Death Penalty Article

[rikz]

I think Mr. Sklansky's article extends the philosophy of Utilitarianism in an interesting, and provacative way by introducing the notion of probabilities and risk into to the calculation of what action creates the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Or, in this case, what action creates the least harm for the greatest number.

Utilitarianism links

I am not much of a utilitarian. I'm more of a right wing WASP who happens to like poker. But I've always found the philosophy to be compelling. Applying Bayes Theorem in the calculation of utility seems to take that philosophy to another, even more interesting, level.

I like the argument Mr. Sklansky makes because I like the notion of applying probability theory, and perhaps game theory, to the calculation of Utility quite a bit. I don't plan to write my congressman, but this is interesting stuff.

Thanks.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
Can people confirm that I'm not seeing things? Have a really just read an article about refinements to the death penalty in a POKER magazine.

I'm not objecting to this on the merits of David's argument, but that it just doesn't belong in such a magazine. Mason has indicated on a number of occasions that this magazine was going to be of far higher quality (in terms of advice and strategy) than other poker mags out there. Granted, the advice in other publications is often second-rate or poorly-explained, but not once have I seen them veer so off topic with an article as in this case.

Ed arguments in defense of Barron's article last month eventually had me on his side. In this case, I very much doubt this will happen.

I still think that the content of most articles is top-notch. It's just a shame to see something so irrelevant included in the issue.

What do others think about it?

John

[/ QUOTE ]

i think this is asign of his increasing instability. not a joke but a serious comment. the fact that virtually every sentence is an an insult to rational argument is beside the point. The fact he feels the need to come out of the Science, Math, philosophy closet and put forward nonsense such as this as official 2 2 poker policy is staggering.

[David Sklansky]

You guys are very strange. I wrote about this subject many years ago. And the conclusions are almst undebatable. The only question is whether the stuff has already been institut
ed.

A lot of people seemed to be getting tripped up by the Horrbleness points. That was included as a way to get around the possible argument that society has already determined what level of risk they will accept regarding making a mistake when they choose guilty or not guilty. Thus it doesn't have to be decided again regarding death or not death.

I believe that even people of average intelligence know when there is almost zero chance of innocence (as long as he isn't being framed by the police) and can seperate that from cases where there is lingering doubt (eg probably Peterson or Westerfield). And most peopele would not mind that defendents with tiny doubt associated with their convictions, be spared, if they definitely get life in prison. The details of defining the criteria I left up to others. Perhaps the judge rather than the jury should make the call. Just because some of the posters here are too dumb to understand the notion of probability involving historic events, doesn't mean that most in the crimal justice system are.

[odellthurman]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that even people of average intelligence know when there is almost zero chance of innocence (as long as he isn't being framed by the police) and can seperate that from cases where there is lingering doubt (eg probably Peterson or Westerfield). And most peopele would not mind that defendents with tiny doubt associated with their convictions, be spared, if they definitely get life in prison. The details of defining the criteria I left up to others. Perhaps the judge rather than the jury should make the call. Just because some of the posters here are too dumb to understand the notion of probability involving historic events, doesn't mean that most in the crimal justice system are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who does David consider to be "in the criminal justice system"? In most States, the only qualification for jury service is that you be 18, a citizen, and not a felon. Therefore, the juries making these decisions will often be comprised of at least some persons with much less than "average intelligence". And I'm David realizes, as a math genius, that there will occasionally be juries that comprised solely of persons of much less than "average intelligence." David makes a comment about letting the judge decide, but, as a lawyer, I can honestly say that you will occasionally have judges with much less than "average intelligence." So, even with David's plan, you still end up with the problem of innocent people being executed, because the decision-maker(s) cannot understand the standard and/or how to apply it.

Also, what about the situation where the crime is so offensive and charged (Scott Peterson, for example), that the decision-maker(s) understands the standard and how to apply it, but makes a decision based on emotion and/or politics?

The more interesting death penalty topic, and one that is more susceptible to using logical arguments as part of the discussion, would be to examine the effects of even having a death penalty in the first place. Does it serve as a deterrent? How expensive is it compared to life without parole?

[David Sklansky]

None of these arguments changes a simple fact. If you are going to allow the death penalty at all, it should only be for cases where the chance of innocence is miniscule. Miniscule being an even smaller chance than what is tolerated as the chance for innocence when deciding whether to convict.

I don't care about politics, the morality of the death sentence, the fact that implementation of the idea has logistical problems, or whatever. I just want people to see that the second sentence is true and that capitol punishment is one of those subjects where the subject of probability applies.

