Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents

So, if the police had this evidence would there still be a judge and jury? If yes, then why (considering that we are treating this as a "done deal")? If no, then don't you think this would foster a potential loophole for corruption and "framing" of someone? I for one am not surprised. I second the "no cameras". Humans, just like everything else in nature, tend towards chaos (my opinion of course). If you get a chance to see George Carlin's new show I recommend it (I think it's gonna be on HBO soon..do they get that in Europe?).

He himself was gay. I know a little bit about the case. It wasn't a man. It was a boy. Your point? Your point? I'll tell you this much. My law prof was involved with the case.The point I, and many others, are trying to make is that we, as a society, absolutely cannot know for certain every single case whether the person is innocent or guilty. Because of this, we need to put out a blanket protection for all to safeguard against cases where it is less certain than the examples you came up with. I think you already know the answer to this one.

There must be a process to review and challenge any of the facts presented. Even a case where the defendant wholly admits his guilt and is willing to forgo a jury trial must go before a judge, and then has a term for appeals afterward (in case his lawyer screwed up).Again, I am for reformation of the system as it stands now. I think deliberation of guilt (and even charges) should be separate from possible sentencing. It is only slightly that way now.It is important for a review of the evidence, especially in a capital case, to make sure all the evidence is on the up and up and we don't just take the word of the DA. And of course to create a permanent record of the evidence. We don't get HBO here, but whenever I get a chance to see George Carlin I do. One of the first records I ever tried to by was a George Carlin album. The clerk refused to sell it to me unless I was accompanied by a parent. My first taste of censorship and it had to be for those damn words he's always talkin' about!

---

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

That changes anything? I thought the point you and Rrhain often throw at bigots is that they are closet cases. The fact is he hunted and killed gays. That would seem to be pretty important. It's been a little bit so I may have transfigured some events in time. I thought it was a boy that escaped the first time, and the cops simply returned him to Dahmer, and after they left he killed the boy. The second time it was a man, and the cops got him. I was simply giving you the history. It was a clean search, with mountains of incriminating evidence. Thus where is there room for doubt IN THIS CASE? That's cool. The problem is that the point is a logical fallacy. It is as good as my saying me and a bunch of others are trying to tell you that we as a society absolutely cannot know gays do not hurt society and so we must round them all up for our protection.1) It is an argument from ignorance.
2) It demands that if it is not possible in all cases, it cannot be achieved in any specific case.Yes, not all cases are clear cut, those would be excluded. But just because not all can be clearcut, does not mean there is no such thing as a clear cut case.The level of incredulity is truly insulting at this point.If you can identify cases of knowledge, without any practical plausibility of error, then you can craft rules that apply to that level of knowledge and demand they be met before the DP comes into play.It is not that every murder case will be up for it. And I have suggested this repeatedly.When no one can accurately deal with a specific case or a hypothetical case, in order to honestly answer a question, I guess I should know by now that the game is over.You guys are simply wallowing in ignorance in order to stick to an a priori position. That is so much less credible than just admitting while such a system is possible, you simply don't want it on moral grounds. Why not be honest?

---

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

quote:

---

This thread was generated when I addressed the myth that the DP should not be allowed because innocent people get killed.

---

A MYTH? Are you now so delusional you deny the clear evidecne that this has happened?

quote:

---

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.

---

There is no fallacy except your attribution of blame to a process. Blame is totally irrelevant and utterly unimportant to the issue. Merely recognising the propensity of a specific process to fail is a good enough basis to say, OK, we will not make irrevocable decisions on that basis.Geez, we can't even build a machine that will put 3xactly 100 mils of fluid in a jar. Its statistically iompossible, all we can do is MANAGE the margin of error. I regard the proposition that we can build an infallible judical system as outright lunacy.That is all I am dealing with here.

No. People being wrongly executed has happened. What is a myth is that the existence of a death penalty inherently means it will happen. It is correct to point out that most (perhaps all) current systems are not solid enough to use the death penalty without the possibility of killing an innocent person. That is why I am for reform.Remember I supported the suspension of the death penalty in Illinois which did end up saving not a few lives. Yes a proponent of the death penalty can actually agree with the suspension or abolition of the death penalty until proper systems are in place.The argument is not whether current systems are "perfect" systems. The argument is whether any system with the death penalty must inherently, without question, no doubt about it, ironically perfectly knowably, will execute innocent people.I believe the death penalty is appropriate in general, and has the ability to be safely applied in specific circumstances with rules that negate innocents being killed.I have no problems with people saying they feel the DP is inappropriate under any circumstances. My problem is advanced incredulity, as well as intellectual and moral cowardice being practiced here to avoid people admitting they have an opinion so they can pretend they have some factual objective reason for their antiDP position. It is not a statistical problem as I have already mentioned. The idea that one can approximate such a thing is less than serious.It is also not analogous to building a machine.This is about the ability for humans to construct a rule set to be followed that will restrict allowance of the death penalty to only those for which guilt is certain, rather than just beyond a reasonable doubt.It is without question that we have practical certain knowledge, that is knowledge that can only be false due to extreme metaphysical or conspiratorial causes, and so no credible reason to accept the possibility of those alternatives.Did the Hindenburg blow up and crash to the ground? Can you admit you know this? In reality there are vast metaphysical or conspiratorial possibilities that it did not happen, but they run to the absurd as far as practical reality goes. Knowledge and reason would be left behind.I feel laws and courts are not best served by requiring them to leave reason behind.

