Two Death Penalty Questiosns

[David Sklansky]

Both of these questions are directed only to those who believe that the death penalty is sometimes warranted.

1. First assume that the death penalty is not a deterrent to other criminals. Many say that. I don't know if it is true. But if assuming that would make you opposed to the death penalty you are not eligible for this question. However there are other reasons, aside from deterrence, that some argue makes the death penalty an appropriate punishment in some cases. If you are one of those people I ask you:

What error rate would you tolerate? How many innocent people out of a thousand would have to be executed before you would change your stance and oppose the death penalty? Say those are your only two choices, accept the error rate or eliminate the punishment.

2. This question is for those who say deterrence is by far the most important reason for the death penalty. If so, a relatively high error rate could be tolerated if it could be shown that even more lives are saved because the death penalty scares off future murderers. Thus if 1000 executions save 25 people from getting murdered, it would seem worth it if eleven of those executions were of innocent men (though usually dirtbags). My question is do you think there is a one to one correspondance? If not, saving a hundred people from future murder is worth falsely executing how many people?

For those who are in favor of the death penalty for both deterrence and other reasons, I have no question for you. But if you want to pretend to be eligible for these questions, go ahead and answer them.

[chrisnice]

1. i would favor the death penalty in some cases if the error rate was zero or as humanly close as possible. if u could somehow show the error rate was less than one in 10 million i would be fine with it. short of that certainty i say eliminate.

edit- i take back 1 in 10 million. if the error rate was less than the chance of a convicted 1st degree murderer escaping and killing again i could accept it.

[Piers]

1) The important consideration is the perceived error rate, not the actual one. If it were generally accepted that only one in ten million cases were errors most people would be happy, even if the actual error rate were several percent.

2) Tried to pretend, could not manage it. Personally I think justice is a civilised form of social revenge. It feels real good to see a load of terrorists get the death penalty, doesn’t matter if they are innocent as long as I don’t find out. Guess I am just warped.

[John Cole]

Re: Question two. A study done at Harvard found that the use of cell phones while driving increases productivity by 42 billion dollars a year; however, using cell phones while driving also results in the loss of 42 billion dollars a year as the result of death, injury, and property damage. Therefore, using cell phones while driving should not be a concern since it's not "worth it" to change the behavior.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Re: Question two. A study done at Harvard found that the use of cell phones while driving increases productivity by 42 billion dollars a year; however, using cell phones while driving also results in the loss of 42 billion dollars a year as the result of death, injury, and property damage. Therefore, using cell phones while driving should not be a concern since it's not "worth it" to change the behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely this a great arguement for legislating for hands free sets to be compulsory in cars. You get all the benefits and non of the downs.

[John Cole]

Well, I'm really trying to understand what "worth it" means. However, the death penalty may be an effective deterrent for cell phone use.

[Girchuck]

This is most likely wrong.
The thing that distracts the drivers is not the thing they hold in their hand, it is the conversation.

[3for3]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Re: Question two. A study done at Harvard found that the use of cell phones while driving increases productivity by 42 billion dollars a year; however, using cell phones while driving also results in the loss of 42 billion dollars a year as the result of death, injury, and property damage. Therefore, using cell phones while driving should not be a concern since it's not "worth it" to change the behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely this a great arguement for legislating for hands free sets to be compulsory in cars. You get all the benefits and non of the downs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That assumes that all of the downside of cell phones comes from actually holding the phone, rather than merely being distracted.

I can assure you this is not the case.

Danny

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Re: Question two. A study done at Harvard found that the use of cell phones while driving increases productivity by 42 billion dollars a year; however, using cell phones while driving also results in the loss of 42 billion dollars a year as the result of death, injury, and property damage. Therefore, using cell phones while driving should not be a concern since it's not "worth it" to change the behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely this a great arguement for legislating for hands free sets to be compulsory in cars. You get all the benefits and non of the downs.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an aside, this is the kind of thinking that leads to so many crappy laws.

This is actually not the case at all; "common sense" is completely wrong here. It is NOT the fact that you are holding a cell phone with one hand that makes it distracting, it is the fact that you are having a conversation at all. Hands free sets make no statistically measurable difference. The frequency of distracted driving accidents caused by cell phone use is way down on the list behind (in no particular order, since I don't remember it) eating while driving, having a conversation with passengers in the car while driving, playing with the car radio or other controls while driving, distractors outside of the car (e.g. a hot girl walking down the street), and at least one other I can't recall (possibly grooming while driving).

I'm too lazy to dig up the link; it was a study by UNC researchers within the past 5 or 6 years.

If you really want to reduce injuries and deaths due to driving, mandate one of two things: helmets and 5-point harnesses for everyone in the car, or a big rear-facing spike attached to the center of the steering wheel. People would drive very carefully indeed in the latter case.

</threadjack>

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
...a big rear-facing spike attached to the center of the steering wheel. People would drive very carefully indeed in the latter case.


[/ QUOTE ]
priceless