Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 236 (198477)
04-12-2005 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
04-12-2005 5:38 AM


No that would not be enough. It could be a frame. Next!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 5:38 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 7:33 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 236 (198508)
04-12-2005 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Silent H
04-12-2005 7:33 AM


quote:
The guy framed himself?
No the cops.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 7:33 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 8:55 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 236 (198531)
04-12-2005 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
04-12-2005 8:55 AM


quote:
Let me get this straight, the cops for some inexplicable reason decides to frame a person by creating an "event", planting witnesses at the event, as well as some photographic evidence with a double made before the event, somehow capturing him right there, or capturing the "double" and switching the real guy for him later...
The problem with your scenario is that you presented it in God Mode, as it were, making declaritive statements about What Happened. the problem is that we will never have that information in real life. What we will have is:
- an arresting officers report
- the videotape
- witness statements
- the confession
... all of which can be faked.
And it is very very far indeed from reality to start talking about the police as behaving "inexplicably" in this manner. They are not models of virtue; they are people like everyone else.
And further, given what is apparently a culture of "we can do no wrong" among the police, I certainly do not regard them as trustworthy.
quote:
And then they get the guy to agree to their fake confession, even during the trial procedure?
Thats the easy part. Don't you remember Gary Powers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 8:55 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 11:35 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 236 (198597)
04-12-2005 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Silent H
04-12-2005 11:35 AM


quote:
To fake all of the above, plan it out beforehand, and then play it out in real time so that on top of the physical evidence discovered on scene, one can have multiple witness testimony (not just statements), and a confession that the accused agrees with, is ludicrous.
Then you are apparently much more credulous than I expected.
quote:
Or let me put it this way, if they were going to go to the trouble of doing all of the above, they could have simply walked up killed the guy and claimed self-defence. Generally cops do not frame guys they want to kill, they just do it and plant a gun at the scene.
You will of course recall I do not think cops should be armed, so this is somewhat less of an issue as far as I am concerned. Secondly, how plausible YOU think such a frame is is irrelevant - its exactly that sort of lazy assumption, that "oh they wouldn't have", that causes errors to be made.
YOU are saying it is going to be 100% foolproof. So you have to show how it will deal with even the outliers, not merely the common case.
quote:
And let me say I find it intriguing that you are all missing the point that your arguments of abuse of a system, rather than a system failing, would end up rejecting all law enforcement in its entirety.
That is not logical. Schrafinators position is quite clear: its BECUASE 100% certainty cannot be guaranteed that she opposes the death penalty, becuase it is irrevocable. Her position is perfectly consistent. And I *do* reject law ernforcement. So, next!
quote:
Gary Powers? You mean the guy shot down in the U2? What murders was he convicted of with a confession that matched all of the physical evidence, corroborated by multiple witnesses? Oh yeah, and like he really had access to an attorney and freedom to reject his confession.
God you must have a degree in missing the point. I don;t thihnk I've ever read a post of yours in which you simply argued your point without trying to twist the other sides case.
The POINT was that Gary Powers was brainwashed. Thus, even a confession can be false. So EVEN if you had all your chosen evidence, AND a signed confession, the alleged perpetrator may still be innocent. The fact of a confession is not conclusive.
quote:
Are you capable of accepting that evidence as a fact that he did do it, and not possible for a frame up?
In fact, no. Because that kind of evidnce would be quite easy to fake these days, wouldn't it? Bluescreen and motion capture, and bobs your uncle.
quote:
Remember, you guys are the one with an absolute. All I need is a contradiction... remember? Unless you guys are going to claim eternal ignorance, the absurdity of which will become apparent, if it hasn't already, it is possible to create rules of evidence which bar the possibility of innocents being killed.
No, it is not. YOU are the one claiming a 100% perfect system - a fact I have to say, simply on the basis of my statistics background, is wholly implausible. So YOU have to show how your system is abs90lutely immune to all perversion whatsover, by any force or factiopn no matter how powerful and organised.
Otherwise, you will have to concede to us that your system can only be probabalistic, regardless of how many safeguards you implement. And then we can rightly say: we choose not to kill, in case we make a mistake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 11:35 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 1:07 PM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 236 (198857)
04-13-2005 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Silent H
04-12-2005 5:35 PM


Re: You are free to believe whatever you want.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 5:35 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 7:12 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 236 (198887)
04-13-2005 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Silent H
04-13-2005 7:12 AM


Re: You are free to believe whatever you want.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 7:12 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 9:27 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 236 (198924)
04-13-2005 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Silent H
04-13-2005 9:27 AM


Re: You are free to believe whatever you want.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 9:27 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 1:28 PM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 236 (198932)
04-13-2005 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by macaroniandcheese
04-13-2005 10:16 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-13-2005 10:16 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by AdminJar, posted 04-13-2005 12:27 PM contracycle has replied
 Message 100 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-13-2005 8:40 PM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 236 (199171)
04-14-2005 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by AdminJar
04-13-2005 12:27 PM


Re: Your post is unneeded and did nothing to advance the discussion
quote:
There was no reason for the personal attack on another poster.
Well there was CERTAINLY no reason for an attack on ordinary jurors other than outright snobberry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AdminJar, posted 04-13-2005 12:27 PM AdminJar has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 236 (199172)
04-14-2005 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by macaroniandcheese
04-13-2005 8:40 PM


Re: form the other thread...
quote:
no, i'm serious. the likelihood of one actually getting a jury of one's peers and those people not simply wanting a coliseum spectacle is rare. if you're innocent and you think the facts will show this, take a judge trial.
Right. Most people seek to avouid the disruption of jury duty, it is not a coliseum spectacle. You are making wholly baseless assumptions about "the commoners" like any good aristo.
Having done jury duty myself, it was one of the most human and indeed even reassuring experiences I've ever had. I had not though a random sampling of the pupulation could produce as high a degree of diuscussion as we did - and I barely got a word in edgewise.
Juries remain the bulwark of the free against the self-righteous and self-important elitists we have to suffer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-13-2005 8:40 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-14-2005 10:08 AM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 236 (199173)
04-14-2005 7:20 AM


Lao Tsu said, "Like sharp fish, the weapons of the state should be kept beneath the surface."

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024