This year we can end the death penalty in California(paulgraham.com)
paulgraham.com
This year we can end the death penalty in California
http://paulgraham.com/prop62.html
241 comments
The lack of an "undo" button is not exclusive to the death penalty, many serious forms of punishment are irreversible.
Why, in your view, is it much worse for the state to jail an innocent person for a long time (say, their entire adult life) instead of killing them?
Why, in your view, is it much worse for the state to jail an innocent person for a long time (say, their entire adult life) instead of killing them?
Because improperly jailed people who are later freed are at least paid some compensation, and at least they can try to live a normal life afterward. It's not great, nor nearly enough, but it's something. None of this is possible with people who are improperly executed.
Don't succumb to the Nirvana fallacy here - for sure, the American justice system has many more serious flaws than just the death penalty, and those won't be fixed right away. But this is a step in the right direction and worth taking even if many other problems still remain.
Don't succumb to the Nirvana fallacy here - for sure, the American justice system has many more serious flaws than just the death penalty, and those won't be fixed right away. But this is a step in the right direction and worth taking even if many other problems still remain.
That is bad, but you can compensate an wrongfully jailed person afterwards. But I think it is a fair point, which is why I am also against harsh prison conditions. I think prison should mainly be about rehabilitation and shielding society from the danger of the person. If prison mainly means losing freedom, you aren't necessarily ruined mentally when you get out.
That depends. If you spend long enough isolated from society you won't be able to function in it anymore.
People coming out of jail after 10 years of imprisonment are used to the original iphone as the only smartphone. They don't know about Uber, Venmo, Bitcoin, Amazon and Google have both changed dramatically. Now you need an EZPass for most roads, healthcare laws are different, they missed the whole Snowden ordeal. Weed is borderline legal, gay marriage is legal, etc etc.
Things have changed a lot in the past 10 years. If you weren't allowed to keep up with it, you probably don't know how to navigate society anymore.
People coming out of jail after 10 years of imprisonment are used to the original iphone as the only smartphone. They don't know about Uber, Venmo, Bitcoin, Amazon and Google have both changed dramatically. Now you need an EZPass for most roads, healthcare laws are different, they missed the whole Snowden ordeal. Weed is borderline legal, gay marriage is legal, etc etc.
Things have changed a lot in the past 10 years. If you weren't allowed to keep up with it, you probably don't know how to navigate society anymore.
Wow, this seems extremely naive. (Honestly I'm feeling like I got trolled.)
You don't know of anybody who has never been imprisoned who is managing to live their life without interacting with any of the things you've mentioned?
If not, I would recommend enlarging your circle of contact.
You don't know of anybody who has never been imprisoned who is managing to live their life without interacting with any of the things you've mentioned?
If not, I would recommend enlarging your circle of contact.
When you come back to society and try to make friends, everyone is going to be utilizing technology to shape their interactions. Uber makes new types of socializing reasonable. (bars and parties farther away). Phones change how people schedule events. Chips in credit cards change how you spend your money.
This isn't trolling. If you don't know how to use modern tech, it's going to be harder to socialize, especially if you are in a city (as they tend to adopt tech faster).
If even a person has successfully rejected some tech (maybe Facebook, maybe smartphones), it's doubtful that they've rejected all tech and if they have they've developed skills for living without it among people who otherwise expect them to have it.
I might be overstating this on a timeline of one decade, but it gets much worse on a timeline of 20 years.
20 years means you were likely using Windows 95. Texting wasn't a thing. Phones didn't have "apps". Banks didn't have websites. The average person's job had a lot less tech in it.
Can you survive? Sure, but your options are a lot more limited compared to someone who knows how to use the tech of the 21st century.
This isn't trolling. If you don't know how to use modern tech, it's going to be harder to socialize, especially if you are in a city (as they tend to adopt tech faster).
If even a person has successfully rejected some tech (maybe Facebook, maybe smartphones), it's doubtful that they've rejected all tech and if they have they've developed skills for living without it among people who otherwise expect them to have it.
I might be overstating this on a timeline of one decade, but it gets much worse on a timeline of 20 years.
20 years means you were likely using Windows 95. Texting wasn't a thing. Phones didn't have "apps". Banks didn't have websites. The average person's job had a lot less tech in it.
Can you survive? Sure, but your options are a lot more limited compared to someone who knows how to use the tech of the 21st century.
It wouldn't take more than a few weeks to learn how to use those newfangled bits of tech. In fact, a very large portion of the world gets along just fine without them.
There are far worse consequences to being jailed for 10 years or more than not to be able to use a cell phone or the latest social media fad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_syndrome
There are far worse consequences to being jailed for 10 years or more than not to be able to use a cell phone or the latest social media fad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_syndrome
None of the things you mention would stop someone from re-entering society, in quite a few countries there are rehabilitation programmes in the jails with gradual re-introduction to 'normal' life after longer jail sentences.
Yes, this costs money but it helps to reduce recidivism and in general is a good thing to do.
Yes, this costs money but it helps to reduce recidivism and in general is a good thing to do.
They aren't buried under rocks or in darkened caves.
Their failure to adapt is our failure as a society to prepare them. By imprisoning them we become their guardians and stewards, we are responsible.
Their failure to adapt is our failure as a society to prepare them. By imprisoning them we become their guardians and stewards, we are responsible.
>That is bad, but you can compensate an wrongfully jailed person afterwards.
How do you compensate someone for being imprisoned (and likely raped) from the age of 28 to 45?
In many cases, the death penalty is more humane.
How do you compensate someone for being imprisoned (and likely raped) from the age of 28 to 45?
In many cases, the death penalty is more humane.
Failure of the prison system to protect its inmates should not become a factor in deciding whether or not it is more 'humane' to kill them outright.
The you might as well kill all prisoners because it is more humane, after all where would you draw the line, 5 years, 10 years, 15 or 20, it's all time that has passed.
Compensation should be of such a magnitude that it incentivizes society to make sure it happens as little as possible.
The you might as well kill all prisoners because it is more humane, after all where would you draw the line, 5 years, 10 years, 15 or 20, it's all time that has passed.
Compensation should be of such a magnitude that it incentivizes society to make sure it happens as little as possible.
If that is really true, why do inmates try to get out, instead of killing themselves? Why not just kill themselves after release, since having lived through that is so much worse than death?
If rape is likely in prison, as you suggest, how is our current prison system not a form of torture?
As well, its fairly clear that the compensation offered is better than nothing. Sure, it may not be a 1:1 ratio of bad to good (rape to cash) but its clearly a step in the right direction to offer someone a "plus" in recompense for the negatives wrongly imposed.
Even a single minute of my time wasted can not be un-done. So if you accept the arrow of time points forward and that no single action can ever be truly un-done there are some actions that are worse than others. And so it would be good to aim for the least harm done.
Sure, some actions are more harmful than others. Killing a person is worse than imprisoning them indefinitely.
But the degree to which it is worse (and whether it is enough to ban the death penalty) seems quite subjective.
Seems to me that you could use an identical line of reasoning to conclude that prison sentences longer than N years should be banned.
Is it a matter of degree? Or is there something fundamentally different about the death penalty that warrants a ban?
But the degree to which it is worse (and whether it is enough to ban the death penalty) seems quite subjective.
Seems to me that you could use an identical line of reasoning to conclude that prison sentences longer than N years should be banned.
Is it a matter of degree? Or is there something fundamentally different about the death penalty that warrants a ban?
Death is final, everything else is on a gradient, death is an absolute. So yes, it's fundamentally different. That's why we hold parties on New Years Eve to mark the passing of time but we also hold funeral wakes when someone dies.
When someone is wrongly jailed, they often have a lawyer working on their case to exonerate them.
After someone has been executed, nobody pursues the case anymore.
After someone has been executed, nobody pursues the case anymore.
You're seriously comparing an unpleasant prison life where you still can think, read, communicate with being killed?
> The single best reason why the death penalty should be abolished is because it does not have an 'undo' button.
Neither does killing people with drones...
Neither does killing people with drones...
Exactly. I am astonished that there is no debate around this. Drone killing ought to be regarded as a war crime. When you go around performing targeted killing of people in peace time, then that is unlawful execution.
> Drone killing ought to be regarded as a war crime.
It is a war crime. That doesn't mean any drone wielders will ever be brought to justice, but the same goes for all those Blackwater (oh, sorry 'Xe', oh, sorry 'Academi', it's hard to keep track of these scumbags) contractors during the Iraq war.
War crimes as a rule will only see their day in court if they are committed by relatively powerless people on the losing side of some conflict. Otherwise you're probably in worse shape shoplifting or stealing a car.
Heck, America doesn't even subscribe to the international tribunal for warcrimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
And they're the main users of drones for killing people in countries they are not formally at war with.
It is a war crime. That doesn't mean any drone wielders will ever be brought to justice, but the same goes for all those Blackwater (oh, sorry 'Xe', oh, sorry 'Academi', it's hard to keep track of these scumbags) contractors during the Iraq war.
War crimes as a rule will only see their day in court if they are committed by relatively powerless people on the losing side of some conflict. Otherwise you're probably in worse shape shoplifting or stealing a car.
Heck, America doesn't even subscribe to the international tribunal for warcrimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
And they're the main users of drones for killing people in countries they are not formally at war with.
And let's not forget all the torturers and their enablers and protectors. Torture is a very serious crime. But will the people who commit it and those who order it ever be held accountable? Nope. The US government just stamps "legal" on it after it makes a splash in the press, and then people mostly forget about it. Now Trump is promising to "bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding".
This is just the tip of the criminal iceberg in the US. But crime is really the wrong word when the people who commit and order the crime and those who protect them are the same people who write and enforce the laws.
This is just the tip of the criminal iceberg in the US. But crime is really the wrong word when the people who commit and order the crime and those who protect them are the same people who write and enforce the laws.
That's the single best argument. The single best reason is the immorality of killing.
If you want to gouge a society's level of civilization, look at their prisons. What sets humanity apart is the ability of reason to control instinct. It has taken us from beast to philosopher to The Weather Channel, and its measure is how we treat those everyone hates.
If you want to gouge a society's level of civilization, look at their prisons. What sets humanity apart is the ability of reason to control instinct. It has taken us from beast to philosopher to The Weather Channel, and its measure is how we treat those everyone hates.
One of the best measures for whether or not a country is civilized or not (or where it sits on a scale of civilization) is to see how they treat their prison inmates, people with mental issues and people without income.
In other words: those over which society wields a lot of power who do not have much power of their own.
In other words: those over which society wields a lot of power who do not have much power of their own.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln
There's no undo button for imprisonment.
Your life was taken, and no one can give it back.
It's a difference of degree only, not kind.
Your life was taken, and no one can give it back.
It's a difference of degree only, not kind.
I think that viewpoint was already covered elsewhere in this thread.
I think this whole thread has already been covered elsewhere.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/13/wrongly-con...
While the innocence project has saved many innocent people, it's important to remember that they also are wrong sometimes.
While the innocence project has saved many innocent people, it's important to remember that they also are wrong sometimes.
That's the whole point though, justice is a messy business and everybody gets it wrong sometimes.
Life in jail without possibility of parole executed until the person dies in jail -- is also unreversible and can also be applied to someone who is innocent.
that's a good reason but not the reason for me, death penalty is wrong period, same reason as torture is wrong.
Back in the day, there was a serial killer named Ted Bundy. He killed a number of women, was imprisoned, escaped (twice) and killed at least three more people.
