A Question of Logic

[Storm]

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.

And to put the analogy into context: with due process, one may or may not be deprived of the right to life. Without due process, one may not.

 

[Poisonshady313]

And to put the analogy into context: with due process, one may or may not be deprived of the right to life. Without due process, one may not.

What I think the death penalty opponents in this thread aren't getting is that the "may" part of "may or may not" was in mind when the amendment was written, so apparently the application of the death penalty, potential or otherwise, is not unconstitutional.

 

[Poisonshady313]

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

No? Do you mean to tell me that the fifth amendment states that no person should ever be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime? Ever?

I certainly hope that's not what you mean to say. I think you're either misreading me, or responding to a point I didn't make.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

That doesn't mean he'll be found guilty... it just says that as a result of an indictment of a grand jury, a person shall be held to answer for it.

 

[Halcyon]

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.

You ignored my amendment .

You based this thread on "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."

Which I wholeheartedly disagree with, any fair criminal justice system is reliant upon the idea that if a person is tried fairly and convicted by evidence then a punishment for that crime can be sentenced. If a person is not given a fair trial and convicted then they cannot be punished for that crime.
This has nothing to do what any other amendments say, the Fifth clearly states that a person cannot be punished "without due process of law", thus if such due process is carried out the logical conclusion is that they can be punished. There is no other logical assessment of that wording.

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.

You're putting thoughts into my brain, I think the death penalty is a backward and barbaric punishment.

Still, you're the nation who has that punishment as an option, all I'm saying is that your assessment of what the Fifth Amendment says is wrong. According to that amendment your government does have the right to issue the death penalty as a punishment if that punishment is considered legal retribution for a crime. It doesn't say that people should be killed as punishment, only that they can be if that is the legal ruling of the judge.
You can make the death penalty redundant and illegal without needing to touch the Fifth Amendment, if you did so you could just ignore the "deprived of life" part and read it as "deprived of, liberty, and property" because the "life" aspect would be redundant.

 

[Poisonshady313]

You can make the death penalty redundant and illegal without needing to touch the Fifth Amendment, if you did so you could just ignore the "deprived of life" part and read it as "deprived of, liberty, and property" because the "life" aspect would be redundant.

Where have I heard that before...

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.

Oh. There it is (on the third page of this thread)

I knew I couldn't be the only one who understands this stuff.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No? Do you mean to tell me that the fifth amendment states that no person should ever be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime? Ever?

I certainly hope that's not what you mean to say. I think you're either misreading me, or responding to a point I didn't make.

No, you're misreading me.

I'm not saying that nobody should ever be held to account for a crime; I'm saying that the 5th Amendment does not require anybody to be held to account for a crime. It only sets limitations on the government's actions if they wish to do this; by itself, this doesn't mean that there aren't more limitations, or that the government must do this. It also doesn't mean that there isn't some other piece of law that requires the government to hold infamous criminals to account.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

That doesn't mean he'll be found guilty... it just says that as a result of an indictment of a grand jury, a person shall be held to answer for it.

No, it means that a person may or may not be held to answer for it, depending on other law on the subject, but that in no case shall he be held to account for it if due process wasn't followed.

"May, depending", not "shall".

 

[Fish-Hunter]

How logical is a religious pluarlism God promoted on this site? You can respect an individual and his right to believe whatever he wants, but not all faiths are equally valid.

 

[Halcyon]

Where have I heard that before...

Oh. There it is (on the third page of this thread)

I knew I couldn't be the only one who understands this stuff.

Oops, sorry. I have a habit of skim reading threads and missing all the good stuff.

And to reply to your own quote, I don't think you'd even need to remove the word "life", just ignore it. Like here in England there is a law that states that you can kill a Welshman in the city of Chester with a crossbow after sunset, and although its a spiffing law and exists in writing to this day, it is rendered redundant by our laws against murder.

 

[Poisonshady313]

No, you're misreading me.

I'm not saying that nobody should ever be held to account for a crime; I'm saying that the 5th Amendment does not require anybody to be held to account for a crime. It only sets limitations on the government's actions if they wish to do this; by itself, this doesn't mean that there aren't more limitations, or that the government must do this. It also doesn't mean that there isn't some other piece of law that requires the government to hold infamous criminals to account.


No, it means that a person may or may not be held to answer for it, depending on other law on the subject, but that in no case shall he be held to account for it if due process wasn't followed.

"May, depending", not "shall".

No.. this is a different concept than the "no person may be deprived"...

May is different than shall.

You may not without means that you may or may not with, because if what is without becomes with, there may be other factors.

However, if none shall unless, then they shall indeed when.

Whether they suffer the loss of liberty, property, or life depends on their sentence, a sentence which may not be rendered if there was no due process.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Oops, sorry. I have a habit of skim reading threads and missing all the good stuff.

And to reply to your own quote, I don't think you'd even need to remove the word "life", just ignore it. Like here in England there is a law that states that you can kill a Welshman in the city of Chester with a crossbow after sunset, and although its a spiffing law and exists in writing to this day, it is rendered redundant by our laws against murder.

That opens the door to people wondering "what else is written that is also redundant?"

