Last Words From Death Row (2015)(babble.nfshost.com)
babble.nfshost.com
Last Words From Death Row (2015)
http://babble.nfshost.com/babblenumber1/
87 comments
/r/dataisbeautiful has had a lot of fun with this particular dataset: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=last+words...
The death penalty is barbaric. The only time when a criminal should die is when they immediately threaten another person's life and there is no other safe way to stop them.
That's why I'm so impressed with how Norway handled Breivik after he was arrested.
That's why I'm so impressed with how Norway handled Breivik after he was arrested.
-Breivik claimed during initial interrogation that he fully expected to be executed by the police shortly after being captured, IIRC.
It somehow feels very 'right' for lack of a better term - that rather than going out in what would, to him, probably be a martyresque way he now spends the rest of his days seeing how his plan - to sow the seeds of a fascist revolution - failed miserably. To him, that probably feels much worse than being murdered by the state.
It somehow feels very 'right' for lack of a better term - that rather than going out in what would, to him, probably be a martyresque way he now spends the rest of his days seeing how his plan - to sow the seeds of a fascist revolution - failed miserably. To him, that probably feels much worse than being murdered by the state.
> he now spends the rest of his days
iirc, his sentence was @20 years, not life.
iirc, his sentence was @20 years, not life.
-I can't remember off-hand what his sentence was in years, but we have a form of sentencing for criminals being deemed extra dangerous to society called 'forvaring' (literally - 'safekeeping').
If sentenced under this statute, your case will be up for review by a board after a few years; if they find that the inmate is still likely to pose a danger to society, they'll just shrug and say 'tough luck', then schedule another review in a couple of years time. No worries. Breivik is not being released anytime soon.
If sentenced under this statute, your case will be up for review by a board after a few years; if they find that the inmate is still likely to pose a danger to society, they'll just shrug and say 'tough luck', then schedule another review in a couple of years time. No worries. Breivik is not being released anytime soon.
It is effectively life. In 20 years they will have to consider releasing him or locking him for 20 more. And on and on.
The maximum sentence is 21 years, but they can renew it every 5 years forever.
It’s interesting that an opinion that is supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by the EU (which ended up banning companies from exporting supplies for death penalty to the US due to that), and by the International Court of Human Rights, is downvoted on HN.
It goes so far that countries in the ECHR can not extradite citizen to the US if they might face the death penalty, because the death penalty is something that, according to the European Council of Human Rights, no one, not even a criminal, deserves.
It goes so far that countries in the ECHR can not extradite citizen to the US if they might face the death penalty, because the death penalty is something that, according to the European Council of Human Rights, no one, not even a criminal, deserves.
I didn't downvote, will probably be downvoted, but as someone who is atheist/nihilist/suicidal, I don't understand the great value placed on human life. We slaughter animals, we put down dogs which bite, I see no reason not to put down humans who have malfunctioned. All while being generally left wing. I think suffering should be an active goal, but I don't believe execution is suffering. There's enough effort to focus on progressing those who do buy into constructivism; those who don't wish to participate should exile themselves from society rather than lash out in deconstructivism
This logic likely exists in a watered down form amongst the HN crowd more than Human Rights groups
This logic likely exists in a watered down form amongst the HN crowd more than Human Rights groups
> put down humans who have malfunctioned
What about the ones that have not, but are put down due to a malfunctioning justice system instead?
What about the ones that have not, but are put down due to a malfunctioning justice system instead?
That's a flaw in the system.
My uncle was (by his word, and I've seen the police reports which are a contradictory mess) falsely convicted. He got life in prison and could face parole after 20+ years. He didn't get a chance at that because he suffered and died in prison of cancer.
Falsely being convicted and put to death is horrific, but we also have a very rigorous appeals process, which is why some of these guys don't die for a decade or more. You get falsely convicted and 20 years, you aren't going to get near the appeals and your life is just as ruined. Those 20 years inside your lonely cell might even be worse than just being put to death.
It's never struck me as a realistic argument against the death penalty because of wrongful convictions. You could exaggerate your stance and suggest that no jails should exist and in fact no justice should ever be served because there are innocents.
To just say no death penalty, lock em up for 30 years instead doesn't begin to solve the issue and perhaps even fails to recognize how horrific that sentence is.
My uncle was (by his word, and I've seen the police reports which are a contradictory mess) falsely convicted. He got life in prison and could face parole after 20+ years. He didn't get a chance at that because he suffered and died in prison of cancer.
Falsely being convicted and put to death is horrific, but we also have a very rigorous appeals process, which is why some of these guys don't die for a decade or more. You get falsely convicted and 20 years, you aren't going to get near the appeals and your life is just as ruined. Those 20 years inside your lonely cell might even be worse than just being put to death.
It's never struck me as a realistic argument against the death penalty because of wrongful convictions. You could exaggerate your stance and suggest that no jails should exist and in fact no justice should ever be served because there are innocents.
To just say no death penalty, lock em up for 30 years instead doesn't begin to solve the issue and perhaps even fails to recognize how horrific that sentence is.
Sure, wrongfully convicted to long-term sentences is bad. But it's at least partially reversible. It's also cheaper to convict somebody of life without parole, than the death sentence.
I personally think the extreme incarceration rate, the conditions in prison, the lack of measures aiming at reducing recidivism, the disproportional sentencing are bigger issues in the US than the death penalty. Not because the death penalty is OK in any way, purely because of the size of the effect.
> Falsely being convicted and put to death is horrific, but we also have a very rigorous appeals process, which is why some of these guys don't die for a decade or more.
There's plenty well documented cases where these appeals were done on an absolutely half-hearted basis, with very dodgy evidence.
> It's never struck me as a realistic argument against the death penalty because of wrongful convictions. You could exaggerate your stance and suggest that no jails should exist and in fact no justice should ever be served because there are innocents.
Reductio ad absurdum.
I personally think the extreme incarceration rate, the conditions in prison, the lack of measures aiming at reducing recidivism, the disproportional sentencing are bigger issues in the US than the death penalty. Not because the death penalty is OK in any way, purely because of the size of the effect.
> Falsely being convicted and put to death is horrific, but we also have a very rigorous appeals process, which is why some of these guys don't die for a decade or more.
There's plenty well documented cases where these appeals were done on an absolutely half-hearted basis, with very dodgy evidence.
> It's never struck me as a realistic argument against the death penalty because of wrongful convictions. You could exaggerate your stance and suggest that no jails should exist and in fact no justice should ever be served because there are innocents.
Reductio ad absurdum.
> That's a flaw in the system.
Not only that, is is a flaw that cannot be fixed. Period. There is no 100% reliable way to handle this without mistakes. And mistakes are not only irreversible, they cannot be made up for in any way. As such this particular system cannot be allowed to be used.
