The real reason to end the death penalty(paulgraham.com)
paulgraham.com
The real reason to end the death penalty
http://paulgraham.com/real.html
544 comments
What does “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean in probability terms? Most people say 90-95%, which suggests even Graham’s 4% number (which is on the high end of such estimates, see: https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&con...) is actually consistent with the system working as designed.
Also, while you’re thinking about that, what’s your estimate of the probability that Derek Chauvin’s negligence was the but for cause of George Floyd’s death (and not some other factor mentioned by the defense expert in the case such as his health or drugs). Note that’s a scientific question—but for causation is an element of the crime. It’s not enough that what Chauvin did was reckless as to human life. His recklessness had to be the cause. Are you 99% certain of that?
Also, while you’re thinking about that, what’s your estimate of the probability that Derek Chauvin’s negligence was the but for cause of George Floyd’s death (and not some other factor mentioned by the defense expert in the case such as his health or drugs). Note that’s a scientific question—but for causation is an element of the crime. It’s not enough that what Chauvin did was reckless as to human life. His recklessness had to be the cause. Are you 99% certain of that?
There is significant tradition in the criminal justice system for the error bias to be in the other direction (in theory, if not in practice):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
I believe that to be "working as designed" we would see a lot more guilty people going free than innocent people being convicted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
I believe that to be "working as designed" we would see a lot more guilty people going free than innocent people being convicted.
> I believe that to be "working as designed" we would see a lot more guilty people going free than innocent people being convicted
How do you know that’s not the case?
How do you know that’s not the case?
Conviction and plea bargain rates. Most (>90%) people who are charged (in the US) end up with either a guilty verdict or a guilty plea. IIRC even the ones that don't plead out are ~90% conviction rate, at least at the federal level.
Doesn't jive at all with what we know of competence and bias levels observed in police and prosecutors in the US.
Doesn't jive at all with what we know of competence and bias levels observed in police and prosecutors in the US.
Most people plead out because they’re ridiculously guilty.
I’m a crunchy hippie on criminal justice, but I’ve also seen these cases first hand working for an appellate judge. Prosecutors go after cases that are open and shut. You wouldn’t believe how much evidence there is in a typical case that doesn’t go to trial. They have the guy on CCTV with stolen goods in his car and cell phone records of fencing.
Innocence Projects weed out hundreds of meritless requests for help for the relatively few meritorious cases they take.
I’m a crunchy hippie on criminal justice, but I’ve also seen these cases first hand working for an appellate judge. Prosecutors go after cases that are open and shut. You wouldn’t believe how much evidence there is in a typical case that doesn’t go to trial. They have the guy on CCTV with stolen goods in his car and cell phone records of fencing.
Innocence Projects weed out hundreds of meritless requests for help for the relatively few meritorious cases they take.
> Most people plead out because they’re ridiculously guilty.
I know many innocent people who plead out to avoid jail because they're looking at $250k in legal bills and a ~90% trial conviction rate. Juries, being amateurs, are not very good at avoiding bias, as they are completely untrained.
I'm not so sure that plea bargain rates are indicative of guilt either way.
I know many innocent people who plead out to avoid jail because they're looking at $250k in legal bills and a ~90% trial conviction rate. Juries, being amateurs, are not very good at avoiding bias, as they are completely untrained.
I'm not so sure that plea bargain rates are indicative of guilt either way.
How many people who plead do you think have enough money not to be eligible for a PD? And how do you know “many innocent people who plead out?”
I am completely sure they are not indicative of anything, in any way, shape or form. Besides legal expenses and risk of being convicted anyway, being in jail tends to result in being fired, defaulting on your home and car loans, and leaving your family destitute.
> Most people plead out because they’re ridiculously guilty.
Most people plead out because they can't afford expensive trials.
It's also a rational choice when prosecutors promise that they'll throw the book at you if you go to trial, and it's often your word against the word of cops, prosecutors and the expensive expert witnesses they can afford to hire but you can't. Juries and judges tend to side with law enforcement because they're authority figures and valued members of the justice system, after all.
Most people plead out because they can't afford expensive trials.
It's also a rational choice when prosecutors promise that they'll throw the book at you if you go to trial, and it's often your word against the word of cops, prosecutors and the expensive expert witnesses they can afford to hire but you can't. Juries and judges tend to side with law enforcement because they're authority figures and valued members of the justice system, after all.
It's a little strange to me to think that the system would be working optimally if most people went to trial. A very big reason you don't take your criminal case to trial is if the prosecutors have you dead to rights, and the risk to reward is bad. If most people went to trial, that'd suggest that prosecutors are taking a lot of fliers on cases that they don't have strong evidence on. Which seems like... a bad thing?
The issue is that to a jury, being in the defendant's seat is strike one, having a cop testify against you is strike two... it doesn't take much to convict the innocent if a DA and the police start pushing for it.
Ok, but that makes my argument stronger: if trial wins are practically a lay-up for the prosecution, you have to be prosecuting seriously dogshit cases to make going to trial attractive for a majority of your defendants.
Is your argument that marginal cases would go to trial?
I think it is the case that marginal cases would take a no-jail plea bargain. Going to trial on a marginal case with a public defender probably increases the risk of imprisonment versus taking a guilty plea that guarantees no jail time (but a criminal record).
I think it is the case that marginal cases would take a no-jail plea bargain. Going to trial on a marginal case with a public defender probably increases the risk of imprisonment versus taking a guilty plea that guarantees no jail time (but a criminal record).
What I'm saying is that in a well run DA's office, a docket consisting mostly of cases that plead out is what you'd want to see, because the alternative suggests that prosecutors are bringing shaky cases to court, which they should not do, because prosecution itself inflicts grievous costs on defendants.
People who can’t afford a lawyer will have a public defender appointed. Virtually none of these cases involves expert testimony. My wife did a pro bono murder trial a couple of years ago. (If your case is at all interesting high end law firms will often represent you for free.) They showed the jury CCTV from all over the city literally following the accused from murder scene to his house. Just cutting from one camera to the other showing the jury exactly what happened after the murder.
Instead of recycling conventional wisdom, head over to your local federal court and sit in on some sentencing hearings (these are public). There will be a plea colloquy with the accused and the prosecutor will lay out all the supporting evidence. It’s quite eye opening.
Instead of recycling conventional wisdom, head over to your local federal court and sit in on some sentencing hearings (these are public). There will be a plea colloquy with the accused and the prosecutor will lay out all the supporting evidence. It’s quite eye opening.
I was on a jury for a trial where they had crap on the kid accused of conspiracy to create meth.
He drove an old high school friend, who he hadn't seen for years, to a park. He drove into a parking lot on the way and turned around "as if trying to avoid tails." He returned to the car and the undercover cop put the key back in his hand after putting ingredients in the car.
AND...he was being accused of conspiracy (which raises the seriousness of the crime to a felony!) to create meth because...there were drug ingredients in the car and the keys were in his hand. He'd spent his time at the park napping on the grass with his hat over his head. Or, as the cops testified, "probably acting as a lookout."
We of course said "not guilty." No one even wanted to argue. No idea why they thought they had a case.
But the kid in this case was white. I could totally see a black kid deciding that accepting a "lesser plea" would have been preferable to taking a chance on a 95%+ white jury (was in a predominantly white area; I don't think there was a single black juror, though I wasn't keeping count).
He drove an old high school friend, who he hadn't seen for years, to a park. He drove into a parking lot on the way and turned around "as if trying to avoid tails." He returned to the car and the undercover cop put the key back in his hand after putting ingredients in the car.
AND...he was being accused of conspiracy (which raises the seriousness of the crime to a felony!) to create meth because...there were drug ingredients in the car and the keys were in his hand. He'd spent his time at the park napping on the grass with his hat over his head. Or, as the cops testified, "probably acting as a lookout."
We of course said "not guilty." No one even wanted to argue. No idea why they thought they had a case.
But the kid in this case was white. I could totally see a black kid deciding that accepting a "lesser plea" would have been preferable to taking a chance on a 95%+ white jury (was in a predominantly white area; I don't think there was a single black juror, though I wasn't keeping count).
> Most people plead out because they’re ridiculously guilty.
"Most people" can be as low as 51%, which is not very useful here.
"Most people" can be as low as 51%, which is not very useful here.
Yeah, and there are a lot of people who are most likely guilty who never even get charged. A prosecutor won't want to take up a case when he thinks the evidence is in the zone between "preponderance" and "beyond reasonable doubt".
If the prosecutor can get somebody to plead guilty before they are charged, then he doesn't even need to think about the value of the evidence--or, indeed, about whether the person actually did anything. A guilty plea is even better for his reputation than a conviction, because he can get lots of those done in a day.
Sure, somebody who looks prepared to lawyer up often won't be charged.
Sure, somebody who looks prepared to lawyer up often won't be charged.
try to tell the family of people in the 4% that the system is working as designed.
It’s not ideal. But if we don’t have a working criminal justice system, victims will take the law into their own hands and their error rate will most likely be much worse.
Will they? Doesn’t seem to be the case in Europe. At least people there don’t equal death penalty with a working justice system
There is zero evidence that the death penalty is useful for deterrence.
Zero points for using a distraction from the argument at hand which is whether the death penalty is justified.
Zero points for using a distraction from the argument at hand which is whether the death penalty is justified.
> For example, MHA found that there was a 66 per cent reduction in the average net weight trafficked for opium in the four-year window after the mandatory death penalty was introduced in 1990 for trafficking more than 1,200g of opium.
> In the four years after the death penalty for trafficking more than 500g of cannabis was introduced in 1990, there was "a 15 to 19 percentage point reduction in the probability that traffickers would choose to traffic above the capital sentence threshold", said Mr Shanmugam.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/death-penalty...
Granted, the deterrence value of capital punishment as applied in most nations, such as the U.S., has been shown to be negligible. Most countries, especially in the 21st century, just don't have the stomach to apply capital punishment strictly enough to make it worthwhile. And for good reasons, I might add. But if I were creating a country from scratch, before certain patterns of crime and social dynamics became endemic (that is, firmly rooted in the economic life of certain classes such that they would, as a group, be systematically grossly disproportionately punished), I would absolutely employ capital punishment.
I think in the U.S. we tend to assume that poverty and violence go hand-in-hand. And so to punish violence is to in some sense punish the poor. But if you look at poverty around the world, violence is not a necessary consequence of poverty. There are many places where even desperately poor communities experience much less violence than some of the richest towns in the U.S. Ultimately it's a function of the wider culture and its predisposition to violence. If you can use capital punishment to forestall societal changes (e.g. drugs trafficking, use of guns in crimes) that invite pervasive violence, you can achieve a more just outcome for everybody. But in practice you probably can't use capital punishment to put the genie back in the bottle; certainly not alone.
> In the four years after the death penalty for trafficking more than 500g of cannabis was introduced in 1990, there was "a 15 to 19 percentage point reduction in the probability that traffickers would choose to traffic above the capital sentence threshold", said Mr Shanmugam.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/death-penalty...
Granted, the deterrence value of capital punishment as applied in most nations, such as the U.S., has been shown to be negligible. Most countries, especially in the 21st century, just don't have the stomach to apply capital punishment strictly enough to make it worthwhile. And for good reasons, I might add. But if I were creating a country from scratch, before certain patterns of crime and social dynamics became endemic (that is, firmly rooted in the economic life of certain classes such that they would, as a group, be systematically grossly disproportionately punished), I would absolutely employ capital punishment.
I think in the U.S. we tend to assume that poverty and violence go hand-in-hand. And so to punish violence is to in some sense punish the poor. But if you look at poverty around the world, violence is not a necessary consequence of poverty. There are many places where even desperately poor communities experience much less violence than some of the richest towns in the U.S. Ultimately it's a function of the wider culture and its predisposition to violence. If you can use capital punishment to forestall societal changes (e.g. drugs trafficking, use of guns in crimes) that invite pervasive violence, you can achieve a more just outcome for everybody. But in practice you probably can't use capital punishment to put the genie back in the bottle; certainly not alone.
Right, but you have to compare that to the alternatives that exist elsewhere. China, Japan, India, UK, Chile, Brazil, Indonesia and so on. You cannot compare against an ideal which does not exist in practice.
I’m only speaking about conviction and not commenting on the appropriateness of death penalties.
I’m only speaking about conviction and not commenting on the appropriateness of death penalties.
This argument has no bearing on whether the system is working as designed. I mean, yes, we should change the design, but nobody was claiming that the design was fine.
> Are you 99% certain of that?
Chauvin's case was unique because the narrative of him being a murderer had already been broadcast across the entire country. While I'm not personally 99% sure of his guilt to second-degree murder, the jurors most likely were.
Chauvin's case was unique because the narrative of him being a murderer had already been broadcast across the entire country. While I'm not personally 99% sure of his guilt to second-degree murder, the jurors most likely were.
He was convicted of 2nd degree unintentional murder. Which, in Minnesota, one of the definitions is that you killed someone while committing a felony.
So even if fully an accident, if you kill someone while robbing a store, that's going to be 2nd degree murder.
And in the case of this trial, I assume the jury was simply convinced that kneeling on someone's neck for nearly 10 minutes while they beg for mercy and then continuing to apply pressure for minutes after they pass out is a crime in and of itself, even if he had not died.
So even if fully an accident, if you kill someone while robbing a store, that's going to be 2nd degree murder.
And in the case of this trial, I assume the jury was simply convinced that kneeling on someone's neck for nearly 10 minutes while they beg for mercy and then continuing to apply pressure for minutes after they pass out is a crime in and of itself, even if he had not died.
Reasonable doubt means doubts that a person is guilty. In probability terms it can be interpreted as a state of belief in the guilt (or innocence) of the accused. PG's 4% number is offered as the frequency of wrongful convictions. The two concepts are not related.
For example, if a body of jurors say that they are 95% certain that John Smith murdered Jane Brown, that does not mean that there is a 5% probability that John Smith did not commit the murder, or a 5% probability that he will be wrongfully convicted. The 95% number quantifies the belief of the jurors that John Smith is the murderer. 5% quantifies their belief that John Smith is not the murderer. Nothing in those numbers tells us anything about how often jurors are wrong- it only tells us how strongly they believe they are right.
To know the frequency of wrongful convictions we must look at the frequency of exonerations. Whatever is the state of belief of jurors or judges etc during the trial where someone was convicted of a crime can't really inform us about the probability of their future exoneration.
For example, if a body of jurors say that they are 95% certain that John Smith murdered Jane Brown, that does not mean that there is a 5% probability that John Smith did not commit the murder, or a 5% probability that he will be wrongfully convicted. The 95% number quantifies the belief of the jurors that John Smith is the murderer. 5% quantifies their belief that John Smith is not the murderer. Nothing in those numbers tells us anything about how often jurors are wrong- it only tells us how strongly they believe they are right.
To know the frequency of wrongful convictions we must look at the frequency of exonerations. Whatever is the state of belief of jurors or judges etc during the trial where someone was convicted of a crime can't really inform us about the probability of their future exoneration.
I think most people interpret the task of assigning a percentage to their belief of something like this as equivalent to estimating the percentage of the time they are likely to be wrong. So to say the two are not related is not true.
I think this attributes overly precise motives to people who have none. It may be accurate for the HN crowd (although I doubt it), but in general, people assigning percentages to their beliefs are performing cargo-cult numeracy rather than actually calibrating beliefs. To illustrate: I am pretty sure that people saying they're 99% sure are saying "I am pretty sure" and not "I estimate I will be wrong once out of a hundred times in situations of comparable certainty".
99% is a common number for cargo-cult numeracy, much like "give me a minute" probably doesn't mean a literal minute.
On the other hand, 95%, 90%, "give me three minutes", etc. are much less cargo-cult, and much less likely to be cargo-cult numeracy.
On the third tentacle, people are bad at a lot of estimates, HN crowd included.
On the other hand, 95%, 90%, "give me three minutes", etc. are much less cargo-cult, and much less likely to be cargo-cult numeracy.
On the third tentacle, people are bad at a lot of estimates, HN crowd included.
> What does “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean in probability terms?
When serving as a juror in a criminal trial, I asked precisely this question of the judge.
Her response was that the law does not prescribe a percentage.
When serving as a juror in a criminal trial, I asked precisely this question of the judge.
Her response was that the law does not prescribe a percentage.
This is actually a really tough problem, because it's even unclear which rate to talk about. If you look at "trial by peers" as a test, what error rates are we worried about/trying to make unreasonably rare? Sensitivity? Specificity? FDR? Posterior probability under what prior? One of the many many others used in stats?
I might argue that FDR [0] is the right number, given that you want to look at the set of convicted people and say it's unreasonable to doubt that a randomly picked one of them is guilty.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_discovery_rate
I might argue that FDR [0] is the right number, given that you want to look at the set of convicted people and say it's unreasonable to doubt that a randomly picked one of them is guilty.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_discovery_rate
Actually, Chauvin's actions did not have to be the only cause of death. Reckless actions only had to contribute in order for him to be guilty. The fact that there were drugs involved or other medical conditions merely establish that he may have been easier to kill than a healthier individual.
You only need to be very sure that what Chauvin did was reckless and unreasonable and also very sure that had Chauvin not knelt on his neck for nearly 10 minutes, that Floyd wouldn't have died at that same moment anyway.
You only need to be very sure that what Chauvin did was reckless and unreasonable and also very sure that had Chauvin not knelt on his neck for nearly 10 minutes, that Floyd wouldn't have died at that same moment anyway.
Often cited as the 'Eggshell skull' doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull
Maybe you should read the actual charges and Minnesota law; it covers all of your hypotheticals.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" means it's unreasonable to doubt it. If you bet your friend (who is incentivized to say that they rolled above a 1) rolls a ten sided die and says they rolled above a 1, is it unreasonable to doubt them? No way, 10% chance of an event happening means it's very reasonable that it'll happen. Same for a d20. At what point is it unreasonable to be concerned about rolling a 1?
> Most people say 90-95%
Most people believe that the 538's 2016 presidential forecast was incompetent because it said trump only had a 1/3 chance of winning and he won. Other papers put it at 10%. People said this was a huge failure because people generally are terrible at intuitively reasoning about probabilities, which is well established.
I'd put reasonable doubt at closer to 1 in a few hundred, maybe even rarer.
Is the link you included talking about the probability of convicting a person, given that they're innocent, or the probability that a convicted person is innocent? It brings too mind the classic stats issues of testing positive for a disease via a highly accurate test, with it still being probable that you don't have the disease. Even a highly accurate test can be entirely unreasonable as evidence of the rare case. We should probably care about making the false discovery rate the unreasonable one. Of the convicted people, is it unreasonable to doubt that a random one is guilty.
> Most people say 90-95%
Most people believe that the 538's 2016 presidential forecast was incompetent because it said trump only had a 1/3 chance of winning and he won. Other papers put it at 10%. People said this was a huge failure because people generally are terrible at intuitively reasoning about probabilities, which is well established.
I'd put reasonable doubt at closer to 1 in a few hundred, maybe even rarer.
Is the link you included talking about the probability of convicting a person, given that they're innocent, or the probability that a convicted person is innocent? It brings too mind the classic stats issues of testing positive for a disease via a highly accurate test, with it still being probable that you don't have the disease. Even a highly accurate test can be entirely unreasonable as evidence of the rare case. We should probably care about making the false discovery rate the unreasonable one. Of the convicted people, is it unreasonable to doubt that a random one is guilty.
I don't know how you could replace the jurors but I think they're only as good as the rest of the system. I mean, if they don't get to hear or see certain evidence because it was deemed non-permissible or it was hidden or destroyed, they can't make a good decision. Not to mention at one point we had no DNA evidence. We relied on junk science with bite marks and shoe prints and other things.
Although there are indeed issues with peers (and witnesses). I was in a large lecture hall some time ago and someone came in to do an staged purse snatch. You couldn't see the person's face and they were moving fast.
When the class was shown a lineup to say who it was, most all agreed it was one of the suspects. When asked why, they said he was tall (he was much taller than the others in the lineup).
And that was the whole point. People will try and identify based on little info and they make the incorrect assumption that the lineup they were presented with actually has the real perpetrator!
So if you presented a lineup (maybe an impartial organization other than the police) and made it really clear to the witnesses that the perp may very well NOT be in the lineup, you would probably fix a lot of bad identifications. And you wouldn't have detectives trying to influence a decision. That would be a good start.
Although there are indeed issues with peers (and witnesses). I was in a large lecture hall some time ago and someone came in to do an staged purse snatch. You couldn't see the person's face and they were moving fast.
When the class was shown a lineup to say who it was, most all agreed it was one of the suspects. When asked why, they said he was tall (he was much taller than the others in the lineup).
And that was the whole point. People will try and identify based on little info and they make the incorrect assumption that the lineup they were presented with actually has the real perpetrator!
So if you presented a lineup (maybe an impartial organization other than the police) and made it really clear to the witnesses that the perp may very well NOT be in the lineup, you would probably fix a lot of bad identifications. And you wouldn't have detectives trying to influence a decision. That would be a good start.
I think the suggestion is that not having a death penalty reduces the harm of incorrect decisions
I agree. Mistakes are going to happen at some rate, 4% seems realistic. At least if the wrongfully-convicted person is still alive in prison, they can be released and compensated. They may be able to bring a civil suit if there was sufficient malfeasance or incompetence. Some redress can happen.
As well, once someone has been executed, interest in finding the truth goes away, and any chance to correct and improve the system based on that case's specifics is gone.
As well, once someone has been executed, interest in finding the truth goes away, and any chance to correct and improve the system based on that case's specifics is gone.
Live in prison and living with knowing that society seems you a deviant vs death.
We shouldn't tolerate either if innocent.
We shouldn't tolerate either if innocent.
> I don't know how you could replace the jurors but
One part of this is the education system. A jury who is susceptible to junk science and junk logic is more likely to run into these issues.
One part of this is the education system. A jury who is susceptible to junk science and junk logic is more likely to run into these issues.
To be clear: I don't think that anyone is surprised to see a 4% error rate here. No one ever really thought this system was perfect, and in point of fact perfect determination of innocence wasn't even a design goal of the jury system. The point to selecting juries from the public is to make it harder for a corrupt government to employ its own law enforcement apparatus corruptly. (Whether that works is also an argument of some topicality right now...)
But yeah: given that the error rate is in the 1-2 9's range, it seems like applying it to capital cases is a horrifying mistake. Imagine a medical device with only a 99% chance of not killing you.
But yeah: given that the error rate is in the 1-2 9's range, it seems like applying it to capital cases is a horrifying mistake. Imagine a medical device with only a 99% chance of not killing you.
> The system of trial-by-peers is flawed with a measurable error rate.
I've been listening to the podcast Court Junkie (not to be confused with "Crime Junkie"; long story...), and this was my main takeaway as well.
The podcast is great because it is almost entirely audio excerpts from actual murder trials, with some extra narration to tie it together. It made me realize my understanding of trial-by-jury was formulated almost entirely by television and other storytelling, and not be reality.
What amazed me the most is how the winner seems to be biased toward whichever side can present the most compelling story. Not the most realistic story or most likely story, just the most interesting one.
I've been listening to the podcast Court Junkie (not to be confused with "Crime Junkie"; long story...), and this was my main takeaway as well.
The podcast is great because it is almost entirely audio excerpts from actual murder trials, with some extra narration to tie it together. It made me realize my understanding of trial-by-jury was formulated almost entirely by television and other storytelling, and not be reality.
What amazed me the most is how the winner seems to be biased toward whichever side can present the most compelling story. Not the most realistic story or most likely story, just the most interesting one.
I worked as a trial consultant for a while and got to sit in trial. This is what struck me the most. The best trial lawyers I know are like actors, entertainers, celebrities -- they have the ability to publicly act towards witnesses and juries to evoke friendly, sad, likeable, dis-likeable, happy, angry emotions in a jury.
The money doesn't come from legal analysis at all; frankly many were not very bright on legal issues -- that's what second-chairs and legal experts are for. They all, without exception, were fantastically entertaining, funny, weird, charismatic people.
It's an important takeaway for life in general. The money follows people who are good at emotions.
The money doesn't come from legal analysis at all; frankly many were not very bright on legal issues -- that's what second-chairs and legal experts are for. They all, without exception, were fantastically entertaining, funny, weird, charismatic people.
It's an important takeaway for life in general. The money follows people who are good at emotions.
And putting them in prison for multiple years, or even decades, is better ? Hardly.
I think the point should be more: the justice system sucks and we should work very hard to make it better, instead of complaining about a particular consequence of it, that is ultimately irrelevant.
I think the point should be more: the justice system sucks and we should work very hard to make it better, instead of complaining about a particular consequence of it, that is ultimately irrelevant.
That's a great whataboutism.
None of your points are wrong, none of your conclusions are wrong, yet your comment still derails and detracts from GP's well stated point. Don't do this.
None of your points are wrong, none of your conclusions are wrong, yet your comment still derails and detracts from GP's well stated point. Don't do this.
If there was ever a comment more deserving of a "why not both?" response, I'd be surprised.
If you read the linked story about Kevin Cooper, it sounds like he is a better human being today than when he was almost certainly wrongfully convicted. Just one data point, but at least regular prison has redemptive potential, while the lethal syringe, I think, has none.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/17/opinion/sunda...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/17/opinion/sunda...
According to the Innocence Project[1], 21 people on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence.
In the last 31 years a total of 375 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence (not just the people on death row).
[1] https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-...
In the last 31 years a total of 375 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence (not just the people on death row).
[1] https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-...
Yes, justice should never ever enact something irremediable. History showed how not matter the means, technology, experience, diligence.. errors still occur.
No system is perfect, but perfection isn’t the point. The point is the error rate that you alluded to.
At any rate judges sometimes make really bad decisions. The most remembered from where I live is Affluenza:
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Couch
At any rate judges sometimes make really bad decisions. The most remembered from where I live is Affluenza:
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Couch
Trial-by-peers is not the problem, problem is prosecutorial, police and expert misconduct. Vast majority of wrongful convictions are caused by withholding(or even falsifying) evidence, police forcing out confession from innocent or experts who are either ignorant or deliberately lying. And those who are later caught doing these things are nearly never held accountable and in rare case when they are, it's just a slap on the wrist.
I think no other justification is needed to end the death penalty than “it’s inhuman and barbaric”.
Even discussing other factors arguments and considerations dilutes the core point that’s it’s straight up wrong unethical and inhuman to murder others in the name of the law.
Paul Graham has a valid point, but if you say “it’s wrong cause it’s inaccurate”, implies it’s right if it’s accurate. And it’s not... the death penalty is wrong no matter be it accurate or inaccurate.
Even discussing other factors arguments and considerations dilutes the core point that’s it’s straight up wrong unethical and inhuman to murder others in the name of the law.
Paul Graham has a valid point, but if you say “it’s wrong cause it’s inaccurate”, implies it’s right if it’s accurate. And it’s not... the death penalty is wrong no matter be it accurate or inaccurate.
I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but this sort of remark is why the left and intellectuals more widely fail at winning politically. Rather than use arguments that are amenable even to people who disagree on the fundamentals, you would rather retain the moral high-ground by refusing even to debate on their terms, thereby failing to actually influence policy (in this case a matter of life and death).
If the death penalty debate were framed more around "innocent people get killed" and less around more nebulous value-judgement based arguments (which, though valid, divide pretty neatly along partisan and class lines), perhaps the death penalty in the US would have gone long ago.
If the death penalty debate were framed more around "innocent people get killed" and less around more nebulous value-judgement based arguments (which, though valid, divide pretty neatly along partisan and class lines), perhaps the death penalty in the US would have gone long ago.
Framing this as a left vs right issue is an USA-centric way to frame the question. Consider how the US is basically the only country in the american continent that still goes ahead with capital punishment. Most other countries in the continent, from all kinds of political orientations, have either banned capital punishment outright or haven't executed anyone in more than a decade.
Referring to "the American continent" is a very South American thing to do. I think in the US they consider themselves to be sharing a continent with just Mexico and Canada.
Furthermore I think you don't go far enough. Around the world, abolishing the death penalty seems to be a mark of high development, apart from Japan (and arguably China and India) there aren't any highly developed nations that are still killing people.
Furthermore I think you don't go far enough. Around the world, abolishing the death penalty seems to be a mark of high development, apart from Japan (and arguably China and India) there aren't any highly developed nations that are still killing people.
Not getting into anything else, but I will remark that I got in trouble in 5th grade (in a US school) and a letter sent home to my parents about my bad attitude and showing of disrespect towards my teacher after she asserted that Mexico was in "South America" and that "North America" consisted exclusively of the USA and Canada. I argued with her and neither of us would back down. It was the first time I'd ever been in any kind of trouble. My parents were proud and took me out for ice cream. US public schools have some decent teachers but also some really ignorant ones.
Stretching the definition of "high development" here a bit (but since you're considering China and India) Belarus still has the death penalty (they were executing at least 1 almost every year until 2020).
[deleted]
Even in the US, "left vs right" on the death penalty is an oversimplification. A pretty good summary can be found here: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/religious-st... ... Anecdotally, as a religious person, I'd say that most Catholics I know either oppose the death penalty or would want it to be much more limited than it is now.
