- NEW!
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on March 31st, 2009
by Lori K still ignores stalkers and trolls on March 31st, 2009
I guess that depends on what you mean by "error rates". I'm sure that there are many technical and procedural errors made in the decades long saga which ends in capital punishment. As the Columbia study that Phillis pointed out shows....judges make "mistakes" in jury instruction, police officers make processing "mistakes", defense attorneys make mistakes and on down the line during arrest, multiple trials and multiple appeals.
HOWEVER, if you are asking how many innocent people die on death row, I suspect that answer is none. The process is just too long and weighted too heavily in favor of the accused. Of course, if you ask the prisoners, you will find that 100% of convicts are "innocent".
by TheJoker on March 31st, 2009
70% of people currently on Death Row in the states have questionable convictions.
by Mosexy on March 31st, 2009
Sufficiently high enough to make it a complete waste of time and money.
Vengeance is an unhealthy emotion often confused with justice.
by Gnome of Kevonia is a Cheerwine junkie on July 12th, 2009
100% in my opinion. The death penalty is pure revenge.
Do you support Capital Punishment?
by Slipknot123 on September 17th, 2011
| 5 people like this
Do you think Troy Davis should be executed? Why or why not?
by Freedom00 on September 21st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
The Excecution of Troy Anthony Davis, the Arrogance of Power, Again?
by mdGreg on September 22nd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
No physical evidence/7 eyewitnesses recanted/yet the Troy Davis execution in Georgia is moving forward. Is Georgia even worse than Texas?
by RosieGHM Jetpacker on September 20th, 2011
| 2 people like this
When do you think the Death Penalty should be imposed?
by Slipknot123 on September 19th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Error rates on capital punishment?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Nice!
by The Wraith of God is Coming on March 31st, 2009
great site+4
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on March 31st, 2009
helpful link +4
by BlowMyMind on March 31st, 2009
Your answer is flawed. An error at the trial level is not a capital punishment error. Your source only proves that our system has a robust system of weeding out errors.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on July 13th, 2009
I quoted the source of my answer, meaning that I did not derive that answer on my own. If it bothers you that much, follow the link and write to them.
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on July 13th, 2009
Yes, and I am refuting the applicability of your source. Your source indicates how often a trial court is overturned in a capital case. That IS NOT the question that was asked. The question is how often capital punishment is administered in error. If an appellate court overturns the trial court, then that is NOT a capital punishment error.
…
Just because you cite a source does not mean the source actually applies to the issue at hand.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on July 13th, 2009
Why not go down the street and have a conversation with a horse about it? It makes about as much sense. Sometimes, it benefits everyone involved if you acknowledge that someone at least TRIED to do a good job, rather than reserving acclamations based soley on end results.
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on July 13th, 2009
You state: “Sometimes, it benefits everyone involved if you acknowledge that someone at least TRIED to do a good job….” Actually, this is not the case. If you try to do a good job, but fail to achieve a good (or correct) result, then SOMEONE involved will not be benefited. For example, if you hire an attorney and that attorney TRIED to do a good job, but fails to do a good job, than you gained no benefit and have been harmed. Similarly, if you hire a contractor to refinish your kitchen, and that contractor TRIED to do a good job, but failed, then you received no benefit.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on July 13th, 2009
Applying this rationale to the question at hand, how is the asker benefited if you TRIED to give an accurate answer, but failed to do so? If you are going to participate in a public forum and discuss an issue, you should be prepared to receive counter-arguments and opposing viewpoints. You can choose to benefit from those opposing viewpoints by learning something, or you can get defensive about them. Of course, society would be much better if more people did the former.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on July 13th, 2009
Are you still talking??? Go away.
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on July 13th, 2009
Phillis playing with a troll LOL
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on July 13th, 2009
HAHAHAHA!! You ought not expose me like that, Seeya :)
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on July 13th, 2009
Out of curiosity, what do you define as a troll? It appears that you define a troll as anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint or points out the errors in your answer. If so, why bother participating in a public forum if you do not care to hear opposing viewpoints?
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on July 13th, 2009
A troll is someone who voices their viewpoints, then continues beating a dead horse, ad nauseum. Like you, for instance. You kept on and on and on, presumably because I didn't agree with YOUR notions. You just couldn't let it go. Even after I asked you to go away, you STILL had to get the last word in (as you are still doing) by DRing me. THen you got your buddies to DR me, too, because taking away a single point just wasn't good enough for you. That, my dear, is a troll, plain and simple. I don't thinkyou're a bad person; I think you have problems just like evey other person walking the planet. That's why it did't bother me.
