Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

A principle dear to my heart. But have you considered that you might be wrong in your certainty that there are no witches?

There is a great arrogance--indeed, exactly the arrogance under examination--in believing that one's worldview is largely correct and it is the other guy who's failing to consider the possibility that he's wrong.

And while I want to agree with you, in the sense that one should consider the possibility that one is wrong and err on the side of safety--it *still* isn't obvious to me that refusing to burn witches at the stake would be, in fact, erring on the side of safety.

I did try to deal with this: it's well-known that a witch without her familiar nearby is nearly powerless, and that a witch without chalk to draw a pentagram cannot summon demons, et cetera.

Cromwell is a peculiar choice to quote from in defense of not killing people.

So I take you would not try to drive a stake through the heart of a vampire either? What would you do instead? But getting back to witches, I think Volokh (in a hypothetical way) says you should eliminate something that is purely evil not only because it might cause harm, but because of it’s very evil nature as well. Moreover if we punish witches beyond simply trying to render them impotent, we should discourage others from becoming witches in the first place.

I dunno, Rob. Who would know better than Cromwell (from that era; don't bring up the 20th century, please)? ;)

Not Cromwell, Martin Luther.

Truth is a ball of yarn a mile long, wrapped
in Gordian knots, and ribboned with riddles.
Heard that somewhere

Truth is a river, wide as the sky,
And Life an ocean, twice as deep.
Peter Torbay, "Trinidad Blue"

(read the e-novel, Torbay predicted an aerial attack 9/11 in his e-book released April, 2001)
http://petertorbay.tripod.com/trinidad.html

Apart from witches, during the short, five year reign of Mary Tudor (1553-8), daugther of Henry VIII and half-sister of Elizabeth I, as part of the monarch's policy to restore Catholicism to England:

"A minimum of 287 people were burned between February 1555 and November 1558, while others died in prison. Some 85 per cent of the burnings took place in London, the south-east and East Anglia; there was only one execution in the north, five in the south-west, and three in Wales. . . Many martyrs, too, were young. Three-quarters of those whose ages can be discovered had reached the age of spiritual discretion - fourteen years - after the break with Rome, therefore they were not strictly apostate since, if they had not known Catholicism, they could not have renounced it. . . Socially the majority of martyrs were wage-labourers, though clergy formed a significant minority. Protestants who were gentry or merchants, by contrast, sought refuge abroad, along with clergy and theological students, while some yeoman and husbandmen moved within the realm." [John Guy: Tudor England (OUP 1988) p.238]

The reverberations of that, the attempted invasion of England by the Spanish Armada in 1588 in the reign of Elizabeth I (1558-1603), and the aborted attempt to blow up Parliament at its state opening in 1605, influenced the course of British history for centuries, arguably through to the present in relations with Ireland. We still celebrate the deliverance of the monarch (James I) and Parliament on 5 November each year.

"I think that the hallmark of true intelligence is to recognize that one may not know everything"

This resonates with the chapter "Knowledge or Certainty" in Jacob Brownoski's "The Ascent of Man." The quotation below is long, but on topic. I note that Brownoski had many relatives who died at Auschwitz.

=-=-=- Begin Quote =-=-=-
The [Heisenberg] Principle of Uncertainty or, in my phrase, the Principle of Tolerance, fixed once for all the realization that all knowledge is limited. ...

It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false: tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. *This* is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality--this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge or error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we *can* know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."

We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to *touch people*.
=-=-=- Begin Quote =-=-=-

To my mind the key statement is "When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality--this is how they behave." They fly jetliners into the WTC to save the world from unbelievers. They burn witches to save their families and their community from Satan. They invade Iraq to save America from WMDs.

At times, irrevocable actions are required. At times it is necessary to commit violence unto others. Self-defense is valid. But we have an obligation to test our fears in reality before we strike out, and we are responsible for all injuries we cause when our fears were false.

Brad plays with words and gets burnt. He says:

"If witches were real, I wouldn't kill them because they aren't real."

Well, make up your mind. In the beginning of the sentence you're perfectly sure, but by the end, doubt has crept in.

"Moreover if we punish witches beyond simply trying to render them impotent, we should discourage others from becoming witches in the first place."

I don't think so. I think this is one of the fallacies of capital punishment. Using cold calculated violence for retribution or as a warning to others teaches society that violence solves problems. A fraction of society gets the message and applies it to our regret. To defend oneself, yes. As retribution or a disincentive, no.

