Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 31 of 236 (198621)
04-12-2005 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by nator
04-12-2005 11:46 AM


Are those your specific criteria for the entire system, or is this a specific, single scenario? You can list all of the scenarios you want, but what you originally claimed was that a system could be developed which could be applied to all scenarios.
It appears you did not read the OP, or I did not make it clear enough. This thread was not designed for me to simply blurt out a system.
This thread was designed for me to walk those who doubt a system can be created, using the very techniques used to create the methods you just praised (the scientific method). This is of course why I find much of this ironic. You are arguing to me that humans cannot devise a system which has failsafes, while at the same time pointing to one.
Tentativity is a failsafe within science. Assigning "guilt" (which is the establishment of causation) can be tentative, but just as there are some things which move beyond tentative even in science, so goes it for the courts.
How we achieved the "rules" of science is by looking at specific cases (usually hypotheticalsso we can exaggerate our knowledge) and asking questions to derive failsafe methods of assigning "knowledge".
But one, or several of the above can be tained or false. How will you be assured that all of them, in all cases not just this one, will be accurate and reliable?
This is where we continue the journey of developing criteria. Only the first point has to be accepted. In any of the cases do you accept them as cases of knowledge of guilt? Please let me know which one so we can proceed.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 04-12-2005 11:46 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 04-12-2005 12:56 PM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 32 of 236 (198623)
04-12-2005 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Silent H
04-12-2005 12:02 PM


Re: tentativity
quote:
We are discussing the level of evidence to prove a causative connection. That is did A cause B? Outside of the molecular level or at great distances (time or space) we can accept evidence of causation pretty commonly.
"Causal relationships".
You mean, "theories"?
Are you saying that the principle of tentativity does not apply to non-quantum cases?
quote:
At this point you and contra are arguing we cannot in any way prove that the sun set at night, because it might have been a set up.
Well, in science, we can't prove it.
We can be quite sure, but we also have to be open to new evidence that shows us to be wrong, however unlikely it is.
That's the principle of tentativity.
I would like us to apply this tenet of tentativity to the criminal justice system, and especially WRT the death penalty.
Once you've put someone to death, you cannot correct any error. Any new evidence that comes to light is completely moot once you have killed someone.
Show me a criminal justice system that is and will always be free of human error and bias, and I'll change my mind on the death penalty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 12:02 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 04-12-2005 1:03 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 33 of 236 (198626)
04-12-2005 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Silent H
04-12-2005 12:37 PM


quote:
You are arguing to me that humans cannot devise a system which has failsafes, while at the same time pointing to one.
Tentativity is a failsafe within science. Assigning "guilt" (which is the establishment of causation) can be tentative, but just as there are some things which move beyond tentative even in science, so goes it for the courts.
No, nothing in science moves beyond tentativity, absolutely nothing.
If it did, it would become dogma.
There is nothing in science that we are not allowed to test, therefore it is all tentative. We don't hold any scientific theory as unassailable.
quote:
How we achieved the "rules" of science is by looking at specific cases (usually hypotheticalsso we can exaggerate our knowledge) and asking questions to derive failsafe methods of assigning "knowledge".
The only failsafe in science is tentativity.
When new evidence comes forward which contradicts established theory, the theory changes to reflect the new evidence.
If we didn't have tentativity, theories would become dogma, unable to be affected by new contradictory evidence.
What you are suggesting is that at some point we allow the criminal justice system to say that we don't need to be tentative in cases where someone will lose their life as a punishment.
But one, or several of the above can be tained or false. How will you be assured that all of them, in all cases not just this one, will be accurate and reliable?
quote:
This is where we continue the journey of developing criteria. Only the first point has to be accepted. In any of the cases do you accept them as cases of knowledge of guilt? Please let me know which one so we can proceed.
Yes, we can have knowledge, but we can't have perfect knowledge. The principle of tentativity is our only failsafe against error, and putting someone to death based upon imperfect knowledge is not acceptable because we cannot go back and correct our error after they are already dead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 12:37 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 1:27 PM nator has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 34 of 236 (198629)
04-12-2005 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by nator
04-12-2005 12:42 PM


