Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 99 of 236 (199066)
04-13-2005 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Silent H
04-13-2005 4:08 PM


Holmes, I've been lurking on this thread, and must say that I find your position baffling - or rather, you failure to understand the opposing position is baffling. When you say things like this
Unless you are arguing for the cessation of all human activity it does not.
You're completely misconstruing what people are saying.
Adhering to the principle of "provisional knowledge" does NOT mean that you cannot do anything, because you cannot achieve perfect certainty. It means that at some future point, additional unforeseen evidence may cause us to revise our beliefs.
Think of Gould's famous definition of fact - "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." That's what is "certain" in science. But it's stil provisional.
Let's put it this way, in practical terms...If it was possible to get the "God" answer on the topic, I would bet my life vs. $100 that evolution (e.g., common descent) is The Truth.
But I would NEVER, EVER, bet someone else's life. Not even Dahmer's.
Think about that previous line...there is, in fact, NOTHING I would EVER bet someone else's life on. Nothing.
Would you?
Judging from this thread, I would have to guess your answer is "yes". For your opponents, it's "no".
I think it all boils down to that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 4:08 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 9:55 AM Zhimbo has replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 111 of 236 (199214)
04-14-2005 9:48 AM


What is "practical certainty"?
Holmes
Several times in this thread you've used the phrase "practical certainty".
What exactly is "practical certainty"? Is there a precise pre-existing definition, or is this your term...and if it's your term, what do you mean by it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 10:44 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 112 of 236 (199217)
04-14-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Silent H
04-14-2005 9:21 AM


Re: Fortunes to be made
quote:
Well we already have the start of one system. Jar finally admitted that some realities which have actually happened might allow him to execute a person.
For him it was that on top of all the evidence the "suspect" not only readily confesses, but actively wishes to have the death sentence imposed.
Is that a level of evidence you are willing to accept?
If I understand Jar correctly, it isn't that he considers it an acceptable "level of evidence", it's that it's a high level of evidence PLUS the execution does not go against the person's wishes.
Me, I think it's a terrible idea to allow a person's wish to be executed to be a contributing factor...too much risk of a mentally ill person caught up in a big mess wanting to commit suicide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 9:21 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 115 of 236 (199228)
04-14-2005 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Silent H
04-14-2005 9:18 AM


quote:
What does it take to actively not answer a straightforward question, and simply repeat one's first position like a mantra?
Alternatively, Crash's "mantra" includes straightforward questions that you are actively not answering, and I haven't seen your position evolve since page 1 of this thread, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 9:18 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 10:53 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 118 of 236 (199234)
04-14-2005 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Silent H
04-14-2005 10:00 AM


Re: Fortunes to be made
quote:
"Please explain to me how all the evidence could possibly be wrong within this hypothetical case"
The principle of provisional knowledge is the admission that there may be something we haven't thought of yet, so this question is moot. It's precisely because we can't be sure we've thought of everything that one adheres to the principle of provisional knowledge.
It does NOT lead to total inaction or total inability to do science or cross the street. It just says that even "obvious truths" have been and could once again be wrong, even if we can't currently think of how.
In science, we accept "facts" to build theories, contribute to engineering, etc. But these facts, even, are "provisional".
For the engineering application of making a system to decide who gets executed, however, that's not good enough.
quote:
"Do you have a husband or boyfriend?"
Well, she might have both, I'm not 100% sure...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 10:00 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 122 of 236 (199253)
04-14-2005 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Silent H
04-14-2005 9:55 AM


