[Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty

[Joe Campbell]

Sorry but I'm having trouble sleeping -- so I'm going to comment on
this, too. Here is Andreas' argument -- which is VERY good, I think:

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.

In response to the first premise, Art makes two points. First, he
claims that the "first premise does not apply". Second, he asks: "By
what method, one that is generally agreed upon, can you establish the
truth of your first premise"? Art makes no comment about the second
premise but at another point he concedes "The probability that Joseph
Duncan is innocent is infinitesimally close to zero." Given this is
only a probability, it is likely true in societies that consistently
and regularly apply the death penalty. Also, there is evidence from
societies that do apply the death penalty that this is true.

Art says, given that Duncan is likely guilty, the "first premise does
not apply". But I don't see the argument. In fact, I think that since
Duncan's guilt is only probable (and ESPECIALLY given the concession
of the second premise), it is more than likely that the state would
sanction the killing of an innocent person, were the death penalty
applied on a consistent and regular basis.

I've already commented on Art's second point in another post. I
disagree, respectfully, for he is raising an important and somewhat
obvious set of questions: Who is to say about ethics? And it does no
good to note that God is to say. Of course (I say to my fellow
believers), God is to say. Art is not asking about that. He is asking,
How can anyone know that God (or something else) is to say? Who knows
who is to say, or what it would even mean to say that something is
right or something is wrong? How could we come to know this? Theories
abound but answers are lacking.

I think it is the wrong question to ask. A better question is: What is
the right thing to do? In response, I say: it is wrong to kill
innocent persons, always. How do I know  this? You tell me how I know
-- by whatever standard you suggest -- that I have a hand, and I'll
show that it is wrong to kill innocent persons. It is common sense.
Nothing more is needed and nothing more can be given.

I think that is a pretty good argument for premise one. I'd like to
know what you think -- and thanks for your thoughtful post!

Best, Joe

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
> 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
>> =======================================================
>>
>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
>