Two Death Penalty Questiosns

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, now in terms of worth, which are more "worthy," the innocent or the guilty?

[/ QUOTE ]


Innocent people die when they are murdered by those who are guilty of capital crimes that result in the death penalty.

Innocent people are also wrongly conviceted of murder and given the death penalty.

Therefore innocent people are murdered by people who are guilty of capital crimes that result in the death penalty and innocent people are murdered when put to death by the state when they're wrongly convicted.

If less innocent people are murdered overall is it worth it for the state to murder guilty people when they're correctly convicted of taking another life? This is in lieu of incarceration most likely without parole for the rest of ones life.

So I guess your question is do I place a higher value on innocent people than guilty people in such circumstances? Yes.

I see your question as a "red herring" more or less but I guess your trying to state that all life has equal value irregardless of whether or not they murder other people. I don't agree but that seems to be a side issue but I could be convinced otherwise. I think society has more or less decided that the lives of people guilty of murdering others does not have the same value as those that don't murder other people for the most part by the mere fact that laws demand that those guilty of murder be removed from society one way or the other.


I'll amend my statement to state that the question relates to the value of innocent lives. At least that's how I interpret it.

I sort of think your trying to get me to defend the death penalty. I'm opposed to the death penalty. I prefer the incarceration without parole in lieu of the death penalty for those that murder the innocent.

[John Cole]

No, I'm not trying to get you to change your mind. In fact, I'm opposed to the death penalty as well; however, I am trying to arrive at some understanding of what constitutes "worth" and how it relates to hunman lives.

Or perhaps even a bit closer, what exactly does "worth it" mean in this type of discussion?

[David Sklansky]

I wasn't trying to be overly philosophical here, especially on question One. Which I originally planned to simply be "what error rate would you tolerate". Then I realized that I had to stipulate no deterrence or people's varying answers could be related to differnce of opionions about deterence. Which made me think of question Two.

[John Cole]

You're welcome. But, I'm not sure you can quite pose the question without inviting some attempts to understand what is being asked; however, Adios and I are probably not the ones who should be attempting to answer it anyway since we both oppose the death penalty. That's one reason I skipped to question two since I have no answer for question one.

[Lestat]

I'm willing to accept whatever the existing error rate is with an eye towards continuing to improve upon the system. As we do in other things:

What error rate would you accept for wrongly convicting a child molester?

What error rate would you accept for air travel fatalities?

Why should we need a lower tolerance for error when dealing with the death penalty?

So my answer is: Whatever the existing rate happens to be.

[PairTheBoard]

What error rate would you tollerate if it were you who was on trial for a capital crime?

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

"I'm willing to accept whatever the existing error rate is with an eye towards continuing to improve upon the system. As we do in other things:

What error rate would you accept for wrongly convicting a child molester?

What error rate would you accept for air travel fatalities?

Why should we need a lower tolerance for error when dealing with the death penalty?

So my answer is: Whatever the existing rate happens to be. "

I hope a lot of forumites read this post. Because it is a perfect example of words that seem intelligent enough on the surface but are in fact just plain dumb. Words like these are common in the hands of people trained in English but not logic.

"I'm willing to accept whatever the existing error rate is with an eye towards continuing to improve upon the system. As we do in other things:"

The question obviously assumes that the present rate, or no death penalty, are the only two choices. And even if they weren't, the answer is a lie. Suppose the error rate is 10% and improves by .2% per decade?

"What error rate would you accept for wrongly convicting a child molester?

What error rate would you accept for air travel fatalities?

Why should we need a lower tolerance for error when dealing with the death penalty?"

It is rare that you find so a clear example of fuzzy thinking. Stop if it isn't immediately apparent and figure it out yourself.

Anyway the answer of course, is that in the case of the death penalty, the downside to the remedy of turning the error rate into zero is that the convicted get life in prison. The downside to the remedy of assuring a zero error rate fore child molestors is that all child molestors go free. To insure no airline fatalities we must give up airplanes and cripple our economy.

One of the hallmarks of good thinking is the ability to see when an anology is good or bad. I think that ability can be learned. So do it.

[Lestat]

"Anyway the answer of course, is that in the case of the death penalty, the downside to the remedy of turning the error rate into zero is that the convicted get life in prison. The downside to the remedy of assuring a zero error rate fore child molestors is that all child molestors go free. To insure no airline fatalities we must give up airplanes and cripple our economy."

So can I assume that with respect to air travel and child molesters; we agree that the downsides of eliminating risk altogether is unacceptable?

I'm just saying I feel the same away about the death penalty. When I perform the same analogy, I conclude that zero risk (i.e. life in prison for ALL convicted), is also unacceptable, and a burden to society.

So other than our differing values and the fact that you are correct in stating air travel's impact on the economy is greater than the costs of supporting ALL convicted murderers for the rest of their natural lives (but still an economic burden).

By the way, my questions were not irrelevant.

There IS an unacceptable risk for air travel. It just so happens that it is currently within our tolerance. One could also debate whether or not the current risk of losing astronaut's lives is acceptable or not.

It would seem you are accusing me of fuzzy thinking because my risk tolerance of executing an innocent happens to be higher than yours.

[David Sklansky]

You are not calculating pot odds. Freeing a guilty child molestor is much worse than letting someone who might deserve to die, rot in prison.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
You are not calculating pot odds. Freeing a guilty child molestor is much worse than letting someone who might deserve to die, rot in prison.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you say. Logically, this would seem an indisputable statement, but it still must be classed as opinion. I'm sure you could find a parent somewhere who would be willing to let a child "molestor" go free, if it would mean their child's "killer" be put to death.

What I'm saying is don't let child molestors go free, but also be willing to accept the current risk that an innocent might wrongly be executed, with an eye toward implenting ways to reduce errors (we have come a long way scientifically, but I acknowledge our judicial system has some ways to go towards achieving this. But hey, it's still the best process in the world and I wouldn't trade it for any other country's).

It sounds like you already have an answer to your question and want to impose it on me. It's ok for you to choose zero. But if mine is some higher percentage, it doesn't mean I suffer from fuzzy thinking.