Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Death Penalty and Stanley Tookie Williams
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 121 of 166 (270331)
12-17-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by bobbins
12-13-2005 8:21 PM


Capital Crime Down
And since 1976 have capital crime levels dropped? I didn't think so.
Actually, capital crime, along with all other crime, started a nice decline in the early 90s as a result of abortion being made legal in the 1970s

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by bobbins, posted 12-13-2005 8:21 PM bobbins has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 122 of 166 (270333)
12-17-2005 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
12-13-2005 10:06 PM


Re: Revenge
What's the problem with revenge, exactly?
An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth leaves everyone blind and gumming at their food.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2005 10:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-18-2005 12:56 AM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 123 of 166 (270334)
12-17-2005 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
12-13-2005 10:29 PM


Re: Revenge
What is justice if not revenge?
It's not revenge when you are jailed for theft. I doubt that the store owner is saying "Ha! I got my VCR back! Now spend 5 years in the clink!"
Revenge is you hurt me, I hurt you back. Justice is you hurt that guy, we decide what's to be done with you.
You can not have justice if the injured party is allowed to participate in the doling out of punishment. They are unable to judge what is fair treatment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2005 10:29 PM crashfrog has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 124 of 166 (270335)
12-17-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by coffee_addict
12-13-2005 11:11 PM


Re: Revenge
Interesting graphs.
Note that they all show a decline in crime in the early 90s.
The book "Freakanomics" goes into excruciating detail linking that crime decline to the legalization of abortion.
It's a lot of math reading, but it's definitely an eye opener.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by coffee_addict, posted 12-13-2005 11:11 PM coffee_addict has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 125 of 166 (270359)
12-17-2005 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Nuggin
12-17-2005 12:30 PM


Re: My changed mind
yeah someone pointed that out

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Nuggin, posted 12-17-2005 12:30 PM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 126 of 166 (270388)
12-17-2005 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Nuggin
12-17-2005 12:30 PM


Re: My changed mind
WOW, are you ever wrong on that one! Capital punishment is EXTREMELY expensive compaired to life inprisonment.
Many people say this. I'm not one to argue it should be done because it saves money, but I am interested in the facts on this.
Could you show a breakdown of costs of death penalty vs life imprisonment?

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 120 by Nuggin, posted 12-17-2005 12:30 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-17-2005 9:18 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 128 by Nuggin, posted 12-17-2005 9:29 PM Silent H has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 127 of 166 (270405)
12-17-2005 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Silent H
12-17-2005 6:34 PM


$ Cost of death penalty vs. Life in prison
I think I was the first one to bring up the idea that the death penalty can be more expensive than life in prison.
In my searching, it seems that maybe the statistics can be bent to support whichever side to want them to support. One bit of information I found was an Amnesty International USA page, which included:
* A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).
(December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit)
* The estimated costs for the death penalty in New York since 1995 (when it was reinstated): $160 million, or approximately $23 million for each person sentenced to death. To date, no executions have been carried out.
(The Times Union, Sept. 22, 2003)
* In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
(2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research)
Source: Page not found – Amnesty International USA
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2005 6:34 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Silent H, posted 12-18-2005 6:14 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 128 of 166 (270406)
12-17-2005 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Silent H
12-17-2005 6:34 PM


Costs of death penalty vs life
Here's one study. There are many more. I got this one from deathpenatlyinfo.org
$ Kansas Study Concludes Death Penalty is Costly Policy
In its review of death penalty expenses, the State of Kansas concluded that capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases. The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost. The costs of appeals were 29% of the total expense, and the incarceration and execution costs accounted for the remaining 22%. In comparison to non-death penalty cases, the following findings were revealed:
The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases.
The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).
The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater.
The costs of carrying out (i.e. incarceration and/or execution) a death sentence were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case.
Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days.
(Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections) Read DPIC's Summary of the Kansas Cost Report.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2005 6:34 PM Silent H has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 129 of 166 (270434)
12-18-2005 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Nuggin
12-17-2005 12:37 PM


Re: Revenge
we should bring back blood money. it's amazingly less barbaric.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Nuggin, posted 12-17-2005 12:37 PM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 130 of 166 (270454)
12-18-2005 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Minnemooseus
12-17-2005 9:18 PM