Better to have everything that's written mean something... and if it doesn't belong, have it removed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That opens the door to people wondering "what else is written that is also redundant?"

Welcome to the principle of Common Law, on which much of the laws of the UK, US, Canada, and most other former British colonies are based.

Better to have everything that's written mean something... and if it doesn't belong, have it removed.

That can work, too. That's how the French do it, for example.

 

[lilithu]

What I think the death penalty opponents in this thread aren't getting is that the "may" part of "may or may not" was in mind when the amendment was written, so apparently the application of the death penalty, potential or otherwise, is not unconstitutional.

What you're not getting is that I'm not arguing that it's unconstitutional. As I've said for the nth time, I'm only arguing that the Fifth Amendment does not grant govt the right to kill because some people erroneously claimed that it did.

If the death penalty were unconstitutional, we wouldn't have it right now, would we?? That is why I said (for those of us who opposed capital punishment) that we need an amendment.

 

[lilithu]

You ignored my amendment .

Honestly, I have no idea what you're referring to.

Which I wholeheartedly disagree with, any fair criminal justice system is reliant upon the idea that if a person is tried fairly and convicted by evidence then a punishment for that crime can be sentenced. If a person is not given a fair trial and convicted then they cannot be punished for that crime.
This has nothing to do what any other amendments say, the Fifth clearly states that a person cannot be punished "without due process of law", thus if such due process is carried out the logical conclusion is that they can be punished. There is no other logical assessment of that wording.

Once again, you have substituted "deprived of life, liberty, and property" for "punishment." No one is disputing that a person who is fairly convicted of wrong doing should escape punishment. The issue is equating punishment with the death penalty.

You're putting thoughts into my brain, I think the death penalty is a backward and barbaric punishment.

No, I'm stating what you did. The Fifth Amendment uses the language "deprived of life, liberty, and property." And instead of using that language, you wrote "punished for a crime" as if the two are identical. They are not.

Still, you're the nation who has that punishment as an option, all I'm saying is that your assessment of what the Fifth Amendment says is wrong.

You agreed with the logic listed at the top. Now, you disagree once it's a concrete example. Please explain how you can agree with the logic yet make an exception here.

I also think that I may be more familiar with the intent of the Bill of Rights of my own country than you. It was not intended to grant powers to the govt. It was intended to limit govt powers and protect our rights. The purpose of the Fifth Amendment was to protect our right to due process, NOT to grant the right of govt to kill. I agree with Shady that the language seems to assume that govt has that right. That is NOT the same thing as Constitutionally granting that right.

 

[McBell]

As I've said for the nth time, I'm only arguing that the Fifth Amendment does not grant govt the right to kill because some people erroneously claimed that it did.

WHO claimed it?

 

[Halcyon]

Once again, you have substituted "deprived of life, liberty, and property" for "punishment." No one is disputing that a person who is fairly convicted of wrong doing should escape punishment. The issue is equating punishment with the death penalty.

No, because no one is doing that. The fact that it says "deprived of life" is neither here nor there, it could say "slapped with a rubber chicken" and my logic would still stand.

No, I'm stating what you did. The Fifth Amendment uses the language "deprived of life, liberty, and property." And instead of using that language, you wrote "punished for a crime" as if the two are identical. They are not.

Like I said, you're the nation that has that punishment as an option, not mine. It's nothing to do with me, or my logic, if your country decides that capital punishment is a fair response to criminal action.

You agreed with the logic listed at the top. Now, you disagree once it's a concrete example. Please explain how you can agree with the logic yet make an exception here.

Well clearly my initial assessment was too limited in its scope.
I think Storm said it best with;

And to put the analogy into context: with due process, one may or may not be deprived of the right to life. Without due process, one may not.

Thus, although not every person who is tried will be executed, or imprisoned, or fined, the due process allows for those possibilities to take place. Without due process (if not A) there can be no punishment (then not B), but with due process (if A) there can be punishment (then B).

I also think that I may be more familiar with the intent of the Bill of Rights of my own country than you.

Well good for you, maybe if you only wanted American input you should have specified that in the OP.

 

[Alceste]

1. If not A, then not B.

2. If A then B.

Question: Are 1 and 2 essentially the same thing?

I just wanted to fess up I am the only person who has voted "yes". Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for a fuzzy logician like myself. I perceive "a" and "not a" (and "b and "not b") as identical conceptual units, since every negative definition is also a positive one, and vice versa.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I just wanted to fess up I am the only person who has voted "yes". Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for a fuzzy logician like myself. I perceive "a" and "not a" (and "b and "not b") as identical conceptual units, since every negative definition is also a positive one, and vice versa.

The difference is that each expression only deals with one set of states for A or B.

I'm going to re-write things a bit so they make more sense to me. This may cause them to make more or less sense to you:

The first expression could be written as "If A = FALSE, then B = FALSE".

The second expression could be written as "If A = TRUE, then B = TRUE".

The first expression only addresses what happens when A is false. It says nothing about what happens when A is true.

There are a few possibilities where the first expression does not imply the second:

- B is always false. It isn't dependent on A at all. An example of this would be if A is whether a light switch is on and B is whether the bulb is illuminated. If the light bulb is burned out, the first sentence is correct: with the switch off (i.e. A = FALSE), the bulb is dark (i.e. B = FALSE). In this case, though, the second sentence is not correct: with the switch on (A = TRUE), the burnt-out bulb will still be dark (B = FALSE)

- B depends on other variables. Based on our information, when A is true, B is undefined. An example of this would be boiling water: if you do not fill the kettle with water (A = FALSE), you cannot boil water (B = FALSE). However, if you do fill the kettle (A = TRUE), whether you can boil water (B) is dependent on whether you turn the stove on (C = TRUE) or not (C = FALSE). If we do not know whether the stove is on, we cannot say whether a kettle filled with water will boil. If B is dependent on other variables, even if we can say that A = FALSE implies B = FALSE, we cannot automatically infer from that that A = TRUE implies B = TRUE.

 

[lilithu]

No, because no one is doing that. The fact that it says "deprived of life" is neither here nor there, it could say "slapped with a rubber chicken" and my logic would still stand.

Nope. The problem is "deprived of life, liberty, and property are three different and independent things and you have conflated them all into one thing, "punishment." The sentence, as stated does NOT necessitate that, if convicted, one need be executed for one's crimes.

Like I said, you're the nation that has that punishment as an option, not mine. It's nothing to do with me, or my logic, if your country decides that capital punishment is a fair response to criminal action.

Whether or not my nation has the death penalty has nothing to do with your logic either. The issue here is not whether the U.S. has the death penalty. Obviously it does. The issue is whether or not the death penalty is specifically written into our Constitution. It is not.

Well clearly my initial assessment was too limited in its scope.

The OP was pure logic. How can it be more limited than when you talk about the specific issue of capital punishment?

I think Storm said it best with;
Thus, although not every person who is tried will be executed, or imprisoned, or fined, the due process allows for those possibilities to take place. Without due process (if not A) there can be no punishment (then not B), but with due process (if A) there can be punishment (then B).

There can be punishment is not the same as there will be execution.

Well good for you, maybe if you only wanted American input you should have specified that in the OP.

One does not have to be an American to know that 'If A, then B' is NOT the same thing as 'If not A, then not B.' I was suggesting that I may know better than you the intended purpose of my Bill of Rights. But even if you reject that, there is still the logic. Saying that your scope was too limited does not address how you get from agreeing with the logic to disagreeing with the conclusion.

 

[McBell]

" The sentence, as stated does NOT necessitate that, if convicted, one need be executed for one's crimes.

And for the THIRD TIME, in this thread alone, I ask:

WHO, other than you, has made the claim that if convicted of a crime the convicted HAS to be executed?
​

Whether or not my nation has the death penalty has nothing to do with your logic either. The issue here is not whether the U.S. has the death penalty. Obviously it does. The issue is whether or not the death penalty is specifically written into our Constitution. It is not.

And yet again, who, OTHER THAN YOU, has made the claim that the death penalty is written into the Constitution?

 

[Alceste]

The difference is that each expression only deals with one set of states for A or B.

I'm going to re-write things a bit so they make more sense to me. This may cause them to make more or less sense to you:

The first expression could be written as "If A = FALSE, then B = FALSE".

The second expression could be written as "If A = TRUE, then B = TRUE".

The first expression only addresses what happens when A is false. It says nothing about what happens when A is true.

There are a few possibilities where the first expression does not imply the second:

- B is always false. It isn't dependent on A at all. An example of this would be if A is whether a light switch is on and B is whether the bulb is illuminated. If the light bulb is burned out, the first sentence is correct: with the switch off (i.e. A = FALSE), the bulb is dark (i.e. B = FALSE). In this case, though, the second sentence is not correct: with the switch on (A = TRUE), the burnt-out bulb will still be dark (B = FALSE)

- B depends on other variables. Based on our information, when A is true, B is undefined. An example of this would be boiling water: if you do not fill the kettle with water (A = FALSE), you cannot boil water (B = FALSE). However, if you do fill the kettle (A = TRUE), whether you can boil water (B) is dependent on whether you turn the stove on (C = TRUE) or not (C = FALSE). If we do not know whether the stove is on, we cannot say whether a kettle filled with water will boil. If B is dependent on other variables, even if we can say that A = FALSE implies B = FALSE, we cannot automatically infer from that that A = TRUE implies B = TRUE.

Thanks, Penguin. To be honest, my real answer was "both yes and no and neither yes nor no." but that wasn't on the poll. It doesn't do to use examples, since the possible examples are infinite and potentially illustrate yes, no and neither, as you and others have shown.

So, doing away with examples, what is the difference between "is X" and "is not X"? IMO, defining what X is automatically defines what it is not, and defining what not X is automatically defines what it is (ie. "other than X")

This is a big flaw in Aristotelian logic. The assumption a statement or concept must be either true or false does not reflect the diversity of human experience or the disordered chaos of human psychology. Unfortunately, the influence of this lame duck form of binary reasoning infuses language to the extent it is next to impossible to shake the habit of pretending we are able to coolly and rationally distinguish truth from falsehood.