Reasoning and Rational Decision Making

Transcription

1 Rebaza 1 Reasoning and Rational Decision Making

2 Rebaza 2 Rita Rebaza Professor Jane Drexler Reasoning and Rational Decision making May 2, Steps of the Argument Analysis Signature Assignment Identify the Issue: Should Death Penalty be abolished? Identify the conclusion: No Identify who has the burden of proof: The person making the claim (Gregg Dobbs/former correspondent for ABC News) Identify the Premises: Argument: I won't support a policy if I am not willing to take the risk that some day I will be the victim of such a horrible mistake myself. (Mr. Dobbs' claim) MP1: It brings justice to the society. (Relevant Reason) SP: It brings retribution and closure to the families' victims (Relevant Reason) SSP: The killer is gone forever (Relevant Reason) MP2: It is being equitable applied (Relevant Reason) SP: It is a guaranteed and exhaustive process of appeal. MP3: Not a deterrent, neither is a life behind the far, what is the difference?----- (Irrelevant Reason) MP4: Outlawed in other states, so is marijuana (Irrelevant Reason) MP5: States inmates convicted deserve their fates. ---(Relevant Reason) SP: They committed heinous crime (Relevant reason) MP6: People are at risk that some day they will become the victims of those murderers if they support such policy (Relevant Reason)

3 Rebaza 3 Diagram the argument: Death Penalty should not be abolished It brings justice to the society. It is being equitable applied. Not a deterrent, neither is a life behind the bar. Outlawed in other states, so is marijuana. States inmates convicted deserve their fates People is at risk that some day they will become the victims of those murderers. It brings retribution and closure to the families' victims. It is a guaranteed and exhaustive process of appeal. They committed heinous crime. The killer is gone forever.

4 Rebaza 4 2.-Respond with Fallacies Death Penalty is Barbaric Mr. Dobbs claims that justice is the same as the "an eye for an eye" principle. I believe that he is wrong. What makes us think that killing a killer would work? As we know, killing a human being is wrong, what makes us think that killing a killer isn't? For thousands of years, we see the death penalty is a perpetuating cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture. In the bible, our Lord, commanded that we shouldn't take vengeance or bear any grudge against our own people. If God stipulates it, then it is a sacred enough reason to believe that we must not kill. Nobody can argue God's words. Who are we to do God's work and decide who should live or die? Well, according to Mr. Dobbs, the killer was his/her judge and jury. They deserve their fates because of their heinous crimes. Well if the death penalty was designed for those who killed people, raped people, and are not mentally sane. So, no one is mentally sane since our judges and prosecutors are sending murderers to a cruel death. Although Mr. Dobbs agrees that capital punishment is being equitable in these days. I am not seeing evidence of it. I ask myself how can anyone kill a human and sleep at night knowing that there is a small chance that an innocent individual could sent to the death? If we do it, we would be a murderer and no better than anyone else who has murdered another human being. But it seems that this is not an issue for Mr. Dobbs since he is not willing to support a policy in which maybe he can be the victim of such a horrible mistake. Yes, it is obvious. He cares about himself! But what about those innocent victims wrongfully convicted and did not have the means to appeal their cases? Knowing this fact, why do many people support the death penalty? It doesn't make sense to me sending innocent people to death since we have prisons for punishment. I think that life in prison is as close as we can get to maximum punishment. Supporters don't agree with it simply because they are lazy to roll their sleeves and start working on this complicated issue. Unfortunately, we spend so much time in helping other countries around the world and we make up excuses for not helping our own people. Is this reasonable? I don't understand why the government wants to just get rid of all of them if at the end, there is not enough evidence that Capital Punishment reduces crime. It is as useful as telling an eight year old child about the dangers of drinking or smoking. It doesn't work. Remember, all killers were once someone's innocent baby. They are the statistics of our cruel negligence and selfishness as a society. How would you feel if this happened to you? Would you still want to rehabilitate them? According to Dobbs, No. They need to pay with their life for what they took and that's the only way they can pay retribution to the victims' families. But they are not the only ones affected. What about the murders victims? They also have wives, kids, parents and feelings too. This horrific, cruel attitude that sends their loved ones to a death row can cause immense pain to the murders' victims, which it can lead them to suffer psychological problems, which it can cause them to kill themselves. And then who is going to take care of their children? They will probably end up in a foster home or being used by human traffickers. We should stop; otherwise something terrible will come to our life.

