Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents

Ever see Zoolander? But seriously, shouldn't another criterion be "actually results in a single conviction" before you get the Nobel Prize? I think that might be important to the prize-awarding committee.Well, I think I'll step out of the way now. Just trying to join in the "fun."

Dude, I don't know. How do you know?Everything I know on these things is based on authority and derived information (i.e. not primary source information). Let me put it this way--if an all-knowing GOD appeared and asked me if I was willing to to risk my family's lives on whether I knew a single instance of whether somebody killed somebody else or not, I would never do it. There's too many ways the conclusion could have been screwed up, and I'm so far removed from the entire process, how the hell could I know?Anyway, why don't you outline your practically infallible system anyway? Your argument has two premises, and we're stuck on the second (we can have practically certain knowledge). I think the first is much more interesting (If we have practically certain knowledge then we can have a practically infallible death penalty system). I think you have to show us such a system in order to justify this premise....One more thing.Also implicit in your premise "if we have practically certain knowledge then we can have a practically infallable death penalty" is that the death penalty system will kill ANYBODY. Otherwise, we could say "Sure, we could make a death penalty system that kills no innocent people, here it is:1. Death penalty = death by lethal injection.
2. The death penalty will be administered to those with DNA matching that of the fruit fly."However, I argued in my post #3 that the original set of criteria that you proposed would never happen. I'm afraid of the same thing for your overall system for applying the death penalty. I think your system has to be minimally practical; i.e. outside of absurd / extreme cases, would actually be applied in real life.

Holmes, I really do understand where you're coming from. I'm not interested in belaboring the point... just to tell you why I'm uneasy in accepting it. For the sake of argument, I think it's worthwhile to accept and see where you go with it. I think, in this case, more can be done with concrete examples than with high-level discussion.That said, what bothers me is that there's just so many ways to go wrong. Data collection can go wrong. Testimony can go wrong. Etc.But even more scary to me, science is not governed just by logic. In general, hypotheses are not produced from a confined set of logical possibilities. What if Einstein never rode his light beam? We wouldn't have relativity theory? Hypotheses often come about from "inspiration," and not from iteration through sets of logical possibilities. In general it's just not possible to iterate--there's too many possibilities.The reason this is scary to me is because, what if we simply didn't "think of" the "other" theory that explains the data? Who's to say that there's no other practical possibilities? I understand. It's not working out, and I'm still interested in the topic of the thread. There's two premises, and I'd really like to explore the first (IF we can have practically certain knowledge, then we can construct a practically infallable death penalty system). I'm interested because I want to see what system you can construct. I want to see how practically certain knowledge is gathered, how this practically certain knowledge is used, and how a practical system can be used to maintain the high fidelty necessary for sending someone to death.Not to get ahead of myself, but there is one practical issue I think is worth addressing immediately. I THINK you've been saying that your system doesn't have to be free of corruption, etc., since that's not a property of your system, but of all systems in general? I think that's not quite right. Since the death penalty is final, no turning back, then issues of corruption that are "acceptable" (due to the lower consequence) in other systems become unacceptable in a death penalty system. I'm really interested to see what ideas you have for removing the many pitfalls that can happen along the way, from data gathering to conviction, sentencing, encarceration, and imprisonment. I mean it, I'm really interested to hear what's on your mind. Just that, in your OP, you briefly outlined a system for constructing practical knowledge that, for illustrative purposes was OK, but seemed like it simply never would happen. I think having a situation where there's all these confessions, finding people in the act, video, so many witnesses, all for a crime of such severity is just like your "implausible" scenarios that you want to exclude. I mean, has this ever actually happened for a crime of such severity that it would warrant the death penalty? It just seems so implausible for crimes such as double-murder, etc.I just want to make sure that when you construct your actual practical system of acquiring practically certain knowledge that there are plausible instances where practically certain knowledge can be acquired. I also wanted to make sure that when implementing your practical system for the death penalty, that there are plausible instances when somebody could actually be killed.Just a concern, not a gripe. I know you were trying to come up with the "most obvious" scenario to get an agreement from others as easily as possible.Anyway, I hope you're interested in continuing this thread in the vein that I've outlined here. I really want to hear your ideas. We (figuratively) are stuck on one premise, but the other is still interesting.

You've barely outlined some parts of your system, and it's already convicting "only 1 case in 100 years." (your own wild guess). By the time you actually fill out your own system explicitly, THAT NUMBER IS GOING TO INCREASE.You avoided my point, which I stated 3 (about to be 4) times:You can't show that "death penalty systems do not inherently involve killing innocents" by proposing a system that we are "practically certain" leads to no deaths. In your "practically certain" space of knowing, proposing such a system is IDENTICAL to proposing a logically impossible system; i.e. "we'll kill only those whose DNA identically matches that of Mickey Mantle and Ted Williams."You made it clear from the start that this thread was NOT about logical possibility, but about what can be done practically. It's wrong to hold people to the criterion of "practical certainty" for knowledge, yet not hold to the criterion of "practical certainty" for your system. So far, all I have seen is that you are doing exactly what you hate in your opponents--you offer something that is merely logically possible, but practically speaking impossible. If the only systems you can propose are those we are "practically certain" lead to no deaths, then it DOES mean that the death penalty system inherently kills innocent people.The only way to KNOW if a system can produce convictions practically is to get into the nitty gritty and hash it all out, and see if it's "practically certain" that somebody would actually die from it. I showed genuine interest to go that route with you, but you responded by ... well no response. Just: I wasn't jibing you at all, and you have no reason to accuse me of it. I wanted to discuss a system, because I think it's interesting, and I thought you would have some good ideas. I had no idea I would have to do your work for you (i.e. propose a system) like Tagless did, in order to hear more about your ideas. And I had no idea you'd be insulted by showing a willingness to listen to your ideas, which you explicitly stated as willing to discuss in your OP.This message has been edited by Ben, Friday, 2005/04/15 06:44 AM

holmes, Good luck. Keep us informed here about it. It's the second time I read a blurb about it (first time in passing). I'd open a subject in "short subjects" about it, where you can keep us on the up and up about it (and where we can talk about how worried we are about you while you're gone ), but I'm not sure if that would make you feel uncomfortable. Anyway, best of luck with that. First of all, thanks for your approach with this post. Second, I'm sorry. I didn't intend to make you feel bad.Third, ... take your time. For me, time is not of the essence. Just confusing when you're writing so vigorously to others. take your time, and I'll look forward to discussing when you post.Which is a good segway into the "free will" discussion having to do with "war on drugs." I finished collecting my thoughts and am ready to put up a post later today. Feel free to take your time on that one as well. I'm heavy in reading about "genetic assimilation" (thanks to Brad & mick for the references), as well as my usual projects. Well... I'm kind of embarrassed to say something like this, but here we go.I'll never understand why you want to spend so much time butting heads with crash and others. For me, if I get in a disagreement with somebody and I repeat myself 2, 3 times max, then I simply drop it. There's something more going on with either me, the other poster, or both of us and, given the nature of these boards (highly asynchoronous, I find it unlikely that my further repetition will change anything.Maybe sometimes it's better just to walk away. Well, at least it jives with me. Don't take it as a criticism, just a suggestion.Eh, anyway. Take it easy bro.Ben

Take it easy holmes. I'll look forward to picking your mind more when you feel you're ready to resume. Do us a favor and drop a note, just to say hi, every so often.Ben

Hi crash,I had some thoughts on this issue while searching around for a thread to post to on free will. I'm doing my best to fit this in. I think it's unfair to demand some kind of certainty from the death penalty, as in every policy ever created, we demand no kind of certainty at all. We always seem to play with percentages.To be clearer: your demand for certainty in application of the death penalty is based on the idea that an innocent person can be killed. But there's NO policy where we demand certainty that no innocent people be killed. Furthermore, I don't see you (or others) arguing against such policies.Here's a small list of policies that do not demand certainty that no "innocent people" (i.e. those that do not "deserve" to die) are killed: life imprisonment. Traffic rules. Gun control laws. Home ownership. Sale of Krispy Kreme donuts.Death is always possible. Grant, for the sake of argument, that absolute proof that a person "deserves" to die is impossible. Then it seems unavoidable to conclude that every policy will always allow the possibility of "innocent" people to die.Why do we have any policies, then? Because we seem to play the percentages and risk/reward tradeoff. Given the policy, what is the chance that an innocent person will die? And how does that percentage compare with the utility of the policy?So I think the demand for certainty for the death penalty is a true double-standard. Maybe this has been brought up before; I haven't read it though.Ben

As far as I understand it, there are two questions about the death penalty:1. Is there any action for which the actor should be put to death?
2. Is it this practice practically feasible?If you question #1, that's a different discussion. I think question #2 is what I'm addressing. I don't see how it matters. But for purposes of discussion, let's limit things to punishments.I don't see that life imprisonment guarantees people against death. There is a chance that an innocent person will be killed while imprisoned for life. That death is not reversible. Wouldn't the same argument, then, hold for this? A small percentage of innocent people will be killed by the punishment. I don't see how this matters at all. The argument I'm arguing against is the logic that "we may kill an innocent person, so we shouldn't implement the policy." I think that's not a valid argument. If this means that you're against the death penalty on ideaological grounds (my #1 above), then I don't think we have any qualms. I'm not arguing for the death penalty. I'm arguing that that this one argument against it sets up a double-standard.As it turns out, I personally am undecided about the death penalty.

Why does this matter? Dead is dead. "I'm sorry" never helped bring anyone back to life.Not the intent of drunk drivers to kill. Do you think we shouldn't we try them for vehicular homicide?I just don't get why "intent" matters. Can you try to help me underestand why it matters to you?

Good point. I'd like to see a response to that as well.

Fair enough. I should have looked to see what "vehicular homicide" means. I'm dropping this line of questioning, because it's going to get into areas that I think belong in another thread...
which I am hoping to PNT soon. This didn't help me understand why intent is so important to you, just that it is. Any thoughts about a "why"?

Then we get back to my original questions. No matter if somebody dies because of your intent, or they die because of an accident, it's not reversible. If the big issue is reversibility--that you don't want people to die who might possibly not "deserve to die"--then isn't that important IN ALL SITUTATIONS? Why is the death penalty such a 'special case'?In my book, dead is dead. Dead due to a mistake is dead due to a mistake. I don't see how anything else matters.I know I'm going in circles. I'm struggling to understand. Do you understand where I'm coming from? Any ideas?

That doesn't explain why. Why is the intent of the action important? Why does it matter whether the intent of the action is to kill a person who deserves to die, or to drive drunk? If innocent people die while you're doing something, then we shouldn't be doing it. Why is it that the intent of the action makes it not OK to you in one case, and OK in the other? Why do you say that the one type of action is not OK, and the other is, when they both lead to exactly the same kind of error: killing an innocent person. Because to me, if you think the mere possibility of innocent people being killed is grounds to not implement a policy in one case, it seems obvious that you'd use that same criterion for all cases. Because, after all, innocent people dying are just innocent people dying.

Finally getting around to posting on things I haven't had time for... I don't know. Reading through jar's later comments, it seems he's being straightforward.I find jar to be pretty responsive to questions. And I know he strongly believes that a belief which isn't examined isn't worth holding. So if something that he says doesn't make sense, I'd continue to ask about it, where it comes from, why that makes sense, etc.Sometimes there's a failure to understand. I just assume that's what's happened between jar and I here. It wouldn't be the first time that happened. But I don't feel it's been through obfusciation.Or just go into chat and ask jar there. He's usually around. Maybe that'd help in understanding where he's coming from. Well, one thing is that ... it's the Coffee House. Things are less about formal debate here. So in the Coffee House... I think we choose our roles in participation much more, and don't need to feel obligated to follow through 'till the bitter end, or to substantiate beliefs before stating them over and over.For me, jar was just trying to explain his POV. I understand the POV, but I don't understand why he holds it. Could be a failure to communicate, could be it's just irrational, could be that he wanted to state his ideas in his terms, could be lots of things.But it's the Coffee House. And I think jar tried to make things clear. I just chalk it up as a failure to connect. That seems fine to me. We failed; better luck next time. Maybe I'll figure it out through indirect means sometime later. I don't feel any sense of urgency to understand jar's view on the death penalty better. In time is fine.