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on July 13th, 2009
Okay, according to your definition, you are more of a troll than me. I pointed out your error, and then only responded to your additional points. And I down rated you because your answer was inaccurate and/or unresponsive to the question. Moreover, I did not have anyone else down rate you.
…
Do you have such low self-esteem that you can’t handle it when someone points out your mistakes? If so, I truly feel sorry for you, and would suggest you avoid public forums like AB. Part of what makes America so great is the free flow of ideas. Part of what makes us, an individuals, better people is learning from our mistakes.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on July 13th, 2009
AB is a public forum dedicated to the free flow of ideas. If you do not want to participate in a conversation, then you should simply not respond to a comment. But the comments are there for everyone, not just the person who wrote the answer.
…
Since when is a single comment considered “beating a dead horse, ad nauseum.” It appears to me that the term “troll” should be reserved to those who post comments with no substantive content. For example, for posts like “Are you still talking??? Go away.”
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on July 13th, 2009
I'm going away now. *poof*
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on July 13th, 2009
Rock on Phillis! Who pulled his string?
by Beavis - the other white meat on July 13th, 2009
I dunno???
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on July 13th, 2009
interesting an idea against the political machine arises and people do not know.
by The Wraith of God is Coming on July 14th, 2009
I really tried to do my best with my answer for the author's sake. That's all that matters to me. Had I thrown myself out there as some sort of authority on the matter, then sure......eat me alive and spit me out. I THOUGHT I gave the correct answer. So, sue me. Good grief.
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on July 14th, 2009
The good news is I doubt Oh Look will be on AB for long. Hang in there Ma'am!
by Beavis - the other white meat on July 14th, 2009
Don't take me that seriously I am mostly shock value
by The Wraith of God is Coming on July 14th, 2009
First off, I am not going anywhere. I am a lawyer by trade, and I participate in online forums in order to educate people.
…
Secondly, you all should seriously think about reconsidering what you call a “troll.” Just because someone disagrees with your viewpoint does not make them a troll. In fact, in a civilized society, open debate about issues is admired. But I am seriously fascinated by the sociology of this thread. I understand that when people post offense comments, irrelevant comments, or non-meritorious comments, people will get annoyed by the lack of common courtesy. But why take offense just because someone points out errors in your post? Is that not closed minded?
…
I suppose this would be most appropriate in a new thread. Thus, I created a new question at: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1574078
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on July 14th, 2009
Well, as you might have guessed, I am NOT a lawyer. And if I were, I wouldn't feel any obligation to research a subject for extended periods of time to answer a question on a forum where my professional skills don't matter one whit, nor would I be paid for my services of dispensing unsolicited information.
It doesn't surprise me that you didn't call yourself an attorney. You may be able to argue a good game, but your people skills leave something to be desired, at least in this instance.
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on July 14th, 2009
Again, what you call my lack of "people skills" is merely me pointing out an erroneous answer on a forum designed for precisely that purpose. I am not getting paid to contribute to this forum, nor did I do any in depth research. Rather, I merely read your link and pointed out that it does not apply to the question asked.
...
I really don't care what you think of me, but I am seriously curious as to why you think they way you do. Again, I said nothing offensive. I made no ad hominem attacks. Every one of my comments were on point. All I did was point out an error in your logic. How is that a lack of "people skills"?
...
And FYI: an attorney and a lawyer are the same thing.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on July 14th, 2009
Attorney - a lawyer who has clients.
You did a perfectly fine job with pointing out the error. I have no problem with that at all. I do that myself on occasion. It's a necessary thing, in my opinion. The problem is that you kept on. Once is quite enough. You made your point the first time. You can, of course, practive hard line logic as much as you please, however it won't do much good, since anyone with an education can tell you that humans are illogical creatures. We are emotional ones. Consistently using the wrong discipline time and again for a given situation is the very definition of illogical thinking. It does not work, as you can see. I'm sure this isn't the first time you've heard this.
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on July 14th, 2009
Except I was simply responding to your additional comments. If you don't want to have a conversation, why not simply not engage in conversation?
...
You state "[o]nce is quite enough," yet you are the one who decided to state "I quoted the source of my answer, meaning that I did not derive that answer on my own." This comment suggests that you misunderstood my comment. After all, it is obvious that you thought that your link was on point.
…
And most animals are merely instinctual. One think that makes humans so unique is that they we capable of logical thought. Moreover, one of the primary attributes that distinguishes educated and uneducated people is their propensity to think logically.
…
And again, there is no difference between the term “lawyer” and “attorney.” We use the terms interchangeable in America (perhaps that is not so where you are from).