5 Rebaza 5 How could this type of degrading punishment still be happening? It is 2013 and we still don't know what to do when people break the law. It is obvious that our judicial system is incompetent. We want to make them pay for their crime, right? so do it, then. Opponents to the death penalty agree that life long term prison is more convenient because the murderers can pay in life for the damage they caused to the society. Although supporters agree that a life in prison is also expensive, cozy and comfortable with cable TV, gym, but come on people!, who's fault is that? It's the system that allows them to have such access. I am convinced that capital punishment is the ultimate degrading punishment. But since our former correspondent of ABC, Mr Dobbs, is living comfortably in his cozy house in Evergreen, Colorado far away of crime, he can criticize all he wants. What does he know about the pain of the families as well of the family victims too? Surely, he is just an incompetent reporter that doesn't know of the issue at all. Do you believe what he said? Since all his arguments are based in fallacies, I'm for sure that you will not support his claims. Remember, this has nothing to do with attacking Greg Dobb, it's only a necessary precaution since he is filling his pockets with dollars for being the voice of the extremist supporters of this cruel punishment. Well, Mr. Dobbs, wouldn't it be better to use some of the money to do some decent research so you would have a little bit of knowledge about this issue? Since my evidence is more compelling to this issue, we shouldn't support Mr. Dobb's claims. The capital punishment is barbaric, cruel, and horrific and recent criminal study proves it. For that reason, if you are really proud of the grandiosity of our country, if you want to join the vast majority of the civilized society, then vote for the abolition of the death penalty, and this country will honor you forever.

6 Rebaza Responding For Real By Rita Rebaza May 2, 2013 Capital Punishment should be Abolished Greg Dobbs, a former correspondent for ABC, states that capital punishment shouldn't be repealed in Colorado. He argues the many compelling argument to repeal it: it is inequitably applied; it doesn't deter murderers; it is outlawed in a growing number of states, it lead innocent people to their death. Despite all these arguments, he believes that the killers deserves their fates in the ways they took other people's life. He considers that the justice of death for murders still outweighs everything of the compelling arguments against capital punishment because it bring closure to the victims' families. So if it makes justice to them, it is enough for him and the society. And if for the fact that there are still innocent people sentenced to the death penalty, he won't support such policy because he is not willing to take a risk that some day he will be the victim of such horrible mistake. I respect Dobbs' point of view in favor of capital punishment because he stand for what he believes in and for the sympathy he expresses for the victims' family members in which I do too; however, some of the answers that support his claims are irrelevant to the issue. He easily justified his reasoning by evading the facts of this argument. To a certain degree, he commits the fallacy of red herring when he mentions that since the death penalty is not a deterrent neither is a life sentence behind bars. Or when he makes an analogy comparing that being outlawed by other states is the same as marijuana being outlawed by other states. It would be more appropriate if he gave his counter position by answering straight to the point to the compelling claims to repeal death penalty based on facts or evidence. Contrary of what Mr. Dobbs claims, I believe that the death penalty is an ineffective, and simplistic response to this serious and complex problem. It does not apply justice, does not restore a family s loss; to the contrary, it risks the execution of innocent people and diverts attention and financial resources away from preventative measures that would actually increase public safety and help crime victims. So, what supports the belief that capital punishment brings justice to society? According to Mr. Dobbs, only the death penalty can ensure justice for the victims through "an eye for an eye" principle. Is this justice or retaliation? I believe in the principles in which the United States constitution was based (the human rights) sounds illogic and unacceptable. Capital Punishment offers the tragic illusion that we can teach that killing is wrong, by killing. When have two wrongs ever made a right? Although our first instinct may be to inflict immediate pain on someone who wrongs us, we, a mature society need to respond in a rational way. The emotional impulse for vengeance is not a sufficient justification for invoking a system of capital punishment while ignoring the social and economical problems and the injustice when sending to an innocent individual to death row and spending the tax payers' money in repeatedly processes of appeals and repeals. Although Mr. Dobbs is not willing to take the risk of supporting the abolition of the death penalty, because he doesn't want to be the victim of such a horrible mistake himself, one also has to understand that once an innocent person has been executed, there is no way to rectify this mistake. But if a person is serving a life term, they can at least be set free once the innocence has been proved. Several studies shows that since 1973, at least 121 people have been released

7 Rebaza 7 from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 982 people have been executed. Thus, for every eight people executed, they have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted ("The Death Penalty"). This evidence shows that a desire to sacrifice the lives of innocents in order to support a discredited form of punishment is simply unacceptable. And even as Dobbs states that in the past the Supreme Court suspended legal execution until more equitable sentencing laws were established, there is evidence that proves that innocent people have been sentenced to death despite the accuracy of DNA and other tests. Just because their innocence was proven before they were executed does not mean that our justice system works. For that reason, I choose innocent lives for a mistake we can not commend. What drives us to believe that killing an innocent person for justifying "justice" is the right thing to do? Doesn't it level us as killers too? Encouraging our basest motives of vengeance, which ends in another killings (including the life of the innocent), diminishes our society's values and ethics and increases the rate of crime and violence. According to some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder ("The death Penalty"). In other words, our own mental makeup starts believing that violence is necessary to restrain the crime. Although the "an eye for an eye principle" appears reasonable and acceptable for some people, this principle of vengeance is a symptom of a much deeper social sickness, the belief that killing will solve the problem. As difficult as it is to accept that, the death penalty implementation is an answer of frustration on what some judicial system's states are not yet capable to face the social problems with reasonable alternatives. And this is what Mr. Dobbs doesn't seem to take into account. The issue here, contrary to Mr. Dobbs' claims, is what do we actually do with people committing heinous offenses against the general public? How do we correct their behavior? Can we even correct these tendencies? Who is responsible for solving them, and how do we get those people to actually take the appropriate actions? The best alternative to solve the social problems is first by sponsoring reason over the impulse of vengeance and then face the problem. And it is our laws and criminal justice system that should lead us to higher principles that demonstrate a complete respect for life, even the life of a murderer, as well as conducting the restoration of the social system. Although cases such as Nathan Dunlap (Colorado) and Gary Gilmore (Utah) caused repudiation for the huge pain they left to the victim's family, our responsibility as a society is not to kill; to the contrary, work collectively, so the individual found guilty can learn from its mistake after serving life prison, and serve as an example of changing for others. According to anti death penalty philosophy, criminals need to be given a second chance to understand their mistakes. They should be kept under government surveillance if they are really sorry for what they did (Dhavale, Geeta). Contrary to the death sentence, the suffering is over quickly, removes the individual's humanity and with it, any chance of rehabilitation for the criminal to acknowledge their mistakes. As Italian criminologist, Cesare Beccaria's essay "Crimes and Punishments," published in 1764, still holds contemporary relevance. He believed that while the death penalty is successful in shocking people momentarily, it does not leave a lasting impact on people's mind. "The death of a

8 Rebaza 8 criminal is a terrible but momentary spectacle and therefore a less efficacious method of deterring others than the continued example of a man deprived of his liberty" (Das, Mahua). Therefore, could life in prison bring a sense of closure to the victims families? According to Dobbs, No. The reason is because life in prison is not as close to death penalty and the murderer needs to pay with their own life. But the studies show different results. The practice of capital punishment instead of bringing "retribution" together imposes many years of nonclosure on the victims' families. The reason is because after long trials, years and years in court, the victims' family realize that capital punishment is not going to bring back their loved ones and fill the emptiness caused by their lost. One of these many cases is the testimony of Bud Welch's daughter, Julie. She was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing in Although his first reaction was to wish that those who committed this terrible crime be killed, he ultimately realized that such killing "is simply vengeance; and it was vengeance that killed Julie... Vengeance is a strong and natural emotion. But it has no place in our justice system" ("The Death Penalty") While I agree with Mr. Dobbs' statement that we all have to take a stand in any issue, in this case, the death penalty, I do, but in a different way as Mr. Dobb's claims. Maybe Mr. Dobbs is correct when he claim that states convicted murderers deserve their fates, but could be it right within the principles of morality and ethics? Are we really digging into the real problem that it brings? I think that Mr. Dobbs misses the real point because not all murderers are conscious of their acts. Therefore, what causes them to commit this kind of act? According to psychologists, there are cases in which these inmates suffered from emotional trauma, abandonment, violence, neglect or destructive social environments that lead them to commit such heinous crimes. The fact is that killers are not born killers, but they become such. Then, who is ultimately responsible for this anti-social behavior? I believe we, as a citizens, have the answer. Our institutions such as our government, schools, parents put in charge of their children well development in the society are not taking serious responsibility. Most of these children have become the unseen victims of our own negligence. And the proof, it is our statistics which shows that at the end of 2009 there are over 46,000 people including some 2,300 juveniles are currently serving LWOP sentences nation-wide (Life Without Parole). Of these, Pennsylvania has the most with 345 juveniles serving life without parole. 79 prisoners in 18 states are serving sentences of life without parole for crimes committed when they were 13 or 14. Moreover, since the resumption of executions in 1977, 22 young men aged under 18 at the time of the crime have been put to death in seven states of whom 21 were aged 17 and one 16. These are Texas with 13, Virginia with three, Oklahoma with two and Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri and South Carolina with one each ("The Pros and Cons of the Death penalty in USA"). So Mr. Dobbs, why do we turn our backs on them when we are also part of such behavior? Based on this point, it is unfair to hold them fully responsible for their actions without considering the origin of the problem. For that reason, as we invest in "an eye for an eye principle" in this society, we divest ourselves of our own values and morals. As we support closure, we neglect restorative justice. Closure comes through an inward decision to let go of vengeance and get on with the real meaning of life. We cannot be a community of justice and unity if we choose to hurt one another. And we should not allow the states which support death penalty to do it for us.

9 Rebaza 9 Maybe, capital punishment reveals something about us rather than about the killers. I believe that it reflects how our judicial system and our community work in a collectivity. Maybe by examining how our system works (government, courts, schools, police institutions, parents, etc), facing its problems (the economic malfunctions and cultural differences), and visioning about what kind of society we want to have, we are going to find a reasonable answer to this problem. Contrary, to those who favor capital punishment, it doesn't bring justice, doesn't bring closure and doesn't solve the problem of crime at all. I am confident that we are capable of more constructive approaches to the problem of crimes in our society without the capital punishment. If we execute a person, there will be no difference between us and the criminal who has committed the horrific crimes of killing another person, but even worse, sending innocent people to death row just to make sure that we are not at risk of such a mistake. I, certainly as Mr Dobbs, put the cons and pros and the right thing to do is respect human rights and save innocent lives for a mistake we cannot commend. Only if we put aside our feelings of vengeance, we are going to see the real picture clearly to this issue and focus on how to become a better society away of crime. We all have to take our stand and support for the abolition of capital punishment. "Concerning the claim of justice for the victim s family, I say there is no amount of retaliatory deaths that would compensate to me the inestimable value of my daughter s life, nor would they restore her to my arms. To say that the death of any other person would be just retribution is to insult the immeasurable worth of our loved ones who are victims. We cannot put a price on their lives. That kind of justice would only dehumanize and degrade us because it legitimates an animal instinct for gut-level blood thirsty revenge. In my case, my own daughter was such a gift of joy and sweetness and beauty, that to kill someone in her name would have been to violate and profane the goodness of her life; the idea is offensive and repulsive to me." Marietta Jaeger, whose 7 year-old daughter Susie was kidnapped and murdered in the US in 1973.

10 Rebaza 10 Word Cited Anti Death Penalty Quotes. List Dom. WordPress.com. October 6, Das, Mahua. "Capital Punishment: Time to Abandon It?." Hinduism Today Vol. 28, No.4. Oct./Nov./Dec. 2006: SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 15 Apr Geeta Dhavale. Is Death Penalty a Cruel and Unusual Punishment? Buzzle.com February 24, "The Death penalty." Death Penalty Curriculum.org. Michigan State University Comm Tech Lab and Death Penalty Information. Copyright "The pros and Cons of the Death penalty in the USA." Capital Punishmentuk.org. Bureau of Justice statistics Page. Death Penalty Information Centre. Pro-death penalty.com. Criminal Justice Degrees.

11 Rebaza Reflection on the Strength of my counter argument? I believe that my counter argument is strong because my premises or claims support my conclusion and based on facts and testimonies I can object the compelling claims of the author. In other words, I am challenging my thesis statement. Although I use appeal to emotion, I didn't make it the main support of my claims. I used the emotional appeal as a persuasive tool so my counterargument could attract the attention to the reader. But I tried to apply logic and critical thinking to this issue so the reader can see why they shouldn't agree to my Mr. Dobbs' argument. I addressed the claims of the arguer that I considered unconvincing. Also, I tried to meet and answer the doubts that the readers might have after they read Mr. Dobbs' article. Moreover, I tried to be respectful and gave the article the benefit of the doubt. Finally, I questioned the readers, so they could bring their own conclusion. I also summarized Mr. Dobbs' views in a fair and objective manner considering seriously his both sides of the issue. When making my counterargument, I tried to show what the author is trying to prove, what his assumptions are, what are the proofs and what he left out; so I could fill this hole with my own view and I invited my reader to agree with my argument. I believe that this technique helped me improve my skills to write a better argument. Although I consider my counter argument strong, I believe that probably there are some weak links. Mr. Dobbs argument contained several fallacies and I only touched a few of them. If I wanted to argue them, then I would need to do more research to counterattack every fallacy. But I didn't it due to the difficulty of information gathering. For instance, I needed more than one strong evidence to support my premises when Mr. Dobbs said that states convict murders deserve their fates. My counter evidence was to show why some people commit such heinous crimes. The weak link here is that maybe I should take into account other people's cases when they commit a murder (people who is mentally ill and genetically born to commit a crime). But, the reader will judge if it was appropriate to discuss them. But despite of these weak links (maybe there are others), I think my counter argument has a good logical flow. I use a variety of word connections to connect my premises throughout my conclusion. I used statistics, criminal studies, testimonies and my personal opinion to influence the reader. Now, if I was going to criticize my counter point, I would pay attention to the questions I left to the reader to analyze it. I would examine the position it presents and if it make sense to take into account. Also, I would pay attention to the persuasive way I tried to catch the attention of the reader. In conclusion, this signature assignment is tremendously important for me for the fact that I had to challenge myself. It was a difficult task to evaluate myself, but it helped me realized as everybody else, we are prone to make errors. The most important thing is to examine them, learn from them and correct them.

12 Rebaza Transcript of the Article By Greg Dobbs State Inmates Convicted of Murder Deserve Their Fates Point-Counterpoint: Should Colorado do away with the death penalty? A bill to repeal the death penalty in Colorado is scheduled to be heard by the House Judiciary Committee this week. There are many compelling arguments to repeal it: It is inhumane; it is inequitably applied; it doesn't deter murderers; it is outlawed in a growing number of states; it leaves Colorado in a league with distastefully barbarous nations like Iran and North Korea; and, maybe most appalling, it has surely led innocent people to their deaths in other states, if not in Colorado. (The praiseworthy "Innocence Projects" across the country have freed so many wrongly convicted citizens that that fatal flaw with capital punishment cannot be ignored.) But I'm for it anyway. I want killers to be killed, and if the state has to do it, fine. Because like virtually every issue on which we all have to take our stand, I put the pros and cons on a scale. When I do, the justice of death for murderers still outweighs everything else. Justice? Yes, that's what I believe it is, and I hope if the our legislature passes a bill to repeal the death penalty, Gov. John Hickenlooper will veto it. When I read stories about this controversy and see photos of multiple murderer Nathan Dunlap smiling in police photos, I want to puke. Why should this piece of scum live to take another breath, let alone break into another sickening grin, when the four people he killed at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant in Aurora 20 years ago never have the chance to breathe again, or smile again, or make drawn-out appeals for their lives, or say their goodbyes, or anything else? Dunlap was their one-man judge and jury. He deserves the fate he sealed for them. So let's review the arguments against the death penalty: Inhumane? If you need a simple rebuttal, how about "an eye for an eye." Inequitably applied? The Supreme Court has weighed in on that, in the past even suspending legal executions until more equitable sentencing laws were established. Not a deterrent? Neither is a life sentence behind bars, so what's the difference? Outlawed in other states? So is marijuana. Capital punishment makes us no better than places like Iran? Wrong; what separates us from others with capital punishment is a guaranteed and exhaustive -- some even say excessive -- process of appeals. As for the fact that mistakes are still made, I can only say that I won't support a policy if I'm not willing to take the risk that some day I'll be the victim of such a horrible mistake myself. Back in 1976, another piece of scum named Gary Gilmore shot and killed two men in Utah during robberies on two consecutive nights. One was a clerk at a gas station, the other a motel manager. For several months, I covered the case for "ABC News." The story was notable not only because Gilmore told the court he wanted to die and therefore didn't want death penalty opponents to save his sorry soul, but also because ultimately he became the first American to be legally executed after a Supreme Court moratorium on capital punishment.

13 Rebaza 13 But while all the same arguments against executions were made then as are made today, one argument on the other side trumped them all: Both of Gilmore's victims had widows, and in a tragic coincidence, each had a toddler with another baby on the way. And both of those widows told me they wanted Gilmore to die. He died, all right, shot by a firing squad, a form of execution he was allowed to choose. He got to choose his last meal, and hug a few relatives who spent his final night with him in a holding cell - - even dancing with a cousin who brought a boom box. It was disgusting. The men he shot had none of that. That's how I came to my own beliefs about capital punishment. If it was good enough for the widows, it was good enough for me. And good enough for society. The killer was gone forever. Good riddance to Gilmore. And Nathan Dunlap. And others just like them. Greg Dobbs of Evergreen was a correspondent for ABC News for 23 years, then for HDNet television's "World Report. Denver Post Mar 17, 2013; Lexile Score: 1040; 4K, SIRS Issues Researcher Summary: "A bill to repeal the death penalty in Colorado is scheduled to be heard by the House Judiciary Committee this week [March 17, 2013]. There are many compelling arguments to repeal it: It is inhumane; it is inequitably applied; it doesn't deter murderers; it is outlawed in a growing number of states...but I'm [author Greg Dobbs] for it anyway. I want killers to be killed, and if the state has to do it, fine. Because like virtually every issue on which we all have to take our stand, I put the pros and cons on a scale. When I do, the justice of death for murderers still outweighs everything else." (Denver Post. This article is an editorial supporting capital punishment in Colorado. Citation: Dobbs, Greg. "State Inmates Convicted of Murder Deserve Their Fates." Denver Post. 17 Mar 2013: D.4. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 15 Apr 2013.

14 Rebaza List of Fallacies: Complex Question Tricky way that folks will smuggle other judgments, assumptions or conclusions into a single question? Begging the Question Also called circular reasoning, arguing that a conclusion is true by giving as a reason, the conclusion. Appeal to authority first condition claim that rest on a testimony of a person who is not expertise in what they are talking about. Hasty Generalization------A generalization based on a sample that is too small. Red Herring It occurs when someone takes a position and another respond by using misdirection to get them off the topic so that they forget that they were making a specific topic. Ad Hominem----Psychologically Attempts to discredit an argument by questioning the mental state of the arguer. Emotional appeal attempts to influence a person's belief or actions. Slippery Slope------Series of claims that are not supported by any reasons. Focuses attention on some horrible final result... so often look like an appeal to fear. Ad Hominem Bias Discredit another's person argument by attacking the person in the basis of his social group, political party or personal interest. Appeal to Popularity It occurs someone tries to convince of a position not by giving good reasons but saying that the majority of other people agree with the position. Appeal to Flattery/Pride Emotional appeal that arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion.