<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18876">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Andreas,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>First, You are missing the point of the
argument/counterexample:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>You say that the premises are not arguable, but you have
missed the point of my post:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>W.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=ophite@gmail.com href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">Andreas Schou</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 15, 2010 10:01
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Another good
argument for the death penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Wayne --<BR><BR>The argument goes like this: there is no
situation where the<BR>judicially-sanctioned murder of an innocent person is
justified;<BR>regimes which allow the death penalty result in the execution
of<BR>innocent people; therefore, the death penalty is never justified.
I<BR>don't think either of the first two premises are
arguable.<BR>Consequently, why do you think the conclusion is
insane?<BR><BR>-- ACS<BR><BR>On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Art Deco <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>> wrote:<BR>> Here's
why arguments like we are engaged in cannot be resolved given our<BR>>
current state of knowledge:<BR>><BR>> Ethical principles are not
completely amenable to resolution by evidence or<BR>> testing. If they
were, we wouldn't have such a wide diversity of opinion on<BR>> ethical
matters held by decent, reasonable people. It's not like<BR>> establishing
Ohm's law or the Theory of Conditioned Reflexes. Facts count,<BR>> but even
when people agree on the facts, they may not agree on an underlying<BR>>
ethical principle.<BR>><BR>> It appears you are arguing for the
principle that capital is never<BR>> justified, or equivalently there is
not a single case where capital<BR>> punishment is
justified.<BR>><BR>> How would you empirically establish the truth of
such a broad statement?<BR>> What observations would render the probability
of such a statement being<BR>> 1.00?<BR>><BR>> The best we can do in
our current state of knowledge (the absence of an<BR>> agreed method to
establish ethical principles without doubt) is to attempt<BR>> to persuade
others by citing facts or other ethical principles which they<BR>> may
agree upon.<BR>><BR>> In order to refute the statement "There is not a
single case where capital<BR>> punishment is justified." only a single case
need be shown.<BR>><BR>> I offered Joseph E. Duncan III as a
counter-example<BR>> (<A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III</A>)<BR>><BR>>
"Joseph Edward Duncan (born February 25, 1963) is an American
convicted<BR>> serial killer and sex offender who received national
attention after being<BR>> arrested in connection with the kidnapping of
Shasta Groene,[1] aged 8, and<BR>> her brother Dylan,[2] 9, and being
featured on America's Most Wanted.[3] He<BR>> pled guilty in December 2007
to 10 federal counts involving the kidnapping<BR>> and torture of the
children and the murder of Dylan at a remote campsite<BR>> west of the
Rocky Mountain Front, and was sentenced to death under federal<BR>> laws
for kidnapping resulting in death (he had already pleaded guilty in<BR>>
state court) on August 27, 2008. As of October 27, 2009, Duncan was
being<BR>> tried in Riverside County, California for the 1997 murder of
Anthony Michael<BR>> Martinez."<BR>><BR>> There is a lot more, a
horrifyingly graphic, sickening more.<BR>><BR>> I could have also cited
a number of confessed serial murderers or used those<BR>> old favorites
Hitler and Saddam Hussein.<BR>><BR>> Given your belief in the statement
"There is not a single case where capital<BR>> punishment is justified."
such counterexamples would not be persuasive to<BR>> you. You would still
hold the above ethical principle to be true despite<BR>> the lack of a
method to demonstrate it's truth. However, some people might<BR>> be
persuaded that Duncan should be executed and make his case an
exception<BR>> to their general opposition to capital punishment. In fact,
I know of at<BR>> least one such person.<BR>><BR>> Until there is a
method to establish the truth of general ethical principles<BR>>
differences of opinion like ours are not likely to be resolved. We may<BR>>
persuade each other about certain cases or classes of cases (like
those<BR>> where guilt is questionable), but in general we have no way to
come to<BR>> agreement like we might if we were arguing about the cause of
diabetes or<BR>> whether syphilis is caused by urinating in the
moonlight.<BR>><BR>><BR>> W.<BR>><BR>><BR>> ----- Original
Message -----<BR>><BR>> From: Sunil Ramalingam<BR>> To: Art Deco ;
Vision 2020<BR>> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 7:15 PM<BR>> Subject: RE:
[Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty<BR>> Not even him,
and you want to kill for less than that.<BR>><BR>>
________________________________<BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR>> To: <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>> Date:
Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:10:12 -0700<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good
argument for the death penalty<BR>><BR>> Joseph E. Duncan
III<BR>><BR>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> From: Sunil
Ramalingam<BR>> To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020<BR>> Sent: Monday, March 15,
2010 6:41 PM<BR>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the
death penalty<BR>> I've never seen a good argument for the death penalty
from you, Wayne.<BR>><BR>> Sunil<BR>><BR>>
________________________________<BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR>> To: <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>> Date:
Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:15:37 -0700<BR>> Subject: [Vision2020] Another good
argument for the death penalty<BR>><BR>> Another good argument for the
death penalty:<BR>><BR>><BR>> Updated March 15, 2010<BR>><BR>>
Ex-Bank President Arrested for Allegedly Lying to Get TARP
Money<BR>><BR>> AP<BR>><BR>> The former president of a small
community bank was arrested on charges that<BR>> he lied to the federal
government to get a piece of the bailout program,<BR>> authorities said
Monday.<BR>> NEW YORK -- The former president of a small community bank was
arrested on<BR>> charges that he lied to the federal government to get a
piece of the bailout<BR>> program, authorities said Monday.<BR>> Charles
Antonucci Sr. was charged in a criminal complaint filed in U.S.<BR>>
District Court in Manhattan with self-dealing, bank bribery,
embezzlement<BR>> and fraud.<BR>> Authorities said the rip-off targeted
the New York State Banking Department,<BR>> the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp. and the Troubled Asset Relief Program.<BR>> Antonucci resigned last
year as president of The Park Avenue Bank, which is<BR>> headquartered in
Manhattan with four retail branches in Manhattan and<BR>> Brooklyn.<BR>>
Among other allegations, Antonucci was accused of using false information
to<BR>> request $11 million from the federal government's TARP bank bailout
program.<BR>> The complaint accused him of lying to banking authorities in
late 2008 and<BR>> early 2009 to make them believe he had invested $6.5
million of his own<BR>> money in the bank when the money actually belonged
to the bank.<BR>> After the application for TARP money was rejected,
Antonucci did a media<BR>> interview in which he said the bank withdrew its
application because of<BR>> "issues" with the TARP program and a desire to
avoid "market perception"<BR>> that bad banks take TARP money, the
complaint said.<BR>> Federal authorities say Antonucci actually wanted to
obtain millions of<BR>> dollars for his own use, in part so he could obtain
a controlling interest<BR>> in the bank.<BR>> They said he also
permitted a former administrative assistant to obtain<BR>> $400,000 of
loans the assistant was not qualified for. The complaint said<BR>> the
former assistant is now cooperating.<BR>> The complaint alleged that
Antonucci later used the former bank employee's<BR>> private plane on 10 or
more occasions, including trips to Phoenix to attend<BR>> the Super Bowl,
to Augusta, Ga., to watch the Master's golf tournament, a<BR>> flight to
Florida to visit a relative and a flight to Panama.<BR>> Antonucci's
lawyer, Charles Stillman, said he had just gotten a copy of the<BR>>
charges. He declined immediate comment.<BR>><BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List services
made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> serving the communities of the
Palouse since 1994.<BR>> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
=======================================================<BR>></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>