I think we should let the angels and good fairies deal with the witches.

While mowing the lawn yesterday, I was thinking about how we got into this mess. And a verse of a Billy Joel song, "Shades of Gray," was running through my mind:

"Now with the wisdom of years
I try to reason things out.
And the only people I fear
are those who never have doubts.
Save me from arrogant men
and all the causes they're for.
I won't be righteous again,
I'm not that sure anymore."

The Bush Administration not only consists of True Believers on a whole bunch of fronts from tax cuts to Iraq, but it has gone to great lengths to demonize the scientist's (and rational man's) closest friends, questioning and skepticism.

If witches were real and a real threat then they wouldn't allow us to burn them. So if we can burn them it means there are either no witches or they are not powerful enough to be a true threat.

Of course we could just compare their weights to that of a duck....

I find the whole witch analogy that Volkah floated to be deeply offensive. The witches who were burned & drowned over the course of centuries in Europe & (later) North America were not "evil"--they were social misfits, the old, the ugly, the female, the politically suspect, the mentally ill, the remnants of an older & non-Christian view of the natural world. The powerless. If there is any evil to be assigned, it is to those learned theological doctors who wrote books on witchcraft & demonology & the monarchs who put such books to use as rationalizations for torture & murder. Perhaps the witches were delusional, but so were those who persecuted them. The torturer's delusions, however, were backed up with political power, something the witch lobby pretty obviously lacked.

Dear Brad, For the last couple of decades, witches have been making a comeback, thanks in part to Llewellyn Worldwide, a St. Paul MN publisher who has been encouraging that sort of thing since about 1960. These witches work in groups and are said to be harmless. (Which I doubt is true of all of them, by the way.) A simple google on Teen Witch will turn up lots. For the most part, I think of them as a Tuesday evening bowling league. The social witch that Llewellyn has been promoting is about that harmless. Witchcraft is a playing with fire, but so is cooking. Not all kitchens are fated to burn down...

Once a witch has been taken over by demons (a more accurate term than "satanic forces"), she cannot be separated from them, at least, not easily & not by any normal means. Fortunately, few of those who play at magic are so possessed. It might surprise you to know that a pentagram gives the witch protection against demons, at least to some extent. (Witches think a pentagram's protection is absolute, I am not so sure.)

A witch who runs afoul & becomes possessed is a hopeless case. Prisons are futile as they are often cesspits of black magic (or what do you think, in a male fashion, is really going on at Abu Ghraib?). Witches flourish in such environments. Banishment to a deserted isle will work, but there's not a lot of those around. Banishment to a remote community is only an invitation for the community to do the dirty, for its own protection.

Demons are those invisible creatures who feast on human life energy (prana, vril, whatever you call it), but to get it, they must seduce & take over a human who can arrange the killing for it. Killing releases life energy, which demons feed upon. This is as true of state executions as it is of murderous brawls. Demons are the force behind almost all serial killers & many serial suicides, to this day. Next time one of them claims he heard voices in his head, BELIEVE HIM. A secondary source of energy is human sexual energies. Of couse, so long as that stretch of road down yonder with the hairpin turn manages to kill & mangle a couple of people a month, the satisfied demon who lives there won't need to go looking for a human host to infest.

Witches were burned, rather than merely executed, because too many of the dead turned into vampires. The only way to stop that was to destroy the body outright.

You can find references to all this in the old astrological-medical texts, which are in the process of being unearthed & reprinted. Among the more interesting books, Astrological Practice of Physick, by Joseph Blagrave (1671). Without doubt, there was some degree of hysteria in a witch hunt, but hysteria is not a complete answer. There are, in fact, more invisible things in the world than radio & TV signals - the only invisible things that most people still believe in.

What may be said of witches may also be said of gay males, which accounts - in large part - for the furious fight against gay rights going on at the moment.

I think you're begging the question, Brad.

"`Witches just aren't like that,' said Magrat. `We live in harmony with the great cycles of Nature, and do no harm to anyone, and it's wicked of them to say we don't. We ought to fill their bones with hot lead.'" -- Wyrd Sisters

"The witches who were burned & drowned over the course of centuries in Europe & (later) North America were not "evil"--they were social misfits, the old, the ugly, the female, the politically suspect, the mentally ill, the remnants of an older & non-Christian view of the natural world."