quote:
If the problem is the possibility of someone getting killed because of extreme abuse of a system, then one begins to pull apart all human endeavour.
Some of the most graphic examples (and they are much more numerous than frame-ups leading to death sentences) are police killing wholly innocent people. They actually do have the ability (the right) to kill people without every going through court. If the problem with the death penalty is even if we tighten it so no mistakes go through, intentional misconduct can, then what of the other instruments of state that share this power?
But here you are talking about the side effect of wrongful death occurring as the result of any system...which is a remote possibility in any system, and one that would be impractical to work around.
Isn't the topic instead: the possibility of a system designed to kill people accidentally resulting in a wrongful death?
Yes, it's impractical to say that chairs should be outlawed because someone could beat someone to death with a chair. But we're talking about a system the purposefully places people into electric chairs, and we want a guarantee that no mistakes will ever be made in this sytem.
quote:
the lies that antiDP people are surrounding themselves with to demonize anyone who supports it,
What "lies" are we discussing on this thread? That I wouldn't bet anyone else's life on anything is not a lie. That I wouldn't trust any human run system to be 100% pefectly run and decisions to be made with perfect rationality is not a lie (as a Psychologist, I'd say that last part on rational decision making is pretty much a practical impossibility).
quote:
Not everything is science, and science is not meant to apply to everything. Indeed some rules of knowledge are necessarily tighter than modern science uses.
Right! Right! Right!
That's it! When we're talking executions, I want the rules of knowledge to be TIGHTER than science! Exactly!
I'll accept "practical certainty" (if I understand what you mean by the term) in science, with the notion that there's a remote but implausible possibility that Fact X may be shown not to be true.
I won't with regard to executions.
quote:
Can you tell the difference between your knowledge of whether Gould's PE theory applies to real life, and whether Gould published papers on PE theory?
Yes, they are different. The latter is more certain than the former. In fact I'd bet my life vs. $100 that Gould has published papers on PE theory.
But, I wouldn't bet anyone else's life on it.
quote:
What this says is that rules of knowledge must scale according desirability of moral outcome. Think about that. That is exactly what it says.
No it doesn't. Think about it. That's not what it says at all.
It says that levels of certainty must scale to the risk involved. The purposful taking of a life is a very large risk, and is completely irreversible.
quote:
Okay so the one thing YOU would never be willing to wager is a person's life, and so if it is in the balance we throw out not just modern scientific methodology,
Whoa? What have I said that prevents us from hypothesis testing?
We can agree that someone is "certainly" guilty (quotes are important there...), but agree that the practical application of this theory is too risky.
I mean, they sent dogs into space before humans, even though that was a practical application of nearly certain knowledge. But the practical application could lead to a death, so they hedged their bets.
In this case, we should hedge our bets on practical applications (death penalty) of our "theory" (X committed heinous acts).
quote:
that is a subjective moral position
Well, yeah. Killing innocent people IS a subjective moral position. I kinda assumed we shared that position.
quote:
Am I willing to risk one person's life on a tentative theory? No. It is only a stock dilemma that I'd have to. Not all knowledge is as tentative as a scientific theory
What are you willing to risk executing someone for? What is your "bet" that you would accept?
This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 04-14-2005 09:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 9:55 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 11:57 AM Zhimbo has replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 165 of 236 (199422)
04-14-2005 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Silent H
04-14-2005 11:57 AM


