Pro-Death Penalty: The Argument from Miscarriages of Justice?

[RepresentingTruth]

In my state of Ct,. the Cheshire home invaders got the death penalty. This was the proper punishment since everyone has concluded that they did rape the young girl and murdered and burned them. So I challenge anyone to say that they should not get the death penalty.

BTW I believe that murder is the one death penalty cause since this takes away the greatest freedom of any person.

[imorio]

@RepresentingTruth Will killing the people who did this undo their crimes? Will killing these people deter others? (as in, do you have any evidence it does) Will more death comfort those families who lost their loved ones? Do you ever know for sure if they did it, or is it just likely enough that they did it for you to take the gamble?

[RepresentingTruth]

@imorio There are a lot of statements but your evidence is lacking.

[imorio]

@RepresentingTruth The whole point is that evidence in favor of the death penalty is lacking. That is why I was asking those questions. To show there is no basis for the death penalty.

[Pushtrak]

05:17 was completely blindsided on that point.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Pushtrak What do you mean?

[Pushtrak]

@HonestDiscussioner As in, so many more hours are currently being spent on death penalty cases. But, obviously, if that time isn't being spent on death penalty cases, it is more evenly distributed on cases. I didn't consider that point on watching Sisyphus' video last night.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Pushtrak Oh, thank you!

[insidetrip101]

"I can't opt out of the death penalty unless... which is not a very viable option."

You could just the same say about participating in traffic. For me, it is not a viable option to not participate in traffic.

Re: death row inmates to prison population at a whole.

It really doesn't matter who the comparison is made towards. The point is that the "lesser" the sentence, the less likely the inmates are to be exonerated. It is still unjust to imprison an innocent regardless of sentence length.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 "It is still unjust to imprison an innocent regardless of sentence length."

That assumes that the rates of people who are innocent remains the same for low-level offenders vs. high. Like in the example I give, marijuana possession, that's a more open and shut case than murder. Theft, you're either caught in the act or they find the stuff on you. It is meaningful to compare the same type of crime, because there may just be fewer innocent people for non-murder cases.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 "For me, it is not a viable option to not participate in traffic."

Why not? Can you not find an alternate route that doesn't involve highways? Sure, it may take you a bit longer, but I don't see how it isn't an option.

[insidetrip101]

@HonestDiscussioner

You miss the point. Once you start talking about "viability", then what is viable will be different to different people in different circumstances. For example, it is not viable to me to move to a non death penalty country, but it is for Brad Pitt. It is viable for me to avoid highways, but it is not viable for truckers.

If you are going to say that the truckers "choose" to be truckers, then I could equally say that you choose to not be a movie star and to live in the USA.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 I think occupation is somewhat more pliable than moving across an ocean away from everything you've ever known. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that you should be able to make these choices NOW, certainly changing careers would be difficult, but when you first got INTO a profession like trucking, you knew the risks involved. There isn't really a way to get out of the "accidentally framed for murder" game.

Especially if you're black.

[insidetrip101]

@HonestDiscussioner

There also isn't really a get out of the "birthed into unfavorable social circumstances" game. I think most people would not choose to be something like a trucker. Your environment has a lot more bearing on what is "viable" than you are giving credit for.

"you knew the risks involved."

That is bullshit and you know it. It is just like saying, that women who dress provocatively knew the risks to being raped.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 " It is just like saying, that women who dress provocatively knew the risks to being raped."

Whoa, that's entirely different. When someone is raped, it isn't an accident, it's intentional. Truckers and other drivers know the risks when they drive, but that does NOT excuse someone from ramming into them on purpose, just like a provocatively dressed woman is not a mean it is legal to rape them.

[insidetrip101]

@HonestDiscussioner

"Whoa, that's entirely different."

Look, this is the problem. The means of "viability" and even cost/benefit ratios are always relative. Sure, you can spend all day talking about what is "different", but what is the same is what is important. By even speaking of "viability" you aren't addressing the argument of cost/benefit with regard to the death penalty.

All you are doing is convoluting the discussion by extending the analogies further than they were intended.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 "By even speaking of "viability" you aren't addressing the argument of cost/benefit with regard to the death penalty."

That's sort of the point. Sisyphus is arguing that the cost\benefit analysis is more in favor of the death penalty than it is other things we accept with little question, such as higher speed limits. I'm arguing that cost\benefit shouldn't even factor in, because actively involved with killing specific individuals rather than simply running a risk of an accident

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 cont. The moral line between these two are so different that cost\benefit shouldn't be taken into consideration. Let me put it this way: would you yourself kill ten innocent people if it meant that twenty lives would be saved? Directly, I mean. Tying them up and putting a bullet in their brain, and then let's say some madman will let go of the twenty people he would kill (and it is certain that he will). Cost\benefit analysis doesn't factor in due to the morality of the action.

