Cameron Todd Willingham Part 2?

You haven't read the rebuttal from the prosecutor - now a judge - on that case have you?
Or looked at the evidence he provided to support his case?

 

For the record, I think deterrence is a legitimate end for the death penalty that, in a perfect world, could at least arguably justify the means.

I'm surprised the DP advocates here never seem to bring it up.

 

WTF does that have to do with the topic at hand?

 

Yes.

I know. He beat his wife. Must have killed his kids, too.

 

As he has such unshakable faith in juries to make important decisions, I'm assuming he would support their decision in that case.

 

Yes. But they are also professionals. And layered.
You don't go through the same 12 people for your appeals. Or the same judge or appeals court?
They are all different.

Again, this is the system we created. If we don't have faith in it, why have it?

 

But it's not like you get a new trial on the facts at each appeal. There are certain findings that have to be taken as a given.

 

No you didn't or you would know there was/is more to it than that. But you cling to your Life of David Gale belief.

 

And there also facts that are not allowed into trials, which swings both ways .. OJ and Casey Anthony.

And even Troy Davis.

I'm done here ...

-30-

 

I am comfortable with the margin for error in most criminal cases. Not completely comfortable, because there are still deficiencies. And we work on them. All the time. But I'm at least comfortable enough because a grievous mistake can be corrected. Not this grievous mistake, though.

 

That's probably because there's no evidence to suggest that it has a deterrent effect. Murderers tend not to follow the logical thought process that you or I might.

 

I've seen studies that suggest what you are saying, and I've seen others that suggest otherwise - that each execution saves, I think, nine lives.

I think it is almost inarguable that the death penalty has at least some deterrent effect. Because it would clearly deter at least one person, and it wouldn't trigger anyone to murder (except maybe a suicide-by-cop situation?). So it has to have a deterrent effect. But it might be negligible. I don't know. It's tough to sort through the conflicting studies.

But I'm saying that, in the abstract, philosophically, deterrence would be a legitimate purpose for death, even from a strictly utilitarian standpoint. That doesn't mean it tips the balance in favor of death in practice, though.