List of best democracies [Archive]

TragicMonkey

23rd November 2006, 10:11 AM

The Economist just published a new "Democracy Index," in which it ranks 167 countries around the world according to their degree of democracy.

The report (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf)

Here's the top 5:

1. Sweden
2. Iceland
3. Netherlands
4. Norway
5. Denmark

Notice any pattern? :)

They almost spell "Sinned".
They all end in consonants.
They are all located in the Milky Way galaxy.
The citizens of each of them are carbon-based lifeforms.
Domestication of the dog is present in each.
There hasn't been a "Survivor" series set in any of them.
None of them have Graceland.
None have wild monkeys in abundant profusion.
My great aunt hasn't visited any of them.

Plenty of patterns. Which are significant? All of them, or just most?

Darat

23rd November 2006, 10:15 AM

Yeah, but look at number 8 and 9: Australia and Canada. Germany is 13.

Hardly micro states.

Australia and Canada have relatively small populations.

CFLarsen

23rd November 2006, 10:16 AM

I edited my post above. Damn you're quick.

No need to edit it. Just acknowledge and move on.

And yes, I am quick. ;)

Well, absolute democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Which is why every "western" democracy we see is a liberal democracy, a blending of two conflicting ideologies. exactly what the optimum for that blend is, is a matter of debate and personal preference.

Eh...come again? What two conflicting ideologies are you talking about?

What do you mean by "liberal" democracy?

I know that you 'Mericans use it somewhat differently than we 'Ropeans do. That's why I ask.

CFLarsen

23rd November 2006, 10:17 AM

Australia and Canada have relatively small populations.

Compared to China and India, sure.

But compared to China and India, the US also has a "relatively small" population.

firecoins

23rd November 2006, 10:19 AM

Why not? When is democracy not a "good thing"?

when your in the minority.:mad:

Darat

23rd November 2006, 10:26 AM

Compared to China and India, sure.

But compared to China and India, the US also has a "relatively small" population.

Well considering that there are some cities in the world with larger populations then say the entire population of Sweden I think saying they are countries with a relatively small population is a fair way of putting it.

Swedish population - around 9 million, population of Denmark around 5 million, population of Australia 20 million, Canada 32 million, population of London - 7 million, population of New York - 8 million, population of Mumbai - 12 million.

Must admit I didn't realize that Canada's population was so large.

CFLarsen

23rd November 2006, 10:31 AM

when your in the minority.:mad:

How will you work around that?

Well considering that there are some cities in the world with larger populations then say the entire population of Sweden I think saying they are countries with a relatively small population is a fair way of putting it.

Swedish population - around 9 million, population of Denmark around 5 million, population of Australia 20 million, Canada 32 million, population of London - 7 million, population of New York - 8 million, population of Mumbai - 12 million.

Well, what does constitute a country with a "large" population, then? The US is dwarfed by both China and India.

Must admit I didn't realize that Canada's population was so large.

And they all - almost - are close to the 'Merican border. :)

firecoins

23rd November 2006, 10:34 AM

Must admit I didn't realize that Canada's population was so large.
When you talk about Canada does that include Quebec or not?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/11/23/canada.quebec.ap/index.html

Marc L

23rd November 2006, 10:40 AM

Why not? When is democracy not a "good thing"?

"Tyranny of the majority," as someone else pointed out, isn't a good thing. Pretend for a minute the US was really a democracy (it isn't), do you think we'd have made the strides we have in Civil Rights? After the Civil War, blacks couldn't even vote, so, why would the government have even bothered acknowledging their equality?

Beyond that, to coin an old cliche, what is popular isn't always right. I know it's bad form to trot out Hitler, but it's true. He was elected into office. Another example I've heard is back in Athens where the majority of citizens voted to put Socrates (or Aristotle, I don't remember which) to death because he doubted the gods.

In a small group of people, democracy works fine. As your group gets larger, it gets harder and harder to get things done. There're 300 million people in the US, can you imagine the majority of our voters agreeing on anything? Heck, look at Congress-there're only about 550 (I think 535, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Suffice it to say, there's not that many people there) Congresspeople-look how long it takes for them to get stuff done.

It's better to have a framework (like our Constitution) which one can use to base future decisions off of. Having a small group of people represent a larger group (like our Congress) enables things to get done a lot faster. No, I'm not saying that the US has the best form of government.* It's still better than an absolute democracy, imo.

*The best form of government would be with me as Supreme Overlord of the Universe. I have experience. I've been playing the Civilization series since it came out :)

Marc

CFLarsen

23rd November 2006, 11:06 AM

"Tyranny of the majority," as someone else pointed out, isn't a good thing. Pretend for a minute the US was really a democracy (it isn't), do you think we'd have made the strides we have in Civil Rights? After the Civil War, blacks couldn't even vote, so, why would the government have even bothered acknowledging their equality?

Beyond that, to coin an old cliche, what is popular isn't always right. I know it's bad form to trot out Hitler, but it's true. He was elected into office. Another example I've heard is back in Athens where the majority of citizens voted to put Socrates (or Aristotle, I don't remember which) to death because he doubted the gods.

And a majority of jurors can condemn someone to death in the US. Now what?

In a small group of people, democracy works fine. As your group gets larger, it gets harder and harder to get things done. There're 300 million people in the US, can you imagine the majority of our voters agreeing on anything? Heck, look at Congress-there're only about 550 (I think 535, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Suffice it to say, there's not that many people there) Congresspeople-look how long it takes for them to get stuff done.

Can you define how small a population has to be, in order for a democracy to work?

It's better to have a framework (like our Constitution) which one can use to base future decisions off of.

But, what happens when that constitution becomes outdated? You will need a majority - that is, a democracy - to change it.

Having a small group of people represent a larger group (like our Congress) enables things to get done a lot faster. No, I'm not saying that the US has the best form of government.* It's still better than an absolute democracy, imo.

Having a democratically elected parliament is exactly the same as having the US Congress.

*The best form of government would be with me as Supreme Overlord of the Universe. I have experience. I've been playing the Civilization series since it came out :)

Marc

I always end up starving people... :)

Kerberos

23rd November 2006, 11:30 AM

Q-Source

23rd November 2006, 11:37 AM

Here's the top 5:

1. Sweden
2. Iceland
3. Netherlands
4. Norway
5. Denmark

Notice any pattern? :)

What have these countries (except for the Netherlands) contributed to the world in terms of technology progress, culture, arts, economics and so on?

What is it that rest of the world should know about them except that they are the most democratic nations? Maybe they´re democratic because nothing is going on over there. I hope people from those countries don´t take my questions in a bad way. I am seriously asking what is happening in those countries that allow them to be "the most democratic". This didn´t happen in a vacuum, did it?

Dave1001

23rd November 2006, 11:40 AM

Dave1001

23rd November 2006, 11:42 AM

What have these countries (except for the Netherlands) contributed to the world in terms of technology progress, culture, arts, economics and so on?

A tremendous amount. It's ironic that you basically listed the nobel prize categories.

What is it that rest of the world should know about them except that they are the most democratic nations? Maybe they´re democratic because nothing is going on over there. I hope people from those countries don´t take my questions in a bad way. I am seriously asking what is happening in those countries that allow them to be "the most democratic". This didn´t happen in a vacuum, did it?

In all seriousness, those are good questions.

Darat

23rd November 2006, 11:44 AM

How will you work around that?

Well, what does constitute a country with a "large" population, then? The US is dwarfed by both China and India.

...snip...

I'd say it has to be in multiples of tens of millions.

Darat

23rd November 2006, 11:45 AM

What Charlton Heston would call a lack of "mixed ethnicities". :boggled:

Not with the Netherlands being in the mix.

ETA - CIA Worldbook :

Dutch 83%, other 17% (of which 9% are non-Western origin mainly Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans, Surinamese, and Indonesians) (1999 est.)

Compared to say the UK they have a much higher "ethnic" population.

Dave1001

23rd November 2006, 11:52 AM

What's the story behind "Slovenia"? I don't know anything about it but I wouldn't guess that a country with that name would be ranked as one of the select "full democracies".

CFLarsen

23rd November 2006, 11:54 AM

What have these countries (except for the Netherlands) contributed to the world in terms of technology progress, culture, arts, economics and so on?

What is it that rest of the world should know about them except that they are the most democratic nations? Maybe they´re democratic because nothing is going on over there. I hope people from those countries don´t take my questions in a bad way. I am seriously asking what is happening in those countries that allow them to be "the most democratic". This didn´t happen in a vacuum, did it?

"Nothing is going on over there"?

You want to do a modicum of research, before I tear you to shreds? :)

Darat

23rd November 2006, 11:54 AM

What's the story behind "Slovenia"? I don't know anything about it but I wouldn't guess that a country with that name would be ranked as one of the select "full democracies".

From its name? :confused:

CFLarsen

23rd November 2006, 11:55 AM

I'd say it has to be in multiples of tens of millions.

Why?

Darat

23rd November 2006, 11:56 AM

What have these countries (except for the Netherlands) contributed to the world in terms of technology progress, culture, arts, economics and so on?

What is it that rest of the world should know about them except that they are the most democratic nations? Maybe they´re democratic because nothing is going on over there. I hope people from those countries don´t take my questions in a bad way. I am seriously asking what is happening in those countries that allow them to be "the most democratic". This didn´t happen in a vacuum, did it?

Toy of the Century (http://www.toyretailersassociation.co.uk/toty/totc20.htm) comes from one of them.

Darth Rotor

23rd November 2006, 11:57 AM

Darat

23rd November 2006, 11:58 AM

Because that's my opinion.

CFLarsen

23rd November 2006, 12:03 PM

Toy of the Century (http://www.toyretailersassociation.co.uk/toty/totc20.htm) comes from one of them.

I tell you, if I ruled the world, LEGO would be nationalized, and all children in this world would get a free set of LEGOs.

It should be mandatory for every child to grow up with LEGO. I'm not even kidding.

Because that's my opinion.

Ehh...OK. Allow me to put it where it belongs. :)

Dave1001

23rd November 2006, 12:04 PM

From its name? :confused:

Yup. With a name like Slovenia, the first thing that comes to mind is a former USSR republic which after a wave of failed democratic experimentation has been taken over by a strongman and has become a small, absolutist dictatorship removed from the Western eye except for oil company executive making deals to exploit their natural gas reserves. But apparently not.

Q-Source

23rd November 2006, 12:17 PM

You want to do a modicum of research, before I tear you to shreds? :)

I see, you´ve got no answers. No problem.

CFLarsen

23rd November 2006, 12:30 PM

I see, you´ve got no answers. No problem.

Do you want to reconsider?

firecoins

23rd November 2006, 12:39 PM

How will you work around that?
. :)

Bill of Rights, if it was upheld.

wahrheit

23rd November 2006, 12:42 PM

1. Sweden
2. Iceland
3. Netherlands
4. Norway
5. Denmark

Notice any pattern? :)
It's pretty cold up there, not much sun.

Was your question serious, half serious? Frankly, was thinking quite hard if there's a pattern, but can't come up with anything.

firecoins

23rd November 2006, 12:43 PM

It's pretty cold up there, not much sun.

Was your question serious, half serious? Frankly, was thinking quite hard if there's a pattern, but can't come up with anything.
Northern Europe does it Best? Legal Pot & Prostituion? 18 yr old drinking age? white pale blondes are good at democracy?

wahrheit

23rd November 2006, 12:54 PM

Northern Europe does it Best? Legal Pot & Prostituion? 18 yr old drinking age? white pale blondes are good at democracy?

No kidding, I was thinking about exactly this. But from the top of my head, I only know that the Netherlands are that liberal. I know too little about the other countries.

Also, legal prostitution (and pot for personal use), white pale blondes - we have that here in Germany, too. And the drinking age is 16 (18 for liquor) over here.

LeFevre

23rd November 2006, 12:59 PM

Gord_in_Toronto

23rd November 2006, 01:31 PM

All the countries didn't have to spend near the amount they would have had to on military spending to defend themselves from the red scare, thus allowing them to spend tax money on social programs; is that what they have in common?

The table of military spending in 2005 at http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp (half way down the page) is interesting to compare to the table in the OP's url.

I can't seem to draw any conclusions though.

Why do you and these countries hate America?!?!:eek:

We don't actually hate the US of A. Just find it amusing. We love you much like we do the older brother who gets loudly drunk at family gatherings. He's still our brother.

Cheesejoff

23rd November 2006, 02:58 PM

The countries are mainly secular?

DanishDynamite

23rd November 2006, 03:04 PM

Well, quite a lot of suggestions (serious and otherwise) as to which pattern I might be refering to. :)

Actually, the one which was immediately apparent to me when I saw the list was that all 3 Scandinavian countries were in the top 5. That's it.

wahrheit

23rd November 2006, 03:08 PM

Actually, the one which was immediately apparent to me when I saw the list was that all 3 Scandinavian countries were in the top 5. That's it.
Well, that was too obvious to mention, that's why I didn't bother to point it out ;)

And ... strictly speaking, it's Norway and Sweden we refer to as the Scandinavian countries. Denmark got merely adopted for etymology reasons :D :D

:duck:

DanishDynamite

23rd November 2006, 03:18 PM

"Tyranny of the majority," as someone else pointed out, isn't a good thing. Pretend for a minute the US was really a democracy (it isn't), do you think we'd have made the strides we have in Civil Rights? After the Civil War, blacks couldn't even vote, so, why would the government have even bothered acknowledging their equality?
Please stop trotting out the tired old "the US isn't a democracy, it's a Republic" baloney. The term democracy as used today includes a Republic.
Beyond that, to coin an old cliche, what is popular isn't always right. I know it's bad form to trot out Hitler, but it's true. He was elected into office. Another example I've heard is back in Athens where the majority of citizens voted to put Socrates (or Aristotle, I don't remember which) to death because he doubted the gods.
And what does this have to do with anything? We are talking about the democracies of today.
In a small group of people, democracy works fine. As your group gets larger, it gets harder and harder to get things done. There're 300 million people in the US, can you imagine the majority of our voters agreeing on anything? Heck, look at Congress-there're only about 550 (I think 535, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Suffice it to say, there's not that many people there) Congresspeople-look how long it takes for them to get stuff done.
Marc, there is only one country I know of which might have something close to a classical democracy and that is Switzerland. Everyone else has a form of representative democracy.
It's better to have a framework (like our Constitution) which one can use to base future decisions off of. Having a small group of people represent a larger group (like our Congress) enables things to get done a lot faster. No, I'm not saying that the US has the best form of government.* It's still better than an absolute democracy, imo.
Undoubtedly. But your observation isn't really relevant to the list.
*The best form of government would be with me as Supreme Overlord of the Universe. I have experience. I've been playing the Civilization series since it came out :)
:)

DanishDynamite

23rd November 2006, 03:26 PM

What have these countries (except for the Netherlands) contributed to the world in terms of technology progress, culture, arts, economics and so on?
I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you. :)

Seriously, if you are interested just use Google.
What is it that rest of the world should know about them except that they are the most democratic nations? Maybe they´re democratic because nothing is going on over there. I hope people from those countries don´t take my questions in a bad way. I am seriously asking what is happening in those countries that allow them to be "the most democratic". This didn´t happen in a vacuum, did it?
Well, you could start you search for wisdom by reading the link I gave at the start. It explains which factors were considered when the ranking was made.

DanishDynamite

23rd November 2006, 03:29 PM

I'd say it has to be in multiples of tens of millions.
What might be the relevance of the size of the population? You don't think democracy scales up?

For that matter, Germany is no. 13 on the list. There are only 11 countries in the world with a population larger than this.

DanishDynamite

23rd November 2006, 03:35 PM

All the countries didn't have to spend near the amount they would have had to on military spending to defend themselves from the red scare, thus allowing them to spend tax money on social programs; is that what they have in common?

Why do you and these countries hate America?!?!:eek:
From the Economist's explanation of what factors were considered:
At the same time, even our thicker, more inclusive
and wider measure of democracy does not include
other aspects—which some authors argue are also crucial
components of democracy—such as levels of economic
and social wellbeing.

DanishDynamite

23rd November 2006, 03:39 PM

The table of military spending in 2005 at http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp (half way down the page) is interesting to compare to the table in the OP's url.

I can't seem to draw any conclusions though.
Aside from the fact that social programs are not considered in the evaluation, it would be more "relevant" to compare with a list of military expenditure per capita.

DanishDynamite

23rd November 2006, 03:41 PM

Well, that was too obvious to mention, that's why I didn't bother to point it out ;)
Suuuure. Amazing how many things are obvious once they are explained to you. :)
And ... strictly speaking, it's Norway and Sweden we refer to as the Scandinavian countries. Denmark got merely adopted for etymology reasons :D :D

:duck:
:( :D

Jorghnassen

23rd November 2006, 04:19 PM

So good democracy = high proportion of hot blond chicks. Works for me.

wahrheit

23rd November 2006, 04:27 PM

:( :D
Gotcha!

So good democracy = high proportion of hot blond chicks. Works for me.

Hm... your screen name sounds suspiciously Scandinavian to me...

Zep

23rd November 2006, 05:12 PM

Australia and Canada have relatively small populations.We are normal size, thank-you-very-much.

Marc L

23rd November 2006, 05:19 PM

And a majority of jurors can condemn someone to death in the US. Now what?

There's a bit of a difference. The democracy of a jury is strictly limited. It's not just "Hey, we feel like hangin' someone today, so let's just skip the trial and go straight to the gallows'.* The jury is limited by the evidence, and by the state requirements.

Can you define how small a population has to be, in order for a democracy to work?

I've actually never studied it extensively beyond a high school government class. I do know that there a few towns in the U.S. that are actual democracies, but I know of nothing larger.

But, what happens when that constitution becomes outdated? You will need a majority - that is, a democracy - to change it.

Actually, you need a great deal more than just a majority-2/3 of the States must ratify an amendment to the US constitution. Consider it's only been amended 26 times in 230 years, and you have an idea of how easy that is.

Having a democratically elected parliament is exactly the same as having the US Congress.

No argument there. Remember, though, that our federal government isn't just the US Congress. It's also the executive branch (the President) and the judicial branch (the Supreme Court).

*I know that's not what you were implying. I was being deliberately ridiculous.

Marc

Marc L

23rd November 2006, 05:25 PM

Please stop trotting out the tired old "the US isn't a democracy, it's a Republic" baloney. The term democracy as used today includes a Republic.

The term democracy as it's used today is incorrect.

And what does this have to do with anything? We are talking about the democracies of today.

Marc, there is only one country I know of which might have something close to a classical democracy and that is Switzerland. Everyone else has a form of representative democracy.

Undoubtedly. But your observation isn't really relevant to the list.

You're absolutely correct, it has nothing to do with the list. It is however relevant to CFLarsen's question of:

Why not? When is democracy not a "good thing"?

Marc

brodski

23rd November 2006, 06:21 PM

Eh...come again? What two conflicting ideologies are you talking about?

What do you mean by "liberal" democracy?

I know that you 'Mericans use it somewhat differently than we 'Ropeans do. That's why I ask.

I am using the term "liberal" in its European sense, a political philosophy which stresses the rights of the individual, democracy stresses the rights of the majority. A "liberal democracy" is one which balances these two philosophies. Some states are more classically liberal, and other states more democratic. The US is pretty liberal, many European nations are more democratic. All of them are liberal democracies.

And I'm British.

Jorghnassen

23rd November 2006, 06:25 PM

Hm... your screen name sounds suspiciously Scandinavian to me...

It was randomly generated. But I do have Scandinavian ancestors, through Normandy I guess...

/just like my Scottish ancestors moved to Ulster for a few generations before coming to North America.

Rob Lister

23rd November 2006, 06:25 PM

Having read the last few pages of the report, and finding the methodology involved, I find it exceedingly honest.

Several questions were interesting, however. 49 and 50 popping foremost in my mind.

firecoins

23rd November 2006, 08:21 PM

Also, legal prostitution (and pot for personal use), white pale blondes - we have that here in Germany, too. And the drinking age is 16 (18 for liquor) over here.the drinking age is 16 for beer? what about wine?

firecoins

23rd November 2006, 08:22 PM

And I'm British.
well that explains it than!:shocked:

firecoins

23rd November 2006, 08:27 PM

What might be the relevance of the size of the population? You don't think democracy scales up?
.
I think size is irrelevant. But the make up of the democracy is relevant. Most of the countries on the top of the list have uniform populations than the US or Germany even.

pipelineaudio

23rd November 2006, 08:35 PM

strangley, most of the thought police in this forum seem to come from those countries

Also the "intellectual"/idealogical base for "SLAG FAIRY" comes from there as well

Are these countries truly democracies? I thought they were welfare states

I for one welcome my new popsicle overlords

shecky

23rd November 2006, 08:41 PM

I would have guessed they are fairly successful socialist states, too.

shecky

23rd November 2006, 08:43 PM

Are these countries truly democracies? I thought they were welfare states

Why can't a welfare state be a democracy?

pipelineaudio

23rd November 2006, 08:47 PM

Why can't a welfare state be a democracy?

because the people who's money was stolen to pay for the freeloaders need their say as well. Then again I guess they could be an oppressed minority, which brings back the full vs representative democracy question right?

firecoins

23rd November 2006, 08:49 PM

not all welfare goes to poor people.

shecky

23rd November 2006, 08:55 PM

pipelineaudio

23rd November 2006, 08:56 PM

not all welfare goes to poor people.

of course...

I dont know that that has anything to do with the desires of those whom the money was stolen from though...In the US for instance there is a backlash against the government stealing your money and giving it to corporations

Zep

23rd November 2006, 09:18 PM

Ah, the "all tax is theft" line. How comforting to know the old hacks haven't died out yet!

a_unique_person

23rd November 2006, 09:29 PM

pipelineaudio

23rd November 2006, 09:46 PM

Ah, the "all tax is theft" line. How comforting to know the old hacks haven't died out yet!

straw who?

shecky

23rd November 2006, 09:55 PM

because the people who's money was stolen to pay for the freeloaders need their say as well. Then again I guess they could be an oppressed minority, which brings back the full vs representative democracy question right?

You still haven't answered the question. Why can't a welfare state be a democracy? Do all those people, who have their money stolen by the government, lose their vote? Do they not get their say as well?

Zep

23rd November 2006, 09:59 PM

straw who?No no, let me guess! You have a straw.........BRAIN!

Wire

23rd November 2006, 11:52 PM

Here's the top 5:

1. Sweden
2. Iceland
3. Netherlands
4. Norway
5. Denmark

Notice any pattern? :)

4 out of 5 have a stately well-dressed person with a shiny crown on top as their leader, which makes monarchy the most democratic form of government today.

CFLarsen

24th November 2006, 12:04 AM

Bill of Rights, if it was upheld.

"If", yes. Because if a majority decides to not uphold the Bill of Rights, then you are back to square one.

Whether you like it or not, democracy is the best form of rule.

The Atheist

24th November 2006, 12:12 AM

CFLarsen

24th November 2006, 12:40 AM

4 out of 5 have a stately well-dressed person with a shiny crown on top as their leader, which makes monarchy the most democratic form of government today.

Not "leader". "Head of State".

PogoPedant

24th November 2006, 01:15 AM

The term democracy as it's used today is incorrect.

Indeed.

While we're at it, let's make sure people are aware of their mistakes:

Atom - The smallest building-block of the universe, the Atom is that which cannot be split.

Barbarian - Not from Athens

Idiot - A man that does not vote.

Republic - A form of governance based on the three classes Philosopher, Warrior, and Commoner, where the Philosophers rule, the Commoners toil, and the Warriors defend against the Barbarians.

What other words should we revert?

wahrheit

24th November 2006, 01:53 AM

the drinking age is 16 for beer? what about wine?
16 is the drinking age in Germany, that includes wine, but you must be 18 to purchase or drink hard liquor.

Mashuna

24th November 2006, 02:09 AM

Darat

24th November 2006, 02:21 AM

What might be the relevance of the size of the population? You don't think democracy scales up?

Don't know but the relatively small size of the populations in the countries you listed was what first came to mind as to what the pattern might be, see the following table. (I've rounded population to the nearest million.)

Country|Rank|Pop.
Sweden|1|9
Iceland|2|0
Netherlands|3|16
Norway|4|5
Denmark|5|5

PogoPedant

24th November 2006, 02:39 AM

Can we revert decimate?
Yes. Yes we can.
I always want it to mean 'kill one in ten', instead of how it's used now, to mean almost totally destroyed.

Thanks, carry on. . .

But only if I get to decimate the "America is not a democracy" crowd.

a_unique_person

24th November 2006, 02:53 AM

Marc L

24th November 2006, 04:00 AM

I think size is irrelevant. But the make up of the democracy is relevant. Most of the countries on the top of the list have uniform populations than the US or Germany even.

What does uniform population mean?

Marc

Marc L

24th November 2006, 04:06 AM

Indeed.

While we're at it, let's make sure people are aware of their mistakes:

Atom - The smallest building-block of the universe, the Atom is that which cannot be split.

Barbarian - Not from Athens

Idiot - A man that does not vote.

Republic - A form of governance based on the three classes Philosopher, Warrior, and Commoner, where the Philosophers rule, the Commoners toil, and the Warriors defend against the Barbarians.

What other words should we revert?

Sir, I say to you, "ppppbbbbttthhhh!" :)

In all seriousness, though, I tend to go with dictionary definitions mostly. From dictionary.com for Democracy:

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Republic

a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

(emphasis mine in both cases)

Which means I'm wrong. Well, I guess there's a first time for everything. Thirty-two years of always being right was getting kinda boring ;)

Marc

ond_magiker

24th November 2006, 05:20 AM

Mashuna

24th November 2006, 05:27 AM

Yes. Yes we can.

But only if I get to decimate the "America is not a democracy" crowd.

Sir, I accept your conditions.

Zep

24th November 2006, 05:55 AM

Not "leader". "Head of State".Indeed. Sadly, our Head of State is neither citizen nor resident of our country. Our political leader is a rank brown-noser. Our electoral system is both compulsory and archaically primitive. And yet we rank way up there as a "best" democracy.

I can't fathom it...

CFLarsen

24th November 2006, 06:05 AM

Indeed. Sadly, our Head of State is neither citizen nor resident of our country. Our political leader is a rank brown-noser. Our electoral system is both compulsory and archaically primitive. And yet we rank way up there as a "best" democracy.

I can't fathom it...

Well, you all belong to Denmark now. Doesn't that make you feel better? ;)

Darat

24th November 2006, 06:13 AM

wahrheit

24th November 2006, 06:26 AM

Look we keep telling you: You can have her!
Give them Charles. That way you can kill two birds with one stone.

Zep

24th November 2006, 06:34 AM

Look we keep telling you: You can have her!Look we keep telling you: We don't want her!

She's a lovely old stick, but she's YOUR lovely old stick. Unfortunately, the people we have to convince who can do anything about it are such out-and-out foot-kissing royal fawners that they would have been right at home as lackeys in the court of Louis the Sun King.

Zep

24th November 2006, 06:35 AM

Give them Charles. That way you can kill two birds with one stone.Is that a threat, mein Herr?

;)

Beerina

24th November 2006, 06:40 AM

1. A competitive, multiparty political system.
2. Universal adult suffrage.
3. Regularly contested elections conducted on the basis
of secret ballots, reasonable ballot security and the
absence of massive voter fraud.
4. Signifi cant public access of major political parties to
the electorate through the media and through generally
open campaigning.

Unfortunately, it's freedom, not democracy, that makes a nation great. But it's democracy, not freedom, that gives politicians power over...your freedoms. So it's "democracy, democracy, democracy!"

And you end up with crap like a democracy with Shiar law. Because few people think something's bad if they're the ones behind the gun. Which is what politicians rely on.

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 06:54 AM

Unfortunately, it's freedom, not democracy, that makes a nation great.
Uh. I doubt it as it is put; Somalia might well disagree muchly with you.

CFLarsen

24th November 2006, 07:00 AM

Unfortunately, it's freedom, not democracy, that makes a nation great.

What do you mean, "great"?

But it's democracy, not freedom, that gives politicians power over...your freedoms. So it's "democracy, democracy, democracy!"

But, in a democracy, the politicians get the power from the people.

And you end up with crap like a democracy with Shiar law. Because few people think something's bad if they're the ones behind the gun. Which is what politicians rely on.

I have no idea what that meant.

WildCat

24th November 2006, 07:17 AM

Must admit I didn't realize that Canada's population was so large.
That's because all Canadians over the age of 60 live in Arizona and Florida. The number of Canadian citizens is far less than the number of Canadian residents.;)

Kerberos

24th November 2006, 08:07 AM

The term democracy as it's used today is incorrect.

Language is intersubjective, calling a usage that is both widely and officially accepted wrong is inherently nonsential.

I'm to slow I see.

Kerberos

24th November 2006, 08:16 AM

Yes. Yes we can.

But only if I get to decimate the "America is not a democracy" crowd.
Before or after the meaning of the term is reverted?

Dave1001

24th November 2006, 08:33 AM

What does uniform population mean?

Marc

Probably lack of ethnic and religious diversity. Frankly, I think a lot of bloodshed might have been avoided if in the post-colonial period folks tried to match states with ethnic and religious populations where possible. At least in non-communist (and then later in post-communist) countries where ethnic and religious identity seem to be the organizing forces.

The Atheist

24th November 2006, 09:22 AM

Language is intersubjective, calling a usage that is both widely and officially accepted wrong is inherently nonsential.

I'm to slow I see.I'm sorrry, mate, but anyone who's going to comment on any language, in any capacity whatsoever, would need to post a little more coherently than that.

TragicMonkey

24th November 2006, 09:26 AM

Probably lack of ethnic and religious diversity. Frankly, I think a lot of bloodshed might have been avoided if in the post-colonial period folks tried to match states with ethnic and religious populations where possible. At least in non-communist (and then later in post-communist) countries where ethnic and religious identity seem to be the organizing forces.

That would simply exchange international wars for civil wars. People who want to fight with other people aren't going to be deterred by boundaries.

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 09:27 AM

I'm sorrry, mate, but anyone who's going to comment on any language, in any capacity whatsoever, would need to post a little more coherently than that.
Actually Kerberos was completely correct. The original poster tried pushing a prescriptive usage of the term "democracy", emptily claiming usage today was "incorrect"; Kerberos pointed out language is subjective and words mean what the majority decide they mean.

Really easy to understand.

PogoPedant

24th November 2006, 09:28 AM

Which means I'm wrong. Well, I guess there's a first time for everything. Thirty-two years of always being right was getting kinda boring ;)
Marc
Admitting to be wrong, eh? Well, that makes you better than most people. You shall not be the one-in-ten :)

Sir, I accept your conditions.
Then have at it. I smell victory for the both of us.

Before or after the meaning of the term is reverted?
Why not both?

The Atheist

24th November 2006, 09:30 AM

Can we have them ranked by most promiscuous?Crikey, mate, you need to ask?

Clearly Australia.

A major international study of human sexuality recently concluded that Australian women were the world's most promiscuous females.

The study was conducted over a five-year period and came up with some astonishing results in terms of female sexual behaviour. In the lack of pheremones, human females have had to resort to less subtle ways of letting potential mates know of their availability.

Pacific Island women ranked highly for their wearing of flowers to signify availability - a flower behind the right ear means she's taken, a flower behind the left means she's available. New Zealand females ranked quite lowly in the survey as the wearing of sheepskins was considered to be too subtle.

Australian women topped the list for availablity display, placing both legs behind the ears to denote available status.

DanishDynamite

24th November 2006, 09:34 AM

You're absolutely correct, it has nothing to do with the list. It is however relevant to CFLarsen's question of:
You're right. My apologies.

DanishDynamite

24th November 2006, 09:39 AM

Having read the last few pages of the report, and finding the methodology involved, I find it exceedingly honest.
Me too.
Several questions were interesting, however. 49 and 50 popping foremost in my mind.
Here are the questions you refer to (including points awarded for each choice):

49. Are citizens free to form professional
organisations and trade
unions?
1: Yes
0.5: Officially free, but subject to
some restrictions
0:

50. Do institutions provide citizens
with the opportunity to
successfully petition government
to redress grievances?
1: Yes
0.5: Some opportunities
0: No

Mind if I ask why you found these questions especially interesting?

firecoins

24th November 2006, 09:41 AM

of course...

I dont know that that has anything to do with the desires of those whom the money was stolen from though...In the US for instance there is a backlash against the government stealing your money and giving it to corporations
I don't just mean corporate welfare. Yes that is a problem & benefit. THere are government benfits that go to the rich and middle class as well. Also gov't earmarking money for projects that get politicans reelected. These earmarks will go to the rich, middle class, poor, corporation/business and various communities at large.

DanishDynamite

24th November 2006, 09:45 AM

I think size is irrelevant. But the make up of the democracy is relevant. Most of the countries on the top of the list have uniform populations than the US or Germany even.
By "uniform" do you mean ethnically uniform? If so, why would you think this would have a significant impact?

Mauritius, an island nation in the Indian Ocean with about a million people, is about as ethnically diverse as any nation can be. From the CIA Factbook:
Ethnic groups:
Indo-Mauritian 68%, Creole 27%, Sino-Mauritian 3%, Franco-Mauritian 2%

Religions:
Hindu 48%, Roman Catholic 23.6%, other Christian 8.6%, Muslim 16.6%, other 2.5%, unspecified 0.3%, none 0.4% (2000 census)
And yet it is in the "Full democracy" group at no. 25.

DanishDynamite

24th November 2006, 09:58 AM

Well, all I can add is that there's clearly some subjective input here. I've had a look at "Functioning of Government" and "Political Participation/Culture" and I can't see any reason, based on the scoring system, that NZ scores lower than any other country.
Perhaps the Economist will respond if you ask them.
I'm surprised that nobody's taken issue with the "best" comment. The survey says nothing about "best", just those which score the highest on the arbitrary scoring system used.
"Best" as in "most democratic".
If civil liberties had a higher weighting than political participation (as it would if I were making the list), Denmark, Finland and Luxembourg would drop down the list.
Uh...civil liberties already has the highest weighting. Here are the number of questions (= number of points) asked in each of the five sections:

I Electoral process and pluralism - 12
II Functioning of government - 14
III Political participation - 9
IV Democratic political culture - 8
V Civil liberties - 17
Seems to me a list comparing Californian oranges to NZ apples to Swiss watches. Maybe that blonde chick comment wasn't so far off the mark.
I don't see how.

DanishDynamite

24th November 2006, 10:04 AM

DanishDynamite

24th November 2006, 10:06 AM

Norway keeps beating Denmark in stuff :p
Grrrr.... :)

DanishDynamite

24th November 2006, 10:08 AM

I'm sorrry, mate, but anyone who's going to comment on any language, in any capacity whatsoever, would need to post a little more coherently than that.
Why? Didn't you understand what he said?

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 10:19 AM

Why? Didn't you understand what he said?
And it was so easy to understand too. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2123290&postcount=104)

DanishDynamite

24th November 2006, 10:46 AM

And it was so easy to understand too. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2123290&postcount=104)
Indeed it was. :)

The Atheist

24th November 2006, 11:51 AM

Why? Didn't you understand what he said?Of course I understood what he meant.

I just have this pedantic attitude that if someone is going to pass comment on someone else's language, it's incumbent upon that person to use language without a large number of errors, unlike the post I quoted.

The Atheist

24th November 2006, 12:13 PM

Perhaps the Economist will respond if you ask them.To what end? I could care less where the rankings are - I just found it interesting."Best" as in "most democratic".Ok, so "best" is a personal judgement. Uh...civil liberties already has the highest weighting. Here are the number of questions (= number of points) asked in each of the five sections:

I Electoral process and pluralism - 12
II Functioning of government - 14
III Political participation - 9
IV Democratic political culture - 8
V Civil liberties - 17Cheers, I missed that as I didn't read it all - minor interest stuff. I don't see how.You don't see subjectivity here? You don't think that subjectivity gives false or misleading results? You're sure that a person's answer on civil liberties in Mauritius isn't going to conform to different ideals to USA or Norway?

For starters, I'd take issue with how Australia (or NZ, for that matter) gets a higher rating for "Pluralism/Electoral Process" than UK or Holland. If anything, it should be the other way around; UK has more than two parties which can govern, Australia doesn't, neither does NZ - to all practical intent and apart from that, processes are common to all three.

I'm pleased you're among the "best" though. Like unter, I notice that you're prone to post anything which appears to show Western Europe being "better" than USA. If you actually believed that was the case, you probably wouldn't bother posting it.

DanishDynamite

24th November 2006, 01:07 PM

Of course I understood what he meant.

I just have this pedantic attitude that if someone is going to pass comment on someone else's language, it's incumbent upon that person to use language without a large number of errors, unlike the post I quoted.
So, you claim to have understood what he meant. Kindly explain in your own words what you think he meant.

After you are done with this, kindly explain what possible significance any splling an/or gramaticl mistaks he mite have maid when he sayd what he sayd mite in ani way be relevnt to what he sayd.

DanishDynamite

24th November 2006, 01:24 PM

To what end? I could care less where the rankings are - I just found it interesting.
If you don't care, why blabber on about how everything is subjective and indirectly ask for guidance by saying how you don't understand?
Ok, so "best" is a personal judgement.
No, "best" is another word for "top of the list" in this case.
Cheers, I missed that as I didn't read it all - minor interest stuff.
Yes, I can understand that when you are shown to have talked out your behind, you would prefer that such a topic should be characterized as "minor".
You don't see subjectivity here? You don't think that subjectivity gives false or misleading results? You're sure that a person's answer on civil liberties in Mauritius isn't going to conform to different ideals to USA or Norway?
Nope, I don't see a lot of subjectivity. If you do, could you point it out? Thanks.
For starters, I'd take issue with how Australia (or NZ, for that matter) gets a higher rating for "Pluralism/Electoral Process" than UK or Holland. If anything, it should be the other way around; UK has more than two parties which can govern, Australia doesn't, neither does NZ - to all practical intent and apart from that, processes are common to all three.
I'm sure you could take issue with just about anything which didn't fit your stereotypical view. If you have some solid reason for doubting the research, I suggest you state it.
I'm pleased you're among the "best" though. Like unter, I notice that you're prone to post anything which appears to show Western Europe being "better" than USA. If you actually believed that was the case, you probably wouldn't bother posting it.
Perhaps I feel a need to educate.

Dave1001

24th November 2006, 01:29 PM

That would simply exchange international wars for civil wars.

Not necessarily. It might have led to a significant net reduction in bloody conflict in the post-WWII/post-colonial world.

firecoins

24th November 2006, 01:48 PM

By "uniform" do you mean ethnically uniform? If so, why would you think this would have a significant impact?

Mauritius, an island nation in the Indian Ocean with about a million people, is about as ethnically diverse as any nation can be. From the CIA Factbook:

And yet it is in the "Full democracy" group at no. 25.
I don't disagree that ethincally diverse deomocracies exist but none seem to be at top of the list. The uniformity of ethnic groups in a democracy seems to make the democracy work better. The US is alot more ethnically diverse and we have all sorts of problems, black vs white vs hispanic.

DanishDynamite

24th November 2006, 02:23 PM

I don't disagree that ethincally diverse deomocracies exist but none seem to be at top of the list.
The Netherlands is.
The uniformity of ethnic groups in a democracy seems to make the democracy work better.
Why do you think so?

I just gave a counter example in Mauritíus. It has 1/5 the population of Denmark and is "severely" diverse in both ethnic background and religious observance. And yet it is more democratic than Italy, for example.

If you want an example of the opposite, we have Indonesia which is one of the largest population-wise and also one of the most ethnically uniform. And yet it isn't very democratic.
The US is alot more ethnically diverse and we have all sorts of problems, black vs white vs hispanic.
I fail to see the significance, sorry.

The Atheist

24th November 2006, 02:58 PM

If you don't care, why blabber on about how everything is subjective and indirectly ask for guidance by saying how you don't understand?I take it there's a school in Denmark which teaches the art of talking BS and that both you and unter attended it?
No, "best" is another word for "top of the list" in this case.Myabe you need to check a dictionary on that. Top of the list and best are tow completely different subjects.Yes, I can understand that when you are shown to have talked out your behind, you would prefer that such a topic should be characterized as "minor".There's that BS again. If you think that the rankings are anything other than minor interest to anyone - except yourself, let me know.Nope, I don't see a lot of subjectivity. If you do, could you point it out? Thanks.I already did.
I'm sure you could take issue with just about anything which didn't fit your stereotypical view. If you have some solid reason for doubting the research, I suggest you state it.My stereotypical view? Hmm, some pot/kettle going on here, I think.Perhaps I feel a need to educate.:dl:

The Atheist

24th November 2006, 03:03 PM

So, you claim to have understood what he meant. Kindly explain in your own words what you think he meant.You're welcome to doubt my English skills. I won't ask about yours.After you are done with this, kindly explain what possible significance any splling an/or gramaticl mistaks he mite have maid when he sayd what he sayd mite in ani way be relevnt to what he sayd.Because you're not [presumably] a native English-speaker, you may not have noticed, but when someone is criticising another poster's use of language, it's incumbent upon that person to use actual words, rather than trying to invent one to replace perfectly suitable and correct English. I'm not too bothered about the other errors, except from the point of hypocrisy.

Nice try, sweetheart, but abject failure. Have another shot.

Marc L

24th November 2006, 03:11 PM

Actually Kerberos was completely correct. The original poster tried pushing a prescriptive usage of the term "democracy", emptily claiming usage today was "incorrect"; Kerberos pointed out language is subjective and words mean what the majority decide they mean.

Really easy to understand.

Actually, I was the one who claimed today's usage is incorrect (a view I still hold in my mind, even though I grudgingly accept the dictioanary definition for the purposes of debate). The OP was something else entirely.

Marc

TragicMonkey

24th November 2006, 03:23 PM

Not necessarily. It might have led to a significant net reduction in bloody conflict in the post-WWII/post-colonial world.

And it might have led to WWIII, IV, V, and VII. (VI would have been released as III in the US, but VI in Japan, then re-released for the GameBoy years later.)

Dave1001

24th November 2006, 03:30 PM

And it might have led to WWIII, IV, V, and VII. (VI would have been released as III in the US, but VI in Japan, then re-released for the GameBoy years later.)

Well I think it's a topic worth exploring, rather than being quickly dismissed (whether forming non-communist countries based on geographically contiguous populations that share the same self-perceived ethnicity and religion where possible would reduce reduce net violent conflict in the world).

Polaris

25th November 2006, 08:20 AM

And a majority of jurors can condemn someone to death in the US. Now what?

Not just a majority, it has to be unanimous.

And the analogy would be better if it were possible (god forbid) to execute someone in the US for denying God after trial in a kangaroo court.

Kerberos

26th November 2006, 10:03 AM

when someone is criticising another poster's use of language, it's incumbent upon that person to use actual words, rather than trying to invent one to replace perfectly suitable and correct English. I'm not too bothered about the other errors, except from the point of hypocrisy.

Except I wasn't criticising anyone's use of language, but rather their apparently mistaken views on how language worked, which really is something entirely different. So the fact that I misspelled nonsensical (I assume that that is the invented word you’re referring to) is hardly relevant.

CFLarsen

26th November 2006, 10:17 AM

Not just a majority, it has to be unanimous.

You don't even need a jury:

Anibal Jarramillo Florida Conviction 1981 - Released 1982
Jarramillo was sentenced to death for two counts of first degree murder, despite the jury's unanimous recommendation of life imprisonment.

Anthony Brown Florida Conviction 1983 - Acquitted 1986
Brown was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death despite a jury recommendation of life imprisonment.
Source (http://www.fadp.org/fl_exonerated.html)

The Atheist

26th November 2006, 12:04 PM

Except I wasn't criticising anyone's use of language, but rather their apparently mistaken views on how language worked, which really is something entirely different. So the fact that I misspelled nonsensical (I assume that that is the invented word you’re referring to) is hardly relevant.You got it! Mate, I was just pulling your chain, don't be too upset - I do it to everyone.

CFLarsen

26th November 2006, 12:18 PM

You got it! Mate, I was just pulling your chain, don't be too upset - I do it to everyone.

So, we can assume that all your posts are just about pulling someone's chain?

The Atheist

26th November 2006, 01:05 PM

So, we can assume that all your posts are just about pulling someone's chain?As always, unter, you are free to assume anything you like.

Rob Lister

26th November 2006, 01:07 PM

So, we can assume that all your posts are just about pulling someone's chain?

I know I assume that of yours.

TragicMonkey

26th November 2006, 01:34 PM

Rob Lister

26th November 2006, 01:44 PM

As far as juries and death sentences, I think it varies by state, that some leave the sentence up to the judge, others require jury vote for the death penalty, and of the latter some require unanimity and others just a majority. And many states, of course, don't have the death penalty at all.

Additionally, only the unanimous jury-finding of guilty results in an actual guilty verdict, though technically, it a few states, it can be overridden by the judge, and I'm sure it has once or twice, I'm not sure if it's ever stood-up to appeal.

The opposite has happened many more times.

pipelineaudio

26th November 2006, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen
So, we can assume that all your posts are just about pulling someone's chain?

I know I assume that of yours.

pwnt

Zep

27th November 2006, 03:39 AM

I don't disagree that ethincally diverse deomocracies exist but none seem to be at top of the list. The uniformity of ethnic groups in a democracy seems to make the democracy work better. The US is alot more ethnically diverse and we have all sorts of problems, black vs white vs hispanic.Whoopsie. Australia is as ethnically diverse as the USA, if not moreso - we are in position 8 on this list.

a_unique_person

27th November 2006, 03:41 AM

Maybe democracy just doesn't scale well?

Zep

27th November 2006, 03:41 AM

pwnt...for being a Slag Fairy. :rolleyes:

"Can someone give me a better name for SLAG FAIRY?" How about...pipelineaudio??

CFLarsen

27th November 2006, 03:43 AM

There's a bit of a difference. The democracy of a jury is strictly limited. It's not just "Hey, we feel like hangin' someone today, so let's just skip the trial and go straight to the gallows'.* The jury is limited by the evidence, and by the state requirements.

As you can see, it doesn't even take a jury.

I've actually never studied it extensively beyond a high school government class. I do know that there a few towns in the U.S. that are actual democracies, but I know of nothing larger.

But then, you can't say anything about whether it is size or not that makes democracy work.

Actually, you need a great deal more than just a majority-2/3 of the States must ratify an amendment to the US constitution. Consider it's only been amended 26 times in 230 years, and you have an idea of how easy that is.

But it can be done, and definitely by public sentiment. The Prohibition, to pick one. That one was ratified and repealed, all within 15-odd years. So, it is not as if your Constitution "protects" you against Vox Populi.

No argument there. Remember, though, that our federal government isn't just the US Congress. It's also the executive branch (the President) and the judicial branch (the Supreme Court).

Democratic countries, such as Denmark, also has Supreme Courts, with judges that are independent of what government there is at the moment. That leaves you with the President: Elected, not by the people, but by people who are not elected, or obliged to follow the popular vote.

On "my" side, the Prime Minister is found among those directly elected members of Parliament.

Tell me again, why do you like your system better? What are the advantages of that?

Marc L

27th November 2006, 05:59 AM

Oddly enough, I posted a reply to this about 2 hours ago, but for some reason, it's not showing anymore. I will respond to the best of my memory.

As you can see, it doesn't even take a jury. Granted. However, we were specifically discussing juries at the time.

But then, you can't say anything about whether it is size or not that makes democracy work.

Modern or classic? I've already admitted to my error regarding the former, and I'm not aware of any large examples of the latter.

Tell me again, why do you like your system better? What are the advantages of that?

From my initial post here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2121173#post2121173)

No, I'm not saying that the US has the best form of government.* It's still better than an absolute democracy, imo.

Marc

CFLarsen

27th November 2006, 07:32 AM

Granted. However, we were specifically discussing juries at the time.

We were discussing just how big a group of people could influence another group of people. In this case, we have a group of 12 - or a group of 1 - who can take away the life of another human being.

That has far more and dire consequences than legislators raising taxes or impose new laws.

Modern or classic? I've already admitted to my error regarding the former, and I'm not aware of any large examples of the latter.

OK.

From my initial post here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2121173#post2121173)

But we've been through those, and we've seen that a "tyranny of the majority" can and does happen, e.g. the Prohibition. So, the Constitution does not protect you against the "tyranny of the majority".

And, we have also seen that a very small group of people can decide if a person should live or die. In Ancient Greece, at least it was the majority of the citizens.

Do you still think the US system is better? If so, why?

NoZed Avenger

27th November 2006, 07:48 AM

I guess I missed this thread earlier. Just a correction:

And a majority of jurors can condemn someone to death in the US. Now what?

No. This bit of horrid misinformation shows complete ignorance of the US jury system.

Darth Rotor

27th November 2006, 08:19 AM

And, we have also seen that a very small group of people can decide if a person should live or die. In Ancient Greece, at least it was the majority of the citizens.
Lynch mobs for fifty, Alex. :p Your little jabs ignore a thing called "due process of law" and the myriad of checks in the system that this process entails.

DR

Mike B.

27th November 2006, 08:23 AM

Here is a list of "economic freedom." (Whatever that is exactly)

I wonder if the correlation can be made between democracy and open economies.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_fre-economy-economic-freedom

Marc L

27th November 2006, 08:36 AM

But we've been through those, and we've seen that a "tyranny of the majority" can and does happen, e.g. the Prohibition. So, the Constitution does not protect you against the "tyranny of the majority".

And, we have also seen that a very small group of people can decide if a person should live or die. In Ancient Greece, at least it was the majority of the citizens.

Do you still think the US system is better? If so, why?

My mistake, then. I thought you were asking if I thought the US system was better than your system.

Yes, I do feel the US system is better than the Ancient Greek system. Aside from blips like the Prohibition, the Constitution has done a much better job protecting us than Ancient Greece did it's own citizens.

Marc

CFLarsen

27th November 2006, 09:40 AM

I guess I missed this thread earlier. Just a correction:

No. This bit of horrid misinformation shows complete ignorance of the US jury system.

No, merely an error, which I acknowledged. If I had "complete ignorance" of the US jury system, I wouldn't have any idea whatsoever.

I know you don't like me, but there is no need to..shall we be polite and call it: "extrapolate" your criticism of me.

Why do you, OTOH, ignore that a judge, regardless of what the jury says, can have someone killed? What does that say about the system?

Lynch mobs for fifty, Alex. :p Your little jabs ignore a thing called "due process of law" and the myriad of checks in the system that this process entails.

And yet, some people are freed from death row because of errors in the system. All things being equal, innocent people are killed by the government.

My mistake, then. I thought you were asking if I thought the US system was better than your system.

I was.

Yes, I do feel the US system is better than the Ancient Greek system. Aside from blips like the Prohibition, the Constitution has done a much better job protecting us than Ancient Greece did it's own citizens.

You can't call the Prohibition a "blip". The Prohibition shows with blinding clarity that the US constitution does not protect you from Vox Populi.

Darth Rotor

27th November 2006, 09:54 AM

And yet, some people are freed from death row because of errors in the system. All things being equal, innocent people are killed by the government.
The error rate is acceptable.

DR

CFLarsen

27th November 2006, 10:12 AM

The error rate is acceptable.

And just what, precisely, is that rate?

Don't forget, we are not just talking about innocent people being killed by the state. We are also talking about innocent people being jailed.

Darth Rotor

27th November 2006, 10:29 AM

And just what, precisely, is that rate?

Don't forget, we are not just talking about innocent people being killed by the state. We are also talking about innocent people being jailed.

In a country of just under 300,000,000, 60 people executed in a year, with a couple of them being the wrong guy?

Out of a prison population of about a million and a half, 60 people get executed in a year, and a couple of them are a wrong guy?

Out of 15,000 convicted murderers in a year, and 60 executions, and a few of them being the wrong guy . . . not losing sleep, the error rate is very low.

3/15,000 is a very error rate for a control systems. The system has feedback loops that allow for correction, with the story cropping up now and again that gets a guy off of death row. That is a person not killed.

As a system, it works for me, so long as the Tim McVeigh and Jeffery Dahmer sorts get executed.

I don't expect perfection form man. I ask for good enough. This is good enough. 1/5000 wrong is 99.98% correct.

I do welcome the advances in DNA evidence to drive the error rate lower. That is process improvement as it should be. I also welcome reviews to the system that set a high standard of evidence for death penalty criterion.

DR

Marc L

27th November 2006, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Marc L
My mistake, then. I thought you were asking if I thought the US system was better than your system.

I was.

Then I refer you back to the statement I quoted two posts ago.

No, I'm not saying that the US has the best form of government.* It's still better than an absolute democracy, imo.

Are you in an absolute democracy? If you answer no, then be aware that I will keep posting this quote every time you ask me if I think my government is better than yours.

Originally Posted by Marc L
Yes, I do feel the US system is better than the Ancient Greek system. Aside from blips like the Prohibition, the Constitution has done a much better job protecting us than Ancient Greece did it's own citizens.

You can't call the Prohibition a "blip". The Prohibition shows with blinding clarity that the US constitution does not protect you from Vox Populi.

That, or it shows that once errors are caught, they are corrected. For that matter, from my (admittedly small) knowledge of the Prohibition, it was more started by special interest groups (ie, a vocal minority) then it was an example of Vox Populi.

Marc

NoZed Avenger

27th November 2006, 10:46 AM

No, merely an error, which I acknowledged. If I had "complete ignorance" of the US jury system, I wouldn't have any idea whatsoever.

Kinda the point.

I know you don't like me, but there is no need to..shall we be polite and call it: "extrapolate" your criticism of me.

I don't care enough to like or not like you, so we'll call that bit of cold reading a "miss." I dislike poor arguments and your methodology of -- let us be polite, and call it "debate." I will admit I dislike the way you start calling people liars without justification, but since I am hardly alone in that category, I don'y take it personally.

I'll go back and look for your admission of error.

I may print and frame it, assuming it can be located. In years to come, it will be a valuable collectors item.

Why do you, OTOH, ignore that a judge, regardless of what the jury says, can have someone killed? What does that say about the system?

Mainly because, (1) that came well after the post I commented on; (2) your question is argumentative, and full of too much -- let us be polite again and call it "spin" -- to be useful.

CFLarsen

27th November 2006, 10:54 AM

In a country of just under 300,000,000, 60 people executed in a year, with a couple of them being the wrong guy?

Out of a prison population of about a million and a half, 60 people get executed in a year, and a couple of them are a wrong guy?

Out of 15,000 convicted murderers in a year, and 60 executions, and a few of them being the wrong guy . . . not losing sleep, the error rate is very low.

3/15,000 is a very error rate for a control systems. The system has feedback loops that allow for correction, with the story cropping up now and again that gets a guy off of death row. That is a person not killed.

As a system, it works for me, so long as the Tim McVeigh and Jeffery Dahmer sorts get executed.

I don't expect perfection form man. I ask for good enough. This is good enough. 1/5000 wrong is 99.98% correct.

I do welcome the advances in DNA evidence to drive the error rate lower. That is process improvement as it should be. I also welcome reviews to the system that set a high standard of evidence for death penalty criterion.

DR

You have completely missed the point of a country based on law and order.

The point is not to accept a "good enough" standard. The point is that no innocent man is punished. That's why that little "innocent until proven guilty" thing comes in handy.

The question is, how much are we willing to err on the side of caution? The old adage, "Better to let 10 criminals walk, than putting one innocent man in jail", still applies.

Because, it really isn't a question of how many innocents are killed. It is a question of how you would feel if you were the innocent being jailed. Would you still think that 1/5000 is a "good enough" chance for you to be innocently killed by your own government?

1/5000 is good enough for you, you say. Just out of curiosity, how high are you willing to go?

1/2500? 1/1000? 1/500? 1/250? 1/100?

And what do you base that on? Would it change, if you, being innocent, were on death row?

NoZed Avenger

27th November 2006, 10:55 AM

No, merely an error, which I acknowledged.

I have gone back through the thread twice, and am still not seeing your "acknowledgement of error" prior to my initial post.

Could you go ahead and link to it?

I only ask because I know that your definitions of terms sometimes diverge widely from my expectations, so you may be using the phrase differently than I was expecting.

Thanks in advance.

CFLarsen

27th November 2006, 10:57 AM

Mainly because, (1) that came well after the post I commented on; (2) your question is argumentative, and full of too much -- let us be polite again and call it "spin" -- to be useful.

Nothing is stopping you from commenting on what is happening here. If you can criticize me for making an error about an argument, you should also acknowledge if I make a valid point.

Unless you are solely here to point out the flaws of other posters. In which case, I will take your criticism in the vein it was offered.

CFLarsen

27th November 2006, 11:00 AM

I have gone back through the thread twice, and am still not seeing your "acknowledgement of error" prior to my initial post.

Could you go ahead and link to it?

I only ask because I know that your definitions of terms sometimes diverge widely from my expectations, so you may be using the phrase differently than I was expecting.

Thanks in advance.

Post 131.

No, I wasn't flogging myself in public, or doing years of penance on my way to Jerusalem. Sorry, but I'm not into that.

Darth Rotor

27th November 2006, 11:08 AM

You have completely missed the point of a country based on law and order.

The point is not to accept a "good enough" standard. The point is that no innocent man is punished. That's why that little "innocent until proven guilty" thing comes in handy.

The question is, how much are we willing to err on the side of caution? The old adage, "Better to let 10 criminals walk, than putting one innocent man in jail", still applies.

Because, it really isn't a question of how many innocents are killed. It is a question of how you would feel if you were the innocent being jailed. Would you still think that 1/5000 is a "good enough" chance for you to be innocently killed by your own government?

1/5000 is good enough for you, you say. Just out of curiosity, how high are you willing to go?

1/2500? 1/1000? 1/500? 1/250? 1/100?

And what do you base that on? Would it change, if you, being innocent, were on death row?
You don't understand words. There is a presumption of innoncence, against which guilt must be proven to a jury. That is an inherent imperfection in the system. The system also presumes that persons tell the truth, which is fortunately checked by the adversarial system we have for legal argument. Lawyers are skeptical about anyone's evidence, witness, or memory. All of that adds to the system's inherent error rate.

You demand a perfect system, which IMO makes you a moron. It is a human enterprise. If a better set of procedures can be added, which the DNA evidence seems to be as a way to drive the error rate down, then good.

The error rate is acceptable given the system's inherent sources of error.

If I were on death row? I'll tell you how I feel about that when it happens, Claus, take your red herring and go fish. As I have faced and accept my own death, I don't worry about how anymore. It will happen. So be it.

I am more likely to be killed by a criminal who is out on parole, or a street punk, than I am to be wrongly executed. I am more likelly to die tomorrow due to an idiot running a red light as I go through an intersection than I am to be wrongly executed.

Those odds meet my good enough standard.

DR

Francesca R

27th November 2006, 11:12 AM

The point is not to accept a "good enough" standard. The point is that no innocent man is punished. That's why that little "innocent until proven guilty" thing comes in handy.

The question is, how much are we willing to err on the side of caution? The old adage, "Better to let 10 criminals walk, than putting one innocent man in jail", still applies.How far should the adage be taken in the other direction? Is it also better to let 100 criminals walk than put one innocent person in jail? Better to let 1,000 walk? 10,000? I'm not sure that we can attain certainty that no innocent person will be jailed unless we abolish incarceration. Would that be worth it in order to protect against the punishment of innocents? Plainly few (if any) democracies do abolish it, yet probably wrongful jailings can be cited in all of them (after the fact).

Because, it really isn't a question of how many innocents are killed. It is a question of how you would feel if you were the innocent being jailed. Would you still think that 1/5000 is a "good enough" chance for you to be innocently killed by your own government?

And what do you base that on? Would it change, if you, being innocent, were on death row?From the perspective of an innocent person on death row, close to 100.00% of them would think that the justice system was flawed. But how could it be improved without abolishing the death sentence? Is that the answer? Should jail be abolished for the same reason?

NoZed Avenger

27th November 2006, 11:36 AM

Post 131.

No, I wasn't flogging myself in public, or doing years of penance on my way to Jerusalem. Sorry, but I'm not into that.

"You don't even need a jury:"

*That* is what you refer to as an "acknowledgement of error"? Heaping another one on top of it? Yeah, that's dangerously close to flogging yourself -- best to take it easy.

I guess I'll put away the framing materials, after all.

NoZed Avenger

27th November 2006, 11:38 AM

Nothing is stopping you from commenting on what is happening here. If you can criticize me for making an error about an argument, you should also acknowledge if I make a valid point.

Unless you are solely here to point out the flaws of other posters. In which case, I will take your criticism in the vein it was offered.

I am sure someone will be quoting this to you in a few SGrenard or Tai Chi threads you decide to post on from now on.

I don't have any illusions about you paying any attention to my criticism -- or much of anyone's, really -- so feel free to take it any way you please.

CFLarsen

27th November 2006, 11:55 AM

You don't understand words.

Of course. It's all my fault. I should have known.

There is a presumption of innoncence, against which guilt must be proven to a jury. That is an inherent imperfection in the system.

You call that an "imperfection"? You see it as a flaw that people are presumed innocent?

The system also presumes that persons tell the truth, which is fortunately checked by the adversarial system we have for legal argument. Lawyers are skeptical about anyone's evidence, witness, or memory. All of that adds to the system's inherent error rate.

No, no, no. The system doesn't presume that persons tell the truth. If it did, we would have no need for evidence. That evidence is brought into court for one reason only: To be evaluated, and to be argued about, pro et con.

You demand a perfect system, which IMO makes you a moron. It is a human enterprise. If a better set of procedures can be added, which the DNA evidence seems to be as a way to drive the error rate down, then good.

No, I don't demand a perfect system (well, it would be nice!), but I do demand that, if the system is weak, it shouldn't mean that innocent people take the rap for that.

The error rate is acceptable given the system's inherent sources of error.

If I were on death row? I'll tell you how I feel about that when it happens, Claus, take your red herring and go fish. As I have faced and accept my own death, I don't worry about how anymore. It will happen. So be it.

It isn't a red herring, quite contrary. If you live in a society that is governed by law, as imperfect as it may be, you have to make up your mind just how much room for injustice you will accept. Otherwise, you have no sense of justice and where to draw the line.

I am more likely to be killed by a criminal who is out on parole, or a street punk, than I am to be wrongly executed. I am more likelly to die tomorrow due to an idiot running a red light as I go through an intersection than I am to be wrongly executed.

Those odds meet my good enough standard.

That doesn't answer the question. You already drew a line at 1/5000 - at least - so you cannot possibly think that it is a red herring. If you did think that, you would never have offered that 1/5000 number. Bringing up car accidents is, however, a red herring.

You did offer that number. You're stuck. You have drawn the line, somewhere. I am asking, where exactly do you draw it?

How far should the adage be taken in the other direction? Is it also better to let 100 criminals walk than put one innocent person in jail? Better to let 1,000 walk? 10,000? I'm not sure that we can attain certainty that no innocent person will be jailed unless we abolish incarceration. Would that be worth it in order to protect against the punishment of innocents? Plainly few (if any) democracies do abolish it, yet probably wrongful jailings can be cited in all of them (after the fact).

From the perspective of an innocent person on death row, close to 100.00% of them would think that the justice system was flawed. But how could it be improved without abolishing the death sentence? Is that the answer? Should jail be abolished for the same reason?

Indeed. No legal system is perfect, and there will always be some level of injustice. The problem with killing someone who is innocent is that you can't compensate the innocent for that. It is a good question of just how you will make up for 30 unjust years in prison, but at least you can try - e.g., with apologies, money, reinstatements, etc.

But you can't give back a life you have taken, be it ever so unjust.

"You don't even need a jury:"

*That* is what you refer to as an "acknowledgement of error"? Heaping another one on top of it? Yeah, that's dangerously close to flogging yourself -- best to take it easy.

I guess I'll put away the framing materials, after all.

I hope your life will be a happy one now.

Darth Rotor

27th November 2006, 12:00 PM

No, I don't demand a perfect system.
Sure you do, as you accept no error.

You already drew a line at 1/5000.
If the process can be improved to halve, or quarter the error rate, then so much the better. The system already allows to go free hundreds per year who have killed. I don't see the balance as just.
Indeed. No legal system is perfect, and there will always be some level of injustice.
Then we agree. Why are you arguing with me about this? :confused:

DR

CFLarsen

27th November 2006, 12:07 PM

Sure you do, as you accept no error.

What part of "I don't demand a perfect system" didn't you understand?

If the process can be improved to halve, or quarter the error rate, then so much the better. The system already allows to go free hundreds per year who have killed. I don't see the balance as just.

Very well: Where do you draw the line, then?

Darth Rotor

27th November 2006, 12:11 PM

Very well: Where do you draw the line, then?
I am not required to. The system is built to be self correcting, via dampening feedback loops, whic puts it in a state of continual improvement, go back to the points on DNA testing covered earlier. This means that some incorrect convictions are revealed on appeal, and are overturned or otherwise imitgated. Given that more convictions are appealed and overturned than people executed in error, there is reason to be optimistic about the system's quality.

DR

CFLarsen

27th November 2006, 12:32 PM

I am not required to. The system is built to be self correcting, via dampening feedback loops, whic puts it in a state of continual improvement, go back to the points on DNA testing covered earlier. This means that some incorrect convictions are revealed on appeal, and are overturned or otherwise imitgated. Given that more convictions are appealed and overturned than people executed in error, there is reason to be optimistic about the system's quality.

DR

You have already drawn the line somewhere, namely at 1/5000.

Do you draw it at 1/2500?

We can take it step by step, if you like.

NoZed Avenger

27th November 2006, 01:02 PM

Proving once again that there is NO topic on which the line-drawing fallacy cannot be applied with vigorous force.

Darth Rotor

27th November 2006, 01:05 PM

You have already drawn the line somewhere, namely at 1/5000.

Do you draw it at 1/2500?

We can take it step by step, if you like.
One word: asymptote.

A concept: Risk Management.

You might want to wear spikes to avoid sliding down your slippery slope.

DR

Number Six

27th November 2006, 01:09 PM

Dave1001

27th November 2006, 01:19 PM

If you want an example of the opposite, we have Indonesia which is one of the largest population-wise and also one of the most ethnically uniform. And yet it isn't very democratic.

I fail to see the significance, sorry.

Is Indonesia really one of the most ethnically uniform populations? That seems improbable to me. Also, granted in almost 200 countries one can probably cherry pick some examples, but it's worth examining how well ethnic and religious uniformity positively correlate with this list of best democracies. If there is a high positive correlation (exceptions notwithstanding) then the theory that ethnic and religious homogeneity facilitates better democracies as measured on the OP's scale deserves greater examination, in my opinion.

CFLarsen

27th November 2006, 01:22 PM

One word: asymptote.

A concept: Risk Management.

You might want to wear spikes to avoid sliding down your slippery slope.

If you can draw the line at 1/5000, then you can answer if you draw it at 1/2500.

Do you, yes or no?

Proving once again that there is NO topic on which the line-drawing fallacy cannot be applied with vigorous force.

I am not the one drawing it with "vigorous force", Darth Rotor is.

Don't you think you should consider just who you are criticizing, and why?

NoZed Avenger

27th November 2006, 01:23 PM

Is "line drawing fallacy" a real name for it? I've seen the situation a lot and I always wondered if it had a name. I don't like "fallacy" as part of the name. It's not a fallacy. It's more of a connundrum. Where do you draw the line on a continuim? No matter where you draw it, it is absurd because on one side is "Yes" and on the other side, a microscopic distance away, is "No." I guess it could be called a fallacy if you claim there really is an objectively good place to draw the line. I prefer the phrase "continuim connundrum," which I just now made up.

It is an informal name for it. Sometimes it is called a "blurred continuum" argument, and there are other names. I've posted links to articles and definitions before, but Mr. Larsen has stated (this is from memory, mind you) that he doesn't really know what the fallacy is and I don't think he ever bothered to look at the links.

However, he does seem familiar with it, and it can be used in oh-so-many topics:

The “free”/stock market
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2016578&postcount=190

Generational Guilt
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1975715&postcount=102

Guns
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1968142&postcount=31

Psychics and Dreams
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1880818&postcount=54

Skeletons in Closets
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1750111&postcount=45

Deaths
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1742089&postcount=68

Appeasement/Leadership
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1700718&postcount=427

Coffee Temperature
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1581687&postcount=132

NBC Decision-Making
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1432515&postcount=222

. . . that, of course, is only a cursory list from this year.

marksman

27th November 2006, 01:26 PM

If you can draw the line at 1/5000, then you can answer if you draw it at 1/2500.

CFLarsen,
You earlier (posts 163 and 165) claimed that you "don't demand a perfect system" and "there will always be some level of injustice". How imperfect a system are you willing to tolerate? What level of injustice are you unwilling to tolerate?
-marksman

Darth Rotor

27th November 2006, 01:31 PM

If you can draw the line at 1/5000, then you can answer if you draw it at 1/2500.

Do you, yes or no?

I am not the one drawing it with "vigorous force", Darth Rotor is.

Don't you think you should consider just who you are criticizing, and why?
I draw no line. I look at the error rate, find it within bounds, and would welcome measures that effectively lower it. That would be good, or better, but the good enough has been reached to my satisfaction.

I didn't kill any elephants to build my house.

DR

NoZed Avenger

27th November 2006, 01:32 PM

I am not the one drawing it with "vigorous force", Darth Rotor is.

So that excuses you applying a fallacy? An all-too familiar fallacy that you've already admitted -- IIRC -- that you don't understand?

Don't you think you should consider just who you are criticizing, and why?

Don't you think you could consider criticisms, regardless of their source?

Do you plan to list a number of topics or people that other posters may not offer criticisms of?

Are you offering Darth Rotor's use of a fallacy as a reason for you to do so?

Must I question everyone's use of a fallacy before I can ask you about it -- especially where this is the first time I have seen them use it, but know of your long love-affair with it?

CFLarsen

28th November 2006, 01:04 AM

CFLarsen,
You earlier (posts 163 and 165) claimed that you "don't demand a perfect system" and "there will always be some level of injustice". How imperfect a system are you willing to tolerate? What level of injustice are you unwilling to tolerate?
-marksman

1 innocent killed is 1 too many. That's one of the main reasons why the death penalty should be abolished.

I draw no line. I look at the error rate, find it within bounds, and would welcome measures that effectively lower it. That would be good, or better, but the good enough has been reached to my satisfaction.

I didn't kill any elephants to build my house.

DR

Yes, you do draw a line: 1/5000. You find the error rate "within bounds". That's why I am asking, do you draw it elsewhere? Why do you find it within "bounds"?

So that excuses you applying a fallacy? An all-too familiar fallacy that you've already admitted -- IIRC -- that you don't understand?

Why are you attacking me? I am not the one applying the fallacy.

Don't you think you could consider criticisms, regardless of their source?

Do you plan to list a number of topics or people that other posters may not offer criticisms of?

Are you offering Darth Rotor's use of a fallacy as a reason for you to do so?

Must I question everyone's use of a fallacy before I can ask you about it -- especially where this is the first time I have seen them use it, but know of your long love-affair with it?

No, you must not question everyone. But when you ignore others and focus on me, then you are not interested in the argument, but the person.

The Atheist

28th November 2006, 01:34 AM

No, you must not question everyone. But when you ignore others and focus on me, then you are not interested in the argument, but the person.Hi there, unter!

I've been looking at this thread - mildly amusing subject matter, discussing which democracy is "better" than another, based upon an arbitrary set of values accorded by a magazine.

One question I have to ask.

Do they add stupid to the water in Denmark?

PogoPedant

28th November 2006, 01:37 AM

This thread was so much better when we were focusing on the meaning of words, and everybody agreed that I was right. :) Anyone want to go back to that?

The Atheist

28th November 2006, 01:40 AM

I didn't kill any elephants to build my house.

DROh yeah, try to get out of it like that, will ya?

I submit that the supplier of your bathroom fixtures also imports components from China.

China is a known importer of illegal ivory.

China's society contains people who consider poaching ivory and making cute little boxes from it, to keep aphrodisiac made from rhinoceros horn in, is a good thing.

SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE MAY WORK FOR THE SUPPLYING COMPANY IN CHINA!

What is your tolerance for illegal poaching of African mammals? How many elephants and rhinoceros were executed in the pursuit of building your dream home? 5000? 5,000,000? Are you, in fact, singlehandedly responsible for the potential extinction of two different species?

marksman

28th November 2006, 06:17 AM

1 innocent killed is 1 too many.
How many unjustly incarcerated people are you willing to tolerate? What if a man, unjustly incarcerated, dies while in prison (either due to prisoner abuse, or natural causes)?

You told me one thing you won't tolerate -- one person wrongfully executed -- but you did not answer the question I asked, which is what level of injustice you will tolerate, given that, as you stated, there is no perfect system.

So, for the second time, what level of injustice are you willing to tolerate?

Darth Rotor

28th November 2006, 06:21 AM

Oh yeah, try to get out of it like that, will ya?

I submit that the supplier of your bathroom fixtures also imports components from China.

China is a known importer of illegal ivory.

China's society contains people who consider poaching ivory and making cute little boxes from it, to keep aphrodisiac made from rhinoceros horn in, is a good thing.

SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE MAY WORK FOR THE SUPPLYING COMPANY IN CHINA!

What is your tolerance for illegal poaching of African mammals? How many elephants and rhinoceros were executed in the pursuit of building your dream home? 5000? 5,000,000? Are you, in fact, singlehandedly responsible for the potential extinction of two different species?
My barb was a reference to Ivory Towers, the development where Claus has residence in a metaphorical sense, but skiing down that slippery slope this morning was a delightful complement to my cup of coffee. :) Thanks.

DR

Darth Rotor

28th November 2006, 06:24 AM

1 innocent killed is 1 too many.
You once again confirm that you accept no error, despite your previous protestations otherwise.
That's one of the main reasons why the death penalty should be abolished.
A separate discussion -- death penalty, yes or no -- for another time.
Yes, you do draw a line: 1/5000. You find the error rate "within bounds". That's why I am asking, do you draw it elsewhere? Why do you find it within "bounds"?
Why do you demand zero defects, Claus? It is a human activity. Do you understand the continual improvement model?

DR

CFLarsen

28th November 2006, 07:30 AM

How many unjustly incarcerated people are you willing to tolerate? What if a man, unjustly incarcerated, dies while in prison (either due to prisoner abuse, or natural causes)?

You told me one thing you won't tolerate -- one person wrongfully executed -- but you did not answer the question I asked, which is what level of injustice you will tolerate, given that, as you stated, there is no perfect system.

So, for the second time, what level of injustice are you willing to tolerate?

I thought you were talking about those who are/were killed.

I should hope that nobody would tolerate any unjustly incarcerated people - I certainly wouldn't. If we discover flaws in a system, especially the legal system, then we have to do everything possible to fix the flaws. We can't just throw our hands up in the air and give up. We are not talking about fixing a production line for slippers - we are talking about the lives of people, and the sense of justice that binds together a civilized society.

That doesn't mean that we can have a perfect system. Law is interpreted reality: There are always new aspects to law, and laws change, both due to outer circumstances and public opinion.

I can't give you a number, because that would mean that we did know how many unjustly incarcerated people there are. If they are unjustly incarcerated, they are (hopefully!) set free. The only answer is: As low as possible - 1.

You once again confirm that you accept no error, despite your previous protestations otherwise.

I accept no error when it comes to the death penalty, no. My previous protestations were about all those unjustly found guilty in a court of law.

A separate discussion -- death penalty, yes or no -- for another time.

I'm not saying we should discuss it. I am merely giving you a reason why the death penalty should be abolished.

Why do you demand zero defects, Claus? It is a human activity. Do you understand the continual improvement model?

Since zero defects cannot be achieved, we have to consider what the consequences are when we apply a system. Can there be compensation for 30 years of incarceration? Yes. Can there be compensation for death? No.

Do you draw the line at 1/2500, yes or no?

Darth Rotor

28th November 2006, 07:42 AM

Do you draw the line at 1/2500, yes or no?
I was born at night, not last night.

Having already stated my position, your attempts to move the goalposts, and to ski the slippery slope, are noted and ignored as worthless.

Your position on the death penalty is acknowledged. On that we can agree to disagree.

DR

Marc L

28th November 2006, 07:51 AM

I can't give you a number,

Then why do you expect others to?

Marc

marksman

28th November 2006, 07:52 AM

I should hope that nobody would tolerate any unjustly incarcerated people - I certainly wouldn't. If we discover flaws in a system, especially the legal system, then we have to do everything possible to fix the flaws. We can't just throw our hands up in the air and give up. We are not talking about fixing a production line for slippers - we are talking about the lives of people, and the sense of justice that binds together a civilized society.

That doesn't mean that we can have a perfect system. Law is interpreted reality: There are always new aspects to law, and laws change, both due to outer circumstances and public opinion.
You state that there can be no perfect system. That means that, if your criminal justice system punishes people, it will, by necessity, punish innocent people.

How many innocent people are you willing to punish so that some guilty people also get punished?

You cannot get around this dilemma, CFLarsen. By acknowledging that a system cannot be perfect, and yet still advocating punishment for criminal activity, you perforce are accepting the realit that some innocent people will be punished along with the guilty.

How many?

It's the same question you are asking Darth Rotor.
Can there be compensation for 30 years of incarceration?
Not if he dies before it is discovered. For the third time, how many innocent people who die during their incarceration are you willing to tolerate, CFLarsen?

Dave1001

28th November 2006, 07:59 AM

1 innocent killed is 1 too many. That's one of the main reasons why the death penalty should be abolished.

Yes, you do draw a line: 1/5000. You find the error rate "within bounds". That's why I am asking, do you draw it elsewhere? Why do you find it within "bounds"?

I think these are fair questions. The problem is one can only discuss them anonymously because there are social costs in non-anonymous American society to be transparent about accepting human deaths as the price for life (or just a better life) for the rest of us.

Although the criminal justice system doesn't work this way, I think that execution systems that will inevitably execute a certain number of innocents should be weighed against measures such as lives likely saved as a result, and to go further down a slippery slope, perhaps even just life years saved or quality of lives improved.

So, in a simple formulation each member of society has a probability chance from 0%-100% of either being executed despite innocence and each also has a 0%-100% chance of being murdered by someone who would have been prevented from this murder either by being executed or by being deterred by an execution regime. Rationally, we want to allow an execution regime that maximizes our overall odds of survival. If allowing an execution regime that results in execution of some innocents reduces our chance of death overall, we would be irrational not to support it, in my opinion.

Of course, some argue (perhaps correctly) that any execution regime will increase our chance of death by execution without reducing our chance of death by murder. This is where experts can provide valuable insight.

NoZed Avenger

28th November 2006, 11:58 AM

Why are you attacking me? I am not the one applying the fallacy.

Attacking?! What an odd thing to say.

Would you say then that you are attacking Grenard, that you attack Tai Chi, that you attacked Lucianarchy?

By asking them questions?

No, you must not question everyone. But when you ignore others and focus on me, then you are not interested in the argument, but the person.

Focus on you? Let's look at this your way:

What percentage or number of posts must I make about your posts over a period of time to be considered "focusing" on you. "Where do you draw the line"?

How many of my posts in the last 6 months have been directed to you versus others? How many (what percentage) of your posts have I responded to?

daenku32

28th November 2006, 12:09 PM

I think it was a pretty good study.

If people have problems with the countries or 'absolute' democracies, then they need to see whether the criteria that Economist used to determine the rating actually has anything to do with a "Tyranny of Democracy."

CFLarsen

28th November 2006, 01:08 PM

You state that there can be no perfect system. That means that, if your criminal justice system punishes people, it will, by necessity, punish innocent people.

How many innocent people are you willing to punish so that some guilty people also get punished?

You cannot get around this dilemma, CFLarsen. By acknowledging that a system cannot be perfect, and yet still advocating punishment for criminal activity, you perforce are accepting the realit that some innocent people will be punished along with the guilty.

How many?

It's the same question you are asking Darth Rotor.

Darth Rotor - somehow - gave a specific number. I haven't. That's why I can't answer it in any other way than I did.

Not if he dies before it is discovered.

The example was about an unjustly jailed person, still alive.

Attacking?! What an odd thing to say.

Would you say then that you are attacking Grenard, that you attack Tai Chi, that you attacked Lucianarchy?

By asking them questions?

But you are not asking me questions. You are accusing me of using a fallacy, when I'm not. While you ignore the one who are using the fallacy. That shows that you are not interested in the argument, but the person.

I don't have time for such inanity.

Darth Rotor

28th November 2006, 01:18 PM

Darth Rotor - somehow - gave a specific number. I haven't. That's why I can't answer it in any other way than I did.

From annual murder stats divided by the estimated maximum number in the same period (of death row executions that are later shown to have been a cock up) a rudimentary stat of 1/5000 was estimated. I looked a bit further last night, and the 3 per year looks high. Since even one cock up gets massive attention in the media, the rate is likely to provide a skewed perception in media reports) For estimation, however, better to "worst case it."

From 1/5000 you then wandered to 1/2500 for your own reasons.

DR

CFLarsen

28th November 2006, 01:41 PM

From annual murder stats divided by the estimated maximum number in the same period (of death row executions that are later shown to have been a cock up) a rudimentary stat of 1/5000 was estimated. I looked a bit further last night, and the 3 per year looks high. Since even one cock up gets massive attention in the media, the rate is likely to provide a skewed perception in media reports) For estimation, however, better to "worst case it."

From 1/5000 you then wandered to 1/2500 for your own reasons.

DR

No, I didn't "wander" anywhere. I asked you if you thought that 1/2500 was acceptable.

If you can say that 1/5000 is acceptable, then you can answer if 1/2500 is. Is it?

marksman

28th November 2006, 01:49 PM

Darth Rotor - somehow - gave a specific number. I haven't. That's why I can't answer it in any other way than I did.
You too gave a specific number. You stated, affirmatively, that you would not accept a single innocent person executed. Your specific number is 'one'. You wrote it in post 184. I'll even quote you:
If they are unjustly incarcerated, they are (hopefully!) set free. The only answer is: As low as possible - 1.
It appears to me you are saying you could not accept even one person dying while wrongfully incarcerated. Is that what you are saying?

On what basis can you definitively state (as you did) that one innocent person executed is too many, but cannot tell many how many innocent people dying while incarcerated would meet your definition of injustice? Is an innocent person dying while incarcerated unworthy of consideration in your system of justice?

The example was about an unjustly jailed person, still alive.
Neither my question, nor your statement which elicited the question was limited in that way.

For the fourth time, how many innocent people who die during their incarceration are you willing to tolerate, CFLarsen?

Darth Rotor

28th November 2006, 03:38 PM

No, I didn't "wander" anywhere. I asked you if you thought that 1/2500 was acceptable.

If you can say that 1/5000 is acceptable, then you can answer if 1/2500 is. Is it?
I have already considered the roughly 1/5000, and am content with that error rate.

I have no emotional investment in further pondering of hypotheticals. You appear to, and are free to do so.

You also defined another number, you number of death penalty cases that you consider suitable, and that number is zero. You are welcome to that as well, and we disagree.

DR

Dave1001

28th November 2006, 05:04 PM

If you can say that 1/5000 is acceptable, then you can answer if 1/2500 is. Is it?

What do you think of this measure?

So, in a simple formulation each member of society has a probability chance from 0%-100% of either being executed despite innocence and each also has a 0%-100% chance of being murdered by someone who would have been prevented from this murder either by being executed or by being deterred by an execution regime. Rationally, we want to allow an execution regime that maximizes our overall odds of survival. If allowing an execution regime that results in execution of some innocents reduces our chance of death overall, we would be irrational not to support it, in my opinion.

NoZed Avenger

28th November 2006, 06:32 PM

But you are not asking me questions. You are accusing me of using a fallacy, when I'm not. While you ignore the one who are using the fallacy. That shows that you are not interested in the argument, but the person.

I don't have time for such inanity.

I've asked lots of questions. You can scroll up and see them.

You're the one that has personalized this by crying persecution instead of dealing with the arguments -- indeed, questioning my motives instead of dealing forthrighly with the issue is a classic example of poisoning the well. Another fallacy. That one also isn't unique to you, so you can safely ignore that, as well.

I understand: you busy posting schedule doesn't allow time for this particular brand of inanity, just all the other types.

CFLarsen

29th November 2006, 01:08 AM

For the fourth time, how many innocent people who die during their incarceration are you willing to tolerate, CFLarsen?

No, not for the "fourth" time. Your question has changed considerably in a very short time. You began with this:

How imperfect a system are you willing to tolerate? What level of injustice are you unwilling to tolerate?

That's a very different question from this:

how many innocent people who die during their incarceration are you willing to tolerate, CFLarsen?

OK? If you are going to debate with me, please have the courtesy of debating honestly. Don't move the goal posts.

I've answered both of them, but, since you seem to have problems understanding what I say, I'll make it even clearer:

There is a huge difference between intentional deaths (executions) and unintentional deaths (people dying in prison of natural causes). The difference is intent. He's dead, but is it because we tried to kill him? If so, that's a very different situation than if we incarcerate him and he just dies.

The latter merely emphasizes the severity of unjustly incarcerated people: He can be freed after 30 years, if he is still alive. Not good, but at least we can try to compensate him. If he dies in jail, it is a travesty of justice, and shows that we don't have a system that prevents this. But if he is intentionally killed, then you have no justice at all. In all three cases, one is one too many. When each case is discovered, we should do what we can to prevent such a thing from happening again. Not just throw our hands in the air and accept a certain level of casualties.

If you can't understand this, then there's nothing more I can do.

I have already considered the roughly 1/5000, and am content with that error rate.

I have no emotional investment in further pondering of hypotheticals. You appear to, and are free to do so.

You also defined another number, you number of death penalty cases that you consider suitable, and that number is zero. You are welcome to that as well, and we disagree.

OK, 1/5000 it is. Why? Is it because you have the numbers and think that's acceptable?

What do you think of this measure?

Now you are talking Kleck/Lott language: You start to calculate imaginary events and treat them as if there were actual events.

How will you calculate the percentage of people who would have been murdered by someone set free?

Dave1001

29th November 2006, 01:54 AM

Now you are talking Kleck/Lott language: You start to calculate imaginary events and treat them as if there were actual events.

How will you calculate the percentage of people who would have been murdered by someone set free?

The difficulty (even apparent impossibility) of a calculation is not a reason to ignore a factor. One of the problems with policy decision making, it seems to me, that difficult aspects to measure or calculate are often just called "externalities" and ignored, skewing analysis. The percentage of people who would have been murdered by someone who wasn't executed is no more imaginary than the percentage of innocent people who would be executed if capital punishment is allowed. Both are equally "imaginary events", but both should be given attention if one wants to create rational policy regarding capital punishment in my opinion.

CFLarsen

29th November 2006, 02:29 AM

The difficulty (even apparent impossibility) of a calculation is not a reason to ignore a factor. One of the problems with policy decision making, it seems to me, that difficult aspects to measure or calculate are often just called "externalities" and ignored, skewing analysis. The percentage of people who would have been murdered by someone who wasn't executed is no more imaginary than the percentage of innocent people who would be executed if capital punishment is allowed. Both are equally "imaginary events", but both should be given attention if one wants to create rational policy regarding capital punishment in my opinion.

Absolutely false. While there is no way to calculate the percentage of people who would have been murdered by someone set free, we know that innocent people are on death row:

As of February 2004, 113 inmates had been found innocent and released from death row. More than half of these have been released in the last 10 years. That means one person has been exonerated for every eight people executed.
ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/capital/innocence/10361pub20031209.html)

1 exonerated from death row for every 8 executed. Something to ponder, eh?

marksman

29th November 2006, 05:50 AM

OK? If you are going to debate with me, please have the courtesy of debating honestly. Don't move the goal posts.
I did not move the goal posts. I have merely clarified the question to accomodate your constant attempts to avoid answering.

There is a huge difference between intentional deaths (executions) and unintentional deaths (people dying in prison of natural causes). The difference is intent. He's dead, but is it because we tried to kill him? If so, that's a very different situation than if we incarcerate him and he just dies.
It's not different at all. You do know that some people who are incarcerated will die before their period of incarceration ends. And since you acknowledge that no system of justice is perfect that some of those people incarcerated are innocent. Thus, by intentionally incarcerating people, you are necessarily condemning innocent people to die in prison. And it is as intentional as executing an innocent man.

How many of innocent people are you willing to let die in prison, CFLarsen? You don't want one innocent person executed, but it appears you don't care how many innocent people die while incarcerated.

He can be freed after 30 years, if he is still alive.
Which, of course, means he cannot be freed if he dies before then.

But if he is intentionally killed, then you have no justice at all.
The injustice is the same if he dies from execution or other causes while in the State's care. Dead is dead.

In all three cases, one is one too many.
If one is too many, on what basis do you adovocate the incarceration of prisoners, knowing as you must, that innocent people are going to die because of the State's action?

Not just throw our hands in the air and accept a certain level of casualties.
But that's exactly what you are doing. By allowing people to be incarcerated, you are perforce accepting that some innocent people will die in prison. My question to you is how many are you willing to tolerate?

If you can't understand this, then there's nothing more I can do.
I understand perfectly. I understand that you won't answer the question.

How many innocent people who die during their incarceration are you willing to tolerate, CFLarsen?

Beerina

29th November 2006, 06:26 AM

Unfortunately, it's freedom, not democracy, that makes a nation great. Uh. I doubt it as it is put; Somalia might well disagree muchly with you.

Complete anarchy, certainly, is not what I'm talking about. But the rise of local warlords and mafia-like organizations are quasi-governmental, and arguably not a free land.

Unfortunately, it's freedom, not democracy, that makes a nation great.

What do you mean, "great"?

Not savage. Free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. A land where there's more to freedom than just speech, there's freedom of action. This yields a robust economy and rapidly advancing technology.

But, in a democracy, the politicians get the power from the people.

So they now have to jump through a hoop of barely 50% majority and they can pass whatever law they like? Curiously, I don't find that a desirable situation. Many socialists love this because their class warfare rhetoric does, or used to, gain them their 50.01%. In an evolutionary sense, it is productive to win elections, but counter-productive to freedom and advancing technology.

CFLarsen

29th November 2006, 06:32 AM

I did not move the goal posts. I have merely clarified the question to accomodate your constant attempts to avoid answering.

No, that is not a "clarification". That is asking something entirely different.

It's not different at all. You do know that some people who are incarcerated will die before their period of incarceration ends. And since you acknowledge that no system of justice is perfect that some of those people incarcerated are innocent. Thus, by intentionally incarcerating people, you are necessarily condemning innocent people to die in prison. And it is as intentional as executing an innocent man.

Absolutely false.

How many of innocent people are you willing to let die in prison, CFLarsen? You don't want one innocent person executed, but it appears you don't care how many innocent people die while incarcerated.

Rubbish. I've explained in detail where I stand on this.

Which, of course, means he cannot be freed if he dies before then.

Which, of course, is another situation.

The injustice is the same if he dies from execution or other causes while in the State's care. Dead is dead.

Absolutely not. There is a huge difference between dying in jail and being executed.

If one is too many, on what basis do you adovocate the incarceration of prisoners, knowing as you must, that innocent people are going to die because of the State's action?

I'm not particularly advocating prisons, as I don't find them serving the purpose of justice and preventing criminals from committing crimes all that well. We all know that, if you want to become a good criminal, jail is the place to learn it. But, for now, it is the "best" way we have. However, it is far from an optimum solution, and we should always be looking for better ways to stop people from committing crimes, and to give the population a sense that they are living in a just society governed by law and order.

But that's exactly what you are doing. By allowing people to be incarcerated, you are perforce accepting that some innocent people will die in prison. My question to you is how many are you willing to tolerate?

That's exactly what I am not doing: I specifically clarified (but you seem intent on ignoring this, for some reason) that, whenever we see flaws, we fix them, instead of throwing our hands in the air.

I understand perfectly. I understand that you won't answer the question.

How many innocent people who die during their incarceration are you willing to tolerate, CFLarsen?

Oh, well. Some people, you can reach. Some, you can't reach. And some refuse to be reached.

Beerina

29th November 2006, 06:33 AM

As far as juries and death sentences, I think it varies by state, that some leave the sentence up to the judge, others require jury vote for the death penalty, and of the latter some require unanimity and others just a majority. And many states, of course, don't have the death penalty at all.

There ya go, lovers of European socialist highly-ranked democracies. Democracy in the US in action. You've no philosophical argument against it aside from persuasion of the people.

Beerina

29th November 2006, 06:38 AM

In a country of just under 300,000,000, 60 people executed in a year, with a couple of them being the wrong guy?

Out of a prison population of about a million and a half, 60 people get executed in a year, and a couple of them are a wrong guy?

Which ones are the wrong guy? The last two or three touted by anti death penalty folks as "probably innocent" turned out to be guilty as sin once the DNA came back.

Not saying there aren't, but saying even 2 of every 60 is wildly overrating the problem. And if it were 2 of 60, I'd call a halt to it instantly. Hell, if any in modern times were found innocent, I'd call a halt to it until a full analysis was done and steps taken to prevent it in the future.

Darth Rotor

29th November 2006, 06:38 AM

1 exonerated from death row for every 8 executed. Something to ponder, eh?
Yes indeed, were that the number the study showed.
A study by Columbia University professor James Liebman examined thousands of capital sentences that had been reviewed by courts in 34 states from 1973 to 1995. "An astonishing 82 percent of death row inmates did not deserve to receive the death penalty," he said in his conclusion.
"Did not deserve?" That's a subjective argument, not an objective one. He seems to ignore the murder cases plea bargained down to manslaughter, or to lesser murder charges, for example.
"One in twenty death row inmates is later found not guilty."
That's not 1 in 8, but no matter, it's an order of magnitude or two of difference than the posited 1/5000 (derived from murder/manslaughter convictions, not death row status).

If the good doctor's study is without bias (I consider the source) that is a system that could use considerable improvement. :mad: I accept his data as being far more useful for discussion than my estimates, as I didn't go back as far as he did, nor dig as deeply. Caveat: as the system (and forensic methods) have improved, the error rate goes down. In the last 5 years, DNA evidence has been used to get a number of death row denizens off of death row. That was not an option as recently as fifteen years ago, half way into his interval. Lumping all 30 years together masks the systemic improvements over time. There is also a recent spike in the Governor of Illinois' pardon of every death row inmate(2004 or 2005?) for political reasons.

In five years time, I expect the error rate to have further decreased as forensic methods improve.

DR

marksman

29th November 2006, 07:41 AM

No, that is not a "clarification". That is asking something entirely different.
No, it's not. I've always sought the number of innocent people you are willing to see die before you deem a system not corrupt. You try to parse out diffetent aspects of the justice system, and only answering with respect to the one thing you seem willing to take a deifnitive stand on: capital punishment.

Absolutely false.
In what way? Do you deny that innocent people may die during incarceration in any system of justice that uses incarceration?

Rubbish. I've explained in detail where I stand on this.
But you haven't given the number.

How many innocent people are you willing to allow to die in prison?

Which, of course, is another situation.
No, it's not. It's all part of the justice system. It's all deaths of innocent people. You said you didn't want to see any innocent people die, but apparently, you are more than willing to see an unlimited number of innocent people die in prison, as long as they aren't executed.

There is a huge difference between dying in jail and being executed.
Not in any salient way. Both people are dead. both people have had their freedom forever deprived them by the State. Neither of them can be compensated for their wrongful punuishment.

I'm not particularly advocating prisons, as I don't find them serving the purpose of justice and preventing criminals from committing crimes all that well. We all know that, if you want to become a good criminal, jail is the place to learn it. But, for now, it is the "best" way we have. However, it is far from an optimum solution, and we should always be looking for better ways to stop people from committing crimes, and to give the population a sense that they are living in a just society governed by law and order.

And how many innocent people are you willing to let die in prison before you deem that system unjust? You aren't willing ot let one innocent person be executed, but you won't state how many innocent people can die in jail before you deem that system unjust.

That's exactly what I am not doing: I specifically clarified (but you seem intent on ignoring this, for some reason) that, whenever we see flaws, we fix them, instead of throwing our hands in the air.
That's not what I'm asking. I ignore it because it is irrelevant to the question.

You asked Darth Rotor how many innocent people he is willing to see executed. That indicates to me that you believe that counting innocent people wrongly punished is a relevant consideration when determining whether to inflict a punishment. You stated that incarcertaion was different because someone could be liberated if found innocent. I pointed out that someone who dies in prison cannot be liberated and then asked you how many of those situations you are willing to tolerate.

If it is relevant when analyzing executions, it is relevant when analyzing incarceration, a punishment that you have stated you are willing to accept with its flaws. My question to you is how flawed are you willing to accept it?

Oh, well. Some people, you can reach. Some, you can't reach. And some refuse to be reached.
I've noticed that too.

How many innocent people who die during their incarceration are you willing to tolerate, CFLarsen?

armageddonman

29th November 2006, 08:25 AM

CFLarsen

29th November 2006, 08:57 AM

Yes indeed, were that the number the study showed.

"Did not deserve?" That's a subjective argument, not an objective one. He seems to ignore the murder cases plea bargained down to manslaughter, or to lesser murder charges, for example.

That's not 1 in 8, but no matter, it's an order of magnitude or two of difference than the posited 1/5000 (derived from murder/manslaughter convictions, not death row status).

Read what it says:

A study by Columbia University professor James Liebman examined thousands of capital sentences that had been reviewed by courts in 34 states from 1973 to 1995. "An astonishing 82 percent of death row inmates did not deserve to receive the death penalty," he said in his conclusion. "One in twenty death row inmates is later found not guilty."

It is of cases reviewed, in 34 states. As I recall, the US have a few more states than that. Nowhere does he say that he reviewed all cases.

If the good doctor's study is without bias (I consider the source)

What source? ACLU?

that is a system that could use considerable improvement. :mad: I accept his data as being far more useful for discussion than my estimates, as I didn't go back as far as he did, nor dig as deeply. Caveat: as the system (and forensic methods) have improved, the error rate goes down. In the last 5 years, DNA evidence has been used to get a number of death row denizens off of death row. That was not an option as recently as fifteen years ago, half way into his interval.

That's a myth:

Although there has been much attention surrounding the use of DNA testing, only 13 death row inmates of 113 have been exonerated by use of DNA. Many people falsely believe that DNA testing is a panacea that guarantees innocent people will not be put to death. However, it is important to note that DNA testing is not always able to determine the killer. In many cases, there is no physical evidence to test. DNA testing can be a critical tool for proving innocence, but it is still only available in a fraction of cases. For instance, five of the seventeen people released from death row were released because DNA evidence revealed their innocence.

Next time, read the whole source.

Do you deny that innocent people may die during incarceration in any system of justice that uses incarceration?

Let me just focus on that one. And yet, I clearly said:

He can be freed after 30 years, if he is still alive. Not good, but at least we can try to compensate him. If he dies in jail, it is a travesty of justice, and shows that we don't have a system that prevents this. But if he is intentionally killed, then you have no justice at all. In all three cases, one is one too many. When each case is discovered, we should do what we can to prevent such a thing from happening again. Not just throw our hands in the air and accept a certain level of casualties.

You are simply not listening to anything I say. All you do is drone on and on and on, without stopping to listen to what people say.

Don't waste my time with your baloney.

Darth Rotor

29th November 2006, 09:20 AM

It is of cases reviewed, in 34 states. As I recall, the US have a few more states than that. Nowhere does he say that he reviewed all cases.
[QUOTE]That's a myth: If the number of times DNA can be used to self correct the system is > 0, then it is an improvement over 0, which is where things stood about 15 years ago.

I agree with you completely (this has been much discussed in Texas for the past three years in the public debate over the death penalty) that DNA is not some panacea that can resolve or solve all matters of evidence, but it is an improvement in the system.

DR

steverino

29th November 2006, 09:32 AM

marksman

29th November 2006, 09:35 AM

You are simply not listening to anything I say.
No, I listened and you either contradict yourself or refuse to answer the question.

In post 198 you wrote "If he dies in jail, it is a travesty of justice"
But when I repeated that point in post 201 that "You do know that some people who are incarcerated will die before their period of incarceration ends", you responded in post 203 with "Absolutely false."

So is it true or is it false. You've now taken two entirely different stands on this point. Or if "absolutely false" refers to something else, you need to make that clear.

But once again, you believe it to be a travesty that innocent people might die while incarcerated. You are also willing to incarcerate people regardless. How many innocent people dying while incarcerated are you willing to accept?

With respect to wrongful execution, you stated your number: 1. Now state your number with respect to wrongful incarceration.

It's a straightforward question that you are assiduously refusing to answer.

All you do is drone on and on and on, without stopping to listen to what people say.
The only person claiming this is you, so where you get "people" from is a mystery. And I have read what you wrote. Apparently, better than you have.

I also note what you haven't written: an answer to the question.

Don't waste my time with your baloney.
As you are not my slave, I am unable to waste your time. Any time you spend is of your own will.

Now answer the question.

How many innocent people who die during their incarceration are you willing to tolerate, CFLarsen?

CFLarsen

29th November 2006, 10:11 AM

If the number of times DNA can be used to self correct the system is > 0, then it is an improvement over 0, which is where things stood about 15 years ago.

I agree with you completely (this has been much discussed in Texas for the past three years in the public debate over the death penalty) that DNA is not some panacea that can resolve or solve all matters of evidence, but it is an improvement in the system.

DR

What source were you considering? ACLU?

Darth Rotor

29th November 2006, 10:16 AM

What source were you considering? ACLU?
The professor, and the ACLU together. I don't consider either an objective source, but neither to I throw the baby out with the bathwater.

only 13 death row inmates of 113 have been exonerated by use of DNA.

13 > 0.

DR

CFLarsen

29th November 2006, 10:53 AM

The professor, and the ACLU together. I don't consider either an objective source

Why not?

What would you consider an objective source?

Grammatron

29th November 2006, 11:05 AM

I am fairly certain ACLU nor the study had evidence that an innocent person was executed, they just assume one was.

Dave1001

29th November 2006, 11:17 AM

The difficulty (even apparent impossibility) of a calculation is not a reason to ignore a factor. One of the problems with policy decision making, it seems to me, that difficult aspects to measure or calculate are often just called "externalities" and ignored, skewing analysis. The percentage of people who would have been murdered by someone who wasn't executed is no more imaginary than the percentage of innocent people who would be executed if capital punishment is allowed. Both are equally "imaginary events", but both should be given attention if one wants to create rational policy regarding capital punishment in my opinion.
Absolutely false. While there is no way to calculate the percentage of people who would have been murdered by someone set free, we know that innocent people are on death row:

1 exonerated from death row for every 8 executed. Something to ponder, eh?

Er-no, it's not "absolutely false". Folks have been convicted of murder, not executed, and have murdered again. Folks have been executed for murder, that have actually been innocent of the charge. Perhaps we can't calculate the exact percentages for each, but experts can come up with their best ballparks. And then we can weigh those when deciding the best formula for protecting innocent life. It seems to me that that approach is maximizing our odds of preventing the killing of innocent people. Whereas it seems to me you just want to call people that will be killed by non-executed convicts of murder "uncaculable externalities" so that you don't have to factor that form of loss of innocent life into your analysis.

CFLarsen

29th November 2006, 11:22 AM

Er-no, it's not "absolutely false". Folks have been convicted of murder, not executed, and have murdered again. Folks have been executed for murder, that have actually been innocent of the charge. Perhaps we can't calculate the exact percentages for each, but experts can come up with their best ballparks. And then we can weigh those when deciding the best formula for protecting innocent life. It seems to me that that approach is maximizing our odds of preventing the killing of innocent people. Whereas it seems to me you just want to call people that will be killed by non-executed convicts of murder "uncaculable externalities" so that you don't have to factor that form of loss of innocent life into your analysis.

Would you like to be on death row, innocent?

Grammatron

29th November 2006, 11:32 AM

Would you like to be on death row, innocent?
Would you like to spend 30 years in prison?

Dave1001

29th November 2006, 11:34 AM

Would you like to be on death row, innocent?

What does that have to do with rational analysis of the best way to prevent either of us from being killed? I don't want to be executed by the state, and I don't want to be killed by someone that wasn't executed by the state. So I want us to come up with the best system that minimizes the odds overall of either of those things happening to me.

CFLarsen

29th November 2006, 11:46 AM

Would you like to spend 30 years in prison?

Certainly not if I was innocent!

Would you (presuming you were innocent)?

What does that have to do with rational analysis of the best way to prevent either of us from being killed? I don't want to be executed by the state, and I don't want to be killed by someone that wasn't executed by the state.

It has everything to do with a rational analysis: Before you start calculating the odds, ask yourself if you would like to be the one getting it up the rear. It sure puts those risks in quite a different light, doesn't it?

So I want us to come up with the best system that minimizes the odds overall of either of those things happening to me.

Yeah, but, as we have seen, you can't calculate how many will commit murder. You have real data against imaginary ones. To me, reality beats fantasies, any day. That's why I'm a skeptic.

Are you?

Dave1001

29th November 2006, 12:11 PM

Certainly not if I was innocent!

Would you (presuming you were innocent)?

It has everything to do with a rational analysis: Before you start calculating the odds, ask yourself if you would like to be the one getting it up the rear. It sure puts those risks in quite a different light, doesn't it?

Not really. I see the risks of my being executed by the state and the risk of my being killed by someone that the state didn't execute in about the same light: extremely improbable in our current system, but still I'd like to minimize my odds overall of dying, including from either of these scenarios.

Yeah, but, as we have seen, you can't calculate how many will commit murder. You have real data against imaginary ones. To me, reality beats fantasies, any day. That's why I'm a skeptic.

Are you?

I don't think we've seen that the odds of my being killed by someone the state didn't execute as intrinsically impossible to calculate, in particular not any more so than being able to calculate the odds of my being executed by the state. Both are equally real/imaginary.

I don't get the logical process of declaring something impossible to calculate and claiming that due to that it's an externality that doesn't have to factor into one's analysis. Also, I don't see that approach as an indication of being a true skeptic.

CFLarsen

29th November 2006, 12:21 PM

Not really. I see the risks of my being executed by the state and the risk of my being killed by someone that the state didn't execute in about the same light: extremely improbable in our current system, but still I'd like to minimize my odds overall of dying, including from either of these scenarios.

But how can you evaluate the risks, if one of the situations is inherently impossible to calculate?

I don't think we've seen that the odds of my being killed by someone the state didn't execute as intrinsically impossible to calculate, in particular not any more so than being able to calculate the odds of my being executed by the state. Both are equally real/imaginary.

Then, do the calculations. Let's see your numbers, and what they are based on.

I don't get the logical process of declaring something impossible to calculate and claiming that due to that it's an externality that doesn't have to factor into one's analysis. Also, I don't see that approach as an indication of being a true skeptic.

If you think it is possible to calculate how many people will kill other people, let's see your evidence.

That's the approach of a true skeptic.

Get it yet? ;)

Marc L

29th November 2006, 12:49 PM

Would you like to spend 30 years in prison?

Finally we get to the question I wanted asked. I attempted to post it this morning, but couldn't.

CFLarsen (for somereason, I keep thinking your name is Claus. Is it?), you're focusing solely on the amount of people executed that are innocent. What about incarceration in general? Do you have a number of innocent people you'd allow to be incarcerated before you consider the system unjust?

Marc

CFLarsen

29th November 2006, 01:12 PM

CFLarsen (for somereason, I keep thinking your name is Claus. Is it?),

Yes it is.

you're focusing solely on the amount of people executed that are innocent.

Not solely. I am just pointing out that there's a huge difference between unjustly incarcerating someone for 30 years, and killing him. We can - however inadequately - try to compensate for the lost time spent in jail, but we cannot possibly compensate for a life taken away.

What about incarceration in general? Do you have a number of innocent people you'd allow to be incarcerated before you consider the system unjust?

Already stated: I won't allow innocent people to be incarcerated. If they are found to be innocent, free them, with as much compensation as possible. Close the holes in the system, whenever they are found. Find the holes, before they are determined by court decisions.

The point is: You cannot have one innocent in jail and still believe that you live in a just society. It is an on-going struggle, to fine-tune the system. But you can never rest.

What I object to is the notion that you have to accept a certain number of innocent people, not just jailed, but also killed, only to have a number of criminals which cannot possibly be calculated removed from society.

You do not have a just society, if you accept a certain number of innocent to be jailed and killed. It is inhuman, it is uncivilized.

marksman

29th November 2006, 01:17 PM

You do not have a just society, if you accept a certain number of innocent to be jailed and killed. It is inhuman, it is uncivilized.

What is that "certain number" of innocent incarcerated people who will die in prison that you are willing to tolerate? Those people cannot be compensated for their unjust incarceration -- much as the wrongly executed cannot be compensated -- as they are dead.

Darth Rotor

29th November 2006, 01:22 PM

You do not have a just society, if you accept a certain number of innocent to be jailed and killed. It is inhuman, it is uncivilized.
Argument by platitude. Claus, that is not a good skeptic's method.

I would offer a suggestion on word selection, regarding

It is inhuman, it is uncivilized

For the first, I suggest that you use inhumane, as the practice you so abhor is very human practice: humans do it, and have been doing it for centuries. That you consider that practice uncivilized, or even inhumane, is acknowledged. Since you set a standard of zero defects, your standard is not achievable by humans.

DR

CFLarsen

29th November 2006, 01:36 PM

Argument by platitude. Claus, that is not a good skeptic's method.

I would offer a suggestion on word selection, regarding

It is inhuman, it is uncivilized

For the first, I suggest that you use inhumane, as the practice you so abhor is very human practice: humans do it, and have been doing it, for centuries. That you consider that practice uncivilized, or even inhumane, is acknowledged. Since you set a standard of zero defects, your standard is not achievable by humans.

DR

Why don't you consider the ACLU/the professor an objective source?

What would you consider an objective source?

Darth Rotor

29th November 2006, 01:39 PM

Why don't you consider the ACLU/the professor an objective source?
Agenda. Bias.
What would you consider an objective source?
US DoJ

DR

steverino

29th November 2006, 01:40 PM

Why don't you consider the ACLU/the professor an objective source?

What would you consider an objective source?

I'm not able to connect the dots here with this stuff and list of best democracies.Did I miss something?

Darth Rotor

29th November 2006, 01:41 PM

I'm not able to connect the dots here with this stuff and list of best democracies.Did I miss something?

Yes, standard JREF/Clausian derail. I am an accomplice, so do not have clean hands. :(

DR

CFLarsen

29th November 2006, 01:42 PM

Agenda. Bias.

Which agenda? What bias? Be specific.

US DoJ

Why? Be specific.

CFLarsen

29th November 2006, 01:44 PM

Yes, standard JREF/Clausian derail. I am an accomplice, so do not have clean hands. :(

DR

Huh?

What does JREF have to do with this??

Yeah: Be specific.

Darth Rotor

29th November 2006, 01:45 PM

Which agenda? What bias? Be specific.

Why? Be specific.
No. You are now trying to be a time bandit. Go play with someone else. I am tired of playing Claus tag.

You and I disagree on the death penalty. This thread won't change that.

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor
Yes, standard JREF/Clausian derail. I am an accomplice, so do not have clean hands
Huh?

What does JREF have to do with this??

Yeah: Be specific
JREF forums threads often include derailed discussions, and Claus is often in derailed discussions. (Me too, for that matter.)

Good day.

DR

CFLarsen

29th November 2006, 01:45 PM

I'm not able to connect the dots here with this stuff and list of best democracies.Did I miss something?

You have to read the thread.

steverino

29th November 2006, 02:14 PM

You have to read the thread.

Do I? Darn. OK.:(

Dave1001

29th November 2006, 04:36 PM

But how can you evaluate the risks, if one of the situations is inherently impossible to calculate?

Then, do the calculations. Let's see your numbers, and what they are based on.

If you think it is possible to calculate how many people will kill other people, let's see your evidence.

That's the approach of a true skeptic.

Get it yet? ;)

As a starting point, this google search: "convicted murderer" "killed again"
results in 981 hits, many of which describe convicted murderers that weren't executed and went on to kill again. Of course, they didn't all necessarily get an incaceration as long as 30 years. I mention it because it's parallel to evidence you've provided that specific innocent people have been on death row. Specific innocent people have also been killed by convicted murderers that didn't get the death penalty.

Going beyond that to calculate the number of people that are killed by murderers that didn't receive the death penalty:That number seems if anything easier to calculate than the number of innocent people that have been murdered, because records are kept for the most part of everyone murdered and if they convicted murderer had previous convictions for murder. In contrast, it seems to be extrapolative speculation on your part what the total number of people are who were innocent yet executed.

Beyond that, you have haven't addressed why it is you feel you can ignore the impact of factors that you consider to be externalities just because you claim they can't be calculated. We may not be able to calculate exactly the damage a soccer mom's suv is causing to the environment: does that mean we should ignore it? Many smart people think that's a mistake that is quite common in human decision making. I guess I still don't see the logical train where you go from "This is impossible to calculate" to "therefore, this is something I can ignore." One may not be able to caculate the exact force a bus is moving with in your direction, but it still makes sense to get out of the way of it. Similarly, even if you feel one can't make a good calculation of the number of innocent people that would be killed by convicted murderers if the death penalty was abolished, it still makes sense to make the best calculation possible and then factor that in to your decision making process.

(I aplogize if this is a little spotty -I'm exhausted right now and just home from class).

Marc L

29th November 2006, 05:36 PM

Not solely. I am just pointing out that there's a huge difference between unjustly incarcerating someone for 30 years, and killing him. We can - however inadequately - try to compensate for the lost time spent in jail, but we cannot possibly compensate for a life taken away.

I agree that there's a difference, but I'd argue (based on personal opinion) that it's as bad. Yes, we can give the poor guy money, but can we give him 30 years back? Before you think that's just an empty platitude, imagine that guy is arrested when he's 20. He gets out, and now he's 50. He's missed out on being a young man. No college, no drunken parties with friends (as much), etc. He has zero experience dealing with his peers, other than criminals. Also, how is he supposed to get a good job at 50 with no experience? How do you compensate someone for that?

The point is: You cannot have one innocent in jail and still believe that you live in a just society. It is an on-going struggle, to fine-tune the system. But you can never rest.

I disagree. Here in the US, there is a way to fight erroneous sentencing-it's called the appeals process. That we have that system is what makes us a just society. True, there are screwups. People are incarcerated unjustly, or executed unjustly, but unfortunately, that's the price you pay for a human devised system. The appeals process is a way to try and close some of those holes.

What I object to is the notion that you have to accept a certain number of innocent people, not just jailed, but also killed, only to have a number of criminals which cannot possibly be calculated removed from society.

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. It's not that the justice system sits down at the beginning of the fiscal year and says, "Ok, we have a quota of 5 innocent people out of every 100 (I just pulled that number out of the air, I'm not saying it's an acceptable line)." Instead, the justice system attempts to make sure it has the correct evidence to prosecute the correct people and give them the correct punishment. Does it fail occasionally? Yes. Again, it's a human system. It's not going to be perfect. We have the appeals process to help correct the failures.

You do not have a just society, if you accept a certain number of innocent to be jailed and killed. It is inhuman, it is uncivilized.

See above. We don't accept a certain number of innocents to be jailed and/or killed. We acknowledge that it happens, and do our best, through the appeals process, to prevent it.

The alternative is to not punish criminals. We'd have to let murders continue to murder, theives to continue to steal, and rapists to continue to rape. Is that really an acceptable alternative simply because we're afraid of wrongfully incarcerating and/or executing one innocent person?

Marc

Mahatma Kane Jeeves

29th November 2006, 07:50 PM

The alternative is to not punish criminals. We'd have to let murders continue to murder, theives to continue to steal, and rapists to continue to rape. Is that really an acceptable alternative simply because we're afraid of wrongfully incarcerating and/or executing one innocent person?

Wow. I guess I should move to a state or country without the death penalty, because they apparently don't punish criminals at all. :boggled:

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to go with Claus on this one. I find all this talk of "acceptable error rates" in connection with the death penalty to be absolutely horrifying. The death penalty is not a necessary component of the justice system--plenty of states (and countries) do just fine without it. The argument that being against the death penalty equates to being against incarceration is simply asinine.

a_unique_person

29th November 2006, 09:49 PM

Dittohead here.

Zep

29th November 2006, 10:27 PM

MEANWHILE...!!!

THIS is the best democracy in the world!

http://www.bom.gov.au/general/fishonline/images/71.jpg

So there.

steverino

29th November 2006, 10:30 PM

You a devil!:D

PogoPedant

29th November 2006, 10:58 PM

You gotta admit that "rather let 10 criminals go free than see one innocent man in jail" sounds a bit better than "rather let one innocent die than consider possible changes to the current system". :P

CFLarsen

30th November 2006, 12:08 AM

As a starting point, this google search:

A google search does not constitute evidence.

I agree that there's a difference, but I'd argue (based on personal opinion) that it's as bad. Yes, we can give the poor guy money, but can we give him 30 years back? Before you think that's just an empty platitude, imagine that guy is arrested when he's 20. He gets out, and now he's 50. He's missed out on being a young man. No college, no drunken parties with friends (as much), etc. He has zero experience dealing with his peers, other than criminals. Also, how is he supposed to get a good job at 50 with no experience? How do you compensate someone for that?

Like I said: "We can - however inadequately - try to compensate".

I disagree. Here in the US, there is a way to fight erroneous sentencing-it's called the appeals process. That we have that system is what makes us a just society. True, there are screwups. People are incarcerated unjustly, or executed unjustly, but unfortunately, that's the price you pay for a human devised system. The appeals process is a way to try and close some of those holes.

If there are "screwups" to the effect that for 8 executed, 1 is exonerated, that seems to me like there are a lot of screwups.

Think about it: How much time and effort is spent on death sentences? A hell of a lot more than your average crime, B&E, bar brawls, car theft, etc.? Yeah, I think we can agree on that. (Because otherwise, you'd have to argue that your country is more eager to kill people than to jail them - I don't think you will do that.)

So......if the same time and effort was spent on the lesser crimes, do you think the rate of exonerations would be somewhere near 1:8, too?

You got 8 guilty in prison, for each 1 not guilty? Does that sound like "screwups"? Or does that sound like an inherently unjust system?

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. It's not that the justice system sits down at the beginning of the fiscal year and says, "Ok, we have a quota of 5 innocent people out of every 100 (I just pulled that number out of the air, I'm not saying it's an acceptable line)." Instead, the justice system attempts to make sure it has the correct evidence to prosecute the correct people and give them the correct punishment. Does it fail occasionally? Yes. Again, it's a human system. It's not going to be perfect. We have the appeals process to help correct the failures.

You bet money is a huge factor in who gets a fair trial or not. Do you honestly think O.J. Simpson would have walked, if he had been some young black punk from the ghetto?

See above. We don't accept a certain number of innocents to be jailed and/or killed. We acknowledge that it happens, and do our best, through the appeals process, to prevent it.

I'm sorry, but that's not the way it looks. You do accept a certain number of innocents to be jailed and/or killed.

The alternative is to not punish criminals. We'd have to let murders continue to murder, theives to continue to steal, and rapists to continue to rape. Is that really an acceptable alternative simply because we're afraid of wrongfully incarcerating and/or executing one innocent person?

There it is again, this throwing hands in the air and giving up, whenever there's a problem. No, we do not stop punishing criminals. Instead, we do everything we can to fix the system, as soon as possible, no matter what it takes.

Wow. I guess I should move to a state or country without the death penalty, because they apparently don't punish criminals at all. :boggled:

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to go with Claus on this one. I find all this talk of "acceptable error rates" in connection with the death penalty to be absolutely horrifying. The death penalty is not a necessary component of the justice system--plenty of states (and countries) do just fine without it. The argument that being against the death penalty equates to being against incarceration is simply asinine.

Well said.

The Atheist

30th November 2006, 01:14 AM

MEANWHILE...!!!

THIS is the best democracy in the world!

http://www.bom.gov.au/general/fishonline/images/71.jpg

So there.Oh my god, it's CHOPPER!!

Zep

30th November 2006, 01:48 AM

Nah, just another apple-bender. ;)

Dave1001

30th November 2006, 02:15 AM

Wow. I guess I should move to a state or country without the death penalty, because they apparently don't punish criminals at all. :boggled:

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to go with Claus on this one. I find all this talk of "acceptable error rates" in connection with the death penalty to be absolutely horrifying. The death penalty is not a necessary component of the justice system--plenty of states (and countries) do just fine without it. The argument that being against the death penalty equates to being against incarceration is simply asinine.

Are you against acceptable error rates that lead to people's death in general, or just for the death penalty? If just for the death penalty, why the exception?

Zep

30th November 2006, 03:27 AM

Are you against acceptable error rates that lead to people's death in general, or just for the death penalty? If just for the death penalty, why the exception?That's easy: Errors in jailing can be fixed by letting the innocent person out (and a whole lot of regret, and a whole lot of money). Errors in carrying out death penalty sentences are slightly unreversible... :rolleyes:

Marc L

30th November 2006, 04:34 AM

Wow. I guess I should move to a state or country without the death penalty, because they apparently don't punish criminals at all. :boggled:

I wasn't clear, and I apologize. I was referring to incarceration and/or the death penalty, not just to the death penalty.

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to go with Claus on this one. I find all this talk of "acceptable error rates" in connection with the death penalty to be absolutely horrifying. The death penalty is not a necessary component of the justice system--plenty of states (and countries) do just fine without it. The argument that being against the death penalty equates to being against incarceration is simply asinine.

Again, that wasn't my contention. I don't feel that being against the death penalty equates to being against incarceration. My question for Claus (and my posts that follow) dealt with innocent people being either jailed or executed.

Marc