[insidetrip101]

@HonestDiscussioner

"Cost\benefit analysis doesn't factor in due to the morality of the action."

You are sorely mistaken here. For "some" it does not factor in, for "some" it does. There are plenty of consequential who would argue that killing 10 people to save 20 is ethical. The argument from miscarriages of justice is founded under consequential presuppositions, namely that it isn't the taking of life that is inherently wrong. Therefore, the argument can be critiqued under its own premises.

[insidetrip101]

@insidetrip101

*Consequentialist

For some reason spell check does not like that word.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 Believe me I know. I've typed consequentalist and consequentalism so many times . . and I don't know why I don't add it to spell check but I never do . . . and keeps showing up red.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 " There are plenty of consequential who would argue that killing 10 people to save 20 is ethical."

Great, then let's go that route then. I am, after all, a consequentalist myself.

If you're going to argue consequentalism, you have to take into account all consequences, not just the immediate ones. The issue of virtue comes to mind, because virtue has consequence. cont.

[insidetrip101]

@HonestDiscussioner

"The issue of virtue comes to mind, because virtue has consequence. cont."

I'm really confused here. What does virtue ethics have to do with any of this? (I'm assuming you are talking about virtue ethics, but I'm confused.)

"such as in the example of the doctor that kidnaps people to experiment on them in order to develop a cure for cancer."

Again, if the end is to save lives, then the doctor is acting in accordance to that end. I'm not sure where the rebuttal is.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 "What does virtue ethics have to do with any of this?"

Nothing. Don't feel bad, I'm not surprised your confused, this is a rather confusing aspect. The problem with most consequentalists is that they only look at the least important consequence: the immediate one. Think of it this way: what is the difference in consequence between a person who trips and stabs someone in the heart with a knife, and a person that purposefully stabs them in the exact same location? cont.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 cont The consequences there are identical. Do you think the repercussions for the actor should be as well? If we look at the immediate consequence, then yes. However if we look beyond the immediate and see that the accidental person is unlikely to repeat that behavior while the non-accidental person is not, we see that the virtue of the action has future consequences. Just because virtue ethics is obsessed with virtue does not disqualify virtue from having consequence. cont.

[insidetrip101]

@HonestDiscussioner

"Do you think the repercussions for the actor should be as well?"

For the consequentialist yes it should be. As you say, this is a good rebuttal AGAINST a consequentialist.

I've never said virtue ethics does not have consequences. If you read the Nicomachean Ethics you would see that all the virtues are aimed towards an end. In other words, not even Aristotle thinks virtue is good for the sake of more virtue.

You aren't a consequentialist.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 "For the consequentialist yes it should be. As you say, this is a good rebuttal AGAINST a consequentialist."

But it isn't, not if there is in fact a difference in consequence between these two actions. There are, the difference is the consequences happen LATER rather than at the moment of the action.

"I've never said virtue ethics does not have consequences."

I didn't say virtue ethics. I said virtue.

I am a consequentalist. I'm just one that looks a few moves ahead.

[insidetrip101]

@HonestDiscussioner

"There are, the difference is the consequences happen LATER rather than at the moment of the action."

And this would be why I would argue that you are adhering to virtue ethics. In my humble opinion, I think you are muddying the waters. The whole point of consequentialism is that actions are simple and can be expressed in an equation-like analysis. Just because you think virtue has an end does not make you a consequentialist.

Either way, check your mailbox from a user.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 "Just because you think virtue has an end does not make you a consequentialist."

It's not that virtue has an end, so much as it has a consequence. I can show you how the two are different. Take, for example, a person who is entirely violent for nearly no reason and severely injures a person, but in doing so damages their brain in such a way that they are no longer violent. cont.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 Under normal consequentalism AND virtue ethics, this person should be punished, but not under mine, for he is no longer a threat. You see, consequentalism is normally focused on the action, however with me, I'm focusing on the punishment. What is the consequence of the punishment? In my example, there is no need to punish the person, for you'd only be punishing him in an attempt to make him less violent, which he already is.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 cont. part 3 If virtue has consequence then the consequentalist MUST take it into account. Take your doctor instance. The rebuttal is that the doctor, in his quest to save lives, could wind up killing way more people than he saves. There is no guarantee he'll even make any progress at all. His lack of virtue, his ability to decide who dies and who lives, only appears to be good on the surface. Delve any deeper, and the consequence of his actions are deeply troubling.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 cont. An individual willing to kill ten innocent people without their consent in order to save twenty could then attempt to save more lives by taking more lives, such as in the example of the doctor that kidnaps people to experiment on them in order to develop a cure for cancer. That is why even under consequentalism murder is not moral, even to save lives, for it causes you to be willing to take life.

[insidetrip101]

@HonestDiscussioner

"It's not that virtue has an end, so much as it has a consequence."

Actually, for our intents and purpose "end" and "consequence" have pretty much identical meanings (ie: the outcome that arises from action).

