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.

[Leavenfish]

I have not read all of these posts but...this would in no way address the one overriding argument aginst the death penalty - the morality of it.

Sure, it's unacceptable to put to death an innocent person but this in no way addresses the 'right' of the government to put someone to death when there is a viable alternative --life in prison (preferably with barely humane conditions for the clearly guilty). In fact, it allows for it.

---Leavenfish

[David Sklansky]

"I have not read all of these posts but...this would in no way address the one overriding argument aginst the death penalty - the morality of it."

As I've written before "my subjects choose me". Which is why people who criticize me for writing about things outside my field are wrong. I have no particular interest in those fields. Other than the fact that I noticed that some shoddy thinking, often involving probability, is commonplace in that field (like it used to be in poker). My expertise is applying logic and probability to various endeavors. Whether it be deciding on death penalties or two point football conversions. People should make their final decisions taking all factors into account. But no final decison can be trusted if the logic probability part is screwed up.

I wouldnt like to be a part of any "twoplustwo thinktank". I come here to learn and discuss poker related subjects. Not to be bunched up with some death pentalty advocate.

Now this is something I could get behind. I think if 2+2 wanted to get more political, it would get more support & credibility if it focused on gambling issues. Keeping online poker legal should be a top priority for anyone who makes good money in that arena, even if the math isn't as "obvious" as Sklansky's believes for the death penalty issue. There won't be much support from the poker community to rally around unrelated causes, even assuming the public would care about anything we had to say. But I suspect there could be /substantial/ participation if we worked to inform everyone of upcoming gambling legislation and could offer a unified voice.

Not all of us will agree on controversial issues, even if the math is good. But I'm sure we can all agree that we love poker and want to keep the laws on our side.

[ QUOTE ]

How about doing something relevant to 2+2's sphere of influence and reason for existing? You could lead a campaing to oust Arizona GOP Senator Jon Kyl (the pathetic asswipe leading the charge to get Internet poker banned in the U.S.). You could write intellectually sound yet accessible dissertations to discredit the anti-gambling extremism of the religious lunatics and the PC thugs who constantly [censored] up your country. In concert with my second suggestion, you could also propose and get passed ballot initiatives and legislation to liberalise gambling laws in the U.S at the local, the state, and the federal level, remembering that anyhing done by Washington, Beijing, or Moscow tends to be followed by other regimes in the world, for good or for ill.


[/ QUOTE ]

[TaintedRogue]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it amusing that the couple of posters here who state
their disapproval for this type of article are being ignored
while the lemmings continue to fellate and discuss it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the whole situation amusing. I wouldn't go to a bar to get advise on a marital problem, or my barber to get the best facts on real estate prices, or my dentist for my latest stock investment choices.

I go to thoses places for specific purposes. We chat about various subjects, but we don't take each others comments as the golden recommendation.

When I open a poker magazine, I open it for 1 purpose only: to find articles on poker, hidden between all the advertisements.

I think the article was nothing more than a "Look at how well informed, intelligent and articulate I am"

[ QUOTE ]
I guess only BVT has the stones to defend his reasons for his
articles instead of replying only to those that blindly
perpetuate discussions that belong in OT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto

[ QUOTE ]
Can I send in an article about how to create a very believable fake id for next month's mag?

-ZEN

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you may. Mine will be on chosing the right chili receipe for your Super Bowl Party. If that goes over well, I'll consider a detailed accounting of the effects of the destruction of the rainforest.

There would be a lot of math in both.

[sillyarms]

[ QUOTE ]
Both your comments are extremely farfetched and almost certainly wrong. I'll elaborate if it becomes relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
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 instituted.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

[ QUOTE ]
Except actors can't beat the people they are trying to influence on generalized thinking tests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both the article and the above quotes were all put into print because David's ego is even larger than his score on generalized thinking tests.

I am actually a lawyer who has worked in death penalty defense. I had a fellowship for two years in Alabama where I worked at one level or another on the cases of about 48 death row prisoners. I have spoken with several death row inmates, and I have personally met two individuals who were released from death row (after circa 8 years and 18 years, respectively) after their innocence was established. I intend to post something more substantive after I have digested all of the other postings on this forum. However, a quick note here.

No person who has ever been on death row would claim that the experience is equivalent to serving a sentence of life without parole. Death row prisoners are segregated from the general population and typically spend 23 hours per day in individual lockdown. They are not eligible for work opportunities or other programming in the prison. The psychological pressure is intense for obvious reasons. These individuals are not put out of their misery quickly; the average tenure of a death row inmate in prison is twenty years. Some individuals have suggested that, setting aside issues about the punishment itself, the process that death row inmates go through during the appellate and postconviction period (which usually includes the scheduling of many execution dates, with some stays being granted only after the inmate has been prepared for death and is actually connected to the apparatus) is cruel and unusual punishment. Some of our Supreme Court Justices have expressed interest in this argument. Whatever you believe the merits of these issues to be, the statement that there is a practical equivalence between the sentence of life without parole and death is not accurate.