Mr. Svinlesha, I admire your convulsive attempts to peck a few more micrograms of flesh from the
bleached bones of this debate, but there’s nothing there. Really.
You’ve managed to conduct yourself a bit better than your predecessor, at least in the lack of sneering references to the “rabble” and “unwashed masses” who disagree with his point of view. But I think you really need to read preceding posts before summarizing them incorrectly or overlooking data. For instance:
**
Compare the numbers (or rather, lack of numbers) of confirmed execution of innocents since, say reinstitution of the death penalty in the U.S., and the numerous cases of repeat murder spelled out in the links provided, including this one. You decide if “the benefits outweigh the risks”.
Dispensing with some of the residual clutter, we still have the central problem: we are ultimately responsible for all deaths resulting from the application or misapplication of our criminal justice systems, not just those deaths attributable to the death penalty. How to balance the safety of society against the fallibility of the justice system is an issue on which we’re just going to have to differ.
I knew I had lost track of a discussion, if we can call your gainsaying of points that I raise and selective arguments a discussion, Jack. Svinlesha’s attempts have made it clear that neither reason and evidence will be effective on you, so consider this could be my last word on the subject unless I see something actually worthy of debate as opposed to the conflating rubbish you have been littering around here.
Well, you demanded cites and I gave them to you, from rather more than two sources. I don’t know why I bothered since you seem incapable of considering points of view outside your very narrow pro-death penalty mind. But I spent a lot of time sorting through links for that information, so I hope you appreciate it in spite of your bluster. As Svinlesha pointed out before probably realizing that your arguments aren’t worth the effort, “If we can’t beat ‘em in a straight debate, just impugn their source material, eh, Jack?” Yes, it’s that obvious.
You are the king of unsubstantiated crap, Jack. Clearly you find my cites faulty. In that case refute them adequately instead of waving your hands like a two-bit prestidigitator sweating nervously in front of a crowd who’s wondering why the rabbit hasn’t vanished yet. Not only can the crowd still see the rabbit you are trying to banish, but your frantic attempts–regardless of your bluster and bravado–are just not very dignified.
Of course, the problem is that you started to deal in absolutes: it is clear from your insistence on applying absolute judgement without possession of absolute knowledge. But the fact that you extend this childish love of the absolute to evidence simply tells me you are resorting to your beloved Absolute for protection from the big bad rabbits all around you.
You want a confirmed case. Confirmed by whom? I’ve provided you with several documented examples of wrongful executions, which you have not refuted (just derided). You know there is no data available for the present and the immediate past, so that I cannot provide. I fully accept that any judgement made is subject to doubt, and that includes of course establishing that a person who was executed was innocent; we may doubt that because there is no such thing as absolute human certitude in the realm of the physical. What you seem to be looking for is a case in which a person who was executed had a probability of 1 of being innocent. There is no such person, just like there is no such thing as complete certitude that a person executed was guilty. However the cases described above indicate an extremely high probability approaching 1 that innocents were killed. Round up if you really need the certitude.
A court, likewise, is not required to confirm beyond all question that a suspect is guilty before the DP is applied. They will be just as happy with a very high probability. Not one case of a death penalty has ever been confirmed 100% guilty or innocent.
And once again you engage in the either-or fallacy. Congratulations! That goes for all the examples you cited, which do not in the slightest attack my points.
Although I do agree with you that, if we look at the bigger picture, the justice system is responsible for deaths directly (DP) and indirectly (failing to protect victims from abuse); why not then A) confine all violent prisoners in high security where they can hurt no one, or B) jail all violent prisoners for life without parole, or C) execute all violent prisoners, thereby effectively removing the risk to prison populations and the public?
You are talking about compromising the very ideal of justice by claiming as acceptable the murder of innocents by the state. The murder of persons by a violent criminal, on the other hand, is an aberrant act. Two different issues that require different standards and approaches. You are arguing for a quick and immoral fix to a problem (repeat offenders) instead of a more solid solution.
