Death Penalty Article

[David Sklansky]

None of these arguments changes a simple fact. If you are going to allow the death penalty at all, it should only be for cases where the chance of innocence is miniscule. Miniscule being an even smaller chance than what is tolerated as the chance for innocence when deciding whether to convict.

I don't care about politics, the morality of the death sentence, the fact that implementation of the idea has logistical problems, or whatever. I just want people to see that the second sentence is true and that capitol punishment is one of those subjects where the subject of probability applies.

This subject is misplaced. It belongs in the drunken geek forum. I'm surprised at the author and his insulting comments. His methodology to poker can not be applied to the death penalty. This tangent is crazy.

[George Rice]

David,

Have you considered that some jurors in capital cases are concerned about finding a defendant guilty because they know he may face execution. And that this may increase their personal standard on how likely they will vote guilty (let's say up to 98% sure)?

If this is true, some jurors may lower their standards a little if they know that the defendant will get life in prison at worst (to perhaps as low as 95% sure of guilt).

The result of this is that more guilty defendants will be convicted AND more innocent defendants will be convicted too. So, in effect, you are buying the lives of innocent defendants with the freedom or other innocent defendants, with the added benefit of convicting a lot of guilty ones too.

***

In New York the standard isn't "shadow of a doubt" like in the movies, but a "reasonable doubt." A reasonable doubt being defined as a doubt to which you can assign a reason. I think this is a little looser than "shadow of a doubt" standard many assume.

I served on one jury for murder (not capital) and can tell you my experience is that the jurors were not all that swift. In fact, I think the lawyers look for jurors they thing they can fool. I was also surprised how some jurors bring their personal prejudges to the table and express all sorts of opinions without having a basis derived from the facts of the case.

***

David, I pose a question to you (and I realize you may not agree that your proposal will result in more innocent people being found guilty, but others may):

If you were accused of a capital crime and had a choice of having 98% chance of being found innocent, and a 2% chance of being executed, or, a 95% chance of being found innocent, a 4.5% chance of receiving life in prison and a .5% chance of being executed, which would you chose?

Perhaps it's not accurate to assume there is a 95% chance that the jury will be 95% sure. So use your own numbers. Better yet, what would be your numbers if the decision was a coin flip to you?

It may not be exactly the issue you raise but the answer to that question would be determined by how a person values his freedom. Some may even prefer death than life in prison, if that resulted in them being Bubba's personal boy toy for the rest of their lives. And I think many people will look at your proposal from this point of view.

***

Do you think that reasoning will triumph over politics?