The older poll was deleted because people seemed confused about the question.  This should be more clear.

uhm....this seems rather pointless, maybe it ought to be worded differently?

Of course the dude that is about to die is more tragic, but what are you trying prove by us saying that?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14865.msg151458#msg151458 date=1146262770]
Of course the dude that is about to die is more tragic, but what are you trying prove by us saying that?
[/quote]

Believe it or not, some people don't think that's obvious.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14865.msg151460#msg151460 date=1146262866]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14865.msg151458#msg151458 date=1146262770]
Of course the dude that is about to die is more tragic, but what are you trying prove by us saying that?
[/quote]

Believe it or not, some people don't think that's obvious.
[/quote]
Word.

But also, unless Mr. 5% has taken a step towards killing Mr. 95%, there should be no punishment/resitrctions for Mr. 5%

What about a case where someone was arrested and charged with a rape and put to jail for it then 20 years later the DNA test came back negative proving that person innocent.

How do you apologize for that? Would it go something like this: "Oops, sorry. You're free to go now."

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14865.msg151462#msg151462 date=1146263385]
What about a case where someone was arrested and charged with a rape and put to jail for it then 20 years later the DNA test came back negative proving that person innocent.

How do you apologize for that? Would it go something like this: "Oops, sorry. You're free to go now."
[/quote]

A different question with a different answer.  This is not a question of whether someone should be charged with a crime that they haven't definitely committed.

Your question is about indefinites.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14865.msg151468#msg151468 date=1146263791]
Your question is about indefinites.
[/quote]

Yes it is.

My comments were about acting on indefinites.

Your poll relates to acting on indefinites.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14865.msg151471#msg151471 date=1146265790]
My comments were about acting on indefinites.

Your poll relates to acting on indefinites.
[/quote]

Well, my question wasn't specifically commenting on how we should act on indefinites.  Although we are often faced with indefinites, how we act on them doesn't have to be black and white.  We shouldn't either ignore them or act as though they are definites, in my opinion.  There should be compromise.

Sometimes it is black and white and there is no compromise, it happens quite often in life and the choice is not ours whether or not it has to be black and white it just is.

We should as a society try to do our best to make those decisions and when a mistake is made we should do our best to compensate for that mistake since it was black and white and there is no correcting it.

The whole controversy is about whether or not our guess is the best guess.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14865.msg151473#msg151473 date=1146266624]
Sometimes it is black and white and there is no compromise, it happens quite often in life and the choice is not ours whether or not it has to be black and white it just is.

We should as a society try to do our best to make those decisions and when a mistake is made we should do our best to compensate for that mistake since it was black and white and there is no correcting it.

The whole controversy is about whether or not our guess is the best guess.
[/quote]

Yes, that makes sense (not being sarcastic).  I think the idea of "definites" in the justice system is actually an illusion.  Nothing is really definite.  A witness could be lying.  DNA evidence isn't perfect, even though it's very accurate.  We have to draw the line somewhere.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14865.msg151453#msg151453 date=1146259064]
The older poll was deleted because people seemed confused about the question.  This should be more clear.
[/quote]

I do not appreciate the outright deletion of my post.  Trash it.  Or is this the way you would have it if you ruled the world?  If I 95% disagreed with you, I would be silenced for preventative measures?

You know what else is funny Rule, you're arguing for preemption, but as I recall you were against a preemptive American war with Iraq?

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14865.msg151479#msg151479 date=1146267892]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=14865.msg151453#msg151453 date=1146259064]
The older poll was deleted because people seemed confused about the question.  This should be more clear.
[/quote]

You know what else is funny Rule, you're arguing for preemption, but as I recall you were against a preemptive American war with Iraq?
[/quote]

People love artificially putting someone into a position where they are always for an idea, or are always against it.  It's a dirty tactic. The idea that someone contradicts himself when he supports an action in a particular circumstance, and opposes it in a totally different situation, is ridiculous. Because I may believe that it might possibly be a good idea to act preemptively in some unspecified situation does not mean I think that it is always a good idea to act preemptively.

Also, I don't think I've ever said whether I was for or against a "preemptive American war with Iraq"? 

I'm sorry that you were offended that I deleted my poll.  I wasn't trying to "cover anything up," and although I think it would be awkward and inappropriate, you're free to rewrite or paste anything you did post.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14865.msg151482#msg151482 date=1146269304]People love artificially putting someone into a position where they are always for an idea, or are always against it.  It's a dirty tactic. The idea that someone contradicts himself when he supports an action in a particular circumstance, and opposes it in a totally different situation, is ridiculous. Because I may believe that it might possibly be a good idea to act preemptively in some unspecified situation does not mean I think that it is always a good idea to act preemptively.[/quote]

LMAO, this is classic.  Aren't you trying to do exactly that in the marijuana thread, where you're refusing to present your case for criminalization of pot until everyone else agrees that in the hypothetical context it is sometimes reasonable to ask people to give up some unspecified freedom when there is a high likelihood of that freedom leading to harm on someone else?

It's a dirty tactic.  Quoted for Truth.

A 95% chance for an individual to receive a swift merciful death, vs a 5% chance among the population to have their rights suspended, forced to live in a cage in a work camp for 50 years, then tossed out on the street with a short apology... I don't think swift merciful death is that bad.

And now a report from the future...

The inauguration of our new secret police has been highly successful over the past years. Every day, they drive around in the ghettos, picking up those about to commit murders. After receiving their notice of stripping of human rights, the subjects are swiftly moved to our interrogation rooms so that we may extract the details of their plottings.

Our initial 95% accuracy has been 10-fold improved; we now have a 99.5% success ratio on obtaining a confession within the four week long interrogation/torture/probation period. Of course, all those admitting their crime are immediately executed.

Strangely enough, our pickup crews do not report that their search behaviour has changed to explain this amazing improvement. We have however seen great improvements among the torturers, having picked up new talents and creative new methods, reducing the average time to confession to merely a matter of hours.

Quite probably, future research will show that our initial less than 99% accuracy was not a flaw in our pickup groups, but merely the failure of our interrogation team to properly extract the confession within the time frame set out in the "stripping of human rights" warrant. It may therefor be necessary to reacquire previous subjects for a renewed round of interrogation with the latest advancements in interrogation technology.

These were the latest news from the bureau of crime prevention.

Rule:

The answer, clearly, is proportionality. If you're going to imprison someone for 20 years then you need a much greater certainty than 95%.  If you're going to take their gun away for a week and then give it back, 95% is perfectly fine.

Invert:

I agree that some black & white issues exist; however, I do not agree that they are common. In fact, I think they are rare, and they almost always involve a body count. I also think that the oversimplification of issues such that they become black and white is very dangerous. It is also, unfortunately, a rather common political spin technique.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=14865.msg151536#msg151536 date=1146351497]
And now a report from the future...

The inauguration of our new secret police has been highly successful over the past years. Every day, they drive around in the ghettos, picking up those about to commit murders. After receiving their notice of stripping of human rights, the subjects are swiftly moved to our interrogation rooms so that we may extract the details of their plottings.

Our initial 95% accuracy has been 10-fold improved; we now have a 99.5% success ratio on obtaining a confession within the four week long interrogation/torture/probation period. Of course, all those admitting their crime are immediately executed.

Strangely enough, our pickup crews do not report that their search behaviour has changed to explain this amazing improvement. We have however seen great improvements among the torturers, having picked up new talents and creative new methods, reducing the average time to confession to merely a matter of hours.

Quite probably, future research will show that our initial less than 99% accuracy was not a flaw in our pickup groups, but merely the failure of our interrogation team to properly extract the confession within the time frame set out in the "stripping of human rights" warrant. It may therefor be necessary to reacquire previous subjects for a renewed round of interrogation with the latest advancements in interrogation technology.

These were the latest news from the bureau of crime prevention.
[/quote]

Love it.  So very Minority Report meets Sgt. Hans Georg Schultz.