Score one against barbarism

Narith · Post by **Narith** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 2:21 am

Ah, ok... I was trying to determine a loose statistical number of victims created by released murderers compared to average thought to be on death row that do not legally deserve to be there. The whole deterence debate is more philosophical in nature so was hoping for harder facts and numbers, but doesn't look like there really is any.

I can't think of any seriel killers/spree murders that have been released after being convicted on multiple murder charges, but that doesn't mean there are or will ever be none. Though my stance will always be that the death penalty saves more innocent lives than it causes until there is a guarenteed way to assure that anyone who would normally get the death penalty would remain off the street and not have the ability to cost more lives wether on the street or in prison. Deterence does play a factor in that, though again that is more a philisophical debate than a hard fact and statistic debate.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:25 am

Narith - If you're going to make a statement like "deterrence is a factor", that's a statement you should be able to back up with facts and figures, since its end result should be a reduction in crime (murder in this case). which of course is measureable and defined.

To say that it is philosophical is lipstick on a pig, really. Don't try to pretty it up. What you're really saying is you have an ubsubstantiated belief, doens't matter what numbers say, doesn't matter what reality is... you're going to stick to your hunch in spitde of evidence to the contrary.

At least be honest with yourself about that.

Narith · Post by **Narith** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:45 pm

But saying that innocents die on death row is just as much a philisophical debate as saying that the death penalty saves lives through it's deterance factor. True that some have been proved innocent, but they had thier sentences commuted, unless you can present cold hard facts that back up how many innocent men and women were put to death you are in the same boat. Facts would include innocence proven after the fact, as far as I know there were none since the case is dropped after the execution.

As the only ones we have fact that did not legally deserve the death penalty, mearly life in prison or such, we can factually argue that though some are placed on death row undeservingly that the system will weed them out before the execution. Now where the philisopical debate comes in is how many lives were saved due to having the death penalty as a punishment vs how many the system did not weed out in time, both to my knowledge have no hard facts backing them up, but both sides argue that innocent lives will be lost even though neither side has hard data. The whole 6% deal was based on how many were removed from death row before the fact (am I right or is it just an estimate with no hard facts backing it up?), again that simply shows that there are some on death row who should not be there but it also shows that 100% of those (statistically) will be weeded out we simply assume there are those who will not be.

Please forgive me if there have been some cases that the criminal was proven 100% innocent after the execution, because I have not heard of any.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 1:33 pm

Narith wrote:Facts would include innocence proven after the fact, as far as I know there were none since the case is dropped after the execution.

.

Frank Lee Smith (Florida)

Do a google on him. He was exonerated of his crime.. posthumously... after they killed him.

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 5:42 pm

Rsak- I know my response is a bit belated, but it isn't intelligible to suggest that we must remove morality from the decision making process...except for those that are required to make your model function. Either you accept that there are moral questions or you do not. You don't get to pick and choose which moral questions you want to answer and which ones you don't. That is percisely the problem I was trying to point out to you.

Think about it this way. What argument could you possibly come up with to defend why we should accept a moral decision in the first instance, but deny accepting one in the second or third or fourth, etc. (Other than the fact that it is the only way your theory works, of course.)

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:06 pm

Vaulos,

I agree that it is not intelligible to make that suggestion. The model does not remove morality from the decision making process at all. The very fact that the model can result in different outcomes for different societies hinges on the very differences in morality in communities.

The model accounts for the moral decision when the society determines whether they are more comfortable with executing, imprisoning, or banishment. Were morality not a factor then I could with enough research hazard a guess at a formula to make the decision for society by providing nothing more then a cost/benifit analysis. Such a simple equation just would not work in our world over the matter that we are discussing due to our comlex moral differences.

Nor am I arguing that anyone should accept the predicate moral stance of this model. If you believe individuals have to be removed from society after committing certain acts then the model will describe the process you go through to find a solution to the problem, nothing more. If you do not believe this moral stance then the model has no bearing on the situation of your community.

The model does not attempt to support any morals since in earnest it is moral neutral due to its sole goal to describe behavior not predict or validate certain behaviors. If your community does not believe in the predicate moral stance then you can be assured that your community will not follow this process. If your community does believe in the predicate moral stance then you can be informed of the process you will go through.

All other moral decisions, and there could be many, occur either outside the realm of this model (due to disbelieve in the predicate) or in the comfort/burden decision (due to believe in the predicate).

I hope this has illuninates the misunderstandings about the purpose of such a model. You could very well find that the model serves you no use and due to its incidental nature you would be justified. The acceptance or denial of the model in its current form will not change how societies tackle this difficult question posed.

