holmes responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Irrelevant. Even if it were possible to make it perfectly humane, killing innocent people is never justifiable.
This is a non sequitor.
Non sequitur. With a "u."
quote:
I can think of justifications.
Only if one is being disingenuous and abadoning the premise of the criminal justice system punishing a person who has been found guilty of a crime by a known-to-be-flawed system.
quote:
But in any case this is a straw man. I am not arguing for the execution of innocent people at all.
Are you not arguing that the death penalty can be justified? Given that it is impossible to know for certain if all people condemned to death actually did the crime for which they were convicted, how is that not arguing for the execution of innocent people?
It isn't as if we are forced to administer the death penalty. There is imprisonment. What, therefore, is the possible justification for execution when we know that there will always be the chance that there is somebody who has been convicted but is actually innocent? Why skip to the end?
quote:
quote:
Irrelevant. Since it cannot deter 100% of crime (since that would mean there is no crime), no matter how much crime it does prevent cannot justify killing innocent people.
I am admitting it deters essentially nil crimes. The reason for having executions, and indeed any retributive or eliminative sentences, is not to deter crime. In any case, I am not for the execution of innocent people at all so again, this is a straw man.
But you are advocating for the death penalty. This will necessarily result in the execution of innocent people. Therefore, you are advocating a process that kills innocent people.
You don't have to administer the death penalty, do you? Is the only other option release? There is no such thing as imprisonment?
quote:
quote:
Bingo. And notice how you seem to ignore this.
It is this kind of stuff which does not help our debates.
Indeed. The fact that you ignore even your own arguments makes it very difficult to have any sort of rational discussion with you. It is, however, something within your control. Pay attention to what you are saying. Actually read what the other person has said. Stop trying to stroke your ego.
quote:
How am I supposed to answer an ad hominem, or insinuating non sequitor like this?
It is neither ad hominem nor non sequitur (with a "u"). You have ignored your own statement. That is not an argument against you. It is an argument against your claim. Consider:
1 + 1 = 2.
2 + 2 = 4.
Therefore, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5.
Um, didn't you just say that 2 + 2 = 4? And doesn't 1 + 1 = 2? Therefore, isn't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 equivalent to 2 + 2? And therefore, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4. To insist that it is something other than 4 is to ignore your own argument. It has nothing to do with you. Stop trying to stroke your ego.
quote:
The fact is I was addressing individual arguments in turn
But you ignored your own argument. You established something as true and then immediately behaved as if it were false. That is illogical.
quote:
quote:
Because when you're dead, you can't appeal. When you're dead, you can't introduce new evidence. When you're dead, it's over and if we find out we made a mistake, we can't go back and correct it.
That is correct, but does not address my point.
That is precisely the point, however: The system is inherently flaw. There is no way to guarantee that everybody who is convicted is actually guilty. There is always the possibility that a mistake has been made. Why would anybody advocate a punishment that cannot be rectified should a mistake be found?
quote:
What this indicates is how to adjust a system that contains a death penalty, not that one should view a death penalty as incorrect or unjustifiable.
But that ignores the argument that the system is inherently flawed. There is no way to perfect the system. There will always be mistakes. It can never, ever be perfect.
Therefore, since there will always be innocent people who have been convicted, why would anybody advocate their death?
This is not about the people who deserve the death penalty. This is about the people who don't.
quote:
quote:
Yes, it does. There is a process involved in arrest and conviction. When you kill the person at the end, the process ends. If the person is still alive, the process can continue.
This still does not make the errors of the system reflect on any particular sentence.
Incorrect. All other sentences have some sort of means of restitution should it be found that there was a mistake. While time spent in prison cannot be returned, it is conceivable that some sort of recompense can be made. If we kill you, however, there is no way that we can ever pay you anything back. You no longer exist.
quote:
quote:
But why are you so quick to jump to the end when there won't be any chance of backtracking if we found we made a mistake?
I am not quick to jump to the end.