Not only that, is is a flaw that cannot be fixed. Period. There is no 100% reliable way to handle this without mistakes. And mistakes are not only irreversible, they cannot be made up for in any way. As such this particular system cannot be allowed to be used.
I understand and appreciate the consistency with which you value life. my proposed solution is to stop killing things. not "kill all things equally".
killing a dog because it bit a person is just another demonstration of how we overvalue human life. you should get mad about that- too.
killing a dog because it bit a person is just another demonstration of how we overvalue human life. you should get mad about that- too.
And surprisingly I completely agree on this.
How do you miss the monthly-odd posts of Yet Another Prisoner Jailed For 20 Years Found Innocent here on HN? Again and again and again it's shown that the justice system can get it wrong. The death penalty doesn't reduce the crime rate, it's not cheaper, it consumes more legal resources, and it's philosophically unsound. The only thing the death penalty does do is slake a thirst for vindictiveness.
If you're atheist, well, there's no 'heaven' to make it up to an actually-innocent convict (and their still-living loved ones). There is nothing you can do to 'make it better', not even in a token manner.
If you're a nihilist, well, it's the more expensive, labour-intensive path, requiring more effort. If nothing really matters, then why go to the extra effort?
And if you're proposing we treat humans the same way we treat dogs, then you should be aware that the number of dogs we kill for 'malfunctioning' (biting) is a rounding error of all the dogs we intentionally kill. If we were to treat humans like dogs, then for each of us there'd be someone deciding whether or not a person was convenient to have around (not necessarily someone that we even knew existed). Then we'd either be given a lethal injection if the decider was nice, or be killed in a variety of increasingly unpleasant ways if the decider wasn't. We kill an awful lot of canines (and all common pets) just because we can't be bothered to keep them around, from abandoned pets to puppy farms to feral culls to just getting rid of a pet's unwanted litter. Given all that, it seems odd to make much of a fuss over a 'broken' animal.
Final thought:
> but I don't believe execution is suffering
The act itself is largely not, but the lead-up to it is.
If you're atheist, well, there's no 'heaven' to make it up to an actually-innocent convict (and their still-living loved ones). There is nothing you can do to 'make it better', not even in a token manner.
If you're a nihilist, well, it's the more expensive, labour-intensive path, requiring more effort. If nothing really matters, then why go to the extra effort?
And if you're proposing we treat humans the same way we treat dogs, then you should be aware that the number of dogs we kill for 'malfunctioning' (biting) is a rounding error of all the dogs we intentionally kill. If we were to treat humans like dogs, then for each of us there'd be someone deciding whether or not a person was convenient to have around (not necessarily someone that we even knew existed). Then we'd either be given a lethal injection if the decider was nice, or be killed in a variety of increasingly unpleasant ways if the decider wasn't. We kill an awful lot of canines (and all common pets) just because we can't be bothered to keep them around, from abandoned pets to puppy farms to feral culls to just getting rid of a pet's unwanted litter. Given all that, it seems odd to make much of a fuss over a 'broken' animal.
Final thought:
> but I don't believe execution is suffering
The act itself is largely not, but the lead-up to it is.
I don't even know honestly where to start.
1. "as someone who is atheist/nihilist/suicidal". Describing yourself as suicidal is not a great introduction, go and see a doctor. Self-termination is not a "normal" feeling.
2. "I see no reason not to put down humans who have malfunctioned" - See point 1. Also, non third-world countries should have a justice system which would aim to recover individuals instead of "putting them down" or "making them pay/suffer". You might be stuck during middle-age if you think otherwise.
3. "There's enough effort to focus on progressing those who do buy into constructivism; those who don't wish to participate should exile themselves from society rather than lash out in deconstructivism" - again I don't even know where to start. Like if life was not difficult. Such a superficial view on life.
1. "as someone who is atheist/nihilist/suicidal". Describing yourself as suicidal is not a great introduction, go and see a doctor. Self-termination is not a "normal" feeling.
2. "I see no reason not to put down humans who have malfunctioned" - See point 1. Also, non third-world countries should have a justice system which would aim to recover individuals instead of "putting them down" or "making them pay/suffer". You might be stuck during middle-age if you think otherwise.
3. "There's enough effort to focus on progressing those who do buy into constructivism; those who don't wish to participate should exile themselves from society rather than lash out in deconstructivism" - again I don't even know where to start. Like if life was not difficult. Such a superficial view on life.
"I don't honestly know where to even start"
maybe next time try starting with some empathy.
maybe next time try starting with some empathy.
Empathy in what sense? Not taking someone who is "suicidal" in such a direct way?
your post is peppered with insensitivity and condescension. the kind of behavior that typically drives people to become antisocial in the first place.
I am not trying to be overly critical. I don't sense you are a bad person. maybe just uninitiated :).
the line between "direct" and "insensitive" becomes so much more clear only once you've experienced a similar depression.
I am not trying to be overly critical. I don't sense you are a bad person. maybe just uninitiated :).
the line between "direct" and "insensitive" becomes so much more clear only once you've experienced a similar depression.
Your own attitude towards life or criminals is not something worth considering when seriously pondering this question.
Society is a collection of individuals; everyone has different opinions and feelings on almost anything: at least when we discuss such sensible matters, we should rationalize our arguments, stripping any trace of subjectivity.
> I don't understand the great value placed on human life.
Coming to the case, you may not value your life very much, but we can't say the same for the criminal who is facing a death sentence. Personally, I don't feel empathy for some criminals who consciously perpetrated atrocious crimes; I literally fail to care for them. Nevertheless, I can objectively understand that in a civilized country any human must be granted some undeniable rights.
> I see no reason not to put down humans who have malfunctioned.
Humans do not malfunction. Humans err, whether deliberately or not. They must have the right to redeem themselves. And even if they refused to, putting them to death would still be a miserable solution: it wouldn't mitigate the crime, nor would provide justice -- and I mean justice, not revenge. Indeed, it would be itself a crime.
Edit: typos and form
Society is a collection of individuals; everyone has different opinions and feelings on almost anything: at least when we discuss such sensible matters, we should rationalize our arguments, stripping any trace of subjectivity.
> I don't understand the great value placed on human life.
Coming to the case, you may not value your life very much, but we can't say the same for the criminal who is facing a death sentence. Personally, I don't feel empathy for some criminals who consciously perpetrated atrocious crimes; I literally fail to care for them. Nevertheless, I can objectively understand that in a civilized country any human must be granted some undeniable rights.
> I see no reason not to put down humans who have malfunctioned.
Humans do not malfunction. Humans err, whether deliberately or not. They must have the right to redeem themselves. And even if they refused to, putting them to death would still be a miserable solution: it wouldn't mitigate the crime, nor would provide justice -- and I mean justice, not revenge. Indeed, it would be itself a crime.
Edit: typos and form
It's weird because life is both overvalued and undervalued.
The same people who believe that the death penalty is barbaric (hey, we all die, that's the hard truth) get fixated more on the tragedy of the criminal on death row than the dozens of people they killed.
I do mean that literally. Monsters like John Wayne Gacy don't need to live any more. They have nothing to offer society but a sneering "kiss my ass" as they are put to death.
The same people who believe that the death penalty is barbaric (hey, we all die, that's the hard truth) get fixated more on the tragedy of the criminal on death row than the dozens of people they killed.
I do mean that literally. Monsters like John Wayne Gacy don't need to live any more. They have nothing to offer society but a sneering "kiss my ass" as they are put to death.
I think your position is perfectly coherent, but I don't think the opposing view is necessarily that weird, for two reasons.
The first is that this isn't zero-sum; there's no evidence I'm aware of that the death penalty reduces homicide. Killing a murderer isn't going to bring the victims back, anyone even mildly sceptical about the criminal justice system should be against irreversible punishments, and (speaking personally and emotionally for a moment) I think it does something bad to a society when "giving up on one of your citizens completely" becomes an option.
The second is the idea that a lot of the passion surrounding the death penalty is about signalling membership of a political tribe rather than about any of the individuals involved. This is the "I can tolerate anything except the outgroup" theory [1]: tribe A attacks/defends murderer M not because they hate/like M but to emphasis their difference from tribe B.
[1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
The first is that this isn't zero-sum; there's no evidence I'm aware of that the death penalty reduces homicide. Killing a murderer isn't going to bring the victims back, anyone even mildly sceptical about the criminal justice system should be against irreversible punishments, and (speaking personally and emotionally for a moment) I think it does something bad to a society when "giving up on one of your citizens completely" becomes an option.
The second is the idea that a lot of the passion surrounding the death penalty is about signalling membership of a political tribe rather than about any of the individuals involved. This is the "I can tolerate anything except the outgroup" theory [1]: tribe A attacks/defends murderer M not because they hate/like M but to emphasis their difference from tribe B.
[1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
You're right. Didn't mean that suggest that the other side is weird, just that society's back and forth is weird, your second point gets to that. Yet another controversial topic that gets at that friction is people's view on abortion and war. Some people will fervently protect an unborn child but see nothing wrong with carpet bombing fifty others. On the other hand some people are fervently anti-war but see nothing odd about someone having six abortions (slow down maybe?). So much of it does seem like political signaling.
You are right the deterrent argument is dumb and unsupported.
> it does something bad to a society when "giving up on one of your citizens completely" becomes an option
Human societies have been like this forever, though. Sometimes the protection of the society is more valuable than an individual's life. That stance can be taken too far, but I struggle to see what the point of keeping individuals like Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy around. We can give up on them. We give up quicker on lots of people in society, why not someone who is a mass murderer? They've got nothing to offer and they've given up their rights in taking the rights of and normalcy of hundreds of others.
You are right the deterrent argument is dumb and unsupported.
> it does something bad to a society when "giving up on one of your citizens completely" becomes an option
Human societies have been like this forever, though. Sometimes the protection of the society is more valuable than an individual's life. That stance can be taken too far, but I struggle to see what the point of keeping individuals like Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy around. We can give up on them. We give up quicker on lots of people in society, why not someone who is a mass murderer? They've got nothing to offer and they've given up their rights in taking the rights of and normalcy of hundreds of others.
Abortion is actually a different case, I think; that comes down to incompatible axioms. Two people can both believe 100% sincerely that killing people is wrong, but if one of them considers a foetus to be a person and the other doesn't, they aren't going to agree on abortion.
> We can give up on them. We give up quicker on lots of people in society, why not someone who is a mass murderer?
Yeah, I know. Ultimately I think my unease here is a kind of slippery-slope argument, and deserves to be taken with the same generous pinch of salt as any other slippery-slope argument.
I suspect that much of the opposition to capital (and corporal) punishment has to do with how strong and visceral a mental impression it makes on those witnessing or even thinking about it. Conversely, I'm sure we underestimate the soul-destroying misery of long-term incarceration, because it doesn't offend our sensibilities as much. Same goes for many of the other people we give up on, which goes back to your point.
In any case, thanks for the thoughtful replies. Being able to have a reasonable discussion on an emotive topic with someone holding different views is always a breath of fresh air.
> We can give up on them. We give up quicker on lots of people in society, why not someone who is a mass murderer?
Yeah, I know. Ultimately I think my unease here is a kind of slippery-slope argument, and deserves to be taken with the same generous pinch of salt as any other slippery-slope argument.
I suspect that much of the opposition to capital (and corporal) punishment has to do with how strong and visceral a mental impression it makes on those witnessing or even thinking about it. Conversely, I'm sure we underestimate the soul-destroying misery of long-term incarceration, because it doesn't offend our sensibilities as much. Same goes for many of the other people we give up on, which goes back to your point.
In any case, thanks for the thoughtful replies. Being able to have a reasonable discussion on an emotive topic with someone holding different views is always a breath of fresh air.
If executing a murderer would somehow bring the victims back to life, then your value comparison might make sense. But it doesn't, so being opposed to the death penalty does not mean you don't care about the victims.
> on the tragedy of the criminal on death row than the dozens of people they killed.
Most people on death row didn't kill "dozens of people". It's a bad way to make an argument.
Most people on death row didn't kill "dozens of people". It's a bad way to make an argument.
But people on death row do, and they do commit heinous crimes.
A Six Deuce Brim gang member, Adams was already serving life in prison for a Santa Barbara robbery-homicide when he was sentenced to death for killing three young men in South Los Angeles in 1994 in a gang-related shooting.
Aguayo was already in prison for the attempted murder of a woman when a DNA match linked him with the 1979 rape and killing of a pregnant woman.
Alcala is serial killer whose total victim count is unknown. He worked as a photographer and had been a “Dating Game” contestant. He was convicted three times for the 1979 kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Robin Samsoe. The first two convictions were overturned. He also strangled to death four Los Angeles area women and in 2013 confessed to killing two women in New York during the 1970s. He was charged in September 2016 for an eighth murder in Wyoming.
Aldana was convicted of torture and murder for killing a 16-year-old runaway, who was living with him, after he believed she had become pregnant. He stabbed her more than 100 times.
Real people on death row with much smaller victim counts. Why do these people deserve to live?
A Six Deuce Brim gang member, Adams was already serving life in prison for a Santa Barbara robbery-homicide when he was sentenced to death for killing three young men in South Los Angeles in 1994 in a gang-related shooting.