That kind of incident makes the problem much more complicated. The typical argument against the death penalty is that sometimes innocent people are executed. And it's true, and it's horrible. But if you don't execute them, then the alternative is that they should be in prison for the rest of their life. If they're innocent, that's still pretty horrible. The real objective is to keep innocent people from being convicted in the first place.
But like many other situations, the false positive rate and the false negative rate are inversely correlated. How many guilty people should we free to avoid sending one innocent person to prison? The obvious answer is "as many as we have to" - it's not acceptable to have innocent people in prison. But if we're talking about serial killers, that question becomes "How many innocent people do we want to see dead on the streets to avoid sending one innocent person to prison?"
Back to the death penalty. Sometimes guilty people escape, too, and sometimes they kill people after they escape. Executed people don't kill anyone ever again. So, how many innocent people are you willing to execute in order to prevent innocent people dying on the streets?
This stuff is very difficult. But given less-than-perfect prisons, I can see a case for keeping the death penalty for serial killers.
That kind of incident makes the problem much more complicated. The typical argument against the death penalty is that sometimes innocent people are executed. And it's true, and it's horrible. But if you don't execute them, then the alternative is that they should be in prison for the rest of their life. If they're innocent, that's still pretty horrible. The real objective is to keep innocent people from being convicted in the first place.
But like many other situations, the false positive rate and the false negative rate are inversely correlated. How many guilty people should we free to avoid sending one innocent person to prison? The obvious answer is "as many as we have to" - it's not acceptable to have innocent people in prison. But if we're talking about serial killers, that question becomes "How many innocent people do we want to see dead on the streets to avoid sending one innocent person to prison?"
Back to the death penalty. Sometimes guilty people escape, too, and sometimes they kill people after they escape. Executed people don't kill anyone ever again. So, how many innocent people are you willing to execute in order to prevent innocent people dying on the streets?
This stuff is very difficult. But given less-than-perfect prisons, I can see a case for keeping the death penalty for serial killers.
If we cared about this, then why is revenge the core focus on American justice system and not rehabilitation?
When people exit the prison system un-rehabilitated they will hurt more people.
I think this is a more important question. Why is revenge given priority over avoiding new victims?
Also if one actually cares about life, why are prisons such overcrowded hell holes that prisoners get shanked and killed on a regular basis?
This is my issue with this sort of reasoning as it easily becomes cherry picking of issues to support harsher justice system while ignoring all the related issues which speaks for a milder system.
When people exit the prison system un-rehabilitated they will hurt more people.
I think this is a more important question. Why is revenge given priority over avoiding new victims?
Also if one actually cares about life, why are prisons such overcrowded hell holes that prisoners get shanked and killed on a regular basis?
This is my issue with this sort of reasoning as it easily becomes cherry picking of issues to support harsher justice system while ignoring all the related issues which speaks for a milder system.
[deleted]
4% of innocent put to death vs. Ted's 3?
Don't forget the pressure on prosecutors to arrest a serial killer, the chances of pinning it on someone (say a relative) is nonzero. But the chance of undoing a wrongful death penalty is exactly zero.
True. But the chance of undoing a murder is also exactly zero.
4% innocents on death row is a higher number than those killed by escapees, I will agree. But where do you stop? That means at least 4% of those sentenced to life without parole are innocent. Now what? Is leaving them to rot in jail for the rest of their life really that much better than executing them?
4% innocents on death row is a higher number than those killed by escapees, I will agree. But where do you stop? That means at least 4% of those sentenced to life without parole are innocent. Now what? Is leaving them to rot in jail for the rest of their life really that much better than executing them?
The happy clients of the Innocence Project seem to enjoy the rotting in jail option over the execution...
I find interesting that you in the US are thinking in banning the death penalty.
Here in Colombia death penalty was banned about a century ago, unfortunately, it has done more harm than good, because criminals (even very bad ones, the kid rapists and stuff) are not scared of prison, prisons are so crowded that sentences are short (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Garavito is a good example, I don't think a lifetime of prison would forgive all he did, he should be condemned for 1800 years) and this has led to crime rise.
There is a common belief that politicians banned death penalty long ago to be able to be corrupt without any risk, in the long run if they're not dying, they could steal a lot of money and then use half of it to get out of prison early.
I know US corruption is not as bad as Colombian corruption. Unfortunately we have to deal with our system, and the ban of death penalty has kept terrible people in our country for a long time. It may be unethical to kill someone, but in the end is the lesser evil, because it will never compare to the harm that this person does to the society. As a Colombian I feel that corruption and crime is going down now, and we are proud for it, but I also feel that if we took the 'evil' decision earlier, we would be much better now.
Here in Colombia death penalty was banned about a century ago, unfortunately, it has done more harm than good, because criminals (even very bad ones, the kid rapists and stuff) are not scared of prison, prisons are so crowded that sentences are short (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Garavito is a good example, I don't think a lifetime of prison would forgive all he did, he should be condemned for 1800 years) and this has led to crime rise.
There is a common belief that politicians banned death penalty long ago to be able to be corrupt without any risk, in the long run if they're not dying, they could steal a lot of money and then use half of it to get out of prison early.
I know US corruption is not as bad as Colombian corruption. Unfortunately we have to deal with our system, and the ban of death penalty has kept terrible people in our country for a long time. It may be unethical to kill someone, but in the end is the lesser evil, because it will never compare to the harm that this person does to the society. As a Colombian I feel that corruption and crime is going down now, and we are proud for it, but I also feel that if we took the 'evil' decision earlier, we would be much better now.
There's two parts that I'm still not sure about here - a question of moral weight W:
1 * innocent prisoner executed == W * innocent victim of crime
and two epistemic questions, how many innocents X are executed per guilty person, and how many victims Y are saved on average by the disincentive caused by executing one guilty prisoner?
Per guilty person executed, we save Y lives and we are penalized W * X. Is Y > W * X? If so it seems reasonable to keep the death penalty, all things being equal (ignoring the cost of litigation vs. prison time, etc)
Does anyone have sources for what the values of any of these numbers should be?
and two epistemic questions, how many innocents X are executed per guilty person, and how many victims Y are saved on average by the disincentive caused by executing one guilty prisoner?
Per guilty person executed, we save Y lives and we are penalized W * X. Is Y > W * X? If so it seems reasonable to keep the death penalty, all things being equal (ignoring the cost of litigation vs. prison time, etc)
Does anyone have sources for what the values of any of these numbers should be?
Don't forget to explicitly vote no on 66 if you are voting yes on 62. If both of them pass, the one with more 'yes' votes will supersede the other.
States should not allow two propositions that contradict each other to be put up for vote simultaneously. They are generally confusing and almost always favor the status quo at the expense of most citizens who don't have time to understand the nuances of each prop/issue/initiative/ammendment.
You should try and get that as a proposition on the next ballot.
California's whole proposition system is stupid in general.
Important note on Prop 66, which PG unfortunately glossed over: it will override 62 if it passes with more yes votes than the other measure.
Therefore, if you're opposed to the death penalty and intend to vote yes on both measures--reasoning, for instance, that the reforms on 66 such as expedited appeals for death row inmates are an improvement regardless of whether 62 passes--you're undermining your own vote.
Therefore, if you're opposed to the death penalty and intend to vote yes on both measures--reasoning, for instance, that the reforms on 66 such as expedited appeals for death row inmates are an improvement regardless of whether 62 passes--you're undermining your own vote.
> a yes vote on 66 overrides a yes vote on 62
That's not entirely true. In the event that both propositions pass, whichever proposition received more yes votes will supersede the other https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_66,_Death_Pen...
That's not entirely true. In the event that both propositions pass, whichever proposition received more yes votes will supersede the other https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_66,_Death_Pen...
Good point, I should've been more precise. Edited the comment accordingly.
[deleted]
Generally, I imagine that anti-death-penalty voters will vote Yes on 66 and No on 62 and vice versa for pro-death-penalty voters. However, it's possible that a voter is simply motivated to clear death row by any means necessary because of all the extra costs it involves. Maintaining death row is expensive.
In that case, voting Yes on both makes sense. Either death row will get cleared out by getting rid of the death penalty or it will get cleared out by killing them faster. Either way, it's a cost savings. I find that logic to be cold and impersonal, but I imagine there are plenty of people who think that way.
In that case, voting Yes on both makes sense. Either death row will get cleared out by getting rid of the death penalty or it will get cleared out by killing them faster. Either way, it's a cost savings. I find that logic to be cold and impersonal, but I imagine there are plenty of people who think that way.
I find it annoying as a California voter that both of these made it onto the ballot at the same time. It seems to make more sense to me to FIRST vote on whether or not the death penalty should be repealed before voting on whether or not to expedite the process.
pg has put his "money where [his] month is" on this proposition: http://votersedge.org/en/ca/ballot/election/area/42/measures...
$500K! Thanks, pg! I wish I could donate that much.
The death penalty never made sense to me. We teach our kids its wrong to kill by killing? I'd rather the person spend their life in jail to think about what they have done.
I'm against the death penalty, but I don't think that argument holds up very well. We say it's wrong to kidnap people and hold them against their will, but we put people in prison as punishment. We say it's wrong to steal, but we use fines as punishment. Pretty much by definition, any effective punishment has to be something that's wrong to do to people in general.
> We say it's wrong to kidnap people and hold them against their will, but we put people in prison as punishment.
This is rather an arguments against prisons to me.
> We say it's wrong to steal, but we use fines as punishment.
Objectivists would indeed argue this is an argument against taxes.
This is rather an arguments against prisons to me.
> We say it's wrong to steal, but we use fines as punishment.
Objectivists would indeed argue this is an argument against taxes.
Saying all of these things are wrong is indeed consistent, but I don't think many people would agree that it's a good idea to have no way to enforce laws.
I oppose the death penalty but by this logic we shouldn't have prison at all because it's wrong to kidnap and hold someone in 6'x10' room against their will.
prison is a place for people who can't be trusted in the general public. We add layers of protections in case we are wrong (juries, appeals). There is no CTRL-Z for the death penalty.
I think you've misunderstood me. My argument is not against prisons. It is against the logic the OP used which I feel is flawed.
Note that this would only end it for crimes that fall under the state's jurisdiction. For things like transporting people across state lines to kill them or using a weapon of mass destruction in a manner detrimental to interstate commerce, the death penalty could still apply on a federal level.
This is true for now, but if enough states outlaw the death penalty, then it will be easier to get it outlawed federally.
For things like transporting people across state lines to kill them...
I know all the arguments against the death penalty, but I just can't manage to get myself upset that there is a death penalty for such things.
I know all the arguments against the death penalty, but I just can't manage to get myself upset that there is a death penalty for such things.
So if somebody sets off a nuclear bomb, the feds are fine with it as long as it does not hurt interstate commerce?
I know, constitution and all. But still, that sounds a bit mercantile.
I know, constitution and all. But still, that sounds a bit mercantile.
Conventional explosives count as "weapons of mass destruction" as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Cri... . And I guess the "interstate commerce" example comes from criminal code about terrorism: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a
yah, Tsarnaev in massachusetts comes to mind most recently.
There is one good reason to keep the status quo (death penalty without any actual deaths) which is that anyone given a death sentence gets their case extensively reviewed and appealed by excellent lawyers working pro bono. The people who get life get no help at all.
I have read of prisioners being upset when given a life sentence as they know that no one will help them appeal their conviction. If you are innocent you want to be given a death sentence since you will have so many more people helping you get your conviction overturned.
I have read of prisioners being upset when given a life sentence as they know that no one will help them appeal their conviction. If you are innocent you want to be given a death sentence since you will have so many more people helping you get your conviction overturned.
What's to say banning He death penalty entirely won't move that pro bono work to life sentences, even if only partially..?
Well it might, but given it doesn’t now in states without the death penalty there is no reason to think it will in the future.
I know if I was innocent and poor and had been convicted of a crime that was either life in prison or death that I would want a death sentence.
I know if I was innocent and poor and had been convicted of a crime that was either life in prison or death that I would want a death sentence.
>
In the real world, about 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent. So this is not about whether it's ok to kill killers. This is about whether it's ok to kill innocent people.
>A child could answer that one for you.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm
N>25 [0]
[0] Graham, 2016
>A child could answer that one for you.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm
N>25 [0]
[0] Graham, 2016
Cute, but fallacious. To unpack, you seem to be arguing that since 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent, then about 1 in 25 people are wrongly convicted, and PG is saying that ratio is unacceptable.
I think your probabilistic reasoning is a bit off (by confusing P(I|DS) with P(DS|I)).
But the actual issue is about the punishment, not the guilty/innocent determination. So in other words, PG doesn't seem to be making any claim about the size of the group of "n guilty men" -- but rather about the way they can be punished.
I think your probabilistic reasoning is a bit off (by confusing P(I|DS) with P(DS|I)).
But the actual issue is about the punishment, not the guilty/innocent determination. So in other words, PG doesn't seem to be making any claim about the size of the group of "n guilty men" -- but rather about the way they can be punished.
Saying we shouldn't punish anyone with the death penalty, because 1 in 25 of them will be innocent, is making a claim about n guilty men. From my link:
>Commandments for man can be found in the book of Exodus, by the same Author(s), where God rejects the tradeoff between convicting the guilty and convicting the innocent, and simply commands, "the innocent and righteous slay thou not." 32 One can take this to imply an infinite value of n, at least in capital cases. The twelfth-century Judeo-Spanish legal theorist Moses Maimonides, however, interpreted the commandment of Exodus as implying a value of n = 1000 for execution. 33 He refers to it as the "290th Negative Commandment" and argues that executing an accused criminal on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely "according to the judge's caprice. Hence the Exalted One has shut this door" 34 against the use of presumptive evidence, for "it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death once in a way." 35
There may be multiple ns required, one for conviction and one for punishment, but the underlying structure is the same.
>To unpack, you seem to be arguing that since 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent, then about 1 in 25 people are wrongly convicted, and PG is saying that ratio is unacceptable. I think your probabilistic reasoning is a bit off (by confusing P(I|DS) with P(DS|I)).
I'm not sure what you mean. If 25 people are sentenced to death, and one of them is innocent, then PG is arguing we should let 24 guilty men escape death rather than allowing 1 innocent man to be killed. I guess maybe I should have said n>24, then, but the overall point remains.
>Commandments for man can be found in the book of Exodus, by the same Author(s), where God rejects the tradeoff between convicting the guilty and convicting the innocent, and simply commands, "the innocent and righteous slay thou not." 32 One can take this to imply an infinite value of n, at least in capital cases. The twelfth-century Judeo-Spanish legal theorist Moses Maimonides, however, interpreted the commandment of Exodus as implying a value of n = 1000 for execution. 33 He refers to it as the "290th Negative Commandment" and argues that executing an accused criminal on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely "according to the judge's caprice. Hence the Exalted One has shut this door" 34 against the use of presumptive evidence, for "it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death once in a way." 35
There may be multiple ns required, one for conviction and one for punishment, but the underlying structure is the same.
>To unpack, you seem to be arguing that since 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent, then about 1 in 25 people are wrongly convicted, and PG is saying that ratio is unacceptable. I think your probabilistic reasoning is a bit off (by confusing P(I|DS) with P(DS|I)).
I'm not sure what you mean. If 25 people are sentenced to death, and one of them is innocent, then PG is arguing we should let 24 guilty men escape death rather than allowing 1 innocent man to be killed. I guess maybe I should have said n>24, then, but the overall point remains.
No, it doesn't. They won't escape death, they'll be dead sooner or later anyway. It is just that society will not have lowered itself to their level in response and will have an opportunity to figure out which of those people was in fact innocent.
It's all fun and games until you are that innocent person.
It's all fun and games until you are that innocent person.
Don't be pedantic, you know I meant "escape the death penalty".
Are you arguing for n=infinity?
Are you arguing for n=infinity?
Well, it all depends on how many people you intend to kill, it's all about the ratio npeopleinnocent/npeopleguilty after all.
The problem is that no matter how small the ratio gets in absolute terms there is only the possibility of killing an innocent person or not killing an innocent person. Even if you assume that everybody is guilty I'd still make the argument that people can genuinely change and that no matter what you do you will not be bringing anybody back that's already dead.
Think of still having the death penalty as a black mark on a civilization. As a nice example have a look at the Philippines and try to work out for yourself if you feel that even if society will be better afterwards it is worth it to kill this many people, many of them in serious trouble already.
The extreme example of that is a society that simply kills everybody that is convicted of a crime, after all, why not, it makes society better, right? Or does it?
The problem is that no matter how small the ratio gets in absolute terms there is only the possibility of killing an innocent person or not killing an innocent person. Even if you assume that everybody is guilty I'd still make the argument that people can genuinely change and that no matter what you do you will not be bringing anybody back that's already dead.
Think of still having the death penalty as a black mark on a civilization. As a nice example have a look at the Philippines and try to work out for yourself if you feel that even if society will be better afterwards it is worth it to kill this many people, many of them in serious trouble already.
The extreme example of that is a society that simply kills everybody that is convicted of a crime, after all, why not, it makes society better, right? Or does it?
>Even if you assume that everybody is guilty I'd still make the argument that people can genuinely change and that no matter what you do you will not be bringing anybody back that's already dead.
That may be (and I agree with it), but I'm critiquing PG's argument (in particular his assertion that it's obvious), not his conclusion.
>The extreme example of that is a society that simply kills everybody that is convicted of a crime, after all, why not, it makes society better, right? Or does it?
You need different punishments for different crimes, or someone who commits a small crime has no more deterrence against big crimes. I'm not sure what point you're making with this.
That may be (and I agree with it), but I'm critiquing PG's argument (in particular his assertion that it's obvious), not his conclusion.
>The extreme example of that is a society that simply kills everybody that is convicted of a crime, after all, why not, it makes society better, right? Or does it?
You need different punishments for different crimes, or someone who commits a small crime has no more deterrence against big crimes. I'm not sure what point you're making with this.
The justice system is - in principle - not about revenge but about balance, a balance between running a safe society and one where people that misbehave are placed in a spot where they can be re-habilitated and then can re-enter society. That path is closed in an extreme way by killing someone, there is no rehabilitation from that no matter what.
Deterrence and punishment have very little to do with each other (but deterrence and the chance of being caught do have a lot to do with each other).
So fundamentally the justice system is not about punishment at all, though from the victims perspective that might seem to be the case.
Deterrence and punishment have very little to do with each other (but deterrence and the chance of being caught do have a lot to do with each other).
So fundamentally the justice system is not about punishment at all, though from the victims perspective that might seem to be the case.
> Saying we shouldn't punish anyone with the death penalty, because 1 in 25 of them will be innocent, is making a claim about n guilty men.
No. PG's piece leaves open the option for punishment by other means, even if they do turn out to be innocent.
For instance, to take the extreme case, nothing in PG's article says he would have a problem with punishing everyone accused of murder with one year imprisonment, with probability one.
I get that you want to tie PG's piece to the Volokh article, but PG's piece is about this particular form of punishment.
[edited to add: since we're going in circles, I'll stop now]
No. PG's piece leaves open the option for punishment by other means, even if they do turn out to be innocent.
For instance, to take the extreme case, nothing in PG's article says he would have a problem with punishing everyone accused of murder with one year imprisonment, with probability one.
I get that you want to tie PG's piece to the Volokh article, but PG's piece is about this particular form of punishment.
[edited to add: since we're going in circles, I'll stop now]
I think you misunderstood me. "we shouldn't punish anyone with the death penalty" means we shouldn't kill anyone, it allows for other methods of punishment.
The Volokh article allows for multiple levels of punishment as well. The quote from Maimonides doesn't mean we simply let them go free if we aren't absolutely sure that they are guilty, instead we would lock them up.
The Volokh article allows for multiple levels of punishment as well. The quote from Maimonides doesn't mean we simply let them go free if we aren't absolutely sure that they are guilty, instead we would lock them up.
California already removed the death penalty in 1972 then later reinstated it. This resulted in killers like Charles Mason being relieved from execution and denying many victim's family member from obtaining a measure of justice they wanted.
Since being reinstated only 13 people have been executed. And none in the past 10 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Californ...
Since being reinstated only 13 people have been executed. And none in the past 10 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Californ...
I think one of the best takes on this issue was a quote from a death penalty critic in the documentary film "Deadline". He said, "We all agree that we should have a system that kills John Wayne Gacy but there is no way to create a system that kills only John Wayne Gacy."
Meaning that, there are certain cases where we are 100% certain of a persons guilt and can mostly agree that that person should die but how do we ensure a death penalty is used exlusively in those cases?
Meaning that, there are certain cases where we are 100% certain of a persons guilt and can mostly agree that that person should die but how do we ensure a death penalty is used exlusively in those cases?
I suppose one starting point would be to allow executions in the case where the defendant confesses under oath in a courtroom.
Though it might be considered poor policy, since it would discourage people from accepting a plea bargain or confessing.
Though it might be considered poor policy, since it would discourage people from accepting a plea bargain or confessing.
Not to mention all of the people who give false confessions.
False confessions are a common cause of incorrect convictions.
https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/...
False confessions are a common cause of incorrect convictions.
https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/...
Also on the theme of false confessions and how broken the US justice system is, I strongly recommend watching the "Paradise Lost" series of documentaries.[1][2]
[1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Paradise-Lost-The-Child-Murder...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost:_The_Child_Murde...
[1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Paradise-Lost-The-Child-Murder...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost:_The_Child_Murde...
[deleted]
> This resulted in killers like Charles Mason being relieved from execution and denying many victim's family member from obtaining a measure of justice they wanted.
That qualifies more as 'revenge' than as 'justice'.
That qualifies more as 'revenge' than as 'justice'.
The whole idea of a punitive system is broken at the foundation. Jail is not there to remove people from the pool (though in some cases that is a happy side effect), it is there to rehabilitate. In extreme cases this means people will never be released. But executing them makes 'us' just as bad as 'them'.
It should be there to rehabilitate, because (EDIT: in large part, there are other reasons) ultimately the vast majority of the incarcerated will be released back into society.
Unfortunately, the US has long since decided that punishment is the purpose, that these people are getting what they deserve. It's a very frustrating culture to be surrounded by.
Unfortunately, the US has long since decided that punishment is the purpose, that these people are getting what they deserve. It's a very frustrating culture to be surrounded by.
> Jail is not there to remove people from the pool, it is there to rehabilitate.
According to whom?
> But executing them makes 'us' just as bad as 'them'.
So you're saying that, for example, the state executing a mass murderer is just as bad as mass murder?
According to whom?
> But executing them makes 'us' just as bad as 'them'.
So you're saying that, for example, the state executing a mass murderer is just as bad as mass murder?