You keep bringing up this "doctor" scenario. Is your point that hubris is a danger? Most would agree; however, in virtue ethics there is a very special virtue, namely prudence, that is an intellectual virtue unlike a moral virtue like courage.

[insidetrip101]

@insidetrip101

So once you take prudence into account, you could say that the doctor was either acting prudently or imprudently based on the knowledge he had at the time. Under neither virtue ethics, nor consequentialism, is killing an "innocent" necessarily wrong. It could be wrong if that is the desired end or consequence, but the only place where absolute, independent of circumstance, laws exist are in rule theories. Most famously Divine Command Theory, and Kant's Categorical imperative.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 " Most would agree; however, in virtue ethics"

I'm not talking about virtue ethics. I showed you how my version differs from both virtue ethics and traditional consequentialism. Whereas normally consequentialism is concerned with the action, I'm concerned (mainly) with the punishment and its consequences.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 "Is your point that hubris is a danger?"

No, my point is that a person willing to take innocent life will generally cause more death, even if they only take innocent life to save more innocent life.

[insidetrip101]

@HonestDiscussioner

"a person willing to take innocent life will generally cause more death,"

The problem I have with this is that it is a bad generalization. We can easily see scenarios where taking an innocent life has saved lots of people. The only thing you are doing is tacking on ad hoc hypothesis saying that we can't calculate the amount of deaths that this person will cause in the future. I actually agree, but once you do that, you exit the realm of consequentialism.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 " The only thing you are doing is tacking on ad hoc hypothesis saying that we can't calculate the amount of deaths that this person will cause in the future."

I don't see how that's ad hoc. It also goes beyond merely the fact that we can't calculate the amount of deaths. It's the fact that when you start looking at people as nothing more than numbers, they become nothing but numbers. It becomes easier to throw lives away in pursuit of whatever supposedly noble goal.

[insidetrip101]

@HonestDiscussioner

"when you start looking at people as nothing more than numbers"

So you are saying that there is something special about a person that you can't compare quantitatively to anything else? Many people want to say such a thing, but I'm not sure I want to commit myself to any sort of knowledge void of context. This is why I'm accusing you of having presuppositions that are more similar to a rule theory than any kind of consequentialism.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 "So you are saying that there is something special about a person that you can't compare quantitatively to anything else?"

No. I'm saying that looking at people as numbers devalues them, and makes it easier to let them die for whatever supposedly noble purpose an individual has in mind. The consequences of this outlook are dire.

[insidetrip101]

@HonestDiscussioner

care to explain how "looking at people as numbers devalues them" is different from "there is something special about a person that you can't compare quantitatively to anything else". As far as I know, quantitative comparisons are always numerical, and numerical comparisons are always quantitative.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 Sure. If I am a grocer and I start looking at my produce as simply numbers, it's going to be easier to let a few crates of bananas get lost than if I see it as life sustaining food that people need in order to live. That doesn't mean I can't compare the banana's to anything, it's that when you bring things down to simply numbers, they aren't worth as much. It allows you to detach yourself which causes you to be less likely to do an optimal job.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@insidetrip101 When you say "all people are exactly worth the same, with no differences" this simply doesn't reflect reality. The outlook loses any sense of nuance to the real situation, you detach yourself and therefore are more likely to cause harm. Ergo: consequence. Ergo: a factor any consequentalist MUST take into account.

[sofuckyouyeah]

can you put up the direct links to the videos instead of just simply the channels? have i missed something?

[HonestDiscussioner]

@sofuckyouyeah Well, sisyphus's video is linked, because this is a video response. Just check under "video response". I didn't feel the need to link Prof's video because it doesn't have so much to do with this video, I was just plugging him in general.

[MrSamuelSpade]

Honest Discussioner, your demonstration of humility and fairness speaks volumes as to your character and integrity. I genuinely admire your approach to discussing important topics. Sisyphus Redeemed also shows the same qualities and approach to debate and philosophy.

[MrSamuelSpade]

I am very happy that intelligent people are debating this subject with depth and forethought. Very well done.

[nebulousJames12345]

Why would someone who says the speed limit is too high want to increases the speed limit above 45 mph?? There are more ways than to just lower the speed limit than to save lives. Those traffic accidents happen for many different reasons that can and should be eliminated.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@nebulousJames12345 I think you misunderstood. People want higher speed limits to get to their destination faster, but at the cost of lives. That's what sisyphus's point is.

[ja524309]

Sisyphus has his sources up now, if anyone cares.

[TitenSxull]

I agree, the comparison with driving and the speed limit is invalid. People on death row are being killed purposefully, deliberately, by the government. Other than vehicular homicide no one driving on the roads is purposefully killing anyone. The burden of proof is on the State and when someone's life is on the line they can't afford even a tiny margin of error.

