Philosophy Now Forum

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:52 pm What do you think of the statistics on the number of death-row prisoners who are later exonerated or found to be innocent?

130 out of 3035, and 268 clematises, not necessarily because they were innocent. Less than 4% released because they were innocent.

FYI, statistics from "Death Penalty Statistics" and "List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year".

Because some people whine about my source of information.

I don't know why you made 5 different posts responding to the same thing, but yes, it's generally considered to be around 4%. Another study from 2014 from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences estimated it at around 4.1%. 1.6% were exonerated after their initial ruling.

The problem I have behind the death sentence is if you're making a case for a principle that we need to dish out unscrupulous punishment for those that unlawfully kill an innocent individual; Since we manage to kill some innocent individuals by doing the very thing that's suppose to justify it, I think there's certainly an argument to be made about its logical consistency. Do we apply the same principle and ironically kill the death sentence?

I'm a little confused why you bring up automobile accidents to compare it. I'm not just talking about deaths as a sheer value, I'm wondering if the principle behind why we allow the death sentence is even coherent.

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:36 am FYI, statistics from "Death Penalty Statistics" and "List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year".

Because some people whine about my source of information.

That's actually not really a source, but telling me what the numbers are about.

Want to add that just because we don't understand the motives of the violent criminals simply means our science is insufficient and isn't reason enough to deem a criminal insane. Therefore I feel comfortable with putting such criminals to death.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:45 am Want to add that just because we don't understand the motives of the violent criminals simply means our science is insufficient and isn't reason enough to deem a criminal insane. Therefore I feel comfortable with putting such criminals to death.

PhilX

That has nothing to do with what I've brought up. I was getting at the point that we give the death sentence to a lot of innocent people through false convictions.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:00 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:45 am Want to add that just because we don't understand the motives of the violent criminals simply means our science is insufficient and isn't reason enough to deem a criminal insane. Therefore I feel comfortable with putting such criminals to death.

PhilX

That has nothing to do with what I've brought up. I was getting at the point that we give the death sentence to a lot of innocent people through false convictions.

It wasn't meant to be a response to you. I'm just offering my own rational response to this thread.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:27 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:00 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:45 am Want to add that just because we don't understand the motives of the violent criminals simply means our science is insufficient and isn't reason enough to deem a criminal insane. Therefore I feel comfortable with putting such criminals to death.

PhilX

That has nothing to do with what I've brought up. I was getting at the point that we give the death sentence to a lot of innocent people through false convictions.

It wasn't meant to be a response to you. I'm just offering my own rational response to this thread.

PhilX

Well, the thread was originally about hunting, so can you be more specific?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:38 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:27 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:00 am
That has nothing to do with what I've brought up. I was getting at the point that we give the death sentence to a lot of innocent people through false convictions.

It wasn't meant to be a response to you. I'm just offering my own rational response to this thread.

PhilX

Well, the thread was originally about hunting, so can you be more specific?

The post is very specific and responds to the morphed section of this thread. What is it you don't understand?

PhilX

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:00 am That has nothing to do with what I've brought up. I was getting at the point that we give the death sentence to a lot of innocent people through false convictions.

And that is why there is an automatic appeal and review of every death sentence.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:42 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:38 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:27 am

It wasn't meant to be a response to you. I'm just offering my own rational response to this thread.

PhilX

Well, the thread was originally about hunting, so can you be more specific?

The post is very specific and responds to the morphed section of this thread. What is it you don't understand?

PhilX

I don't where the thread morphed to make it relevant to talk about the science of an insanity defense.

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:21 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:00 am That has nothing to do with what I've brought up. I was getting at the point that we give the death sentence to a lot of innocent people through false convictions.

And that is why there is an automatic appeal and review of every death sentence.

We can't do that if we've already killed them. I wasn't bringing up exonerations to just talk about flaws in the system, but the amount of innocent people we must end up killing from false convictions.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:37 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:21 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:00 am That has nothing to do with what I've brought up. I was getting at the point that we give the death sentence to a lot of innocent people through false convictions.

And that is why there is an automatic appeal and review of every death sentence.

We can't do that if we've already killed them. I wasn't bringing up exonerations to just talk about flaws in the system, but the amount of innocent people we must end up killing from false convictions.

You are conflating "death sentence" and "execution", they are not the same.

That is a logical fallacy and that is typical of someone who has no valid argument. Would you prefer that the system does not appeal and review a death sentence?

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:54 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:37 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:21 am

And that is why there is an automatic appeal and review of every death sentence.

We can't do that if we've already killed them. I wasn't bringing up exonerations to just talk about flaws in the system, but the amount of innocent people we must end up killing from false convictions.

You are conflating "death sentence" and "execution", they are not the same.

I think you see what I mean.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:58 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:54 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:37 pm
We can't do that if we've already killed them. I wasn't bringing up exonerations to just talk about flaws in the system, but the amount of innocent people we must end up killing from false convictions.

You are conflating "death sentence" and "execution", they are not the same.

I think you see what I mean.

I think that you are making a mistake.

How so?