US death row study: 4% of defendants sentenced to die are innocent

[SLG]

If we know for a fact 4% of them are innocent, why aren't they removed from death row due to the findings of these statistics which must have proven them innocent to get the results?

[FlyingWoodchuck]

How many more would the 96% success rate have killed? More than the 4% error rate. From a numbers game, capital punishment is pure win.

All you can factually say is 4% died who shouldn't have, you can't know what would have happened, and the people wouldn't have the blood of innocents on their hands. There is a very distinct moral difference between state sanctioned killing of innocents and a murderer doing them.

[JohnBrown1917]

How many more would the 96% success rate have killed? More than the 4% error rate. From a numbers game, capital punishment is pure win.

Far less than 4% if you had kept them locked up.

[Heladys]

All you can factually say is 4% died who shouldn't have, you can't know what would have happened, and the people wouldn't have the blood of innocents on their hands. There is a very distinct moral difference between state sanctioned killing of innocents and a murderer doing them.

I don't give a shit about your moral determination, I care about the numbers. If X% are going to die overall, some percentage from unexecuted murderers plying their trade, and some percentage from erroneous executions, at the end of the day they're all innocent deaths. I'm interested in reducing the overall number and any number at all of dead murderers is worth any improvement there. if simultaneous efforts can be made to reduce the erroneous execution rate toward zero that's even better.

That is moral.

Far less than 4% of you had kept them locked up.

They'd just be killing other inmates, in addition to the inherent moral stain of keeping them around.

[diddle]

To those suggesting that capital punishment's flaws are worth preventing the 96% of guilty people from committing crimes again, unless you can offer a study that suggests 4% of people sentenced to life in prison escape you have no leg to stand on.

The death penalty is statistically flawed and results in more innocents killed than it does guilty let back into society.

[Heladys]

I wasn't aware you had to release anyone you didn't execute.

Letting them exist is a form of release some of us find distasteful. You think your distaste carries the argument otherwise, so you'll understand such a stance.

- - - Updated - - -

To those suggesting that capital punishment's flaws are worth preventing the 96% of guilty people from committing crimes again, unless you can offer a study that suggests 4% of people sentenced to life in prison the death penalty is clearly flawed and results in more innocents killed than it does guilty let back into society.

No, we don't have to prove anything. We have the death penalty.

You have the burden of trying to overturn it. Enjoy your homework.

[xytech]

I'd much rather get death penalty and have it overwith, than live my entire life in prison with a brief hope of one day being recognized as innocent.

Guess that's just me though...

[JohnBrown1917]

They'd just be killing other inmates, in addition to the inherent moral stain of keeping them around.

You mean the others in supermax? If you want to execute murderers, why do you care if they kill each other?


But really, you should post a source on how many people get killed by murderers in supermax prisons.

[diddle]

No, we don't have to prove anything. We have the death penalty.

You have the burden of trying to overturn it. Enjoy your homework.

Having something institutionalized and proving it right are completely different tasks, clearly with this response you have given up on the latter.

[JohnBrown1917]

No, we don't have to prove anything. We have the death penalty.

You have the burden of trying to overturn it. Enjoy your homework.

Thank god we do not have that in my country, atleast people like have to put effort into finding evidence to support your claims.

- - - Updated - - -

Letting them exist is a form of release some of us find distasteful. You think your distaste carries the argument otherwise, so you'll understand such a stance.

Thats just an appeal to emotion, nothing more.

[LookingGlass]

Interestingly, the margin of error for these statistics is around 4%.

[diddle]

Interestingly, the margin of error for these statistics is around 4%.

Please cite this claim, if indeed it's true that would be a good arguing point.

[dar0]

Tbh, I would rather get death penalty and be innocent, than spend 20 years in prison being someones bitch, then be set free after proven innocent... But as long as it's not me, i'm against death penalty, let them rot in jail, death is the easy way out. Hell, people commit suicide when they feel shit, seems like more of a relieff than punishment.

[FlyingWoodchuck]

I don't give a shit about your moral determination, I care about the numbers. If X% are going to die overall, some percentage from unexecuted murderers plying their trade, and some percentage from erroneous executions, at the end of the day they're all innocent deaths. I'm interested in reducing the overall number and any number at all of dead murderers is worth any improvement there. if simultaneous efforts can be made to reduce the erroneous execution rate toward zero that's even better.

That is moral.



They'd just be killing other inmates, in addition to the inherent moral stain of keeping them around.

Bold and underlined for amusement. I don't think you understand what moral means, it has nothing to do with the least number of people being killed, to put it in terms a blood thirst person might understand it means having clean hands, not having any part in the killings that do occur and not taking vile acts under the guise of justice to enact a primitive desire for vengeance. But that's not you right?

So, are you then claiming more innocent people are saved by killing innocent people on death row than if we locked up murders for life? I'm sure you have something to back that up right, I mean, if you don't, then saying something like this:

No, we don't have to prove anything. We have the death penalty.

You have the burden of trying to overturn it. Enjoy your homework.

is going to make you sound awfully hypocritical. So I look forward to your response where you show me that killing innocent people instead of locking them up for life results in fewer innocent people being killed.

Unless of course you're just full of shit and want to kill people out of a sense of vengeance, but that's not the case right?

[Garnier Fructis]

Interestingly, the margin of error for these statistics is around 4%.

Which, if I'm reading your intent correctly, doesn't help your point at all. Because this implies that the actual rate could be as high as 8%. In addition, the lower end necessarily cannot be 0%, which is enforced by the existence of men wrongfully executed, men freed from death row, and executed men for which very strong doubt exists about their guilt. Texas in particular is adept at convicting and executing innocent men on flimsy evidence of "dog ate my homework" quality.

As an aside, executing an innocent man is a double failure of the justice system. Besides the obvious failure of taxpayer funded murder, there's also the annoying issue of not having caught the real killer.

Some people deserve it and I have no qualms with people like John Wayne Gacy being executed and I won't have a problem with it if James Holmes gets the death penalty. But let's face reality here. Lots of death penalty convictions follow from evidence that's about as bulletproof as my computer monitor. There are simply too many convictions with crappy evidence (Texas executing a man based on a strand of hair that wasn't even his) and coerced testimonies/confessions for anyone with a semblance of morality to support the death penalty in general.

But no, we're a moral christian nation whose morality is described by the mantra "Kill them all and let God sort them out."