Are you sure?
Show me a criminal justice system that is and will always be free of human error and bias, and I'll change my mind on the death penalty.
Even if you could find that, it would still not be sufficient IMHO. Your reference to DNA evidence is a perfect example. In amny of those cases there was no human error, no bias but there was still a wrong decision.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 04-12-2005 12:42 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 04-12-2005 1:17 PM jar has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 35 of 236 (198631)
04-12-2005 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by contracycle
04-12-2005 11:48 AM


Then you are apparently much more credulous than I expected.
Honestly I thought I was the philosophical skeptic. Now it appears my getting up in the morning might very well have been a police setup, elaborately arranged in some brainwashing experiment. And not just that I have to acknowledge the logical possibility of it, I must actually conduct my life and create rules of knowledge to include that possibility as an equal probability!
I guess from my vantage point I'm thinking the guy with the absolute conspiracy theory is the one that is credulous.
You will of course recall I do not think cops should be armed, so this is somewhat less of an issue as far as I am concerned.
Ahem... unarmed cops can and do kill people.
YOU are saying it is going to be 100% foolproof. So you have to show how it will deal with even the outliers, not merely the common case.
Better than showing a system is showing its construction. Still waiting for you or schraf to start moving with the system of constructing a system.
That is not logical.... And I *do* reject law ernforcement. So, next!
Actually it is logical, but I'll deal with corruption a little bit later. As far as law enforcement goes, you reject it so you are against courts altogether then. That is you don't accept any sentences ever being handed out.
Of course this directly contradicts your earlier posts claiming that courts DO have authority and can show what is right or not.
God you must have a degree in missing the point. I don;t thihnk I've ever read a post of yours in which you simply argued your point without trying to twist the other sides case.
Let's talk irony. I set out a post and try to deal with criteria of evidence to build a system, you then construct a strawman by which I have to deal with confessions in a system I am not even discussing.
The system necessary to create Powers' confessions I will heartily agree should not have the death penalty.
Wait, maybe I just need to clarify something. What I am NOT trying to do is say that the death penalty can be safely applied under ANY system, what I am rejecting is that there is NO system where it can be applied safely.
Gary Powers is a strawman.
In fact, no. Because that kind of evidnce would be quite easy to fake these days, wouldn't it? Bluescreen and motion capture, and bobs your uncle.
Actually no, it really isn't that easy. You can watch multimillion dollar movies with thousands of man hours invested in them and still spot the CGI effects.
Experts can be called in to discuss the possible manipulation of the video. If it is in contention then the case could be barred from applying the DP, thus eliminating any chance unless the defendant does not argue the video is real.
YOU are the one claiming a 100% perfect system - a fact I have to say, simply on the basis of my statistics background, is wholly implausible.
You missed my chuckle over that already I guess. You can't calculate that stuff anyway. This is more of a process of elimination through rules, binary. It isn't adding up odds.
Someone else mentioned it first and I just ran with it as a gag.
So YOU have to show how your system is abs90lutely immune to all perversion whatsover, by any force or factiopn no matter how powerful and organised.
No, actually I have to show you how one can be devised. That is what I proposed within this thread.
And I would argue it does not have to be immune to "perversion" as ANYTHING can be perverted. To blame something for overt abuse, is ridiculous and in the case of the justice system will logically lead to the elimination of all courts, police, and laws.
What needs to be shown is that in a practically running system, there is no chance an innocent will be killed and there are sufficient safeguards for all but the most outrageous (improbable) cases of abuse.
And then we can rightly say: we choose not to kill, in case we make a mistake.
Are you mistaken that the sun rose this morning? How about that it rose in the east? Why do you believe this?
If we really have to start from scratch we can. It'd be easier if you just started admitting where you actually have knowledge.
Hmmmmm. That's not a bad idea. Why don't we start without my giving an example at all... you give one. What WOULD be a case where you could say a person was absolutely guilty?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 11:48 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 36 of 236 (198634)
04-12-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Silent H
04-12-2005 11:17 AM