I'm anything but knowledgeable on witches and their fate but from occasional glimpses into the history, I do get occasional impressions of distinct power plays by ecclesiastical authorities and social groups seeking credible victims in order to define and promote their own dominance.

Volie as usual has reading comprehension powers. CS Lewis has said that if we believed that there were people who had received evil powers - and were using them we would execute them.

Vollie just requires that we believe.

THERE ARE NO WITCHES.

How do you know?

BDL: "There are times--like after reading the Rubin-Weisberg book, In an Uncertain World--when I think that the hallmark of true intelligence is to recognize that one may not know everything...."

BDL: "THERE ARE NO WITCHES."

It's hard to think of a better example than "witches" of something about which the making of definitive statements is essentially pointless....

It's also hard to think of a statement than "THERE ARE NO WITCHES" which has less to do with Volokh's and Lewis's point. (I think "There are no witches" might have a smidgen of relevance, but "THERE ARE NO WITCHES" betrays a complete disconnect).

I doubt that Volokh would actually kill anybody, but I believe that George W. Bush would, and may be pleased at the disorder he has created in Iraq, because it a. makes Americans more nervous about changing to a new President b. may be a sign that God is getting stirred up and ready to take action against non-Christians. Of course, Muslims expect him to take action against non-Muslims.
We have some problems: many Americans prefer to believe in angels and miracles and hope to deal with global climate change and other unpleasant realities either by denying that they exist (the lovely Sen Inhofe) or through prayer. High school science teaching is a joke in most schools.
Only unpopular outsiders were killed in the Salem witch trials, only the outsiders were killed by the nazis for homosexuality- some nazi insiders were homosexuals. Many Americans have projected their paranoia onto the public schools- they hope to make things better by eliminating or hobbling the teaching of evolution. This won't hurt Mr. Buckley's grandchildren or other rich kids who go to private schools, only the little people. The true believers are dangerous, but they must be treated kindly, because insults only convince them that they are right. Discussions about science and religion can be productive and helpful, iff they can be conducted in a friendly way (not easy).

CSL: "...if we really thought that there were people going around who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather..."

BDL: "Even if I believed in witches, I wouldn't burn them."

I think it's difficult to say what anyone would do, once they got to the point where they actually believed something like Lewis describes, and it's somewhat pointless to speculate. If I thought my neighbor was bringing death and ruin, and there was no appeal to authority, who knows? I might at least support some sort of "3 strikes" provision ("okay, you've turned Mrs. Henderson and the Smith boy into newts, one more like that and we're going to burn you").

DennisS: As taught in any first year law course on criminal justice, we punish criminals for four reasons: retribution, deterrence, isolation and rehabilitation. The state extracts retribution for a very good reason: to curtail private vengeance. Indeed we punish private vengeance itself as a crime. Like it or not, people demand vengeance when they are wronged, and we if fail to provide it, we tear at the social fabric. If we fail to provide deterrence, then we put the innocent at risk of becoming victims. True we cannot deter everyone no matter how harsh the punishment, but we can always deter some. And that has real value. Thus if witches really did exist, and they did real harm, then the state would be remiss if it did not at least try to deter witchcraft.

The threat of violence lies at the foundation of the law. If you don’t pay your property tax, the state will take your house and sell it. If you refuse to leave your house, the state will send the sheriff to put you out. And the sheriff is prepared to use violence if necessary. How do you suppose we enforce our laws without some form of violence? Is capital punishment too much violence? Perhaps. There are a lot of problems implementing capital punishment, but on the most basic level more people than not want capital punishment. So being a democracy we must give it to them.

Besides imaginary creatures like witches and vampires, I wonder who exactly fits A. Zarkov's (and Volokh's hypothesized) category of purely evil beings, in the mind of a reasonable person, such as not the President.

A. Zarkov,

I think the dislocations caused by industries aging and then failing, capital migrating away from home, then people with little means thrown out of work is a kind of violence, so it would be hard for me to argue with most of your point. However, capital punishment, the most extreme state-sanctioned violence short of war, is a different case. We're all diminished when we're drawn into using it for retribution (a life sentence is adequate) and I believe it has a net negative impact on disincenting violent crime because it coarsens society in a significant way. I think studies back me up on that, though I don't have any citations at my fingertips.

So I say deter the bad witches but don't burn them because that just makes us all weaker by proselytizing the wrong message.

