[enry_straker]

Wow. You justify the death penalty on the basis of it providing incentive to the police and the prosecutors to do a better job.

Holding their children hostage would provide a really good incentive. Would you then recommend that as well?

I understand where you come from. But providing incentive does not justify murder. Even state-sponsored murder.

[yummyfajitas]

Holding their children hostage would provide a really good incentive. Would you then recommend that as well?

This makes no sense. My moral claim is that the death penalty is morally equivalent to life imprisonment. Since the issue here is differentiating between two acts I believe to be morally equivalent, I prefer the action with the lower probability of harming innocents.

When faced with a choice between harming innocent children and not harming innocent people, I obviously recommend not harming innocent children.

If, however, the choice were between holding the children hostage until they die, or merely killing them, I can't say I'd express much preference. If I were the potential victim, I'd probably prefer getting killed.

And if my odds were 80% get killed, 20% exoneration, I'd strongly prefer that to 90% stay in jail for 60 years, 10% exoneration.

Just curious - could you explain why you believe locking a person in a cell until they die is better than killing them?

[Steko]

"My moral claim is that the death penalty is morally equivalent to life imprisonment."

There may be some moral equivalence between a person who dies in prison and one who is executed (I would argue otherwise) but there is absolutely no moral equivalence between an innocent person executed and an innocent person who spends some time in prison and is freed.

"Just curious - could you explain why you believe locking a person in a cell until they die is better than killing them?"

Because they might be innocent? Or because killing them is used disproportionately against the disadvantaged?

[yummyfajitas]

...there is absolutely no moral equivalence between an innocent person executed and an innocent person who spends some time in prison and is freed.

Now you are moving from moral questions to empirical ones.

Consider two hypothetical options - one is a 10% chance of being wrongfully convicted and being executed. The other is a a 20% chance of being wrongfully convicted and locked in jail with a 25% chance of being later exonerated, resulting in a 15% chance of being wrongfully locked in jail until one dies.

I'd suggest that morally, a 10% chance of wrongful execution is better than a 15% chance of being locked in jail until death + 5% chance of being locked in jail for years until exoneration.

In any case, this probabilistic example invalidates your absolute claim that imprisonment is better because someone might later be exonerated.

Because they might be innocent?

Apriori, I'm asking you to distinguish between:

a) imprisoning until death a guilty person or executing them.

b) imprisoning until death an innocent person or executing them.

As far as putting people into the wrong categories, that's a probabilistic matter rather than a moral one.

[meric]

Y'know, I'd rather spend my life in prison than die. If you're going to pick between a and b and choose the one you feel is better for you, you might as well do the same and ask death row inmates if they would prefer to be imprisoned for life instead. I won't be surprised some of them would say yes to that.