According to much of the Western world.
And even if you don't accept that, just consider: most crimes aren't murder. They don't get people sent away for life, but for a period of 1-a few years.
They will be released back into society. If we do not rehabilitate them, we can expect recidivism from either failing to counter the errant impulses, exposure to similar or worse criminal elements while incarcerated, or failure to reenter society (due to ostracism, failure to adapt to changes, lack of social structure like family and friends). We are literally creating the problem by failing to rehabilitate criminals, and instead focusing on "punishing" them.
And even if you don't accept that, just consider: most crimes aren't murder. They don't get people sent away for life, but for a period of 1-a few years.
They will be released back into society. If we do not rehabilitate them, we can expect recidivism from either failing to counter the errant impulses, exposure to similar or worse criminal elements while incarcerated, or failure to reenter society (due to ostracism, failure to adapt to changes, lack of social structure like family and friends). We are literally creating the problem by failing to rehabilitate criminals, and instead focusing on "punishing" them.
There is much to unpack in this topic, but I'll just point out that the idea that its purpose must be singular, one of punishment or rehabilitation, is a false dichotomy.
what's the difference?
Are you seriosuly asking that question?
Justice is supposed to measured and balancing for society as a whole, meted out by an impartial judge and jury of peers.
Revenge is completely subjective and ruled by emotional responses by the aggrieved party. It's almost always going to be more destructive disproportionate than it needs to be.
The last people that should decide the fate of those who have harmed them are the victims. That just leads to pure chaos.
I could decide that if someone threatened my life that I would achieve justice by circumventing law enforcement and the justice system by murdering the person in question plus their whole family, whether they meant it or not. I could state reasons of personal/family honour and whatever other bullshit would justify those actions in my mind. That doesn't make it right, or just. It makes it a response borne of unchecked emotion.
You might say that is okay, but it would quickly lead to pure anarchy if we all followed that ideal. That's why we have a justice system in place that doesn't (or tries not to) focus on revenge.
Justice is supposed to measured and balancing for society as a whole, meted out by an impartial judge and jury of peers.
Revenge is completely subjective and ruled by emotional responses by the aggrieved party. It's almost always going to be more destructive disproportionate than it needs to be.
The last people that should decide the fate of those who have harmed them are the victims. That just leads to pure chaos.
I could decide that if someone threatened my life that I would achieve justice by circumventing law enforcement and the justice system by murdering the person in question plus their whole family, whether they meant it or not. I could state reasons of personal/family honour and whatever other bullshit would justify those actions in my mind. That doesn't make it right, or just. It makes it a response borne of unchecked emotion.
You might say that is okay, but it would quickly lead to pure anarchy if we all followed that ideal. That's why we have a justice system in place that doesn't (or tries not to) focus on revenge.
The idea that distraught family members necessarily have a clear picture of what fair justice they deserve seems extremely odd to me.
This resulted in killers like Charles Mason being relieved from execution and denying many victim's family member from obtaining a measure of justice they wanted.
And thus the state protects the convicted from the vengeful desires of the victim's family members and doles out the justice the community has deemed appropriate. Just because the victims pay the state to "string 'em up!" instead of doing it themselves doesn't mean it's not mob justice.
And thus the state protects the convicted from the vengeful desires of the victim's family members and doles out the justice the community has deemed appropriate. Just because the victims pay the state to "string 'em up!" instead of doing it themselves doesn't mean it's not mob justice.
If by community you mean a few government elite, and some judges, then yes. If you mean the population of the state, a large majority at the time supported the death penalty, which why it was reinstated by popular vote soon after.
The population of the state simultaneously wanted the death penalty and to follow the Constitution. One role that the population of the state gave to judges is to referee these conflicting desires.
Not only did Californians vote to reinstate the death penalty, they then voted to impeach the justices of the State Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, who actively blocked its use after it became law again. So I don't think there is much argument that the courts were just implementing the will of the people.
I didn't make that argument. I was arguing that the people wanted contradictory things. The courts are just caught in the middle.
The people didn't want contradictory things, they wanted the death penalty, and they wanted the courts to implement it. The court wasn't caught in the middle, it was just composed of judges with opinions out of alignment with the general population.
So you don't think that the people want the Constitution, or the court system?
Think of a constitution as guardrails about democracies, the constitution nails a couple of very basic rules down hard and leaves room for interpretation and variation. It's a good principle, the constitution guarantees long term stability and the 'basics', the parliaments/congresses/whatever the local variation is called deal with day-to-day variance.
So 'the people' will want both, depending on whether they have the long or the short term view and those two views can and do contradict at times.
So 'the people' will want both, depending on whether they have the long or the short term view and those two views can and do contradict at times.
People want the constitution in the way they want to interpret it, and they want judges who believe what they believe. There is no contradiction. It is naive to think of judges as some sort of objective arbiter, they are effectively political appointees sent to push an agenda.
> they then voted to impeach the justices of the State Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, who actively blocked its use after it became law again
nobody was impeached. It was a normal judicial retention election.
nobody was impeached. It was a normal judicial retention election.
You are correct, it was a retention election which typically is a rubber stamp approval.
> This resulted in killers like Charles Mason being relieved from execution and denying many victim's family member from obtaining a measure of justice they wanted.
I weigh that measure of justice as less meaningful than the potential execution of innocents.
I weigh that measure of justice as less meaningful than the potential execution of innocents.
That's hardly comparable. In 1972 the supreme court decided that the death penalty laws _of the time_ were unconstitutional. The death penalty was almost immediately restored by public vote, with some modifications (switching from hanging to lethal injection, changing the appeals process, etc.)
The will of the people is the ultimate mandate in a democracy. In 1972 this mandate was for the death penalty. We'll see next week whether the mandate has changed.
The will of the people is the ultimate mandate in a democracy. In 1972 this mandate was for the death penalty. We'll see next week whether the mandate has changed.
"The will of the people is the ultimate mandate in a democracy."
Until a small group of judges say otherwise.
Until a small group of judges say otherwise.
Actually I think the above statement is correct. If the U.S. was a pure democracy, the will of the people would be ultimate. As a constitutional republic, the constitution is ultimate, and in the U.S.'s particular implementation of the republic, the will of the people would mandate a law, and the supreme court would determine if that law comports with the constitution or not.
And then the people vote to change the constitution, as they are doing in California on next Tuesday.
Majority rules with minority rights. The judges are there in part to ensure the rights of the minority are respected.
The death penalty only further obscures justice by the very fact that innocent people have been put to death this way.
Precisely. To put it crudely, Charles Manson can be killed later, but innocents can't be un-killed.
Why can't people speak in honest terms? What you mean isn't justice, but revenge. Killing a killer will not undo the damage they have done. It will not bring a life back.
If people require revenge for emotionally healing then that is because society has promoted this as justice.
I've never heard of victims desiring death for killers in my home country, but we are not so big on revenge and don't.
The American justice system frequently paints a trial as some sort of game, where the victims family score more points in the competition for every year extra the perpetrator gets in prison.
What about helping victims in meaningful ways instead? They might need mental health care, time of from work, economic support etc. America tend to do little in this regard.
It reminds me of the conservative desire to ban abortion, but unwillingness to actually help a family in a difficult situation giving birth to a child. Instead of making it easier to have a child so people themselves will chose to keep it, instead they want to intimidate parents to keep it threatening with prison and fines.
It is a fundamentally negative and cynical perspective on humanity. I guess that is what you get when people follow a faith which teaches that people are only good because the fear eternal punishment in hell.
If people require revenge for emotionally healing then that is because society has promoted this as justice.
I've never heard of victims desiring death for killers in my home country, but we are not so big on revenge and don't.
The American justice system frequently paints a trial as some sort of game, where the victims family score more points in the competition for every year extra the perpetrator gets in prison.
What about helping victims in meaningful ways instead? They might need mental health care, time of from work, economic support etc. America tend to do little in this regard.
It reminds me of the conservative desire to ban abortion, but unwillingness to actually help a family in a difficult situation giving birth to a child. Instead of making it easier to have a child so people themselves will chose to keep it, instead they want to intimidate parents to keep it threatening with prison and fines.
It is a fundamentally negative and cynical perspective on humanity. I guess that is what you get when people follow a faith which teaches that people are only good because the fear eternal punishment in hell.
Imprisoning a killer will not undo the damage they have done, but that doesn't make imprisonment revenge.
Indeed, the concept of justice is strikingly lacking from these discussions.
> It reminds me of the conservative desire to ban abortion, but unwillingness to actually help a family in a difficult situation giving birth to a child. Instead of making it easier to have a child so people themselves will chose to keep it, instead they want to intimidate parents to keep it threatening with prison and fines.
Where did you get this idea, that pro-life people are anti-help, pro-intimidation people?
> It is a fundamentally negative and cynical perspective on humanity. I guess that is what you get when people follow a faith which teaches that people are only good because the fear eternal punishment in hell.
That's not what Christianity teaches. Christianity teaches that people are sinful, period. It is only through the redeeming sacrifice of Christ that we can be washed of our sins and be seen as holy in God's sight. We should then be motivated to lead holy lives primarily in gratitude and love, not out of fear. For example, I John 4:18: "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love."
Where did you get this idea, that pro-life people are anti-help, pro-intimidation people?
> It is a fundamentally negative and cynical perspective on humanity. I guess that is what you get when people follow a faith which teaches that people are only good because the fear eternal punishment in hell.
That's not what Christianity teaches. Christianity teaches that people are sinful, period. It is only through the redeeming sacrifice of Christ that we can be washed of our sins and be seen as holy in God's sight. We should then be motivated to lead holy lives primarily in gratitude and love, not out of fear. For example, I John 4:18: "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love."
This justice-revenge distinction you are making is merely tone. Factually, they are one and the same.
Under the assumption that people believe executions offer <real> relief, I think that killing people convicted of murder for the hope of delivering speculative folksy medical / psychological intervention for proximally injured parties values life as absurdly trivial.
At the very least, any rational person should see that compared to armchair speculation of medical interventions, organ extraction offers real value! And not to mention, think of all those who die or suffer because of the pace of medical research. With these worthy prisoners, we can change that! This mindset that values convicts' lives as so trivial is troubling and wasteful.
TLDR: Who cares if a family didn't get the speculative relief they wanted from somebody's execution? That's a perspective that treats life as absurdly trivial, and I doubt the medical community believes this as a serious intervention to clinically significant distress.
At the very least, any rational person should see that compared to armchair speculation of medical interventions, organ extraction offers real value! And not to mention, think of all those who die or suffer because of the pace of medical research. With these worthy prisoners, we can change that! This mindset that values convicts' lives as so trivial is troubling and wasteful.
TLDR: Who cares if a family didn't get the speculative relief they wanted from somebody's execution? That's a perspective that treats life as absurdly trivial, and I doubt the medical community believes this as a serious intervention to clinically significant distress.
Your argument seems to contradict itself. The death penalty is necessary for justice, but at the same time we should be OK with having it because it hasn't been used in a decade?
I'm not making an argument. I'm stating facts. I never said I was OK with it.
I don't believe it. Bringing up Charles Manson and using loaded language to describe his avoidance of it clearly makes an argument for the death penalty.
It is a fact that Charles Mason was relieved from execution. Just like it is a fact that because of the court rulings around 1972 he became eligible for parole.
Charles Manson and other 106 inmates on death row in 1972 were all convicted killers who were relieved from the death penalty.
Many victim's family members were upset by the courts decision.