As far as the democratic support for death sentences, you're right. I can't wait for the pendulum to swing the other way.

joseph: Why would you be offended by a discussion of witch burning? Isn't there some kind of statute of limitations on political correctness? I think most people would agree that there is no need to be sensitive to the suffering of people who died centuries ago. In 50 years or so, I'd say the Holocaust should be fair game for comedy.

What's the old saying, "All that's necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing."

"I doubt that Volokh would actually kill anybody, but I believe that George W. Bush would . . . "

Nope. Too messy. He has other people do it--the staff at Huntsville Prison, the $1000/day mercenaries in Iraq, etc.

DennisS: We don’t really know how much capital punishment deters. We can’t do controlled experiments (like economics) so no one (that I know of) has yet offered convincing proof one way or the other. One problem with capital punishment is the length of time between the capital crime and its punishment; this alone could negate any deterrence effect. If we put capital punishment off the table, then how do we deter lifers from murdering guards and other prisoners? We could take away their privileges—kill a guard and you can’t watch TV. But that seems like a tepid and ineffectual sanction. How about permanent solitary confinement? Do that and you’ll have the ACLU types on your back. As for the argument that capital punishment actually causes crime because it “coarsens society,” I doubt it, but again we don’t know. Generally it seems that increasing severity of punishment increases deterrence, but who knows if this effect is linear over the full range of punishments? The two best arguments against capital punishment that I know are: 1. It’s irreversible, and the justice system does make mistakes. 2. Rich people virtually never get executed. On the other hand, if we do away with capital punishment and people are murdered as a result, then that’s hard to live with.

But what about the trolls? -they are the real problems, if you ask me. We know for a fact that there are trolls all over the place -Zurich, the Fed, various fed and state bureaucracies. I don't know if insurance adjusters hospital business administrators have been declared trolls yet, but I think that they are. Trolls do a lot of damage.

Zarkov and DennisS: I don't have the references at my fingertips -or even at an arms length. But I remember reading a review on statistical studies of the death penalty. I remember it saying that well designed studies show that the death penalty itself is not a very effective deterant. High arrest and conviction rates for murder are more effective. So that review is what turned me against the death penalty.

Of course, some pro death penalty poster will tell there is a new review. If so, I am game.

Too bad C.S. Lewis said such a silly thing.

Just like to note that before the 1500s, it was the official policy of the Roman Church that there was no such thing as a witch, and that anyone who claimed to be a with was probably mad, and anyone who claimed that someone else was a witch was definately wrong. The theological basis for this was that God simply wouldn't allow someone to be able to fly on a broom simply by selling their soul. Witch-burning started up in the 1500s partly as an adjunct to the inquisition, and partly as a response to it. A lot of it had to do with the 'pacification' of the basque country, and the rooting out of 'pagan' elements in Europe. Witch-burning (like the red scare) had more to do with politics than religion.

The witch hunts were possible, because the standards for determining whether one was a witch were irrational -- in a sense, the rules of evidence were wrong. With better rules, with a better methodology, even someone inclined to believe in the possibility of witches would be hard put to find one.

A great shift happened at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th, in popular consciousness, concerning what constituted a plausible belief. It was the same shift in credulity toward the empirical and the pragmatic, and away from the miraculous, which made possible the Enlightenment and the rise of Science.

Any change in the "rules of evidence" (in general standards of credulity) runs the risk of a witch hunt (or a pre-emptive war or detention without judicial review).

Point of order: there are a number of (minor) religions presently observed in the western hemisphere wherein ordained clergy or even active laity (to use terminology which they themselves would strictly abjure, but which is essentially accurate) will describe themselves as "witches", and the practice of their religion as "witchcraft."

How much, if any, relation these religions have to the "witches" of the 18th century or to the putative pre-patriarchal religions of ancient Europe is a matter of debate: the adherants will tell you they are all exactly the same, while pretty much everyone else says they're full of it. (Cf: http://www.whywiccanssuck.com/)

Nonetheless, as a matter of objective fact, there are witches, at least to the extent that there "are" Jews, Moslems and Christians. The actual danger of living next to a cat-owning witch is, however, probably pretty low, unless you are allergic to incense and bad new-age music.

The point that seems to have been missed in all the above comments is that, if there are purely evil beings, there is equally the danger that our identification of such beings derives from a projection of our own unacknowledged, "evil" impulses. This is why there are no witches and witches should not be destroyed, even if they did exist; the thought of evil exercizes a powerful seduction to evil and spreads its contagion to our better natures. This is why it is only acts and their consequences, with intentions functionning only as modifiers in determining the nature of the act, that should be subject to negative sanction. Such an approach, by enforcing mutual acknowledgement, itself has an enlightening effect and limits the nature, scope and spread of evil. The case is similar with respect to the burning of heretics. If one's doctrine really is secure as to its truth, then heresy can only be another species of error and ignorance, to be overcome by the usual means of reasonable persuasion.