Re: Sanity
quote:
I am asking the question if it is really true that we cannot create rules to determine in some cases that a person definitely commited a certain act.
I think the term "definite" is the problem. When dealing with the actions of people, it is difficult to determine what is or is not "definite".
To do this, would require thinking of all possible circumstances in advance in order to create rules that are "tight" enough to allow use of the term "definite". I don't believe, based merely on the evidence, we can be 100% sure of every detail.
But if we could, determine with 100% accuracy, would that preclude a trial? Would we, based on the 100% accuracy of the evidence, proceed directly to execution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 11:17 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 1:36 PM Monk has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 37 of 236 (198636)
04-12-2005 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jar
04-12-2005 1:03 PM


Re: Are you sure?
quote:
Even if you could find that, it would still not be sufficient IMHO. Your reference to DNA evidence is a perfect example. In amny of those cases there was no human error, no bias but there was still a wrong decision.
Well, actually, the DNA evidence corrects the human error.
Obviously there was huge error, or bias, because an innocent person was accused and sent to jail.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-12-2005 12:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 04-12-2005 1:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 04-12-2005 1:21 PM nator has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 38 of 236 (198639)
04-12-2005 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by nator
04-12-2005 1:17 PM


Re: Are you sure?
Obviously there was huge error, or bias, because an innocent person was accused and sent to jail.
Not given the capabilities at the time.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 04-12-2005 1:17 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 04-12-2005 1:26 PM jar has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 236 (198642)
04-12-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
04-12-2005 1:21 PM


Re: Are you sure?
But the wrong person went to jail, or was put to death.
A witness got it wrong, the cops got it wrong, the jurors got it wrong.
Lots of people made errors which were corrected by the DNA evidence.
They were probably honest mistakes, but they were still mistakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 04-12-2005 1:21 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 04-12-2005 1:35 PM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 40 of 236 (198643)
04-12-2005 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
04-12-2005 12:56 PM


I'll answer both your posts on tentativity and science in this one post.
No, nothing in science moves beyond tentativity, absolutely nothing.
You are of course absolutely incorrect. There are certain things, including causation which are not considered tentative.
This level of skepticism was reached with Hume (one of my heroes), but ultimately proven impractical and unrealistic.
You see a ball move across the table, touch another ball and stop, then the other ball moves. While there is a logical possibility that the first ball did not cause the second to move, it is accepted as probable beyond mere tentativity that that is what happened.
Sure if later evidence came up that God stops one ball and just loves making the other ball move, we can end up accepting the new one, but it becomes absurd to hold such skepticism as part of scientific OBSERVATION.
You are simply trying to head off a conclusion you do not want to reach, by bucking the very process which built science.
If you are going to put your foot down and say their is simply no theoretical case you can think of, or no practical case that you can think of, or no real life case you can think of where you knew something as a certainty with regard to causation (in this case A commited murder), then I simply don't believe you. That is complete and utter incredulity.
That is why I was reaching for specific cases, and then theoreticals. If I was to follow your strain of logic then there simply would be no science at all, for even observations and facts must be doubted at all times and no weight afforded them... including your own experiences.
Again, Hume was my hero, but he was wrong and shot down ages ago.
What you are suggesting is that at some point we allow the criminal justice system to say that we don't need to be tentative in cases where someone will lose their life as a punishment.
No, what I am suggesting is that UNLIKE QUANTUM MECHANICS, there is a reasonable point in dealing with human actions that have had a physical result, where we can say we know for sure there will be no more incoming information, or at the very least no practical probability that any new information could come in that would be different than what we already have.
That you cannot conceive of that possibility is absurd to me.
Yes, we can have knowledge, but we can't have perfect knowledge.
This is where you are equivocating. We do not need omiscient knowledge to have adequate, or practical "perfect" knowledge of something like a murder.
Again, I am not arguing the same rules that apply for judging general "guilt" in a court room should be sufficient to allow for the DP. I think it should be much more stringent. It should be those cases where we can be practically certain of no further information which can reverse the current findings.
To restart with a known specific case... is it probable, or practically conceivably possible that Dahmer was innocent of the crimes he was accused, and that any further evidence could come in to change that finding?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 04-12-2005 12:56 PM nator has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 41 of 236 (198644)
04-12-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by nator
04-12-2005 1:26 PM