[DefkoTV]

You need to understand that the government doesn't control the traffic accidents directly. It is not like they cause these accidents on purpose. With the death penalty, they are directly killing these people. Far different than your example. When America crosses the line executing people, that should be the end point for Capital Punishment.

[assailant85]

from an outside perspective from the "old" europe, america seems to have some anachronistic similarities with countries as white russia or iran if you look at things like death penalty, cases of innocent prisoners that aren't rolled up because of politics or torture in guantamo bay or by police officers in day to day life.

as a country of science it should also consider new neuroscientific facts into consideration. for example the lack of free will or sth like brain tumors creating a murderer

[HonestDiscussioner]

@assailant85 Unfortunately, in order to take into account neuroscience in our justice system, we'd have to entirely reformat the very philosophical foundation for which justice is served. I say "unfortunately" not because I think it is a bad idea, I am actually all for it, but at best it will take decades for something like that to happen in this country.

[DracoTheBlack]

Wait, so not driving in modern society is a viable option but moving to a country with laws more in line with how you want things to work isn't? Also, while you can opt out of driving you can't opt out of all the risks it entails. Unless of course your going to become a shut in and hide in your house to avoid the danger of cars.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@DracoTheBlack Sisyphus was referencing the number of deaths caused by increased speed limits. I don't believe the people that walk are killed because of those higher speed limits. Where I lived before in Doylestown it was certainly possible to not use a car, especially if you worked in town, and that's certainly easier than getting citizenship in another country.

[gothatfunk]

well done HD. i really think we could use auto fatality stats in numerous ways to suggest that "society deems the loss of innocent life is tolerable", but that is a misapplication of said stats. most deaths on the roads are 'accidental', not the result of deliberate intent, nor a punishment for a crime.

if we were to use stats that way, after 9/11 the government could have done a comparison, and deemed cars a greater threat than terrorism, and banned motor vehicles.

[spiritualbully]

@gothatfunk that's exactly why the stats argument against DP is BS. we would not hold this standard for anything else as a reason to "abolish it", nobody is against increasing the accuracy and justice of penalty, everybody wants safer driving, safer executions, and safer lives in whatever we choose to do. Nowhere else do we throw out the baby with bathwater based on the accidental deaths.

[spiritualbully]

I wouldnt say miscarriages help the pro-dp side, but to say it is a good reason to abolish dp based on it requires singling out dp. As if miscarriages on other crimes , punishments are ok.

[sinistar99]

The idea that because x thing kills more people it somehow makes Y thing OK because it kills fewer people... kinda falls apart if y is you or someone you know. Then the question is ok then at what number do you think Y starts to "become wrong?" Wrong is wrong if it's 1 or 1 million --though 1 million is only 0.3% of the us population and some change.

[socrates856]

Checked the article and you are correct that it includes all exoneration cases, including non-murder cases. About 13% of that is non-death-row murder cases, lifting the exoneration percentage of his 0.0188% to 0.07%. Still not great, but a factor of 6 higher. 60% of exonerations are split between death row and other murder incarcerations, virtually all the rest is rape exonerations (due to DNA evidence). His core claim that death row have the highest exoneration percentage (2%) is sensible.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@socrates856 Thanks for researching it. I figured that was the case, because I noticed the prison population currently is around that number.

[StopFear]

I like your response HD, I think SisyphusRedeemed is arrogant and presumptuous. Plus he talks very fast so as to intimidate his opponents. An old trick. Just my opinion.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@StopFear I don't believe that is a "trick" of his. I read nothing but sincerity in his voice. He seems against the death penalty, so why would he argue against an argument which was designed to refute an argument he disagrees with? If he was trying to be tricky, he could easily tow the line in regards to the more liberal positions of his audience, and yet he often but not always argues against those positions. I can understand why you'd think that, but I don't think it stands up to evidence.

[Skindoggiedog]

@StopFear He speaks that way to intimidate his opponents, or you are intimidated because he speaks that way?

What you're accusing him of is intellectual dishonesty, in that, if he speaks in a certain manner, he'll still win the argument even if wrong. Your charge falls flat, as this is only ever viable during live discourse, where he could, perhaps, slip one past you.

In a format such as this, you can pause, look it up, and continue. So I think your claim is more about you than it is about SD.

[JustAnotherMutant]

HD, I think that the removal of death penalty would cause a reduction of the number of defense attorneys hired by the state.... if not immediately, fairly quickly. States are looking for places to save money, and that would be a likely place for budget cuts.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@JustAnotherMutant I thought public defenders did only the basic level of services? I could easily be mistaken, is that the case?

[JustAnotherMutant]

HonestDiscussioner, PDs do handle it in at least some death penalty states. I don't know if that is universal, but since people who commit capital crimes still have the right to representation, I imagine all of them have some arrangement which the government pays for.

And the funding in at least some comes from a different pool than the primary budget for public defenders. For example, Chicago hit the news a few years back when their death penalty defense fund ran out...