Should innocents be killed simply because people like you insist (without so much as ONE concrete, self-standing argument) that the DP is a fair system?
And I have to comment on the fundamental idiocy of your snide comment about judges and courts of appeal knowing less about guilt or innocence than my sources: Jack, learn to debate. Firstly, do not fall so obviously into the fallacy of authority–what is being considered here are arguments, and the sources I cited seemed to be arguing the case pretty damn well (and in at least one case it was members of the Supreme Court themselves decrying a decision to execute with insufficient reason, so there you have your reliance on authority).
Secondly, courts and judges make mistakes, or sometimes (as indicated in some of my cites) reach decisions based on reasoning that has little place in the courtroom. Unless you hold courts to be infallible, a position that coming from you I would not really find surprising, you have to admit the possibility that the cases I brought up may be cases of innocent execution. If you admit that possibility then you need to argue that the probability that they were innocent was significantly below 0.50, i.e. that the suspects in question were very probably guilty. It seems, however, that you view the world as a series of one or zero probabilities, which is an absurd view even when one isn’t involved in thorny debates.
Then came the waffling about cost-benfit, something you pulled out of your hat rather late in the discussion. Please show your reasoning and I’ll consider it.
I employ that signature because I come across many idiots, Jack, something that ought to be evident by now. But good cheap shot anyway! It always gratifies me when people prove my point by making childish references to my signature. I didn’t intend my signature to be a bait, but boy is it good for luring a certain kind of poster.
Svinlesha, if you’re reading I just remembered our discussion on the topic of scientific knowledge–something that Jack may want to check out, what with his love of absolutes–and I realized that I still owe you a response to those K. Popper brain-twisters you posed. I promise I’ll get to them.
If the state in your view is never never to be trusted, try the perpetrators. This case is one of numerous examples where the killers themselves acknowledged their guilt. Or in your world, are murderers to be believed only when they proclaim their innocence?
Sometimes it’s better when things are left to die. Like this debate.
Correct. You can even find support for that in the language of courts: the phrase goes “beyond reasonable doubt” and not “beyond all question” or “absolutely, completely, 100% certain”.
Perhaps you really missed one of my earlier points. The point here is that complete factual certitude is impossible, even when a suspect confesses! It’s a question of room for error. In your example, the suspects who confessed to the crime have a small (very small, but not zero) chance of being innocent, and of confessing because they have a death-wish, are starved for attention, or want to make a post-humous point about the death penalty and innocents. Unlikely as these scenarios are, probabilities exist for them, and the certitude of the court, even if it approaches an accuracy value of one, falls short of complete certainty. You can never rule out error in a court room. It’s difficult enough to do in a laboratory under strictly controlled conditions, and even then you don’t hear scientists speaking in absolutes (and these are the guys who probably the the most right to do so).
Obviously the above example is extreme, but that was just to illustrate the point. Courts are fallible and have been known to fail.
And remember, the example you specifically alluded to was a convicted killer on death row - so you needn’t dredge up generalized data on false confessions in general.
Cites for what though? That there is no such thing as absolute certainty, and that no matter how ostensibly or even ostensively guilty or innocent a person is, the chance always exists that he is not?
I’m not following you. What example are you talking about? My extreme one? It doesn’t require a cite, unless you want to pull out the epistemic shovel and dig deep into another rocky topic. I gave you the example of a false confession as one instance of how innocent (if not terribly bright) people could be killed by the state even when to all appearances and in the good faith of the court they are guilty. That was in response to your suggestion that certainty is available at least in confessed cases.
What’s wrong with you Jack? Why is it so hard to understand that it is possible for someone to confess to something that they did not, in fact, do?
You want a cite for confession to something that the suspect is innocent of? Hell - look up the case of the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four. It happens regularly.
But even if it had never before happened, whilst the possibility exists that someone might confess when they are innocent, it means that no confession can be viewed as 100% certain.
How many more ways would you like this spelled out?
