole "life sentence is more humane"- argument really doesn't fly with me, because it isn't. An entire lifetime in prison is torture, capital punishment is the way to go IMO.

But when I think about it, there isn't much difference between a life sentence and capital punishment - the outcome is the same. The difference is just how long you have to suffer.

A "friend" of mine wrote a paper on capital punishment. It was ridicolously bad. She stated that capital punishment was murder and that it would entice regular citizens to "take the law into their own hands". She used this expression like 7-8 times. Is there any truth to this?

If you kill someone, you cannot later release them if new eveidence proves their innocence. Seeing that a system can never be perfect, you will at one point execute an innocent. Ergo, life in prison is better than capital punishment.

Executing an innocent is the worst crime a state can possibly commit in my opinion.

[Wordmerchant]

masan's saddle, on Feb 24 2009, 08:23 PM, said:

This being the case, would people ( as tax paying voters and valuable members of the society they claim to represent), be willing to be the ones who " flick the switch "/ " push the button "/ " release the trapdoor " ?

Absolutely and unhesitatingly.

The society in which I live deserves to be protected from those who commit crimes sufficient to receive this penalty. Any criminal who has chosen to live his life by the rule of violence, should have nothing to say when society shows him the logical consequence of his actions.

It is not incumbent that I concern myself with his "rehabilitation" or continue to provide for his upkeep with my earnings. He has chosen to absent himself from this consideration by his actions, not mine.

The often repeated argument that execution is state sponsored murder is a logical fallacy. Just as in any rational society, I should have the right to protect my home, family and property from violence by any means necessary, so too should the governments which are in place and ruling by consent of the governed. "Murder" is an act performed by a criminal mind for its own gains. Execution serves to remove a danger from the society it endangers. These two separate acts are not even remotely similar.

The unprovoked invasion of one nation by another and the invasion of one home by one person are different only in scope, not in intent. There are few people I know who would blithely disregard the first, yet these same people often argue in favor of "understanding" the aggressor in the second case.

If I expect the consideration of law and the protection of a society that I claim as mine by virtue of my espousal of its tenets, I should not and would not hesitate to perform any duties my society required of me, including execution of a violent criminal.

[frookenhauer]

Hmmm. I consider myself to be pro human...mostly. I am not sure the Death Penalty is appropriate and reckon that should be abolished permanently. Lock em up keep e locked up. Get them doing hard Labour for their efforts. Kind of like the prison service man power. I like the idea of American style chain gangs and it should be the way forward. This way they will be less of a burden on tax payers and maybe do some good. If it turns out they were wrongly accused...The pardon should include loss of earnings or somesuch.

Also the length of time served for rapists and child molesters should increase dramatically.

The same is true for burglary, the Swiss have got the right idea.