Re: Are you sure?
They were mistakes. I agree with that, but not that they were errors.
The problem from my perspective is that there is simply no way to ever be sure that there are no mistakes, that the decision is not wrong.
This is a pretty easy stance to take for a believer I admit. I am quite sure that there will be an ultimate judge, one who will not make mistakes and will not be wrong.
In the meantime, let's do away with the death penalty. Let's stick with a system where we at the least have an option for correcting mistakes we may have made.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 04-12-2005 1:26 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 1:40 PM jar has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 42 of 236 (198645)
04-12-2005 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Monk
04-12-2005 1:13 PM


Re: Sanity
When dealing with the actions of people, it is difficult to determine what is or is not "definite".
No, only if we want to abstract things into the absurd. Yes in many cases "definite" cannot be reached due to practical realities. However in some cases we can reach a practical conclusion.
But if we could, determine with 100% accuracy, would that preclude a trial? Would we, based on the 100% accuracy of the evidence, proceed directly to execution?
I feel like I'm in the twilight zone here.
There was a real life case where a guy gunned down a number of people on a train. Some of his victims managed to subdue him (while others died). The case was brought to trial and he insisted that it was someone else and that he was being framed by everyone. That is in spite of the fact that he was caught by the people he shot, the physical evidence was conclusive that he was there and it was his guns that shot the people. It appears that everyone here would agree with this man's defense?
I just don't get it.
Yes, we have a trial and evidence is presented. Within the trial it may be determined if the evidence rises to a level of certainty which allows the DP to come into play. No the execution need not be immediate as there is always an appeals process. Yes, eventually that process may end and the person be killed.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Monk, posted 04-12-2005 1:13 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Monk, posted 04-12-2005 1:48 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 43 of 236 (198647)
04-12-2005 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
04-12-2005 1:35 PM


Re: Are you sure?
The problem from my perspective is that there is simply no way to ever be sure that there are no mistakes, that the decision is not wrong.
Et tu, Jar?
I have never seen such incredible depths of skepticism in my life. Are you seriously telling me you never had one case of practical knowledge in your life, especially with regard to somebody doing something?
I guess what I really should have done is start a thread on evidence, apparently no one believes evidence exists.
Let me ask you this straight out... Do you believe that Dahmer actually killed those people, and that this is not a possibly mistaken belief?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 04-12-2005 1:35 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 04-12-2005 1:44 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 45 by coffee_addict, posted 04-12-2005 1:46 PM Silent H has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 44 of 236 (198650)
04-12-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Silent H
04-12-2005 1:40 PM


Re: Are you sure?
Let me ask you this straight out... Do you believe that Dahmer actually killed those people, and that this is not a possibly mistaken belief?
I don't know. I may well have a belief in the matter, may even say I know the answer. However it is not sufficient.
The death penalty is just irreversable. Once applied it cannot be revoked. So why apply it when there are other options?
AbE:
This is not about evidence or even knowledge. Both are simply irrelevant when we are talking about the death penalty.
This message has been edited by jar, 04-12-2005 11:45 AM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 1:40 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 2:11 PM jar has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 45 of 236 (198652)
04-12-2005 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Silent H
04-12-2005 1:40 PM


Re: Are you sure?
holmes writes:
Let me ask you this straight out... Do you believe that Dahmer actually killed those people, and that this is not a possibly mistaken belief?
Since I do not know the man or know much about the case, I can only trust the authority when they said he was guilty. However, to be completely honest, and this is the skeptic side of me speaking, there is always this little doubt about the whole thing in the back of my head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 1:40 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 2:19 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024