I once had a surreal conversation with a Jehovah's Witness priest who was proselytizing on my campus. It was around the time of the Iraq war, and he opened with something like "if killing is wrong, why do we have the death penalty." I managed to use Saddam Hussein's alleged human rights violations as a rhetorical lever to justify the killing of one to prevent the killing of many. As a supporter of neither the death penalty nor the war on Iraq, I've never walked away from a victory with so much regret
This "debate" has been over in all other nations that the US likes to be compared for years.
It is similar to the "tough on crime" incarceration "debate" in the US, where perverse incentives and political expediency has led to the US being the highest-per-capita incarcerator in the world.
Framing the death penalty debate around "innocent people get killed" will not change the partisan/class perceptions.
The US criminal justice system requires root-and-branch reform, starting with issues around policing, cash bail, school-to-prison pipelines, and unfair drug and "victimless" crimes.
Australia has been going through a similar debate and is at a similar point, without the death penalty, but dealing with the systemic racism and other class related issues.
It is similar to the "tough on crime" incarceration "debate" in the US, where perverse incentives and political expediency has led to the US being the highest-per-capita incarcerator in the world.
Framing the death penalty debate around "innocent people get killed" will not change the partisan/class perceptions.
The US criminal justice system requires root-and-branch reform, starting with issues around policing, cash bail, school-to-prison pipelines, and unfair drug and "victimless" crimes.
Australia has been going through a similar debate and is at a similar point, without the death penalty, but dealing with the systemic racism and other class related issues.
>Framing the death penalty debate around "innocent people get killed" will not change the partisan/class perceptions.
I don't agree. All of these moral castigations about it being 'inhumane' or 'barbaric' don't strike me as rational or compelling in the least. I think the idea is humane in the context of those impacted by the crimes in question and I don't see how putting a person in a box for the remainder of their life is qualitatively any less barbaric.
I don't know where pg lands politically but I'd say I'm probably right of center on the American spectrum and for me there are only two persuasive arguments that we should abolish the death penalty. One is that we make mistakes in who gets it, per TFA, and the other is that it's difficult to concretely describe the qualifications of who should get it, risking expansion at the whim of the populace. In other words I absolutely believe there are just executions, I'm just not entirely sure we can create a system to do it justly.
I don't agree. All of these moral castigations about it being 'inhumane' or 'barbaric' don't strike me as rational or compelling in the least. I think the idea is humane in the context of those impacted by the crimes in question and I don't see how putting a person in a box for the remainder of their life is qualitatively any less barbaric.
I don't know where pg lands politically but I'd say I'm probably right of center on the American spectrum and for me there are only two persuasive arguments that we should abolish the death penalty. One is that we make mistakes in who gets it, per TFA, and the other is that it's difficult to concretely describe the qualifications of who should get it, risking expansion at the whim of the populace. In other words I absolutely believe there are just executions, I'm just not entirely sure we can create a system to do it justly.
> In other words I absolutely believe there are just executions
I think that is the GP,s point: the real problem is to convince you otherwise.
I think that is the GP,s point: the real problem is to convince you otherwise.
Why? If he (or she) believes or can be convinced that the death penalty should be abolished, why do you care if they also believe that some of the executions that already happened were just?
1) because it implies that one day they might be it favour of bringing them back with the right technology etc
2) because you want to convince people of important moral principles. I don't want you to not beat your wife because you'll get caught, but because it's inherently wrong.
2) because you want to convince people of important moral principles. I don't want you to not beat your wife because you'll get caught, but because it's inherently wrong.
Certainly fodder for ongoing discussion but I think it’s important to prioritize goals.
Alignment on public policy decisions allows for more degrees of freedom in underlying philosophical differences than attempts to align on the philosophical primitives themselves. It also achieves an immediate goal.
Plus if you are engaging in conversation in a good faith attempt to understand and be understood, you have to allow for the case that your views are moderated or changed as well.
(The distance you feel from that right now is approximately the same I feel in the opposite direction.)
Alignment on public policy decisions allows for more degrees of freedom in underlying philosophical differences than attempts to align on the philosophical primitives themselves. It also achieves an immediate goal.
Plus if you are engaging in conversation in a good faith attempt to understand and be understood, you have to allow for the case that your views are moderated or changed as well.
(The distance you feel from that right now is approximately the same I feel in the opposite direction.)
Exactly.
How about that it's significantly more expensive on average to execute a prisoner (due to the extensive appeal processes) than to imprison him for life? I would assume that should be a very compelling argument in favour of abolishing the death penalty for somebody who is "right of center".
I can understand why you would say that based on all of the stereotypes floating around, but honestly I've never seen this argument move the needle for anyone.
For some they just say 'I'll do it for a dollar' and disengage. Realistically the cost of incarceration isn't what's driving their argument for the death penalty, it's just a talking point.
For me, it's just the price of due process.
Maybe to save a few keystrokes, I think we are too flippant about the death penalty today but I think its an essential part of a justice system.
For some they just say 'I'll do it for a dollar' and disengage. Realistically the cost of incarceration isn't what's driving their argument for the death penalty, it's just a talking point.
For me, it's just the price of due process.
Maybe to save a few keystrokes, I think we are too flippant about the death penalty today but I think its an essential part of a justice system.
It isn't really over, even now it pops its head up now and again. There's probably more people who believe in it than you realize.
For example in the UK 58% of people believe that the death penalty should be allowed for some crimes (e.g. terrorist attacks). Only 32% oppose it (presumably with 10% undecided):
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/legal/articles-reports/2019/10/0...
So far from being the majority view, often anti-death penalty stance is the minority view but the political elite suppress it.
Let that really sink in, most of the comments here are very wrong in thinking the debate is over, with twice as many of the public still supporting it in a country where it's been abolished for over 50 years. Always remember to fight against capital punishment, the deal is not done.
I believe they do this as they understand the nuance better and realize that overall it causes more problems than it solves, so don't want to open that can of worms once it's shut. Looking back in history there's also significant political fallout every time someone is found innocent after their execution. Some hard-right politicians will band it around for easy points with their base, plus obviously the wider public too for more extreme crimes.
For example in the UK 58% of people believe that the death penalty should be allowed for some crimes (e.g. terrorist attacks). Only 32% oppose it (presumably with 10% undecided):
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/legal/articles-reports/2019/10/0...
So far from being the majority view, often anti-death penalty stance is the minority view but the political elite suppress it.
Let that really sink in, most of the comments here are very wrong in thinking the debate is over, with twice as many of the public still supporting it in a country where it's been abolished for over 50 years. Always remember to fight against capital punishment, the deal is not done.
I believe they do this as they understand the nuance better and realize that overall it causes more problems than it solves, so don't want to open that can of worms once it's shut. Looking back in history there's also significant political fallout every time someone is found innocent after their execution. Some hard-right politicians will band it around for easy points with their base, plus obviously the wider public too for more extreme crimes.
I could believe that there is a minority that is strongly opposed and a majority that weakly supports it. So that if you weigh it by passion, net sentiment is against it.
Not disagreeing with your stats, but it seems that the long-term trend is decreasing support for the death penalty in the UK: https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media-centre/archived-press-rel...
Just because it's banned doesn't mean the debate is over: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BytxHbenQyQ/V_O2hw4mUXI/AAAAAAAA8...
Some western countries have respectably high numbers: France 50%, UK 48%, Holland 42%.
Not that the USA wants to be compared to us, but here in Romania it's at 91% and we still don't have it. (I suspect that romantic notions of Vlad the Impaler's time has something to do with the percentage.)
Some western countries have respectably high numbers: France 50%, UK 48%, Holland 42%.
Not that the USA wants to be compared to us, but here in Romania it's at 91% and we still don't have it. (I suspect that romantic notions of Vlad the Impaler's time has something to do with the percentage.)
I suspect that the very high percentage from Romania has much less to do with Vlad the Impaler than with the fact that there are still a large number of people alive who remember the unusual circumstances in which the death penalty was abolished in Romania.
In Romania, the death penalty was not abolished by any democratic institution and that action was not preceded by any public debate.
The gang who seized power in 1989 in Romania abolished the death penalty immediately after killing the dictator Ceausescu to remove the competition, because absolutely everybody expected that many other people who had important positions in the Communist must be also executed immediately, because only that would have been consistent with the messages spread by the new power in the previous days.
However, the people who had seized the power could not kill any other from the Communist leadership, because those were their friends, family or accomplices, so they used the surprise trick of promptly abolishing the death penalty.
This unexpected action was the moment when many people woke up from the euphoria after the supposed fall of the Communism and they began to suspect that the people composing the new power might not be who they claim to be, but it was already too late.
The immediate abolition of the death penalty in Romania had its desired effect, of transforming the former powerful communists into rich capitalists owning what had previously been called "the wealth belonging to all the people", so it is still strongly resented by many who remember those events.
So Romania is a very special case, which explains the unusually high percentage of support for the death penalty.
In Romania, the death penalty was not abolished by any democratic institution and that action was not preceded by any public debate.
The gang who seized power in 1989 in Romania abolished the death penalty immediately after killing the dictator Ceausescu to remove the competition, because absolutely everybody expected that many other people who had important positions in the Communist must be also executed immediately, because only that would have been consistent with the messages spread by the new power in the previous days.
However, the people who had seized the power could not kill any other from the Communist leadership, because those were their friends, family or accomplices, so they used the surprise trick of promptly abolishing the death penalty.
This unexpected action was the moment when many people woke up from the euphoria after the supposed fall of the Communism and they began to suspect that the people composing the new power might not be who they claim to be, but it was already too late.
The immediate abolition of the death penalty in Romania had its desired effect, of transforming the former powerful communists into rich capitalists owning what had previously been called "the wealth belonging to all the people", so it is still strongly resented by many who remember those events.
So Romania is a very special case, which explains the unusually high percentage of support for the death penalty.
The US criminal justice system requires root-and-branch reform, starting with issues around policing, cash bail, school-to-prison pipelines, and unfair drug and "victimless" crimes.
I'd put our abusive plea bargaining system in there.
Sadly the rest of the world is moving towards that bad idea, rather than away. :-(
I'd put our abusive plea bargaining system in there.
Sadly the rest of the world is moving towards that bad idea, rather than away. :-(
I don't know. Even the constitution acknowledges the possibility of truths that are 'self-evident'.
I remember when the Guantanamo torture scandals emerged in the 2000s, how various political actors attempted to say 'Let's not get hot under the collar about this - let's put it on the table and talk it through.'
For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act, as outlined in 'A Modest Proposal' . I agree with the parent poster that this is one of those cases.
EDIT: This was supposed to be a response to the parent comment of the one it got attached to (for some reason).
I remember when the Guantanamo torture scandals emerged in the 2000s, how various political actors attempted to say 'Let's not get hot under the collar about this - let's put it on the table and talk it through.'
For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act, as outlined in 'A Modest Proposal' . I agree with the parent poster that this is one of those cases.
EDIT: This was supposed to be a response to the parent comment of the one it got attached to (for some reason).
“We hold these truths to be self evident...” is from the Declaration of Independence. It does not appear in the Constitution.
Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is not limited to the words of the document. The Constitution itself is derived from a history of law, letters, and intent that predate the very concept of the United States.
Depends on if you are an originalist or not.
Nope. A textualist, maybe, but originalists would very much be looking towards English law for guidance on what the Constitution meant.
It’s called originalism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
> For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act,
The authors of the Declaration of Independence would perhaps agree.
But, keep in mind that stance — as they will knew — would result in the ‘disagreement’ being resolved by force and war.
Consequently, it’s wise to really give some thought to whether an issue is ‘self-evident.’ I personally do not think capital punishment is such an issue; that is, I acknowledge there are good arguments on both sides.
(Are there good arguments on both sides regarding whether some people — like King George — are inherently and divinely superior to others by virtue of their lineage? That’s a different matter... I would have fallen into the ‘self-evidently’ absurd camp on that one.)
The authors of the Declaration of Independence would perhaps agree.
But, keep in mind that stance — as they will knew — would result in the ‘disagreement’ being resolved by force and war.
Consequently, it’s wise to really give some thought to whether an issue is ‘self-evident.’ I personally do not think capital punishment is such an issue; that is, I acknowledge there are good arguments on both sides.
(Are there good arguments on both sides regarding whether some people — like King George — are inherently and divinely superior to others by virtue of their lineage? That’s a different matter... I would have fallen into the ‘self-evidently’ absurd camp on that one.)
Very much agreed. The left and intellectuals have won the debate in most (all?) of the west and the US policies are widely considered barbaric, inhumane and corrupt. The current state of affairs in the US is unfortunately a testament to the US society.
Having said that, the US is quite a specific case and the truth is that the current approach of the left doesn't seem to work there. Progress is being made, but as an outsider, there seems to be too much partisanship on both sides. Too much us versus them. There is as much derogatory and hostile attitude in the left leaning forums as the right leaning ones, with a small sliver of moderates who get lost in the noise.
I can't claim to have a solution to this. The US seems to be a feudal society at this point, where a large portion of the serfs are actively undermining efforts to lift them from their serfdom, and a large portion of the liberators consider the serfs uneducated peasants who refuse to accept what's good for them. They are both led by a political elite whose incentives are to maintain (even entrench) the status quo because it gives them an easily manipulated voter base and a clear enemy to rally against.
Having said that, the US is quite a specific case and the truth is that the current approach of the left doesn't seem to work there. Progress is being made, but as an outsider, there seems to be too much partisanship on both sides. Too much us versus them. There is as much derogatory and hostile attitude in the left leaning forums as the right leaning ones, with a small sliver of moderates who get lost in the noise.
I can't claim to have a solution to this. The US seems to be a feudal society at this point, where a large portion of the serfs are actively undermining efforts to lift them from their serfdom, and a large portion of the liberators consider the serfs uneducated peasants who refuse to accept what's good for them. They are both led by a political elite whose incentives are to maintain (even entrench) the status quo because it gives them an easily manipulated voter base and a clear enemy to rally against.
The only flaw I see in your analysis is that you seem to believe Europe is better off in any way. Feudalism is making a resurgence all over the west.
Sure, from a persuasion point of view I agree. But from a "trying to understand another human" point of view, I'd recommend you to read the Wikipedia page on ethics [1]. My own education on the topic: a course in college (as a business student) and watching some of the Harvard lectures on ethics [0]. IMO ethics courses teaches people to gain a more fine-grained vocabulary on explaining their own positions and understanding other's positions.
GP clearly uses a deontological line of thinking on this matter. Something that GP considers to be "inhuman and barbaric" invokes a line of thinking in where he/she believes one ought to not do a certain action, because it simply is wrong.
I'm not the best at explaining deontological ethics, nor are the people who think like this. My point is: a lot of thought has gone into the types of statements that GP makes, and IMO it's worth thinking about.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
GP clearly uses a deontological line of thinking on this matter. Something that GP considers to be "inhuman and barbaric" invokes a line of thinking in where he/she believes one ought to not do a certain action, because it simply is wrong.
I'm not the best at explaining deontological ethics, nor are the people who think like this. My point is: a lot of thought has gone into the types of statements that GP makes, and IMO it's worth thinking about.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
The trap you are both falling into is the thought that political discussions centre around trying to understand the other persons point of view. It is almost always the other way around, one person trying to persuade an unwilling party that they are wrong. So as the poster said, as right as you are, you would still lose the political argument if that was how you tried to argue for your view.
You can be correct all day long and change nothing, or you can be persuasive and meet them in their thought bubble to coerce them toward aligning with your views. You can't just pop their world view with statements of fact, because they may very well think your fact is wrong. In this case not everyone believes the death penalty is immoral, so if your only argument is "the death penalty is immoral" you will change nothing.
You can be correct all day long and change nothing, or you can be persuasive and meet them in their thought bubble to coerce them toward aligning with your views. You can't just pop their world view with statements of fact, because they may very well think your fact is wrong. In this case not everyone believes the death penalty is immoral, so if your only argument is "the death penalty is immoral" you will change nothing.
It’s all good and well to try and persuade someone, but like the GP sometimes I like to simply state my ideological viewpoint. The problem with narrowly arguing based on someone else’s ideals, is that any agreement isn’t a true meeting of the minds.
For example people, once tried to end the deal then penalty by talking about to pain involved in hanging. Proponents agreed and eventually came up with the electric chair, then lethal injection. No pain, no problem right?
If we talk about innocents killed, proponents will add stricter guidelines, and allow for more appeals, or even say that the crime must have been videotaped in front of a crowd of witnesses. We might end up with a death penalty that applies to the likes of Derek Chauvin alone, but it’ll still be a death penalty.
For example people, once tried to end the deal then penalty by talking about to pain involved in hanging. Proponents agreed and eventually came up with the electric chair, then lethal injection. No pain, no problem right?
If we talk about innocents killed, proponents will add stricter guidelines, and allow for more appeals, or even say that the crime must have been videotaped in front of a crowd of witnesses. We might end up with a death penalty that applies to the likes of Derek Chauvin alone, but it’ll still be a death penalty.
That's called a compromise, right? Reducing the pain involved and increasing the burden of proof required are both concrete, positive reforms, even if it doesn't completely resolve the issue.
Let's just kill fewer innocent people and it's fine right? Why won't you compromise with us?!
You can laugh all you want, but killing fewer innocent people is in fact a good thing. If you can't see the value in that, then politics is not for you :)
I think we should celebrate that kind of incremental progress so long as it's not progress towards some kind of inescapable local minimum. And even in that case, it just becomes more complicated, not obviously wrong either.
I think we should celebrate that kind of incremental progress so long as it's not progress towards some kind of inescapable local minimum. And even in that case, it just becomes more complicated, not obviously wrong either.
Reducing the number of innocent deaths is an improvement. It doesn't feel like it's worth patting yourself on the back over reducing the number of unnecessary deaths cause when the process itself should be eliminated. I reject the idea that "politics" means negotiating over how much completely unnecessary human suffering is acceptable because we have to compromise with the people who want humans to suffer for one reason or another. Not every issue has two sides. Sometimes people and ideas and practices are simply wrong.
> Sometimes people and ideas and practices are simply wrong.
Of course, and I agree with you on this particular issue. All I mean is that if we can act today to chip away at the problem rather than just talking about the ideals, that's good, and in a democracy, that's what we accept as we work towards the ideal.
> It doesn't feel like it's worth patting yourself on the back over reducing the number of unnecessary deaths cause when the process itself should be eliminated.
Life's too short, I'm happy to celebrate progress. I'm proud to see the end of it in my home state of Virginia this year, even if it's not nationally outlawed.
Of course, and I agree with you on this particular issue. All I mean is that if we can act today to chip away at the problem rather than just talking about the ideals, that's good, and in a democracy, that's what we accept as we work towards the ideal.
> It doesn't feel like it's worth patting yourself on the back over reducing the number of unnecessary deaths cause when the process itself should be eliminated.
Life's too short, I'm happy to celebrate progress. I'm proud to see the end of it in my home state of Virginia this year, even if it's not nationally outlawed.
"You're a bad person if you disagree with me" is a great way to never get what you want. It's not simply stating your position, it's anti-persuasion whether you want it to be or not.
That’s kind of the point.
Saying “you’re a bad person if you disagree with me” draws a line in the sand that precludes civil disagreement and picks a fight. Most people like to avoid conflict, and any possible counterargument to “you’re a bad person” inevitably comes across as defensive.
In other words, the tactic is to bully the opposition into shutting up. And it works very well.
Saying “you’re a bad person if you disagree with me” draws a line in the sand that precludes civil disagreement and picks a fight. Most people like to avoid conflict, and any possible counterargument to “you’re a bad person” inevitably comes across as defensive.
In other words, the tactic is to bully the opposition into shutting up. And it works very well.
Sounds like we're in agreement that it's a tactic to shut the opposition up while ensuring we keep killing people indefinitely.
I do agree with you, I think we're also kind of discussing two separate points. Of course just stating how you truly feel is perfectly fine, I don't disagree with that at all. A meeting of the minds as you put it requires people are candid, agreement and compromise isn't really required for that kind of discussion.
Additionally we're also discussing whether or not that approach can be effective at bringing in good policy, and I think that's often not the case. A hard stance with a binary argument is just very difficult to work with, you end up giving the opponent no opportunity to compromise and so they don't, you end up with no policy being written and things don't change.
Policy making is very intentionally an attempt to make a vast array of different views from across a nation coalesce into something that can be made into law, so it requires compromise.
Additionally we're also discussing whether or not that approach can be effective at bringing in good policy, and I think that's often not the case. A hard stance with a binary argument is just very difficult to work with, you end up giving the opponent no opportunity to compromise and so they don't, you end up with no policy being written and things don't change.
Policy making is very intentionally an attempt to make a vast array of different views from across a nation coalesce into something that can be made into law, so it requires compromise.
Persuasion in the current bipolar political environment is way overrated.
You're not going to persuade a Q follower or BLM protester about the opposing viewpoint.
Polemics in this realm are far more effective.
You're not going to persuade a Q follower or BLM protester about the opposing viewpoint.
Polemics in this realm are far more effective.
Society, businesses and families fail when there is no ground truth, right or wrong, historical knowledge and are based on the most recent FUD or feelgoodery.
Arguments and negotiations need to have common grounds on how thing are interpreted. Else the most immoral person flourishes.
Me following this US debate from the other side of the world I mostly see it framed as “the innocent people getting killed” and not the “immoral to kill” debate as per this article. I don’s see it getting anywhere.
Arguments and negotiations need to have common grounds on how thing are interpreted. Else the most immoral person flourishes.
Me following this US debate from the other side of the world I mostly see it framed as “the innocent people getting killed” and not the “immoral to kill” debate as per this article. I don’s see it getting anywhere.
I don't think anybody really supports/opposes the death penalty because of a rational analysis of facts and statistics. It's usually an emotive decision - the notion that "revenge must be taken" or that "life is sacrosanct". These are pretty core parts of people's identity and it is hard for them to let go.
Either way, stories (e.g. miscarriages of justice by an uncaring state) are likely a more effective way to convince in this controversy, not statistics:
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/02/23/why-is-it-so-hard-to-pe...
Either way, stories (e.g. miscarriages of justice by an uncaring state) are likely a more effective way to convince in this controversy, not statistics:
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/02/23/why-is-it-so-hard-to-pe...
I don't want to kill someone. I don't know if or why a person became a murderer.
It could be their upbringing which should be the responsibility of the society and clearly the society failed.
It could be a medical issue. A biological one.
It could be that the murderer did nothing wrong in their worldview.
We have to understand this as a society. We have to teach it if people don't understand it.
It could be their upbringing which should be the responsibility of the society and clearly the society failed.
It could be a medical issue. A biological one.
It could be that the murderer did nothing wrong in their worldview.
We have to understand this as a society. We have to teach it if people don't understand it.
That's fine, just understand that your moral intuition isn't universal.
If there were some device (which doesn't exist and maybe can't) which simply lights up with perfect accuracy when pointed at someone who tortured someone before murdering them, I would support instant execution of that person by firing squad.
I'm not willing to accept a 4% error rate however. I'm not sure how low it would have to go, but it's lower than it plausibly can.
This isn't some kind of lack of "understanding" on my part, and you're not going to "teach" me to feel the same way about this issue as you do. We have different values. So you'll have to content yourself with my being on the same side of the policy question for different reasons.
If there were some device (which doesn't exist and maybe can't) which simply lights up with perfect accuracy when pointed at someone who tortured someone before murdering them, I would support instant execution of that person by firing squad.
I'm not willing to accept a 4% error rate however. I'm not sure how low it would have to go, but it's lower than it plausibly can.
This isn't some kind of lack of "understanding" on my part, and you're not going to "teach" me to feel the same way about this issue as you do. We have different values. So you'll have to content yourself with my being on the same side of the policy question for different reasons.
I thought about this topic for decades now.when I was 16 I thought you should murder a murderer.
I thought a lot about moral and ethics, the balance between being right and no right exists.
So I do believe your thinking can and might change in the future.
Your torture example still ignores the history of the torturer. Would you like to be killed after this from a society which had it easier and better then you and did not help you? Is that really fair to anyone?
Do you believe in a god? Would you assume jesus would let you in after that? (I'm not religious, I do think so that either it's a good god and it doesn't matter believing in her but your actions)
Do you believe that we are in a simulation? What if you wake up in your next life as a murderer?
There are so many potential thoughts which we haven't thought through that removing a murderer from society to prison is the best choice we have as long as it is a prison who tries to rehabilitate a person.
I thought a lot about moral and ethics, the balance between being right and no right exists.
So I do believe your thinking can and might change in the future.
Your torture example still ignores the history of the torturer. Would you like to be killed after this from a society which had it easier and better then you and did not help you? Is that really fair to anyone?
Do you believe in a god? Would you assume jesus would let you in after that? (I'm not religious, I do think so that either it's a good god and it doesn't matter believing in her but your actions)
Do you believe that we are in a simulation? What if you wake up in your next life as a murderer?
There are so many potential thoughts which we haven't thought through that removing a murderer from society to prison is the best choice we have as long as it is a prison who tries to rehabilitate a person.
I don't know how anyone can acknowledge that moral intuitions aren't universal while simultaneously believing their moral intuition can be used to justify the death penalty.
Why do you think that the left and intellectuals ‘more widely fail at winning politically’?
I’m not even sure what that is intended to mean - specifically the bit about intellectuals.
I’m not even sure what that is intended to mean - specifically the bit about intellectuals.
I think it would be fair to interpret that as "failing to change as many minds as they could"
I’m not trying to win an argument, just stating what I believe.
> Even discussing other factors arguments and considerations dilutes the core point...
Fair enough, I understand that those are your beliefs (they are mine too) but you'd be surprised how poorly they hold up in the real world against the testimonies of victims of some truly horrific crimes.
But from the sound of it you would prefer to weaken the case for abolishing the death penalty for the sake of making a more general point around the sanctity of life that, in the long run, will achieve...what exactly?
Fair enough, I understand that those are your beliefs (they are mine too) but you'd be surprised how poorly they hold up in the real world against the testimonies of victims of some truly horrific crimes.
But from the sound of it you would prefer to weaken the case for abolishing the death penalty for the sake of making a more general point around the sanctity of life that, in the long run, will achieve...what exactly?
That's not really what "justification" is. I go through life assuming that only my mother and other loved ones care what I believe as such. Other people care about the arguments that I can make, with a bonus if I can make them using premises that they already accept.
An argument is what it will boil down to because there will be a group of people who don't believe that it is "inhuman and barbaric". For the record - I agree with you, but I also recognize there are people who do not agree with us.
That means you are more interested in stating what you believe than winning an argument that will save innocent lives?
That's fair enough, but he's pointing out the consequences of your beliefs. The crux of the objection is that you position yourself in opposition to the discussion of any other justification for abolishing the death penalty; it is not that the death penalty must be abolished, but that it must be abolished for a specific correct reason. This presents a relationship between the death penalty and your beliefs where it seems to your audience that you wish to abolish the death penalty not due to any urgency regarding its consequences, but because of your insistence on imposing your will on others.
Let's assume the "innocent people get killed" argument abolishes death penalty today. What are the second-order effects of that argument which can be detrimental to the society that you can think of?
Actually, the counter-argument is "innocent people get killed by already convincted murderer that went out of jail"...
ECONOMICS: Another counter-argument is "the society pay for the whole life of the jailed murderer, so it's a cost paid by the society for something that broke society laws"
And then another argument is "a murderer may prefer to be killed than to be kept in jail for the rest of his life".
Actually, there's a whole philosophical debate around all this: what is the role of the sanction ? Is it revenge from breaking society laws ? Is it revenge from the victim ? Can someone that broke society laws (even in murder case) be changed by the jail time and come back to the society as a good citizen or are some crimes the mark that this people are forever lost to the society ?
I'm against the death penalty. I'm french so we don't have it since 1980. And we don't really have "forever jail": it's 20 years I think and can even be shortened if prisoner show in jail that he's ready to come back to society (except if it would be a trouble for the society). As a consequence, there's from time to time a convicted criminal, out of jail after a reduced time, that kill/rape someone again. And each time, there's a public discussion about this...
ECONOMICS: Another counter-argument is "the society pay for the whole life of the jailed murderer, so it's a cost paid by the society for something that broke society laws"
And then another argument is "a murderer may prefer to be killed than to be kept in jail for the rest of his life".
Actually, there's a whole philosophical debate around all this: what is the role of the sanction ? Is it revenge from breaking society laws ? Is it revenge from the victim ? Can someone that broke society laws (even in murder case) be changed by the jail time and come back to the society as a good citizen or are some crimes the mark that this people are forever lost to the society ?
I'm against the death penalty. I'm french so we don't have it since 1980. And we don't really have "forever jail": it's 20 years I think and can even be shortened if prisoner show in jail that he's ready to come back to society (except if it would be a trouble for the society). As a consequence, there's from time to time a convicted criminal, out of jail after a reduced time, that kill/rape someone again. And each time, there's a public discussion about this...
> And we don't really have "forever jail": it's 20 years I think and can even be shortened if prisoner show in jail that he's ready to come back to society (except if it would be a trouble for the society).
20 year is the maximum required in case of non-premeditated murder (or manslaughter on minor i think).
