Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents

quote:

---

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.

---

Then I'm missing your point. This doesn't sound much different than what we already have in the US. The prosecution determines if evidence is sufficient to seek the DP. If it is allowable, of course.

Because I DO care about the possibility of innocent people getting killed, I believe that current evidentiary rules are inadequate. I think the move by the Illinois gov't was appropriate and should be followed by others.I should add that on top of all this reform I believe there should be a reform to change the system where sentence is not part of the deliberations for guilt of having caused the crime. There are cases of where DAs overstep (go for a higher sentence) and so lose the case by alienating the jury due to sentence.

---

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

You mean TO YOU they are irrelevant. I of course cannot argue against that, just as much as the guy that says its irrelevant if a black did it or not, they all have to hang. These are a priori assumptions.Frankly I do not see how you can comfortably take your position, and feel obliged to ask why you accept any court system at all? Just because other sentences can theoretically be reversed? You can't reverse a persons years lost, not even theoretically.Man I simply cannot believe that everyone actually holds this much skepticism in their regular lives. I guess I can't disprove it, but I sure don't believe it.AbE:
Isn't saying that you cannot grant the status of knowledge, because the death penalty is a possibility the same thing as saying you cannot grant the status of knowledge because the denial of God is a possibility?I honestly do not see the difference between the two and feel it is a form of intellectual dishonesty.This message has been edited by holmes, 04-12-2005 01:24 PM

---

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

It really is like I'm in the twilight zone. For a guy that hates people that pick on gays, I am blown away by your "skepticism" regarding whether this guy that hunted, killed, and ate gays was guilty.I'm not sure what was questionable, unless you are saying you actually know NOTHING about the case. He was brough to the attention of the police by a naked, bleeding man who managed to escape when Dahmer was trying to kill him. For some reason they disbelieved the guy's story at first but on checking in the apartment found a head in the freezer, and the following search revealed more body parts all over the place (including the tubs of acid used to dissolve people which had stunk up the apartment building).On top of this Dahmer did confess and there were plenty of witnesses to his having been an attacker on gays previously (spiking drinks in order to rape guys at clubs).There is a point where healthy skepticism becomes fraudulent self-serving ignorance, or impractical incredulity. Maybe in this case you knew only the story of his personal history, and not how the case unfolded.How about John Wayne Gacy? Do people really doubt his guilt?This message has been edited by holmes, 04-12-2005 01:25 PM

---

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

I have always tried to make it clear that I can only speak from my personal position.However you can be sure that I believe there is no valid reason for a death penalty.I accept a court system because there is some need for arbitration between individuals and between individuals and society. Granted, you cannot return lost time. If there was a way to recompense someone for lost time or false imprisonment then I would favor examining it, but TTBOMK, there is none.But you can return freedom. Someone imprisoned can be released.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Whether that is true or not, I am not seeing a consistency in your position, and indeed am seeing an inconsistency which you do not allow in others... without an objection. Subjectively that statement can be made, objectively it cannot (or at least I would put up a bit of an argument against it).In any case whether there is a valid reason to have it is totally beyond the question of whether a system can be devised such that only "known" guilty people are executed.It does seem as if you are arguing that you cannot admit that such "knowledge" is possible, because you cannot agree with the death penalty, rather than you cannot agree with the death penalty because such "knowledge" is impossible.This seems directly comparable to creationists who argue that they cannot admit humans are capable of "knowledge" of whether the ToE is true, because they cannot agree with anything that would render a literal interpretation as false.That is to say an a priori belief/desire affects rational argument.

---

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

Could be but I don't think so.There are a few facts here.One, the death penalty once implemented cannot be reversed.Second, there are other options available.Beyond that I see little merit in the discussion.Period.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That is very disappointing. I thought I raised a pretty important point.