To an atheist, there is no god, and so no devil, they are a "Ying and Yang" therefore real witches cannot exist, anyone claiming to be a witch is delusional.

Ps, is not the derivation from Wicca, AS for a wise woman?

A. Zarkov, Ok. No controlled experiments, understood, but there are comparative studies-- this state vs. another-- and sure there are a lot of variables which provide room for argument, but people have tried to isolate cause and effect and I think their study results are reasonable. Again, sorry I don't have any citations, just pointing out what I thought was a general consensus among social scientists.

Regardless, if what you said in your recent first sentence is true, "We don’t really know how much capital punishment deters." than that seems like a good reason to me for at least shelving it til we feel confident it actually does more good than harm.

Curtailing private vengance is a very good point, as was your suggestion about delayed verdicts possibly diminishing deterrence (authoritarian regimes may be proof of that), but vengance is still unhealthy and making us all a party to it doesn't seem to me to be a good enough reason by itself for keeping capital punishment.

I bow to John C. Halasz. "...evil spreads its contagion to our better natures...". That's what I meant to say.

Volokh did not describe conditions under which he would agree to burning (un necessarily cruel). The vampire argument doesn's seem to cover it, since I don't see what would be wrong with burning them after they were dead (or un dead).

I can imagine a universe in which I would agree with killing witches even if they had not (yet) done anything with their witchy powers and even if our current standards of proof would have to be relaxed. This is roughly the universe that people in around 1500 thought they occupied.

Volokh makes one of the points. Witches by definition had sold their souls to the devil and therefore were bound to do evil things even if they hadn't yet. I don't think the moral principle that you can punish only deeds and not use pre-emptive violence is a moral absolute. It is just that we can't know (in any universe) and shouldn't trust our judgement (in this one).

I will imagine a universe in which witches don't need familiars and can't be effectively imprisoned so killing them is the only defence. Finally it must be that their powers vanish when the sun is up say. This is so we can be right that someone is a witch and can't keep them incarcerated but and can kill them now.

I mean Volokh is all about what is a pure moral principle and what is an empirical claim. There are no witches is an empirical claim.

Mark Kleiman has a good post on this.

Perhaps I've missed the point entirely, but it seems to me that what Brad is saying is that even if he believed in witches he would not favor killing them because he would not have enough confidence in his belief to justify that.

In other words, we may believe certain things, but the extent to which we act on those beliefs needs to be weighed against the possibility we are wrong.

That looks right to me. The jury may believe that John robbed the bank, but unless it has a very high degree of confidence, it does not send John to jail.

What I want to know, apropos of Dave's comment (if anything can be), is what the heck a "serial suicide" is.

My heartiest congratulations to everyone who missed Brad's point.

Zharkov: "The two best arguments against capital punishment that I know are: 1. It’s irreversible, and the justice system does make mistakes. 2. Rich people virtually never get executed."

I'm not sure I buy no. 2, and it's a stupid argument anyway. If the death penalty is just, then failing to extend justice to the poor, just because the rich get off, hardly makes sense. What if people tend to murder inside their own social class?

The real argument against the death penalty (for me only, perhaps, or maybe me and about 5 other people) is that you're playing God, you're giving up on the person, you're taking away a chance for them at redemption (if only inside themselves) that you don't want (or maybe shouldn't feel you have the right) to take away.

Bernard Yomtov: "Perhaps I've missed the point entirely, but it seems to me that what Brad is saying is that even if he believed in witches he would not favor killing them because he would not have enough confidence in his belief to justify that."

Now there's a patch. BDL implies (or so I discern) that if he believed in witches, the fact that (in reality) he strenuously disbelieves in them would crucial to his stance in that case. So you're saying, if he believed in witches, he wouldn't *really* believe in witches.

"The jury may believe that John robbed the bank, but unless it has a very high degree of confidence, it does not send John to jail."

Well, BDL didn't say, "if I had a tentative, tenuous half-belief in the existence of witches." Certainly, I think it makes sense he wouldn't want to burn them, in that case.