In some cases (murder of a minor, group manslaughter of a state agent, premeditated murder of a state agent and one other case i can't remember), the criminal can be given "incompressible" perpetuity. After a minimum of 30 year, on a judge decision (often because the murderer is dying or very, very old), the "incompressible" part can get shafted.
Also death penalty is expensive. More than keeping prisonners locked up.
20 year is the maximum required in case of non-premeditated murder (or manslaughter on minor i think).
In some cases (murder of a minor, group manslaughter of a state agent, premeditated murder of a state agent and one other case i can't remember), the criminal can be given "incompressible" perpetuity. After a minimum of 30 year, on a judge decision (often because the murderer is dying or very, very old), the "incompressible" part can get shafted.
Also death penalty is expensive. More than keeping prisonners locked up.
> Actually, the counter-argument is "innocent people get killed by already convincted murderer that went out of jail"...
Counter-argument to what? Surely not counter-argument to the death penalty since "releasing people" is not the alternative to the death penalty, life imprisonment is.
Counter-argument to what? Surely not counter-argument to the death penalty since "releasing people" is not the alternative to the death penalty, life imprisonment is.
Well, none, we have plenty of evidence that there's none. Almost all the countries that have implemented it have lower homicide rates than the US. Usually significantly lower.
Obviously there's probably also various other reasons for that too, like they usually also have heavily restricted gun ownership, but there's certainly no evidence that abolishing the death penalty has adverse effects.
Obviously there's probably also various other reasons for that too, like they usually also have heavily restricted gun ownership, but there's certainly no evidence that abolishing the death penalty has adverse effects.
I'm curious, what do you think those would be?
> arguments that are amenable even to people who disagree on the fundamentals
Now I'm not sure what you think fundamental, but I am pretty sure that "murder" is a something the other side understands.
The irony in this is iron clad. It is also hyperbole, because this is an internet comment, not a political debate.
Now I'm not sure what you think fundamental, but I am pretty sure that "murder" is a something the other side understands.
The irony in this is iron clad. It is also hyperbole, because this is an internet comment, not a political debate.
[deleted]
The left is getting more votes and it seems like leftist ideas do well in polls. So when it comes to ability to convince people about issues, they actually do well.
Also, I don't really see equivalent expectation routinely placed on right - they are not expected to proactively make compromises on their own heads before they even state position.
Also, I don't really see equivalent expectation routinely placed on right - they are not expected to proactively make compromises on their own heads before they even state position.
> you would rather retain the moral high-ground by refusing even to debate on their terms
Everyone has a moral high-ground that isn't debatable.
The right does this as well for it's issues such as abortion.
Left or Right, everyone thinks there is some moral high ground that's not debatable. Everyone has some line that they don't think should be crossed.
Everyone has a moral high-ground that isn't debatable.
The right does this as well for it's issues such as abortion.
Left or Right, everyone thinks there is some moral high ground that's not debatable. Everyone has some line that they don't think should be crossed.
This argument is useless because what inhuman and barbaric my means depends on your belief system. Abortion is inhuman and barbaric to significant % of the population and death penalty isn't. They use murder argument as well. Of course death penalty is not murder nor is abortion if you're honest about what the word means but here we are with those absolute statements about ethics.
If we just use this argument and don't try to establish general principles we end up with a pointless shouting contest.
For once I think the death penalty is at least worth considering from the utilitarian point of view (in our current system the consensus is that it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life though but it might change in the future) as well as from revenge/restitution point of view as a lot of people strongly think someone doing deliberate great harm deserves to be killed.
One way or another it's not simple from either ethical nor practical point of view. Personally I consider death penalty as desirable penalty for some crimes but I would never vote for it as I have no faith in our politicians being able to implement it in a fair way and flawed justice system not to abuse it.
If we just use this argument and don't try to establish general principles we end up with a pointless shouting contest.
For once I think the death penalty is at least worth considering from the utilitarian point of view (in our current system the consensus is that it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life though but it might change in the future) as well as from revenge/restitution point of view as a lot of people strongly think someone doing deliberate great harm deserves to be killed.
One way or another it's not simple from either ethical nor practical point of view. Personally I consider death penalty as desirable penalty for some crimes but I would never vote for it as I have no faith in our politicians being able to implement it in a fair way and flawed justice system not to abuse it.
Opposition to abortion and capital punishment is pretty basic moral reasoning and really not challenging. The premise is killing innocent human beings is wrong. In the case of abortion the innocence of the person being killed is assured. In the case of capital punishment that’s not necessarily true, but since we can’t truly know for certain the convict isn’t innocent we ought to err on the side of caution to avoid the possibility of killing an innocent person.
It’s odd to me how controversial both issues are when the moral reasoning required is so easy. Taking any other position requires denying the premise that it’s wrong to destroy innocent human life. One can, but accepting that has some very nasty consequences.
It’s odd to me how controversial both issues are when the moral reasoning required is so easy. Taking any other position requires denying the premise that it’s wrong to destroy innocent human life. One can, but accepting that has some very nasty consequences.
You're wrong about it being easy, that's why it doesn't make sense to you.
There are many ethical systems in which both death penalty and abortion are justified.
Death penalty is any easy one. It was considered to be a proper penalty for various crimes for most of the human history in many cultures. It just takes understanding of ethical values of those cultures to understand why it was justified.
Your argument about taking innocent human life is a naive one. We do a lot of things that cost innocent human lives. Allowing diesel cars in cities cost more innocent lives than all death penalties in the history of humanity combined and it's not a small difference.
It's about tradeoffs and priorities. It's natural for a tribe or state to kill for treason for example as disincentivizing treason is more important (saves more lives, prevents suffering and destruction of your countrymen) than occasional mistake. Putting long term survival and well being of your society is more important than individual lives.
Our wealth clouds the picture so well. If it was required of everyone one to spend addition 20 hours a week providing food and shelter for a murderer atop of all the work we need to put into getting food and shelter for ourselves and our families you would be very quick to accept death penalty instead. As the choices would be about caring for your family and making sure the murderer doesn't die in custody. Today we can arguably afford it but if that's the argument then we already agree it's about tradeoffs and where the exact line is not obvious.
Even if you don't agree you can at least see it's a justified view. It's all about tradeoffs.
Death penalty is any easy one. It was considered to be a proper penalty for various crimes for most of the human history in many cultures. It just takes understanding of ethical values of those cultures to understand why it was justified.
Your argument about taking innocent human life is a naive one. We do a lot of things that cost innocent human lives. Allowing diesel cars in cities cost more innocent lives than all death penalties in the history of humanity combined and it's not a small difference.
It's about tradeoffs and priorities. It's natural for a tribe or state to kill for treason for example as disincentivizing treason is more important (saves more lives, prevents suffering and destruction of your countrymen) than occasional mistake. Putting long term survival and well being of your society is more important than individual lives.
Our wealth clouds the picture so well. If it was required of everyone one to spend addition 20 hours a week providing food and shelter for a murderer atop of all the work we need to put into getting food and shelter for ourselves and our families you would be very quick to accept death penalty instead. As the choices would be about caring for your family and making sure the murderer doesn't die in custody. Today we can arguably afford it but if that's the argument then we already agree it's about tradeoffs and where the exact line is not obvious.
Even if you don't agree you can at least see it's a justified view. It's all about tradeoffs.
Right, despite mostly common human emotions (justice, reciprocity, etc), specific moral beliefs are normative and vary wildly by upbringing, religion, and political persuasion.
I think there is a somewhat reasonable argument that a punishment should mirror the crime, and any less than inhuman and barbaric to the inhuman and barbaric lacks actual justice?
I’m not saying I agree, I don’t personally support the death sentence, but if you’re actually interested in changing peoples minds it’s good to know where they’re coming from, and why they may not find your argument compelling.
I personally find the posts argument far more compelling.
I’m not saying I agree, I don’t personally support the death sentence, but if you’re actually interested in changing peoples minds it’s good to know where they’re coming from, and why they may not find your argument compelling.
I personally find the posts argument far more compelling.
You can never 'match' the crime. Even if you go justicing around 'an eye for an eye' style, the perp will always have taken the initiative. You can never get that back. Everything you do is just a reaction.
That is what makes crime so heinous.
So your focus should be prevention at any cost first and foremost, then justice as prevention (= rehabilitation) as well. Murdering a murderer is pretty solid prevention though, I give you that.
That is what makes crime so heinous.
So your focus should be prevention at any cost first and foremost, then justice as prevention (= rehabilitation) as well. Murdering a murderer is pretty solid prevention though, I give you that.
> You can never get that back. Everything you do is just a reaction.
Yes, but you can try. I can see why the loved ones of a murdered person feel someone is 'getting away' when he is still alive. Killing them feels much more like payback.
I don't that this does reasonably make sense, but I can understand where they are coming from.
Yes, but you can try. I can see why the loved ones of a murdered person feel someone is 'getting away' when he is still alive. Killing them feels much more like payback.
I don't that this does reasonably make sense, but I can understand where they are coming from.
As the loved one of a murdered person, I can speak to this. Nothing will bring back my loved one. Nothing. Gone forever. A hole left unfilled for eternity. Executing her killer won't bring her back. It won't help anyone "heal" or "find solace" or any other words that politicians use.
> Killing them feels much more like payback
I'm sure many find that it didn't feel like it at all, because of my argumentation. Payback will always be incomplete. It can never be paid in full.
Even if you kill someone over and over again (some Sci-Fi comes to mind), the perp always took the first step and elevated his role in society unjustly.
I'm sure many find that it didn't feel like it at all, because of my argumentation. Payback will always be incomplete. It can never be paid in full.
Even if you kill someone over and over again (some Sci-Fi comes to mind), the perp always took the first step and elevated his role in society unjustly.
Lack of punishment can lead to more crime if people lose faith in the system. To take it to an extreme, if murder were punished with only a fine then victim families would just hire assassins to kill off a murderer if they feel the fine doesn’t suffice.
I'm not from the US, so my knowledge on the death penalty is quite limited. But I clicked on a link posted below listing executions in Texas, and I was shocked to see that the most recent execution was last year for a crime committed back in 1993. Why?? You've already locked the guy up for almost three decades, what possible benefit is there to executing him now?
I get that he ruined (well, ended) someones life, but what does society gain from ruining his life in turn, to the point of what feels like mental torture: Being locked up for such a long time, all the while knowing that you will eventually just be executed.
I get that he ruined (well, ended) someones life, but what does society gain from ruining his life in turn, to the point of what feels like mental torture: Being locked up for such a long time, all the while knowing that you will eventually just be executed.
It's the result of a decades-long lawfare campaign by anti-death penalty activists. The more protracted and expensive it is to carry out the death penalty, the easier it is to argue for abolishing it on the practical grounds of cost rather than convincing Americans of the ethical case. A rather messed up byproduct of this is cases like the one you highlight, where the convicted person is left on death row for decades as they make hail-mary appeals.
[deleted]
> but what does society gain from ruining his life in turn, to the point of what feels like mental torture: Being locked up for such a long time, all the while knowing that you will eventually just be executed.
From what I gather on Americans' comments about this over the years it's mostly about "not spending taxpayer money" to house, feed and take care of criminals that received a death penalty.
I don't know how true this argument can be given all the costs over decades associated with a death penalty judgment (appeals, preparation for death row, maintaining death rows, etc.)
Quick edit after reading the thread a bit more, an example of what I mentioned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26900987
From what I gather on Americans' comments about this over the years it's mostly about "not spending taxpayer money" to house, feed and take care of criminals that received a death penalty.
I don't know how true this argument can be given all the costs over decades associated with a death penalty judgment (appeals, preparation for death row, maintaining death rows, etc.)
Quick edit after reading the thread a bit more, an example of what I mentioned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26900987
The death penalty used to be much faster. But through a series of laws and court rulings starting in the 1970's, they decided that the case has to go through a super long sequence of appeals and court proceedings, with the intent of making doubly triply extra sure we're not executing innocent people.
People themselves choose death over long prison sentences [1]. Which is less humane is a matter of perspective.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
Doesn't that exact same argument work as well when applied to jailing people? It's wrong if I kidnap someone and keep them confined for years in a small room, so how can it not be wrong for the state to do it in the name of the law?
Moreover life imprisonment is far more of a punishment. The individual has to get up every day and contemplate what they have done - with no way to end that other than the passage of time and the hope of commutation.
If you're from a part of the world where the death penalty was consigned to history decades ago, it's quite astonishing that a supposedly civilised nation would defend it.
The USA has some odd hangups.
If you're from a part of the world where the death penalty was consigned to history decades ago, it's quite astonishing that a supposedly civilised nation would defend it.
The USA has some odd hangups.
This comment is internally inconsistent-- favoring a more barbaric penalty of life incarceration does not mean a nation has a higher morality.
That is not a helpful argument. It certainly is inhuman and barbaric, but is it less inhuman and barbaric than the alternatives?
Criminals sentenced to death are supposed to be a danger to society so great that the only solution is to eliminate them. So, typical trolley problem: is it better to kill a criminal or let him go, potentially resulting in the death or several more innocent victims. Prison for life is another option, but is permanently restraining someone and endangering guards and other inmates a good alternative?
So yes, other justifications are needed. And the article gives one.
Criminals sentenced to death are supposed to be a danger to society so great that the only solution is to eliminate them. So, typical trolley problem: is it better to kill a criminal or let him go, potentially resulting in the death or several more innocent victims. Prison for life is another option, but is permanently restraining someone and endangering guards and other inmates a good alternative?
So yes, other justifications are needed. And the article gives one.
If the only reason we sentence people to death were because it is more humane than putting them in prison for life, then it would be given as an option to the prisoner. I don't know of any case of someone sentenced to life in prison who argued they would rather be put to death.
Edit: I've now done some research and found some death-row-inmates do express a preference for a death sentence:
https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/09/25/why-death-row-inmates-...
https://www.quora.com/Is-prison-crueller-than-the-death-pena...
http://www.bu.edu/pilj/files/2015/09/17-2SmithArticle.pdf
Edit: I've now done some research and found some death-row-inmates do express a preference for a death sentence:
https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/09/25/why-death-row-inmates-...
https://www.quora.com/Is-prison-crueller-than-the-death-pena...
http://www.bu.edu/pilj/files/2015/09/17-2SmithArticle.pdf
I think the state legitimately reserves for itself the right to resort to lethal force. National defence and effective policing can require violence when necessary.
The key issue for me is necessity. It is not necessary to execute criminals, even murderers. I do have sympathy for the view that murderers deserve death, maybe many of them do, but then you get into drawing lines between cases that deserve death and ones that don't. Is the evidence in this case good enough to kill, but this one the evidence is only good enough to incarcerate. It politicises the judicial and criminal justice system. So I oppose the death penalty not because it's barbaric or morally wrong per se, but because it introduces moral hazard that compromises the system.
We can see this in the US where prosecutors fight tooth and nail to preserve convictions and ensure convicts get executed largely in order to protect the system of executions from the embarrassment of death row inmates getting exonerated. Defending the system becomes more important than serving justice.
As a Brit I think politicisation is the thing that concerns me most about the US justice system. Elected prosecutors, elected judges, the politicisation of executions I described above. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but comparatively speaking all that just isn't a thing over here at all. Political debate on criminal justice is focused on laws and the administration of policing. That's really about it. It's not like we don't have miscarriages of justice, our system is far from perfect but it's mainly sees as being independent and professionalised.
The key issue for me is necessity. It is not necessary to execute criminals, even murderers. I do have sympathy for the view that murderers deserve death, maybe many of them do, but then you get into drawing lines between cases that deserve death and ones that don't. Is the evidence in this case good enough to kill, but this one the evidence is only good enough to incarcerate. It politicises the judicial and criminal justice system. So I oppose the death penalty not because it's barbaric or morally wrong per se, but because it introduces moral hazard that compromises the system.
We can see this in the US where prosecutors fight tooth and nail to preserve convictions and ensure convicts get executed largely in order to protect the system of executions from the embarrassment of death row inmates getting exonerated. Defending the system becomes more important than serving justice.
As a Brit I think politicisation is the thing that concerns me most about the US justice system. Elected prosecutors, elected judges, the politicisation of executions I described above. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but comparatively speaking all that just isn't a thing over here at all. Political debate on criminal justice is focused on laws and the administration of policing. That's really about it. It's not like we don't have miscarriages of justice, our system is far from perfect but it's mainly sees as being independent and professionalised.
What if the criminal is extremely wealthy and powerful and can continue to exert his influence even from within prison (and possibly have a corrupting influence on prison guards)? This actually happens with cartel heads and crime syndicate leaders...
Most such criminals are likely to be imprisoned for crimes other than murder, so you're going to have the problem anyway. Better to address the actual issue rather than use it as an excuse.
> I think no other justification is needed to end the death penalty than “it’s inhuman and barbaric”.
Thing is, most of the time, people who are subject to the death penalty are there because they did “inhuman and barbaric” acts.
It is kind of like the paradox of tolerance. For society to prosper, you need to punish inhuman and barbaric acts, or at least isolate people who do that from society. However, such punishment is likely inhuman and barbaric at least on some level. Limiting a persons freedom of movement and interaction is inhuman and barbaric.
In addition, by not having the death penalty, you are subjecting others to have to deal with the person who did the inhuman and barbaric acts, whether other inmates or guards.
I am of the opinion that there are some acts that are so heinous that a person should never be a part of human society again. In that case, rather than prolonged human isolation, which is actually barbaric in and of itself, I think it is actually more humane to end their life. It does not have to gruesome or painful, no more than euthanizing a beloved pet with a terminal condition has to be gruesome. But some acts are incompatible with ever being a member of human society in any form.
Edit:
In addition, there are a lot of stuff that could be considered inhuman and barbaric but we do them for what we think as the good of society.
Spaying and neutering your pet sounds inhuman and barbaric.
Modern surgery, especially cancer surgery where they remove large margins of apparently healthy looking tissue, could be considered inhuman and barbaric.
In the Middle Ages, dissecting dead human bodies was considered inhuman and barbaric.
So the fact that a person sees something as inhuman and barbaric really is not overwhelming evidence if something should be done.
Thing is, most of the time, people who are subject to the death penalty are there because they did “inhuman and barbaric” acts.
It is kind of like the paradox of tolerance. For society to prosper, you need to punish inhuman and barbaric acts, or at least isolate people who do that from society. However, such punishment is likely inhuman and barbaric at least on some level. Limiting a persons freedom of movement and interaction is inhuman and barbaric.
In addition, by not having the death penalty, you are subjecting others to have to deal with the person who did the inhuman and barbaric acts, whether other inmates or guards.
I am of the opinion that there are some acts that are so heinous that a person should never be a part of human society again. In that case, rather than prolonged human isolation, which is actually barbaric in and of itself, I think it is actually more humane to end their life. It does not have to gruesome or painful, no more than euthanizing a beloved pet with a terminal condition has to be gruesome. But some acts are incompatible with ever being a member of human society in any form.
Edit:
In addition, there are a lot of stuff that could be considered inhuman and barbaric but we do them for what we think as the good of society.
Spaying and neutering your pet sounds inhuman and barbaric.
Modern surgery, especially cancer surgery where they remove large margins of apparently healthy looking tissue, could be considered inhuman and barbaric.
In the Middle Ages, dissecting dead human bodies was considered inhuman and barbaric.
So the fact that a person sees something as inhuman and barbaric really is not overwhelming evidence if something should be done.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's inhuman and barbaric to sentence criminals to death penalty (usually very quick less painful), and yet, the usually much worse criminal acts (cold-blood torturing, mass murdering, beheadings, etc.) that they ACTUALLY conducted on other completely innocent human beings are just not inhuman and barbaric and unethical enough for you to the point that you think it is not even worth discussing and a no-brainer to forgive. This is why the crimes are on the rise in this world, and justice is not being enforced by law due to the hypocritical "empathy" for the real criminals.
[deleted]
That's simply a logical fallacy: P => Q does not imply (not P) => (not Q). Here:
"If it is inaccurate, then it is wrong" does not imply "If it is accurate, then it is right."
[deleted]
In-human; what does this mean? It has been a human condition throughout all ages to kill each other. So by basic observation one could easily conclude it is human to kill each other. Fortunately what has developed over the ages is a framework or legal system for reasons to do so as apposed to just the whim of one individual.
Countries regularly kill others in the name of international laws about the preservation of peace and security. This has been the case since at least the Second World War, when many countries allied together to crush the Nazis and Imperial Japan. This was wholesale killing on a global scale for the sake of preventing certain states from doing more of their own vast killing while breaking many international norms, agreements and laws. Much of it was unjust, yes, but would you argue that an absolutist stance of it being wrong to kill others in the name of the law justified doing nothing while these ruthless empires conquered more territory and enslaved millions more people into a slow death?
Or how about self defense? If a person is protecting their lawful rights, home, property and family and in the process must kill an aggressor to do these things, should they just not do so out of a certain absolute ethical posture about the wrongness of killing other human beings? Just to clarify where your own fundamental posture on killing in the name of the law this draws some lines or exceptions.
Or how about self defense? If a person is protecting their lawful rights, home, property and family and in the process must kill an aggressor to do these things, should they just not do so out of a certain absolute ethical posture about the wrongness of killing other human beings? Just to clarify where your own fundamental posture on killing in the name of the law this draws some lines or exceptions.
That's a philosophical point. In most areas of legal justice, the penalty exacted for transgressions far exceeds the damages. That is to say, the man who steals a hundred dollars or who punches someone in the face loses far more value from his life as punishment than he caused someone else to lose. A life for a life is a rather mild punishment compared to the rest of the justice system, especially considering the death penalty is typically meted out for multiple brutal murders, often preceded by torture and rape. A just world would have these monsters subjected to the same nightmare to which they treated the innocent.
However, I agree with Paul. The fact that anyone not guilty of the crime is executed is unacceptable, to say nothing of the startlingly bad accuracy of the system in practice.
However, I agree with Paul. The fact that anyone not guilty of the crime is executed is unacceptable, to say nothing of the startlingly bad accuracy of the system in practice.
Ouch: things are not so clear-cut. What happens on a small ship?
Improper or mistaken convictions, where reasonable oversight would have detected the error, are barbaric. If you want barbarism, you can find plenty in the way the criminal justice system is run for all offenders.
Prison is inhumane and barbaric, and has the opposite of the intended effect most of the time. Many ex-cons have become hardened criminals through their time on the inside, and even for those who haven't and want to reintegrate productively, the outside world does its best to prevent reintegration.
How many innocent people are killed in prison, not by the state, or have their lives ruined? You can say as long as they're alive there's hope they'll achieve something and be happy, but statistically those prospects are dimmer every year they spend inside.
The only remaining good thing prison does is keep bad people from causing problems in society for some number of years. Which is the same thing the death penalty does.
I don't know if the most productive way to use political capital to reform the criminal justice system is to abolish the death penalty. Unjustified state-sanctioned death might be terrible, but so are things like the drug war which probably do more aggregate harm. In an ideal world we'd get rid of prisons somehow, too.
In addition to ending the drug war and trying to fix neighborhoods that have been broken by it, fixing misaligned incentives for prosecution and law enforcement to prosecute cases would have a massive impact, far greater than any squabbles about the death penalty. Too often the prosecutors and law enforcement have desire to convict someone, and the defendant is the best chance they have, so they go ahead. More neutrality has to be introduced somehow. Judges being allowed to direct questions to witnesses might be a place to start.
Prison is inhumane and barbaric, and has the opposite of the intended effect most of the time. Many ex-cons have become hardened criminals through their time on the inside, and even for those who haven't and want to reintegrate productively, the outside world does its best to prevent reintegration.
How many innocent people are killed in prison, not by the state, or have their lives ruined? You can say as long as they're alive there's hope they'll achieve something and be happy, but statistically those prospects are dimmer every year they spend inside.
The only remaining good thing prison does is keep bad people from causing problems in society for some number of years. Which is the same thing the death penalty does.
I don't know if the most productive way to use political capital to reform the criminal justice system is to abolish the death penalty. Unjustified state-sanctioned death might be terrible, but so are things like the drug war which probably do more aggregate harm. In an ideal world we'd get rid of prisons somehow, too.
In addition to ending the drug war and trying to fix neighborhoods that have been broken by it, fixing misaligned incentives for prosecution and law enforcement to prosecute cases would have a massive impact, far greater than any squabbles about the death penalty. Too often the prosecutors and law enforcement have desire to convict someone, and the defendant is the best chance they have, so they go ahead. More neutrality has to be introduced somehow. Judges being allowed to direct questions to witnesses might be a place to start.
The alternative also being barbaric doesn't make the death penalty less barbaric.
I would rather be killed than spend even 20 years in prison. Technically I might live another 20 years, but I would be very near EOL at that age. Could I get the choice?
If the only argument in favor of the death penalty is that the prison system is inhumane, to the point that someone would rather die than go through it, the answer to that should be to make the prison system more humane.
[deleted]
Death isn't categorically inhumane. There are many circumstances in life that I would choose death over survival. It's barbaric for you to force me, against my will, to keep going through such things.
There are better prison systems in the world than the barbaric ones in America.
Simply put we have better ways to spend money than housing people for 30 years who have inflicted horrific pain on society.
I dont want to work to house, guard, and feed them.
I dont want to work to house, guard, and feed them.
> I dont want to work to house, guard, and feed them.
There have been some political leaders in the past who have said the same about the disabled.
If we give our government the power to premeditatedly kill people merely to reduce the costs to taxpayers, we are stepping down a very dark path.
There have been some political leaders in the past who have said the same about the disabled.
If we give our government the power to premeditatedly kill people merely to reduce the costs to taxpayers, we are stepping down a very dark path.
inhuman and barbaric why? You sound intelligent so go on: why is it inhuman?
> barbaric
Sorry, but that's exactly the kind of world we live in. The world simply is barbaric no matter what we would prefer. When people mess up a little bit, we put them through a process that, despite its massive inadequacy, is intended to rehabilitate them so that they can return to society. The death penalty is for when someone commits a crime so severe that they cannot ever return to society. If you are not able to think of this kind of situation, I suggest you may not be very familiar with the details of truly horrendous crimes. If we don't have the death penalty, we end up in the strange position of housing and feeding and providing medical care for the most harmful people in society at the expense of their victims.
Sorry, but that's exactly the kind of world we live in. The world simply is barbaric no matter what we would prefer. When people mess up a little bit, we put them through a process that, despite its massive inadequacy, is intended to rehabilitate them so that they can return to society. The death penalty is for when someone commits a crime so severe that they cannot ever return to society. If you are not able to think of this kind of situation, I suggest you may not be very familiar with the details of truly horrendous crimes. If we don't have the death penalty, we end up in the strange position of housing and feeding and providing medical care for the most harmful people in society at the expense of their victims.
With this type of argument you attack one of the central tenets of human rights where every human life, no matter what, is worth the same. The moment you define that there are certain crimes where a human life is not the same as other human lives, no matter the reason, you move away from this core tenet.
It's all a matter if you believe in that core piece of universal human rights or not.
It's all a matter if you believe in that core piece of universal human rights or not.
> one of the central tenets of human rights where every human life, no matter what, is worth the same.
You have to define who made up this right. Not everyone will agree. Most people will have boundaries on that no matter what all human lives are the same. Killing someone else on purpose breaks that boundary.
You have to define who made up this right. Not everyone will agree. Most people will have boundaries on that no matter what all human lives are the same. Killing someone else on purpose breaks that boundary.
I think you're sadly mistaken that there's any intent to rehabilitate people "who mess up a little bit." Our criminal justice system is an emotional retributive system. Rehabilitation gets perhaps 1% of the attention it should, and is far outweighed by the inherent brutality of the entire system.
This right here
I think arguing for its abolition on the basis of "the system is bad" is completely valid
> familiar with the details of truly horrendous crimes
And this still happens. And I agree, society is sometimes too tolerant with people who have no business in being in it (which, true, is a much smaller percentage of people on death row)
But don't expect the legal system to try to improve how many innocents they convict.
I think arguing for its abolition on the basis of "the system is bad" is completely valid
> familiar with the details of truly horrendous crimes
And this still happens. And I agree, society is sometimes too tolerant with people who have no business in being in it (which, true, is a much smaller percentage of people on death row)
But don't expect the legal system to try to improve how many innocents they convict.
Its way way way more complex than that. One point is that you have life imprisonment without parole - the same effect of people not coming back to society is achieved. Another one is expense - death row costs AFAIK are higher than life imprisonment, so the harmed society pays even more.
As for truly horrible crimes (which is something else to each of us), there are also tons of different views - do we want to be in society that is above emotional vengeful reactions, and more about compassionate loving ones? Ie like all good christians/muslims/etc are supposed to be according to their holiest books? You have to start somewhere if you even want to get there. You have to be morally strong to act in smart and compassionate way if you want to claim progress of mankind in this area. And so on.
I don't have a clear position on this myself and not stating some higher moral ground, since there are many pros and cons on both sides and quick emotional reaction to some murderous pedophile is as expected. But I am 100% certain that this very topic reveals a lot about mankind and us humans in our progression to be a better species, compared to primitive uneducated masses of the past. Or regression, its up to us.
As for truly horrible crimes (which is something else to each of us), there are also tons of different views - do we want to be in society that is above emotional vengeful reactions, and more about compassionate loving ones? Ie like all good christians/muslims/etc are supposed to be according to their holiest books? You have to start somewhere if you even want to get there. You have to be morally strong to act in smart and compassionate way if you want to claim progress of mankind in this area. And so on.
