"If this does not qualify for the death sentence, then there is no case that would''

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Templar
These acts are so far beyond the pale, I don't see any sort of a rational motive.

I find plenty of crimes to be beyond the pale. Man is a cruel animal. I fail to see what any of that has to do with people having a presumption of insanity though.

[Gibsie]

Inbreeding can lead to mental defects. Don't know if this guy is inbred, but still. Perhaps the presumption that he is definitely insane is incorrect, but there clearly is a very real possiblity of it, certainly enough to put off preparing the noose for now.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I find plenty of crimes to be beyond the pale. Man is a cruel animal. I fail to see what any of that has to do with people having a presumption of insanity though.

I think given the facts that insanity is something to be excluded in this case.

Most people, myself included, cannot make sufficient sense of this case to even apply the moral categories requisite to finding culpability.

Mens rea is an element of murder in most jurisdictions. What is the mens rea here? It's not negligence. If you say 'knowledge' I really question what this guy knew. If you say 'intentional', then this guy's intentions are far to alien for me to interpret.

I want this guy locked up, but this looks like rubber room stuff.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which is why I said I'm for the death penalty, but no, this statement doesn't apply.

I don't know how off his rocker he is.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kucinich
I think that cases like these - that are just completely insane - aren't as good examples of why we need the death penalty as cases where the killer is quite plainly and consciously evil.

Except for the word evil -

Against in this case. I'm for not having a ban on the DP, but only for it to be used in extreme cases or unrehabilitable, prejudiced nastyness.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Does a burglar alarm have freewill?

Is a burglar alarm sentient?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Skywalker, again: it's not only about making a choice, but about making a choice that is only subject to a self-created algorithm.

Self-created by an algorithm, too. Does that have to be self-created? What about the algorithm that determines the algorithm that determines the algorithm you are subject to? It goes on forever. The fact that something received information from the outside world does not remove the element of free will.

Maybe you'll understand this someday.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Templar
Temper, temper ...

The idea of freewill coexisting with determinism is called compatablism. As a former colleague once said "compatabilism isn't".

Then there IS no free will. Because if the universe isn't deterministic, then there is an element of randomness. Unless pure chance = free will, then you are saying free will can't exist.

Of course, if the rules must be followed (i.e. there is no choice not to follow) and the rules force one course of action, then there is no choice.

You aren't "following" the rules. It's not as if you want to move your right arm, but instead move your left. You DECIDE what to do based on those rules. It's not like you're some bureaucrat sitting at a desk, and you really really want to break the regulations, but some otherworldly force makes you follow them anyways.

There is no possibility of opting out of the rules if there is no free will, and there is no choice between courses of action if action is a product purely of hardwired characteristics and environmental input.

You are presented with input, and you have to make a decision. You process that input and produce output. This is different from, say, a robot, because you are sentient.

So you need some form of freewill for morality.

But not for punishment

You just presupposed freewill (the capacity to make decisions) in order to show freewill. Circular argument.

The "choice" in free will is in the decision of what to do, not the decision of what to think!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drogue

Except for the word evil -

Against in this case. I'm for not having a ban on the DP, but only for it to be used in extreme cases or unrehabilitable, prejudiced nastyness.

I was thinking more of treason

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by The Templar
Temper, temper ...

The idea of freewill coexisting with determinism is called compatablism. As a former colleague once said "compatabilism isn't".

Then there IS no free will. Because if the universe isn't deterministic, then there is an element of randomness. Unless pure chance = free will, then you are saying free will can't exist.

Well good practice is those that assert the existence of a phenomena are the ones who must provide the evidence. So where does this free will come from?

You aren't "following" the rules. It's not as if you want to move your right arm, but instead move your left. You DECIDE what to do based on those rules. It's not like you're some bureaucrat sitting at a desk, and you really really want to break the regulations, but some otherworldly force makes you follow them anyways.

But where does this capacity for decision come from? After all, if the world is deterministic, then isn't whatever physical processes allow for decision making either determined or (if there is randomness) capricious?

You are presented with input, and you have to make a decision. You process that input and produce output. This is different from, say, a robot, because you are sentient.

Again, where does this capacity to decide derive from? That's the question.

The "choice" in free will is in the decision of what to do, not the decision of what to think!

Capacity? Again more circularity. I can decide because I can decide. Your spraying the leaves but I'm attacking your position at the root.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kucinich
I was thinking more of treason

I carefully edited that part out I don't see doing something against a countryman as worse than against any other human. If someone can be rehabilitated, then rehabilitate them. If they can't, then a simply case of is their lose of life more than the benefit of not having their repeated crimes committed. In the case of murder, no, in the case of most crimes, yes. Therefore, if a murderer cannot be rehabilitated (ie. will kill again) then execute them.

One world one empire

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Then there IS no free will. Because if the universe isn't deterministic, then there is an element of randomness. Unless pure chance = free will, then you are saying free will can't exist.

Yes.

Originally posted by Kucinich
You aren't "following" the rules. It's not as if you want to move your right arm, but instead move your left. You DECIDE what to do based on those rules. It's not like you're some bureaucrat sitting at a desk, and you really really want to break the regulations, but some otherworldly force makes you follow them anyways.

But if you cannot change from a course of action, then you have no free will. If the future is known, and cannot be altered, you cannot change that course of action. Even if the future is not known, if it cannot be altered, than you cannot change your future actions, thus have no free will. Therefore, free will only works if the future can be altered, or is not already decided.

Originally posted by Kucinich

So you need some form of freewill for morality.

But not for punishment

Very true. Hence my post above

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drogue
But if you cannot change from a course of action, then you have no free will. If the future is known, and cannot be altered, you cannot change that course of action. Even if the future is not known, if it cannot be altered, than you cannot change your future actions, thus have no free will. Therefore, free will only works if the future can be altered, or is not already decided.

1. I can change my course of action. I could decide to flame you, and then change my mind and decide not to.

2. The future cannot be known. The only system capable of figuring out a future state of the universe is the universe itself. Anything else wouldn't have the information capacity, because it is part of the universe, so it would have to factor itself in. Thus it would have to have a higher information capacity than itself.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Templar stuff about capacity

It's extremely easy to demonstrate that I have free will: I make my own decisions, correct? AFAIK, no one is mind-controlling me. I'm sentient, correct? I can at least prove that to myself. Therefore, I have free will.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kucinich
1. I can change my course of action. I could decide to flame you, and then change my mind and decide not to.

The point is, who you are is fixed at that point. Put it to it's base level:
Input*person=output
The input is a set set of events. You are fixed, in that at that moment in time, you are you. In an infinitely small time, you will be different, but at that time, you are you, and you are fixed. Given the same input, and the same input, run twice, if you are exactly the same, the output will be the same. Done an infinately small time later, you wouldn't be the same, and so the output would be different, but even if run a million times, with you being exactly the same, at that exact moment in time, the output would be the same.

People commit crimes because of who they are. Who a person is is a combination of their genetics and their experience. Genetics is not under their control, and experience is only under their control based on the genetics and previous experience. You are no responsible for who you are, because it is not under your control.