A Question of Logic

[Poisonshady313]

I think we need an amendment.

I don't think so.

Though it doesn't grant the power to execute people... it takes that power for granted... as if something outside the constitution has already granted this govt the power to do so.

They certainly haven't been restricted for doing so.

Though I believe if there is an amendment banning the death penalty, the word "life" should be stricken everywhere it occurs in the fifth amendment.

 

[lilithu]

I don't think so.

I was saying to Penguin - since we both oppose the death penalty - that we need a constitutional amendment in order to ban the death penalty. As someone who supports the death penalty, you obviously disagree that we need such a thing, but you probably agree that we would need such a thing for the death penalty to be banned.

 

[michel]

Logic makes my head hurt..........

I cheated, looked at some of the comments; had I voted for what I honestly thought, I would have tended towards the "yes" - but I thought that it would not have been that easy since you asked.....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe that the phrase was referring to "unusual punishment" with respect to us.

Many unusual things are common in the United States.

At any rate, it's not a strong enough argument to make capital punishment unconstitutional. I think we need an amendment.

Fair enough.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Though I believe if there is an amendment banning the death penalty, the word "life" should be stricken everywhere it occurs in the fifth amendment.

I'll take that as your "yes" to the poll question.

Pulling some of the logic theory from my digital electronics class out of the more cobwebby parts of my brain, consider this logic equation:

B = A and f(X,Y,Z,...)

...where is some arbitrary function of some arbitrary set of variables.

A = FALSE implies B = FALSE (by the AND relationship).

A = TRUE implies B = either TRUE or FALSE, depending on the value of f(X,Y,Z,...).

If you need me to draw you a Karnaugh map, please let me know.

In order for the two statements given in the OP to be always true at the same time, one of two things would have to be true:

- f(X,Y,Z...) does not exist
- X, Y and Z are dependent on A in such a way that f(X,Y,Z,...) is true whenever A is true. If this is the case, then the relationship is really B = f(X,Y,Z,...), and A is a useless term in the original expression.

So... going back to the 5th Amendment, the claim that it makes capital punishment legal assumes one of two things:

- there are no other requirements for capital punishment beyond just due process (which is stated nowhere in the amendment).

- due process automatically occurs whenever the other requirements are fulfilled (which would make the parts of the 5th Amendment concerned with capital punishment to be useless redundancy).

Please keep in mind, too, that at least in contract law, one principle that's normally used to interpret unclear text is that all language was included by the drafter for a reason, so if one interpretation makes a clause meaningful and another makes it redundant or meaningless, then the meaningful interpretation is usually chosen.

 

[Halcyon]

That is, the Fifth Amendment does NOT say if there is due process of law then it logically follows that one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property.

I disagree, I think it is saying exactly that. It's saying that a man should not be deprived of life, liberty or property unless a court of law as deemed it a just punishment.
So, if you are convicted of a crime through the due process of law, then it logically follows that you can your liberty removed, your property removed, and if you happen to life in a backward part of the world, your life.

 

[lilithu]

I disagree, I think it is saying exactly that. It's saying that a man should not be deprived of life, liberty or property unless a court of law as deemed it a just punishment.
So, if you are convicted of a crime through the due process of law, then it logically follows that you can your liberty removed, your property removed, and if you happen to life in a backward part of the world, your life.

If not A, then not B.

is NOT the same as

If A then B.

Agree or disagree?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree, I think it is saying exactly that. It's saying that a man should not be deprived of life, liberty or property unless a court of law as deemed it a just punishment.
So, if you are convicted of a crime through the due process of law, then it logically follows that you can your liberty removed, your property removed, and if you happen to life in a backward part of the world, your life.

Car analogies!

Your car will not run unless it has fuel in its tank. With it sitting out in your driveway or garage and you inside at the computer, is your car running right now?

Nobody should drive unless they are sober. My nine-year-old nephew has never had a drink in his life. Should you give your car keys to him?