This subject is misplaced. It belongs in the drunken geek forum. I'm surprised at the author and his insulting comments. His methodology to poker can not be applied to the death penalty. This tangent is crazy.

[George Rice]

David,

Have you considered that some jurors in capital cases are concerned about finding a defendant guilty because they know he may face execution. And that this may increase their personal standard on how likely they will vote guilty (let's say up to 98% sure)?

If this is true, some jurors may lower their standards a little if they know that the defendant will get life in prison at worst (to perhaps as low as 95% sure of guilt).

The result of this is that more guilty defendants will be convicted AND more innocent defendants will be convicted too. So, in effect, you are buying the lives of innocent defendants with the freedom or other innocent defendants, with the added benefit of convicting a lot of guilty ones too.

***

In New York the standard isn't "shadow of a doubt" like in the movies, but a "reasonable doubt." A reasonable doubt being defined as a doubt to which you can assign a reason. I think this is a little looser than "shadow of a doubt" standard many assume.

I served on one jury for murder (not capital) and can tell you my experience is that the jurors were not all that swift. In fact, I think the lawyers look for jurors they thing they can fool. I was also surprised how some jurors bring their personal prejudges to the table and express all sorts of opinions without having a basis derived from the facts of the case.

***

David, I pose a question to you (and I realize you may not agree that your proposal will result in more innocent people being found guilty, but others may):

If you were accused of a capital crime and had a choice of having 98% chance of being found innocent, and a 2% chance of being executed, or, a 95% chance of being found innocent, a 4.5% chance of receiving life in prison and a .5% chance of being executed, which would you chose?

Perhaps it's not accurate to assume there is a 95% chance that the jury will be 95% sure. So use your own numbers. Better yet, what would be your numbers if the decision was a coin flip to you?

It may not be exactly the issue you raise but the answer to that question would be determined by how a person values his freedom. Some may even prefer death than life in prison, if that resulted in them being Bubba's personal boy toy for the rest of their lives. And I think many people will look at your proposal from this point of view.

***

Do you think that reasoning will triumph over politics?

[ QUOTE ]
The more interesting death penalty topic, and one that is more susceptible to using logical arguments as part of the discussion, would be to examine the effects of even having a death penalty in the first place. Does it serve as a deterrent? How expensive is it compared to life without parole?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those aren't very interesting questions, because they have answers. The question of whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent has been exhaustively studied. No evidence a correlation between use of death penalty and murder rates has ever been found in a reputable study. In fact some jurisdictions have experienced rises in crime since implementation of the death penalty and death penalty states frequently have higher rates of violent crime than states without the penalty. There are so many factors at play, however, that the statistical evidence can only be termed inconclusive.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...12&did=167

What is not subject to doubt is that the death penalty is vastly more expensive than life without parole.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...=7#From%20DPIC

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

A lot of people seemed to be getting tripped up by the Horrbleness points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Count me in the bunch getting "tripped up" by the Horribleness Points. For instance, you assign 50 HPs to send a murderer back on to the streets, but 600 HPs to giving an innocent man the needle. But what if the murderer we wrongly set free kills another 15 innocent people? Then wouldn't that be a far greater mistake?

Murderers who are unlikely to be repeat offenders should be assigned fewer HPs than giving an innocent person the death penalty, but murderers who are likely to be repeat offenders should be given more HPs than those innocents.

As you point out, the actual numbers you assigned are arbitrary, but my point is that there would be a GREAT deal of variables to consider in order to come up with reasonable numbers to determine the probablilities that would be in society's best interests. I do not think you have considered all of them.

Otherwise, it's an interesting idea you propose. As an aside, I would enjoy one (and probably only one) off-topic article like this per month.

[ QUOTE ]
Count me in the bunch getting "tripped up" by the Horribleness Points. For instance, you assign 50 HPs to send a murderer back on to the streets, but 600 HPs to giving an innocent man the needle. But what if the murderer we wrongly set free kills another 15 innocent people? Then wouldn't that be a far greater mistake?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any murderer is statistically unlikely to kill other innocent people; the crime has among the lowest recidivism rates. If you think differently, you've been watching too many movies and TV. Someone convicted of DUI and released is more likely to kill an innocent person in the future than a murderer.

No one who commits capital murder would be released to the street unless a jury determined that there was not enough evidence to believe they committed the crime. Once convicted of capital murder, the only available sentences are death and life without parole. So the only opportunities to commit future murders for that person would be in prison.