I don't have a clear position on this myself and not stating some higher moral ground, since there are many pros and cons on both sides and quick emotional reaction to some murderous pedophile is as expected. But I am 100% certain that this very topic reveals a lot about mankind and us humans in our progression to be a better species, compared to primitive uneducated masses of the past. Or regression, its up to us.
It's not inhumane nor barbaric (appease to emotions fallacy). It has to be applied correctly however. When someone kills someone else on purpose and with determinism, they have forfeit their right to live. It's quite simple.
Of course, the application of the death penalty in the US is very wrong. Other cultures have solved this issue a long time ago.
Of course, the application of the death penalty in the US is very wrong. Other cultures have solved this issue a long time ago.
I think the main reason to end the death penalty is different: capital punishment is a very dangerous power for any nation to have over its inhabitants. Many of us are accustomed to living in stable democracies. Yet how easily and quickly could any of them become a totalitarian state or a reign of terror, where innocent people (especially activists and dissidents) are executed on false charges? Contemporary nations should not have the death penalty. If any nation legalizes it, that should serve as a canary to other nations that said nation is about to become an oppressive state with little appreciation for human rights.
Just look at the death penalty historically, even not too long ago, and how it was used in many now "civilized" countries to kill people for minor crimes. Or look at the contemporary world, at the countries that use capital punishment and the crimes they prescribe it for (even assuming they were prescribing it justly.) Aren't these countries themselves a good argument that it's best to err on the side of not having capital punishment at all, anywhere?
I think some criminals are truly awful and deserve to die for their heinous crimes. Yet it's simply too dangerous for any society to have the death penalty, even for these heinous crimes. As an intellectual, I'd be somewhat or very scared of living in any of the contemporary countries that have capital punishment (not to mention the ones that essentially allow street executions by the police. But that is another topic for another day...)
Just look at the death penalty historically, even not too long ago, and how it was used in many now "civilized" countries to kill people for minor crimes. Or look at the contemporary world, at the countries that use capital punishment and the crimes they prescribe it for (even assuming they were prescribing it justly.) Aren't these countries themselves a good argument that it's best to err on the side of not having capital punishment at all, anywhere?
I think some criminals are truly awful and deserve to die for their heinous crimes. Yet it's simply too dangerous for any society to have the death penalty, even for these heinous crimes. As an intellectual, I'd be somewhat or very scared of living in any of the contemporary countries that have capital punishment (not to mention the ones that essentially allow street executions by the police. But that is another topic for another day...)
>the ones that essentially allow street executions by the police.
This is America and it needs to change.
This is America and it needs to change.
Hyperbole won't solve the issue you see.
Is it actually hyperbole though?
Yes. There are many successful arrests of people who would face the death penalty if convicted without them being killed.
The number of police killings are a very small number. This is blatantly obvious to anyone who cares about the truth.
And I'm strongly against police brutality.
But you don't solve that by being ignorant about what actually happened in reality.
The number of police killings are a very small number. This is blatantly obvious to anyone who cares about the truth.
And I'm strongly against police brutality.
But you don't solve that by being ignorant about what actually happened in reality.
No one claims there are never nonviolent arrests. The claim is that there are executions in the street at all.
> Yet it's simply too dangerous for any society to have the death penalty, even for these heinous crimes.
Why? Tyranny? (As per the rest of your note).
Why? Tyranny? (As per the rest of your note).
On the subject of deterrence:
If someone commits a premeditated crime carrying a guideline sentence of {20 years in State A, vs 30 years in State B} do we really think that they're more likely to commit the crime in State A?
It's my intuition that for the most part, people committing crimes aren't thinking about potential repercussions, much less measuring them.
I mean is someone thinking "Oh, only 10 years? I'll do it. But not if it's 15."?
If someone commits a premeditated crime carrying a guideline sentence of {20 years in State A, vs 30 years in State B} do we really think that they're more likely to commit the crime in State A?
It's my intuition that for the most part, people committing crimes aren't thinking about potential repercussions, much less measuring them.
I mean is someone thinking "Oh, only 10 years? I'll do it. But not if it's 15."?
What I learned from Criminology 101 in college was this:
By far, the largest factor of deterrence was the likelihood of getting caught.
So, people, do in fact rationalize "I'm definitely going to get caught and the consequences are bad, I won't do it".
So, to your point, the punishment itself is largely a deterrence. I think because a rational human being simply cannot grok the differences in long term effects. This is already essentially proven in how people behave with money - i.e. people suck at long term saving without external forces nudging them to do so.
By far, the largest factor of deterrence was the likelihood of getting caught.
So, people, do in fact rationalize "I'm definitely going to get caught and the consequences are bad, I won't do it".
So, to your point, the punishment itself is largely a deterrence. I think because a rational human being simply cannot grok the differences in long term effects. This is already essentially proven in how people behave with money - i.e. people suck at long term saving without external forces nudging them to do so.
>By far, the largest factor of deterrence was the likelihood of getting caught.
Does that mean it prevents people capable (mentally and morally) from committing a planned crime or is it in general? Because everything I've seen says most people who for instance attack others almost never consider the consequences.
Does that mean it prevents people capable (mentally and morally) from committing a planned crime or is it in general? Because everything I've seen says most people who for instance attack others almost never consider the consequences.
I don't know for sure but the general problem is that while certainty is almost nearly more effective it's also way less enforceable, meaning, it's much more difficult to enact laws that create more certainty of punishment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(penology)#Certaint...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(penology)#Certaint...
The death penalty should not be abolished because to some criminals in society the threat of force is the only thing they respect.
Life in prison is already a threat of force. The force is that they're forced to stay in prison.
I think most people who commit crimes do not believe they will be caught. Most data shows sentencing shows no deterrence. Alternatively sometimes fines do more to deter than other penalties. A theory I remember from a college class on the topic were that sentences are so unevenly applied that many people reason that they won't actually get the max sentence.
Most people who commit crimes aren't caught. Around 38% of murders remain unsolved.
Most of those who are caught aren't brought to trial. For obvious reasons, prosecutors strongly prefer cases supported by very strong evidence.
The corollary is there are a lot of murderers walking around unremarked and free - either caught and released for lack of evidence, or not caught at all.
So it's unlikely the death penalty has much a deterrent effect. There would be a much stronger deterrent effect if there was some magic way to increase the catch rate which didn't also intrude on privacy or civil liberties.
Most of those who are caught aren't brought to trial. For obvious reasons, prosecutors strongly prefer cases supported by very strong evidence.
The corollary is there are a lot of murderers walking around unremarked and free - either caught and released for lack of evidence, or not caught at all.
So it's unlikely the death penalty has much a deterrent effect. There would be a much stronger deterrent effect if there was some magic way to increase the catch rate which didn't also intrude on privacy or civil liberties.
The data I've seen agrees with you, but it's subject to survivor-ship bias, and I've never seen someone correct for that bias in a convincing way.
The data agrees with you, as far as I'm aware.
It's my belief that the sentence length affects crime rate indirectly by affecting the collective unconscious. For instance if you see someone who did his time talk about his life in retrospect on the telly that affects you. When you see the (lack of) wrinkles on his face, that affects you. When you uncle Joey misses your birthday bash because he is still in jail, that affects you etc.
There's no effect to the best of my knowledge. Long sentences appear to be a tool for gaining votes and wasting taxpayer resources rather than correcting behaviour.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-s...
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-s...
Go to the article they cite and you will see two things. 1. They claim that longer sentences do in fact work (but are subject to diminishing returns). 2. The evidence is weak and full of caveats. Like it's not like we have RCT running for generations. We have observational studies rife with problems. They understandably try to make the best of what they have, but frankly it's just not good enough.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1745-9133...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1745-9133...
Yes, it's possible incarceration itself is a sham treatment for criminal behaviour.
> One of the major justifications for the rise of mass incarceration in the United States is that placing offenders behind bars reduces recidivism by teaching them that “crime does not pay.” This rationale is based on the view that custodial sanctions are uniquely painful and thus exact a higher cost than noncustodial sanctions. An alternative position, developed mainly by criminologists, is that imprisonment is not simply a “cost” but also a social experience that deepens illegal involvement. Using an evidence-based approach, we conclude that there is little evidence that prisons reduce recidivism and at least some evidence to suggest that they have a criminogenic effect. The policy implications of this finding are significant, for it means that beyond crime saved through incapacitation, the use of custodial sanctions may have the unanticipated consequence of making society less safe.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003288551141522...
> One of the major justifications for the rise of mass incarceration in the United States is that placing offenders behind bars reduces recidivism by teaching them that “crime does not pay.” This rationale is based on the view that custodial sanctions are uniquely painful and thus exact a higher cost than noncustodial sanctions. An alternative position, developed mainly by criminologists, is that imprisonment is not simply a “cost” but also a social experience that deepens illegal involvement. Using an evidence-based approach, we conclude that there is little evidence that prisons reduce recidivism and at least some evidence to suggest that they have a criminogenic effect. The policy implications of this finding are significant, for it means that beyond crime saved through incapacitation, the use of custodial sanctions may have the unanticipated consequence of making society less safe.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003288551141522...
It's a sensible belief, I have it too.
It's not backed by the evidence, though.
Harsher sentences do not decrease crime rates.
It's not backed by the evidence, though.
Harsher sentences do not decrease crime rates.
They don't seem to decrease crime rates in others, but how about crime rates for the people actually sentenced?
Sentencing Alice to 20 years for some crime might not discourage Bob from doing the same crime, but it is at least going to stop Alice from doing that crime again for the next 20 years (assuming we are talking about a crime that Alice cannot do in prison).
Sentencing Alice to 20 years for some crime might not discourage Bob from doing the same crime, but it is at least going to stop Alice from doing that crime again for the next 20 years (assuming we are talking about a crime that Alice cannot do in prison).
It's very difficult to calculate the sum of externalities introduced by long-term imprisonment. Crimes will be reduced at the public level as could _potentially_ be engaged in by the convicted, however:
1) The criminal is free to commit crimes against others in prison, which may further criminality in those individuals when they are released.
2) There is a burden on families, especially children of those incarcerated. The fostering system seems to result in a lot of future criminals.
3) The economic cost of a 20 year incarceration is probably about $50-100k per annum per prisoner in most first world countries. It's possible that this money being spent on programs to enable to impoverished to escape poverty or investment into programs or drugs to treat criminals would result in greater net reductions in crime to the public as compared to incarcerating a single individual.
1) The criminal is free to commit crimes against others in prison, which may further criminality in those individuals when they are released.
2) There is a burden on families, especially children of those incarcerated. The fostering system seems to result in a lot of future criminals.
3) The economic cost of a 20 year incarceration is probably about $50-100k per annum per prisoner in most first world countries. It's possible that this money being spent on programs to enable to impoverished to escape poverty or investment into programs or drugs to treat criminals would result in greater net reductions in crime to the public as compared to incarcerating a single individual.
A shorter sentence may be more effective if the subject is rehabilitated and able to integrate back into society. Coming back after 20 or 30 years would make it very hard to integrate into being a contributing member. We'd have to look at the whole picture.
And, of course, the death penalty makes it impossible for them to offend again if that is the main argument. Though perhaps they wouldn't have anyway.
And, of course, the death penalty makes it impossible for them to offend again if that is the main argument. Though perhaps they wouldn't have anyway.
Well by that logic, if you pre-emptively lock up both alice and bob you can avoid crime altogether.
But we don't lock people up because we suspect they will commit a crime, we lock them up as a punishment for the crimes we can show beyond a reasonable doubt that they did commit.
But we don't lock people up because we suspect they will commit a crime, we lock them up as a punishment for the crimes we can show beyond a reasonable doubt that they did commit.
no, our brains are overwhelmingly biased toward smallness (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 5) and the short-term (which is just a special case of the smallness bias)--a consequence of the evolutionary advantage of inferring potential danger from tiny sample sizes. once a phenomenon gets beyond our ability to relativistically comprehend, as in 10 or 30 years (i.e., thousands of days), our brains can't effectively differentiate the consequences and treat them as essentially equal.
I, as a 15 year old kid, was detained as a suspect in an armed robbery, and murder case for a few days. Of course the case never went anywhere, and that's why I can speak with you now. Fortunately, a complete bullshit FIR, and CCTV records made the case to look too silly even for a Russian criminal system.
Every time I see an immigration officer at the border raising his eyebrows in disbelief, I instantly understand that he took a look on my criminal file.
For me, the cruel tradition of Russian police to literally grab the first bystander they come upon near the crime scene to draw as a suspect did cost months of my life spent on legal paperwork, and an immigration nightmare.
Russian citizens have no ability to have anything struck from their file, even if those lucky got a rarest %0.8 acquittal. For most unlucky people, even if the case doesn't go anywhere, they will never get the clear acquittal record, but instead have something like "case struck on procedural grounds" in their file.
Getting wrongly accused is very easy. Just be the first person to be seen near the crime scene.
Every time I see an immigration officer at the border raising his eyebrows in disbelief, I instantly understand that he took a look on my criminal file.
For me, the cruel tradition of Russian police to literally grab the first bystander they come upon near the crime scene to draw as a suspect did cost months of my life spent on legal paperwork, and an immigration nightmare.
Russian citizens have no ability to have anything struck from their file, even if those lucky got a rarest %0.8 acquittal. For most unlucky people, even if the case doesn't go anywhere, they will never get the clear acquittal record, but instead have something like "case struck on procedural grounds" in their file.
Getting wrongly accused is very easy. Just be the first person to be seen near the crime scene.
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." - Fellowship of the ring (Tolkien)
(Said shortly before Gandalf and the gang slaughtered a gazillion orcs, goblins, ‘wild-men’, and the like... still, though... it was a good line.)
Those are the tortured bodies of creatures who's soul has already moved on. Or something like that, see also the Gollum arc.
Tolkien fought in WW1 and it's easy to tell from his writing he was a very sensitive individual. There's not much in LOTR about killing but his notes and the Silmarillion do shed some light on his moral view on the matter of ending a life.
Tolkien fought in WW1 and it's easy to tell from his writing he was a very sensitive individual. There's not much in LOTR about killing but his notes and the Silmarillion do shed some light on his moral view on the matter of ending a life.
That were actively trying to murder them.
They were fighting a war. How come it's only the bad guys that can be murderers in a war?
Please...
The gang of thugs possessed the Ring of Power, stolen from its rightful owner, and capable of killing millions; it’s like a nuclear bomb!
If some gang of trespassers snuck into your dwelling with a nuclear bomb, I think “shoot first, ask questions later” would be the order of the day.
The only character that seemed to have his shit together was Sauron. Even Sauramon agreed the safest thing to do would be to peacefully return the ring to its rightful owner before anyone got hurt...
The gang of thugs possessed the Ring of Power, stolen from its rightful owner, and capable of killing millions; it’s like a nuclear bomb!
If some gang of trespassers snuck into your dwelling with a nuclear bomb, I think “shoot first, ask questions later” would be the order of the day.
The only character that seemed to have his shit together was Sauron. Even Sauramon agreed the safest thing to do would be to peacefully return the ring to its rightful owner before anyone got hurt...
Well, he said to "not be too eager". I don't believe there were many instances of Gandalf and the crew chosing to seek out death in bloodlust? I guess it's all subjective, since you could argue they could have gone more out of their way to avoid more deaths.
That said, I don't believe Tolkien was ever totally comfortable with his treatment of orcs, he just never reconciled his morals and personal narratives with his desire to tell faerie tales and myths, where "evil goblins" are just part of the landscape. No sources for that, though, I just recall reading it somewhere, perhaps in his son's writings...
That said, I don't believe Tolkien was ever totally comfortable with his treatment of orcs, he just never reconciled his morals and personal narratives with his desire to tell faerie tales and myths, where "evil goblins" are just part of the landscape. No sources for that, though, I just recall reading it somewhere, perhaps in his son's writings...
In all seriousness, it’s an odd feeling one gets when writing fiction. Is the author morally responsible for the actions of his characters? In reality, Gandalf isn’t killing orcs... there are no orcs and there is no Gandalf and it’s just a bunch of ink on a piece of paper.
I write fiction occasionally. When wondering if it’s ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ for a character to do something repugnant, I often have to remind myself that none of it is real!
The ‘moral’ issue — if there is one — I suppose pertains to the author deliberately holding an immoral character up as an example of good behavior in the ‘real’ world. Maybe even then there is no real moral issue...
I write fiction occasionally. When wondering if it’s ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ for a character to do something repugnant, I often have to remind myself that none of it is real!
The ‘moral’ issue — if there is one — I suppose pertains to the author deliberately holding an immoral character up as an example of good behavior in the ‘real’ world. Maybe even then there is no real moral issue...
This has nothing to do with being real or not. An author should write consistent characters. Characters who follow their own morale and ethic. An author is not their characters.
Considering that an author is responsible for the morale of their characters is how we end up with boring Marie sues in media.
Considering that an author is responsible for the morale of their characters is how we end up with boring Marie sues in media.
You may have missed my point...
I was simply observing that it is difficult, as an author, not to feel queasy about writing a character who commits immoral acts.
I was simply observing that it is difficult, as an author, not to feel queasy about writing a character who commits immoral acts.
I absolutely abhor the death penalty. I do find this reliance on a single rationale to stop the death penalty problematic though:
- For many people I suspect that there is a combination of level of proof and severity of crime that would lead them to say the risk of erroneous conviction can be ignored.
- Someone will say let's focus on improving the justice system to deal with the errors.
I'd rather the burden of justification be the other way: what does the death penalty actually achieve, with a high burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) that as a policy it actually benefits society as a whole.
- For many people I suspect that there is a combination of level of proof and severity of crime that would lead them to say the risk of erroneous conviction can be ignored.
- Someone will say let's focus on improving the justice system to deal with the errors.
I'd rather the burden of justification be the other way: what does the death penalty actually achieve, with a high burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) that as a policy it actually benefits society as a whole.
I agree. Some of the most violent criminals can't ever be re-integrated into society, so the only alternative is life imprisonment. I've seen many arguments that this is preferable to the death penalty because "We will accidentally execute some innocents", as Paul Graham's here, as well as "It costs more to execute someone due to the higher standard of proof required".
In all such cases the corollary is "We can accept a lower standard of proof because we're not actually killing them. We're just locking them in a room forever and waiting until they die." I don't honestly see much difference between these outcomes. Why is one so morally superior to the other?
There are much better arguments against the death penalty. One is that if the death penalty exists, it's much easier for the state to execute political dissidents. If the death penalty is abolished (and there are strong controls on extra-judicial killings, like police murdering civilians during arrests), it's much more difficult for the state to silence critics. Even if they are locked away in jail forever, they will still have a voice.
Another good argument is that if the death penalty is a possibility it gives criminals nothing to lose which makes it more dangerous to apprehend them. If you want your police to be able to more peacefully arrest criminals, it makes sense to abolish the death penalty.
In all such cases the corollary is "We can accept a lower standard of proof because we're not actually killing them. We're just locking them in a room forever and waiting until they die." I don't honestly see much difference between these outcomes. Why is one so morally superior to the other?
There are much better arguments against the death penalty. One is that if the death penalty exists, it's much easier for the state to execute political dissidents. If the death penalty is abolished (and there are strong controls on extra-judicial killings, like police murdering civilians during arrests), it's much more difficult for the state to silence critics. Even if they are locked away in jail forever, they will still have a voice.
Another good argument is that if the death penalty is a possibility it gives criminals nothing to lose which makes it more dangerous to apprehend them. If you want your police to be able to more peacefully arrest criminals, it makes sense to abolish the death penalty.
>I don't honestly see much difference between these outcomes. Why is one so morally superior to the other?
One of them gives you your remaining lifetime for evidence to be found or overturned; one of them doesn't.
One of them gives you your remaining lifetime for evidence to be found or overturned; one of them doesn't.
> Some of the most violent criminals can't ever be re-integrated into society, so the only alternative is life imprisonment.
I have to question this. Determining whether someone can be reintegrated into society cannot be determined during the sentencing process. I would rather prefer a Norway-like system where the max imprisonment time at the start is 21 years. At the end of that initial time, 5 more years can be added on if the prisoner has not reformed. The process repeats until the prisoner is released or dies. A small percentage of people will still die in prison, but I wager that that percentage will be less than the percentage of life imprisonment sentences currently.
I have to question this. Determining whether someone can be reintegrated into society cannot be determined during the sentencing process. I would rather prefer a Norway-like system where the max imprisonment time at the start is 21 years. At the end of that initial time, 5 more years can be added on if the prisoner has not reformed. The process repeats until the prisoner is released or dies. A small percentage of people will still die in prison, but I wager that that percentage will be less than the percentage of life imprisonment sentences currently.
I agree that we shouldn't accept a lower standard of proof. However, life in prison isn't absolute in the same the death penalty is. There's always a small chance of the evidence changing and the justice system being able to rectify the mistake. There have been several convictions overturned because witnesses changed their story or were later found to be not credible, sometimes decades later. Once the death penalty is carried out, there's no going back.
I struggle with arguments that criminals are calculating people who make decisions in their best interests. There are surely exceptions (say pickpockets or confidence tricksters) but I don’t believe that things like typical sentencing have an effect on the impulsive decision making of a typical criminal (and I think policy should be targeted much more towards the typical criminal than the atypical one)
From a practical aspect a lot of benefits for death penalties:
1) Low cost. No need for jails and their associated costs
2) Great scaling. You can kill as many as you want, but you cannot build a jail every day
3) Safe. People don’t come back to repeat their mistakes.
4) It’s the only language that many criminals speak and understand.
The downsides are of a moral nature and twofold:
1) We should not punish innocent people. As societies we consider this as a huge and irrecoverable loss (What if we executed Einstein). 2) The state should not have the right to take the lives of its citizens. (Literally numerous examples from history why this can end up really bad)
The downsides are of a moral nature and twofold:
1) We should not punish innocent people. As societies we consider this as a huge and irrecoverable loss (What if we executed Einstein). 2) The state should not have the right to take the lives of its citizens. (Literally numerous examples from history why this can end up really bad)
I've heard the "1) Low Cost" is false. [1]. Mainly because it takes time and effort to actually execute someone, to give plenty of time to find evidence exonerating them. That delay and proceedings end up being way more expensive than just letting them live.
Re 2): Again from [1], I've heard executions are actually quite expensive. Thus, it doesn't scale well.
Re 3): It doesn't make me feel safe if somebody can frame me and get me killed. It makes me feel safer knowing I have time to prove my innocence.
Re 4): I am very skeptical of this claim. Any solid evidence for this being true? Anecdotal evidence shows the opposite. Most criminals don't have good long-term thinking skills, so they won't recognize the tradeoff between 40 years in prison and death, and use that to not commit a crime.
[1] John Oliver on death penalty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kye2oX-b39E
Re 2): Again from [1], I've heard executions are actually quite expensive. Thus, it doesn't scale well.
Re 3): It doesn't make me feel safe if somebody can frame me and get me killed. It makes me feel safer knowing I have time to prove my innocence.
Re 4): I am very skeptical of this claim. Any solid evidence for this being true? Anecdotal evidence shows the opposite. Most criminals don't have good long-term thinking skills, so they won't recognize the tradeoff between 40 years in prison and death, and use that to not commit a crime.
[1] John Oliver on death penalty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kye2oX-b39E
Arguably the USA should be granting all those same levels of appeal to someone NOT sentenced to death too.
If 4% on death row are innocent, despite all the extra appeals and proceedings we grant them, how many people serving life are innocent?
The idea that America is imprisoning innocents left and right but it's fine because at least they're not being executed is twisted to me. I would marginally prefer being alive to being imprisoned for life, but the latter is pretty terrible too.
If 4% on death row are innocent, despite all the extra appeals and proceedings we grant them, how many people serving life are innocent?
The idea that America is imprisoning innocents left and right but it's fine because at least they're not being executed is twisted to me. I would marginally prefer being alive to being imprisoned for life, but the latter is pretty terrible too.
The death penalty is extremely expensive ($1.26 million is the median [1]) and not low costs at all, where do you find it being cheap? I'm assuming you're referring to the United States?
[1] https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalt....
[1] https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalt....
Can be done for free if you are a good demagogue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_drug_war#Early_mo...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_drug_war#Early_mo...
If the US us worried about cost, maybe they could stop throwing people in jail for non-violent drug charges -- particularly marijuana? That would reduce our prison cost a heck of a lot more than executing murderers, even if execution was much cheaper than lifetime imprisonment (which as others have pointed out, it's almost certainly not).
As much as I dislike the idea of a government killing someone for a crime, the cost and potential elimination of future trouble with an individual is tempting.
Assuming that we absolutely know that someone is guilt (ignoring how that would happen), it doesn't need to take years and millions of dollars to simply shoot someone.
Then there are the people who are not only a financial burden on society, they are actively making it worse, much worse. Sometimes we just sit back an wonder why even spend resources keep this person terrible person imprisoned for decades. People who have killed, raped or tortured and been in and out of jail multiple times, no we really need to keep them around?
Regardless of how much we may hate the idea of the death penalty, there is some cold, brutal logic to simply shooting someone.
Assuming that we absolutely know that someone is guilt (ignoring how that would happen), it doesn't need to take years and millions of dollars to simply shoot someone.
Then there are the people who are not only a financial burden on society, they are actively making it worse, much worse. Sometimes we just sit back an wonder why even spend resources keep this person terrible person imprisoned for decades. People who have killed, raped or tortured and been in and out of jail multiple times, no we really need to keep them around?
Regardless of how much we may hate the idea of the death penalty, there is some cold, brutal logic to simply shooting someone.
> Sometimes we just sit back an wonder why even spend resources keep this person terrible person imprisoned for decades.
Because they're a human. Humans are capable of change. And killing a human "because it's expensive" is a barbaric mindset.
Because they're a human. Humans are capable of change. And killing a human "because it's expensive" is a barbaric mindset.
> Assuming that we absolutely know that someone is guilt (ignoring how that would happen), it doesn't need to take years and millions of dollars to simply shoot someone.
The years and the millions of dollars are spent establishing your premise.
The years and the millions of dollars are spent establishing your premise.
Is there there, though? It might justify someone's perverted sense of justice but that's about it. There are many other people who might be considering not contributing anything to the society, but they haven't yet done anything egregious enough to warrant a death penalty, following this logic it's only logical to "just shot" them as well.
Maybe going against the grain here, but I'm not on principle opposed to the death penalty. There's lots of strong practical arguments to make, like the fallibility of the court system, but yes, I do believe that there are some crimes (of mass bodily harm) for a which a state could rightfully determine to forfeit someone's right to live. My sole moral objection to the death penalty is that no one should have "end someone's life" as his job description.
However, my version of the world in which the death penalty would be admissible is a lot different from what we have now. In that version, a death sentence would never be executed on first conviction; the verdict would contain a suspended death sentence, more or less. After serving time, a criminal could be put to death only when convicted a second time for a similar offense. I'd also want to see the burden of proof reversed for that punishment: not only must the crime be proven in court (not by plea), but the government must show it provided adequate support and rehabilitation to avoid relapse.
That would be the only world in which I would defend the use of capital punishment. I don't think I'll ever see it happen.
However, my version of the world in which the death penalty would be admissible is a lot different from what we have now. In that version, a death sentence would never be executed on first conviction; the verdict would contain a suspended death sentence, more or less. After serving time, a criminal could be put to death only when convicted a second time for a similar offense. I'd also want to see the burden of proof reversed for that punishment: not only must the crime be proven in court (not by plea), but the government must show it provided adequate support and rehabilitation to avoid relapse.
That would be the only world in which I would defend the use of capital punishment. I don't think I'll ever see it happen.
> I'd rather the burden of justification be the other way: what does the death penalty actually achieve, with a high burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) that as a policy it actually benefits society as a whole.
In the past: societal self-defence.
Older prisons were not as secure, and so the risk of dangerous people escaping was high(er). If they got out they could do more harm to innocent people. This is less of an issue in modern developed countries which have pretty secure buildings now, especially for those classified as the most dangerous.
This may be less true in other countries where prison you may hear about prison breaks, with or without external help:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazni_prison_escape
* https://globalnews.ca/news/7740153/nigerian-inmates-freed-at...
If you think there's little/no chance of reform, then keeping someone around that will likely strike again is asking for trouble.
See also David Oderberg's book Applied Ethics.
In the past: societal self-defence.
Older prisons were not as secure, and so the risk of dangerous people escaping was high(er). If they got out they could do more harm to innocent people. This is less of an issue in modern developed countries which have pretty secure buildings now, especially for those classified as the most dangerous.
This may be less true in other countries where prison you may hear about prison breaks, with or without external help:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazni_prison_escape
* https://globalnews.ca/news/7740153/nigerian-inmates-freed-at...
If you think there's little/no chance of reform, then keeping someone around that will likely strike again is asking for trouble.
See also David Oderberg's book Applied Ethics.
Or rather it was simply cheaper to execute someone, pre modern societies simply couldn't really afford keeping a large number of people imprisoned for significant periods of time.