You're advocating the death penalty, are you not? This is in comparison to life imprisonment in which the person eventually dies. Why are you skipping to the end? Why are you jumping to the point of death?
quote:
The preventive measures I think should be in place regarding executions would generally eliminate the finding of "mistakes".
"Generally"? Not good enough. Your system needs to be 100% perfect without ever having any chance for error. Such a system cannot exist. Therefore, to advocate for the death penalty is to advocate for the death of innocent people because it will always happen.
quote:
I have only said that I am for the death penalty, I did not say under the current rules of when it can be applied.
Since there is no way to apply the death penalty only to those who are truly guilty, since it will always be applied at least once to an innocent person, there is no way to apply the death penalty that results in no innocent person ever getting killed.
quote:
quote:
If we're going to execute people, we need to make certain that it never kills an innocent person ever. And since that is impossible, we can never institute a death penalty.
Not only is this entirely a non sequitor (as you have built it) it is patently false. It is impossible to make certain it never kills an innocent person? You can't think of rules which could be in place to prevent that possibility? You cannot think of any case where guilt has been established 100%?
This isn't about those who are guilty. This is about those who are innocent. There will always be somebody who looks guilty but is actually innocent. This is because a trial is an investigation based upon observation and as we have learned from science, it is impossible to observe everything. The only way to have perfect knowledge is to observe everything and since we cannot observe everything, we cannot have perfect knowledge. And that is completely ignoring the fact that justice is carried out by humans who have agendas and biases. Ergo, mistakes will always be made. And it's non sequitur with a "u." And you meant "strawman," at any rate.
quote:
So you dispute the common anti-death penalty position that life in prison is worse than killing them?
Non sequitur. This isn't about treatment in jail. This is about the ability to fix a mistake. If you skip to the end and kill the person, there is no way to ever fix the mistake. Once the person is dead, there is no going back. The system needs to exist otherwise we can just forget about any concept of justice. The system will always have innocent people caught in it. Therefore, it is imperative to try to delay the inevitable as long as possible.
quote:
The sentence in question was part of an overall argument regarding the idea that a sentence can be blamed for the poor quality of the system it is used in.
Nobody is making this argument, however. I am assuming the most optimal system possible. That system, however, is not perfect because no system ever is. Therefore, reforms to the system are irrelevant. This isn't about the system, this is about the ability to fix the inevitable mistake.
quote:
This was trying to to get at the notion that at least with life imprisonment we "keep their case in play".
And you ignored the argument.
quote:
The question was of all the innocent people actually sentenced, how many of those cases are revealed to be mistakes. If not all, then we are accepting that innocent people get locked away.
Indeed. I directly said so.
So seeing as though we have an innocent person who is eventually going to die in the custody of the state, do we want to reach that point quickly by killing him immediately or slowly by keeping him alive as long as possible? It's going to happen. There is no way to get around it. An innocent person is going to end up convicted of a crime he didn't commit and will spend the rest of his life in jail. Do we want to skip to the end or do we want to give us as much time as we can to go over the case and try to find mistakes?
quote:
quote:
Because that would mean society as we know it would go away. Anarchy isn't pretty.
To be pedantic, anarchy is not a problem, and could be quite pretty.
Right...because it's worked so well every other time it's been tried.
quote:
When you go out into the country with a few friends (lets say the boundary waters of Minnesota) you enter into a state of true anarchy.
Right...because four people out in the middle of nowhere is such a wonderful model of a multi-million person city. And we have never, ever had a case of four friends going out into the woods and having fewer than four coming back because they got into a fight and one of them got himself killed.
It doesn't work.
quote:
The question of whether anarchy naturally dissolves into chaos is an open question.
No, it's pretty much been solved. Anarchy natrually dissolves into chaos at the societal level at the very least.
quote:
I am also not sure why I should be concerned whether society as we know it must be preserved. Societies change over time. Unless you can show it would be worse, I am not seeing why this is necessarily bad.
