Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents

You know he suddenly gave out his system, then vanished.

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: 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...

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

Well I am back. Thanks for the kind comments, and double to those who wrote directly.Everything went well, fortunately the surgeon discovered they could go with the least complicated procedure and so far I have felt no real pain to speak of (besides initial prep and right after surgery). The recovery is slated to last longer than I had expected (for mending not just pain), but I'm thankful enough to have avoided procedures with much greater impact on my life.This whole event has put EvC into a different perspective for me in general. I feel I have many things to do and a lot less time to do them. Perhaps that is normal for any brush with our mortality and will wear off in time, but other things have become more important in my life.Because of this I will be posting less in general, once or twice a week, and not joining as many discussions. I guess I am shifting into more of a lurker mode.In any case, I was surprised to return and see no one offer any negative comments/examples for my first personal thoughts on a system. I see the only thing was innuendo from DHA, who appears to have missed the fact that I was going into surgery (thanks DHA).Is there anyone who believes that the proposed system would result in innocents actually being executed and if so, what is the proposed situation that would result in that happening?Also, specifically to Zhimbo... before I dropped out I did notice you had replied to me using a scenario where God would kill and innocent person if I was wrong with an answer.Here's the deal, that is just a reworking of Pascal's wager and I was really surprised to see it come up from someone in the evo camp.If a God did appear that would make a lot of less credible things possible, but that still does not absolutely change my criteria for determining knowledge, or in this case guilt. I am still sure that up until the God appeared, my system was good enough to minimize all but supernatural interference or astoundingly bizarre suicides.Thus if a God appeared and gave me that ultimatum, I could and would answer that beyond interference by Gods or the person framed himself the person is guilty. Whoever died next would inevitably be that God's fault and not my own. It either engineered the frame on the person I found guilty, or decided to rearrange events afterward such that the murderer became a patsy and the God got to kill someone else and blame me.It can be seen then that I'm not really shaking with that scenario.But let me throw it back at you. What if a God walked up and delivered this ultimatum: if you say MrX is guilty and you are wrong one innocent person will be killed, but if you say MrX is innocent and you are wrong then ten more innocent people will be killed?Perhaps you can see where I am going with this. If we allow morals to drive epistemology then we can equally swing this whole argument the other way... especially when Gods enter the picture.What's more, the situation we all face is much more like this latter wager than the one you proposed. Murderers can and may kill again. Thus you are faced with the possibility of allowing more innocents to be killed. While there is a little less chance with the murderer in jail, it is not completely eliminated. Guards, staff, visitors, and other inmates can be killed.I wrote this all quickly so I hope it makes sense. Let me know.This message has been edited by holmes, 04-26-2005 02:27 PM

---

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

Good GOD. He got a brain transplant and he's become whatever. Really glad you're back. We missed you.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You know the problem with brain transplants is even though they open one's mind at the beginning, it is returned to a closed state by the end.

---

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

Hey, Im glad to see that you are back. Did you see our thread about you? check it out To lurk! Perchance to heal! Some things need to be taken lighter, and other things need to be taken more seriously.

I finally got around to reading the whole of that link. It points out so many of the deep-seeded problems with the US Justice system. Thank you for the link.

quote:

---

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.

---

Remember in many communities judges are elected officials. In those cases depending on how political your case is you might be better off with a jury.

Judges and juries can also be insufficient for the task of evaluating science submitted. I was blown away when a judge recently accepted a home alcohol test as proof of being very intoxicated (.08 BAC or higher). After the person called me for my advice, I suggested they immediately find a professional lab and get retested. She took a bit over an hour to find a place, get there, and wait for a tech to test her. On their calibrated system she tested (.00 BAC).

I'm surprised after all the sarcasm that no one has had anything to say about my proposal (except for good things by people already on my side).

---

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

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

Sorry to interrupt, but you forgot two important ones: abortion and euthanasia.The idea that a fetus is not an "innocent person" being killed cannot be certain to the level he demands for criminals on death row. Indeed they are often put to death for the possibility that they may inadvertantly cause harm. Of course this has the complication of a connected person.He has supported some acts of euthanasia, and even IIRC referred to a court's opinion that a person was no longer really fully alive, in order to allow doctors to kill this patently innocent person. Suddenly absolute certainty was no longer an issue.Good luck on the discussion though.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-16-2006 11:26 AM

---

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

It's not reasonable IMHO to compare types of deaths. The subject here is simply the death penalty. Note the second word. Death Penalty.Here the motive is punishment, and until we can make death reversible, I do not believe we can be justified for using it.As to your list, not one of those things are comparable. In the death penalty the intent is that someone dies.I do not suggest that the Death Penalty only be applied in cases where there is absolute certainty, because I believe absolute certainty is far too low a bar.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.