Considering that during some periods a fine or monetary compensation to the victims family was considered to be reasonable punishment for murder and that on the (on the opposite end of the spectrum) during other periods people were often hanged for what we would currently consider to be petty theft, one could argue that pre modern societies were much more concerned about presereving their social order rather than protecting innocent people from harm.
Considering that during some periods a fine or monetary compensation to the victims family was considered to be reasonable punishment for murder and that on the (on the opposite end of the spectrum) during other periods people were often hanged for what we would currently consider to be petty theft, one could argue that pre modern societies were much more concerned about presereving their social order rather than protecting innocent people from harm.
> petty theft
Petty theft to us now, but in previous ages there was much more scarcity, so any particular item would have been a higher percentage of a person's 'wealth' (property).
Further remember that labour is the use of one's most precious resource, time (spent living), for either money or goods (if one crafts something themselves). By stealing a possession, you are stealing a portion of a person's life (that they use to earn/make that possession).
Petty theft to us now, but in previous ages there was much more scarcity, so any particular item would have been a higher percentage of a person's 'wealth' (property).
Further remember that labour is the use of one's most precious resource, time (spent living), for either money or goods (if one crafts something themselves). By stealing a possession, you are stealing a portion of a person's life (that they use to earn/make that possession).
[deleted]
>what does the death penalty actually achieve, with a high burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) that as a policy it actually benefits society as a whole.
I think the death penalty does deter people from committing certain crimes. But many many people don't. (for the record, I also believe in abolishing the death penalty where I live where many innocent people fall victim to it).
The problem is this isn't something you can really prove with scientific evidence. You can't do a double blind trial in separate societies with and without the death penalty.
Not every social policy can be proven before it is enacted. Life just doesn't work that way. Evidence isn't always available for every possible option.
I think the death penalty does deter people from committing certain crimes. But many many people don't. (for the record, I also believe in abolishing the death penalty where I live where many innocent people fall victim to it).
The problem is this isn't something you can really prove with scientific evidence. You can't do a double blind trial in separate societies with and without the death penalty.
Not every social policy can be proven before it is enacted. Life just doesn't work that way. Evidence isn't always available for every possible option.
[deleted]
The single rationale is perfectly fine.
If we had a magic oracle which supplies us with the absolutely correct guilty or not guilty verdict, there would be no problem with the death penalty.
> what does the death penalty actually achieve
Rids the world of an instance of evil, efficiently and permanently.
Vindicates victims.
If we had a magic oracle which supplies us with the absolutely correct guilty or not guilty verdict, there would be no problem with the death penalty.
> what does the death penalty actually achieve
Rids the world of an instance of evil, efficiently and permanently.
Vindicates victims.
You're reducing a human being to a single binary classification - evil or not evil - an assessment that ignores the circumstances of their life, mental state etc at a particular point in time.
You're also saying that you're prepared to ignore the wider impact that the act of executing that individual has on society.
On the apparent grounds that the dead victim is somehow vindicated (which I can only interpret as meaning that someone else feels that they have been vindicated).
You're also saying that you're prepared to ignore the wider impact that the act of executing that individual has on society.
On the apparent grounds that the dead victim is somehow vindicated (which I can only interpret as meaning that someone else feels that they have been vindicated).
> You're reducing a human being to a single binary classification - evil or not evil
That is correct.
> You're also saying that you're prepared to ignore the wider impact that the act of executing that individual has on society.
That must specifically not be allowed to cloud our judgment. "Society" is word which refers to collection of people, the vast majority of whom have no connection to the case.
That is correct.
> You're also saying that you're prepared to ignore the wider impact that the act of executing that individual has on society.
That must specifically not be allowed to cloud our judgment. "Society" is word which refers to collection of people, the vast majority of whom have no connection to the case.
"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn't change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil."
-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
If you invoke Solzhenitsyn this way in a capital punishment debate, it basically amounts to a tu quoque fallacy.
Suppose I'm evil because I park in handicapped stalls.
That doesn't mean I'm not in a moral position to send someone to hell who kidnaps and kills children.
Suppose I'm evil because I park in handicapped stalls.
That doesn't mean I'm not in a moral position to send someone to hell who kidnaps and kills children.
> our judgment
Who is 'our'? Hopefully not just everyone who agrees with your definition of evil...
Who is 'our'? Hopefully not just everyone who agrees with your definition of evil...
Whatever rationalizations people make, I think ultimately, a belief that some people are evil is what the death penalty hinges on. I don’t believe in free will, thus I don’t believe in moral culpability, this I don’t believe in evil.
From that vantage point it seems extremely barbaric to me to put anyone to death. They had no say in the circumstances that led up to who they became. I have similar feeling when I think of severely mentally disabled people being executed, which a lot of people probably share even if they do believe in free will.
From that vantage point it seems extremely barbaric to me to put anyone to death. They had no say in the circumstances that led up to who they became. I have similar feeling when I think of severely mentally disabled people being executed, which a lot of people probably share even if they do believe in free will.
OK, so you don't believe in "evil", but you believe in "barbaric".
I believe that determinism and free will are entirely compatible. An algorithm has free will. More complicated algorithms have a more nuanced, richer free will. That's it.
For instance, a coin-operated machine that gives you a bag of potato chips in exchange for a dollar has a form of free will. It does that because it wants to. It is just not capable of telling itself it wants to do anything else; it's a low grade form of free will encompassing a tiny number of states.
(Killing evil is basically just terminating a buggy algorithm. If you don't like the baggage associated with "evil", maybe "defective" or "buggy" is better.)
The question of free will and determinism is made complicated by the possibility that a deterministic free will (algorithm) operates in a world that isn't deterministic. Suppose that your mind is an algorithm which will make exactly the same decision for the same inputs (including, of course, its own state: that's one of the inputs). Even if you get your mind to be in exactly the same state as when a certain decision had been made, you also need the world to be in exactly the same state. Only then is the algorithmic mind guaranteed to think the same thing and make the decision.
The world has so many states, and so does the mind, that the question of whether you are algorithmic or not makes practically no difference. Even if you are a FSM, your state space is so large, you will never be in the same state twice -- just due to the fact alone that you have life long memories that are are still accumulating, for one thing. And if you could rewind exactly a previous state, the surrounding world will not; and that has an even vaster state space.
I believe that determinism and free will are entirely compatible. An algorithm has free will. More complicated algorithms have a more nuanced, richer free will. That's it.
For instance, a coin-operated machine that gives you a bag of potato chips in exchange for a dollar has a form of free will. It does that because it wants to. It is just not capable of telling itself it wants to do anything else; it's a low grade form of free will encompassing a tiny number of states.
(Killing evil is basically just terminating a buggy algorithm. If you don't like the baggage associated with "evil", maybe "defective" or "buggy" is better.)
The question of free will and determinism is made complicated by the possibility that a deterministic free will (algorithm) operates in a world that isn't deterministic. Suppose that your mind is an algorithm which will make exactly the same decision for the same inputs (including, of course, its own state: that's one of the inputs). Even if you get your mind to be in exactly the same state as when a certain decision had been made, you also need the world to be in exactly the same state. Only then is the algorithmic mind guaranteed to think the same thing and make the decision.
The world has so many states, and so does the mind, that the question of whether you are algorithmic or not makes practically no difference. Even if you are a FSM, your state space is so large, you will never be in the same state twice -- just due to the fact alone that you have life long memories that are are still accumulating, for one thing. And if you could rewind exactly a previous state, the surrounding world will not; and that has an even vaster state space.
This is why we leave judging to the judicial system, and don't hand it over to developers who will try to treat life or death decisions as an undergraduate algorithm design exercise.
Right, so we instead hand matters over to people who do things like hide phone call records that would prove that someone should not be put on death row.
If you think there's no free will, then how is it barbaric to execute people? No free will means the supporters of the death penalty didn't have a say in the circumstance that led to them supporting it, so there is no moral culpability to thinking some people should be executed. It's no more "barbaric" than thinking it's okay to kill rats and other pests for the good of society.
The realization that free will is an illusion ideally allows compassion to develop in an individual. If a society shed its belief in free will, then it would act more compassionately, eg the opposite of barbaric.
That's an interesting hypothesis you have there, but it seems rather self-evident to me that there are many philosophical pathways toward compassion, not necessarily involving specific theories of free will. Not all pathways are heavily intellectual.
Speaking as someone who has experienced a family member's murder, the death penalty would in no way "vindicate" anyone.
I'm not sure what definition of "vindicate" you're working with, but when I use that word (in this specific context), it doesn't refer to anything like a complete restitution as if nothing had happened, which is obviously impossible.
I think you should reconsider the use of "vindicate" since none of the definitions I can find seem to apply at all. And your latest reply doesn't seem to clear up what you mean in your usage.
>Rids the world of an instance of evil, efficiently and permanently.
That sounds like a motive for murder.
That sounds like a motive for murder.
For someone acting alone, deciding who and what is evil, it could well be. That's why the state and its courts need to control that instrument.
This is the obvious reason, but of course there are many more: executions are quite expensive, they don't seem to actually deter crime, they're fundamentally pessimistic ("this person will never be useful to society"). Plus, they're kind of unnecessarily cruel: if we wanted to execute people painlessly we could just pump a room full of nitrogen and let the person drift off into unconsciousness and death relatively quickly and silently. But for whatever reason we don't do this, instead opting for spectacles of shooting the person or zapping them or injecting slow paralytics into their veins. My personal guess is that people like to watch for some sort of catharsis which a silent death doesn't give them, but of course I'm not necessarily in a position to judge this well.
> this person will never be useful to society
I'm against the death penalty, but, since the alternative is most likely life in prison, this is very probably true for rightfully convicted.
> My personal guess is that people like to watch for some sort of catharsis which a silent death doesn't give them, but of course I'm not necessarily in a position to judge this well.
There's a very interesting documentary called "how to kill a human being". In it, Michael Portillo explores more humane ways to execute prisoners, but at the end his method is rejected by proponents as the do not want these people to die painless. So you're probably not wrong.
I'm against the death penalty, but, since the alternative is most likely life in prison, this is very probably true for rightfully convicted.
> My personal guess is that people like to watch for some sort of catharsis which a silent death doesn't give them, but of course I'm not necessarily in a position to judge this well.
There's a very interesting documentary called "how to kill a human being". In it, Michael Portillo explores more humane ways to execute prisoners, but at the end his method is rejected by proponents as the do not want these people to die painless. So you're probably not wrong.
I haven't been to prison so I don't know how practical what I'm about to say actually is, but it seems like it's still possible to contribute to society while in prison. e.g. working in the library and helping someone with a shorter term get their GED, or even activism (like how Tookie Williams tried to end the cycle of gang violence that had put him on death row and got half a dozen Nobel Prize nominations before his execution)
I have a personal theory that the correlation between the popularity of religious fundamentalism and the presence of popular support for the death penalty in southern US states has a common underlying cause.
There seems to be a certain draw of the Sodom and Gomorrah treatment in some people that draws a straight line from modern day human culture in those places directly back to ancient desert folktales through all these thousands of years. Perhaps it is the belief that actions undertaken in the here-and-now aren't ultimately that important, a sort of cosmic nihilism with regards to the physical reality we live in.
We still have so, so far to go.
There seems to be a certain draw of the Sodom and Gomorrah treatment in some people that draws a straight line from modern day human culture in those places directly back to ancient desert folktales through all these thousands of years. Perhaps it is the belief that actions undertaken in the here-and-now aren't ultimately that important, a sort of cosmic nihilism with regards to the physical reality we live in.
We still have so, so far to go.
> opting for spectacles
All while insisting on the humanness of those sweet pharmaceuticals.
All while insisting on the humanness of those sweet pharmaceuticals.
I think saying "the real reason" is a mistake.
It's a big reason, but the others are also good reasons.
It is terrible that it affects innocents. It is also true that it is ineffective, counter-productive, and barbaric.
It's sad we're still having this discussion when "On Crimes and Punishments"[0] was published four centuries ago and not much has substantially changed since.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Crimes_and_Punishments
It is terrible that it affects innocents. It is also true that it is ineffective, counter-productive, and barbaric.
It's sad we're still having this discussion when "On Crimes and Punishments"[0] was published four centuries ago and not much has substantially changed since.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Crimes_and_Punishments
I'm glad this is being shared widely, because I agree with it.
That said, I have to snark a little about it, because I was in high school, in the 90s, when I came to the same realization about why the death penalty is wrong. So this seems pretty obvious to me.
Our justice system is not reliable enough to have the death penalty.
That said, I have to snark a little about it, because I was in high school, in the 90s, when I came to the same realization about why the death penalty is wrong. So this seems pretty obvious to me.
Our justice system is not reliable enough to have the death penalty.
When I was in high school, in the 90s, I also vehemently opposed the death penalty. In English class, I’d be on the anti-death penalty side during debates (I’d be the only one). My country was in the process of abolishing the death penalty at the time, so it was a little more than just an academic proposition.
When I hit my late 30s, my position changed entirely. It’s hard to tell why. I now have no moral qualms about a society choosing to put to death people who are guilty of heinous and depraved acts against others.
That said, I’m reading the March National Geographic, and the pictures of innocent men freed after being sentenced to death have given me pause. Given the apparent scope of prosecutorial misconduct (in the US, but it’s likely to be worse in many other places), it’s hard to entrust the state with this sort of responsibility, especially when there are alternatives that greatly reduce the threat to others, while avoiding the finality of capital punishment.
When I hit my late 30s, my position changed entirely. It’s hard to tell why. I now have no moral qualms about a society choosing to put to death people who are guilty of heinous and depraved acts against others.
That said, I’m reading the March National Geographic, and the pictures of innocent men freed after being sentenced to death have given me pause. Given the apparent scope of prosecutorial misconduct (in the US, but it’s likely to be worse in many other places), it’s hard to entrust the state with this sort of responsibility, especially when there are alternatives that greatly reduce the threat to others, while avoiding the finality of capital punishment.
> I now have no moral qualms about a society choosing to put to death people who are guilty of heinous and depraved acts
I consider the society to be at least somewhat to blame for those acts.
I consider the society to be at least somewhat to blame for those acts.
I mean, there are cases where you have clear video evidence of murder, or mass shootings where it's obvious who the killer was with 100 witnesses.
If a proposal came to redefine the threshold for the death penalty from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "irrefutable" then the arguments here would not hold.
If a proposal came to redefine the threshold for the death penalty from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "irrefutable" then the arguments here would not hold.
Video isn't truly irrefutable. Two people can look at the same video and draw different conclusions. You can see this anywhere from instant replay review in sports to some people's reactions to the Chauvin verdict.
also, given the collective (non-)evidence, we should expect that the number of people who are irredeemably and imminently threatening, and therefore truly deserving of the death penalty, to be extraordinarily small, like 5 sigma, rather than 2-3 sigma, which seems to be the mental model implicit in our justice system.
with such extraordinarily tiny incidence rates and an erroneous implicit mental model, it's no surprise that we misidentify the truly irredeemable so often. our implicit expectations simply get in the way of being impartial and objective.
with such extraordinarily tiny incidence rates and an erroneous implicit mental model, it's no surprise that we misidentify the truly irredeemable so often. our implicit expectations simply get in the way of being impartial and objective.
>So this seems pretty obvious to me
If you extend the logic to other sentences they become similarly problematic. In other words, clearly it's bad to execute an innocent person. But it's also bad to imprison them for life, or 30 years or 20 years or 10 years and so on. There's no clear reason to draw the line at execution but not at life imprisonment.
If you extend the logic to other sentences they become similarly problematic. In other words, clearly it's bad to execute an innocent person. But it's also bad to imprison them for life, or 30 years or 20 years or 10 years and so on. There's no clear reason to draw the line at execution but not at life imprisonment.
You can let someone go if you found out they were innocent. This is still bad that they serviced time in prison while innocent.
However it is currently impossible to unkill someone, which makes executing someone for a crime they didn't commit significantly worse, this seems a reasonable place to draw a line to me.
However it is currently impossible to unkill someone, which makes executing someone for a crime they didn't commit significantly worse, this seems a reasonable place to draw a line to me.
You can at least let someone out of prison. You cannot undo execution.
Part of the issue is that we divide the trial into (guilty or not) and (determine punishment if guilty). There's no 95% chance of guilty, go to jail and 100% chance of guilty, death penalty.
But, ultimately, some people are going to go away forever. People like Manson are never going to get released. What's the big difference between the death penalty and life imprisonment with no parole that attenuates the error in the conviction process.
But, ultimately, some people are going to go away forever. People like Manson are never going to get released. What's the big difference between the death penalty and life imprisonment with no parole that attenuates the error in the conviction process.
>What's the big difference between the death penalty and life imprisonment with no parole that attenuates the error in the conviction process.
You can't reverse the damage done by either sentence. However a sentence of life without parole is correctible as soon as a mistake is identified. Releasing an innocent person after taking 40 years of their life is awful, but it is better than realizing we killed an innocent person 25 years ago.
You can't reverse the damage done by either sentence. However a sentence of life without parole is correctible as soon as a mistake is identified. Releasing an innocent person after taking 40 years of their life is awful, but it is better than realizing we killed an innocent person 25 years ago.
I question how often people are really released after 40 years in prison. It happens, but it certainly doesn't happen frequently. In fact, it's so infrequent it seems any false release after a decade or more seems to pop up in national news.
I feel like fictional accounts of long-delayed justice are more common than real ones.
Either way a tragedy occurs, but I'm not sure how much our system should be informed by ultra-rare edge cases.
I feel like fictional accounts of long-delayed justice are more common than real ones.
Either way a tragedy occurs, but I'm not sure how much our system should be informed by ultra-rare edge cases.
I don't support the death penalty because as has been mentioned the justice system is unreliable.
But I can understand why some people do when we see so many violent offenders released only to reoffend.
If people are going to have faith in the justice system then a whole life tariff needs to be a reasonable possibility - the USA actually isn't so bad for this but over here in Europe we have far shorter sentences.
But I can understand why some people do when we see so many violent offenders released only to reoffend.
If people are going to have faith in the justice system then a whole life tariff needs to be a reasonable possibility - the USA actually isn't so bad for this but over here in Europe we have far shorter sentences.
But our justice system is reliable enough to lock people up for life just because there's a small chance we may find out they are innocent before they die in prison?
There must be a better way.
There must be a better way.
Norway gave 21 years, their maximum sentence, plus “the possibility of one or more extensions for as long as he is deemed a danger to society” to Breivik for killing 69 people.
This seems like a better way to go. He will be evaluated for extensions of his sentence periodically, and (showing my ignorance of their system here) I presume the panel will include medical professionals who are more equipped to gauge his mental health and danger to society than a judge would.
A family member of mine was murdered in the 90s. I would advocate for the same treatment of the killer. Though I suppose I am still biased since it was unprovoked, and the killer would probably be judged a continual danger to society.
This seems like a better way to go. He will be evaluated for extensions of his sentence periodically, and (showing my ignorance of their system here) I presume the panel will include medical professionals who are more equipped to gauge his mental health and danger to society than a judge would.
A family member of mine was murdered in the 90s. I would advocate for the same treatment of the killer. Though I suppose I am still biased since it was unprovoked, and the killer would probably be judged a continual danger to society.
I'd prefer we treat prisons as mini-societies. Only a minimal set of rules should be set and enforced by the guards. The majority of the rules should be voted on and enforced by the prisoners themselves.
Guards would step in if things go awry, but in general there would be a strong incentive to cooperate and contribute as that would be the primary indicator that the prisoner is ready to be released and can contribute to society outside the prison.
This should make prisons much more self-sufficient and less costly.
Guards would step in if things go awry, but in general there would be a strong incentive to cooperate and contribute as that would be the primary indicator that the prisoner is ready to be released and can contribute to society outside the prison.
This should make prisons much more self-sufficient and less costly.
Our roads and speed limits are not reliable enough to have cars.
Pretty obvious we should abolish cars. Duh.
Pretty obvious we should abolish cars. Duh.
Please stop and reflect a bit on your comparison. As a reminder, we are talking about the state intentionally taking human lives. Not accidents.
[deleted]
If 300 people died in accidents in amazon warehouse or walmart accidents in the US each year OSHA would shut them down.
But 36,000 deaths from road accidents are fine. 892 of them in 2019 were "large truck occupants" that died - i.e. people working.
But 36,000 deaths from road accidents are fine. 892 of them in 2019 were "large truck occupants" that died - i.e. people working.
While made in jest and insincerely, your point is not entirely without merit. Technology has come a long way since the 1960’s, and will come further still in the future. Self-driving cars may never be a reality, but other forms of transport could be invented and constructed which were never previously feasible.
Of possible interest, Texas records death row inmates last words before execution. You can read them all here:
https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_executed_offenders.h...
My favorite is Delbert Teague, Jr. who quoted the oath of the Knights of Solamnia from Dragonlance.
https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_executed_offenders.h...
My favorite is Delbert Teague, Jr. who quoted the oath of the Knights of Solamnia from Dragonlance.
This is a great read!
Simple crawling of all the statements: Promise.all([...$$('a[href$="last.html"]')].map(aa => fetch(aa.href).then(a => a.text()).then(a => a.replace(/(\n|\r|<[^->]>| )/g, '').match(/Last Statement:(.?)<!-- InstanceEndEditable -->/)).then(a => [aa.href, a && a[1].trim()]))).then(a => console.log(JSON.stringify(a)))
Simple crawling of all the statements: Promise.all([...$$('a[href$="last.html"]')].map(aa => fetch(aa.href).then(a => a.text()).then(a => a.replace(/(\n|\r|<[^->]>| )/g, '').match(/Last Statement:(.?)<!-- InstanceEndEditable -->/)).then(a => [aa.href, a && a[1].trim()]))).then(a => console.log(JSON.stringify(a)))
That hit hard. At the risk of sounding like a cliche softy, those statements made really sad, and then even sadder when I thought that all[0] of them must have also commited terrible crimes and caused suffering to so many people.
[0] - Well, at least 96% according to the OP.
[0] - Well, at least 96% according to the OP.
I really wish I hadn't open this link. So much grief and wasted lives.
I clicked on 15 and they're all very positive in tone. Surprised.
check https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/tignergeraldlas...
> Yes. My last statement. I was wrongfully convicted of this crime against Michael Watkins and James Williams on 10th Street on August 31, 1993. I got convicted on a false confession because I never admitted to it, but my lawyer did not put this out to the jury. I did not kill those drug dealers. I send love to my family and friends; my east side family and friends. I am being real with the real. That's all that counts in my heart. I will see you later. That's it.
> Yes. My last statement. I was wrongfully convicted of this crime against Michael Watkins and James Williams on 10th Street on August 31, 1993. I got convicted on a false confession because I never admitted to it, but my lawyer did not put this out to the jury. I did not kill those drug dealers. I send love to my family and friends; my east side family and friends. I am being real with the real. That's all that counts in my heart. I will see you later. That's it.
I found a couple that were a bit less positive, but most do seem to appear remorseful to some extent. None seemed to be particularly extreme, though–I wonder if those are sanitized to some extent.
Texas has institutionalized a barbaric entertainment around death row prisoners, with things like "last meals" and "last words".
It's disgusting.
It's disgusting.
Or, a bit more charitable interpretation is that they are trying to inject a bit humanity in a otherwise very inhumane process.
For the record, I'm not for death penalty at all.
For the record, I'm not for death penalty at all.
I think death penalty should be abolished for all crimes except mass murder. There was a killer in Norway that murdered something close to 70 people 8 or 9 years ago. Thanks to maximum sentences in Norway being 18 years or so, the guy will be walking free in another 9 years time. I'm sorry, but some people just want to watch the world burn and those people should be put down.
Anders Breivik.
Simply not true that he will be walking free in 9 years time.
> A sentence of permanent detention can be imposed if there is considerable danger of repetition. Permanent detention is not subject to any timeframe. However, the court always fixes a timeframe that may not exceed 21 years. When the timeframe expires the offender may be re-assessed. If the court concludes that there is still a danger of repetition the timeframe may be extended by up to five years at a time. There is no upper limit to the number of times that the court may extend the timeframe.
Simply not true that he will be walking free in 9 years time.
> A sentence of permanent detention can be imposed if there is considerable danger of repetition. Permanent detention is not subject to any timeframe. However, the court always fixes a timeframe that may not exceed 21 years. When the timeframe expires the offender may be re-assessed. If the court concludes that there is still a danger of repetition the timeframe may be extended by up to five years at a time. There is no upper limit to the number of times that the court may extend the timeframe.
That's a relief, but the guy should be put to death. It does no one any favors to keep stringing them along on an arbitrary indefinite attention. The victims have to be worried that he'll get let loose and strike again. The perpetrator is meanwhile tortured through indefinite extensions. Rarely, but sometimes the case such as Breivik presents itself for which, death is mercy to all involved.
Why can't we give him life and call that mercy, then?
It's not that hard to take a hard line stance against the death penalty and still say that mass murderers don't get to walk free.
It's not that hard to take a hard line stance against the death penalty and still say that mass murderers don't get to walk free.
I have no idea why you would think that. The maximum sentence is 21 years, they much is true, but that doesn't mean he will be released. There will be extensive psychological evaluations and the sentence can be extended indefinitely if Breivik is still considered a danger to society.
This seems honestly like something you would read on a far-right conspiracy website about what a liberal hellhole Europe is.
This seems honestly like something you would read on a far-right conspiracy website about what a liberal hellhole Europe is.
I'll do the psychological evaluation for you, free of charge: he killed 70 people, admitted to it, and admitted to premeditating it. He's a psychopath.
"There was a killer in Norway that murdered something close to 70 people 8 or 9 years ago."
Assuming you're talking about Breivik and the Utøya-massacre, that happened in 2011. And he is unlikely to ever "go free". He was sentenced to "containment" (sikring), which can extended indefinitely (and almost certainly will be).
Assuming you're talking about Breivik and the Utøya-massacre, that happened in 2011. And he is unlikely to ever "go free". He was sentenced to "containment" (sikring), which can extended indefinitely (and almost certainly will be).
My argument is that the guy is a psychopath and should be put down. Not that his containment should be up for debate. He killed 70 people. 70.
> the guy will be walking free in another 9 years time.
This is not true. He was sentenced to 21 years in prison, but his prison stay can be extended, indefinitely, as long as he is deemed a danger to society.
I would be extremely surprised if Breivik walks at the end of the 21 years.
This is not true. He was sentenced to 21 years in prison, but his prison stay can be extended, indefinitely, as long as he is deemed a danger to society.
I would be extremely surprised if Breivik walks at the end of the 21 years.
The issue isn't about finding if some specific person deserves the death penalty or not. There are people, like Anders Breivik, where their guilt is pretty dang obvious.
But can you come up with some standard of evidence that would be 100% accurate in all cases? Real life tends to get complicated very quickly, and there have been people that have been executed on seemingly clear-cut evidence, only to be exonerated later (Timothy Evans comes to mind). When the cost of failure is so high, it's a safer move to just avoid the risk altogether.
But can you come up with some standard of evidence that would be 100% accurate in all cases? Real life tends to get complicated very quickly, and there have been people that have been executed on seemingly clear-cut evidence, only to be exonerated later (Timothy Evans comes to mind). When the cost of failure is so high, it's a safer move to just avoid the risk altogether.
This position is, from my viewpoint, indistinguishable from that of a mass murderer, as that is literally what you are calling for.
By a strict logical interpretation, you might consider executing yourself as you have met your own stated criterion for being eligible for execution.
By a strict logical interpretation, you might consider executing yourself as you have met your own stated criterion for being eligible for execution.
By a strict logical interpretation, execution by death penalty is not murder. Dictionary definition of murder:
"the _unlawful_ premeditated killing of one human being by another."
Violation of one's inalienable right to life (as written in the US declaration of independence, as well as the UN's universal declaration of human rights) is unlawful, regardless of any state legislation.
States can't legislate you out of your human rights.
One day the US federal courts will notice this error that they've made and fix the glitch.
As Churchill famously said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
States can't legislate you out of your human rights.
One day the US federal courts will notice this error that they've made and fix the glitch.
As Churchill famously said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
By that clown logic, any hostile forces can freely invade and conquer the United States, because it's universally illegal to kill human beings, including enemies.
Someone who violates an innocent persons inalienable right to life, thereby forfeits their own right to life.
No, it's not. Self defense is moral and justified. And some people are more dangerous alive than dead. Worse, some people develop a cult-of-personality and a following that they can even control or influence from jail. You telling me a mafia or gang leader or a former dictator guilty of genocide doesn't deserve the death penalty? Naive, to say the least. You know little of true evil, which does exist and no amount of corrective procedure will fix.
Someone held securely in prison does not pose an imminent threat to you, and thus an argument from self-defense is void.
The fact that you move on so deftly to the word "deserve" suggests that it's vengeance you seek.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
The fact that you move on so deftly to the word "deserve" suggests that it's vengeance you seek.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
You are being disingenuous. A murderous psychopath is a danger to people. This is obvious and something that a five year old child can understand. Some people cross the line and forfeit their lives. The death penalty is absolutely justifiable unless you are a moral relativist, which is a logically inconsistent world view.
> Someone held securely in prison
I already mentioned the cult-of-personality example above and you breezed over it. Gang leaders are fully capable of executing kills from jail. They have influence that extends beyond the 4 walls they're contained to. Some of them have access to a vast array of money and dangerous people who they can delegate to. They can also actively influence or harm other prisoners in jail.
