From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 8:25 AM
To: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: evidence of god? for Holtz [G Riggs]

"Elizabeth Hubbell" <elizabeth.hubbell@verizon.net> wrote:

> I know of at least one or two 80-*plus*-year-olds who've kept
> themselves very fit [..] If such an individual [..] 
> shows every single sociopathic tendency of his still intact [..]

So in practice, you'd have almost every 80-year-old (or even 60-year-old)
committer of a murder at age 20 would walk free. That's unjust.

> It could be no jail time at all, if (hiiiiiighly unlikely, yes) we apply
> the scenario you offered last time: the culprit is convincingly
> shattered by what he's done.

Again: unjust.

> Following from that, he might offer
> restitution of all his worldly goods, say, and live the life of a
> hermit

Keep modifying the hypothetical, if that's what it takes to
quiet your conscience...

> > Would these excuse murder, yes or no? And how could even such remote
> > possibilities ever be reasonably considered during sentencing?
> 
> If sentencing entails weighing the death penalty as an alternative, then
> it is entirely relevant to weigh whatever future use the culprit's
> living may be to humanity.

You answered neither of my two questions.

> The inactive person deserves to walk free, the almost but not entirely
> rehabilitated murderer still deserves jail.

That's inconsistent with your position that punishment should be
based entirely on future threat and not past actions (e.g. zero
sentence for a repentant murderer).

> your hypothesis of continuous scrutiny of
> an entire population is irrelevant [..] to what I was advocating.

I mentioned no such hypothesis.  There are myriad other ways by which the
state could become aware of just one psychopath with no priors.

> > In other words, you oppose capital punishment in all conceivable
> > judicial cases, but didn't have the courage to say so...
> 
> I'm sorry if I didn't seem to say so clearly enough before.  I'll say so
> here and now: I oppose capital punishment across the board, yes.  By its
> very nature, it cannot help being a premeditated act

All judicial sentences are premeditated.

> > Are you saying that America should pay and pay until the minimum
> > global per capita welfare benefit is 100% of what it is here?
> 
> Actually, all Northern Hemisphere countries should

I favor the alternative principle that each government function
should be performed at the most local level that is capable of
performing it.  Routine protection of the indigent from mortal
danger does not require intercontinental charity.

> > you have no argument against total equalitarian communism.
> 
> I concede I'm declining to
> specify which type entitlements I might oppose
> [..] it may be that (for good reason?) you consider the fruitfulness
> of this extensive exchange exhausted.

You're right that it's no longer relevant to atheism, and I'm indeed
not very interested in debating political theory at the moment.
--
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net