Two Death Penalty Questiosns

[Lestat]

But zero percent risk is not attainable and it's doubtful it ever will be. Hence the reason this question needs to be asked and answered.

[andyfox]

Don't get further involved in this thread unless he offers you $200. (Then hold out for $300.)

[drail]

1) If deterrance is the only reason you support the death penalty, and there is proof it doesn't do that then even a 0% error rate would not meet the standard. Only other criteria would make it worth it like closure for the families etc.

2)To the question of how many innocents to die in order to save other innocents i think at least one more person should be saved than sacrificed or your more or less just saying that the group you saved is in some way better than those you sacrifice.

[David Sklansky]

You are trying to wiggle out of your error. By saying that it is not an indisputable fact that a freed child molester is worse than a spared murderer. True. But don't expect anyone to believe that your original post made this off the wall assumption.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
But zero percent risk is not attainable and it's doubtful it ever will be. Hence the reason this question needs to be asked and answered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it will in the future. And I think right now there are cases where the 100% guilty is quite clear.

[Lestat]

"You are trying to wiggle out of your error... " " But don't expect anyone to believe that your original post made this off the wall assumption. "

You are correct. My original reply was very sloppy indeed. I have a lot to learn about both logical thinking and debating techniques. I just found out about this forum and I'm hoping reading it will help me to improve in these areas.

Your skills as a logician are well known, but I never would have guessed you to be such a worthy debator as well (I am not merely talking about this thread).

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]


my question is not applicable today and might never be, but if it cost substantialy more to incarcerate someone for life as opposed to executing them (say 10 to 1), would most people here be willing to tolerate more error or at least some?

[kgrad5]

I favour the death penalty in certain situations in principle. However, I do not like even 1 person executed who is in fact innocent. So maybe I should say that I am opposed to the death penalty as it is enforced today.

I don't think I would change my view on the death penalty based on the number of wrongly executed people. I do already feel, however, that a jury trial or trial by judge is insufficient in determining whether or not someone truly deserves the death penalty.

There needs to be a foolproof (as much as can be) way of determining guilt and i do not feel the current system we have of determining guilt is sufficient.. even in non-death penalty cases.

I do feel that there are crimes that deserve the death penalty. These people should be put to death if we can determine for a certainty that they were the ones who committed those crimes.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get further involved in this thread unless he offers you $200. (Then hold out for $300.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking about raising him on the Turn.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

You are about to go far.