Treating true psychopaths with kid gloves won't make the world a better place.
I already mentioned the cult-of-personality example above and you breezed over it. Gang leaders are fully capable of executing kills from jail. They have influence that extends beyond the 4 walls they're contained to. Some of them have access to a vast array of money and dangerous people who they can delegate to. They can also actively influence or harm other prisoners in jail.
Treating true psychopaths with kid gloves won't make the world a better place.
If prisoners are able to lead criminal organizations whillst inside, that's very obviously a rather trivial-to-fix bug in the design of the jail, not a reason to murder someone for vengeance.
We have more than adequate technology to keep such hopeless cases from harming themselves or others.
We have more than adequate technology to keep such hopeless cases from harming themselves or others.
It's not trivial to fix without introducing mechanisms that are worse than death, such as isolated confinement and other forms of torture.
I believe that this is a false dichotomy that you present; I can think of several different solutions to this problem in seconds, none of which are what you describe.
> Self defense is moral and justified.
To the extent that it is moral and justified, it does not extend to include intent to kill. To the extent intent to kill is present, it is not morally “self-defense”, though it may still be within the scope that law does not punish when the other moral elements of self-defense are present (which is, itself, right and proper despite allowing some immoral acts to go unpunished as criminal law should err on the side of nonpunishment and teasing out intent when the other elements of self-defense are present is more likely to result in the reverse error.)
To the extent that it is moral and justified, it does not extend to include intent to kill. To the extent intent to kill is present, it is not morally “self-defense”, though it may still be within the scope that law does not punish when the other moral elements of self-defense are present (which is, itself, right and proper despite allowing some immoral acts to go unpunished as criminal law should err on the side of nonpunishment and teasing out intent when the other elements of self-defense are present is more likely to result in the reverse error.)
The death penalty is immoral and unethical. The state should not have the power over the life of a person.
However, the problem with removing the death penalty in the US is that it will not deal with the underlying systemic racism and the misaligned incentives of police and prosecution to "get a conviction".
So yes, if the death penalty is removed, there is one less barbarism.
However, for those who are not on death row, who are subject to the injustices, will there be the same pressure to investigate and exonorate the innocent?
How do we ensure that the incentives for conviction do not supersede the incentives for solving the crime accurately?
However, the problem with removing the death penalty in the US is that it will not deal with the underlying systemic racism and the misaligned incentives of police and prosecution to "get a conviction".
So yes, if the death penalty is removed, there is one less barbarism.
However, for those who are not on death row, who are subject to the injustices, will there be the same pressure to investigate and exonorate the innocent?
How do we ensure that the incentives for conviction do not supersede the incentives for solving the crime accurately?
> The state should not have the power over the life of a person.
Then it can't do war and can't defend its existence as a state unless it's somehow a dependent state of some other state that does have power over the life of a person. Like some small Pacific island that's protected by more militarily well equipped allies.
Then it can't do war and can't defend its existence as a state unless it's somehow a dependent state of some other state that does have power over the life of a person. Like some small Pacific island that's protected by more militarily well equipped allies.
Plenty of states don't "do war" and aren't Pacific islands.
All of those will be like a Pacific island in that they're protected by a warlike ally. A truly undefended country would quickly be invaded.
This only applies for a draft army, not for contract army or volunteers.
So your argument is that if we stop threatening the innocent with death that we won't care enough about their situation to work to exonerate them?
I call bullshit.
I call bullshit.
Here's a simple question: "would you trust a random politician with the life of your loved one if said loved one's life stood between the politician and greater political ambitions?"
If your answer is yes, then by all means, support the death penalty.
If you don't trust ambitious politicians, then you can't trust the process for selecting who is to be put to death by the state either, because DAs and AGs are politicians.
If your answer is yes, then by all means, support the death penalty.
If you don't trust ambitious politicians, then you can't trust the process for selecting who is to be put to death by the state either, because DAs and AGs are politicians.
I heard another interesting thought experiment on this topic recently. It said there should be a referendum about whether to keep (or adopt) the death penalty, but the names of everyone who voted for allowing the death penalty would be recorded in a list.
Then, whenever someone sentenced to death was later found to be innocent (or pardoned), a random name on the list of "Yes" voters would be picked to be killed in place of the innocent convict.
Then, whenever someone sentenced to death was later found to be innocent (or pardoned), a random name on the list of "Yes" voters would be picked to be killed in place of the innocent convict.
I enjoyed this thought experiment, but isn't it sort of a false equivalence argument?
Wouldn't it make more sense as a thought experiment if only "Yes" voters could be executed only if and when convicted of a crime deserving of capital punishment?
Wouldn't it make more sense as a thought experiment if only "Yes" voters could be executed only if and when convicted of a crime deserving of capital punishment?
No.
The point of the thought experiment is that innocent people are being murdered by the state from time to time for crimes they did not personally commit.
The purpose is essentially "if you are willing to put enough trust in the state to get it right every single time in capital cases, then shouldn't it follow that you be willing to put your own life on the line in the even that the state turns out to be wrong?"
They don't believe it would ever happen to them. Support for the death penalty is support for the state to have the power to end your own life, too.
The point of the thought experiment is that innocent people are being murdered by the state from time to time for crimes they did not personally commit.
The purpose is essentially "if you are willing to put enough trust in the state to get it right every single time in capital cases, then shouldn't it follow that you be willing to put your own life on the line in the even that the state turns out to be wrong?"
They don't believe it would ever happen to them. Support for the death penalty is support for the state to have the power to end your own life, too.
I wouldn't do pardoned. That's a whole other bag of things. A guy could be completely guilty and get a posthumous pardon because of reasons.
Actually the original idea that I based this on didn't mention pardons, but I thought that adding that element would make it more thought-provoking and put people off voting "Yes" in this hypothetical. Your comment suggests it has achieved both those goals.
Don't you think it's an interesting quirk for a legal system to allow both execution and posthumous pardons? If the point of a pardon is to end someone's punishment (even someone "completely guilty"), then shouldn't that necessitate that all punishments imposed by the justice system be impermanent, at least in principle?
Don't you think it's an interesting quirk for a legal system to allow both execution and posthumous pardons? If the point of a pardon is to end someone's punishment (even someone "completely guilty"), then shouldn't that necessitate that all punishments imposed by the justice system be impermanent, at least in principle?
I feel as if it's a different question with the pardons. You can pardon a guilty person. Pardons have nothing to do with innocence. Regardless of my feelings on whether or not I'd executed if an innocent man was executed, I definitely wouldn't want to be executed for a guilty person.
So rather than being thought-provoking, it's almost thought-terminating.
And I haven't touched on whether we should execute people in my post. So engaging on that front is also going to be a short road for us. Because in another post, I can get to "the death penalty" is wrong in a much more direct fashion. It's a game you're not allowed to make mistakes in. The minute you've executed an innocent person, you've failed.
So rather than being thought-provoking, it's almost thought-terminating.
And I haven't touched on whether we should execute people in my post. So engaging on that front is also going to be a short road for us. Because in another post, I can get to "the death penalty" is wrong in a much more direct fashion. It's a game you're not allowed to make mistakes in. The minute you've executed an innocent person, you've failed.
> I definitely wouldn't want to be executed for a guilty person.
It sounds like you're saying that you don't think that guilty people should ever be pardoned (even if those pardons didn't lead to the possibility of you having to be executed). That's probably not what you're saying, but I'm trying to understand the significance you are putting on the distinction between "innocent" and "pardoned".
If there are times in which a guilty person should be pardoned and not have to serve a life sentence, then surely there should be times when a guilty person is pardoned and spared from serving a death sentence. Morally speaking I think it is irrelevant if the pardon comes before conviction (i.e. when they are still legally presumed innocent), or before sentencing, or before execution, or after execution.
If you definitely wouldn't want to be executed for a guilty person, and you do believe in pardons (as they exist in the US legal system), then I think you shouldn't want to be executed for an innocent person either.
I believe that previous sentence is logically consistent with your position though. You are saying that P does-not-imply Q and NOT P does-not-imply Q, and I'm saying Q implies P.
It sounds like you're saying that you don't think that guilty people should ever be pardoned (even if those pardons didn't lead to the possibility of you having to be executed). That's probably not what you're saying, but I'm trying to understand the significance you are putting on the distinction between "innocent" and "pardoned".
If there are times in which a guilty person should be pardoned and not have to serve a life sentence, then surely there should be times when a guilty person is pardoned and spared from serving a death sentence. Morally speaking I think it is irrelevant if the pardon comes before conviction (i.e. when they are still legally presumed innocent), or before sentencing, or before execution, or after execution.
If you definitely wouldn't want to be executed for a guilty person, and you do believe in pardons (as they exist in the US legal system), then I think you shouldn't want to be executed for an innocent person either.
I believe that previous sentence is logically consistent with your position though. You are saying that P does-not-imply Q and NOT P does-not-imply Q, and I'm saying Q implies P.
Is there a point where it becomes necessary to end the life of another person?
Maybe. Maybe if the person is obviously committed to harming others and refuses all attempts at reform. How do you know when someone is past helping? Anyway, there just aren't very many people who match this description.
As a Christian against the death penalty I find myself often in a very unexpected minority. Many Christians I know and grew up around are very pro-death-penalty, to the point of being religious about it. But even Jesus declined to carry out capital punishment when given the opportunity to (and if anyone had the right, it would be him).
Maybe. Maybe if the person is obviously committed to harming others and refuses all attempts at reform. How do you know when someone is past helping? Anyway, there just aren't very many people who match this description.
As a Christian against the death penalty I find myself often in a very unexpected minority. Many Christians I know and grew up around are very pro-death-penalty, to the point of being religious about it. But even Jesus declined to carry out capital punishment when given the opportunity to (and if anyone had the right, it would be him).
> Is there a point where it becomes necessary to end the life of another person? Maybe. Maybe if the person is obviously committed to harming others and refuses all attempts at reform.
Even in that instance, I can't imagine it ever being necessary to end their life. We have more than sufficient technology and resources to sustain such a hopeless case in a state in which they, and everyone else, are safe from harm.
Taking a life simply because it's inconvenient to go to the lengths to secure someone from harming others for the short time that is a natural human lifespan is... befuddling. It's such a simple and tiny expense in the grand scheme of things, and such a deep and dark cliff off which to jump to save a few pennies.
Even in that instance, I can't imagine it ever being necessary to end their life. We have more than sufficient technology and resources to sustain such a hopeless case in a state in which they, and everyone else, are safe from harm.
Taking a life simply because it's inconvenient to go to the lengths to secure someone from harming others for the short time that is a natural human lifespan is... befuddling. It's such a simple and tiny expense in the grand scheme of things, and such a deep and dark cliff off which to jump to save a few pennies.
Not every government in the world has equal access to the necessary wealth and technology to pull this off, but for those that do I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I could not disagree with this position more than I do.
The police in the US are largely incompetent, it's true. Prosecutors and police regularly get things wrong, and what's worse yet is that it is often willfully so. They've far too much power, and the whole system needs to be overhauled, because it's rotten to the core.
That said: inaccuracy is not why the state should not murder people. Even if the system were replaced and could somehow become and remain provably 100% accurate, executing human beings is an abhorrent sentence.
There are certain inalienable rights that every human must attempt to preserve for every other human. Chiefly among them are a freedom from torture and freedom from being murdered by other human beings.
All other considerations are secondary. The moment we start treating human beings like objects and simply snuffing them out in response to perceived or adjudicated crimes, we become as a society no better than the common criminal. The fact that we have codified premeditated murder into law in some insane act of mental gymnastics will possibly be the thing that our so-called "civilization" will be judged most harshly upon come the verdict of history.
We have no claim to humanity or civilization whatsoever so long as we smite the life from living, thinking brothers and sisters at will, which is what a society having capital punishment has chosen to do with their system of law.
We hold these truths to be self-evident.
The police in the US are largely incompetent, it's true. Prosecutors and police regularly get things wrong, and what's worse yet is that it is often willfully so. They've far too much power, and the whole system needs to be overhauled, because it's rotten to the core.
That said: inaccuracy is not why the state should not murder people. Even if the system were replaced and could somehow become and remain provably 100% accurate, executing human beings is an abhorrent sentence.
There are certain inalienable rights that every human must attempt to preserve for every other human. Chiefly among them are a freedom from torture and freedom from being murdered by other human beings.
All other considerations are secondary. The moment we start treating human beings like objects and simply snuffing them out in response to perceived or adjudicated crimes, we become as a society no better than the common criminal. The fact that we have codified premeditated murder into law in some insane act of mental gymnastics will possibly be the thing that our so-called "civilization" will be judged most harshly upon come the verdict of history.
We have no claim to humanity or civilization whatsoever so long as we smite the life from living, thinking brothers and sisters at will, which is what a society having capital punishment has chosen to do with their system of law.
We hold these truths to be self-evident.
I seriously think the ability to end one's life "if sentenced to life in prison" is the ethical, humane, and moral thing to allow for everyone. We're starting to allow euthanasia for intolerable suffering from medical conditions. Well, I assert that people being isolated from society for a severe crime because of their "ill mindset" is identical to severe illnesses and where they may suffer intolerable psychological pain from the isolation of a life sentence. I seriously see no downsides to allowing euthanasia as a choice for persons with life sentences. Only thing it possibly takes away is a feeling of vengeance the victims may have and if they personally dislike the idea of a person that harmed them being able to die early.
That's an amazingly slippery slope if I ever saw one:
"We've eliminated the death penalty because we are so enlightened. But now that we've sentenced you to life in prison, every morning with breakfast, we offer a side of poison just in case you would like to exercise your right to check out of this hell hole.
No pressure. Just being helpful."
"We've eliminated the death penalty because we are so enlightened. But now that we've sentenced you to life in prison, every morning with breakfast, we offer a side of poison just in case you would like to exercise your right to check out of this hell hole.
No pressure. Just being helpful."
Can't wait for cutting edge prisons which AB test changes to diet, schedule, and accommodations to maximize prisoner self terminations.
All within the bounds of strict adherence to ethics regulations of course.
All within the bounds of strict adherence to ethics regulations of course.
"Responsibly saving your tax dollars one assisted suicide at a time."
That's the most ridiculous response I didn't expect to read towards my comment. Of course, all precautions should be similar to the existing process of having euthanasia. No coercion or manipulation present while the decision comes from the person, and a doctor or nurse trained in euthanasia would be doing the evaluation(s) of the person requesting it. Currently, people are receiving euthanasia for intolerable medical conditions and without anyone finding slippery slope imaginary scenarios that people write as fears.
I'm pro right to die and not sure how I feel about the death penalty, but the minute you say "We are going to sentence you to decades of torture and kindly help you escape that by offering some version of euthanasia" you are really doing some major head fuckery that actively encourages people to commit suicide.
People in prison sometimes already commit suicide, in spite of it being hard to do.
People in prison sometimes already commit suicide, in spite of it being hard to do.
The reason it isn't such a "major head fuckery" for me personally, is because I don't believe in free will and I think everything is predetermined. So, someone that has an "ill mindset" where they commit a crime worthy of being forever isolated from the general public, is in the sense very ill psychologically and comparable to someone suffering from a mental illness. The psychological pain that someone will suffer from forever by the isolation result because of their ill mindset that made them isolated should allow euthanasia like other countries allow someone with a psychological illness with intolerable suffering the choice to escape the intolerable pain. Anyway to me that's a kinder world than being stuck in pain until death and when it wasn't their choice to develop an ill mindset; similar to all other people with illnesses that are privileged to be able to decide for themselves if euthanasia is the right thing for them personally. Committing suicide without medical help can be terrifying and statistically more favourable to fail where brain damage could likely prevent further attempts.
Among other things: You are assuming they are actually guilty. The very article under discussion shows that innocent people go to prison.
There's a whole lot more I don't agree with here, but it seems unlikely to be a fruitful discussion.
There's a whole lot more I don't agree with here, but it seems unlikely to be a fruitful discussion.
I wrote for persons that are in a way innocent, as they had no choice but are guilty if they really did commit the crime worthy of the punishment. I'll confirm here for you that I think even an innocent person should be given a way out by euthanasia if they're living such a nightmare of being stuck in prison for a life sentence while truly innocent by not committing the accused crime(s). We definitely as a society should allow persons that were fated with such a cruel twist in life the ability to fight for retrials for examining how they truly are innocent even while the first verdict claims otherwise. I'm not assuming but just writing my thoughts for a better world than the one I observe in this life.
[deleted]
(not the person you're replying to) I can't deny there are ethical problems, but on a very personal level I strongly agree with GP's premise: if I was sentenced to life imprisonment, I would consider it so intolerable I would want to kill myself (especially true in specific countries with notoriously unpleasant or corrupt prison systems). I'm honestly not sure how that should square with potential ethical problems of prison euthanasia but I feel compelled to point out that it's a real desire that deserves consideration, just like normal euthanasia. Similar problems exist with regular euthanasia and they tend to be mitigated with policies like waiting periods, redundant consent, and minimum requirements.
It’s atypically sloppy of Graham to throw out the 4% number without mentioning that it’s just one estimate of a hard to ascertain number. One survey puts it much lower: https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&con...
> This Article challenges the seemingly developing conventional wisdom that the error rate in America’s criminal justice system is 1% or even higher. In fact, looking at the best available and current data, a conservative estimate of the error rate is somewhere close to the 0.027% posited by Justice Scalia.
> This Article challenges the seemingly developing conventional wisdom that the error rate in America’s criminal justice system is 1% or even higher. In fact, looking at the best available and current data, a conservative estimate of the error rate is somewhere close to the 0.027% posited by Justice Scalia.
If I remember it correctly, it's the 4% that were supposed to be the conservative estimate.
Anyone who says the rate is 0.027% is obviously bonkers, given what sample you'd need to specify the result with a 0.0005% error. I don't see how anyone could practically do that.
Anyone who says the rate is 0.027% is obviously bonkers, given what sample you'd need to specify the result with a 0.0005% error. I don't see how anyone could practically do that.
I'm surprised to see this doesn't also make another argument: It's not economical.
Because we rightfully try to set a high bar and have many delays, opportunities for appeal to minimize executing innocent people and also need high security confinement (since someone sentenced to death doesn't have a lot to lose in attempting to escape...) the entire process is extraordinarily expensive.
The resources we spend on it could instead be spend elsewhere and save lot of lives, cut taxes, -- whatever stokes your particular political perspective would be better off if we weren't spending resources killing people.
Because we rightfully try to set a high bar and have many delays, opportunities for appeal to minimize executing innocent people and also need high security confinement (since someone sentenced to death doesn't have a lot to lose in attempting to escape...) the entire process is extraordinarily expensive.
The resources we spend on it could instead be spend elsewhere and save lot of lives, cut taxes, -- whatever stokes your particular political perspective would be better off if we weren't spending resources killing people.
Even if there were no death penalty, spending 30+ years in prison while innocent does not seem like such a good deal either.
Arguments against the death penalty downplay how barbaric incarceration is in the first place. But ostracism and exile have their limits, and justice is an essential function of government ... so ... we have our current situation.
but it is possible that the sentence gets revised before you fo 30 years in prison.
If you've been killed already, that is not going to help you much.
If you've been killed already, that is not going to help you much.
Incarceration also is irreversible as each of our time is finite. It should concern us when we downplay the risk of false incarceration, it also is unacceptable.
Yes, it's still terrible. However, it's better than death (though I can imagine somebody arguing that "they'd rather die than rot in prison").
Sure, but death is worse, as evidenced by the vast majority of death row inmates who try to stall the process. Very few say “OK, just shoot me now.”
It's not as uncommon as you'd think:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90935&page=1
>More death-row inmates have been volunteering for their executions: Between 1993 and 2002, 75 volunteered for death, compared to the 22 consensual executions between 1977 and 1992. (Gary Gilmore, the first prisoner put to death after the Supreme Court reinstituted capital punishment in 1976, "volunteered" for his execution in 1977 because he did not want to live the rest of his life on death row.)
It's probably more an indictment of the torture they go through on death row than it is a signal that they all secretly have a death wish.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90935&page=1
>More death-row inmates have been volunteering for their executions: Between 1993 and 2002, 75 volunteered for death, compared to the 22 consensual executions between 1977 and 1992. (Gary Gilmore, the first prisoner put to death after the Supreme Court reinstituted capital punishment in 1976, "volunteered" for his execution in 1977 because he did not want to live the rest of his life on death row.)
It's probably more an indictment of the torture they go through on death row than it is a signal that they all secretly have a death wish.
That’s out of over 1,300 executions since 1976.
If they were given the option to send all the resources that get spent on them rotting in prison to a cause of their choosing - many of them would quickly choose a humane death.
The ones that wouldn't, only care about themselves and should be treated accordingly.
The ones that wouldn't, only care about themselves and should be treated accordingly.
The death penalty comes and goes because it’s frequently improperly applied, making it a thorn of criminal justice much like plea bargains.
There are only two legal remedies provided by the death penalty:
* Repeat offenders of capital crimes have no cause for separation or special treatment from a prison’s general population. This is a rare edge cases that generally only applies to inmates that continue to participate in extreme criminal activities even under incarceration. Death row prisoners are generally isolated from the general population of a prison system to limit such interaction where such separation is otherwise not typically available.
* Capital punishment is a legal surety to enforce life without parole even if there is no intention to execute the convict.
Capital punishment provides those two legal remedies that the law otherwise does not fulfill or fulfills with numerous exceptions.
Unfortunately, the death penalty is frequently used for a variety of other concerns, such as compelling testimony. The same problems the plague the US criminal justice system at large also allow abuse and misuse of the death penalty.
The US’s two largest problems in regards to criminal justice are cultural and funding inversion. The cultural problem is that many people believe incarceration is a form of revenge or retribution but the constitution was written to prevent such sentiments creating a conflict of motive. The funding inversion applies to many police forces receiving funding disproportionately to their respective district attorneys offices resulting in system overload and backlog with insufficient oversight.
There are only two legal remedies provided by the death penalty:
* Repeat offenders of capital crimes have no cause for separation or special treatment from a prison’s general population. This is a rare edge cases that generally only applies to inmates that continue to participate in extreme criminal activities even under incarceration. Death row prisoners are generally isolated from the general population of a prison system to limit such interaction where such separation is otherwise not typically available.
* Capital punishment is a legal surety to enforce life without parole even if there is no intention to execute the convict.
Capital punishment provides those two legal remedies that the law otherwise does not fulfill or fulfills with numerous exceptions.
Unfortunately, the death penalty is frequently used for a variety of other concerns, such as compelling testimony. The same problems the plague the US criminal justice system at large also allow abuse and misuse of the death penalty.
The US’s two largest problems in regards to criminal justice are cultural and funding inversion. The cultural problem is that many people believe incarceration is a form of revenge or retribution but the constitution was written to prevent such sentiments creating a conflict of motive. The funding inversion applies to many police forces receiving funding disproportionately to their respective district attorneys offices resulting in system overload and backlog with insufficient oversight.
I have two thoughts.
First, yes, PG is right that we need to do something about wrongful convictions. If we do away with the death penalty and these people live the rest of their life in prison, but we don't kill them, that's... better, I guess? But it's still horrible, and it's still a problem that we need to fix. Just eliminating the death penalty doesn't fix the problem. If you make eliminating the death penalty a side effect of the campaign against wrongful convictions, that's fine. But if you make eliminating the death penalty the fix, that's hopelessly inadequate.
Second, the moral calculus gets awful. The usual question is, how many guilty people would you let go free to avoid putting one innocent person in prison? That shows the problem - false positives and false negatives are inversely related. But there's another issue, which is that some people who murder do so more than once. So, to avoid putting one innocent person in prison, how many innocent people are you willing to see die because of not-convicted murderers who repeat the crime? (If anyone has recidivism statistics on released murderers, I would welcome them.)
First, yes, PG is right that we need to do something about wrongful convictions. If we do away with the death penalty and these people live the rest of their life in prison, but we don't kill them, that's... better, I guess? But it's still horrible, and it's still a problem that we need to fix. Just eliminating the death penalty doesn't fix the problem. If you make eliminating the death penalty a side effect of the campaign against wrongful convictions, that's fine. But if you make eliminating the death penalty the fix, that's hopelessly inadequate.
Second, the moral calculus gets awful. The usual question is, how many guilty people would you let go free to avoid putting one innocent person in prison? That shows the problem - false positives and false negatives are inversely related. But there's another issue, which is that some people who murder do so more than once. So, to avoid putting one innocent person in prison, how many innocent people are you willing to see die because of not-convicted murderers who repeat the crime? (If anyone has recidivism statistics on released murderers, I would welcome them.)
[deleted]
Scientific knowledge that connects brain injuries to violent crime is an even better reason to end the death penalty.
Traumatic brain injury damages self-regulation and changes social behavior. Uninhibited or impulsive behavior, including problems controlling anger and unacceptable sexual behavior, leads to crime. The concept of insanity used in the US criminal system is based on science 130 years ago, combined with the religious concept of sin and soul. The thinking is that if a person knows what they do is wrong, they could choose to not do it is BS. With brain injury person can lose that ability.
Damaged Brains and the Death Penalty https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/damaged-brains-and-the-...
>In another study, of 14 juveniles sentenced to death, the researchers found that all had suffered head trauma, most in car accidents but many by beatings as well. 12 had suffered brutal physical abuse, 5 of those sodomized by relatives.
Traumatic brain injury: a potential cause of violent crime? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6171742/
Traumatic Brain Injury in Prisons and Jails: An Unrecognized Problem https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/pdf/prisoner_tbi_pr...
>According to jail and prison studies, 25-87% of inmates report having experienced a head injury or TBI 2-4 as compared to 8.5% in a general population reporting a history of TBI.
Traumatic brain injury damages self-regulation and changes social behavior. Uninhibited or impulsive behavior, including problems controlling anger and unacceptable sexual behavior, leads to crime. The concept of insanity used in the US criminal system is based on science 130 years ago, combined with the religious concept of sin and soul. The thinking is that if a person knows what they do is wrong, they could choose to not do it is BS. With brain injury person can lose that ability.
Damaged Brains and the Death Penalty https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/damaged-brains-and-the-...
>In another study, of 14 juveniles sentenced to death, the researchers found that all had suffered head trauma, most in car accidents but many by beatings as well. 12 had suffered brutal physical abuse, 5 of those sodomized by relatives.
Traumatic brain injury: a potential cause of violent crime? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6171742/
Traumatic Brain Injury in Prisons and Jails: An Unrecognized Problem https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/pdf/prisoner_tbi_pr...
>According to jail and prison studies, 25-87% of inmates report having experienced a head injury or TBI 2-4 as compared to 8.5% in a general population reporting a history of TBI.
I believe the “real reason” to end the death penalty is that it’s so much more expensive the alternative [1]. If it doesn’t deter crime, and doesn’t save money, there’s really no point.
[1] https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs
[1] https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs
The problem with the death penalty is that it's a game that allows for no mistakes. Because the penalty is final, you can never apply that penalty to the wrong people.
You need to be 100% sure that you are about to execute the right person for the right reason every single time.
And there are very few cases where we can be that sure of something.
You need to be 100% sure that you are about to execute the right person for the right reason every single time.
And there are very few cases where we can be that sure of something.
Though I agree that in most cases death penalty should not be used, in some very specific but not rare cases - like mass shootings with dozens dead - where you have a lot of video and DNA evidence and dozens of witnesses - I just can't find a single argument against it. If I find any - I would gladly change my mind.
> If I find any - I would gladly change my mind.
Then let me offer you this question to ponder: What benefit is there to adding another tally to the body count from a mass shooting, once the perpetrator has been taken into custody?
Executing someone doesn't reduce the number of unnecessarily lost lives, it only increases it.
Then let me offer you this question to ponder: What benefit is there to adding another tally to the body count from a mass shooting, once the perpetrator has been taken into custody?
Executing someone doesn't reduce the number of unnecessarily lost lives, it only increases it.
One possible benefit is that it might help provide closure for the people who lost friends and relatives in the mass shooting.
Someone who is assaulted or robbed might also benefit from the sense of closure they would receive knowing that the perpetrator had died. Similarly someone who found their partner cheating on them with a rival might find it easier to move on from that if their rival was then killed.
In general I don't think that society is best served by legitimising and implementing the irrational desires we have for killing people who have emotionally hurt us.
I think it would instead make sense to try to improve the support given to people who have suffered from crimes. If this means years of expensive therapy, paid for by the near-slavery of the perpetrator carrying out their life sentence, then we could have an outcome that is slightly more humane.
In general I don't think that society is best served by legitimising and implementing the irrational desires we have for killing people who have emotionally hurt us.
I think it would instead make sense to try to improve the support given to people who have suffered from crimes. If this means years of expensive therapy, paid for by the near-slavery of the perpetrator carrying out their life sentence, then we could have an outcome that is slightly more humane.
It's as if you need guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.
[deleted]
I think spending the rest of your life in solitary in a supermax prison sounds like a fate much worse than death. I'd rather see that happen to a terrorist than the death penalty.
Life imprisonment/confinement is arguably identical to the death penalty (since you are dead to society, the government kills you by outliving you, etc.).
