The Case of Troy Davis

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think those are completely different matters which would deserve a thread each of their own. So I won't elaborate on these here.

Sorry, it's that language thing again. Each of the terms I used means 'death penalty' (just like 'capital punishment' does). What I was trying to point out is that how you think of it in a great degree determines what you think of it. Do we kill a dangerous dog to punish it? To keep other dogs from emulating it? Or simply to protect ourselves from a danger? That is *my* problem with the words 'punishment' or 'penalty' . Punishments and penalties are things that we impose (ideally) to improve people. We punish a child to instill values or correct bad behavior. We give a player a penalty to improve the sport and to promote sportsmanship. Anyone receiving punishment or a penalty and ending up dead is not, usually, going to improve.

So don't think of it as punishment, or as a penalty. Such thinking allows arguments with loaded terms like 'barbarian' or 'right' or 'unusual' or 'sanctity'. Old time thinking (torture, crucifixion) and old time arguments. Think of it as correcting a mistake ('retroactive birth control), or self protection ('vermin extermination').

Fundamentally, the question comes down to what to do with someone who either has performed an act that justifies his permanent removal from society or is so indifferent to others that he is a permanent threat to society. There is no real choice, that person needs to be sequestered from society for the remainder of his life. So the question comes down to what determines the length of this life, natural causes or society. Do we let that person linger for years in jail (and a high security jail at that -- anyone dangerous enough to merit that treatment is dangerous enough to merit strict confinement) or do we spare them the long punishment and give them a peaceful death? Yes, that sentence was intentionally loaded. But if you were to ask the person involved, after a few years of imprisonment and facing many more of the same, I suspect at least a few would as for the 'stroke of mercy'.

The only real problem is in determining guilt. The system is imperfect, and the more evidence we have, the worse it looks. To take an irrevocable action on the basis of an highly imperfect system, especially when there is a viable alternative, is foolish, even wrong. If the uncertainty of the determination of guilt could be removed, then the only arguments left would be Christo-centric, Euro-centric, emotional nonsense.

I'm not the flowery [Gutmensch] <edit> seems the only nearly correct term would be a notoriously Good Mind</edit>, lunatically searching for good in anything, and feverishly avoiding harm or even the thought of harm, if that's what you're on about.

The American term is 'bleeding heart liberal'. And, yes, based on the "if it walks like a duck" test, you are. No offense, some of my best friends are, too. Makes drinking parties especially fun:)

Death penalty is a barbarian act.

No. Crucifixion is a barbaric act (and in some cases, I would support it). Putting a criminal down in the same manner and with the same techniques that I would put a beloved but terminal pet down is a kindness. Kinder than many of those criminals deserve.

It originates from ideas of revenge, not justice, because it dates back to times where justice meant revenge. Human society should be beyond this eye per eye, tooth per tooth stuff.

Which is why I warn against old time thinking. The seven day week originated with a fairy tale about the universe's creation. Should we abandon a useful and functional concept because its origins are crap?

Following question to you: How do you think about hacking a thief's hand off?

I think only a moron would ask such a question.

You try to suggest I'm against judging people for murder in general? That's missing my point. I refer to any means earlier mentioned here, like those 'mind-reading' stuff, which will be under same prejudices similar to lie detectors. Like the chronoscope thing you've mentioned yourself.

I get your point completely. You summarized it clearly when you stated that you are unequivocally opposed to the death penalty. That is your opinion, you are entitled to it. I respect both your opinion (though I disagree) and your right to have it. It is with the emotional, illogical, nonsensical arguments supporting your opinion that I disagree. There are valid reasons to be against killing people. You've used none of them.

I don't have a problem with any devices in general. But relying on those to skip someone to the afterlife is simply putting the blame away.

But you are the one introducing 'blame'. You assume that executing someone generates some blame and use that assumption to claim that executing someone generates some blame. If you don't see the problem with that, then you need to learn something about logical thinking.

And if evidence is gained in a perfectly safe way, some think death penalty is ok.

Exactly. You seem to think there are only two choices, pro or against the death penalty. There is a whole spectrum, and many of the positions are based on rational thought and pragmatic arguments. As is often the case. Bob Dylan had it right:
" . . . those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don't hate nothing at all
Except hatred."
There are many (and I am one) that feel the death penalty should be used a lot more, a lot sooner, with a lot less red tape. And there are many (and I am one) that feel that the death penalty should not be used at all until the system is fixed. And the two positions are not at all contradictory.

I wonder if any thread discussing someone who's imprisoned for theft would rise the same heat in argument. If not, why here?

Again, a moronic question. Moronic because there is no comparison. Now, if you want to compare (life imprisonment vs. death) to (jail sentence vs. hacking off a hand), then say so. That would be slightly less moronic. But only slightly less so: let's do a reductio and see how absurdum this argument is. Add a third case for comparison -- (standing in a corner vs. a spanking). Do you really need to have someone explain to you why each level in this series of comparisons is more trivial, and thus less worth discussing, that the levels above?

And I tell you that there's no perfectly safe way.

I hypothesized about a perfectly safe way to make the point that the uncertainty is just an element of the discussion. Like Occhi, I am willing to accept some error rate in the system. Until recently, I thought the error was within my comfort zone. I think that right now it is not. I believe that a fair and impartial system is overall possible. And if we return to (or achieve for the first time) such a system (as far as practically possible) then I would have no objection to killing scumbags.

You just want to close your eyes and sleep well, because a machine told you it's ok to kill someone. Or, more precisely, your interpretation of the output of a device similar to a lie detector told you so.

Before taking a logic course, perhaps a reading comprehension course would help. I'm the one that distinguished between disputable and indisputable evidence and clumped the potential memory reader with the polygraph as disputable and barely evidence. The hypothetical machine I 'introduced' (actually stole, but that's another story) would be impartial, factual, indisputable. The question of guilt would be resolved, changed from a probability to a certainty. The question of punishment would still remain. But, as long as you do not or cannot separate these two issues, then your thinking will be muddled and your arguments confused.

Now speak again about ignorance.

No need to. It speaks for itself.

--Pete