Mealyus: I’m not sure I understand your argument against my argument (2). Generally if the state does not apply a law or a punishment in an equal fashion, we take that power away from the state until it can get it right. This is in fact what happened. The Supreme Court put a hold on the application of capital punishment until state governments changed their laws to bring them in compliance with the principle of equal application. However, I’m not sure we have gotten it right yet because it can take tremendous resources to fight the prosecutor, resources most people don’t have. This puts the defendant at a significant disadvantage when plea-bargaining. Thus the threat of capital punishment might cause even innocent defendants to plead guilty to a lesser crime. I guess it comes down to my objections to CP being more pragmatic than ideological.

As to giving up on a criminal, that’s what we do when we sentence a person to life in prison. CP is a more emphatic application of that principle. Sometimes a person commits a crime that so shocks the conscience of the community, it demands a maximal punishment as an expression of the community’s outrage. The heinous sexual murder of little children is one such crime. The community is properly outraged in such cases, and I would worry if it were not. So yes some acts make a person irredeemable.

Just one other small point that may have gone unnoticed on this thread. I think that the concern with witchcraft correlated with the Reformation/Counter-Reformation/Wars of Religion- (please, correct me, if I am wrong)- and diminished after their settlement took hold. The Salem, Mass. case has been shown to correlate with warfare with aboriginal groups. Perhaps this should be kept in mind in considering what is being allegorized here.

Recall why Eugene Volokh brought up the subject in the first place:

'Witch hunts are unambiguously bad because we know there are no witches. If there were witches, in the standard sense of people who could use black magic to harm the rest of us, then of course we ought to hunt them.

'And in the McCarthy era, there were indeed Reds, not under every bed but in some important places. Consider, among others, Klaus Fuchs, a Communist physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, and he passed some of the A-bomb secrets to the Soviets; in the words of the Encyclopedia Britannica, "His espionage is credited with saving the Soviets at least one year's work in their own program to develop the atomic bomb." He was arrested in 1950; he confessed, and served 9 years in prison.'

http://volokh.com/2004_04_25_volokh_archive.html#108328607595391361

His original point was that the Red scares concerned an enemy that really existed, and the witch scares involved an enemy that was pure fiction.

("Witches" in this context refers to the classic European/American myth of those who consciously draws supernatural powers from Satan, not to modern folks who cut and paste stuff from various ancient polytheistic religions and call themselves Pagans.)

In a hypothetical universe where witches exist, you've got people running around with the supernatural equivalent of WMDs and intentional allegiance with humanity's greatest enemy. We cannot hypothesize an adequate defense against such a clear and present danger according to the rules of *our* universe. All we can say is that in the hypothetical universe an anti-witch defense of some sort must be built.

What I want to know, apropos of Dave's comment (if anything can be), is what the heck a "serial suicide" is.

Hello Melissa O,
A serial suicide is one of the saddest things on the planet. Joe kills himself, and then Joe's friend, Tom, does likewise. Subsequently, Janet & Paul, friends of Tom & Joe kill themselves, whereupon, Jackie, Bobbie, Paula & Marvin kill themselves, and on it goes. It is a horrible, horrible thing as parents & loved ones watch suicide after suicide in their midst (often among teens), over a period of a year or more. Rarely do any of their efforts (often considerable) have any positive effect. Serial suicides typically go on until they simply run out of victims. Shiprock, New Mexico, is said to have seen an outbreak. One of my correspondants says serial suicides are currently a problem in Mornington Island, Australia, having already claimed several lives.

Serial suicides are the end result of obsession, in this case, the recently dead obsessing the living. With a bit of talent & the right techniques, they can easily be stopped, but not by any of the clownish nonsense exhibited by know-it-alls posting on this thread. Academics do not want to know about this stuff, they don't think it exists, they want to wish it away, or think they already have. Those who are hit by such tragedies really do need help. I myself have studied this area for more than 30 years. I stopped a serial suicide in New York in 1983, back when I knew a lot less about it.

There are people who know, know things like what a witch is, what "satanism" is, where the demons are, what help priests can give (if they only wanted to!), what typically happens in the days & weeks after you die, where the movie Ghost got it right - and wrong (and why), how it is that psychics (usually not very good ones) solve cases for the police, where John Edward gets his stuff, and lots more. Such people rarely come out into the daylight, for the simple reason that they are ignored. I myself am going to give up posting on Brad's site, since it seems there's no one here for me to talk to, though I will continue to follow it.