Since innocent people also get life imprisonment, one could argue that any punishment like this that could potentially harm innocent people should be outlawed.
Since innocent people also get life imprisonment, one could argue that any punishment like this that could potentially harm innocent people should be outlawed.
It seems to me that multi-decade prison terms are at least as severe as death. It doesn't seem terrible as long as prisoners are able to kill themselves. But a life sentence in a prison with effective suicide prevention seems far harsher than a lethal injection next week.
The problem with capital punishment is what do you do when you discover after the fact that the person was innocent?
If the justice system were perfect there could be a case for execution in place of life sentences, but it has been shown time and time again that going free depends more on the quality of your lawyer than the facts of the case. Prosecutors will lie and fabricate evidence because the cops did a terrible job and they figure you must be guilty. Even if it's not of this particular crime you're just the criminal type and they'll be doing society a favor by locking you away.
The system is highly classist and racist. It shouldn't be allowed to make such final decisions like killing someone. This makes it impossible to reverse the injustice in the future.
If the justice system were perfect there could be a case for execution in place of life sentences, but it has been shown time and time again that going free depends more on the quality of your lawyer than the facts of the case. Prosecutors will lie and fabricate evidence because the cops did a terrible job and they figure you must be guilty. Even if it's not of this particular crime you're just the criminal type and they'll be doing society a favor by locking you away.
The system is highly classist and racist. It shouldn't be allowed to make such final decisions like killing someone. This makes it impossible to reverse the injustice in the future.
But a life sentence in prison with a noose in it is humane?
Once you've decided to throw someone's life away, keeping them around to experience their thrown-away life is not particularly kind, is the point.
If human life is so precious that it must not be taken, then it's precious enough that it must not be taken by oneself as well as others. If people are worth the chance at life, then a life in a prison cell is as worth that chance as life in a palace.
Can someone explain the logic behind District Attorney's being elected? I'm not from the US so don't understand the reasoning. Why are certain crimes prosecuted based on decisions of an elected official? That just seems obviously highly manipulatable to me.
The theory is that democracy allows the people to hold the DA accountable to the public good, vs an appointed DA who can use their power for political ends and is only accountable to the person that appoints them (who they can do favors for).
Unrelated: it's kinda funny that, of all people, it's Paul Graham's website that my browser gives me a warning like this:
"You’ve enabled HTTPS-Only Mode for enhanced security, and a HTTPS version of paulgraham.com is not available."
Related:
> "But in practice the debate about the death penalty is not about whether it's ok to kill murderers. It's about whether it's ok to kill innocent people, because at least 4% of people on death row are innocent."
Where does this guy "practice"? Does he know anyone who goes to church? The debate is very, very much about whether it's okay to kill murderers.
"You’ve enabled HTTPS-Only Mode for enhanced security, and a HTTPS version of paulgraham.com is not available."
Related:
> "But in practice the debate about the death penalty is not about whether it's ok to kill murderers. It's about whether it's ok to kill innocent people, because at least 4% of people on death row are innocent."
Where does this guy "practice"? Does he know anyone who goes to church? The debate is very, very much about whether it's okay to kill murderers.
The examples he gives for why we should end the death penalty are almost all people who weren't given the death penalty because the legal process exonerated them before they were executed. I don't expect any process to be perfect, but he has one example of someone who may (or may not) have been executed for a crime he didn't commit.
I'm against the death penalty - it is too much power for a government to have. I am slightly less against it after reading Paul Graham's argument. I guess that's called an own goal.
I'm against the death penalty - it is too much power for a government to have. I am slightly less against it after reading Paul Graham's argument. I guess that's called an own goal.
As many here I wholeheartedly disagree with the argument made by the article. It might be one of many reasons but not the main one.
Another argumemt against the death sentence I haven't heard here:
I think the whole 'eye-for-an-eye'-principle of the justice system sets a negative example for the respective society and thus facilitates violence.
"It is okay to kill someone for a crime. Even the state does it. My reason is valid."
It lowers the bar for violence even further unnecessarily.
I did not fact check this. Its just a gut feeling.
Another argumemt against the death sentence I haven't heard here:
I think the whole 'eye-for-an-eye'-principle of the justice system sets a negative example for the respective society and thus facilitates violence.
"It is okay to kill someone for a crime. Even the state does it. My reason is valid."
It lowers the bar for violence even further unnecessarily.
I did not fact check this. Its just a gut feeling.
The real reason to end the death penalty is because it's hypocritical for society to declare killing as a most serious crime and then turn around and kill the killers (and others usually, traitors, double agents etc). That's a "do as I say, not as I do" situation that even a five year old would understand.
Abigail Thorn of Philosophy Tube recently did a good 39-minute video on capital punishment, focusing a bit on the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDcwIZzaf-k
"Capital Punishment (& Prison Abolition)"
She's a bit left of me. I'm okay with keeping prisons, at least in some part. Gotta put murderers somewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDcwIZzaf-k
"Capital Punishment (& Prison Abolition)"
She's a bit left of me. I'm okay with keeping prisons, at least in some part. Gotta put murderers somewhere.
> […] capital punishment means killing innocent people
[deleted]
Intellectuals don't debate wether it is ok to kill innocent people because the answer is pretty obvious.
To read more interesting thoughts on the matter : https://speakola.com/ideas/robert-badinter-death-penalty-abo...
To read more interesting thoughts on the matter : https://speakola.com/ideas/robert-badinter-death-penalty-abo...
Brutality is also not progress. Far from it.
We shall try elavating ourselves away from brutality.
Killing is the upper end point of brutality.
Society not deciding to end death penalty is Society with one foot in the mud of ancient brutal regime.
Ending dath penalty is, of course, avoiding killing by mistake 4% of those sentenced. But is is also elavating ourselves from the mud of past regime.
We shall not kill
Killing is the upper end point of brutality.
Society not deciding to end death penalty is Society with one foot in the mud of ancient brutal regime.
Ending dath penalty is, of course, avoiding killing by mistake 4% of those sentenced. But is is also elavating ourselves from the mud of past regime.
We shall not kill
I'm surprised not to see any consideration of second-order effects. For example, if getting rid of the death penalty even slightly decreases the disincentive for committing crime, it's quite possible that more lives would be lost than saved.
In any given year, there are relatively few executions in the US — in recent years it has been around 25. [1] If we assume the 4% figure as correct, then every four years there is one innocent person who is executed.
That is a terrible outcome. But it's quite possible that eliminating the death penalty completely would cause at least 2 more deaths every four years.
I'm not advocating for or against the death penalty — just pointing out that if the goal is to minimize the death of innocent people, we might want to consider second-order effects. I will admit that state-sanctioned killing of innocent people seems worse than general killing of innocent people. At the same time, if the government makes a decision that it knows will result in a net increase in the number of innocent people killed, the fact that they're not sticking a needle into the arm of the innocent people who will die is somewhat less of a salient distinction.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Unit...
In any given year, there are relatively few executions in the US — in recent years it has been around 25. [1] If we assume the 4% figure as correct, then every four years there is one innocent person who is executed.
That is a terrible outcome. But it's quite possible that eliminating the death penalty completely would cause at least 2 more deaths every four years.
I'm not advocating for or against the death penalty — just pointing out that if the goal is to minimize the death of innocent people, we might want to consider second-order effects. I will admit that state-sanctioned killing of innocent people seems worse than general killing of innocent people. At the same time, if the government makes a decision that it knows will result in a net increase in the number of innocent people killed, the fact that they're not sticking a needle into the arm of the innocent people who will die is somewhat less of a salient distinction.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Unit...
I'm aware that there is not strong evidence of a global deterrent effect. However, if we are looking to offset something like 1 death every four years, the magnitude of a countervailing effect could be small enough to be lost in the 'noise' of the existing research studies, but still be larger than the .25 annual deaths that it's being measured against.
I would also point out that looking at state-level differences in death penalty policies isn't as likely to pick up changes in attitudes among criminals. If the federal government outlawed the death penalty, there would be much broader awareness of the change (and therefore more likelihood of a change in criminal behavior).
I would also point out that looking at state-level differences in death penalty policies isn't as likely to pick up changes in attitudes among criminals. If the federal government outlawed the death penalty, there would be much broader awareness of the change (and therefore more likelihood of a change in criminal behavior).
Go back to grade school and learn your percentages anew. You are treating them very badly.
If this had been written by anyone but pg, the headline would've been changed to "A Reason to End the Death Penalty" :D
If we did that, commenters would complain "yet again, the HN moderators completely change the meaning of a title with their invasive and random editing. It's infuriating." And in this case they'd be right, because in this case the definite article and the word "real" are essential—the article's argument doesn't really exist without them.
I know you can't please everyone. Hope you didn't mind the ribbing. ;)
Well no. I don't think that this should be the reason. It makes altogether too much sense and removes all morality from the matter. It also lacks any zeal or conviction. It will also unfortunately convince nobody.
The real reason is that you should respect life. You should give it your utmost respect. Taking away a life when it's unnecessary, speaks of a lack of respect. Innocent people getting punished unfairly is a terrible thing, but it happens all the time. Justice systems are imperfect. And removing the death penalty won't change that. Maybe it will make injustice slightly less permanent but that's about it. It will however make a symbolic point. That you can't morally justify murder. That's probably a better deterrent to murder than harsh punishment. If 'eye for an eye' is the standard for the state why would you expect the people to do any better? Why would you not expect them to say, carry arms all the time and get provoked into making a headline when they have a bad day? It's all connected. Leadership sometimes means leading by example and a firm 'no' to murder implies a 'no' to the death penalty.
The real reason is that you should respect life. You should give it your utmost respect. Taking away a life when it's unnecessary, speaks of a lack of respect. Innocent people getting punished unfairly is a terrible thing, but it happens all the time. Justice systems are imperfect. And removing the death penalty won't change that. Maybe it will make injustice slightly less permanent but that's about it. It will however make a symbolic point. That you can't morally justify murder. That's probably a better deterrent to murder than harsh punishment. If 'eye for an eye' is the standard for the state why would you expect the people to do any better? Why would you not expect them to say, carry arms all the time and get provoked into making a headline when they have a bad day? It's all connected. Leadership sometimes means leading by example and a firm 'no' to murder implies a 'no' to the death penalty.
I agree with the premise of this article, but there is a deeper issue at hand, how we decide who is guilty. Simply abolishing the death penalty isn't enough, there is a greater reform needed to reduce wrongful convictions.
At the end of the day if a man is wrongfully convicted, spending life in prison is hardly much better than the death penalty.
At the end of the day if a man is wrongfully convicted, spending life in prison is hardly much better than the death penalty.
I went from being a child the day I realized that you don't have to _REALLY_ prove that a person did a crime, you just need to construct a circumstance where it'd make sense.
Reasonable doubt.. super dangerous, because it relies entirely on spinning a story, and reality has no obligation to be reasonable.
Reasonable doubt.. super dangerous, because it relies entirely on spinning a story, and reality has no obligation to be reasonable.
Highly recommend the book "The Sun Does Shine", by Anthony Ray Hinton. He was wrongfully convicted and spent 30 years on death row.
One of the crazy parts of his story was how the state dug in its heels and did everything possible to prevent him from being acquitted, long after the new evidence was introduced.
One of the crazy parts of his story was how the state dug in its heels and did everything possible to prevent him from being acquitted, long after the new evidence was introduced.
> District attorneys want to be seen as effective and tough on crime, and in order to win convictions are willing to manipulate witnesses and withhold evidence. Court-appointed defense attorneys are overworked and often incompetent.
I'll note that most of these problems are unique to the US justice system.
I'll note that most of these problems are unique to the US justice system.
> When they find a suspect, they want to believe he's guilty, and ignore or even destroy evidence suggesting otherwise...This circus of incompetence and dishonesty is the real issue with the death penalty.
There's a more charitable way to reach the same conclusion. Experienced cops must see dozens or hundreds of cases over their careers, where guys who "obviously did it" get off on technicalities or random chance. (This is an official TV Trope for a reason.) Even if we grant that that instinct is actually unreliable and often wrong, that's still a huge number of real cases where the "system didn't work". From an outsider perspective, of course, we tolerate that as a tradeoff to avoid convicting innocent people. But from an insider perspective, it's natural to come to see The System as an adversary, and to see your job as working around and compensating for that Failed System.
This is a problem, and it absolutely ruins a lot of innocent people's lives, and there are clearly ways we could address it on the margins. But at the same time, it might not be a central problem that we solve directly and completely. Rather, we could acknowledge that, to some extent, it's an expected component of a deliberately adversarial system. A lot of legal mechanisms work this way. My defense attorney's job isn't to be a perfectly objective arbiter of whether I should be in jail. Rather, their job is to make the best (most overwhelmingly biased) argument possible that I shouldn't be, and we leave it to the prosecutor (and their presumably opposite biases) to argue that I should. There are reasonable limits to this, and you can get disbarred for violating them, but for the most part everyone's biases are acknowledged and expected. That's not entirely true of policing, but it's part of the truth. Juries of our peers exist because we know it's not realistic to make the police or the judiciary solely responsible for fairness and justice. We can understand this as a normal part of human nature and system design, without necessarily taking a position on whether it represents "incompetence" or "dishonesty".
So...why nitpick these words to death like this? Because there's a symmetry here. When one group is calling another incompetent, it's a sure bet that the second group is calling the first clueless. And it goes without saying that both groups consider the other dishonest. Each side retreats to its bubble, and progress is impossible. The rhetorical habits that break this cycle are super important.
There's a more charitable way to reach the same conclusion. Experienced cops must see dozens or hundreds of cases over their careers, where guys who "obviously did it" get off on technicalities or random chance. (This is an official TV Trope for a reason.) Even if we grant that that instinct is actually unreliable and often wrong, that's still a huge number of real cases where the "system didn't work". From an outsider perspective, of course, we tolerate that as a tradeoff to avoid convicting innocent people. But from an insider perspective, it's natural to come to see The System as an adversary, and to see your job as working around and compensating for that Failed System.
This is a problem, and it absolutely ruins a lot of innocent people's lives, and there are clearly ways we could address it on the margins. But at the same time, it might not be a central problem that we solve directly and completely. Rather, we could acknowledge that, to some extent, it's an expected component of a deliberately adversarial system. A lot of legal mechanisms work this way. My defense attorney's job isn't to be a perfectly objective arbiter of whether I should be in jail. Rather, their job is to make the best (most overwhelmingly biased) argument possible that I shouldn't be, and we leave it to the prosecutor (and their presumably opposite biases) to argue that I should. There are reasonable limits to this, and you can get disbarred for violating them, but for the most part everyone's biases are acknowledged and expected. That's not entirely true of policing, but it's part of the truth. Juries of our peers exist because we know it's not realistic to make the police or the judiciary solely responsible for fairness and justice. We can understand this as a normal part of human nature and system design, without necessarily taking a position on whether it represents "incompetence" or "dishonesty".
So...why nitpick these words to death like this? Because there's a symmetry here. When one group is calling another incompetent, it's a sure bet that the second group is calling the first clueless. And it goes without saying that both groups consider the other dishonest. Each side retreats to its bubble, and progress is impossible. The rhetorical habits that break this cycle are super important.
Another good reason, is that if there is no death penalty, or other violent punishment on the books, then calling for someone’s death is always a call to extralegal violence, and cannot be claimed to be a call for legal justice as it is today.
[deleted]
>This circus of incompetence and dishonesty is the real issue with the death penalty.
This is the real issue with almost every human endeavor, especially those that affect other people's lives. ( example politics, taxes)
This is the real issue with almost every human endeavor, especially those that affect other people's lives. ( example politics, taxes)
I'm anti-death-penalty because I like small government. Unfortunately, almost everyone who says they like small government likes the death penalty. Weird company to keep.
Here's my take on it:
Capital punishment is applied to murderers. By killing the convict, you're basically committing the same crime you're punishing him for.
Capital punishment is applied to murderers. By killing the convict, you're basically committing the same crime you're punishing him for.
It's honestly messed up that in 2021 there are parts of so-called "civilized world" where this discussion is still ongoing.
> When intellectuals talk about the death penalty, they talk about things like whether it's permissible for the state to take someone's life, whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent, and whether more death sentences are given to some groups than others. But in practice the debate about the death penalty is not about whether it's ok to kill murderers. It's about whether it's ok to kill innocent people, because at least 4% of people on death row are innocent.
It’s not obvious whether Graham has read a reasonable cross-section of the literature on the death penalty and come to this conclusion (in which case some references might be in order) or whether he's just pulling this out of his arse. I’m not familiar with the literature, but a Google Scholar search brings up the following:
> Although death penalty discourse has always been, and remains, multifaceted - encompassing morality, religion, cost, deterrence, theories of punishment, fairness, race, class, and human rights - we suggest that over the past decade innocence has emerged as perhaps the dominant issue in death penalty discourse with "an unprecedented effect on the debate about capital punishment" (Bandes 2008, 5; Baumgartner, De Boef, and Boydstun 2008, 157). This phenomenon has been referred to by such labels as the "age of innocence" (Rosen 2006, 237) or even an "innocence revolution" (Marshall 2004, 573; Steiker and Steiker 2005, 613). The abolitionist movement has embraced innocence as a new rhetorical asset in the death penalty debate, one with the potential to decisively shift the weight of public opinion in abolition's favor (Radelet and Borg 2000; Bedau 2004a; Acker 2009). "Unlike other challenges to the fairness of capital proceedings, which have failed to stimulate widespread public outrage," Marshall (2004) argues, "evidence of the system's propensity to factual error has the power to open closed minds and trigger reexamination of the costs and benefits of capital punishment" (579). Banner (2002) notes, "the prospect of killing an innocent person seemed to be the one thing that could cause people to rethink their support for capital punishment" (304). He goes on to suggest that "if any development had the potential to change" the popularity of the death penalty, "this was the one" (305). Thus, one scholar claims, "it is no exaggeration to say that wrongful convictions spurred . . . the most successful death penalty reform movement in our lifetime" (Bandes 2008, 4). Already, scholars claim that innocence "has produced a massive shift in the terms of the national death-penalty debate" (Hoffman 2005, 562), a shift "away from moral and procedural considerations, and toward the more substantive question of guilt and innocence" (Hall 2005, 373).
(J.D. Aronson and S.A. Cole, "Science and the Death Penalty: DNA, Innocence, and the Debate over Capital Punishment in the United States", Law & Social Inquiry 34.3 (2009), pp. 603-33, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40539373.)
Perhaps it’s somehow satisfying to Graham to make a wide sweep at ‘intellectuals’ whilst presenting a purportedly distinct argument without trying to determine whether it’s been anticipated, but it strikes me as rather dishonest.
It’s not obvious whether Graham has read a reasonable cross-section of the literature on the death penalty and come to this conclusion (in which case some references might be in order) or whether he's just pulling this out of his arse. I’m not familiar with the literature, but a Google Scholar search brings up the following:
> Although death penalty discourse has always been, and remains, multifaceted - encompassing morality, religion, cost, deterrence, theories of punishment, fairness, race, class, and human rights - we suggest that over the past decade innocence has emerged as perhaps the dominant issue in death penalty discourse with "an unprecedented effect on the debate about capital punishment" (Bandes 2008, 5; Baumgartner, De Boef, and Boydstun 2008, 157). This phenomenon has been referred to by such labels as the "age of innocence" (Rosen 2006, 237) or even an "innocence revolution" (Marshall 2004, 573; Steiker and Steiker 2005, 613). The abolitionist movement has embraced innocence as a new rhetorical asset in the death penalty debate, one with the potential to decisively shift the weight of public opinion in abolition's favor (Radelet and Borg 2000; Bedau 2004a; Acker 2009). "Unlike other challenges to the fairness of capital proceedings, which have failed to stimulate widespread public outrage," Marshall (2004) argues, "evidence of the system's propensity to factual error has the power to open closed minds and trigger reexamination of the costs and benefits of capital punishment" (579). Banner (2002) notes, "the prospect of killing an innocent person seemed to be the one thing that could cause people to rethink their support for capital punishment" (304). He goes on to suggest that "if any development had the potential to change" the popularity of the death penalty, "this was the one" (305). Thus, one scholar claims, "it is no exaggeration to say that wrongful convictions spurred . . . the most successful death penalty reform movement in our lifetime" (Bandes 2008, 4). Already, scholars claim that innocence "has produced a massive shift in the terms of the national death-penalty debate" (Hoffman 2005, 562), a shift "away from moral and procedural considerations, and toward the more substantive question of guilt and innocence" (Hall 2005, 373).
(J.D. Aronson and S.A. Cole, "Science and the Death Penalty: DNA, Innocence, and the Debate over Capital Punishment in the United States", Law & Social Inquiry 34.3 (2009), pp. 603-33, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40539373.)
Perhaps it’s somehow satisfying to Graham to make a wide sweep at ‘intellectuals’ whilst presenting a purportedly distinct argument without trying to determine whether it’s been anticipated, but it strikes me as rather dishonest.
Another solution is having a no doubt standard needed for the death penalty as opposed to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
No doubt standard would require some set elements. DNA + visual recording + electronic records.
I used to be anti death penalty but would be ok with it under a no doubt standard. Not for vengeance but simply society can spend the money on other things instead of spending money housing and feeding individuals who have caused such horrific pain on others.
No doubt standard would require some set elements. DNA + visual recording + electronic records.
I used to be anti death penalty but would be ok with it under a no doubt standard. Not for vengeance but simply society can spend the money on other things instead of spending money housing and feeding individuals who have caused such horrific pain on others.
I hope you realize that meeting that no doubt standard is going to cost a lot of money. The judiciary procedures for death penalty is extremely high, as are all the related costs for death rows & execution. In fact death penalty costs already more than life in prison: https://www.thebalance.com/comparing-the-costs-of-death-pena...
And that's with the current error-prone system. Think of what it would take to ensure that your criteria are met.
So costs is simply not an argument. In fact it's a pretty bad faith one regarding what happens with private prisons and the labor of inmates subjected to slavery (read the 13th amendment if you think slavery is universally abolished). The US wouldn't have the highest rate of incarceration in the world if it didn't make money somehow.
And that's with the current error-prone system. Think of what it would take to ensure that your criteria are met.
So costs is simply not an argument. In fact it's a pretty bad faith one regarding what happens with private prisons and the labor of inmates subjected to slavery (read the 13th amendment if you think slavery is universally abolished). The US wouldn't have the highest rate of incarceration in the world if it didn't make money somehow.
A no doubt standard need not cost extra money.
This is from evidence already collected.
Costs would actually be reduced as can shorten the appeals process when a no doubt standard has been met.
Mass murders who don't hide their killings would be one example. Costs no extra money to meet the no doubt standard.
Costs would actually be reduced as can shorten the appeals process when a no doubt standard has been met.
Mass murders who don't hide their killings would be one example. Costs no extra money to meet the no doubt standard.
Death row is pretty expensive, as is achieving a "no doubt standard". I don't think it would save as much money as you would think.
The uncomfortable truth is that these arguments assume that there is free will (which is a supernatural entity).
If society converges on spontaneously destroying some human entities it deems a threat, it seems that this behavior arises from the chaos and can not be stopped (since it is found in every human society in past history).
The alternative is to treat murders equivalent to the Bernie Madoffs of the world, which some people might find unjust.
If society converges on spontaneously destroying some human entities it deems a threat, it seems that this behavior arises from the chaos and can not be stopped (since it is found in every human society in past history).
The alternative is to treat murders equivalent to the Bernie Madoffs of the world, which some people might find unjust.
Why stop there? Is 39 years behind bars for an innocent less ridiculous than killing them?
Both are ridiculous, but only one can be somewhat rectified. Death is pretty final most of the time. (Some folks technically die, but are revived).
I think the article misses the point of the main argument for the death penalty. The main argument is not whether it acts as a deterrent, or if it harms/benefits a group over another. Maybe these are the arguments thrown in public discussions.
But the central argument for death penalty is whether it is _just_ to punish a person by death, if they commit a certain crime, or if it is _just_ to imprison them. It is not a question of what benefits society, but whether it is a form of justice. Those who advocate for generally believe that punishment is not primitively a method for fixing behavior, though that might or might not occur. Instead, it is a form of intentionally inflecting damage/pain for justice[1].
But the article is right on that in practice, there are important and significant difficulties in carrying out the death penalty. But those who advocate for death penalty would say that it is unjust to not punish people by death when they commit certain crimes.
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/
But the central argument for death penalty is whether it is _just_ to punish a person by death, if they commit a certain crime, or if it is _just_ to imprison them. It is not a question of what benefits society, but whether it is a form of justice. Those who advocate for generally believe that punishment is not primitively a method for fixing behavior, though that might or might not occur. Instead, it is a form of intentionally inflecting damage/pain for justice[1].
But the article is right on that in practice, there are important and significant difficulties in carrying out the death penalty. But those who advocate for death penalty would say that it is unjust to not punish people by death when they commit certain crimes.
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/
I can't be the only one that finds this argument lacking. If justice is not good for society, why bother?
Prosecutors and police get promotions based on convictions. We need to change that.
There should be people paid for proving a person innocent.
"wrongful murder convictions are very common"
I don't have a strong feeling about the death penalty one way or the other.
It would be great though if the USA would end killing people in other countries! Most of whom don't come anywhere near a trial or even being accused of a crime. They probably outnumber the wrongly imprisoned/executed by thousands or hundreds of thousands to 1.
This reminds me of trying to read Phil Zimbardo's recent book, half of which is about Abu Ghraib. He agonizes over that, while totally ignoring the bloodbath going on in Iraq, as if that raised no ethical issues. I couldn't read it.
Sorry if this comment is deemed whataboutism/off-topic.
It would be great though if the USA would end killing people in other countries! Most of whom don't come anywhere near a trial or even being accused of a crime. They probably outnumber the wrongly imprisoned/executed by thousands or hundreds of thousands to 1.
This reminds me of trying to read Phil Zimbardo's recent book, half of which is about Abu Ghraib. He agonizes over that, while totally ignoring the bloodbath going on in Iraq, as if that raised no ethical issues. I couldn't read it.
Sorry if this comment is deemed whataboutism/off-topic.
Here’s why the ‘death penalty’ is not what you may think it is.
There’s an interesting dialectic between notions of justice and the realities of common good. From the justice perspective, a criminal is likely to face the death penalty if it can be shown that they planned, committed homicide, and then attempted evasion, all in sound mind. Whereas, if the criminal was not of sound mind, lacked the ability to understand consequence, and this condition is permanent, then sentencing is likely to be quite lax. Unfortunately, the likelihood of recidivism is the opposite of what compassion drives us to believe.
In animal shelters, this is well-understood. The goal is always safety and reform, never punishment. An animal of sound mind is reformable. Rarely, an animal has been drugged, diseased, or abused beyond hope of sanity, and must be destroyed. A human criminal in such a condition would be likely to receive clemency. Occasionally, I have known people to destroy their own dog out of a sense of justice for non-threatening bites such as on the hand when receiving food. I personally regard these people as absolutely horrendous, and they’ll never understand why. They think they are executing justice, like some form of discipline, and I really wonder who they are trying to teach.
Likewise, I believe that we, as a society, are massively deluded about the idea of justice. Everything today is about ‘justice’: social, economic, criminal. Just because it makes you feel good, doesn’t mean that it does you or anybody else any good. I am not saying that we should be lenient or rule out all use of necessary lethal force in peacekeeping, but it seems that the moral reasoning that leads to any act of unthreatened aggression ought to be questioned.
tl;dr: The ‘death penalty’ is bullshit precisely because it doesn’t function at all as a penalty. A penalty is a device for behavior modification. I don’t know exactly what ‘justice’ is either, but all I see is chaos and violence from people demanding it.
There’s an interesting dialectic between notions of justice and the realities of common good. From the justice perspective, a criminal is likely to face the death penalty if it can be shown that they planned, committed homicide, and then attempted evasion, all in sound mind. Whereas, if the criminal was not of sound mind, lacked the ability to understand consequence, and this condition is permanent, then sentencing is likely to be quite lax. Unfortunately, the likelihood of recidivism is the opposite of what compassion drives us to believe.
In animal shelters, this is well-understood. The goal is always safety and reform, never punishment. An animal of sound mind is reformable. Rarely, an animal has been drugged, diseased, or abused beyond hope of sanity, and must be destroyed. A human criminal in such a condition would be likely to receive clemency. Occasionally, I have known people to destroy their own dog out of a sense of justice for non-threatening bites such as on the hand when receiving food. I personally regard these people as absolutely horrendous, and they’ll never understand why. They think they are executing justice, like some form of discipline, and I really wonder who they are trying to teach.
Likewise, I believe that we, as a society, are massively deluded about the idea of justice. Everything today is about ‘justice’: social, economic, criminal. Just because it makes you feel good, doesn’t mean that it does you or anybody else any good. I am not saying that we should be lenient or rule out all use of necessary lethal force in peacekeeping, but it seems that the moral reasoning that leads to any act of unthreatened aggression ought to be questioned.
tl;dr: The ‘death penalty’ is bullshit precisely because it doesn’t function at all as a penalty. A penalty is a device for behavior modification. I don’t know exactly what ‘justice’ is either, but all I see is chaos and violence from people demanding it.