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on July 14th, 2009
Okay then.
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on July 14th, 2009
OhLook -- I definitely get what you're saying in pointing out that an error at the trial court level doesn't constitute an error of capital punishment (since an error that is detected and reversed at the apellate level prevents the actual administration of the penalty).
.
I do note that the person who asked this question hasn't weighed in during this discussion; his or her question is possibly ambiguous on this point.
.
It boils down to the rate at which capital punishment is erroneously ordered vs. the rate at which it is actually carried out.
.
The true number is almost certainly between the two. Especially given the fact that appellate review of trial court cases is rarely de novo, but conducted on the basis of the facts established at trial. Subsequent appellate reviews actually have a decreasing probability of identifying and reversing an error. (more)
by ChrisDC on July 14th, 2009
Discounting errors that take place at trial court level is only irrelevant if you believe that the appellate process is perfect.
.
Given the fact that the appellate process (generally) focuses on matters of law, rather than questions of fact, logically speaking it cannot catch all errors because some of the potential sources of error are generally not properly before an appellate court.
.
And on the lawyer vs. attorney question, I'm not sure where you live, but I live in DC and the distinction comes into play on an extremely regular basis.
.
For example, I have a law degree, and I'm a member of the bar (on inactive status), but my work is entirely legislative. Around here, people in that situation describe themselves as lawyers, but don't describe themselves as attorneys.
.
In fairness, the government work that takes place in DC is fairly unique in the U.S.
.
In any event, the distinction isn't important to this particular question.
by ChrisDC on July 14th, 2009
DC: I agree with you to the extent that the actual error rate is somewhere between 0% and 70%, but that does not address the question. It is true that appellate courts do not look at issue of fact, but that does not mean they do not correct factual errors. Factual errors come about as a result of a legal error. For example, if a trial court admits evidence that should have been excluded as a rule of law, then the appellate court would correct that error by remanding for further proceedings. This is because the trier of fact is in the best position to judge the credibility of the evidence presented.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on July 14th, 2009
And I have never heard the lawyer/attorney distinction that you follow in DC. In fact, I used to work for the U.S. DOJ-BOP, and we had no such distinction. Moreover, in California, I am not even sure you would be considered a lawyer. We define a lawyer and attorney as someone who is licensed to practice law. Your inactive status would preclude you from practicing law, thus would not fit the definition of lawyer. I am not trying to suggest that your distinction is wrong (I have no basis to conclude that). Rather, I am merely pointing out that no such distinction exists on the west coast.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on July 14th, 2009
Your point about the jurisdiction of appellate courts is correct. My reference to the fact that they "generally" focus on points of law rather than findings of fact was meant to cover that. As you say, often the question of law presented turns on the question of how to consider (or whether to consider) a particular fact or alleged fact.
.
And I'm not surprised that, at DOJ, you didn't encounter a whole lot of people who have law degrees but aren't currently admitted to practice.
.
Most of my work has been on Capitol Hill, and at the Department of Transportation, and it's been entirely legislative. The question of whether writing laws can be considered to be practicing law is an ongoing debate.
.
Although I've moved into the private sector now and will likely be reactivating my bar membership for a whole host of reasons. In any event, I don't hold myself out as a practicing attorney -- when you do that people tend to tell you things thinking the conversation is privileged.
by ChrisDC on July 14th, 2009
Oh, comes to AB just to debate where as most of us come here to converse with friends. My friends disagree with me, but do it in a kind way. Maybe, a good book would apply here, "How To Win And Influence Friends" is a great book. A good lawyer must not only have knowledge, but should have people skills also. One is as important as the other. Would be hard for any attorney to convince a jury when he talks down to the them! Would you like too "touche" that comment Oh?
by Cotton 201 on December 7th, 2009
Cotton: You are partially correct. I come to AB to stop the spread of erroneous info that other people may rely upon.
...
I meet my friends in real life. Moreover, if you want to meet friends online, you should go to a social networking site (or teh social sections of AB). However, spreading false information about factual things is irresponsible.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 7th, 2009
ummmm....irresponsible...matter of opinion!
btw, this is a social venue also! stick around, you might figure it out!
by Cotton 201 on December 7th, 2009
You are not very observant, are you? AB has a “social” section. AB also has an “expert section.” The expert section is for “When you need a FACTUAL answer to a serious question.” The social section is for “When you need an opinion, or you just want to chat.”