Because anarchy has worked so well every other time it's been tried. At any rate, this is irrelevant.
quote:
I'm more interested in debating that if we form gov'ts and need to create protections for citizens within it, why executions are not appropriate under any condition.
Because no system is ever perfect and thus there will always be an innocent person condemned to death. Why is anybody so quick to jump to the end?
quote:
quote:
Tell that to the 13 people in Illinois who are alive because they didn't get killed.
Again, what is the point of this insult?
Insult? You said, and I quote:
Ending the death penalty will not make the system better for anyone.
Are you trying to say that the people who were on death row but released from jail due to the discovery of their innocence do not find themselves better off for not having been killed?
This isn't about you, holmes. Stop trying to stroke your ego. Your argument is that not dying is somehow not better than dying. I think I could bring forth at least one person who would disagree with that sentiment. This is not about you. This is about the argument you made.
Are you trying to argue that someone who was released from jail after being on death row doesn't find his freedom more valuable than dying? That he is better off?
quote:
I fully supported my governor's actions on halting executions in my state, until its system could be revamped and cases rereviewed.
But since there will always be innocent people on death row, doesn't that indicate that we can never institute a death penalty? Let's not forget, Bush claimed to have reviewed all of the death row cases in his state. And yet, he claims no mistakes were made. Do we believe him? Are you seriously claiming that there is a way to be perfect? Why is it that nobody has ever found a perfect system before? Have you considered publishing? You could probably get a Nobel Prize out of it.
quote:
Just because I am pro death penalty does not make me a blood thirsty idiot.
Yes, it does. And those are your words, not mine lest you try to be foolish and claim it is an ad hominem comment. It means you are willing to kill people who are innocent at the earliest opportunity rather than the last. It means you think you can be perfect. Nobody else has ever managed this feat so it would be interesting to see what it looked like.
quote:
quote:
And one of those things that needs to be revamped is not jumping to the end. It isn't because there aren't people who are worthy of death. It's because there are people who aren't.
I am in full agreement. Now tell me why a revamp cannot construct a system where the death penalty is only allowed for 100% guilty people, or that we can never have a case of proving guilt 100%.
Because it is never possible to prove guilt 100% every single time. To do so requires a perfect system and such a system cannot exist. You always have to draw the line somewhere which always requires a judgement call for those cases close to the line which means a mistake will always be made.
quote:
Just because we cannot know 100% guilt in 100% of the cases, does not in any way suggest that we cannot know 100% guilt in any of the cases.
But this isn't about the guilty. This is about the innocent. This isn't about meting out punishment to those we declare to be guilty who actually are guilty. This is about trying to minimize the effects of those we declare to be guilty who actually aren't. There will always be a case whom we have every reason to think is guilty but is actually innocent.
There is always a false positive.
quote:
You are slamming a particular sentence as if it bears the burden for being misapplied.
Yes, because there is no way not to misapply it. No system is perfect.
quote:
The fact is we can apply it appropriately and exclude cases where it might not.
This has never happened before. What makes you think you can do what nobody has ever managed to accomplish before?
quote:
I am defending executions
Which will necessarily require the immediate death of an innocent person because no system is ever perfect.
quote:
not the present systems (which differe state to state anyway) on how and when they can be applied.
This isn't about the system. I am assuming the most optimal system possible. But the most optimal system isn't perfect as no system is ever perfect.
quote:
quote:
Because there will always be somebody who didn't do it who got killed.
That is simply not true.
(*blink!*)
You did not say that, did you?
You think you're perfect?
quote:
You cannot think of a set of rules whereby an innocent person cannot be executed? All I have to say is just because you can't doesn't mean others cannot.
You seriously think that there is a perfect system out there? A system that is invulnerable to human fallibilities, agendas, and biases?
quote:
quote:
Even if it were perfectly clear that the death penalty was not an endorsement of killing others but simply the justifiable punishment for heinous crimes, killing innocent people is never justifiable.
Agreed, which is why this is a strawman.
Then why did you bring it up?
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2