[JustAnotherMutant]

(cont)

That would also make them a good place to check. Illinois just ended the death penalty, so we can see if that death penalty fund gets canceled, or gets added into the funding for public defenders in non-capital cases.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@JustAnotherMutant Thanks for that info.

[geffel]

2:00 - no, the speed limit is not too high. The driver education level in the US is atrociously poor - really the worst in the western world from what I've seen (and the stats bear this out). Speed isn't the problem.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@geffel What? That couldn't be true. That one time I took my test was certainly enough to ensure I was perfect!

[TheNakedAtheist]

Good video I'll look forward to SR's response.

[JRBendixen]

I´m sorry, but for me this discussion is a pure load of american fail. Yours too.

The economics, ethics, planning, law, execution is all but a disaster, not only in former times but as of now. But who cares, If anybody makes a positive argument for people getting killed by civil law, hand them an axe and ask them if they would kill a loved member of their family.

It will leave them embarrassed. Its crude but effective and educational/intellectual snobbery is all but a non issue.

[kainniak1]

@JRBendixen people should be willing to personaly kill thier own family by hand if they are pro death penalty. If i knew for a fact someone in my family commited cold blooded murder id have no problem if someone else killed them, but i dont think i could personaly take an axe to them -.-. your lagic makes no sense.

[tattooskin72]

It is rare that I disagree with him as well. This is certainly one of those times I thought he was way off. You win by a long shot :)

[BusinessEdgeRadio]

Death Penalty is more humane then life imprisonment but its not reversible which maybe problematic. BTW do you like cake?

[HonestDiscussioner]

@BusinessEdgeRadio Of course I like cake. I don't know if I'd say the death penalty is more humane.

[BusinessEdgeRadio]

@HonestDiscussioner Why? You are gonna die no matter what. One option is to die by rotting for years in a cell and the other is to die in a few mins after eating a dream meal, I think the choose is pretty clear unless you have some sick rotting fetish but that's not common for people who like cake.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@BusinessEdgeRadio I don't think you literally "rot", and if I were to get exonerated at any point I'd likely be rather rich. Not to mention there are still things you can do while you're in prison.

[BusinessEdgeRadio]

@HonestDiscussioner I think your speaking more out of fear of the unknown then out of logically out weighing the good vs the bad. A man being dead is natural, a man living like a goldfish is not.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@BusinessEdgeRadio No, I just don't think most people would want to die. Remember, lifers aren't simply in their cell the entire time, they do get to do things.

[wolfwing1]

I have a solution :>  make the death penalty volountary, therefor you opt in or out :> j/k

Frankly I hate the death Penalty I could MAYBE get behind it in rare cases if everyone killed was 100% sure, but right now there is no way to be sure and any innocent life isn't worth it.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@wolfwing1 There is only one situation I can think of in which the death penalty is acceptable: it would have to be the case that we could not guarantee within a reasonable doubt that the individual will not escape and kill again. So unless we have a Houdini who is a murder and can easily escape, no death penalty.

[wolfwing1]

@HonestDiscussioner I'm completly against it, thats just about the only way I could see myself being for it, maybe with yours added too. I'm not sure how much we can do, but I really want to see our systems become more reparative then punative systems.

[infinit888]

I don't think that the facts support SR analysis of US road fatalities. You just have to look at the numbers for Germany which are significantly lower than the US figures even though a lot of roads still don't have a speed limit.

[CompleteRationality]

Compare the number of innocent people who have received life in prison (and eventually died in prison) to the number of innocent people who have incurred the death penalty. Which is the bigger figure?

[TheNakedAtheist]

@CompleteRationality

Obviously improving the judicial system to make it infallible, or as close to infallible as possible would be the best way to reduce the total number of innocent people dying , but unless you can show that the death penalty has an effect on the number of innocent people who eventually die in prison, it seems to me to be a moot point.

[Epydemic2020]

somehow I didn't notice the joke aimed at brock when i watched his original video.

[vaweyrr]

I think you're wrong when you say you can not opt out of the death penalty. As a society we know that the risk of certain crimes we commit is the death penalty. If i want to avoid it i just don't do anything illegal. And also by your logic you can't opt out of any punishment, as in i don't have an option to avoid a life sentence.

[Frottjeif]

@vaweyrr You missed the bit where innocents are killed.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@vaweyrr Yeah, what Frottjeif said. We're talking about people who don't commit any crimes but are executed based off of incorrect evidence.

[vaweyrr]

@HonestDiscussioner Which is a problem of justice, not just the death penalty. And since when do people choose to be in an accident which was caused by a drunken idiot at ridiculous high speed?

[HonestDiscussioner]

@vaweyrr The death penalty is part of justice. Once that justice is given, it cannot be taken back. If you are wrongfully convicted and sent to jail, once exonerated you get compensation for the time you spent in jail. One man who was wrongfully convicted 25 years ago and could receive up to $2,000,000 dollars for all that time.