---

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

quote:

---

No. People being wrongly executed has happened. What is a myth is that the existence of a death penalty inherently means it will happen.

---

Except that, unless we have a 100% foolproof system, it WILL happen. that is not a myth.

quote:

---

I have no problems with people saying they feel the DP is inappropriate under any circumstances. My problem is advanced incredulity, as well as intellectual and moral cowardice being practiced here to avoid people admitting they have an opinion so they can pretend they have some factual objective reason for their antiDP position.

---

Unfortunately for you, we DO have a factual and objective reason for opposing the death penalty: unless we have a 100% reliable system, mistakes will inevitably be made and innocent people will die.You are now reduced to accusing me of intellectual cowardice simply becuase you cannot answer the point. That does not enhance your credibility at all; you are persistently failing to engage with the criticism, and instead trying to dismiss it by impugning my person.

quote:

---

It is not a statistical problem as I have already mentioned. The idea that one can approximate such a thing is less than serious.

​

It is also not analogous to building a machine.

---

It most certainly IS a statisticial problem. And you are correct to say it is not analogous to building a machine: building a machine is EASIER because all its parts are predictable and fixed, unlike any human social system.

quote:

---

Did the Hindenburg blow up and crash to the ground? Can you admit you know this? In reality there are vast metaphysical or conspiratorial possibilities that it did not happen, but they run to the absurd as far as practical reality goes. Knowledge and reason would be left behind.

---

No that is nonsense again; in fact it reminds me of your dishonest arguments that cknowledging the existance of sexist discrimination is to propagate sexism. The FACT of the matter is that, rightly or wrongly, a sizable percentage of the American public believe the video of the moon landings was faked. The fact that there is video evidence is not in itself automatically conclusive - you may recall Trotsky being airbrushed out of photo's, for example.And that is why a 100% system is impossible. Its a simple enough point, really. You are the one claiming that a 100% perfect system is possible for the death penalty. We are all awaiting your proposal to see what it actually is.

Again, yes the way everyone is using 100% foolproof (metaphysically instead of practically) is a myth. That is it is an equivocation followed by a slippery slope.According to the logic being used, any judicial system even one that bars the death penalty will still result in the death penalty being imposed.As soon as we can agree that there is such a thing as practical certain knowledge, we can craft rules to distinguish certain from uncertain cases. Once we have rules we have a system capable of not executing innocents.The problem is suddenly everyone is playing super-skeptic to the point of absurd incredulity to avoid admitting the first point. When I bring this up, we then circle back around the original assertion regarding 100% foolproof.This is the same game the creos play regarding epistemology as it pertain to something they don't want to happen. Actually the intellectual cowardice wasn't being levelled at you, it was at the others. So far you have proved elusive as to what your actual position is.If you are advocating no courts and police forces whatsoever, because they can all be abused and so lead to innocents being killed, then there might be something different in play here.In any case I am not just throwing around ad hominem attacks, I am using straight out definitions. Yes the moral comment is from my own moral system, but the other two statements (advanced incredulity and intellectual cowardice) are pretty straightforward.As it stands these were not even part of an argument, which means even if they were simple name calling they still weren't a fallacy. Check the quote which you cited. I was describing what was upsetting me, not arguing why people should believe me. Nice assertions.Okay, so what % increase in certainty is a video tape? How about each witness? How do you measure this increase in certainty? Don't you realize this is about as statistically measurable as "complexity" in ID?And as far as a machine goes, it is actually easier. Working with hypotheticals to create rule systems requires energy and thought, but does not depend on things that can break down at all, nor include "forces" one did not anticipate working against the materials. Uhhhhhh... you are arguing against your own position, unless you are suggesting that Trotsky didn't exist?The point certainly does exist that some evidence can be tampered with. If this is open to a reasonable possibility then that could be a disqualifier. See how that works? We think of hypotheticals to start crafting rules.Just because it is a tape and can be tampered with, does not mean that it was or that it is reasonable to believe it and some evidence surrounding it can make it practically certain to be real. It is not just about individual pieces of evidence, but the entirety of it.I could not in all certainty say there was a moon landing. That involved a very small and isolated group of people working together in remote areas. I do believe there was a landing and feel that beyond a reasonable doubt it is true, but it is not beyond a reasonable doubt that at some time in the future there could be evidence which proves it is fake.The Hindenburg is not such a case. The perverse twisting of reality and level of conspiracy necessary for it not to have happened, means I am safe in saying it is beyond a reasonable doubt no other information could surface in the future to prove it false.Can't you see the difference between the two? See how fun this game is? See why the creos love it so much? Incredulity and circular logic is unbeatable.You say it cannot be done, I start to show you how it can be done, and then get shouted down by people saying no we don't have to because that's not possible because it cannot be done.