In the end I have gotten the most I could out of this thread and the exercises I have gone through. The possiblity exists for a paradigm shift in my own thinking based on the application of the core of this model to societal and personal decision making. It is by no means complete or simple to implement for complete understanding. Nor is it guranteed to succeed or with all likelyhood an original thought, yet refusal to explore it is a denial of personal improvement and intellectual progression.

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:33 pm

Rsak- Then your model is meaningless. If it doesn't help us to make a decision on what to do, what is the point of even espousing it?

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:51 pm

Understanding

Boil the model down to its very core and remove the topic of Execution from it and we are left with the following:

1. Identify a need.
2. Identify all available solutions to that need.
3. Filter out those solutions that are impossible or impractical to implement.
4. Select between the remaining solutions based upon tangible and intangible benifits and costs where typically the intangible benifits prioritize the tangible benifits and costs.

Not terribly ground breaking at all, but can you say that with any regularity that you analyze how individuals go through this process?

Could we learn more about ourselves, neighbors, coworkers, and society at large with analysis with this model in mind? Possibly so, only time will tell.

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:13 pm

Actually, it tells us nothing, not even understanding. If it doesn't help us make a decision, it doesn't help us understand anything.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:36 pm

It tells us nothing of "why".

It does tell us of "what" or "how" which is a seperate matter entirely.

If you don't find value in "what" or "how" then by all means ignore it. However do not say it is useless when others may have a different set of priorities or perspective then yourself.

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:11 pm

No, it tells us nothing of 'what' or 'how'. This is what I mean by, "it doesn't help us make a decision". If I were questioning the 'why', I would have said "it doesn't tell us why we make the decisions we do". Obviously, I am asserting that your model is unhelpful in regards to what and how, not why.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:32 pm

Vaulos,

Stop getting hung up on the ability to help make decisions. That is not the purpose of the model and I have never argued otherwise. You repeated statements that it doesn't help us make a decision is not in question.

What is in question is your belief that for the model to help us understand anything it must help us make a decision which is patently incorrect.

The law of gravity helps us understand how objects act around large masses. And while if you want to be meticulous one should acknowledge that the law of gravity can be used to help make decisions, the understanding of the concept has no bearing on that decision making process.

Now in this case I went through that process to analyze the topic of the Death Penalty. I identified a need it was attempting to fufill as well as additional alternatives. I narrowed it down to the practical and possible. And I did it in an objectively neutral way that allows others with differing morality to use the same process.

I learned something about myself in the process which proves that understanding is possible without any assistance in decision making since my decision was formed before I went through the exercise.

You may not find that useful, but ultimately your criteria for usefullness are not the ones that matter.

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:41 pm

The law of gravity is a model whose entire purpose is to help us make decisions. It doesn't explain how gravity works, it says "here is what gravity does, plan accordingly".

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:50 pm

Correct it does not explain "how", but it most certainly explains "what"!

And no the purpose of the law of gravity is to understand the world around us. The purpose of that understanding is to help us make decisions. Stop conflating the two.

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:00 pm

I'm not conflating the two, I'm differenciating them. The law of gravity tells us neither what nor how. It does not explain what is happening when gravity works nor how gravity works. All is says is that we can predict that an object falling will accelerate at a specific rate (adjusted for wind resistence of course). That's it. It is merely a calculation. It does not 'explain' anything. All it is, is a model for solving problems in physics. That's it.

Perhaps you mean to say that because it helps us in solving problems, that in turn we guess something about the world around us. This seems proper. But mind you, this returns us to my original point- gravity is a model that is useful in helping us to solve problems. Your model doesn't help us solve anything- and thus is empty.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:55 am

If you were tyring to differenciate the two then you would not be making statements that understanding depends on the ability to help make a decision. They are two seperate issues.

The law of gravity does explain "what" happens. It explains what happens to objects effected by gravity.

gravity is a model that is useful in helping us to solve problems.

No the fact tha falling objects accelerate at a specfic rate does not help you in solving any problems. The understanding that comes with knowing the specfic rate is what can be used to help solve problems.

The difference between the two models is that the decision making model we are discussing is not nearly as developed as the model of gravity since to my knowledge there is not any depth of research or experience in a form that can be shared and communicated that would allow anyone to understand the model without their own testing.

Perhaps you mean to say that because it helps us in solving problems, that in turn we guess something about the world around us.

No, what I am saying is that I unconsciously used this process when deciding on the death penalty and that I do not believe that I could have used any other process. Understanding of that process allows better control over my decision making process and potentially understanding of others around me. Yet I cannot claim that I have reached understanding of this process which is why any assistance in making decisions is unavailable.

Alannia_Raindancer · Post by **Alannia_Raindancer** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:25 am

I wish I could live in your mind for a day. It has to be one hell of a party in there.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:26 am

PhffftBWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:04 pm

Rsak- You really need to go back to school and get some "proper-learn'n".

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:56 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7204523/