Charles Manson and other 106 inmates on death row in 1972 were all convicted killers who were relieved from the death penalty.
Many victim's family members were upset by the courts decision.
Now I get to turn your technique back on you: I never said that wasn't factual.
I never said you said it wasn't
I agree, and smart of pg to stick to the most defensible reason not to have the death penalty. Even in a world where we know the killer is a killer though, it's unethical to do it.
Relevant article from The Marshall Project (in my opinion a very respectable source), "Three States to Watch if You Care About the Death Penalty" referring to Nebraska, Oklahoma and California ballot measures:
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/10/19/three-states-t...
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/10/19/three-states-t...
" This is about whether it's ok to kill innocent people."
So why is the discussion to eliminate the death penalty instead of ensuring more oversight or limitations?
Something like:
- Not applicable when only one murder committed
- Bigger burden of proof for the DP to be applicable (not only relying on witnesses, for example)
So why is the discussion to eliminate the death penalty instead of ensuring more oversight or limitations?
Something like:
- Not applicable when only one murder committed
- Bigger burden of proof for the DP to be applicable (not only relying on witnesses, for example)
> So why is the discussion to eliminate the death penalty instead of ensuring more oversight or limitations?
The Supreme Court has gradually been mandating more and more oversight and limitations on death penalty cases since 1976. It doesn't seem to have made a major dent in the false conviction rate or the arbitrariness of when capital punishment is used, especially with regards to race. And while I don't think cost should even be relevant to the discussion, it's worth noting that these limitations and oversight requirements- which still aren't good enough- are the main reason why it costs 10 times more to execute someone than to put them in prison for life. Combined with the death penalty's demonstrated lack of deterrent effect - simpler and better to just get rid of it.
The Supreme Court has gradually been mandating more and more oversight and limitations on death penalty cases since 1976. It doesn't seem to have made a major dent in the false conviction rate or the arbitrariness of when capital punishment is used, especially with regards to race. And while I don't think cost should even be relevant to the discussion, it's worth noting that these limitations and oversight requirements- which still aren't good enough- are the main reason why it costs 10 times more to execute someone than to put them in prison for life. Combined with the death penalty's demonstrated lack of deterrent effect - simpler and better to just get rid of it.
Yes, I agree. Maybe it's not more oversight, but better oversight
And of course, prosecutors that push dubious cases should be punished as well.
And of course, prosecutors that push dubious cases should be punished as well.
This kind of post isn't going to change anybody's mind, and isn't intended to (Paul Graham is a fine persuasive writer, and good persuasive writing tends not to include appeals like "a child could answer that one for you").
No, this is just an update, for Graham's California readers, most of whom can safely be assumed to agree with him, that they should take special care to vote this year.
I'm glad California has a chance to end the death penalty this year. You'll catch up to Illinois soon enough, Silicon Valley!
But this isn't the kind of post that finds a good home here on HN. This is the kind thing you want to post (repeatedly) to Twitter. Here, it's just more flame war stimulus.
I flagged this post --- and, because it's a PG post, did so vocally this time. You should too!
No, this is just an update, for Graham's California readers, most of whom can safely be assumed to agree with him, that they should take special care to vote this year.
I'm glad California has a chance to end the death penalty this year. You'll catch up to Illinois soon enough, Silicon Valley!
But this isn't the kind of post that finds a good home here on HN. This is the kind thing you want to post (repeatedly) to Twitter. Here, it's just more flame war stimulus.
I flagged this post --- and, because it's a PG post, did so vocally this time. You should too!
So how do people ever change their mind on anything? I'd say that within any group with a certain conviction there will always be people at the fringes which are less convinced and who are willing to explore alternatives.
I once believed in the death penalty. I once believe in God. I was once a libertarian. Of course a single person didn't change my mind on these points, but being exposed to alternatives by many people over time changed my perspective. Although I guess often simply seeking information is what eventually does most to change opinions.
I once believed in the death penalty. I once believe in God. I was once a libertarian. Of course a single person didn't change my mind on these points, but being exposed to alternatives by many people over time changed my perspective. Although I guess often simply seeking information is what eventually does most to change opinions.
I'm not arguing against persuasive essays. Persuasive essays are great. I'm saying that this isn't a persuasive essay. It's a political bulletin. I agree with its politics, but not with its place on the HN front page.
Even if the essay isn't persuasive the discussion could be.
I also think that your flag-marshalling is in pretty poor taste, flagging it yourself for whatever reasons you have is fine but to call on others to do so as well is really not good.
I also think that your flag-marshalling is in pretty poor taste, flagging it yourself for whatever reasons you have is fine but to call on others to do so as well is really not good.
Isn't that exactly what the article is doing, calling on others to vote the same way?
No, it isn't. Flags are counted asymmetrically compared to votes. But if you want to be clever about it go ahead, personally I think it is against what HN is about, if we're going to have flag brigading we might as well have vote brigading. See also: digg.
You don't have to flag anything you don't want to.
Generally, if all I have to say about a submission is that I flagged it, I'll refrain from saying that. But that's not all I had to say here.
Generally, if all I have to say about a submission is that I flagged it, I'll refrain from saying that. But that's not all I had to say here.
Sure, but calling for others to flag a post is - especially with your rep on HN - akin to killing an article and imnsho way across the line.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in argumentum ad internet points. You can, of course, flag my comment, or mail [email protected] about it.
What is the acceptable rate of mistakes for the judiciary system? Death is an irreversible punishment, so I can understand that it seems incompatible with a wrong judge decision, but the alternative, that is for instance perpetual incarceration, is only reversible on a very theoretical basis (if an innocent is in prison, his case will be reviewed only if he's very lucky).
So arguably, any sentencing is unfair when it's wrong. Death only makes it more obvious. Then, what's the acceptable error rate in a judiciary system? The author mentions 4% being unacceptable. What about 0.1%? 0.0001%?
Crime can not be left unpunished, can it? And yet I doubt it is possible to always be absolutely sure of either guilt or innocence.
After all, doesn't the Law talk about "reasonable doubt"? Doesn't that also mean by contraposition that below a certain threshold, it becomes unreasonable to consider unlikely circumstances or extraordinary events that would prove a defendant non-guilty?
So arguably, any sentencing is unfair when it's wrong. Death only makes it more obvious. Then, what's the acceptable error rate in a judiciary system? The author mentions 4% being unacceptable. What about 0.1%? 0.0001%?
Crime can not be left unpunished, can it? And yet I doubt it is possible to always be absolutely sure of either guilt or innocence.
After all, doesn't the Law talk about "reasonable doubt"? Doesn't that also mean by contraposition that below a certain threshold, it becomes unreasonable to consider unlikely circumstances or extraordinary events that would prove a defendant non-guilty?
Execution is cathartic but hardly effective. Clearly it does not deter murderers as they believe they will either get away with it or they simply don't care as long as they satisfy their need to kill.
The wrong people can be executed and unlike a prison sentence, there's no going back.
Appeals can last for decades and waste enormous amounts of time and money.
End the death penalty. It's just not worth it.
The wrong people can be executed and unlike a prison sentence, there's no going back.
Appeals can last for decades and waste enormous amounts of time and money.
End the death penalty. It's just not worth it.
I think research shows, that what people care about is the likeliness of getting caught. The length of the sentence doesn't really have that deterring effect. If it did then the US with each extremely long sentences should not be having magnitudes higher homocide rate than European countries with rather mild sentences.
> hardly effective
Of course it is effective. If only because it reliably and permanently removes the dangerous person from the society.
Of course it is effective. If only because it reliably and permanently removes the dangerous person from the society.
I always think of Star Trek and how some advanced civilization or a future version of ourselves will perceive the barbarism of our current society. I would not be surprised if the earth gets paved over for an intergalactic superhighway because frankly, we are not worth saving. Humans, have very little humanity. We have a LONG way to go. This is a small start.
The death penalty makes no logical sense. It only appeals to primitive emotions.
Why have a penalty which 1) Can never be reversed if you kill an innocent 2) Cost a lot more than life in prison.
Now why it might be argued that a killer has no right to life, what about those close to the killer? Killers might have a wife, husband, brother, sister, friends, mother and a a father. By killing the killer you inflict hardship on these people. To what purpose? In prison this person can't hurt anybody else, so why unnecessarily reduce the life quality of somebody else.
I see it being argued that the victims families deserve this, but I think that has been learnt and conditioned in society. E.g. in my own country Norway, I hardly ever read about victims and relatives who desire a death penalty or any particularly harsh or painful punishment. I think the desire for revenge is something which is simply promoted by conservative christian groups.
Why have a penalty which 1) Can never be reversed if you kill an innocent 2) Cost a lot more than life in prison.
Now why it might be argued that a killer has no right to life, what about those close to the killer? Killers might have a wife, husband, brother, sister, friends, mother and a a father. By killing the killer you inflict hardship on these people. To what purpose? In prison this person can't hurt anybody else, so why unnecessarily reduce the life quality of somebody else.
I see it being argued that the victims families deserve this, but I think that has been learnt and conditioned in society. E.g. in my own country Norway, I hardly ever read about victims and relatives who desire a death penalty or any particularly harsh or painful punishment. I think the desire for revenge is something which is simply promoted by conservative christian groups.
"In prison this person can't hurt anybody else" - totally false. The homicide rate in prison is about double that of the rest of the country. In California it is 15 per 100,000 - terribly high.
"Cost a lot more than life in prison" - death penalty opponents have driven up the cost, so if cost was a real reason you oppose the death penalty, then we could keep it and focus on reducing cost.
"By killing the killer you inflict hardship on these people"- in your opinion. I think it would be a bigger hardship to have to have a living murderer as part of the family.
"I think the desire for revenge" - Why is incarceration not revenge? Justice flows from the notion that punishment is proportional to the crime. Taking a life should mean losing your life Whether is is lifetime imprisonment or the death penalty, you can call it revenge or punishment or justice.
"Cost a lot more than life in prison" - death penalty opponents have driven up the cost, so if cost was a real reason you oppose the death penalty, then we could keep it and focus on reducing cost.
"By killing the killer you inflict hardship on these people"- in your opinion. I think it would be a bigger hardship to have to have a living murderer as part of the family.
"I think the desire for revenge" - Why is incarceration not revenge? Justice flows from the notion that punishment is proportional to the crime. Taking a life should mean losing your life Whether is is lifetime imprisonment or the death penalty, you can call it revenge or punishment or justice.
The death penalty costs more than life in prison? Source?
It's a pretty well-known fact that execution typically costs around 10 times more than life imprisonment. Here's a page with links to multiple peer-reviewed sources, covering multiple states: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty.
The issue is that the appeals process is extremely expensive and time-consuming. You could conceivably simplify and streamline it (to the extent permitted by the Supreme Court, which has been mandating ever-stricter requirements for capital punishment cases), but that would make it even more unacceptably error-prone than it already is.
The issue is that the appeals process is extremely expensive and time-consuming. You could conceivably simplify and streamline it (to the extent permitted by the Supreme Court, which has been mandating ever-stricter requirements for capital punishment cases), but that would make it even more unacceptably error-prone than it already is.
"It’s 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive,"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/cons...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/cons...
Plenty of articles if you google. Gist of it is that the repeals process and such take many years and often end up costing more. Most people are on death row for >10 years
I usually read this as "lawyers are asking for more money"
Why can't we just get that 4% bad convictions down to 0% for the death penalty? There are many cases where no one disputes the guilt of the perpetrator, like mass shooters or murderers that film themselves in the act. Death penalties could have an even higher standard.