quote:
Isn't the topic instead: the possibility of a system designed to kill people accidentally resulting in a wrongful death?
No, this is not a flying guillotine or something.
The purpose of a court is to find guilt or innocence regarding a crime and then assess proper sentences for the crime. As part of the sentencing phase the death penalty option need not even come into play if we set rules (neccessary requirements) regarding level of evidence such that it is a practical certainty that no innocents will be killed.
I've read over this again and again, and I can't at all understand why you start with "no" as if you're disagreeing with me. We ARE talking about a system designed to execute people (who meet a certain level of "certainty"), by your description above.
"The claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a system that employs the death penalty and NOT kill an innocent person"
Well, I would say it is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a system which employs the death penalty and GUARANTEE that an innocent person won't be executed.
Is this a "lie"?
"One of the biggest catches would have to be an inclusion of the requirement that the suspect freely confesses and does not dispute the confession during trial or after, on top of the body of evidence.
Two words: Paul Ingram.
Talk about absurd! But it happened.
If you do not see that "risk involved" and "taking life is a very large risk" is a moral supposition, especially when used to scale down epistemology, then there is nothing more for me to say. It is pretty obvious.
The only moral supposition I'm making is that killing innocent people is bad, and should be avoided. I hope that's included as basic assumption of this conversation. If not, then there's no point in it, since there's no reason to be careful at all about who we execute.
But here's the analogy again...
Levels of certainty must scale to the risk involved. The purposeful destruction of an immortal soul is a very large risk, and is completely irreversible
I also hope it's a shared assumption in this discussion that innocent lives exist. Is it a shared assumption in this discussion that souls exist?
Ughhhh... that is an awful analogy.
Yes, it was. But the only thing I wanted to get across was the difference between knowledge and practical application. I was in a rush, give me a break, it was the best I could come up with in the time alotted!
Yes we can, but then we don't logically have to.
No, it is not logically required, by rules of formal logic. Insert the moral supposition "killing innoncent people is bad" here...
Am I willing to risk rational judgement and argument (i.e. logic) in order to make sure I can say at least I didn't "risk" the life of a guy who says he killed people and people say he killed people and all well tested evidence says he killed people?
I would say no.
Would you?
No, I wouldn't "risk rational judgement". But throwing the guy away for life instead of killing him isn't risking rational judgement, is it?
What are you willing to risk executing someone for? What is your "bet" that you would accept?
Personally I am willing to accept the level of evidence that was collected and presented for both Dahmer and Gacy.
OK, you're in a room with God. He's going to reveal The Truth about Dahmer.
He says if you're right in your judgment about Dahmer's guilt, God will give you a crisp $100 dollar bill. If you're wrong, he'll kill 1 person, randomly selected from the Earth's population.
Do you take the bet?
This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 04-14-2005 05:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 11:57 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 166 of 236 (199432)
04-14-2005 6:38 PM


OK, Let's assume there's a "certain" case...
OK, pick a case you think is reasonable as a "certain" case. Your call. Dahmer, Gacy, Columbine, Hilary Swank taking foreign fruit into New Zealand, whatever.
Let's pretend we agree that it's "risk free" to call this case "certain" and go ahead and execute the person.
What workable, fool proof system do you make, that can apply to ALL incoming cases, based on this?
You've been chomping at the bit for quite some time, many people have asked what your system is, and I'm just curious.
Put forward your specific case. Let's pretend I agree. What is the legal system you build from this?
I know this is prone to get bogged down into folks questioning the original case...but I'm interested in what sorts of actual *systems* you have in mind to generalize from this one case to all incoming cases.
Because there are at least two issues here - a logical one, and a practical one. Assuming you're right about the logical case (which I'm not conceding at all, mind you!), you still have to make the practical case - that an actual functioning legal system could also work perfectly in practice.
This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 04-14-2005 05:40 PM

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 167 of 236 (199449)
04-14-2005 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Silent H
04-14-2005 4:27 PM


quote:
I'm saying that in many situations, we're going to know enough, and know it confidently enough, to put a man in jail, possibly until he dies. But I'm saying that we don't know enough to kill him. We'll never know enough; it's not possible to know enough.
This is saying quite clearly that rules of knowledge (when we can say we know) need to be adjusted due to moral reasons.
Is the following an example of adjusting rules of knowledge due to moral reasons?:
1. I'd be willing to bet $10 on what you had for breakfast this morning (the truth to be determined by a hidden camera) based SOLELY on your report to me on what you had this morning. If you told me you had an omelette, I'd be willing to lay down $10 that you had an omelette.
2. If the bet was for $1000, I'd want more evidence - another witness, at the very least.
3. If the bet was for $1,000,000, I'd require a hell of a lot of evidence - witnesses, surgical determination of your stomach contents, maybe a video of my own...
4. If the bet was on the life of a randomly selected person from the world's population, there is no practically possible level of evidence I'd accept.
Is this what you mean by rule-changing based on moral reasons? If not, why is what we're saying about the death penalty any different? If it is, what's wrong with it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 4:27 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 182 of 236 (199739)
04-16-2005 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Silent H
04-15-2005 9:39 AM


Re: To Ben and All: And apology and explanation and an example...
I just barely skimmed this post so I don't really know what you're talking about at all, but this bit jumped out at me:
"Not to mention I have to cut out caffeine beforehand "
Oh GOD! I'm SO SORRY Holmes!!!! I wish you strength in this time of turmoil!
Now I'll have to go back and see what the "beforehand" is actually referring to...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Silent H, posted 04-15-2005 9:39 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024