 

[Halcyon]

If not A, then not B.

is NOT the same as

If A then B.

Agree or disagree?

Well, I initially agreed, but in this case it is so obviously true that I admit I was mistaken - there are going to be cases where they are the same, and some where they are not. With A and B specified, we can see that in this particular case, they clearly are the same

What you are advocating is - if you don't have a fair trial you can't be punished for a crime - "if not A, then not B", but by saying that in this case "If A, then B" does not ring true, you're suggesting "if you have a fair trial, you shouldn't necessarily be punished for a crime". I don't agree, it's nonsensical.

 

[Halcyon]

Car analogies!

Your car will not run unless it has fuel in its tank. With it sitting out in your driveway or garage and you inside at the computer, is your car running right now?

Nobody should drive unless they are sober. My nine-year-old nephew has never had a drink in his life. Should you give your car keys to him?

If you don't put petrol in your car (A), your car will not run (B). If not A, then not B.

If you put petrol in your car (A), your car will run (B). If A, then B.

 

[UnTheist]

If you put petrol in your car (A), your car will run (B). If A, then B.

This isn't necessarily true

 

[Halcyon]

This isn't necessarily true

Fine, be pedantic, add "barring any technical problems" to each (A) statement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What you are advocating is - if you don't have a fair trial you can't be punished for a crime - "if not A, then not B", but by saying that in this case "If A, then B" does not ring true, you're suggesting "if you have a fair trial, you shouldn't necessarily be punished for a crime". I don't agree, it's nonsensical.

If you have a fair trial and are sentenced to a cruel or unusual punishment, the eigth amendment says you shouldn't receive the punishment.

If you have a fair Federal trial, but the subject matter of the crime falls under state jurisdiction, the tenth amendment says you shouldn't receive the punishment (at least not until the state feels like trying you itself).

The sixth amendment would make any trial, even a fair one, unconstitutional if it is either not speedy or not public.

 

[McBell]

The argument arose when someone in the other thread was trying to claim that the Fifth Amendment grants govt the right to kill. That is the only thing I'm disputing at this point. It's wrong.

Who was that?
It sure as hell was not me.

I only brought up the Fifth Amendment because YOU claimed that the right to life was inalienable, which I took to mean "cannot be taken away" and the Fifth Amendment most definitely shows that your life can, in fact, be taken away after due process.

"The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"
Inalienable \In*al"ien*a*ble\, a. [Pref. in- not + alienable:
cf. F. inali['e]nable.]
Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to
another; not alienable; as, in inalienable birthright.
[1913 Webster]
​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you don't put petrol in your car (A), your car will not run (B). If not A, then not B.

If you put petrol in your car (A), your car will run (B). If A, then B.

So... when you fuel your car, it springs to life and continues to run until it's out of gas, no matter what else you do?

If you put petrol in your car (A) and do not put the key in the ignition (C), the car will not run (B).

If you put petrol in your car (A), put the key in the ignition (C), and try to start it in drive (D), the car will not run (B).

If you put petrol in your car (A), put the key in the ignition (C), and have the car in the correct gear (D), and have a bad battery (E), the car will not run (B).

If you put petrol in your car (A), put the key in the ignition (C), and have the car in the correct gear (D), and have a good battery (E), but are missing your distributor (F) the car will not run (B).

Fuel is one requirement for a running car, but it's not the only requirement.


Declaring a thing to be a requirement is not the same as declaring it to be the only requirement.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I was saying to Penguin - since we both oppose the death penalty - that we need a constitutional amendment in order to ban the death penalty. As someone who supports the death penalty, you obviously disagree that we need such a thing, but you probably agree that we would need such a thing for the death penalty to be banned.

Right. But I'm just reinforcing that advocates such as myself don't need an amendment to keep the death penalty, because until you get YOUR amendment, the death penalty is not unconstitutional.

