[Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
Bruce and Jean Livingston
jeanlivingston at turbonet.com
Thu Oct 19 18:04:21 PDT 2006
Funny that I crossed in the mail with Gary on this one.
Let me say that I do not disagree with Mr. Sharp on the huge number of folks, proportionately, who get sentenced to death and choose life in prison over death. I think that is an accurate statement, regardless of whether the real numbers may be 99 % or 95 %. I have known a number of convicted murderers who instructed their attorneys not to appeal the death sentence, but then reconsidered and sought to avoid the death sentence and not just the guilty verdict.
However, I would question the logic that concludes that because people fear death and would choose LWOP over execution, (if they could), that therefore the death penalty has a significant deterrent effect. For the most part, I think that those thoughts about preferring LWOP to execution only occur after the person has been caught.
Bruce Livingston
----- Original Message -----
From: g. crabtree
To: Joe Campbell
Cc: vision2020
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
Joe, thank you for the clarification. I will readily concede that the single statistic does not in and of itself totally support the conclusion. I obviously excerpted the quote from a larger work and, perhaps, should have excised the conclusion or included the entire argument. Either way, to throw Mr. Sharp under the bus as a charlatan because of my imprecision is to do him a serious disservice. A cursory look at his bio/CV reveals that he is indeed extremely knowledgeable in his field. This combined with the fact that you do not dispute the pertinent statistic causes me to disregard your charge on the appeal to authority fallacy.
Mr. Sharp's scholarship and my lack of logical thinking aside, lets return to your original premise "A long life in prison is far worse than a short death." You've done a masterful job of tap dancing on my meager reasons for doubting your claim. Now how about you take on the more difficult task of providing some evidence to support why it is that you believe that 98.8% of inmates sentenced to death fight to remain alive if your contention is correct? What is it that you base your assertion on?
gc
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
Cc: "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>; "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
> Dear Gary,
>
> Let me try to make the point more clearly.
>
> Your "expert" said: "Of the 7300 inmates sentenced to death since 1973, 85,
> or 1.2% have waived remaining appeals and been executed. 98.8% have not
> waived appeals. The evidence is overwhelming that murderers would rather
> live on death row than die."
>
> Here is the argument:
> 1. 98.8% of inmates sentenced to death since 1973 have not waived appeals.
> 2. Therefore, murderers would rather live on death row than die.
>
> How exactly does (1) support (2)? This is an invalid argument since conclusion (2) makes speculative claims about the will to live of murderers whereas premise (1) merely reports the percentage of folks who have and have not waved appeals.
>
> The content of the conclusion is substantially different from the content of the premise. No social scientist worth his salt would be so bold as to draw such a speculative conclusion based on such unrelated "facts." Your "expert" is no expert at all. Thus, you are guilty of the fallacy of appeal to authority.
>
> Does this make sense now?
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> =============
> Well so much for the reasoned response. What I'm not finding in the usual
> reply is anything to support your original contention. You seem to object to
> any facts presented with no rational explanation. You style yourself an
> expert and then present no expertise. You bluster and blather and attempt to
> shift the discussion to different ground presumably because you find it
> difficult, perhaps impossible to make your case. I guess I'll just have to
> assume that you have nothing to back up your original assertion and that
> this is the very best you can do. How surprising. I guess it's time to let
> this sorry topic die. (after your disjointed, wounded, and yet strangely
> self congratulatory, reply of course.)
>
> gc
> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
> Cc: "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>; "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
>
>
> Thank you, Locksmith Crabtree! The recent cold has been getting me down, so
> I much appreciate the large dose of hot air coming from your direction!
>
> I did not dispute the "facts" noted by your "expert." What I disputed was
> his opinionated conclusion and the suggestion that it followed from the
> "facts."
>
> Your "expert" said: "Of the 7300 inmates sentenced to death since 1973, 85,
> or 1.2% have waived remaining appeals and been executed. 98.8% have not
> waived appeals. The evidence is overwhelming that murderers would rather
> live on death row than die."
>
> The facts do not support the conclusion; the inference is hogwash. Believe
> me, for I'm an expert! As you noted, I teach logic in my day job! You seem
> to be a bit selective in who you choose to lable "expert," though, so it is
> doubtful that this will impress you. (The key factor appears to be that the
> "expert" happens to agree with you.)
>
> Suppose I say that (1) Mike Rogers claims that Larry Craig cheats on his
> wife and add that (2) Mike Rodges is an expert who supports his views with
> "facts." Can I pass this off as evidence and argument, too?
>
> You need to tell me how it is that your "expert" gets to his conclusion from
> the scant facts that you've presented. If you can do this, his expertise
> won't matter, for I know a good argument when I see it. Moreover, you'll
> have convinced me that your view IS supported by facts and inference. As it
> is it appears to be based on the false assumption that all of our problems
> will go away once we start killing more people.
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> =============
> Professor Campbell, let me see if I understand you correctly. You claim that
> I have committed the logical fallacy of appeal to authority and then provide
> nothing to backup your assertion. I would think that to make your charge
> stick you would have to A. Provide some evidence that Mr.Sharp is not
> knowledgeable on the topic being discussed or B. (and more importantly)
> that the statistics he cites are in error, Or C. That I am misapplying Mr.
> Sharp's expertise or statistics. Quoting an person knowledgeable in the
> field who is referencing verifiable statistics is NOT a logical fallacy.
> (You actually teach logic? As your "day job?") It would seem that you've
> achieved the enlightened state of "I'm right and facts be damned." With
> that in mind, I guess I would enjoy seeing what you can come up with by way
> of "neat quotes in favor of your position." I would hope that they might
> contain a scrap of fact rather then the usual emotion and fallacious
> statement that has been characteristic of your previous responses. What
> empirical data or statistic can you provide to support your assertion that
> "A long life in prison is far worse than a short death?" What pearl of
> reason will you come up with to counter the pesky fact (in bold below) that,
> statistically, murderers prefer to be behind bars rather then answering to
> their Maker? I would have thought that as man who pridefully proclaims "I
> am an expert about KNOWLEDGE." you should surely be able to set me straight
> in short order. Instead all I'm seeing is fallacy followed by mistake. I
> look forward to a reasoned response. Baring that, I guess I'll have to
> settle for your usual reply.
>
> gc
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
> Cc: "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>; "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
>
>
>> Sorry for not responding to your wonderful example of an appeal to
>> authority earlier, Gary, but I've been busy with my day job.
>>
>> Here is my response: Your comments below commit the fallacy of appeal to
>> authority. Do you really think that I can't find some neat quotes on the
>> web in favor of my position?
>>
>> --
>> Joe Campbell
>>
>> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> =============
>> Actually Joe, if by empirical you meant "derived from or guided by
>> experience or observation" I would have no choice but to disagree. I would
>> think that just about everyone who has given even the most fleeting
>> attention to the news for the last few years could cite five or more
>> instances of murderers fighting to avoid the death penalty for every one
>> that embraces that option. According to the folks at DPINFO.COM (death
>> penalty information) what appears to be an unbiased clearinghouse for this
>> type of information.
>>
>> "At every level of the criminal justice process, virtually all criminals
>> do everything they can to lessen possible punishments. I estimate that
>> less than 1% of all convicted capital murderers request a death sentence
>> in the punishment phase of their trial. The apprehended criminals' desire
>> for lesser punishments is overwhelming and unchallenged.
>>
>>Of the 7300 inmates sentenced to death since 1973, 85, or 1.2% have waived
>>remaining appeals and been executed. 98.8% have not waived appeals. The
>>evidence is overwhelming that murderers would rather live on death row than
>>die. Why? The survival effect -- life is preferred over death and death
>>is feared more than life. Even on death row, that is the rule."
>>Dudley Sharp, Resource Director, Justice For All
>>
>> With this in mind, I would contend that your assertion that "It is not as
>> if your view has any more empirical support than mine!" is, once again,
>> wrong.
>>
>> gc
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
>> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
>> Cc: "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>; "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
>>
>>
>>> Gary,
>>>
>>> It is not as if your view has any more empirical support than mine!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joe Campbell
>>>
>>> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> =============
>>> Reason #3: A long life in prison is far worse than a short death.
>>>
>>> If this is truly the case, why do you suppose so many vermin such as
>>> Duncan
>>> prefer/fight for the life sentence? For the most part this, is true of
>>> all
>>> convicted killers. What do you base your contention on? I can't imagine
>>> that
>>> it's even how you, personally, would feel should you ever be in a similar
>>> circumstance. (not that you would, of course) This "long life in prison
>>> is
>>> worse than death." mantra seems to be bandied about as a truism with
>>> precious little supporting evidence. In fact, most evidence points the
>>> other
>>> way.
>>>
>>> gc
>>> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
>>> To: "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>
>>> Cc: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:33 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pat,
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, the fact is that you and I will pay more if he is
>>>> (eventually) put to death. Yet another reason not to have the death
>>>> penalty.
>>>>
>>>> Reason #3: .A long life in prison is far worse than a short death
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joe Campbell
>>>>
>>>> ---- Pat Kraut <pkraut at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> =============
>>>> But why do I have to pay for him to continue to have life in any form?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we do discover a complete theory..of everything...we shall all,
>>>> philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people,
>>>> be able to take part in the discussion of why it is that we and the
>>>> universe
>>>> exist if we find the answer to that,
>>>> it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason...for then we would
>>>> know
>>>> the mind of God.
>>>> Stephen Hawking
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: <whayman at adelphia.net>
>>>> To: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 3:09 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> I would agree with anyone that Duncan tests the limits much more than
>>>> even
>>>> more than Malvo in the DC area. What Duncan apparently did lies outside
>>>> the
>>>> human scope of sympathy. But even within this absolutely and
>>>> disgustingly
>>>> twisted psychopathic scenario, I still cannot advocate a penalty of
>>>> death
>>>> for anyone. Duncan included.
>>>>
>>>> Killing, as we all know, brings back no one. The argument of the death
>>>> penalty as resolution and closure I find closer to vengeance than
>>>> justice.
>>>>
>>>> Please don't take me wrong; I don't think rehab etc. is the issue in
>>>> this
>>>> case. I do hope that the rest of his life is spent anonymously and
>>>> ignobly
>>>> incarcerated.
>>>>
>>>> Warren Hayman
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061019/fd2d6a46/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list