I've noticed a strange pattern where wealthy elites like Paul Graham are obviously very disturbed by things like the death penalty, animal rights, and tragedies they see overseas but can hardly be bothered to care about the great suffering poor people face generally.
The only issues that they care about are ones that directly affect their own conscience and mental well-being.
"The death penalty is bad because it makes me feel bad"
Whereas people who don't live such privileged lives can see so many worse problems in everyday life, like being hungry, suffering from bad/no medical care, to being victimized by street crime.
I've noticed a strange pattern where wealthy elites like Paul Graham are obviously very disturbed by things like the death penalty, animal rights, and tragedies they see overseas but can hardly be bothered to care about the great suffering poor people face generally.
The only issues that they care about are ones that directly affect their own conscience and mental well-being.
"The death penalty is bad because it makes me feel bad"
Whereas people who don't live such privileged lives can see so many worse problems in everyday life, like being hungry, suffering from bad/no medical care, to being victimized by street crime.
[deleted]
The only issues that they care about are ones that directly affect their own conscience
Is it not a prerequisite that a wrong begin to effect your conscience before you want to do something about it?
Is it not a prerequisite that a wrong begin to effect your conscience before you want to do something about it?
Yes but if you live in an elite life bubble you'll only care about things that make it through that bubble.
Why are so many rich celebrities obsessed with animal rights, the death penalty, and climate change?
Because those issues affect them personally in some way. They gnaw at their conscience in a way that the extreme suffering of hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens does not.
Why are so many rich celebrities obsessed with animal rights, the death penalty, and climate change?
Because those issues affect them personally in some way. They gnaw at their conscience in a way that the extreme suffering of hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens does not.
I don't think this is right. Climate change is not known for personally affecting anybody. It's more of an ineffable millenarian idea.
Rather, I would say rich celebrities are obsessed with animal rights, the death penalty, and climate change because those ideas are fashionable among rich celebrities, not because they're relevant to rich celebrities for any fundamental (i.e. would still apply if no one knew what the celebrity believed) reason.
Rather, I would say rich celebrities are obsessed with animal rights, the death penalty, and climate change because those ideas are fashionable among rich celebrities, not because they're relevant to rich celebrities for any fundamental (i.e. would still apply if no one knew what the celebrity believed) reason.
Plenty of educated elites are well aware the problems climate change could cause for them personally. Civil unrest, rising sea levels, and pollution. Things personal wealth only partially mitigates.
It's neither necessary nor sufficient.
One doesn't have to be affected by rape to oppose it.
I can reflect that there are others whose opinions I value. And thus throw support behind issues that, if left to my own opinion in a vacuum, would be of little concern.
One doesn't have to be affected by rape to oppose it.
I can reflect that there are others whose opinions I value. And thus throw support behind issues that, if left to my own opinion in a vacuum, would be of little concern.
You oppose rape because you know it's wrong. Why do you know it's wrong? Because you know the effect it has on its victims. How does that wrongness translate into a moral stance on your part?
Empathy springs, in part, from conscience.
Empathy springs, in part, from conscience.
Well, I could care less about most environmental regulation - I rather think it's a waste of time and resources - but I am OK with supporting certain laws that are supported by people who I respect, even though I personally could care less.
My hope would be that people would consider their utility vs. the utility of all those who also want something. I've certainly supported modest tax increases because my neighbors were passionately in favor where my own view would be to oppose it.
Is it too much to hope that people will consider broader societal interests and not just their own narrow ones?
My hope would be that people would consider their utility vs. the utility of all those who also want something. I've certainly supported modest tax increases because my neighbors were passionately in favor where my own view would be to oppose it.
Is it too much to hope that people will consider broader societal interests and not just their own narrow ones?
Miscarriage of justice is something that mostly affects poor people who can't afford good lawyers.
Yes it does and that's not what seems to bother people about the death penalty. It's the act of killing that tugs on their heartstrings. They happily ignore the millions serving decades in prison because they didn't have the basic requirements to lead a good life.
The agenda is:
1. End the death penalty.
2. Assume someone else will help innocent people, which they largely won't.
3. Go bad to enjoying blissful ignorance.
The agenda is:
1. End the death penalty.
2. Assume someone else will help innocent people, which they largely won't.
3. Go bad to enjoying blissful ignorance.
>Yes it does and that's not what seems to bother people about the death penalty
It does seem to bother Paul Graham as he writes "The police often arrest the wrong person. Defendants' lawyers are often incompetent."
It does seem to bother Paul Graham as he writes "The police often arrest the wrong person. Defendants' lawyers are often incompetent."
Clearly not, since that argument applies far more strongly to non-death penalty cases where there is far less scrutiny.
It's also clearly an argument intended for Other People who need pragmatic reasons for ending the death penalty. He is against it on purely ethical grounds, or in my opinion, because it makes him feel bad about himself.
It's also clearly an argument intended for Other People who need pragmatic reasons for ending the death penalty. He is against it on purely ethical grounds, or in my opinion, because it makes him feel bad about himself.
Does this entire chain of comments have any purpose or goal other than the same old tired "shame the rich" meme that gets so much play?
PG thinks the death penalty is bad, but PG isn't worried enough about other things you think are worse, therefore PG is wrong? (???)
I honestly don't see where you're going with this other than cheap sniping.
PG thinks the death penalty is bad, but PG isn't worried enough about other things you think are worse, therefore PG is wrong? (???)
I honestly don't see where you're going with this other than cheap sniping.
He's like someone who is anti-abortion but doesn't worry at all about people after they exit the womb. They're lying when they say they actually care about life. In reality, they just care about how abortion makes them feel.
He's anti-death penalty in the same way. The orders of magnitude more suffering in our prison system can't get a tweet but the nearly disused California death penalty urgently bothers him...
He's anti-death penalty in the same way. The orders of magnitude more suffering in our prison system can't get a tweet but the nearly disused California death penalty urgently bothers him...
So no, it has no other purpose other than insulting.
Is it better to kill an innocent or let them spend their life in jail? Given the states of our jails, I'm not sure but I think I'd prefer death.
But that is only your choice. Someone else might prefer to see his kids grow up. And really, do you prefer death penalty even when you are innocent when there is the possibility to be pardoned one year later? And also, it's not like you are killed immediately now, so you spent time in jail anyways.
Being 20 years in jail destroys you live, innocent or not, I agree. But by killing people you are not giving them a choice either, so your argument can be negated with the same message.
(Not that I am for the choice of death for prison inmates either, a terrorist for example should not be allowed to become a martyr and escape prosecution.)
Being 20 years in jail destroys you live, innocent or not, I agree. But by killing people you are not giving them a choice either, so your argument can be negated with the same message.
(Not that I am for the choice of death for prison inmates either, a terrorist for example should not be allowed to become a martyr and escape prosecution.)
This is a difficult question. I have often thought about what would happen if for some reason I was wrongfully convicted of a serious crime (e.g. like in Shawshank Redemption). Its absolutely unimaginable for me to think of living a life such as one in prison, and in the US, even after you leave prison, your rights are severely curtailed, as are your job prospects and much of everything else. Stuff of nightmares, really.
> Is it better to kill an innocent or let them spend their life in jail? Given the states of our jails, I'm not sure but I think I'd prefer death.
We can't undo killing them. We can't give them back their years, either. But depriving someone of their life entirely is worse than depriving them of a portion of their life. At least in the latter case they have a chance to go out and do something, reconnect, however painfully, with loved ones, or make new connections.
We can't undo killing them. We can't give them back their years, either. But depriving someone of their life entirely is worse than depriving them of a portion of their life. At least in the latter case they have a chance to go out and do something, reconnect, however painfully, with loved ones, or make new connections.
Well, okay, when you are wrongly convicted and sentenced to life in prison you can request execution. For every other innocent person that's wrongly convicted let's not murder them against their will, eh?
(Also, let's fix the jails and prisons!)
(Also, let's fix the jails and prisons!)
Its hard to fix the jails and prisons when widespread poverty still exists in society, for the simple reason that if the prisons offer a better lifestyle than living in the society, more people would choose to go to prison.
[deleted]
There are many changes that could be made to prison without making it a better option than living free but below the poverty line.
Inverting the logic: We must let or make the conditions in our prisons be harsh, harsh enough so that poor people don't commit crimes just to get "three hots and a cot" on the taxpayers' dime.
Doesn't that sound insane?
Let's fix the prisons, and let's have something like a basic standard of living, below which we only let people live if they want to. I.e. so-called Universal Basic Income, or something. I think we should literally give people housing, food, water, and health care, just because.
Doesn't that sound insane?
Let's fix the prisons, and let's have something like a basic standard of living, below which we only let people live if they want to. I.e. so-called Universal Basic Income, or something. I think we should literally give people housing, food, water, and health care, just because.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",
At 4% it would be "It is better that twenty five guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer."
IMO I cannot fathom being sure enough of anything to without doub deem someone unredeemable. To the extent that people are unredeemable is to the extent I think our rehabilitation system is failing.
I like his message mainly because I agree with the death penalty in principle. If you want to be a shitty human being, with 7B people on the planet we don't really need you.
But, in practice, we will never get it 100% right. Probability of killing an innocent person will always be >0.
For that reason alone, we should get rid of it.
But, in practice, we will never get it 100% right. Probability of killing an innocent person will always be >0.
For that reason alone, we should get rid of it.
That was my perspective as well before, but what I never paid much attention to is the fact that every person is part of a network of relationships which gets affected by that person's death.
The importance of that I think is clear with respect to the dynamics for terrorism and war. People who experience their loved ones dying easily get vengeful and radicalized.
If I lost somebody dear to me, I don't think the execution of the killer that my increased satisfaction from this would likely pale compared to the sadness inflicted on those who cared about the killer.
This is a fundamental thing in human psychology. We react more to losses than gains. If e.g. the boss takes money from you and gives to me as a bonus, then my joy from this will be significantly less, than the dissatisfaction you will feel from this loss. The sum is lesser than its parts so to speak ;-)
The importance of that I think is clear with respect to the dynamics for terrorism and war. People who experience their loved ones dying easily get vengeful and radicalized.
If I lost somebody dear to me, I don't think the execution of the killer that my increased satisfaction from this would likely pale compared to the sadness inflicted on those who cared about the killer.
This is a fundamental thing in human psychology. We react more to losses than gains. If e.g. the boss takes money from you and gives to me as a bonus, then my joy from this will be significantly less, than the dissatisfaction you will feel from this loss. The sum is lesser than its parts so to speak ;-)
Nothing is 100% certain. If you perform a heart operation, there's a chance you'll kill the patient. Does that mean we should get rid of heart operations?
If you put a serial killer to death, you can be 100% sure they won't kill any more people. If you put him in prison, you can't. He may escape, or he may get released early and kill again. Or as often happens, he'll kill other prisoners whilst in prison.
It's a question of whether you value potential victims, or potential falsely convicted innocent people. IMHO the former is a far bigger problem.
If you put a serial killer to death, you can be 100% sure they won't kill any more people. If you put him in prison, you can't. He may escape, or he may get released early and kill again. Or as often happens, he'll kill other prisoners whilst in prison.
It's a question of whether you value potential victims, or potential falsely convicted innocent people. IMHO the former is a far bigger problem.
If there's a serial killer, even if you put a person accused of being that serial killer to death, you can't be sure that serial killer won't kill any more people. This isn't just an edge case: serial killers often claim credit for any and all crimes that might be attributed to them. Kill them off, attribute all the murders to them, and the actual serial killer is more likely to stay in the wild.
This is a bit of a red herring as I am making no assertions regarding what else may or may be assured 100%.
We have different tolerance for accuracy depending on the context, and my assertion was that in this case 100% would be necessary for, at least me, to feel comfortable carrying out the punishment.
We have different tolerance for accuracy depending on the context, and my assertion was that in this case 100% would be necessary for, at least me, to feel comfortable carrying out the punishment.
But my point is that are you just "ignoring" the other side of the argument - if you don't put a serial killer to death, there's a chance others will be killed.
If you don't put them to death, can you be 100% sure saving that life isn't going to cause more people to die?
It's not simply a case of "punishment". It's preventing further crime and deaths.
If you don't put them to death, can you be 100% sure saving that life isn't going to cause more people to die?
It's not simply a case of "punishment". It's preventing further crime and deaths.
Huh, surprised to learn CA has death penalty. In "good" company with thirty other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Unit...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Unit...
I, like pg, am against the death penalty but I don't agree with the reasoning in this essay.
Of course there are error rates in our judicial system. It would be impossible to not have them. But these errors are not confined to death penalty cases. We surely wrongfully imprison some people, and wrongly fine others. That does not mean that we shouldn't have fines or prisons.
I don't see a good justification to apply this reasoning to the death penalty but not other forms of punishment.
Of course there are error rates in our judicial system. It would be impossible to not have them. But these errors are not confined to death penalty cases. We surely wrongfully imprison some people, and wrongly fine others. That does not mean that we shouldn't have fines or prisons.
I don't see a good justification to apply this reasoning to the death penalty but not other forms of punishment.
You can release a wrongly imprisoned person or refund a wrongly imposed fine.
But given the existence of error rates there will always be wrongfully fined or imprisoned people. We won't ever get a chance to fix the vast majority of false convictions.
So even though you're partially(1) right about reversibility it doesn't really matter given that this won't actually come up most of the time. There will still be wrongfully penalized people.
1. I would argue that you're only partially right because wrongful imprisonment can be compensated for but not really undone.
So even though you're partially(1) right about reversibility it doesn't really matter given that this won't actually come up most of the time. There will still be wrongfully penalized people.
1. I would argue that you're only partially right because wrongful imprisonment can be compensated for but not really undone.
There is a pretty strong line drawn at death. I was once asked to justify that line on the record as part of a jury selection process and I couldn't do it. That didn't make it untrue and it didn't convince me that the line doesn't exist.
I'm pretty far down the scale of "logical justification". At least enough to make Jesuits blush, and I personally cannot justify my line that is right before "killing someone". I'm happy to consider that one of the many areas where logic fails us and move on.
I'm pretty far down the scale of "logical justification". At least enough to make Jesuits blush, and I personally cannot justify my line that is right before "killing someone". I'm happy to consider that one of the many areas where logic fails us and move on.
Ya, I pretty much agree.
You can't undo 10 years of imprisonment. You can't give back time or take away what the person had to live through.
Other errors can be remedied. Death penalty not so much.
[deleted]
But that's also one of the essential points of Kant's argument in favor of the death penalty: depriving another person of life is a uniquely irrestorable offense.
Arguing with the ghost of Kant seems like something one should avoid, but here I go... isn't that also an argument for why a state should not impose capital punishment? Mistakenly taking someone's life is something a state could never remedy.
Kant did not appear to grapple with the fallibility of the judicial system in the way that we do now, and I neither intend to defend his views or put words into his mouth on that point (though I welcome someone more knowledgeable in his work than I to do otherwise and cite). My point is that there aren't easy answers to these questions, which is why I upvoted the OP comment, because it implies a mature understanding that fallibility is also a value judgment.
(Edited for grammar. I hate typing on a smartphone.)
(Edited for grammar. I hate typing on a smartphone.)
If Kant said that then he was trivially wrong.
For example, if you blind someone, how is that not just as irrestorable?
For example, if you blind someone, how is that not just as irrestorable?
I believe he was a pretty "eye for an eye" guy: "This is the right of retaliation (jus [lex] talionis); and, properly understood, it is the only principle which in regulating a public court (as opposed to individuals’ private judgement), can definitely assign both the quality and the quantity of a just penalty." (http://acad.depauw.edu/~jeremyanderson/old/120s05/120z_kant....)
But you have to realize, this is not to be read in isolation as a rehash of Hammurabi''s code. There is significant axiomatic and theoretical foundation that brings Kant to this conclusion, which has significant influence in modern ethics.
But you have to realize, this is not to be read in isolation as a rehash of Hammurabi''s code. There is significant axiomatic and theoretical foundation that brings Kant to this conclusion, which has significant influence in modern ethics.
This is a different question though - one of penalties rather than one of restoration.
Death is a permanent sentence while other sentences are not.
How is taking X years out of your live not permanent? Can a state give those years back if it admits a mistake?
(Clarification: don't have an opinion on overall debate, just picking on details of individual arguments).
(Clarification: don't have an opinion on overall debate, just picking on details of individual arguments).
If you get sentenced to life in prison and exonerated after 20 years you don't get those years back but you do get to be free for the rest of your life. If you're executed and then exonerated 15 years after the fact you're still dead.
I think you can also get awarded up to something like 50-100k per year of wrongful imprisonment (though that hardly comes close to compensating you for the damage that would have caused)
I think you can also get awarded up to something like 50-100k per year of wrongful imprisonment (though that hardly comes close to compensating you for the damage that would have caused)
Does a death sentence make us a better society for justice? I don't have an answer to that question. However, it is a question I prefer to not have experimented on in our justice system.
I recently watched the documentary 13th from Netflix. It really puts into perspective our pro-incarnation justice system. While capital punishment and death row is a section of our justice system, it has the highest stakes in outlining where our ethical limits reside as a society.
I recently watched the documentary 13th from Netflix. It really puts into perspective our pro-incarnation justice system. While capital punishment and death row is a section of our justice system, it has the highest stakes in outlining where our ethical limits reside as a society.
> about 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent.
Be careful how you read this number.
This is NOT the proportion of convicts wrongfully killed. This is the number that have wrongfully received a death sentence.
A death sentence is nearly always appealed, and usually multiple times.
The number of convicts sentenced to be executed that subsequently fail every single appeal is likely far, far smaller than that statistic.
Be careful how you read this number.
This is NOT the proportion of convicts wrongfully killed. This is the number that have wrongfully received a death sentence.
A death sentence is nearly always appealed, and usually multiple times.
The number of convicts sentenced to be executed that subsequently fail every single appeal is likely far, far smaller than that statistic.
When I was young, I was certain the death penalty is obviously, trivially an incorrect thing to do. Regardless of what was done, there was no cause for society to choose to take someone's life.
Now that I'm older, I worry about the possibility that banning the death penalty is an implicit acceptance of the policy of locking people away for life. According to the article 4% of people who are sentenced to the death penalty on death row are innocent. He doesn't offer statistics for the number who actually receive the punishment however given that not all people on death row are executed, and the significant resources devoted to the appeal process, the percentage of innocents who are executed must be lower than the 4% who are sentenced.
I must ask how many innocent people are sentenced to life in prison. I can't imagine anything worse than an innocent person sentenced to life in prison -- and eventually dying in prison.
If we are to make decisions about punishment taking into account the possibility of an incorrect sentence, I believe we need to be more realistic with regard to the hierarchy of punishments that we are inflicting. A sentence of Life in Prison carried to term is a worse punishment than Execution.
Now that I'm older, I worry about the possibility that banning the death penalty is an implicit acceptance of the policy of locking people away for life. According to the article 4% of people who are sentenced to the death penalty on death row are innocent. He doesn't offer statistics for the number who actually receive the punishment however given that not all people on death row are executed, and the significant resources devoted to the appeal process, the percentage of innocents who are executed must be lower than the 4% who are sentenced.
I must ask how many innocent people are sentenced to life in prison. I can't imagine anything worse than an innocent person sentenced to life in prison -- and eventually dying in prison.
If we are to make decisions about punishment taking into account the possibility of an incorrect sentence, I believe we need to be more realistic with regard to the hierarchy of punishments that we are inflicting. A sentence of Life in Prison carried to term is a worse punishment than Execution.
The US practice of locking people up for life is pretty shocking to many people in Europe. In the UK, the number of people who will never be released is somewhere around 50, in the USA it's something like 50,000.
Maybe I'm a limp wristed liberal, but 'Three strikes' has always seemed utterly barbaric to me. Even its name being based on a sports metaphor seems totally inappropriate for something so serious.
Maybe I'm a limp wristed liberal, but 'Three strikes' has always seemed utterly barbaric to me. Even its name being based on a sports metaphor seems totally inappropriate for something so serious.
Wow -- US population is roughly 5x the UK population, yet we have 1000x people serving life sentences ... I can't help but think of that quote that we should judge the state of a society by the state of their prisons ...
I really wish we could do something to dramatically change the prison system in the US -- its insane how much horrible inertia guides its current trajectory ... Given how much more we know about humans than we did 200 years ago, why aren't there better ideas on the role of prison and the justice system disciplining their mutual evolution than were available in the past?
I really wish we could do something to dramatically change the prison system in the US -- its insane how much horrible inertia guides its current trajectory ... Given how much more we know about humans than we did 200 years ago, why aren't there better ideas on the role of prison and the justice system disciplining their mutual evolution than were available in the past?
I don't think the problem is a lack of ideas for a better prison system, it's that people don't care. Most people assume that they'll never be in prison and that the people who are deserve what they get—and that's if they think about it at all.
If a politician does come along and try to change the system, he's got to convince a lot of his colleagues that don't have a lot of reason to do anything, and he's got to worry someone else will come along and tell voters he's worried about making life good for criminals instead of better for good people.
There's just no incentive.
If a politician does come along and try to change the system, he's got to convince a lot of his colleagues that don't have a lot of reason to do anything, and he's got to worry someone else will come along and tell voters he's worried about making life good for criminals instead of better for good people.
There's just no incentive.
Prisoners are big business in the US. It's slavery. They manufacture car license plates, washing machines, etc etc etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUyZkwSDar0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUyZkwSDar0
> A sentence of Life in Prison carried to term is a worse punishment than Execution.
This isn't an objective fact. Even some prisoners would certainly prefer to live their life behind bars than lose it completely.
This isn't an objective fact. Even some prisoners would certainly prefer to live their life behind bars than lose it completely.
It's also not objectively wrong. I don't think it's even particularly difficult to defend.
I also was/am certain death penalty is obviously incorrect thing to do. But not cause society has not cause for sanctioned murder (it does). But rather there are no "take backs" with death penalty. We make too many mistakes. Our punishments should take that fact into account
There are no take-backs with imprisonment either: you can't restore lost decades any more than you can restore lost life. You can even, really, compensate for it: prison changes someone's psyche permanently.
If we're worried about punishing innocents, we should address that problem, not proxies for it. If the justice system can't be trusted with execution, then it can't be trusted with imprisonment or even fines.
The other question is if execution of an actually-guilty person is just. I hold that it is, and that not to execute certain criminals is a miscarriage of justice, just as not imprisoning certain criminals is a miscarriage of justice.
Certainly, we should err on the side of the innocent, but at the end of the day we're going to have some people who must be isolated from others, and we're going to have some people who must be killed.
If we're worried about punishing innocents, we should address that problem, not proxies for it. If the justice system can't be trusted with execution, then it can't be trusted with imprisonment or even fines.
The other question is if execution of an actually-guilty person is just. I hold that it is, and that not to execute certain criminals is a miscarriage of justice, just as not imprisoning certain criminals is a miscarriage of justice.
Certainly, we should err on the side of the innocent, but at the end of the day we're going to have some people who must be isolated from others, and we're going to have some people who must be killed.
There is a quantitate difference between "sorry our bad, we'll let you out of prison" and "sorry our bad, you're still dead". Which one would you prefer?
It's wrong to believe we can (or even should) have a justice system that doesn't make mistakes. Human fallibility exists.
"some people who must be killed."
That's a moral opinion.
It's wrong to believe we can (or even should) have a justice system that doesn't make mistakes. Human fallibility exists.
"some people who must be killed."
That's a moral opinion.
> There is a quantitate difference between "sorry our bad, we'll let you out of prison" and "sorry our bad, you're still dead". Which one would you prefer?
I think I'd prefer to be executed at the end of the month than be released after a decade in prison. I'm almost certain of it, to be honest.
That doesn't mean that some crimes shouldn't be punished with decades (or life) in prison: they should be. Even if we don't think of it as punishment, there are people who should not be released back into society. But if we have imprisonment, then we will imprison innocents.
As you note, our justice system will always be fallible. But, fallible as it is, we need it: the alternative is worse. We live in an imperfect world, and everything we do will have at least a few downsides along with the upsides.
> > some people who must be killed
> That's a moral opinion.
Of course it is. 'We shouldn't kill people' is also a moral opinion.
From today's NYT article on the Greek property-tax issue[1]:
> Greeks were stunned in 1987 when the police uncovered a gang that had killed at least eight rich elderly people after forging their wills. The plot’s leader was a lawyer and former mayor of an Athens suburb; accomplices included a notary public and a gravedigger.
I think it's pretty indisputable that people who forge folks' wills and then murder them deserve to be executed.
[1] http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/opinion/in-greece-prope...
I think I'd prefer to be executed at the end of the month than be released after a decade in prison. I'm almost certain of it, to be honest.
That doesn't mean that some crimes shouldn't be punished with decades (or life) in prison: they should be. Even if we don't think of it as punishment, there are people who should not be released back into society. But if we have imprisonment, then we will imprison innocents.
As you note, our justice system will always be fallible. But, fallible as it is, we need it: the alternative is worse. We live in an imperfect world, and everything we do will have at least a few downsides along with the upsides.
> > some people who must be killed
> That's a moral opinion.
Of course it is. 'We shouldn't kill people' is also a moral opinion.
From today's NYT article on the Greek property-tax issue[1]:
> Greeks were stunned in 1987 when the police uncovered a gang that had killed at least eight rich elderly people after forging their wills. The plot’s leader was a lawyer and former mayor of an Athens suburb; accomplices included a notary public and a gravedigger.
I think it's pretty indisputable that people who forge folks' wills and then murder them deserve to be executed.
[1] http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/opinion/in-greece-prope...
I'm stuck in this weird place as well.
I see the death penalty as almost more humane than life imprisonment (and--this rationale is a little cold--also much less of a tax burden.)
The US really needs to get its shit together in terms of figuring out how to rehabilitate criminals and get them back into society.
I see the death penalty as almost more humane than life imprisonment (and--this rationale is a little cold--also much less of a tax burden.)
The US really needs to get its shit together in terms of figuring out how to rehabilitate criminals and get them back into society.
Thank you, pg, for this essay, and for putting money towards Prop 62. This is such an important issue.
If the motivation for ending the death penalty is to avoid taking innocent lives, what about how abortion takes innocent lives?
Regardless of where you stand on either issue, supporting one but not the other seems like hypocrisy.
Regardless of where you stand on either issue, supporting one but not the other seems like hypocrisy.
[deleted]
I suppose the best hting we can do is share this post and go vote.
.
Except that historically it wasn't exactly a perfect record and faking evidence is still quite possible.
Killing someone as punishment is simply not fault-proof and the whole idea behind a justice system worthy of the name is that it tries very hard to protect the innocent even if that means some of the guilty will go free or will escape punishment. 'Perfect' evidence rarely is, and even confessions are not always true.
Killing someone as punishment is simply not fault-proof and the whole idea behind a justice system worthy of the name is that it tries very hard to protect the innocent even if that means some of the guilty will go free or will escape punishment. 'Perfect' evidence rarely is, and even confessions are not always true.
.
You actually believe that present cases have 'perfect evidence'?
Preventable deaths are a step or two removed from state inflicted and sanctioned murder.
Preventable deaths are a step or two removed from state inflicted and sanctioned murder.
.
> We shouldn't be coddling those who commit violent acts against others.
How is spending a lifetime in prison coddling?
> The derrent of death alone would save far many more people.
That isn't true, criminals as a rule have a hard time tying consequences to their actions, have a high incidence of mental issues. If deterrence would work at all it would be nice but it rarely does.
http://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx
How is spending a lifetime in prison coddling?
> The derrent of death alone would save far many more people.
That isn't true, criminals as a rule have a hard time tying consequences to their actions, have a high incidence of mental issues. If deterrence would work at all it would be nice but it rarely does.
http://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx
.
You are tying all kinds of societal failures to the death penalty, killing people will not solve any of that, it will in fact only make it worse.
But you're welcome to your own opinion, but 'you reap what you sow' applies to societies just as it does to farmers.
Violence projected and practiced by the state will not help in moving society to a more peaceful quadrant.
But you're welcome to your own opinion, but 'you reap what you sow' applies to societies just as it does to farmers.
Violence projected and practiced by the state will not help in moving society to a more peaceful quadrant.
> take these cretins out of the gene pool Keeping them locked up for 25 to life does no one any good.
It does if they're found innocent after conviction, as has happened at least 347 times so far[1].
It should also be noteworthy to the true law and order types that false convictions mean the real perpetrator is still going unpunished. If you kill everyone who does something you dislike, the pressure applied by those bleeding hearts at the Innocence Project will go away, which means now not only have you killed someone innocent, but you've pointed blame away from the guilty and basically assured they'll get away with it. I must confess my failure to understand how this outcome is supportive of law and order.
And with regards to the comment about surveillance and DNA testing, you might benefit from a bit of reading about the history of forensics. It is a history of foolproof methods being rather less than foolproof. Of if you really can't dismiss the idea that we've achieved the pinnacle of physical evidence analysis, at least do some reading on what is actually involved. Remember that with, e.g., DNA testing for legal purposes, you're not looking at just the test: you're looking at the whole "stack", from our understanding of biology to the lab performance to the chain of custody to jurors' understanding of science. Not going to point to anything specific; there are a ton of explainers out there about this waiting for the interested.
I'll end with a simple question: do you believe that Blackstone's famous ratio is false?
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer[.]"
[1] http://www.innocenceproject.org
It does if they're found innocent after conviction, as has happened at least 347 times so far[1].
It should also be noteworthy to the true law and order types that false convictions mean the real perpetrator is still going unpunished. If you kill everyone who does something you dislike, the pressure applied by those bleeding hearts at the Innocence Project will go away, which means now not only have you killed someone innocent, but you've pointed blame away from the guilty and basically assured they'll get away with it. I must confess my failure to understand how this outcome is supportive of law and order.
And with regards to the comment about surveillance and DNA testing, you might benefit from a bit of reading about the history of forensics. It is a history of foolproof methods being rather less than foolproof. Of if you really can't dismiss the idea that we've achieved the pinnacle of physical evidence analysis, at least do some reading on what is actually involved. Remember that with, e.g., DNA testing for legal purposes, you're not looking at just the test: you're looking at the whole "stack", from our understanding of biology to the lab performance to the chain of custody to jurors' understanding of science. Not going to point to anything specific; there are a ton of explainers out there about this waiting for the interested.
I'll end with a simple question: do you believe that Blackstone's famous ratio is false?
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer[.]"
[1] http://www.innocenceproject.org
Let's consider four collections of people:
A) Guilty people who don't deserve to be put to death.
B) Guilty people who deserve to be put to death.
C) Innocent people who don't deserve to be put to death.
D) Innocent people who deserve to be put to death.
D is empty, so let's just consider A, B, and C.
I agree there are people in B. At the same time, it seems very hard to design a death penalty system that selects any of B without selecting any of A or C.
I'd be very curious to hear what system you propose that is able to limit false positives more for A and C than death penalty abolition would. Unless you're able to, I, and a whole lot of other people, are more willing to support Charles Manson spending the rest of his life in a cell than murdering someone--or dozens or hundreds of people--to satisfy mob rage at the existence of Charles Manson type people.
A) Guilty people who don't deserve to be put to death.
B) Guilty people who deserve to be put to death.
C) Innocent people who don't deserve to be put to death.
D) Innocent people who deserve to be put to death.
D is empty, so let's just consider A, B, and C.
I agree there are people in B. At the same time, it seems very hard to design a death penalty system that selects any of B without selecting any of A or C.
I'd be very curious to hear what system you propose that is able to limit false positives more for A and C than death penalty abolition would. Unless you're able to, I, and a whole lot of other people, are more willing to support Charles Manson spending the rest of his life in a cell than murdering someone--or dozens or hundreds of people--to satisfy mob rage at the existence of Charles Manson type people.
Taking violent offenders "out of the gene pool" need not involve killing the offender (or their descendants).
Keeping a violent offender removed from society for the duration of their life DOES all of us a lot of good.
Keeping a violent offender removed from society for the duration of their life DOES all of us a lot of good.
I don't find the fact that some people are found innocent to be a convincing reason to be against the death penalty. The replacement, which is life in prison, strikes me as even less appealing. How is sending someone to jail and leaving them there for 20 years only to figure out that people fucked up and the guy wasn't actually guilty - "Sorry chap, but it's only a third of your life we've ripped away from you, you've still got one third left!" - any better? I'd rather be dead.
What if it was you? What if you were framed for a crime? Would you prefer the death penalty then or only if it's someone else's head on the line?
State murder is an ugly business that has no part in any modern society.
State murder is an ugly business that has no part in any modern society.
"What if it was me?" is exactly what I'm considering. Life doesn't have infinite value in and of itself. Consider - if you were in a coma or vegetative state, is that a life worth living, even if we have the technology to keep that person alive? If you had Alzheimer's and were gradually losing all mental faculties, would there be a point where you'd rather be dead?
I'd consider being in long-term or life prison to be the next closest thing to those examples; a life without freedom, friends, family, with the potential for a wide variety of suffering beyond that - poor medical, poor food, guard abuse, fights, solitary, rape - what in this is worth living for? Prison is specifically meant to be a punishment, not a rehabilitation. And then maybe you get out a couple decades later, everything has changed, no one will hire you, everyone has moved on...
I'd consider being in long-term or life prison to be the next closest thing to those examples; a life without freedom, friends, family, with the potential for a wide variety of suffering beyond that - poor medical, poor food, guard abuse, fights, solitary, rape - what in this is worth living for? Prison is specifically meant to be a punishment, not a rehabilitation. And then maybe you get out a couple decades later, everything has changed, no one will hire you, everyone has moved on...
Most people do not feel the same way. Also, the death penalty does not allow an inmate to choose death over life in prison; this decision is forced upon them.
Other important work done:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
edit: sad to see this thread flagged off the homepage.