…
If you want to socialize in the social section, then have at it. But the expert section is for FACTUAL answers.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 7th, 2009
knew that...more to it than that O! But, you must be friendly in order to know that. All you want to do is point out our transgressions! We get that in the "real world!" Like I said O, you are in bad need of some people skills! Having worked with MANY lawyers over the years, you can separate the good ones from the average ones by one thing...people skills! That you don't have!!!!
by Cotton 201 on December 7th, 2009
The Answerbag populus is not, and will never be, strictly a group of esteemed professionals and ivy league universtiy alumns. They tried it once. It failed miserably. As a result of that change, Answerbag is currently worth roughly 6.5 million dollars, and ALL questions, with the exception of sexually explicit material, gets filtered through the front page.....which ups AB's net worth by adding yet one more facet for the sole purpose of drawing further public interest to the site.
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on December 7th, 2009
You can object all you want, but this IS a social networking website, deliciously chock full of delightful people who do nothing but contaminate this site with their OPINIONS. Had Demand Media thought that your way was better, I'm sure they would have recognized your brilliance and contacted you by now. This is what makes money. Frankly, I don't think they want you f*cking with it. If you want a professional website, I suggest you try www.justanswer.com. where there are nothing BUT professionals who are happy to charge you a fee for every interaction.
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on December 7th, 2009
Cotton: I only answer questions in the Expert category (mostly in the legal category). People who ask questions in this category are looking for factual answers. NOT someone to be nice and blow smoke up their a**. If you don’t like my “people skills,” then stop erroneously answering factual questions.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 7th, 2009
I'll answer whatever questions I damn please, and I would LOVE to see you try to do something about it. You deserve to get unceremoniously dumped on your ass. I won't have to lift a finger.
.
That will be $25.00USD, please.
.
Oh, and.....have a nice day.
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on December 7th, 2009
Phillis: This is not MY way. This is ABs way. Click on the Expert section and read the header. It states: “When you need a factual answer to a serious question”
…
So who should we believe, Phillis? You or the Answerbag site?
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 7th, 2009
Great comment Phillis!
Like I said Oh, you have no people skills! You proved that with your answer!
Your honor, we rest our case!
by Cotton 201 on December 7th, 2009
“I'll answer whatever questions I damn please, and I would LOVE to see you try to do something about it.” And I will correct any erroneous answer I damn please.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 7th, 2009
BTW Oh, you made a negative comment on my "tongue in cheek" question about Arnold Palmer's wife. Was that in "expert" section?
loll yeah right!
by Cotton 201 on December 7th, 2009
Loll..go Oh...you are on a roll! Getting a little testy. We are discussing this in a civil manner. Know that I'm! Have a good day and will discuss this more when you are in a civil mood!
by Cotton 201 on December 7th, 2009
You won't believe your good fortune, Cotton! Not only is he qualified to offer facts (I would call them opinions, but....well, you know he only deals in facts) on Mormonism, he is apparently registered on every state bar in the US! If you want a pro, he's definitely the most knowldgeable person you could have possibly found. And to think - you found him on Answerbag! He was slumming! HAHAHAHAHA!!!
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on December 7th, 2009
LOLL...we be LUCKY!
by Cotton 201 on December 7th, 2009
Cotton: The Arnold Palmer question was factual question in the “Expert: legal” category. Moreover, it referred to a fictitious lawsuit, which crates a misconception about the American justice system.
…
Again, AB has a section for opinion and social exchange. If you did not intend on being corrected, you should have put your question in that section.
...
Phillis: Where did I say I was “registered on every state bar in the US!” Moreover, where does it say you have to have a license to speak factually?
…
It is pretty sad that you have to make things up as you go along
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 7th, 2009
*yawn*
.
It's all right there in your profile page.....every single question you've ever answered.
.
If you'll excuse me, I'm going slumming now. I have a lot of very opinionated friends who mean a lot to me.
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on December 7th, 2009
ok, give you that one Oh...but, it was my fault for putting it in the wrong area..a given...but Oh, why make a big deal out of it...it was an obvious "tongue in cheek" question!
you make some good points here, but you just need to "lighten up" a little! this World is not black and white, there is a little gray in this deal...for once, would you not agree????
by Cotton 201 on December 7th, 2009
got that right MsP!
by Cotton 201 on December 7th, 2009
Cotton: I am not making a big deal out of anything. I pointed out your error, and you made it into a big fiasco. Although I understand that you troll AB to make friends, I participate solely to help educate lay people on the law and to discuss current issues.
…
Although you may think your question was tongue and check, someone else will take it as a fact.
…
The world has a lot of grey in it, but a fact is still a fact.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 7th, 2009
yah yah yah yah....be happy O!
going to watch a good ballgame!
by Cotton 201 on December 7th, 2009