Question For Death Penalty Opponents

David Sklansky · #1 08-12-2005, 10:22 PM

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! · #2 08-12-2005, 10:45 PM

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.

John Cole · #3 08-12-2005, 11:27 PM

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?

ACPlayer · #4 08-12-2005, 11:52 PM

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.

David Sklansky · #5 08-13-2005, 01:43 AM

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.

David Sklansky · #6 08-13-2005, 01:53 AM

You are not getting my question.

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.

Neither point is implied in my question. The only thing I imply is that reducing the number of executions is better than no reduction at all as far as death penalty opponents are concerned. All my question really asks is whether a large enough reduction now and forever is worth giving up all chance of a total ban, and if so, how big must that reduction be. (I ask this question for a yet unnannounced reason by the way.)

If this is still unclear, I ask that BluffThis explain it further.

The Dude · #7 08-13-2005, 05:17 AM

David,

Since I don't have any idea what the probability is that the death penalty will be revoked in the future, not what time frame that might happen, I'm not even going to try to answer this question. If we stipulated that there is less than a 10% chance that the death penalty will be completely revoked in the U.S. within the next 100 years, my answer for 'x' would be a lot higher than if it were stipulated that there is a 50% chance it will be revoked in the next ten years.

I'm willing to entertain this type of compromise legislation, but I'm not willing to put out a specific number without more information.

David Sklansky · #8 08-13-2005, 05:28 AM

David,

"Since I don't have any idea what the probability is that the death penalty will be revoked in the future, nor what time frame that might happen, I'm not even going to try to answer this question. If we stipulated that there is less than a 10% chance that the death penalty will be completely revoked in the U.S. within the next 100 years, my answer for 'x' would be a lot higher than if it were stipulated that there is a 50% chance it will be revoked in the next ten years.

I'm willing to entertain this type of compromise legislation, but I'm not willing to put out a specific number without more information."

I understand that knowing the probability the death penalty will be revoked given various number of years would make this question easier to pin down. But I purposely did not do that since I would only be guessing. I'm asking people to give me their answers taking into account their own personal opinion regarding the aforementioned probability. This is not just an academic question either. And it doesn't, as BluffThis noted, just apply to the death penalty.

sexdrugsmoney · #9 08-13-2005, 05:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

0.

A negotiated contract re: the death penalty is as foolish as a Government thinking it was the right to consciously exterminate people.

People given life sentances/death peanlty sentances should be slaves for the rest of their lives and increase the GDP of the country that they commited the crime in, specifically in agricultural work.

Seperation from society is very different than murder.

The Dude · #10 08-13-2005, 05:41 AM

You are correct, and I do think there is value in this kind of approach. But it more than just "makes it easier to pin down." It defines the answer. It becomes purely a question of math. If Situation A (accepting the conditionally restrictive legislation) results in an expected x number of executions, and Situation B (holding out for completely restricitve legislation) resluts in an expected y number of executions, you simply choose the one that is lesser.

Is your question really "Are you willing to support legislation that admits actions that you consider wrong under any circumstances, as long as you can reasonably expect that it will decrease the frequency of that action?" If so, my answer is 'yes,' and anybody who says 'no' is being naive and irresponsible. If you're willing to support that kind of legislation when you "know" it will reduce said action by 10,000 occurances, you should be willing to support it if it only reduces it by 1 occurance.