Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive August 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

like her. They have that are on the autism spectrum. But you were talking about how these kind of people can't really lie. Oh they can they can't it's just it's very different than their situation was. You were just gonna fact-check me on that. A lot of people like that in my family and I can tell you that they absolutely can lie. No it's really really well but they just happen to believe their li…

← Previous segment →

ack and say you know when I'm railing against the Chinese country that's about the government and that's about the government situation but the people, love them.

I'm always careful about that when I talk about Iran because the Iranian people are amazing people and we would love to be closer to them. It would be productive and beneficial for everybody but the government of Iran is a problem. I could do that better when I talk about China and you're absolutely right. I think that's a good correction. I will take that correction and I will look for opportunities to make sure that I'm clear about that. I think that's a fair statement.

All right let's go to Dan. Dan just jumped in here. He's ready to go. Dan Dan Dan can you hear me Dan?

Hi thanks for taking my call. What's your question Dan?

Well I don't know if you remember I asked if I you give me 90 seconds and I could change your mind and I didn't but that's okay. You're very influential and I appreciate all your work and I just wanted to know if you made any decision on changing your mind on support of the death penalty.

Why would I change my mind? What nothing's changed since I made my mind up. But the reason I ask is because I noticed that your statement basically is if you support the death penalty if found guilty and no but um let me that's not exactly my view. So if you're going to go to criticize that you need to stop and let me give you my view and then see if you still criticize it.

Okay okay sure yeah.

The only cases that I would be in favor of the death penalty right would be if the crime is somewhat horrific and I'm not going to stop to you know identify the dividing line between what is horrific enough but let's just say conceptually something horrific enough. For example if you were a major fentanyl dealer and responsible for you know a dozen deaths that would be the death sentence in my mind. That would be horrific enough as just one example.

But here's the thing. In order for a death penalty to be effective, this is my own personal view, you should need something that would guarantee the person was at least present at the time of the crime like a DNA as opposed to an eyewitness that's unreliable. So if you can't place the person scientifically with let's say a video, a picture, DNA, a fingerprint then I would not be in favor of it even if they got a conviction because that would leave a little bit too much doubt in my mind that you got an innocent person.

I would never ever support the death penalty based on an eyewitness account alone or plus you know eyewitness plus some you kn

Context —

ow trivial information to support it. So given that distinction there you'd have to know the perpetrator was in the room at the time of the crime and connected to it. Go ahead go ahead do you so that's fine but if you're aware the amount of people that are actually put to death by the state that are actually found innocent afterwards so even the people that are being released even today can read a…

Next segment → →