[vaweyrr]

@HonestDiscussioner And how can you value 25 years taken from your life? No amount of money can give them back. And i also think this example can have moral problems, as in can you put a dollar value on human life?

[HonestDiscussioner]

@vaweyrr I'm not, I'm putting a value on human time, which we do all the time. It's not like it is entirely wasted. You can actually earn a degree in prison, if I'm not mistaken.

[vaweyrr]

@HonestDiscussioner Dude, human time could have dollar value if we were immortal. 25 years is about 1/3rd of your life, no way you can put a material value on that.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@vaweyrr Would you rather have ALL your years taken away and NO money granted? I didn't say the alternative is perfect, merely superior.

[CompleteRationality]

@HonestDiscussioner First of all, if someone innocent has years of their life taken away, that lost time cannot be regained. A 70 year old innocent man is exonerated after being imprisoned for 40 years. What could possibly compensate for that? You think that money can? It's not a better alternative. Furthermore, it doesn't guarantee exoneration for the innocent. Death penalty cases total at around 1500. Compare that to the total number of cases where people have received life in prison.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@CompleteRationality Okay, you're a 40 year old who is given a choice:death, or $3,200,000 after spending 30 years in prison. Which would you pick? The comparisons are biased, because if the death penalty didn't exist, the people working on those cases could be working on easier, non-death penalty cases, thus allowing more innocents to be exonerated. I realize I can't prove this to be the case, but the possibility should not be discounted either.

[Epydemic2020]

There is another morally significant difference between deaths caused by speed limit and deaths caused by the death penalty. That difference is called "the doctrine of double effect".

"Speed limit X will cause innocent people to die" is a bit different from saying "policy X will cause me to kill innocent people".

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Epydemic2020 I believe I can agree with this statement. I was planning on saying something similar along the lines of "there's a difference in war between bombing an enemy fortification that may or may not have innocent civilians in there, and bombing a civilian installment in order to get one guy while he's shopping".

[Epydemic2020]

@HonestDiscussioner

Yup, that is the same principle expressed by a different analogy. The only downside is that, although the average person recognizes the difference as important, someone like an act utilitarian would not think the difference is significant.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Epydemic2020 You know I'm a consequentalist, but I recognize the difference because I incorporate virtue into my morality on the basis that virtue has consequence. Attacking the grocery store means you don't value innocent life, which will affect your later actions . . . well . . that's putting it rather simply . . . I'd have to go into further detail to really explain my position, but hopefully you get the jist.

[Epydemic2020]

@HonestDiscussioner

That's interesting. So "habitutation" is important to your viewpoint. Honestly I would incorporate some of that into my view if I was a consequentialist too. I don't think it quite fixes that particular issue tho. What kind of consequentialist are you specifically? (which consequence/consequences are the only things which are intrinsically valuable?) I'm gonna be doing a comprehensive assault on utilitarianism soon, i think you may enjoy that lil series.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Epydemic2020 "I'm gonna be doing a comprehensive assault on utilitarianism soon, i think you may enjoy that lil series."

Ooooooh it's on . . . it's on like Donkey Kong!

In all seriousness, it's quite possible that my form of consequentialism is unique. Most forms seem to be concerned with the direct consequences of an action, whereas mine is more concerned with the future prospects of an action and a state of affairs. cont.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Epydemic2020 cont. My version actually cares relatively little for the immediate consequences of an action. Emphasis on the "relatively". For example, a person slipping and accidentally stabbing a person in the heart with a knife has the exact same immediate consequence as someone who purposefully stabs that same person in the heart in exactly the same way, but the future actions of these two individuals are going to be markedly different based on their reasons for performing that action.

[Epydemic2020]

@HonestDiscussioner

I think I have a pretty good grasp on the habituation argument. "Habits" created now, be it beliefs, values, desensitization, etc create a sort of slippery slope that will probably lead to negative future actions/consequences. I just don't think this totally solves the problem. There are several reasons why negative consequences may not "actually" result from bad "habits". Its just a general rule, and utilitarianism deals with actual consequences, not just general rules.

[Gnomefro]

@Epydemic2020 "Its just a general rule, and utilitarianism deals with actual consequences, not just general rules."

If that was true, then no utilitarian could ever plan anything in advance. It's pretty clear that they will have to resort to probabilistic arguments and expected increase in human welfare to get anything done. Making judgements about the nature of perpetrators is one of these cases, and it will have to be weighted against the value of freedom etc.

[Epydemic2020]

@Gnomefro

You just pointed out what is called 'The epistemic problem" and it poses quite a problem of "applied ethics" when it comes to utilitarianism.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Epydemic2020 I think you have an incorrect perception of habituation. My brief google search got me this definition: "Habituation, a form of non-associative learning, is the psychological process in humans and other organisms in which there is a decrease in psychological and behavioral response to a stimulus after repeated exposure to that stimulus over a duration of time."