Aguayo was already in prison for the attempted murder of a woman when a DNA match linked him with the 1979 rape and killing of a pregnant woman.
Alcala is serial killer whose total victim count is unknown. He worked as a photographer and had been a “Dating Game” contestant. He was convicted three times for the 1979 kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Robin Samsoe. The first two convictions were overturned. He also strangled to death four Los Angeles area women and in 2013 confessed to killing two women in New York during the 1970s. He was charged in September 2016 for an eighth murder in Wyoming.
Aldana was convicted of torture and murder for killing a 16-year-old runaway, who was living with him, after he believed she had become pregnant. He stabbed her more than 100 times.
Real people on death row with much smaller victim counts. Why do these people deserve to live?
Adams - killed three
Aguayo - killed one, tried to kill another
Alcala - unknown, eight known
Aldana - killed one
None of these are "a criminal with dozens of murders". When you said that, you were mocking the efforts of people trying to stop capital punishment. In truth, most people asking governors for stays of execution are not 'fixated on the tragedy of the criminal over the dozens they killed', because a) none of these criminals did that; and b) it's a false dichotomy to say that they're not concerned about the victims. Basically, you're strawmanning in order to make your point emotively rather than with reasoned arguments.
Aguayo - killed one, tried to kill another
Alcala - unknown, eight known
Aldana - killed one
None of these are "a criminal with dozens of murders". When you said that, you were mocking the efforts of people trying to stop capital punishment. In truth, most people asking governors for stays of execution are not 'fixated on the tragedy of the criminal over the dozens they killed', because a) none of these criminals did that; and b) it's a false dichotomy to say that they're not concerned about the victims. Basically, you're strawmanning in order to make your point emotively rather than with reasoned arguments.
Breivik spent hours on an island with a youth camp methodically killing children. I think that was the incident where a girl called her father on her cell while hiding and the last thing he got to hear was his crying daughter getting shot in the head at point blank range.
But on the plus side, Breivik is currently working on his Poly Sci degree should they ever let him back into society.
But on the plus side, Breivik is currently working on his Poly Sci degree should they ever let him back into society.
On the flip side, you have Louisiana seeking the death penalty for a man who rolled over on his child. Dale Cox is a monster.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/06/revenge-killing
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/06/revenge-killing
What he did was absolutely horrible. However, killing him is not going to bring anyone back. Do you really think killing him is going to act as a deterrent to future mass murders? He committed his crime thinking he would die. Study after study shows that there is no deterrent effect from the death penalty.
So, what is the point of executing someone? The only thing it does is reduce our own humanity, it doesn't solve any problem.
So, what is the point of executing someone? The only thing it does is reduce our own humanity, it doesn't solve any problem.
There have been killers who have plead guilty to manslaughter to avoid the death penalty and spare victims from testifying in a trial.
I don't think Breivik is by anyhow a good base line for analogies.
not interesting at all really. just a proxy metric for the quality of users we've been onboarding.
[deleted]
> the death penalty is something that, according to the European Council of Human Rights, no one, not even a criminal, deserves.
Is that actually the opinion of the council? It's about whether they deserve it?
I am against the death penalty because I don't believe we can prevent political convictions of innocent people. But I do believe there are many criminals who deserve to die.
Heck I think there are nonviolent offenders who deserve to die.
Is that actually the opinion of the council? It's about whether they deserve it?
I am against the death penalty because I don't believe we can prevent political convictions of innocent people. But I do believe there are many criminals who deserve to die.
Heck I think there are nonviolent offenders who deserve to die.
> Is that actually the opinion of the council? It's about whether they deserve it?
It’s about whether a person deserves the right to live, and the European Council of Human Rights is of the opinion that the right to live can not be limited for any reason, it is inviolable. Everyone deserves the right to live.
It’s about whether a person deserves the right to live, and the European Council of Human Rights is of the opinion that the right to live can not be limited for any reason, it is inviolable. Everyone deserves the right to live.
I didn't downvote, but was tempted to because I thought the comment was out of context and likely to start a political flame war. Not because I disagreed.
[deleted]
[deleted]
My first preference is that the mass murderer / hostage taker quickly dies in a hail of gunfire or blows their own head off.
(It makes it hard to get why they did it when they're dead, but I really give zero f*cks about the monster's backstory.)
My 2nd preference is hearing that they were later killed in prison (a'la Jeffery Dahmer).
(It makes it hard to get why they did it when they're dead, but I really give zero f*cks about the monster's backstory.)
My 2nd preference is hearing that they were later killed in prison (a'la Jeffery Dahmer).
> I really give zero fucks about the monster's backstory
And this is exactly why it keeps happening.
And this is exactly why it keeps happening.
Wat?
It was concluded that the Sandy Hook shooter was a pedo that liked to shoot children.
The Colombine High School shooters were trying to kill the most people possible (but were shitty at making bombs).
The Colorado Theater (Batman) shooter said killing someone took their value and gave it to his life.
The Oklahoma City bomber said it was a counter attack against the Feds for Waco.
Dennis Nilsen killed 15 boys and slept next to their bodies because he felt lonely.
Son of Sam was a Satan follower listening to a demon that spoke to him through his neighbor's dog.
The Green River Killer murdered 48 women and girls, dumped them in the woods and then returned to f*ck the bodies. His motivation was to kill as many women as he could.
Not sure how knowing any of that stops the next one.
It was concluded that the Sandy Hook shooter was a pedo that liked to shoot children.
The Colombine High School shooters were trying to kill the most people possible (but were shitty at making bombs).
The Colorado Theater (Batman) shooter said killing someone took their value and gave it to his life.
The Oklahoma City bomber said it was a counter attack against the Feds for Waco.
Dennis Nilsen killed 15 boys and slept next to their bodies because he felt lonely.
Son of Sam was a Satan follower listening to a demon that spoke to him through his neighbor's dog.
The Green River Killer murdered 48 women and girls, dumped them in the woods and then returned to f*ck the bodies. His motivation was to kill as many women as he could.
Not sure how knowing any of that stops the next one.
What you're saying is, they all had undiagnosed mental issues, that could've been treated. And the main reason for them not getting the treatment they needed is that people with opinions like yours set the tone.
Really? Is my hating on practicing cannibals the problem?
If it's really a life choice someone is considering then I'm 1,000% behind them seeking help. If they've already started dumping bodies in ravines, not so much.
If it's really a life choice someone is considering then I'm 1,000% behind them seeking help. If they've already started dumping bodies in ravines, not so much.
Why would they seek help in the USA? Have you looked at the public sentiment towards people with actual issues? The sentiments you wrote out yourself? Have you seen the sentiments towards people needing healthcare who cannot pay for it on their own? Are you aware of the dire state of mental healthcare in the USA, which mostly seeks to sidestep actual tratement by way of forced locking in, coupled with drugs that practically zombify people?
