A Question of Logic

[lilithu]

But that's the logical opposite of what it does say when we lift the restriction of "without due process."

No, it's not. Remember the beginning of the thread?

If not A then not B is NOT the same as If A then B.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm not saying that's what your saying.

I'm saying that the Fifth Amendment also does NOT say, "if a man has undergone due process then he can be deprived of life, liberty and property."

It does not grant govt the authority. It assumes that govt has that authority from somewhere else. The thing is, no where else in the Constitution is the authority to deprive a person of life specifically granted.

It is not granted, but it is recognized.

If a man has undergone due process then it is possible for him to be deprived of life, liberty, and property. Things things would not be possible if due process were withheld.

 

[Halcyon]

It does not grant govt the authority. It assumes that govt has that authority from somewhere else. The thing is, no where else in the Constitution is the authority to deprive a person of life specifically granted.

But that's irrelevant to the logic you original proposed. Even if the restriction of "without due process" is lifted, execution is only an option if it is a legal punishment, which in the US it is.

It doesn't even assume the govt has the authority, it doesn't assume anything. What it's saying is that if a situation arises where a group of people wish to execute a criminal AND it is legal to do so, then they must first give him a fair trial. Give him that fair trial and the restriction imposed in the Fifth is rendered redundant thus allowing the execution to take place IF it is legal to do so.

 

[lilithu]

It doesn't even assume the govt has the authority, it doesn't assume anything. What it's saying is that if a situation arises where a group of people wish to execute a criminal AND it is legal to do so, then they must first give him a fair trial. Give him that fair trial and the restriction imposed in the Fifth is rendered redundant thus allowing the execution to take place IF it is legal to do so.

I agree with that. But then one can't use the Fifth Amendment to justify the legality/constitutionality of the death penalty. Which is my point in the first place.

 

[Halcyon]

No, it's not. Remember the beginning of the thread?

If not A then not B is NOT the same as If A then B.

I think we've clearly demonstrated that this is not true.

Observe;

If not A, then not B.

Even if execution is a legal punisment, without due process of law a man cannot be executed.

If A, then B.

If execution is a legal punishment, after due process of law a man can be executed.

Unless of course you're telling me that all executions that occur in the US are illegal?

 

[Halcyon]

I agree with that. But then one can't use the Fifth Amendment to justify the legality/constitutionality of the death penalty. Which is my point in the first place.

The Fifth can be used to support the position that your constitution allows for the death penalty, if that is an already established and legal punishment. Which is what I've been saying all along.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Doesn't create, but does allow.

"You can't do A without first doing B" is a restriction. Fulfil B and the restriction is lifted, thus A can be done assuming there are no other restrictions that need to be met - "You can do A if B is achieved."

Only if you had the ability to do A to begin with. The fact that a restriction exists doesn't necessarily imply that you did.

Since the logic of this thread only covers the restriction "if not A, then not B", and no mention of other restrictions were initially made, it is fair and logical to assume that this is the only restriction being discussed with regard to it's logical outcome.
Bring in other restrictions and you void your original logical premise.

I disagree. Nothing in "if not A, then not B" implies that B is dependent only on A. It's a supposition on your part that there are no other conditions.

In reality, the statement only gives you part of the story: it tells you one circumstance that will result in "not B". Without more information, you cannot know whether there are other circumstances that will also result in "not B", or know what circumstances would be required to result in "B".

 

[Halcyon]

Only if you had the ability to do A to begin with. The fact that a restriction exists doesn't necessarily imply that you did.

I'm guessing you were writing this as I posted #186.

I disagree. Nothing in "if not A, then not B" implies that B is dependent only on A. It's a supposition on your part that there are no other conditions.

If no other conditions are mentioned then it's a fair supposition. Like a computer, I read the information as presented. Additional information should only be taken into account if it is relevant to the original logic problem, which from my POV none of it was.

In reality, the statement only gives you part of the story: it tells you one circumstance that will result in "not B". Without more information, you cannot know whether there are other circumstances that will also result in "not B", or know what circumstances would be required to result in "B".

Hence we must base our logic on the information presented.

 

[Poisonshady313]

If the death penalty wasn't legal at least at the time the 5th amendment was written, the language of deprivation of life wouldn't exist. Thus, the 5th amendment can be used to say that the death penalty is recognized as a legal course of action which must be regulated by due process.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm guessing you were writing this as I posted #186.

Yes, I think so.

If no other conditions are mentioned then it's a fair supposition. Like a computer, I read the information as presented. Additional information should only be taken into account if it is relevant to the original logic problem, which from my POV none of it was.

The inference that there are no other conditions is information not presented in the original statement.

Hence we must base our logic on the information presented.

And based on the information presented, from "if not A, then not B", logic yields "if A, then (undefined)".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Fifth can be used to support the position that your constitution allows for the death penalty, if that is an already established and legal punishment. Which is what I've been saying all along.

Definitely not at the Federal level. The Constitution explicitly states that the Federal government does not have any powers beyond those specifically granted to it.

At the State level... maybe.

 

[Halcyon]

The inference that there are no other conditions is information not presented in the original statement.

Incorrect. Try programming a computer, a "being" that uses only logic, that operates like that.

And based on the information presented, from "if not A, then not B", logic yields "if A, then (undefined)".

For a purely algebraic logic problem, yes. But create a contextual problem with real world examples like this and we can define that result - re-read my post #185.

 

[Halcyon]

Definitely not at the Federal level. The Constitution explicitly states that the Federal government does not have any powers beyond those specifically granted to it.

At the State level... maybe.

Maybe this is another case of me not knowing enough about your government and its processes.

Are the courts federal or privately owned?

Can the courts legally condemn a man to execution at the moment?

If they are run by the government and can legally condemn a man to execution, where does this power/authority derive?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Incorrect. Try programming a computer, a "being" that uses only logic, that operates like that.

I was actually thinking of computers, or at least digital electronics, when I posted my response and deleted some of my response.

At the simplest level, consider an "AND" gate, with inputs A and C, and output B. We have the following possible conditions:

- A = TRUE and C = TRUE ---> B = TRUE
- A = FALSE and C = TRUE ---> B = FALSE
- A = TRUE and C = FALSE ---> B = FALSE
- A = FALSE and C = FALSE ---> B = FALSE

From this, we can see that the statement "if A = FALSE, B = FALSE" (analogous to "If not A, then not B" in the OP) is valid in all cases. Therefore, this is a situation where the premises of the OP do work.

Now... is the statement "if A = TRUE, B = TRUE" (analogous to "if A, then B" in the OP) valid in all cases as well? If not, then it's not equivalent to the first statement.

When A = TRUE, the equation B = (A and C) simplifies to B = C. C can either be TRUE or FALSE, therefore so can B. The second statement is therefore not true in all cases, and therefore not equivalent to the first one.

For a purely algebraic logic problem, yes. But create a contextual problem with real world examples like this and we can define that result - re-read my post #185.

In a real-world contextual problem, there are many more restrictions on punishment generally (and therefore capital punishment as well) beyond just the 5th Amendment.

Maybe this is another case of me not knowing enough about your government and its processes.

Not my government - I'm Canadian, but I'll answer as best I can.

Are the courts federal or privately owned?

There are federal courts and state courts (and municipal courts? Not sure on that one) that operate under different bodies of law. There are no private courts... well, private third-party arbitration is allowed in certain non-criminal matters, but I don't think that's relevant to this discussion.

Can the courts legally condemn a man to execution at the moment?

The United States does practice capital punishment. The Supreme Court has ruled it legal, so I assume it is.

If they are run by the government and can legally condemn a man to execution, where does this power/authority derive?

I don't know. In the case of the Federal government, all its power and authority derives from the US constitution, but I can't find what in it allows punishment of all but a few specific crimes (e.g. piracy).

I'm not sure how things work for individual states.

 

[McBell]

The Fifth can be used to support the position that your constitution allows for the death penalty, if that is an already established and legal punishment. Which is what I've been saying all along.

Same here.
Even in the other thread this is all I was saying.


http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1184741-post372.html

 

[Halcyon]

Not my government - I'm Canadian, but I'll answer as best I can.

Sorry.

I don't know. In the case of the Federal government, all its power and authority derives from the US constitution, but I can't find what in it allows punishment of all but a few specific crimes (e.g. piracy).

I'm not sure how things work for individual states.

So, when the US carries out executions, are they legal or illegal executions?

 

[McBell]

Sorry.


So, when the US carries out executions, are they legal or illegal executions?

When the state executes someone, it is legal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, when the US carries out executions, are they legal or illegal executions?

Ah.

The most recent Supreme Court ruling says they are, and federal and state governments continue to operate on that basis.

However, some aspects of the Constitution, especially the 8th Amendment (which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment) seem to me to allow for the possibility that even though capital punishment is legal now, it may not always remain so, since the terms "cruel" and "unusual" are, IMO, rooted in societal norms and the state of common practice, both of which can change over time.

At the moment, though, it would seem that yes, they are. Or rather, they do occur and have not been ruled illegal.

 

[Halcyon]

When the state executes someone, it is legal.

Well, if that's the case then I don't understand why any other factors are being introduced, beyond;

1. Execution is a legal punishment in the USA, and

2. The Fifth Amendment restricts the practice of execution as punishment until due process of law has been satisfied.

Everything else is surely irrelevant?

 

[Halcyon]

However, some aspects of the Constitution, especially the 8th Amendment (which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment) seem to me to allow for the possibility that even though capital punishment is legal now, it may not always remain so, since the terms "cruel" and "unusual" are, IMO, rooted in societal norms and the state of common practice, both of which can change over time.

Yeah, but what do speculations on the future have to do with logical inferences concerning the present justice system?

I think it would be fantastic if the US stopped using capital punishment, I just don't see what that has to do with the present situation where a man can be executed after having a fair trial.