---

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

quote:

---

Again, yes the way everyone is using 100% foolproof (metaphysically instead of practically) is a myth. That is it is an equivocation followed by a slippery slope.

---

Yes, YOUR myth. I am not seduced by such idealisms.

quote:

---

The problem is suddenly everyone is playing super-skeptic to the point of absurd incredulity to avoid admitting the first point. When I bring this up, we then circle back around the original assertion regarding 100% foolproof.

---

The degree of skepticism is prportional to the gravity of the proposal. You are proposing taking human life. My position has been made abundantly clear to you: the death sentence will not be supported BECAUSE it is ireevocable; the only possible counter you have to that position is to propose a 100% perfect system.Seeing as you cannot propose such a system, as you admit, I will continue to reject the death penalty.

quote:

---

Okay, so what % increase in certainty is a video tape? How about each witness? How do you measure this increase in certainty? Don't you realize this is about as statistically measurable as "complexity" in ID?

---

No, I don't recognise that necessarily. I studied statistics purely as a business concern; 100% certainty is not achievable. I do not need to go any further than that, nor indulge any diversions into ID.

quote:

---

And as far as a machine goes, it is actually easier. Working with hypotheticals to create rule systems requires energy and thought, but does not depend on things that can break down at all, nor include "forces" one did not anticipate working against the materials.

---

Totally false - materials behave in much more predictable ways. And I never referred to extraneous forces or breakdowns.

quote:

---

Can't you see the difference between the two?

---

No.

quote:

---

You say it cannot be done, I start to show you how it can be done, and then get shouted down by people saying no we don't have to because that's not possible because it cannot be done.

---

Baloney. You failed to show how it could be done, and the weaknesses were pointed out to you. Spare me the persecution complex.In fact, it was worse than that, becuase you seem to have assumed we had never considered your proposals before. I think thats unlikely in the others, and is certainly the case in my argument. Nothing you proposed was new, or surprising, to my existing view that the death penalty should not be used.This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-13-2005 09:07 AM

it's always a good idea to waive your right to a jury trial if you are innocent. the jury is made up of a bunch of bored people who would rather be doing soemthing else. further, they're generally painfully uneducated. and finally, they're almost always in complaint of their life being hard and they never get a break blah blah.they just wanna see someone hang.

You take the cake, Brenna. Seeing as you are so disgusted with us mere humans, why don't you fuck off somewhere else?

Yes, it probably will. As Fat Tony says, "accidents do happen." A prisoner might "die in custody".I mean, hell, that stuff happens now. Currently that's outweighed by the actual legitimate state executions, but you're certainly correct that, in the absence of a legal execution policy, wardens and prison personnel - even prisoners themselves - would, ever so rarely, take the law into their own hands. It happens.So what? It's murder when it happens now; it would be murder when it happens then. I don't think you're going to find too many people who will agree with this; I certainly don't. It's a violation of scientific tentativity. Maybe you can eliminate reasonable doubt of guilt, but you certainly can't eliminate the unreasonable doubts. Yeah, but here's the thing. We're not using the tentative conclusions of evolution to bestow irreversable death on people. The stakes are a little higher in regards to the criminal justice system, don't you agree?The tentativity of science, and of the conclusions of the courtroom, stem from solipsism. If you can refute solipsism then you have a point. But if you can, you'd be the first. And in the presence of solipsism there's no escaping the fact that, despite meeting the conditions you might set out for "reasonable certainty", we might still be completely wrong. You can't assume that we can ignore solipsism just because its inconvinient to your argument.

There was no reason for the personal attack on another poster.Stop it now.

---

may revolve around a belief that I think the death penalty wrong from some moral or philosophical base. That is simply not the case.I oppose the death penalty because it is irreversible. It has nothing to do with whether I believe someone deserves to die, whether or not I believe someone is guilty, but solely with the single issue of reversibility.If we have a scientific theory wrong, it can be changed. If we put someone in prison, they can be released. If we execute someone, we cannot later restore them to life.It is as simple as that. The Death Penalty is irreversible. Once applied it cannot be changed, rescinded or revised. It is permanent.That unique characteristic is sufficient IMHO to make it a special case.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, that simply cannot logically be the case. Build an argument with that which leads to "death penalty is wrong" without using a moral assumption. What difference does that make if they are guilty? Unless you are arguing that if a person came to kill you, you could not in any way kill them because that would be irreversible?You see everyone here keeps running with a priori beliefs that they are not even trying to question. The first question that has to be answered is can you have practical certainty about any piece of knowledge?If you CAN, which is relatable to epistemological rules alone, and NOT based on what the outcome may be, then the argument you are making begins to break down.That seems to be why no one can begin the process and admit the obvious. There are cases which we know to be true.By the way, maybe I don't remember right, but weren't you for pulling the plug on schiavo?

---

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