If you would bother to read Bill's posts to you you wouldn't have to ask questions that have already been answered.
First: one anecdotal report isn't proof enough for me, especially where human lives were and remain at stake. And that doesn't even begin to take into account that Solon also cited figures; figures that, not surprisingly, express a diametrically opposed conclusion.
Any comment on that, 'Fangorn'?
And, seeing as you've failed to make this connection: my opinion that one life taken accidentally is too many also makes the arguments circumlocuting deterrence a bit of an aside.
But, if you insist...
First case: It's essentially impossible (at best, statistically pedestrian) to prove with any certainty beyond conjecture what is causal merely by pushing time series of variables together.
Exemplis gratis, first case: One could as easily claim that any variable that didn't stay flat over the time period of the sample - the average length of hems on dresses, the number of packs of cigarettes sold, the number of people who bought a blue house, average humidity - had a relationship with and subsequently an impact upon the murder rate, whether direct or inverse.
Second case: It's logically amateur (or learnedly fallacious, your pick) to project what "might have been" merely by extrapolating seemingly correlated time series forward temporally. A rigorous approach to statistics, whether in finance or these draconian attempts at government empowerment, involves evidence that is if nothing else: falsifiable.
Exemplis gratis, second case: This is an epistemological error; essentially saying that the future will resemble the past. If it can't be proven false, necessarily, it's specious reasoning and no foundation for an argument.
Are you willing to make the leap that the future will resemble the past?
[I'm] still waiting for the name of an executed innocent[.]
I can't provide a name of anyone who was absolutely innocent any more than you can provide one who was absolutely guilty. (Perhaps my phraseology in early posts left something to be desired, but this is, in fact, a message board.)
Bill, in fact, brought that point up by saying that as many as 7,000 - all of them - were possibly innocent. Though that's true, I'm inclined to believe that some were, in fact, guilty: in all likelihood, I'd venture, most. It nonetheless gets to the heart of my philosophy and how your beloved Bureaucratic Mistake Machine comes into play.
And regarding the post containing a refutation of the claim that 23 executions were highly suspect: it still left 3 about which there were lingering questions. Even if you are inclined to believe that - especially given the emotionally charged nature of this topic - I've already said that one is too high a price to pay. For the umpteenth time, in my opinion.
I'm not a bleeding heart and don't share the same philosophical approaches to capital punishment that PartyTime mentioned in his post. I'm just far less willing to contribute to the upward flow of responsibility and power where individuals and government are concerned, especially where lives are at stake.
[O]h incredible one.
Thank you. You know your place, I'll say that.
Run along now, unless you have further questions. In particular, if you don't intend on addressing the issues I've raised in this post.
LPS5 |