I'm not dissing what your saying, merely pointing out the differences in definition.

[Epydemic2020]

@HonestDiscussioner

I am aware of that type of habituation as well (that's how a modern psychologist would use the term), but I am using the term in the way Aristotle used it. Aristotle said, "virtues arise in us neither by nature nor contrary to nature; but by our nature we can receive them and perfect them by habituation". Even if your current habits didn't have good or bad consequences now, you might be fostering the type of traits that will likely lead you to do good or evil tomorrow.

OR

[Epydemic2020]

continued

Or as you said it quite nicely, "virtue has consequence... which will affect your later actions." I think that is almost the exact same idea that Aristotle expresses when he says "virtues... by our nature we can receive them and perfect them by habituation".

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Epydemic2020 oops. Sorry, I just realized I already had the habituation discussion with you. Please disregard my previous attempt to explain it to you with the "BOO!" analogy. My bad.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Epydemic2020 I believe the ideas you speaking of you have a firm grasp on, but the name you use is what troubles me. Habituation is when you receive a stimulus over and over again and it eventually starts to lose its effect. Imagine I shout "BOO!" behind you and jump, but I begin to do that every time I'm behind you, eventually it would lose its effect on you and eventually you wouldn't jump at all.

[Epydemic2020]

@HonestDiscussioner

Unless you are a "rule utilitarian", but I think "act utilitarianism" is the only somewhat defensible position for a utilitarian to take.

[Gnomefro]

@Epydemic2020 "but I think "act utilitarianism" is the only somewhat defensible position for a utilitarian to take."

Morality is well known to be far more complex than any of the simple -isms. On the other hand, all the various -isms also capture important aspects of what we call morality. The value of utilitarianism is mostly that it has a firm grasp on the idea that consequences to humans matter - which tends to fall through the cracks of divine command theory etc.

[Epydemic2020]

@Gnomefro

"The value of utilitarianism is mostly that it has a firm grasp on the idea that consequences to humans matter"

I agree that circumstances matter, but that's certainly not the goal of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism has two goals.

1. To show that pleasure or happiness is inherently valauble.

2. To show that pleasure or happiness is the only thing which is inherently valuable.

The utilitarian seeks not to show that consequences matter, but to show that consequence are all that matters.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Epydemic2020 "Unless you are a "rule utilitarian", but I think "act utilitarianism" is the only somewhat defensible position for a utilitarian to take"

I still assert my position is unique. In my readings, I've not come across anything that exactly describes what I hold to.

[mordinvan]

Yes, traffic accidents, if at any point someone can chose to disobey the speed limit, and kill you when they lose control of their vehicle, whether you are driving, a passenger, a pedestrian, or simply sitting in your living room when the car comes through the wall.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@mordinvan Their ability to disobey isn't so much the point. The fact is that if we lowered speed limits to below 50 miles an hour, it would save lives. Why don't we? According to Sisyphus, and I can't necessarily disagree with him, it's so we can get to our destinations a little bit sooner, which is a bit more trivial than dishing out justice.

[mordinvan]

@HonestDiscussioner

Yes, but this is a case where I can't opt out of traffic safety, unless I move some place cars can not get too, which is my point.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@mordinvan Well then you're argument is for all traffic at all, but then we'd have to consider the lives saved by motor vehicles like ambulances and fire trucks, and food shipment and increased revenue to buy food and medicine thanks to being able to work at a place far from your home, and it isn't as cut and dry as simply lowering the speed limit.

[mordinvan]

@HonestDiscussioner

You only asked for a policy which 'could' cost me my life, which I 'could not' opt out of.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@mordinvan Implied in Sisyphus's argument was that the policy would kill more innocents than it saved.

[mordinvan]

@HonestDiscussioner

Ok... I just had a shot of blueberry vodka with doctor pepper, and I'm not sure I'm getting you at the moment. These 2 things 'may' be linked. His argument was that it saves far more innocent people then it kills, due to higher exoneration rates, unless I'm missing something. If I am, I suspect I may have already stated a possible cause.

[AncientAtheist]

What Sisyphus unintentionally demonstrated more than anything else is that we as a society. and specifically the legal system, should be doing a much better job of examining non-death penalty cases more closely to see if exoneration is called for.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@AncientAtheist I don't think he would disagree with you, but we'll have to ask him.

[mordinvan]

@AncientAtheist

I doubt it was quite so unintentional.

[Scarletpooky]

On the mater of time taken. How many of those life sentance cases are the result of plea bargains where there's little trial time? With a tiny 117 hours average I wouldn't be suprised if a great many of them are 'confess and go straight to jail for life or go to court and risk death'.

Surely if there's so little time spent of life sentance cases it's an arguement for all murder trials to be more comprehensive.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Scarletpooky I was thinking something similar, but it was one of those points I mentioned where I felt it would be better done in person.

[Scarletpooky]

I have a problem with the comparison about the entire prison populations. imo better comparisons would be only crimes where there is the possibility of innocence (eg excluding all those caught in the process of commiting a crime etc) and then seperate the statistics between the various groups: death sentance, other murder sentances, other crimes. That would make a much better comparison

[socrates856]

Agreed to all your points raised. SR made a set of assumptions that he didn't show hold. It is indeed not clear at all that hours spend on death row candidates simply disappear and in fact DR may be causal to non-DR cases not getting resources. That is to be shown.

[DeletedDelusion]

I think the diference is that with car accidents or lung cancer, these are unwanted byproducts of actions but with the death penalty there is specific intent to destroy a human life.

Besides, I hearead the German law professor Reinhard Merkel say in an interview something along the lines of, the sole right for a state to exist is based upon the existence of it's citizens, therefore if the state was to execute a citizen it would undermine it's own right of existence.

[calmreason]

In the UK we have pedestrians - they are road users who don't use a car. They are most likely to be killed in an RTI because they lack a protective metal shell. Also cyclists.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@calmreason What's an RTI?

[calmreason]

@HonestDiscussioner Road Traffic Incident. (They don't call it an Accident anymore, because that detracts from an application of fault).

[HonestDiscussioner]

@calmreason Are these happening in the city? Would decreasing the speed limit help? These are important questions to the point.

[calmreason]

@HonestDiscussioner Actually, in a (Victorian) city near me, there are a lot of 20mph speed limits. I specify Victorian because when they put up the housing, no consideration for traffic was made and two cars can't pass if there are residents cars parked (which there always are, since no one has a drive). I don't have any figures for road deaths - my point was made partly in jest, as I've heard that you don't have pedestrians in USA and you even drive to the post box :-)

[justicetrooper]

You can opt out of roads above 45 miles an hour? But can you opt out of the risks created by the roads over 45 miles an hour? Drivers (especially drunk ones) may find themselves "velocitized" by high-speed roads and increase risk of those on neighboring roads. In addition one needs to think of the comparatively higher fuel intake of faster cars that those who depend on the atmosphere can not opt out of. I'm stretching it a tad, but trying to make the point that most policy is unavoidable.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@justicetrooper Sure, you can just decide to not drive on roads that have speed limits over 45, or just not drive at all. We're only talking here about whether or not we should lower all roads to 45 miles an hour, since that would prevent loss of life. If you argue that it's an acceptable risk, then so could keeping the death penalty, which is what Sisyphus is arguing. Other dangers that involve drunk driving should be considered separately.

[justicetrooper]

@HonestDiscussioner Hmmm... I guess I'm trying to rebut your argument that the risks of speed limit and risks of death penalty are apples and oranges on account that one can be opted out of. One can not legally opt out of death row. At the same time, children living on roads with high speed limits.can not opt out of possible dangers created by fast-moving traffic. Fort the most part one can opt out, but some consequences will generally fall upon those who can not, even if in extreme minority.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@justicetrooper If houses are in danger, I'd argue there should be laws protecting those houses from incoming cars.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@justicetrooper I stand on there being a difference in society having laxer laws that otherwise could prevent loss of life as long as that policy only affects those participate in that aspect to which the law applies. Your car crash example doesn't count towards the 45 mph argument, because legally I know residential roads can't have speed limits higher than 35, if I recall.

[justicetrooper]

@HonestDiscussioner Fair enough. Also, I'm not so sure about the specifics of the events. This was in the 50's and 60's in a very poor rural community, so there could be chance of failure to regulate/establish speed limits, or the drunk driver could have just been speeding. In any case, it was an attempt to find an example of someone not involved with driving that could be affected by those who are driving. I'm more knit-picking than putting out an argument, myself, and so I'll concede.

[smpunditz]

Pollution is an example of something that can take life but you can't really opt out of.



[HonestDiscussioner]

@smpunditz Yes, but how many people are honestly pro-pollution and anti-death penalty?

[smpunditz]

@HonestDiscussioner well a certain level of pollution is necessary in order for our economy to function. Cars themselves produce pollution and that is one of the examples Sisyphus used.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@smpunditz I still don't think that's the same thing. Accidents directly cause deaths while pollution depends on the area you live, and if anything "shortens" you life, rather than "ends it". The moral difference I would argue is enough to keep them separate.

[DeletedDelusion]

@smpunditz With pollution like with traffic accidents, billions of tax payer money is spent each year to reduce accidents and pollution. It might not be always enough, but the effort is made.

[IzzySpeaks]

Who is he to decide that one life is worth more than another? A life lost is a life lost.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@IzzySpeaks We wasn't arguing that. He was arguing that if we refuse to accept innocent loss of life, then we should also not let the speed limit go over 45, since that would save way more lives that eliminating the death penalty.

[IzzySpeaks]

@HonestDiscussioner I agree - there are millions more that die on our hiways than on death row.