---

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

For a simple mind, yes. You don't have one, I don't have one, and neither does Schraf.The act is ensured. The reason is not, and that is why MOTIVE is still an integral part of nailing someone. Besides this is not a novel idea you know....sorry.As far as framing to such an extent that I saw you downplay....isn't that one of the biggest reasons OJ Simpson was found not guilty? Weren't the LAPD detectives and forensics lab allegedly trying to frame him?
- - maybe I got it wrong - -

Actually, this isn't true. Objectively, there have been quite a few studies (I would have to look them up) that actually show that it is not a deterrent. Since having punishments is one of the ways we use to deter criminal activity this makes death as a punishment more of a mode for retribution than deterring others. I might be going out on a limb, but as an example, the death penalty is a deterrent for you or I, but I'm guessing we don't process the world like Dahmer or Gacy.

Maybe I do, because I don't understand what this means. Are you suggesting smart people would be able to see more clearly such that it is not certain? I do not believe that is true. I also do not believe motive is absolutely necessary.The Columbine Killers has essentially 0 motive to do what they did, but I think the evidence speaks for itself. If they had been captured instead of killing themselves, would it be any less clear that they had done it? From what I remember you do have it wrong. The problem (if there was any with the physical evidence) was not attempted framing, it was an attempt to spread evidence to allow greater searches at the time that might have been off limits, as well as potential (though this was extremely dubious) contamination of samples.It looked to me like Furman likely planted a glove from one scene to another on a correct hunch, but very stupid and incorrect police procedure.In any case I think OJ's is a classic case of where I am quite certain of his guilt, but there is no way in heck that it rises to the level of evidentiary certainty where the DP out to be applied. Although pretty overwhelming, it was entirely circumstantial. That simply is NOT good enough.

---

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

Whoa is me. This is not a thread on whether the death penalty is valid to be used, this is actually a thread which sprang from another thread on that topic.In that other thread I addressed the arguments against DP based on things like its inability to deter, and whether it taught people bad habits.This thread was generated when I addressed the myth that the DP should not be allowed because innocent people get killed. Disregarding the logical fallacy of blaming a sentence for the failings of some specific processes, it was stated (twice) that no process could ever be made that would allow for a death sentence to exist and no innocent person was put to death.That is all I am dealing with here.If it helps any, I agree it has no deterrent effect. I am hard pressed to think of any evidence that sentences or laws deter crime from happening. Thus I do not in any way argue that DP is supportable by saying it will deter crime.As far as the justice system goes I think restitution and rehabilitation are the two primary interests, followed by removal of certain convicts from society (or negative environments) to protect society while they are rehabilitated. Only in the case where rehabilitation is unlikely and the evidence is clear that the convict did commit murder do I believe removal should be permanent. That is there is no point to keeping the person alive as a threat to anyone else (including guards and other people being rehabilitated) and so should be executed.If you have problems with any of that please open another thread. I really do want to concentrate on the asserted impossibility of a system whereby a death penalty would not be enacted on any innocent people.

---

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

Come on, I meant that if everything were as simple as not having to think about possible reasons (i.e the MOTIVE I certainly mentioned) then yes, this plan does the trick.Aside from the video I see nothing in your scenario list that is "case closed" and therefore could be questioned especially for a CERTIFIED skeptic such as yourself. So, then I'd have to ask you if you would then support cameras everywhere (aside from a person's home unless they installed it)?

Oh, okay. Just thought I'd throw in on that point.

I honestly didn't understand. Please forgive me as I am under the weather, sort of exhausted by writing in general, and it is a bit late (I'm actually in Europe and not in Chicago). Actually I haven't tried to build actual criteria yet, but thought that was a pretty clear case with ALL the evidence taken together. Frankly, even without the video footage, if the suspect is caught at the scene, and there are numerous witnesses to the crime in progress (and they should not be connected to each other), then I feel pretty confident the person is guilty.Despite the potential aid of video footage, I do NOT support cameras everywhere. I currently live in a neighborhood that has cameras everywhere, including one essentially right out my door and is capable of looking right into my front window.And you know what? There appear to be just as many fights and drug pushers as before (not necessarily correlated to each other) and cops now seem to be able to avoid showing up when fights are happening, rather than getting involved.Reliance on video is a lazy way to deal with law enforcement and encroaches on the freedom of people to move about with some privacy.1984 sucked, and things haven't changed just because its 20 years later.

---

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