bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (10/04/83)
This is a continuation of a discussion which started up in net.general/ net.followup. I have moved it to this group where it is more appropriate. My initial rationale against capital punishment applied to cases where capital punishment was applied to crimes against property. Simply, the more severe the punishment in these cases the more likely the perpetrator is to eliminate all evidence that might me used against him, especially witnesses. Having nothing to lose, murder is an expedient action. It was pointed out that this has nothing to do with capital punishment applied in cases of murder. I agree. However it has been shown that juries are much less likely to convict if the penalty for the crime in question is death. My inference is that many people, like myself, view death as irrevocable and do not wish to be responsible for a wrong- ful death. Most courtroom situations are not as clear-cut as Perry Mason and most murders are not as premeditated as those solved by Columbo. If you have ever been witness to a real trial, you will realize that real life situations are, more often than not, very ambiguous. While infrequent, cases where persons have been wrongfully convicted are not uncommon. For myself, I would just as soon not have to live with the thought that I had participated in the decision to kill someone who might not have been guilty. (This is, to me, a matter of aesthetics, not of morals, so let's not get carried away, eh?) The philosophical point that is often discussed in this context is that there is a strong division between those who, to keep society safe, would rather a few innocent go to jail/be executed than have a guilty man go free and those who would rather a hundred guilty men go free than to have a single innocent person jailed/executed. I am probably, though not clearly, among the latter (I'm afraid I can't claim consistency here) but am perfectly willing to discuss the alternatives. Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill decvax!duke!unc!bch