My best wishes to you all -

I meant gnomes of Zurich and Fed. Well, whatever. Witches, warlocks, trolls, gonomes, elves... they all have to go. Clean the slate. That's what I say.

Pixies too.

Bob: "during the short, five year reign of Mary Tudor 'A minimum of 287 people were burned between February 1555 and November 1558'…the attempted invasion of England by the Spanish Armada….attempt to blow up Parliament at its state opening in 1605….

influenced the course of British history ..arguably.. with Ireland"

Richard Clarke (on "60 Minutes") “"It's akin to Roosevelt deciding to invade Mexico because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor".

Are you saying that the Bush family’s influence in foreign affairs
goes back to the time of Cromwell?
(It _would_ explain a lot.)

Brian Wilder, above, makes the point that brings this back to what was wrong with McCarthyism:

The witch hunts were possible, because the standards for determining whether one was a witch were irrational -- in a sense, the rules of evidence were wrong.

I can agree with Lewis and Volokh that if there were witches (in the 'in league with Satan to do bad things' sense, and leaving Wicca out of it) than the greatest punishment possible under law would be appropriate against anyone who could be proven actually to be a witch. In the real witch hunts, no one was proven to be a witch: partially because there is no such thing, but more importantly because there was no real evidence against the particular women accused. What is wrong with a witch hunt is not that you're accusing people of an impossible crime, it's that you're convicting and punishing them based on bad evidence.

Likewise, the problem with McCarthyism was not that there were no Soviet spies. Soviet spies existed at the time, and the US had a real national interest in finding them and punishing them. The problem is that hounding schoolteachers with Communist connections out of their jobs, blacklisting entertainers, and defining agreement with any form of socialist ideology as treason against the United States was absolutely useless as a method of finding Soviet spies.

There's nothing innately wrong with the goal in either case: finding and punishing tools of Satan (if any exist) or foreign spies (who certainly did, and do exist). The problem is that when you abandon the rules of law and evidence toward that end, you don't serve the legitimate end -- all you do is oppress the innocent.

"Just like to note that before the 1500s, it was the official policy of the Roman Church that there was no such thing as a witch, and that anyone who claimed to be a with was probably mad, and anyone who claimed that someone else was a witch was definately wrong."

You're a bit off in the dates here, at least. Malleus Malificarum was published in 1487.

"The theological basis for this was that God simply wouldn't allow someone to be able to fly on a broom simply by selling their soul. Witch-burning started up in the 1500s partly as an adjunct to the inquisition, and partly as a response to it."

IIRC where the inquisition operated there were actually much fewer convictions of witches, as the inquisition courts imposed some standards of evidence, or used trials of non-witchery that were easy to overcome, e.g. saying the Our Father, or swallowing a communion host.

Zarkov: "I’m not sure I understand your argument against my argument (2). Generally if the state does not apply a law or a punishment in an equal fashion, we take that power away from the state until it can get it right."

Well, it seems to me that if executions are just, you're making a bad situation worse by not executing poor murderers. I'm suggesting the fairness issue is a wash, since when the rich person gets off, a rich person benefits and a rich person (the victim, presumably rich) gets screwed. When you then let poor murderers avoid execution, now you're withholding justice from their (presumably poor) victims.

It just seems to me that the staying of executions you describe stems more from a general unease with the death penalty itself, than with the ostensible fairness issue.

I'm not saying I have a great argument here or anything....

Z: "As to giving up on a criminal, that’s what we do when we sentence a person to life in prison."

I totally disagree. They're breathing, they're sentient, they can reflect. Once they're dead, who knows? Life is a mystery, and should be held sacred.

Z: "Sometimes a person commits a crime that so shocks the conscience of the community, it demands a maximal punishment as an expression of the community’s outrage. The heinous sexual murder of little children is one such crime. The community is properly outraged in such cases, and I would worry if it were not. So yes some acts make a person irredeemable."

Well I disagree. It would be hard for me not to pull the switch on Ted Bundy or Jack Kevorkian, but I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't disagree with the idea of executing the irredeemable, but I am not aware of any valid method of determining who is truly irredeemable.

Xavier: Im's still pissed off about the Crusades, too, not to mention Vietnam. And here's hoping you live long enough to crack a joke about the Holocaust in fifty years in the presence of a survivor's grandchild. Political correctness, give me a break. How about simple morality? I am so freaking tied of that pc thing being hurled around like a rock on a string by conservativs.

Levels of description. Family resemblances. Language games.
Ho hum, with your logics and your 'reason' and your Venn diagram arguments. Makes me so sleepy...

Witches were primarily wealthy widows, or somewhat so, since the subtle goal of the Inquisition in this respect, initiating the whole witch-terrorism thing, was usually: "Bring the money here."

[Something one would think an economist might figger...]

Why there's more resemblance between terrorist-with-bombs fundamentalists in Asia and the pig-lipped but harmless ones in Xian Merika than a mostly meaningless witch comparison. The case can be made that ol' pig-lips spawns the BushCo "war" on "terror" (read: "neo-crusade against Islam" 'cause they're too crude and greedy to get it right).

Oh yeah: Goddess be praised & Blessed Be... heh heh heh

I wanted to write about redemption and what an important concept that is, so important it's even worth offering it to the "irredeemable", even someone like Karla Faye Tucker, guilty of a heinous crime in her youth. After all, think of all those crazies from the Middle Ages we now call Saints. Many of them earned their sainthood by redeeming themselves with good works after some awful earlier life. It's a great idea and even if those sainthood stories are a little far-fetched there's a reason the stories exist. Those stories might just save someone from descending further down the spiral. Even a non-believer like me can see that.

Anyway, it's been a long day and I'm thrashed so I won't go there. The real reason for this post is to say, "Jack Kevorkian!" You're equating him with Bundy? Joe M. I think you've mixed him up with someone else, unless you really do hate euthanasia.

Was Adolph Eichmann redeemable? Israel generally does not have capital punishment, but Eichmann was hanged. They make a special exception for the likes of him. His execution was not aimed at deterring future mass murders, or even to extract some kind of retribution for the families of his victims. No they executed him to express a moral outrage against a supreme evil.

"Was Adolph Eichmann redeemable?"

Eichmann renouncing his crimes/his own life and pleading forgiveness may still not be enough redemption to us for those crimes but in my view it would be a greater compensation to society than simply giving up his life to an executioner. And, while sitting in prison, if he never reaches that point then society still gets to express its moral outrage by locking him up and also gets to demonstrate moral superiority by not taking his life by execution. I think it's a more effective message to would-be Eichmanns. That is, it's not too late to turn back and become "productive" (at least to some minimal extent) but if you don't you may live a long life of deprivation and even regret.

That's about as much as I can offer on this subject. Maybe the Pope is reading and can jump in here. I know the Vatican has done some deep thinking on all this.

PS. If we saved CP for the Eichmanns of the world I'd probably be quite content and focus my worries elsewhere.

This follows hard upon Hayden's story about the malignant flying _thing_ ...

If your inner security guard spots an unidentified threat, wakes you from sound slumber, dumps ten years' worth of adrenalin into your bloodstream and slams your heart rate up to 240 a minute with all alarms blasting "KILL OR DIE!!!" -- are you going to be able to remind yourself that, rationally, after all, blimps do not exist?

Eichmann had about 15 years to reflect on his crimes, and what conclusion did he come to? He was glad he killed all those Jews! If ever there was an irredeemable character it was Eichmann. Had he merely been sent to prison, he could have served as a living symbol and inspiration for anti-Semites everywhere. Moreover, the enemies of the Jews (the Arab terrorists for instance) would have interpreted such an act as a showing of weakness even cowardice. Then suppose innocent people were kidnapped and held to ransom Eichmann’s release? Now your failure act against Eichmann has created even more victims. There is evil in the world and it triumphs when good men do nothing, when good men become morally paralyzed.

Buy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.

Buy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.

go to WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM for great deals!

Get WWW.I-DISH-NETWORK.ORG rid of cable and upgrade your living room by clicking here!

WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM

Get WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!

Get www.all-debt-consolidation.org help with your credit problems here!

Online Casino Directory

Now you can Play Poker online any time!

Buy Viagra online! its easy click here today.

you can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers.

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers.

I love tramadol even though
I have no idea what it is. And this sentence is just filler.

Check out these sites for online casino action!

internet casino http://www.casino.150m.com
blackjack http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com
online casino http://www.online-casino-i.greatnow.com
online casino http://www.gambling.greatnow.com
roulette http://www.roulette.greatnow.com
slots http://www.slots.0catch.com
video poker http://www.video-poker.owns1.com
texas holdem http://www.poker-i.150m.com

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. You can also play blackjack online fo free!

6475 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

6892 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

232 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

2836 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

7996 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com