Re: $ Cost of death penalty vs. Life in prison
Thanks for the info (both to you and Nuggin). It doesn't have exactly the breakdown I wanted, but in the link you gave it summarizes the type of data I am looking for.
I think this is important to look at as it suggests something about our court system in particular, in addition to impacting the question of the death penalty.
From your link...
The greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings (appeals) were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.
This by itself states that it is not the form of sentence which is the cause of the greater cost, but rather how such cases are handled prior to the sentence.
Trials in which the prosecutor is seeking a death sentence have two separate and distinct phases: conviction (guilt/innocence) and sentencing. Special motions and extra time for jury selection typically precede such trials.
More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this does not indict capital cases for being too expensive, but rather the inexpense which with other cases are pursued? This is showing that more resources are spent in investigating the crime to get to a greater degree of accuracy in identifying the person to be charged.
In addition a greater amount is spent in ensuring the fairness of the trial.
Or one might ask whether murder cases that would merit a death penalty would require more intense work anyway?
Perhaps cases where the death penalty is requested are the ones which are generally harder to find the suspect in question?
When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, taxpayers first incur all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence).
I'm not sure if this is such a bad thing. If the main expense was in making extra sure the evidence is there, and the trial well worked through, then that's a good thing right?
And the highlighted portion shows that amnesty is actually using the additional cost of life imprisonment as an argument against the death penalty.
At best this seems to argue to me:
1) There needs to be a better review for what cases should be allowed to proceed as dp cases.
2) Circumstantial cases, which usually take more investigative work to patch together, should not be pushed for dp since they are more costly and also inherently prone to making the wrong verdict, or getting overturned later.
Does this make sense?
I'm certainly open to more detailed breakdowns including the kinds of cases compared.

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 127 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-17-2005 9:18 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 131 of 166 (270979)
12-20-2005 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Silent H
12-14-2005 2:16 PM


Re: My changed mind
Wrong. The criticism is that you arbitrarily apply moral rules not values.
Semantics at best; nonsense at worst. Try a legitimate criticism next time, not this nonsensical sophistry.
When you invoke a rule in one instance and then refuse to use it in a similar instance, that is being arbitrary.
But I've already proven that the instances are dissimilar, so again, that's not a criticism I'm required to respond to.
You can have absolute practical certainty, and not absolute theoretical certainty.
Then, by definition, it's not absolute. If it's less than it could possibly be, then it doesn't matter that you've qualified it with "practical" (another arbitrary term) then it's still not absolute. Again, this is meaningless. Nonsense.
Complicity to murder makes one culpable of murder which makes one a murderer.
Complicity requires conspiracy, which requires communication. Without evidence that the suicide conspired with the murderer, there's no way to consider him culpable.
Moreover, even if his culpability could be established, why does that mean he deserves the death penalty? We don't even execute all murderers, after all. Only the really bad ones. Manslaughter by association after the fact is such a tenuous connection that there's no legitimacy to bringing the death penalty to the table. It's cruel and unusual.
Uh... I asked you a question. You can't dodge it by simply saying why couldn't it?
Asked and answered. Ok, we'll try it again:
quote:
How on earth could that practically be considered a case where evidence could have been forged against that man?
Why couldn't it? In other words, what's your definition of "practical" that sets this situation beyond the cut-off?
As for your second sentence I didn't understand what you meant.
I would have thought it would be obvious. I'm asking for both your arbitrary definition of "practical", and some indication that you've tested your definition against the real world. If your definition of "practical", for instance, results in the conclusion that an event that actually occured is only "theoretical" according to your model, then your model is wrong. (Obviously.)
I'm asking you for some indication that your model survives a fairly obvious test. If you don't understand the concept of testing a model against observation...
I guess I don't really know you but I believe you are BSing me. If you actually held true to that form of tentativity there would be no reason to indict anyone for anything.
Why? What makes you think that I wouldn't indict someone, for a crime punishable by life imprisonment, on the tentative conclusion that they committed the crime?
You don't seem to understand that, as the severity/irreversability of the punishment scales up, my required burden of confidence scales as well. For imprisonment I insist on science-like tenative certainty, aka "lack of reasonable doubt." For fines/punitive damages, I might only insist, as certain courts do, on "the preponderance of evidence." Perhaps for even lesser punishments, like being grounded by your parents, I might insist only on a reasonable indication that you committed the infraction. For less than that (not being able to use the car that night), I might even only require the allegation of impropriety.
For the death penalty, though, I require the elimination of all doubt, reasonable, practical, theoretical, and otherwise. It's fine that you don't. Our legal system doesn't. But I do.
Let me ask you, if "appeared" to come up to you and stab you, would you honestly draw a "tentative" but not "practically certain" conclusion that someone actually stabbed you... and so not call the paramedics or police
Why wouldn't I call emergency services while I was tentatively certain? You seem to conflate "tentative" with "has no idea either way."
Its easy to play the game of claiming epistemological nihilism, but I really don't believe you live that way at all.
I certainly don't live the way you're describing. The reason you're under that misapprehension is that you don't seem to be capable of doing anything but conflating "tenativity" with "uncertainty." For instance:
Yeah, actually I'd like you to explain how you can create a scale of outrage or even appropriate punishment, if all is up in the air as you claim?
Where did I say that "tenativity" was the same as "all up in the air?" I would, for the hundredth time, advise you to attempt to refute my actual arguments, not the strawmen that you create.
I won't be able to respond for a few days. Fair warning. It's travel season.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Silent H, posted 12-14-2005 2:16 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2005 5:48 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 132 of 166 (271019)
12-20-2005 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by crashfrog
12-20-2005 12:42 AM


