Question For Death Penalty Opponents

[David Sklansky]

This question obviously applies only to those who oppose the death penalty under any conditions:

Suppose a proposal was brought up that would limit the criteria for, and thus reduce, the number of executions. Something like "only those who murder for money are eligible for the death sentence". That's just an example.

Suppose further that we somehow know that if the proposal is enacted, for every hundred executions now being carried out, the number, under this proposal, would shrink to x. But we also know that if the proposal is enacted, there will no longer be any chance to muster up enough public support to totally ban the death penalty in this country.

How small a number would x have to be for you to support the proposal?

[BluffTHIS!]

I am not going to respond to your question per se since I believe the death penalty is inappropriate in most though not all cases. However you bring a good way of looking at other issues as well such as abortion. Make no mistake, I am against abortion for any reason whatsoever. However both the pro-abortion and anti-abortion political groups never want to split it down the middle. Most polls show that the majority of americans while slightly being in favor of abortion, would nonetheless agree to a law banning abortion after the first trimester for any reason whatsoever while allowing it during that first trimester, and with the understanding that no further legislation or judicial intervention on the question would be allowed. Naturally the two camps collude to make sure that type of choice is not presented to the voting public either directly or via a constitutional amendment. Despite my abolutist position against abortion morally, I have often thought that such a political deal could be allowed simply because it would reduce the scope of abortion so much and because the anti-abortion movement could still use persuasion and peaceful protest, along with stigmatizing those who perform abortions, as a means to further reduce it, which such means actually have.

This is typical of many issues in american politics, even those without religious/moral overtones, where the two parties or two interest groups collude to prevent the public from choosing a middle option. Only those states with ballot initiatives have such a vehicle for the public to do so.

[SheetWise]

How many women would study acrobatics and have an arm amputated?

[John Cole]

David, one problem with the question stems from the the opening. You address the question to those of us, and I am one of them, who would oppose the death penalty under any conditions. Then, you propose a scenario by which we would then support the death penalty if the number of executions would be reduced to x.

It's not a matter of numbers but of philosophy.

Let me propose a similar sort of situation, one that actually does have a real life counterpart. Some lawmakers and the Supreme Court (and Sandra Day O'Connor outlined a method for this by which she would change her vote) wish to limit the number of abortions performed each year. So, for example, only one-armed acrobats can receive abortions during the first trimester. Certainly, this would reduce the number significantly. How many abortion opponents would then support abortion?

[David Sklansky]

You are not getting my question.

"So, for example, only one-armed acrobats can receive abortions during the first trimester. Certainly, this would reduce the number significantly. How many abortion opponents would then support abortion?"

They ALL would support this legislation if there was no downside. The analagous question to mine would be how many would support it if the enactment would eliminate any chance of a complete ban in the future. Given your example my guess is most.

If it is still unclear, I'll let Bluff This explain it.

[John Cole]

David, yes, I did get the question and the part about the effect of applying limited circumstances. I am opposed to the death penalty, and the idea that it will be in place forever, albeit applied only in limited circumstances, does not appeal to me. For the same reason, Pro-lifers, and let's include the ardent who view stem cell research as abortion, would oppose allowing abortions for one-armed acrobats in the first trimester.

BTW, as Bluffthis mentions, 70% of Americans favor a woman's right to choose but are also against abortion as a method of birth control. The other 30% are about equally divided between those who oppose abortion and those who favor abortion in any circumstances and for any reson. Yet, all we ever seem to hear from are the 15% who convince us the country is completely polarized on the issue.

[David Sklansky]

Give me a number dammit.

[John Cole]

LOL. Okay, Okay. Based on my previous post, x=15.

[spaminator101]

not me

[ACPlayer]

There is a problem with an implicit premise in your question.

1. THat the death penalty is desirable and appropriate for any crime. I think not. Those committing the most grievous crime should be locked up for ever (preferably under harsh conditions) to contemplate the ruins of their lives.

2. That the opposition is based on the number of executions as opposed to the possibility of the guilty being executed.

So, for me the number is 0.