Being jailed, searched by cops, and so on are all irrevocable punishments. You will never get back your loss of time, dignity, etc. The simpler argument would just be to say you don't like the death penalty so we shouldn't have it.
>the negation of evidence against a proposition must necessarily be evidence in favor of it.
This is a principle that gets stipulated to make it seem like there's more clarity and rigor in someone's argument than there "really is." Most disputes are going to involve a great deal of uncertainty and indeterminacy in the consequences of someone or a proposition being right or wrong.
"You say we should have the death penalty. But what about Carlos DeLuna, Ruben Cantu, and Larry Griffin who were executed despite being innocent?"
i think this one is basically legit on a reasonably charitable construction? the pretty clear implicit argument being
1. the criminal justice system sometimes punishes innocent people
2. we will never be able to categorically prevent this
3. since the criminal justice system will always sometimes punish innocent people, the punishments inflicted should not be irrevocable
4. the death penalty is an irrevocable punishment
C. so the criminal justice system should bot impose the death penalty
Being jailed, searched by cops, and so on are all irrevocable punishments. You will never get back your loss of time, dignity, etc. The simpler argument would just be to say you don't like the death penalty so we shouldn't have it.
the whole premise of the civil legal system is that money can compensate for wrongful treatment, but not if there's no you to compensate
True but we don't give out death penalties for civil disputes as far as I know
no, but when we compensate someone who was wrongly jailed, that is done under the auspices of civil law
Ohhh I didn't know that
>the negation of evidence against a proposition must necessarily be evidence in favor of it.
This is a principle that gets stipulated to make it seem like there's more clarity and rigor in someone's argument than there "really is." Most disputes are going to involve a great deal of uncertainty and indeterminacy in the consequences of someone or a proposition being right or wrong.