Re: My changed mind
Semantics at best; nonsense at worst. Try a legitimate criticism next time, not this nonsensical sophistry.
Defend that statement. Why is it semantics or nonsense to criticize a person for arbitrary application of a moral rule? Do you not understand the difference between a rule and a value?
I've already proven that the instances are dissimilar, so again, that's not a criticism I'm required to respond to.
Ironically, this shows that my efforts were not mere semantics and nonsense. You realize that a proof of disimilarity was in order. By the way I did not see a valid proof, try again. Remember your rule was based on comparison of outrage. I think one thing you'll discover is there might be a solution to the problem with the introduction of a new rule.
Then, by definition, it's not absolute. If it's less than it could possibly be, then it doesn't matter that you've qualified it with "practical" (another arbitrary term) then it's still not absolute. Again, this is meaningless. Nonsense.
Do I need to draw you a picture? If you have all X, then you can say absolute X. It does not matter that there is something else greater than X. First I draw a distinction between practical and wholly theoretical issues, and then state absolute practical.
Complicity requires conspiracy, which requires communication. Without evidence that the suicide conspired with the murderer, there's no way to consider him culpable.
That is not true at all. As long as you knowingly assist a crime you are culpable in it, whether the other criminal is aware of your assistance or not. In this case the person is knowingly commiting overt criminal acts (tampering evidence, interfering with investigation, aiding a fugitive) which will aid in the escape of a murderer.
why does that mean he deserves the death penalty? We don't even execute all murderers, after all. Only the really bad ones.
This is besides the point. I have already suggested not all people who murder should be executed. Your scenario is that under my rule system a person frames himself for the type of murder which WOULD result in a death penalty. That means the perp is complicit in the worst kind of murders, and assisting that murderer to kill more.
In other words, what's your definition of "practical" that sets this situation beyond the cut-off?
You know I have given you suggested practical guidelines for evidence TWICE now. And so has someone else. Give a practical answer to the question, instead of anwering it with a question. I PUT IT TO YOU FIRST. What practical issues could have been involved to forge the evidence?
I'm asking for both your arbitrary definition of "practical", and some indication that you've tested your definition against the real world. If your definition of "practical", for instance, results in the conclusion that an event that actually occured is only "theoretical" according to your model, then your model is wrong.
The definition of practical will not solve the problem. The difference between practical issues and theoretical ones have already been made. I gave an example even. I can't test a case against a definition.
What I provided a long time ago, and recently outlined again, was a rule system for evidence BASED on that definition. That means YOU get to do the testing. Provide a scenario that it would fail under real life conditions... that is not appealing to BIV style issues.
The only thing which seems remotely plausible is the suicide-case assisting a vicious killer by tying evidence to himself, in order to be killed by the state... apparently this suicide case wants to go out slowly.
For the death penalty, though, I require the elimination of all doubt, reasonable, practical, theoretical, and otherwise. It's fine that you don't. Our legal system doesn't. But I do.
As I said, I don't know if you are BSing me or what. The above condition is impossible to be met. Indeed if you want theoretical certainty then its plausible NOT killing someone results in the deaths of thousands. This is where I think you are missing the point.
You are claiming that you scale reduction of doubt based on severity. If wholly theoretical issues are to be entertained at ANY SPECIFIC LEVEL, then that intrinsically affects all other levels. If death is the condition which makes theoretical issues plausible for discussion, we must then look at the theoretical deaths within all other cases.
Maybe I am missing what condition you are basing the importance of "certainty" on. Right now it appears to be death. I might ask in addition whether that is practical death or theoretical death.
Why wouldn't I call emergency services while I was tentatively certain? You seem to conflate "tentative" with "has no idea either way."
Okay I started with an emergency service call. You admit that despite your holding any conclusion tentatively, some conclusions demand a practical response.
Lets move to the next level. A person is trying to kill your gf. You have a gun and a sure shot and if you don't pull the trigger to kill him, he will almost unquestionably kill your gf. Do you hold that all of this might very well be a an illusion of some kind, or do you treat it as a practical reality which must be dealt with? Would you pull the trigger?
Where did I say that "tenativity" was the same as "all up in the air?" I would, for the hundredth time, advise you to attempt to refute my actual arguments, not the strawmen that you create.
Tentativity becomes "all up in the air" when one includes ALL THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES. I did not make that a condition, you did. You can say that theoretical possibilities are only entertained when a person is to be killed, but that raises the questions I have asked above.
Although you may hold things as theoretically tentative, it is my guess that you live in the practical world, making decisions that consider only practical issues which might affect tentativity.

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 131 by crashfrog, posted 12-20-2005 12:42 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 12-20-2005 11:09 AM Silent H has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 133 of 166 (271085)
12-20-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Silent H
12-20-2005 5:48 AM


Re: My changed mind
Why is it semantics or nonsense to criticize a person for arbitrary application of a moral rule? Do you not understand the difference between a rule and a value?
If you believe that my rules are arbitrary, instead of my values, then that's a statement you need to support. The rule is the same: "comparison." The values are arbitrary, which you apparently accept.
If you have all X, then you can say absolute X. It does not matter that there is something else greater than X.
Yes, it does matter. If there is greater X than the X you have, then you do not have all X, and thus cannot say absolute. In your case, there is greater certainty than practical certainty, and thus even having the maximum practical certainty, you cannot say that your certainty is absolute. There's more certainty to have, and you don't have it. It's as oxymoronic as "I'm absolutely pretty much sure."
As long as you knowingly assist a crime you are culpable in it, whether the other criminal is aware of your assistance or not.
Uh-huh. So, the cashier who hands over the till and dumps it into the robber's bag at gunpoint, therefore assisting the crime, is guilty of robbery as well? Certainly the gunman did not consider him an accomplice, but apparently you would.
Your scenario is that under my rule system a person frames himself for the type of murder which WOULD result in a death penalty. That means the perp is complicit in the worst kind of murders, and assisting that murderer to kill more.
But assisting a murder is not the same as committing one. Knowingly providing the murder weapon, for instance, is only manslaughter, not murder. Again, execution is still not an appropriate punishment for this man, and the state must discern the truth to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
Moreover, it doesn't sit well with me, and it shouldn't with you, for the state to execute a man on the basis of an erroneous model of the crime in question. But, hey, you pays your taxes and you gets your vote.
You know I have given you suggested practical guidelines for evidence TWICE now.
You haven't in any message to me; at least, not any guidelines that I recognized as such. As far as I'm aware you've given nothing but circular definitions and reasoning, and none of that is helpful. If you've posted your definition of "practical" in any other post, I haven't seen it, and I'd appreciate it if you'd point it out.
Otherwise, the point stands. I can hardly accept your model of "practical certainty" when you can't even explain what it is, or give any indication of basic robustness.
The difference between practical issues and theoretical ones have already been made.
I'm sorry, but that statement appears to be an outright lie. You certainly haven't made this case in any post to me, and I'm not following any of the other posts in this thread; too little time, and it got too far ahead while I was gone. If you'd care to point out where you think you've done this I'd appreciate it. Or, I guess you can refuse, and we'll just go on thinking the other person is an ass.
As I said, I don't know if you are BSing me or what. The above condition is impossible to be met.
Hey, he's catching on, finally!
If death is the condition which makes theoretical issues plausible for discussion, we must then look at the theoretical deaths within all other cases.
Why? I don't see that to be the case at all. We regularly take chances based on reduced, or even nonexistent, certainty, because the consequences won't be as bad if we're wrong. For instance I might bet a dollar on the outcome of a coin toss, with only half certainty that I'll win; I certainly wouldn't bet my car on that, or my life.
The requirement of certainty scales with severity. Your idea that we have to apply the same standards of confidence to literally any outcome is nonsense. I think you're BS'ing me; there's no way that you actually live like that.
You admit that despite your holding any conclusion tentatively, some conclusions demand a practical response.
Admit it? What, exactly, gave you the idea that I would hold any other view? What is it about "tentativity" that you believe can't justify practical actions?
Are you still conflating "tentativity" with "complete uncertainty"? You didn't answer the question.
Tentativity becomes "all up in the air" when one includes ALL THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES.
Why? That's just absolute nonsense, Holmes. If tentativity meant "up in the air", there's no way you'd get in a car or ride in an airplane - after all, whether or not they'll get you there safely is apparently "up in the air" (no pun intended.)
There's no way that you live like that, and it should be obvious that I don't, either. So I'm simply dismissing your statements here as nonsense. You can't possibly be serious with this stuff.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-20-2005 11:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2005 5:48 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2005 3:54 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 134 of 166 (271150)
12-20-2005 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by crashfrog
12-20-2005 11:09 AM


Re: My changed mind
In this last post you claim to have never seen my evidence requirements for capital punishment cases, despite the fact we just finished arguing about what the results of that system was! Don't you remember? Earlier in this thread YOU stated you HAD seen it in the other thread, and that it involved such restrictions all executions would be impossible? That I had come over to your side?
This back and forth comes from ad hoc reasoning on your part and its a waste of my time. I will go through the main important points here...
1) LOGIC REGARDING SETS
All Possible Explanations is a set which includes the subsets of all THeoretical Explanations, and all PRactical Explanations. Thus APE contains all THEs and PREs.
One cannot have absolute knowledge of APEs without absolute knowledge of THEs and PREs, but one have absolute knowledge of PREs. That is not hindered by any lack of knowledge of THEs since that is a separate subset.
All that is required for absolute practical certainty is the accounting for (including discounting) all PREs.
2) PRACTICAL vs THEORETICAL
I have briefly described this to you including an example using the very BIVs you brought up. I'm amazed I have to even discuss the difference.
Practical certainty deals only with possibilities/explanations within the shared experiential world, and within that world, limited to possibilities that are useful for the case under consideration. Theoretical certainty would involve BIVs, Pink Unicorns, and outlandish conspiracies with no evidentiary connection despite the massive effort they would involve. The example I gave showed that one can have practical certainty despite being a BIV.
The definition however is not as important as how one goes about constructing rules for practical decision making.
3) TIGHTER EVIDENTIARY RULES
First of all, one can create rules based on looking at real cases starting where one is certain, barring only metaphysical tricks or near metaphysical conspiracy and thinking what evidence that includes. Or one can start by thinking of theoretical cases that are complex (including conspiracies) and what would kinds of evidence would be made useless on its own, but what combination might reduce chance of mistake due to the growing implausibility of the only possible conspiracy.
Earlier in this thread Flies gave a breakdown of a system which was pretty close to what I gave within the other thread. The key is layering evidentiary requirements.
My suggested system requires: Live witnesses (more than 2 wholly unrelated and not connected in any social sense), Photographic evidence (uncontested nontampering), physical evidence corroborating connection of suspect to victim as well as weapon used and witnesses to the crime scene (again uncontested nontampering).
This can be strengthened by including confession, and further still by request of death sentence. These would have to be made in a relatively public setting, and confirmed as accurate by a psychologist and family/friends, as well as reconfirmed by the defendant before the execution is carried out. With the inclusion of confession I believe tradeoffs to other requirements could be allowed.
In any case, I would also rule out murders based on economic, political, or temporary social conditions. The goal would be to remove those with a compulsion to kill or proclivity to violence which ends in murder. A psychological examination could aid in this.
Now produce a plausible scenario.
4) SUICIDE BY JURY
The only plausible scenario, especially under the strictest standard would be a suicide who aids a real killer. Now why this hypothetical suicide would go through all of that rather than just charge police with a weapon, I don't know.
But your assertion such a person is not culpable and should not be considered to have commited such a high crime is not obvious at all. The person will have let a real killer escape to potentially or actually kill again.
Your analogy to a cashier is also incorrect. The cashier is being robbed, coerced. The cashier IS the victim. If a cashier just starts handing out money to people that ask for it, or destroys evidence that would be helpful for a bank robber, the cashier would definitely be implicated for the crime.
I would not care if the state killed such a person. By the way if you wanted to downplay even this possibility you could require that the person has a history of violence or conviction of a previous murder.

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 133 by crashfrog, posted 12-20-2005 11:09 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 12-30-2005 2:24 PM Silent H has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 135 of 166 (274222)
12-30-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Silent H
12-20-2005 3:54 PM


Re: My changed mind
Don't you remember? Earlier in this thread YOU stated you HAD seen it in the other thread, and that it involved such restrictions all executions would be impossible? That I had come over to your side?
What I remember is my reaction to your standards; that you had set up a system so restrictive that the death penalty could not ever be practically applied. What I don't remember is the stardard itself. Though it may very well shock you to read it, I don't commit every single discussion with you to memory. I'm sorry, I guess, that most of your posts - pretty much all of them, I guess - don't merit rote memorization.
1) LOGIC REGARDING SETS
Your proof fails by inspection of the term "absolute." If there's more that you can have, then what you have is not absolute. Subsets aren't relevant; your sets are defined by ordinality and therefore, "absolute" cannot apply to a set where a set of greater ordinality exists. QED.
Practical certainty deals only with possibilities/explanations within the shared experiential world, and within that world, limited to possibilities that are useful for the case under consideration.
So provide to me a test that, given a specific proposition, determines conclusively whether or not it belongs to the shared experimental world.
You should know as well as I that such a test is impossible; so once again you've failed to provide any usable schema for distingushing the practical possibilities from the theoretical ones. You have absolutely no way to distinguish between the possibilities that have occured in the "shared experimental world" and the ones that simply haven't occured yet.
Live witnesses (more than 2 wholly unrelated and not connected in any social sense), Photographic evidence (uncontested nontampering), physical evidence corroborating connection of suspect to victim as well as weapon used and witnesses to the crime scene (again uncontested nontampering).
Well, great. Once again you talk the talk but, when it comes right down to it, you don't provide any kind of method for actually determining that we even have more than 2 impartial eyewitnesses, untampered photographic evidence, legitimate physical evidence, and all the rest. Your implication seems to be that having the appearance of all of those things makes it impossible for any one of those things to be false, but I'm not familiar with any kind of logical framework that would ensure that to be the case.
You're asking me to believe that the convergence of multiple potential lies verifies each and every one of them. I don't. In such a situation there are many practical actions I'd be willing to take based on the tentative conclusion that I wasn't being lied to, but executing a person is not one of them.
The only plausible scenario, especially under the strictest standard would be a suicide who aids a real killer.
Nonsense. Another plausible scenario would be fake witnesses with undetected connections to the patsy, undetected photographic forgeries, undetected planting of physical evidence, and a confession extracted by undetected coercion. Your scheme provides absolutely no method of value for detecting any of these outrages of justice, and so plausibly puts a completely innocent man to death while letting a killer go free.
Let me just point out, finally, how disappointed I am to return after my long absence and find that this is the best you could do while I was gone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2005 3:54 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-30-2005 7:37 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 139 by Silent H, posted 12-31-2005 5:25 AM crashfrog 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