One of the most popular types of medicines in the usa to prescribe to people with psychotic tendencies entirely eradicates any psychotic outbreaks, but also completely suspends the physical production of dopamine, meaning people become physically unable to feel happiness, or much of anything. They become inert breathing husks.
And since a lot of people are either of the opinion "fix yourself, or we'll fix you with guns", and the "fix yourself" step is pretty much suicide, just of another kind, it is not only normal that people don't seek help, but it would be almost crazier to actually go and seek help.
Until the USA as a country actually start caring about these people, like the citizens they are, they will have no incentive whatsoever to trust themselves to other people, and things like those in your list will keep happening.
One of the most popular types of medicines in the usa to prescribe to people with psychotic tendencies entirely eradicates any psychotic outbreaks, but also completely suspends the physical production of dopamine, meaning people become physically unable to feel happiness, or much of anything. They become inert breathing husks.
And since a lot of people are either of the opinion "fix yourself, or we'll fix you with guns", and the "fix yourself" step is pretty much suicide, just of another kind, it is not only normal that people don't seek help, but it would be almost crazier to actually go and seek help.
Until the USA as a country actually start caring about these people, like the citizens they are, they will have no incentive whatsoever to trust themselves to other people, and things like those in your list will keep happening.
[2015]
> As a society, while our ethical ideal is justice, a more practically compelling priority is safety. This word, “wouldn’t,” is not compatible with our sense of safety
Safety is the ethical ideal, not "justice". We don't punish people because it makes us feel good or for some sense of fairness, we remove people for the good of society.
Edit: I'm Canadian. I know this isn't true today, but I'm glad I said it and am grateful for the replies below. I hope this statement becomes true in America one day.
Safety is the ethical ideal, not "justice". We don't punish people because it makes us feel good or for some sense of fairness, we remove people for the good of society.
Edit: I'm Canadian. I know this isn't true today, but I'm glad I said it and am grateful for the replies below. I hope this statement becomes true in America one day.
The United States justice system, as well as that of most common wealth countries, is based not on safety or rehabilitation but on vengeance and systemic racism. To claim otherwise, when the United States has institutionalized slavery ("Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.") and more prisoners per capita or by absolute number than any other country on this planet is naive at best. The overcrowding at every prison, chronic corruption and mismanagement, privatization of the system and unionization of its beneficiaries, and lack of all but the cheapest rehabilitation programs makes it nearly impossible for convicts to reenter society and become productive members. Texas is one of the most egregious examples - especially given that they speed up the appeals process on purpose and have shit for oversight on forensic science in criminal cases. Texas alone has executed over 500 people since 1980, many of them borderline too mentally incompetent to stand trial, let alone face death row. Combine that with a culturally accepted racism among law enforcement, itchy trigger fingers, zero training for how to actually deal with people, and a cultural obsession with violence and you get the United States: a place where entire communities of Latinos and African Americans are decimated because a significant fraction of their working age males are stuck in a tiny cell with nothing to learn except more crime and nothing to do when they get out except more crime.
Countries with prison systems that try to rehabilitate, like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc., regularly close prisons and they have an amazing track record with recidivism. People like to claim "blah blah homogeneous society blah blah" but the fact is that common wealth countries like to kill and enslave people to punish them - often because they view it as doing "God's work."
We do not have justice systems, we have vengeance factories.
Countries with prison systems that try to rehabilitate, like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc., regularly close prisons and they have an amazing track record with recidivism. People like to claim "blah blah homogeneous society blah blah" but the fact is that common wealth countries like to kill and enslave people to punish them - often because they view it as doing "God's work."
We do not have justice systems, we have vengeance factories.
I'm very unimpressed with the US justice system and agree with a lot of what you say.
But does this really explain a massively disproportionate homicide rate among certain groups in the US? Sure for lesser or non-crimes like drugs there can be massively unfair, racist enforcement and penalties. For rape, sure, certain groups will get away with it. But for homicide? Are murders being selectively investigated?
As far as Norway and "blah blah homogenous society" do they not also show a heavy bias in crimes committed by the "non homogenous" population there?
But does this really explain a massively disproportionate homicide rate among certain groups in the US? Sure for lesser or non-crimes like drugs there can be massively unfair, racist enforcement and penalties. For rape, sure, certain groups will get away with it. But for homicide? Are murders being selectively investigated?
As far as Norway and "blah blah homogenous society" do they not also show a heavy bias in crimes committed by the "non homogenous" population there?
"But for homicide? Are murders being selectively investigated?"
There's a scale from accident, via involuntary manslaugher to murder. There may well be bias in judging what to prosecute.
Also, laws such "three strikes you are out" may lead to more murders. If, say, you're a burglar with two strikes, and a house owner wakes up and recognizes you, hitting him hard out of fear for that third strike becomes more likely. Similarly, racial bias by the police may make people so wary of "he said, she said" situations that they will 'snap' and kill someone instead (IMO, many people convicted for murder aren't cold-blooded killers, but mentally not the most stable persons who have been dealt a socially unfavorable card in life)
There's a scale from accident, via involuntary manslaugher to murder. There may well be bias in judging what to prosecute.
Also, laws such "three strikes you are out" may lead to more murders. If, say, you're a burglar with two strikes, and a house owner wakes up and recognizes you, hitting him hard out of fear for that third strike becomes more likely. Similarly, racial bias by the police may make people so wary of "he said, she said" situations that they will 'snap' and kill someone instead (IMO, many people convicted for murder aren't cold-blooded killers, but mentally not the most stable persons who have been dealt a socially unfavorable card in life)
Very good points, thank you. I wonder if there studies that show what kind of impact this has, overall? Probably hard to measure without finding an area that had a rapid racial change in government.
I guess I was just objecting to the idea that "racism" is the cause for these statistical imbalances, especially since you see the same kind of thing happening in Europe which would seem, at least on the surface, to have less racism issues, no? But perhaps I'm wrong since a lot of good people think the opposite, but it's hard to tell since it's so politicized and sensitive, just like anything about race.
I guess I was just objecting to the idea that "racism" is the cause for these statistical imbalances, especially since you see the same kind of thing happening in Europe which would seem, at least on the surface, to have less racism issues, no? But perhaps I'm wrong since a lot of good people think the opposite, but it's hard to tell since it's so politicized and sensitive, just like anything about race.
It is absolutely not the case that Europe has less problems with racism than the United States. Racism is a very real problem throughout pretty much all of Europe.
Interesting. So e.g. Norway has a similar level of racism towards blacks as the US does? Why?
Non sequitur. Your analyses across this thread are all very weak, based on weirdly fallacious premises; here, that "racism" means "racism against black people".
A reasonable reader might suspect that you reached, for whatever reason, the conclusion that capital punishment couldn't be racist (perhaps because, as you've stated in other comments on HN, you feel the term "racism" is used too often), and are now intent on working your way backwards from that conclusion.
I think you should take a beat and reconsider how you're approaching the topic. It's an odd experience discussing this with you and watching you do little dances after each response to reorient yourself towards your preferred conclusion.
Edited extensively from the one-liner I originally wrote, sorry.
A reasonable reader might suspect that you reached, for whatever reason, the conclusion that capital punishment couldn't be racist (perhaps because, as you've stated in other comments on HN, you feel the term "racism" is used too often), and are now intent on working your way backwards from that conclusion.
I think you should take a beat and reconsider how you're approaching the topic. It's an odd experience discussing this with you and watching you do little dances after each response to reorient yourself towards your preferred conclusion.
Edited extensively from the one-liner I originally wrote, sorry.
Fair enough, though I'm not talking about capital punishment or lack of racism in the US justice system. It's terribly unfair, especially to blacks in the US - zero argument there.
Do you have any suggestions on straight, fact-based reading on the subject, sources that aren't trying to appear sensitive? It's hard - even admitting races and may have differences upsets people.
On Norway, I'm just saying they don't have the same levels of racism baggage as the US regarding "Africans" (quotes cause it seems weird that many of them have families in the US longer than mine, but I would get no qualifiers as an American) yet still Norway sees overrepresentation.
Do you have any suggestions on straight, fact-based reading on the subject, sources that aren't trying to appear sensitive? It's hard - even admitting races and may have differences upsets people.
On Norway, I'm just saying they don't have the same levels of racism baggage as the US regarding "Africans" (quotes cause it seems weird that many of them have families in the US longer than mine, but I would get no qualifiers as an American) yet still Norway sees overrepresentation.
Yes, murders are selectively investigated. The clearance rate for urban core murders is surprisingly low. In some major cities it's as low as 30%. The national average is 65%.
Wouldn't that make the stats even more racially biased if they were investigated, given the demographics of urban areas?
No, it means that when black and latino people are the victims of crime, the perpetrators are less likely to be convicted than when white people are. More importantly, it rebuts your argument that the severity of the crimes we're talking about is so grave that it's unlikely there's any bias in their enforcement. Not only is there bias, but smoking gun evidence of that bias (whether it's intentional or systemic) is a simple Google search away.
You wrote:
For rape, sure, certain groups will get away with it. But for homicide? Are murders being selectively investigated?
The answer is, "yes, of course."
Slightly edited.
You wrote:
For rape, sure, certain groups will get away with it. But for homicide? Are murders being selectively investigated?
The answer is, "yes, of course."
Slightly edited.
Thank you for the explanation - I didn't know the solve rate was so low at all. Is it thought that of these unsolved black/latino murders, the race of the perpetrator is disproportionately white?
Edit: So I searched a bit, and, in NYC, it's said this is due to reduced budgets for homicide in certain areas that are predominately minority. For this to impact the stats (the raw numbers being that blacks, as a group in the US, commit 4-5x homicide by population, and similarly bad numbers looking at interracial crime) it'd have to be a massively disproportionate amount of non-blacks going into these neighbourhoods and killing them. From the "flavour" text in the articles I read, the victims families are lamenting that cops don't care because "it's just blacks men killing other black men".
But wow am I astounded how low the solved rate is, that's crazy. Though I would suspect most homicides are at least reported, whereas many lesser crimes (like drug possession) might not be. It's totally plausible that the real drug possession rate among whites is actually orders of magnitude higher than reported, less so for homicide.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond and correct me.
Edit: So I searched a bit, and, in NYC, it's said this is due to reduced budgets for homicide in certain areas that are predominately minority. For this to impact the stats (the raw numbers being that blacks, as a group in the US, commit 4-5x homicide by population, and similarly bad numbers looking at interracial crime) it'd have to be a massively disproportionate amount of non-blacks going into these neighbourhoods and killing them. From the "flavour" text in the articles I read, the victims families are lamenting that cops don't care because "it's just blacks men killing other black men".
But wow am I astounded how low the solved rate is, that's crazy. Though I would suspect most homicides are at least reported, whereas many lesser crimes (like drug possession) might not be. It's totally plausible that the real drug possession rate among whites is actually orders of magnitude higher than reported, less so for homicide.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond and correct me.
I think you need to start from the realization that offender statistics are systemically biased and recognize that your certainty level here should be capped.
Your analysis here is based on another fallacy, which is that there's a direct connection between the crime of homicide and capital punishment. In fact, no: only a subset of murders, aggravated by circumstances mostly not present in gang shootings, attract death sentences. Further, some presumably large fraction of the black/black murders you're considering occur in jurisdictions that are statistically (or, as in the case of Chicago, legally) unlikely to apply capital punishment.
To reach a conclusion that there aren't racial disparities in capital punishment, you have to de-confound the homicide statistics to eliminate murders that are effectively or statistically ineligible for the death penalty, and then make comparisons.
Your analysis here is based on another fallacy, which is that there's a direct connection between the crime of homicide and capital punishment. In fact, no: only a subset of murders, aggravated by circumstances mostly not present in gang shootings, attract death sentences. Further, some presumably large fraction of the black/black murders you're considering occur in jurisdictions that are statistically (or, as in the case of Chicago, legally) unlikely to apply capital punishment.
To reach a conclusion that there aren't racial disparities in capital punishment, you have to de-confound the homicide statistics to eliminate murders that are effectively or statistically ineligible for the death penalty, and then make comparisons.
> The United States justice system, as well as that of most common wealth countries, is based not on safety or rehabilitation but on vengeance and systemic racism.
Whoah, don't tarnish everyone else with the fucked-up brush of the US system.
> Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc., regularly close prisons
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/01/norwegian-inma...
No justice system is perfect, but let's avoid the black/white scandanavia/ROW thing. The scandanavians do well, yes, but they're not the only ones that use rehabilitation.
> the fact is that common wealth countries like to kill and enslave people to punish them
Where do you see slavery or capital punishment in modern commonwealth countries? We're not in the 19th century anymore. I assume you actually meant Dominion countries and not commonwealth countries, but even so, which modern commonwealth countries have capital punishment? More importantly, how do you see it as a characteristic of a commonwealth country in general.
Whoah, don't tarnish everyone else with the fucked-up brush of the US system.
> Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc., regularly close prisons
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/01/norwegian-inma...
No justice system is perfect, but let's avoid the black/white scandanavia/ROW thing. The scandanavians do well, yes, but they're not the only ones that use rehabilitation.
> the fact is that common wealth countries like to kill and enslave people to punish them
Where do you see slavery or capital punishment in modern commonwealth countries? We're not in the 19th century anymore. I assume you actually meant Dominion countries and not commonwealth countries, but even so, which modern commonwealth countries have capital punishment? More importantly, how do you see it as a characteristic of a commonwealth country in general.
It's not only commonwealth countries though. Most of the world, be they old countries or new, old world, new world, southern hemisphere, northern, poor, or wealthy have the similar systems.
The Nordics are the exception when it comes to focus on rehabilitation. Not to say they are right, or wrong, just that at this point in history they are the exception.
The Nordics are the exception when it comes to focus on rehabilitation. Not to say they are right, or wrong, just that at this point in history they are the exception.
Really wish people would look at the demographics of Nordic countries before citing them.
They are models, but they are also facing completely different dynamics than pretty much every other country. Wealthy and secure and:
* Denmark - 5.7 million people, 80% of whom are Danish
* Norway - 5.1 million people, in 1992 95% were native
* Sweden - 10 million, the largest non-Swedish ethnic group being the Finns at 150k
You can drive an hour's radius through many big US metros and cover more people than those countries and within that radius find swaths of hundreds of thousands of people of various ethnic groups. These population numbers really pale compared to anything in East Asia though even if they are homogeneous (don't discount how much that helps social dynamics).
The demographics are shifting in Nordic countries but they a really are extreme outliers worthy of praise and recognition that they are outliers.
edit to include reply:
You are talking about demographics. How can it be irrelevant?
The US is in the situation it is in because an entire demographic was transplanted here against their will due to slavery. Nordic countries do not have this situation (good!) so the potential remedies are different.
The only way to solve problems is to effectively diagnose them. You might not like that the US isn't a country of 5 million people with 80% native population which makes policy a lot easier, but that's reality. We can't make things better unless we recognize that and figure out the proper solution within this setting and not some other.
It's not racist to recognize that and it's wrong to call someone a racist because they are searching for solutions.
They are models, but they are also facing completely different dynamics than pretty much every other country. Wealthy and secure and:
* Denmark - 5.7 million people, 80% of whom are Danish
* Norway - 5.1 million people, in 1992 95% were native
* Sweden - 10 million, the largest non-Swedish ethnic group being the Finns at 150k
You can drive an hour's radius through many big US metros and cover more people than those countries and within that radius find swaths of hundreds of thousands of people of various ethnic groups. These population numbers really pale compared to anything in East Asia though even if they are homogeneous (don't discount how much that helps social dynamics).
The demographics are shifting in Nordic countries but they a really are extreme outliers worthy of praise and recognition that they are outliers.
edit to include reply:
You are talking about demographics. How can it be irrelevant?
The US is in the situation it is in because an entire demographic was transplanted here against their will due to slavery. Nordic countries do not have this situation (good!) so the potential remedies are different.
The only way to solve problems is to effectively diagnose them. You might not like that the US isn't a country of 5 million people with 80% native population which makes policy a lot easier, but that's reality. We can't make things better unless we recognize that and figure out the proper solution within this setting and not some other.
It's not racist to recognize that and it's wrong to call someone a racist because they are searching for solutions.
The demographics are entirely irrelevant to this discussion and I really wish people would stop bringing it up because it's the same type of racist thinking that causes police to disproportionately target African American males. Rampant recidivism, a vengeful justice system, and an entirely ineffectual mental health treatment are the real problems - not the density, skin color, or socioeconomics of urban populations. Crime in those environments is driven by a nearly inescapable cycle of political and economic disenfranchisement starting in childhood and ending in a prison cell.
It is a massive self-reinforcing feedback loop. If we had even an ounce of the empathy and rational approach to public safety that the Nordic countries had, we wouldn't be having this discussion and that feedback loop would have been broken a century ago.
It is a massive self-reinforcing feedback loop. If we had even an ounce of the empathy and rational approach to public safety that the Nordic countries had, we wouldn't be having this discussion and that feedback loop would have been broken a century ago.
For sure it would help is we had better support systems for the indigent and focused more on rehabilitation and re-integration. These are things we can improve, if we wanted to.
That said, this is not endemic to western cultures. The same attitude is prevalent in LatAm, Africa, South Asia, etc.
It would be helpful if people didn't perpetuate the myth that it springs from race (though race can exacerbate the issue). It was a problem in Britain before they became empire.
It's an issue in China, India, South Africa, Singapore, Indonesia, Turkey, Iran, Japan, Korea, etc. many places far-removed from western culture.
That said, this is not endemic to western cultures. The same attitude is prevalent in LatAm, Africa, South Asia, etc.
It would be helpful if people didn't perpetuate the myth that it springs from race (though race can exacerbate the issue). It was a problem in Britain before they became empire.
It's an issue in China, India, South Africa, Singapore, Indonesia, Turkey, Iran, Japan, Korea, etc. many places far-removed from western culture.
[deleted]
Which commonwealth country executes prisoners? The US is not a commonwealth country.
> We don't punish people because it makes us feel good or for some sense of fairness, we remove people for the good of society.
If that was true (in the US) then there would be more rehabilitation in prisons, preparing people to reintegrate into society. Instead of we don't and have a 75%+ recidivism rate for state prisons.
Also, the war on drugs.
If that was true (in the US) then there would be more rehabilitation in prisons, preparing people to reintegrate into society. Instead of we don't and have a 75%+ recidivism rate for state prisons.
Also, the war on drugs.
> We don't punish people because it makes us feel good or for some sense of fairness, we remove people for the good of society.
That might be true in Norway, but it's clearly not true in the U.S. U.S. prisons and prison policies are tacitly designed to make them as miserable as they can be without making it obvious that they are in fact torture chambers. The widespread use of solitary confinement alone, which is now clearly understood to be torture, falsifies your assertion. The death penalty too does nothing to advance public safety. It is vengeance, pure and simple (and very expensive vengeance at that).
That might be true in Norway, but it's clearly not true in the U.S. U.S. prisons and prison policies are tacitly designed to make them as miserable as they can be without making it obvious that they are in fact torture chambers. The widespread use of solitary confinement alone, which is now clearly understood to be torture, falsifies your assertion. The death penalty too does nothing to advance public safety. It is vengeance, pure and simple (and very expensive vengeance at that).
Let's get rid of those things then.
This is not true. From a legal standpoint, there are various interlocking justifications - retribution, punishment, rehabilitation and deterrence.
We absolutely punish people "because it makes us feel good". That is one explicit goal of legal theories of punishment - retribution is about replacing revenge, so that the state serves as a proxy for our monkey-needs for revenge.
In the U.S., things are very much tilted towards making people convicted of wrongdoing suffer. Granted, not as much as some places, but that's hardly anything to be proud of.
We absolutely punish people "because it makes us feel good". That is one explicit goal of legal theories of punishment - retribution is about replacing revenge, so that the state serves as a proxy for our monkey-needs for revenge.
In the U.S., things are very much tilted towards making people convicted of wrongdoing suffer. Granted, not as much as some places, but that's hardly anything to be proud of.
I would add prevention to your list as a primary justification, because people in jail cannot simultaneously be committing crimes on the outside.
> We don't punish people because it makes us feel good or for some sense of fairness, we remove people for the good of society.
Sounds nice, but isn't it a very common motive that the aggrieved want "some sense of fairness" in punishment? You hear it a lot after publicised trials, the relatives will offer their opinion on whether the punishment was appropriate for their loss. Doesn't it seem a little weird that only society's interest is what matters?
There's a rather large can of worms in the ideas you speak of.
Safety, for instance, is not an obvious thing. Suppose a study comes out identifying that 50% of members of a given group (say geographical, skin color, education, etc) will commit a heinous crime (and 50% is way more than normal in the population). There is no further specific information; as far as members of this group, it's a coin toss.
What are we to do? The ones who haven't committed a crime yet are a risk. Can we lock them all up? I doubt it.
Here's another interesting one. A study appears in which it is studied what happens to jealousy-murders, eg where a guy finds his wife with another guy and murders them. Lets say the study concludes that once the murders have happened, the murderer is no more likely than anyone else to commit a crime. It's totally safe to let him out now, because it's safety we care about? Seems wrong. But many countries do recognise this kind of enraged murder as a special circumstance in sentencing.
Anyway, not saying I have the answers. Ethical questions have been vexing for a long time.
Sounds nice, but isn't it a very common motive that the aggrieved want "some sense of fairness" in punishment? You hear it a lot after publicised trials, the relatives will offer their opinion on whether the punishment was appropriate for their loss. Doesn't it seem a little weird that only society's interest is what matters?
There's a rather large can of worms in the ideas you speak of.
Safety, for instance, is not an obvious thing. Suppose a study comes out identifying that 50% of members of a given group (say geographical, skin color, education, etc) will commit a heinous crime (and 50% is way more than normal in the population). There is no further specific information; as far as members of this group, it's a coin toss.
What are we to do? The ones who haven't committed a crime yet are a risk. Can we lock them all up? I doubt it.
Here's another interesting one. A study appears in which it is studied what happens to jealousy-murders, eg where a guy finds his wife with another guy and murders them. Lets say the study concludes that once the murders have happened, the murderer is no more likely than anyone else to commit a crime. It's totally safe to let him out now, because it's safety we care about? Seems wrong. But many countries do recognise this kind of enraged murder as a special circumstance in sentencing.
Anyway, not saying I have the answers. Ethical questions have been vexing for a long time.
The fact that he murdered his wife is indicative of the fact that he is capable of murdering another person in a fit of rage. Certainly it's not true that "the murderer is no more likely than anyone else to commit a crime."
It was the condition of a hypothetical scenario that the study was correct. Obviously. You can discuss what evidence is in the real world, but scenarios are meant to exercise your reasoning powers in the steps beyond what you think the actual facts are.
This is no different from thinking about what would happen if you could teleport. The correct answer isn't "but you can't do that".
This is no different from thinking about what would happen if you could teleport. The correct answer isn't "but you can't do that".
This is a nice idea, but it's inaccurate.
I sat in a court room during sentencing of a young man for a federal drug offense. He had prior drug offenses. No violent crimes. Right before he got clean, a friend asked him to mail him some drugs. The amount was just enough to qualify as intent to distribute. Mailingnacross state lines made it federal. The friend had been arrested and was given leniency in exchange for turning in someone else.
I knew the young man being sentenced. It took two years for him to be picked up. In the two years he had gotten clean, and started a small business that was growing. He had NA spnosors saying he never missed a meeting, drug tests over previous two years showing he was clean, a stack of letters vouching for his current character, and a dozen people in the courtroom who were there for support. He was also given the option of turning someone in, but since he had been clean for 2 years, he didn't know anyone.
The judge said that while rehabilitation was part of sentencing, the primary reason for sentencing was for punishment; To set an example and deter future crimes by both the convicted and people in the community.
He got 7 years in a federal prison.
I sat in a court room during sentencing of a young man for a federal drug offense. He had prior drug offenses. No violent crimes. Right before he got clean, a friend asked him to mail him some drugs. The amount was just enough to qualify as intent to distribute. Mailingnacross state lines made it federal. The friend had been arrested and was given leniency in exchange for turning in someone else.
I knew the young man being sentenced. It took two years for him to be picked up. In the two years he had gotten clean, and started a small business that was growing. He had NA spnosors saying he never missed a meeting, drug tests over previous two years showing he was clean, a stack of letters vouching for his current character, and a dozen people in the courtroom who were there for support. He was also given the option of turning someone in, but since he had been clean for 2 years, he didn't know anyone.
The judge said that while rehabilitation was part of sentencing, the primary reason for sentencing was for punishment; To set an example and deter future crimes by both the convicted and people in the community.
He got 7 years in a federal prison.
I didn't say the system was perfect. We treat drug users as degenerate criminals instead of people with health issues in need of help (in the case of addicts) or as regular people living their lives.
> We don't punish people because it makes us feel good or for some sense of fairness
I always thought this was exactly the reasoning behind the death penalty.
I always thought this was exactly the reasoning behind the death penalty.
What is the actual purpose of punishing people for breaking the rules of our society? It could be a mix of justice or safety, but it does set a norm that you will be held responsible for your actions. If you do something bad, there is a reactive action that society builds.
After all, TANJ (There Ain't No Justice) in the natural world. Punishing people for breaking laws is one way that society "upgrades" over the natural world.
After all, TANJ (There Ain't No Justice) in the natural world. Punishing people for breaking laws is one way that society "upgrades" over the natural world.
Why can't I do something bad that only affects me?
For the sake of argument, I can think of a few reasons. One may believe that everyone in a common society is interconnected, so there is no such thing that only affects you. Another reason is that humans are such mimics of each other, that anything you do is likely to make it more likely other people do it. (See suicide rate studies that compare it to media coverage of events.)
People are busybodies and like to exert control over each other. It's a power trip.
People are busybodies and like to exert control over each other. It's a power trip.
If that was true we wouldn't have capital punishment at all. Capital punishment is all about revenge, people talk about it in terms of what the perpetrator "deserves". The fact that it's utterly innefective in stopping crimes is only now starting to get figured out and addressed.
Example: