[Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
Art Deco
deco at moscow.com
Tue Mar 16 00:06:07 PDT 2010
Andreas,
First, You are missing the point of the argument/counterexample:
The probability that Joseph Duncan is innocent is infinitesimally close to zero, hence in his case your first premise does not apply. It also does not apply to those cases where the evidence is overwhelming, a confession is made and is overwhelmingly supported by evidence, and the convicted demands to be executed.
You say that the premises are not arguable, but you have missed the point of my post:
By what method, one that is generally agreed upon, can you establish the truth of your first premise [your second premise is a factual claim, not an ethical principle]? One could argue (and some do) that if there are cases where the execution of an innocent person could save many, many lives, then such execution would be morally justified. It's a conclusion I personally do not like, but I am stuck with the problem of not being able to either refute and/or to prove the principle involved with a method more or less universally acceptable.
I know people who argue that the overall "rightness" of capital punishment is not harmed by a few innocents who slip through the cracks; we just need to be a little more careful. I do not agree, but again, by what method can such a view be proven false? People can be persuaded, but the truth of the statement needs more than just persuasion to be established.
Another way to put it: There is a difference between "is" and "ought" statements. The truth of some "Is" statements is confirmed by reality-- the observations that follow from them. If this were true for "ought" statements, we'd have much more agreement among reasonable people about ethical truth. We don't. There is hardly an ethical issue of consequence where you will not find arguments on either side, each depending upon unprovable principles. Another way to put it, given our current state of knowledge, there do not appear to be any inarguable ethical principles. There person who can show otherwise will be the greatest hero of all time.
There are many cases where I agree that execution should not take place because the probability of error is sufficient. [This also is an improvable principle.] But not all cases fall into that category as I noted above.
W.
----- Original Message -----
From: Andreas Schou
To: Art Deco
Cc: Vision 2020
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
Wayne --
The argument goes like this: there is no situation where the
judicially-sanctioned murder of an innocent person is justified;
regimes which allow the death penalty result in the execution of
innocent people; therefore, the death penalty is never justified. I
don't think either of the first two premises are arguable.
Consequently, why do you think the conclusion is insane?
-- ACS
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
> Here's why arguments like we are engaged in cannot be resolved given our
> current state of knowledge:
>
> Ethical principles are not completely amenable to resolution by evidence or
> testing. If they were, we wouldn't have such a wide diversity of opinion on
> ethical matters held by decent, reasonable people. It's not like
> establishing Ohm's law or the Theory of Conditioned Reflexes. Facts count,
> but even when people agree on the facts, they may not agree on an underlying
> ethical principle.
>
> It appears you are arguing for the principle that capital is never
> justified, or equivalently there is not a single case where capital
> punishment is justified.
>
> How would you empirically establish the truth of such a broad statement?
> What observations would render the probability of such a statement being
> 1.00?
>
> The best we can do in our current state of knowledge (the absence of an
> agreed method to establish ethical principles without doubt) is to attempt
> to persuade others by citing facts or other ethical principles which they
> may agree upon.
>
> In order to refute the statement "There is not a single case where capital
> punishment is justified." only a single case need be shown.
>
> I offered Joseph E. Duncan III as a counter-example
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III)
>
> "Joseph Edward Duncan (born February 25, 1963) is an American convicted
> serial killer and sex offender who received national attention after being
> arrested in connection with the kidnapping of Shasta Groene,[1] aged 8, and
> her brother Dylan,[2] 9, and being featured on America's Most Wanted.[3] He
> pled guilty in December 2007 to 10 federal counts involving the kidnapping
> and torture of the children and the murder of Dylan at a remote campsite
> west of the Rocky Mountain Front, and was sentenced to death under federal
> laws for kidnapping resulting in death (he had already pleaded guilty in
> state court) on August 27, 2008. As of October 27, 2009, Duncan was being
> tried in Riverside County, California for the 1997 murder of Anthony Michael
> Martinez."
>
> There is a lot more, a horrifyingly graphic, sickening more.
>
> I could have also cited a number of confessed serial murderers or used those
> old favorites Hitler and Saddam Hussein.
>
> Given your belief in the statement "There is not a single case where capital
> punishment is justified." such counterexamples would not be persuasive to
> you. You would still hold the above ethical principle to be true despite
> the lack of a method to demonstrate it's truth. However, some people might
> be persuaded that Duncan should be executed and make his case an exception
> to their general opposition to capital punishment. In fact, I know of at
> least one such person.
>
> Until there is a method to establish the truth of general ethical principles
> differences of opinion like ours are not likely to be resolved. We may
> persuade each other about certain cases or classes of cases (like those
> where guilt is questionable), but in general we have no way to come to
> agreement like we might if we were arguing about the cause of diabetes or
> whether syphilis is caused by urinating in the moonlight.
>
>
> W.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Sunil Ramalingam
> To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 7:15 PM
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
> Not even him, and you want to kill for less than that.
>
> ________________________________
> From: deco at moscow.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:10:12 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
>
> Joseph E. Duncan III
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sunil Ramalingam
> To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 6:41 PM
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
> I've never seen a good argument for the death penalty from you, Wayne.
>
> Sunil
>
> ________________________________
> From: deco at moscow.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:15:37 -0700
> Subject: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
>
> Another good argument for the death penalty:
>
>
> Updated March 15, 2010
>
> Ex-Bank President Arrested for Allegedly Lying to Get TARP Money
>
> AP
>
> The former president of a small community bank was arrested on charges that
> he lied to the federal government to get a piece of the bailout program,
> authorities said Monday.
> NEW YORK -- The former president of a small community bank was arrested on
> charges that he lied to the federal government to get a piece of the bailout
> program, authorities said Monday.
> Charles Antonucci Sr. was charged in a criminal complaint filed in U.S.
> District Court in Manhattan with self-dealing, bank bribery, embezzlement
> and fraud.
> Authorities said the rip-off targeted the New York State Banking Department,
> the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
> Antonucci resigned last year as president of The Park Avenue Bank, which is
> headquartered in Manhattan with four retail branches in Manhattan and
> Brooklyn.
> Among other allegations, Antonucci was accused of using false information to
> request $11 million from the federal government's TARP bank bailout program.
> The complaint accused him of lying to banking authorities in late 2008 and
> early 2009 to make them believe he had invested $6.5 million of his own
> money in the bank when the money actually belonged to the bank.
> After the application for TARP money was rejected, Antonucci did a media
> interview in which he said the bank withdrew its application because of
> "issues" with the TARP program and a desire to avoid "market perception"
> that bad banks take TARP money, the complaint said.
> Federal authorities say Antonucci actually wanted to obtain millions of
> dollars for his own use, in part so he could obtain a controlling interest
> in the bank.
> They said he also permitted a former administrative assistant to obtain
> $400,000 of loans the assistant was not qualified for. The complaint said
> the former assistant is now cooperating.
> The complaint alleged that Antonucci later used the former bank employee's
> private plane on 10 or more occasions, including trips to Phoenix to attend
> the Super Bowl, to Augusta, Ga., to watch the Master's golf tournament, a
> flight to Florida to visit a relative and a flight to Panama.
> Antonucci's lawyer, Charles Stillman, said he had just gotten a copy of the
> charges. He declined immediate comment.
>
> =======================================================
> 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/20100316/218587d3/attachment.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list