 

[lilithu]

Well, I initially agreed, but in this case it is so obviously true that I admit I was mistaken - there are going to be cases where they are the same, and some where they are not. With A and B specified, we can see that in this particular case, they clearly are the same

What you are advocating is - if you don't have a fair trial you can't be punished for a crime - "if not A, then not B", but by saying that in this case "If A, then B" does not ring true, you're suggesting "if you have a fair trial, you shouldn't necessarily be punished for a crime". I don't agree, it's nonsensical.

First off, we'er talking about what the Constitution of the United States says and does not say. Not just your opinion on what is just or unjust. The Fifth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to constitutionally protect our Rights; to LIMIT what the state can do to us. This part of the Constitution was not intended to address the fairness of whether or not you should be punished for your crimes.

Second, you substituted "deprived of life, liberty, and property" with "punished for a crime." Just because someone believes that if people are convicted via a fair trial they should be punished for their crimes, and I do believe that, it does NOT mean that they should be killed as punishment. You may think that they should be. Fine. But there is nothing that logically necessitates that.

If you don't put petrol in your car (A), your car will not run (B). If not A, then not B.

If you put petrol in your car (A), your car will run (B). If A, then B.

Um no. You have to turn on the ignition. The car has to be in working order. Once again, there is a difference between necessary and sufficient cause. The petrol is a necessary cause, but not a sufficient one.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Please keep in mind, too, that at least in contract law, one principle that's normally used to interpret unclear text is that all language was included by the drafter for a reason, so if one interpretation makes a clause meaningful and another makes it redundant or meaningless, then the meaningful interpretation is usually chosen.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

On a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, a person shall be held to answer for a capital crime. We gather this from the word "unless"

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

Because it's commonplace (therefore neither illegal nor unconstitutional) for a person's life to be put in jeopardy once. (I imagine if it were illegal, it would be prohibited herein.)

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Indicating that it's a distinct possibility that people are deprived of life, liberty, or property when due process is given.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I'm not saying that due process = death.

I'm saying that once due process works its way into the equation, death is still most legally an option. Otherwise, phrases like "nor deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" would be meaningless.

 

[Poisonshady313]

So... when you fuel your car, it springs to life and continues to run until it's out of gas, no matter what else you do?

If you put petrol in your car (A) and do not put the key in the ignition (C), the car will not run (B).

If you put petrol in your car (A), put the key in the ignition (C), and try to start it in drive (D), the car will not run (B).

If you put petrol in your car (A), put the key in the ignition (C), and have the car in the correct gear (D), and have a bad battery (E), the car will not run (B).

If you put petrol in your car (A), put the key in the ignition (C), and have the car in the correct gear (D), and have a good battery (E), but are missing your distributor (F) the car will not run (B).

Fuel is one requirement for a running car, but it's not the only requirement.


Declaring a thing to be a requirement is not the same as declaring it to be the only requirement.

If you have fuel in your car, the car may or may not start. If you don't have fuel in you car, it will not start.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, a person shall be held to answer for a capital crime. We gather this from the word "unless"

No... that's the whole point of this thread.

I was semi-serious about the Karnaugh map. Let me know if it would help.

Because it's commonplace (therefore neither illegal nor unconstitutional) for a person's life to be put in jeopardy once. (I imagine if it were illegal, it would be prohibited herein.)

Many things are illegal that are not specified in the constitution or its amendments.

Indicating that it's a distinct possibility that people are deprived of life, liberty, or property when due process is given.

The amendment allows the possibility, but does not require it.

I'm not saying that due process = death.

I'm saying that once due process works its way into the equation, death is still most legally an option. Otherwise, phrases like "nor deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" would be meaningless.

No... what it says is that without due process, death (or even imprisonment or seizure of property) are NOT options. It doesn't say what other tests there might be beyond that (though other sections of the Bill of Rights do, as I already pointed out).

If you have fuel in your car, the car may or may not start. If you don't have fuel in you car, it will not start.

BINGO!

Give that man a cigar.