The best objection to the death penalty is indeed that we can't be trusted to administer it.
I disagree with a lot of comments in this thread. The death penalty is in fact the appropriate punishment for murderers. This is not true in order to deter crime or so that we can create a better society or any other similar rationalization. Justice, by which I mean reciprocity, is an end in itself. A crime should be punished proportionally and the only justification for punishment is guilt.
A simple explanation of this theory of justice:
> A great crime offends nature, so that the very earth cries out for vengeance; that evil violates a natural harmony which only retribution can restore; that a wronged collectivity owes a duty to the moral order to punish the criminal (Yosal Rogat).
I disagree with a lot of comments in this thread. The death penalty is in fact the appropriate punishment for murderers. This is not true in order to deter crime or so that we can create a better society or any other similar rationalization. Justice, by which I mean reciprocity, is an end in itself. A crime should be punished proportionally and the only justification for punishment is guilt.
A simple explanation of this theory of justice:
> A great crime offends nature, so that the very earth cries out for vengeance; that evil violates a natural harmony which only retribution can restore; that a wronged collectivity owes a duty to the moral order to punish the criminal (Yosal Rogat).
Please don't take HN threads into ideological flamewar. If you start with "morally clueless" and end with Eichmann, god help us, that's pretty much guaranteed. We're trying for a very different sort of conversation here.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
> Justice, by which I mean reciprocity, is an end in itself.
You misspelled "revenge" there.
You misspelled "revenge" there.
The distinction between revenge and justice is that justice is carried out by a disinterested third party.
If the third party carrying out the "justice" is merely implementing the vengeful wishes of the most irrational party (i.e. the victim or their family) then I wouldn't say they are "disinterested" in any practical sense.
Also, by the supposed logic of "restoring natural harmony", if someone kills your family, should you be allowed to kill theirs?
Also, by the supposed logic of "restoring natural harmony", if someone kills your family, should you be allowed to kill theirs?
[deleted]
This is very US-centric.
> at least 4% of people on death row are innocent.
I expect in Scandinavia these numbers are different. But they dont have death penalty.
From the news I learn that US cops also kill innocent people in the street. And it's military wages illegal wars killing 100s of 1000s overseas. I think the US has a weird relation with violence. The death penalty and how it uses it is merely a symptom.
> at least 4% of people on death row are innocent.
I expect in Scandinavia these numbers are different. But they dont have death penalty.
From the news I learn that US cops also kill innocent people in the street. And it's military wages illegal wars killing 100s of 1000s overseas. I think the US has a weird relation with violence. The death penalty and how it uses it is merely a symptom.
This is a classic generic tangent of the sort the site guidelines ask people not to post to HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). You're changing the topic from a specific argument about death-penalty convictions to a generic, inflammatory point about how $country has a "weird relation" with $badness. This is how we get less interesting discussion, and also flamewar—in this case nationalistic flamewar, which we definitely do not want here.
If anyone wants more explanation, I wrote a detailed post yesterday about a similar case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26894739
Edit: not only that but you stoked the flamewar downthread with posts about regime changes and putdowns about "civilized society". This is what I'm talking about. Please don't.
Edit 2: not only that but you did the same thing yesterday, and to judge by recent history it looks like your account has swerved into using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. Please don't—that's against the site guidelines because it destroys the curiosity this site is supposed to exist for. You're a good HN user so this should be easy to fix.
If anyone's worried about us being biased in favor of $country—here's an example from yesterday that went exactly the other way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26892927. We couldn't care less what color the flames are—we just want to have an internet forum that doesn't suck. When people starting arguing about whose country isn't "civilized" or whose there should be a "bloody war" with, we have dangerously high levels of suckage.
If anyone wants more explanation, I wrote a detailed post yesterday about a similar case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26894739
Edit: not only that but you stoked the flamewar downthread with posts about regime changes and putdowns about "civilized society". This is what I'm talking about. Please don't.
Edit 2: not only that but you did the same thing yesterday, and to judge by recent history it looks like your account has swerved into using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. Please don't—that's against the site guidelines because it destroys the curiosity this site is supposed to exist for. You're a good HN user so this should be easy to fix.
If anyone's worried about us being biased in favor of $country—here's an example from yesterday that went exactly the other way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26892927. We couldn't care less what color the flames are—we just want to have an internet forum that doesn't suck. When people starting arguing about whose country isn't "civilized" or whose there should be a "bloody war" with, we have dangerously high levels of suckage.
> This is very US-centric.
Yeah, considering the US have a bunch of problems related to violence (mass shootings, overzealous police force, invading other countries left and right), it makes sense that other violent processes are also problematic in the same environment. I agree with you death penalty is merely a symptom of something else in the whole system of the country.
Makes it extra weird when you consider how prude the US is when it comes to sexuality, while violence is something that is not only used as entertainment, but even many feel pride about.
Yeah, considering the US have a bunch of problems related to violence (mass shootings, overzealous police force, invading other countries left and right), it makes sense that other violent processes are also problematic in the same environment. I agree with you death penalty is merely a symptom of something else in the whole system of the country.
Makes it extra weird when you consider how prude the US is when it comes to sexuality, while violence is something that is not only used as entertainment, but even many feel pride about.
Also mingling in politics. US has been in the business of that for decades. The whole of Central and South America has had a couple of regime changes dictated by the US.
Then Russia supposedly bought some Facebook ads or something for a US election years ago, and I still need to read about it in the news every week.
Conclusion: US also has a huge double measurement problem.
Then Russia supposedly bought some Facebook ads or something for a US election years ago, and I still need to read about it in the news every week.
Conclusion: US also has a huge double measurement problem.
> how prude the US is when it comes to sexuality
This hasn't been true for decades.
This hasn't been true for decades.
No? As far as I know, nipples are still "banned" on most US social media platforms, but only if they are female. Male nipples are fine. Then children are usually shielded from anything remotely sexual in both real-life and from media while violence seems to be fine even for the youngest.
Yes, because corporate policies are the best picture of the current state of American culture.
The US isn't that prudish compared to many nations.
My observation from the UK is that it's extremely polarised.
When I visited Miami for work I couldn't believe how many scantily clad people just walked around and the stories you see in media from coastal liberal areas (fictional and non-fictional) seem just as, if not more, open to sexuality as the UK (who are more prudish than Europe in general).
But in the otherhand there are large areas/groups dominated by conservative religious values who are hyper prudish.
When I visited Miami for work I couldn't believe how many scantily clad people just walked around and the stories you see in media from coastal liberal areas (fictional and non-fictional) seem just as, if not more, open to sexuality as the UK (who are more prudish than Europe in general).
But in the otherhand there are large areas/groups dominated by conservative religious values who are hyper prudish.
Yeah but compared to similar nations in culture and wealth it's pretty much an outlier.
The thing I find distasteful is the 'sanitization' of execution. I've got some ideas on how to spice it up:
Brushing away of the wrongful executions as a price of justice. Hold a monthly lottery of the population, with the random 'winner' being executed. Out of a population of millions you wouldn't even notice, but would send a message to the world that you were OK with the cost.
Secondly. Repercussions for those that assisted in wrongful convictions. Your prosecutor withheld evidence of your innocence? Police dropped evidence into your pocket? Try them for attempted murder. Boggles my mind at the lack of repercussions that seem to come out of these cases.
Finally I think you should be executed by your peers, in the same way as we tried you. At your conviction lottery is held of the population and winner is your executioner. They're given a gun/syringe/whatever and they're pointed at the prisoner. Oh, and I'd like this televised - maybe as part of the superbowl show. "Here's Charlene from Ohio, she's just celebrated her sweet-sixteenth, likes horses and reading and has selected a crossbow"
Brushing away of the wrongful executions as a price of justice. Hold a monthly lottery of the population, with the random 'winner' being executed. Out of a population of millions you wouldn't even notice, but would send a message to the world that you were OK with the cost.
Secondly. Repercussions for those that assisted in wrongful convictions. Your prosecutor withheld evidence of your innocence? Police dropped evidence into your pocket? Try them for attempted murder. Boggles my mind at the lack of repercussions that seem to come out of these cases.
Finally I think you should be executed by your peers, in the same way as we tried you. At your conviction lottery is held of the population and winner is your executioner. They're given a gun/syringe/whatever and they're pointed at the prisoner. Oh, and I'd like this televised - maybe as part of the superbowl show. "Here's Charlene from Ohio, she's just celebrated her sweet-sixteenth, likes horses and reading and has selected a crossbow"
>Hold a monthly lottery of the population, ...
The point you're making is that living in society each day is a ticket in lottery where we could be falsely accused of a crime, falsely convicted, and unjustly punished. That's horrific all around, a death penalty is a factor but not even the biggest. On the contrary, if we need a death penality to make someone like your audience care about that horror of punishing innocent people then perhaps there is a beneficial purpose? Maybe executions make people care about bad things done in their name in the name of justice?
>Police dropped evidence into your pocket? Try them for attempted murder.
Yes, naturally. Some archaic pockets of government do this, sort of! What comes to mind is a specific public officer in my state who is personally responsible by law for breaches of privacy in her office. Consequences like that focus the mind! So much so, in fact, that those consequences come to dominate the public officer's thinking. I don't disagree, but forget 'defund the police'-- you're going to need a lot more police to enforce the modern criminal code at the current level of enforcement if police are threatened with death for misplacing their notes , memories and paperwork.
>At your conviction lottery is held of the population and winner is your executioner.
Again, the result here would be that some people would be assigned an executioner who would show them mercy. This too has analogues in our modern systems. In some parts of the world the victim's family can stop an execution if they feel the victim has been adequately avenged-- not a bad result! In the US context governors-- arguably the people responsible for these killings-- can and frequently do commute sentences out of compassion or lack of clarity about the crime.
The point you're making is that living in society each day is a ticket in lottery where we could be falsely accused of a crime, falsely convicted, and unjustly punished. That's horrific all around, a death penalty is a factor but not even the biggest. On the contrary, if we need a death penality to make someone like your audience care about that horror of punishing innocent people then perhaps there is a beneficial purpose? Maybe executions make people care about bad things done in their name in the name of justice?
>Police dropped evidence into your pocket? Try them for attempted murder.
Yes, naturally. Some archaic pockets of government do this, sort of! What comes to mind is a specific public officer in my state who is personally responsible by law for breaches of privacy in her office. Consequences like that focus the mind! So much so, in fact, that those consequences come to dominate the public officer's thinking. I don't disagree, but forget 'defund the police'-- you're going to need a lot more police to enforce the modern criminal code at the current level of enforcement if police are threatened with death for misplacing their notes , memories and paperwork.
>At your conviction lottery is held of the population and winner is your executioner.
Again, the result here would be that some people would be assigned an executioner who would show them mercy. This too has analogues in our modern systems. In some parts of the world the victim's family can stop an execution if they feel the victim has been adequately avenged-- not a bad result! In the US context governors-- arguably the people responsible for these killings-- can and frequently do commute sentences out of compassion or lack of clarity about the crime.
I think my more concise post would be that "law and order" (unlike practically any other issue) is thought of by the majority as "something that happens to other people". It's not. They think it's fair. It's not.
Example in the UK is that we used to have "Legal Aid" - if you were accused of something (and were of modest means) the government would pay a modest amount for a laywer to represent you. Wasn't a cheap system in absolute terms, but as a proportion of government expenditure was tiny. Over the years successive governments of all sides have gutted the system - and media delights in planted stories like "Insurance companies scammed" and "Terrorist receives money". Basically, "We're giving money to criminals and we should stop."
Nobody considers the flip side - "Can you pay for a legal defence if the Police knock on your door tomorrow?"
Example in the UK is that we used to have "Legal Aid" - if you were accused of something (and were of modest means) the government would pay a modest amount for a laywer to represent you. Wasn't a cheap system in absolute terms, but as a proportion of government expenditure was tiny. Over the years successive governments of all sides have gutted the system - and media delights in planted stories like "Insurance companies scammed" and "Terrorist receives money". Basically, "We're giving money to criminals and we should stop."
Nobody considers the flip side - "Can you pay for a legal defence if the Police knock on your door tomorrow?"
> Nobody considers the flip side
Society would do well to learn the Original Position Fallacy:
https://matthewmcateer.me/blog/original-position-fallacy/
Society would do well to learn the Original Position Fallacy:
https://matthewmcateer.me/blog/original-position-fallacy/
The minimum penalty for fabrication of evidence by police officers should be 3x the maximum penalty for having committed the actual offense.
[flagged]
Please omit nationalistic flamebait and political swipes from your posts here. They just make things worse.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26900759.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26900759.
my apologies. I obviously failed to communicate my point clearly enough and unintentionally created flamebait. Thanks for being an excellent mod :)
49% of Brits would support the reintroduction of the death penalty. I suspect that the same is true across Europe and that you are living in a bubble. [0]
[0] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-dea...
[0] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-dea...
> 49% of Brits would support the reintroduction of the death penalty
... for murdering a child. You forgot that part didn’t you? If you pull up the poll if death penalty should be reintroduced for all murderers only 32% are in support [0].
Please don’t pick and choose sources to make an argument which wasn’t even captured by the source. Also please don’t extrapolate to other countries like that. Us Europeans left the death Penalty behind a long time ago. This is not a thing anymore.
[0]: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-dea...
... for murdering a child. You forgot that part didn’t you? If you pull up the poll if death penalty should be reintroduced for all murderers only 32% are in support [0].
Please don’t pick and choose sources to make an argument which wasn’t even captured by the source. Also please don’t extrapolate to other countries like that. Us Europeans left the death Penalty behind a long time ago. This is not a thing anymore.
[0]: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-dea...
viklove(2)
Right up to the point where you explain what that means in practice.
As ever with polls it depends how you frame the question.
As ever with polls it depends how you frame the question.
In shocking news the majority of people polled believed they should be paid more and be taxed less.
> As ever with polls it depends how you frame the question.
Obligatory 'Yes, Prime Minister' clip: https://youtu.be/G0ZZJXw4MTA
Obligatory 'Yes, Prime Minister' clip: https://youtu.be/G0ZZJXw4MTA
And only recently this number dropped below 50%! Wow!
"for the murder of a child" - this isn't about the death penalty. This is a "won't someone please think about the children" dog whistle to the "murder all the pedos" brigade.
Again, no-one is seriously suggesting bringing it back. My bubble is secure.
Again, no-one is seriously suggesting bringing it back. My bubble is secure.
[deleted]
There's some variation inside the US. Michigan abolished the death penalty for all crimes other than treason in 1847 (It was abolished for treason in 1967, with no one having been executed).
[deleted]
> In America. The rest of the civilised world decided on this a long time ago.
You ended up calling half the world's population "uncivilized".
You ended up calling half the world's population "uncivilized".
true. good point. poor choice of words. my apologies.
Death penalty is Lindy.
I am not interested in some esoteric academic ethics argument.. in this, I want to hear, from people who lost loved ones - who are against Death penalty.
Who endured and still endure the suffering of a losing loved ones. If we get an even split from this group of people, may be then only then I will consider the academic arguments.
I am not interested in some esoteric academic ethics argument.. in this, I want to hear, from people who lost loved ones - who are against Death penalty.
Who endured and still endure the suffering of a losing loved ones. If we get an even split from this group of people, may be then only then I will consider the academic arguments.
The article is all about not having an esoteric academic ethics argument, as its opening sentence makes clear. That's also what the word "real" means in the title.
The luxury of inexperience make things seem real. This is very evident when 'crime' is an intellectual exercise vs. you happen to be victim of it.
Both are 'real' but one is more 'real' than the other.
Both are 'real' but one is more 'real' than the other.
I want to preface what I'm about to say with: I'm against the death penalty. However, innocent people die every day, they're hit by cars, they're shot by police, they commit suicide. If your argument is that you want to save the lives of innocent poeple then you should be having a discussion about reducing the use of cars.
If your argument isn't about the state's role, then what is the distinction between these things. 4% doesn't actually seem like a high rate to me and it's not a high percentage of a relatively small number in the first place.
If your argument isn't about the state's role, then what is the distinction between these things. 4% doesn't actually seem like a high rate to me and it's not a high percentage of a relatively small number in the first place.
We have discussions about how to reduce the number of deaths by cars every day. Don't pretend we don't. We have discussions about suicide prevention. Cancer prevention and treatment. Healthy living, blah blah blah.
Yes, the number of people who die from those things are still non-zero.
But what you're suggesting is that we need to get those to zero before we address the death penalty. That's a false dichotomy.
The death penalty is one are where we are making the deliberate choice to end someone's life. We can prevent that 4% rate simply by not making that choice. We can make that number zero and it would cost us practically nothing to do so.
I am not impressed by your faux-concern for automobile deaths.
Yes, the number of people who die from those things are still non-zero.
But what you're suggesting is that we need to get those to zero before we address the death penalty. That's a false dichotomy.
The death penalty is one are where we are making the deliberate choice to end someone's life. We can prevent that 4% rate simply by not making that choice. We can make that number zero and it would cost us practically nothing to do so.
I am not impressed by your faux-concern for automobile deaths.
I'm not suggesting that we need to get those things to zero. I'm suggesting that's what PG is making the argument for. You can't have it both ways, you can't argue that the death penalty is a unique harm because of the innocent deaths whilst ignoring other innocent deaths. The death penalty is all about the state's role -that is the thing that distinguishes it from traffic deaths. If you really do subcribe to PG's argument then the answer is "Well, if that's the priority, the death penalty isn't bad compared to 1000 other things". We're literally talking about more innocent people dying from car deaths in a day that from being sentenced to death in a year.
What PG is doing here is making the argument for the death penalty weaker by arguing for it on the weakest possible basis.
Oh and also, it's not 0 cost. It's probably a hugely expensive long and drawn out politial process to get rid of. For the pay off that's similar in scope to a moderate sized town lowering its speed limit. Not to mention the fact that these people who are sentenced to death incorrectly aren't being set free, they're likely still spending decades in prison.
What PG is doing here is making the argument for the death penalty weaker by arguing for it on the weakest possible basis.
Oh and also, it's not 0 cost. It's probably a hugely expensive long and drawn out politial process to get rid of. For the pay off that's similar in scope to a moderate sized town lowering its speed limit. Not to mention the fact that these people who are sentenced to death incorrectly aren't being set free, they're likely still spending decades in prison.
You're ignoring our active participation in it. It's not about the state's role in it per se, so much as, like I've said previously, the fact that we are choosing to directly end someone's life.
And innocent people don't die in car accidents, unfortunate people do. People who get executed are deliberately executed.
It's as 0 cost as you can get. It's not a hugely expensive process, courts can just not sentence people to death. It's not like we're sticking these people on a huge conveyor belt that's impossible to remove them from.
> Not to mention the fact that these people who are sentenced to death incorrectly aren't being set free, they're likely still spending decades in prison.
And? Because we've wronged them somewhat, it's ok that we wrong them further? What sort of logic is that?
And innocent people don't die in car accidents, unfortunate people do. People who get executed are deliberately executed.
It's as 0 cost as you can get. It's not a hugely expensive process, courts can just not sentence people to death. It's not like we're sticking these people on a huge conveyor belt that's impossible to remove them from.
> Not to mention the fact that these people who are sentenced to death incorrectly aren't being set free, they're likely still spending decades in prison.
And? Because we've wronged them somewhat, it's ok that we wrong them further? What sort of logic is that?
> This circus of incompetence and dishonesty is the real issue with the death penalty.
First order thinking. There's a time to argue with first principles and there's a time to make arguments via "back door hacks" in the guise of amenability. Life and death may not be the best time to use "hacky" arguments because down the line there may be do more harm than good. Particularly, in common-law systems.
Also,
> When intellectuals talk about the death penalty,
I see that intellectuals has been well normalised into a pejorative these days. What a time to live in!
First order thinking. There's a time to argue with first principles and there's a time to make arguments via "back door hacks" in the guise of amenability. Life and death may not be the best time to use "hacky" arguments because down the line there may be do more harm than good. Particularly, in common-law systems.
Also,
> When intellectuals talk about the death penalty,
I see that intellectuals has been well normalised into a pejorative these days. What a time to live in!
It's been a pejorative since nietzsche!
I hate it. Imagine if the sentence was "When the poorly educated talk about the death penalty,"
Trump was right about how he attracted his support.
Trump was right about how he attracted his support.
[deleted]
> But in practice the debate about the death penalty is not about whether it's ok to kill murderers. It's about whether it's ok to kill innocent people, because at least 4% of people on death row are innocent.
I think we should also quantify how many people are victims of recidivism. You could make the exact same argument but instead of protecting innocent people wrongly on the death row , you would argue to protect innocent people victims of recidivists murderers.
I've found a bit of data [0] from an article [1] which has 3 homicide among 92 paroled homicide offenders. That's a bit more than 3% which is not far from 4%. The data here is of "lower quality" (there's less people on a shorter timeframe) than the one quoted in the article [2]. However, that same article estimates a 4.1% false conviction rate but adds:
> The most charged question in this area is different: How many innocent defendants have been put to death (6)? We cannot estimate that number directly but we believe it is comparatively low. If the rate were the same as our estimate for false death sentences, the number of innocents executed in the United States in the past 35 y would be more than 50 (20). We do not believe that has happened.
So the article doesnt' support "at least 4% of people on the death row are innocent".
[0]: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Types-of-Recidivism-Amon...
[1]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259809249_Criminal_...
[2]: https://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230
I think we should also quantify how many people are victims of recidivism. You could make the exact same argument but instead of protecting innocent people wrongly on the death row , you would argue to protect innocent people victims of recidivists murderers.
I've found a bit of data [0] from an article [1] which has 3 homicide among 92 paroled homicide offenders. That's a bit more than 3% which is not far from 4%. The data here is of "lower quality" (there's less people on a shorter timeframe) than the one quoted in the article [2]. However, that same article estimates a 4.1% false conviction rate but adds:
> The most charged question in this area is different: How many innocent defendants have been put to death (6)? We cannot estimate that number directly but we believe it is comparatively low. If the rate were the same as our estimate for false death sentences, the number of innocents executed in the United States in the past 35 y would be more than 50 (20). We do not believe that has happened.
So the article doesnt' support "at least 4% of people on the death row are innocent".
[0]: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Types-of-Recidivism-Amon...
[1]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259809249_Criminal_...
[2]: https://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230
This argument is garbage.
Of course there will be miscarriages of justice and this has been talked about since the beginning. There is nothing new here.
> 4% of people on death row are innocent.
This is not true, but it's irrelevant anyway since what is the acceptable level? Since it's not mentioned, we have gotten nowhere in this blog post.
If we get it very close to zero, is it then ok then? Is the single incidence of executing a guilty man ok? Because either that's what this blog implies or it's skipping the real issues.
Of course there will be miscarriages of justice and this has been talked about since the beginning. There is nothing new here.
> 4% of people on death row are innocent.
This is not true, but it's irrelevant anyway since what is the acceptable level? Since it's not mentioned, we have gotten nowhere in this blog post.
If we get it very close to zero, is it then ok then? Is the single incidence of executing a guilty man ok? Because either that's what this blog implies or it's skipping the real issues.
I don’t see your counter argument here.
The post is indeed arguing that “zero people killed by the government for crimes they did not commit” is more ok than “greater than zero people killed.”
This is a valid argument, drawing on the intuition that accidentally letting a guilty person escape death (even if we accept they deserve it) is a lesser evil than letting an innocent person die.
The post is indeed arguing that “zero people killed by the government for crimes they did not commit” is more ok than “greater than zero people killed.”
This is a valid argument, drawing on the intuition that accidentally letting a guilty person escape death (even if we accept they deserve it) is a lesser evil than letting an innocent person die.
> because so many of the people sentenced to death are actually innocent.
He puts a vague number to it in my reading.
The government regularly lets people die. The government regularly lets innocent people die. The government regularly changes things that then changes who dies. A human life is only worth around $2,000,000 in the rich west like the US. People, inflate that number a lot, but it's actually low millions.
If the argument is it has to be 0.00 for direct action by the government that deliberately kills a person then say it. That's the end. It's not possible to get 0, don't bring in the fact it's 4% or x% or bring in case studies because that's just a changing goal post.
The reason for the 'changing goal post' is because no one can ask why is the direct killing of innocent people different to allowing innocent people to die.
[edit] Here's a 150 year old 'against' blog post that innocent people will die - https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/128491969 Back then it was all about the innocent witches (which still happens today sadly)
He puts a vague number to it in my reading.
The government regularly lets people die. The government regularly lets innocent people die. The government regularly changes things that then changes who dies. A human life is only worth around $2,000,000 in the rich west like the US. People, inflate that number a lot, but it's actually low millions.
If the argument is it has to be 0.00 for direct action by the government that deliberately kills a person then say it. That's the end. It's not possible to get 0, don't bring in the fact it's 4% or x% or bring in case studies because that's just a changing goal post.
The reason for the 'changing goal post' is because no one can ask why is the direct killing of innocent people different to allowing innocent people to die.
[edit] Here's a 150 year old 'against' blog post that innocent people will die - https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/128491969 Back then it was all about the innocent witches (which still happens today sadly)
Most of the examples of innocents being convicted are from before the invention of DNA forensics. The problem is the criminal justice system which too easily gives the death penalty. We could easily reduce the probability of conviction innocents from 4% to one in a trillion by enforcing a set of requirements:
- Must have DNA evidence - Must have audio and video evidence - Must have fingerprints - Must have at least 2 witnesses
There are plenty of cases that satisfy these conditions (terrorist attacks being one of them).
- Must have DNA evidence - Must have audio and video evidence - Must have fingerprints - Must have at least 2 witnesses
There are plenty of cases that satisfy these conditions (terrorist attacks being one of them).
Wrong accusation is definitely a problem, but ultimately I think people should be free to decide what kind of laws they want. The Machinery of Freedom describes a government-less system in which people voluntarily pay an insurance which defines what the law is and what happens when the law is broken. If people have different insurance companies, they can agree what law is going to prevail in which cases. If capital punishment were something desirable (which I don't think it is: the risk of being wrongfully accused outweighs the potential deterrent to other to kill me) some agencies could evolve to cater to this need.
That said, I think there is an economic argument to be made against capital punishment.
Killing someone is definitely a waste of human life and economic potential.
Wouldn't it be better to have the sentenced man work for the rest of his life in prison and create value? You could potentially have a deal in which the prison organise the work, keep a portion of the profits to keep operating and pays the victim / victim's family for the crime they were subjected to.
I think this is fantasy right now because the government is terribly inefficient in everything they do - but with a system of private prisons (another fantasy, given the current trend of increasing the government size, instead of reducing it), maybe someone would be able to turn a profit and make it work.
That said, I think there is an economic argument to be made against capital punishment.
Killing someone is definitely a waste of human life and economic potential.
Wouldn't it be better to have the sentenced man work for the rest of his life in prison and create value? You could potentially have a deal in which the prison organise the work, keep a portion of the profits to keep operating and pays the victim / victim's family for the crime they were subjected to.
I think this is fantasy right now because the government is terribly inefficient in everything they do - but with a system of private prisons (another fantasy, given the current trend of increasing the government size, instead of reducing it), maybe someone would be able to turn a profit and make it work.
> with a system of private prisons (another fantasy, given the current trend of increasing the government size, instead of reducing it), maybe someone would be able to turn a profit and make it work.
Both prison labor and private prisons are absolutely a thing in the United States today. As I understand, prison labor is illegal in privately operated prisons. However, state-run prisons are allowed to use prison labor to manufacture goods and sell them to private entities for profit it many US jurisdictions.
Many people find this practice objectionable because it creates a profit-based incentive for states to issue more prison sentences and to make them longer.
Both prison labor and private prisons are absolutely a thing in the United States today. As I understand, prison labor is illegal in privately operated prisons. However, state-run prisons are allowed to use prison labor to manufacture goods and sell them to private entities for profit it many US jurisdictions.
Many people find this practice objectionable because it creates a profit-based incentive for states to issue more prison sentences and to make them longer.
I have very strong beliefs about the death penalty. I believe it is the only just punishment for murder; that ALL murderers should be executed; that anything less than execution is a
grave miscarriage of justice for a crime that is so horrible the mind cannot even wrap around it. I also think that pain should be part of the death penalty... that a murderer doesn’t deserve a quick and painless death but rather a healthy period of searing agony to experience the anguish that they themselves wrought on another.
However I believe that there is too big a gulf between “murderers” and “people convicted of murderer”; that the crime of killing is so severe that doing it to an innocent person is a miscarriage of justice far graver than any underpunishment of murderers; and so I oppose the death penalty in all forms as a matter of law.
However I believe that there is too big a gulf between “murderers” and “people convicted of murderer”; that the crime of killing is so severe that doing it to an innocent person is a miscarriage of justice far graver than any underpunishment of murderers; and so I oppose the death penalty in all forms as a matter of law.
What if they did the murder because of a brain tumor messing up their impulse control ability? Humans are just complicated machines that go wrong sometimes. I do however share your emotional position and it would make me feel better to see (actual) murderers get the death penalty.
They're still a danger to society. If we start crossing into the metaphysical then we'd have to make excuses for peadophiles having 'messed up impulse control' too.
But as another comment pointed out, we do account for this.
But as another comment pointed out, we do account for this.
> They're still a danger to society
Which is one of the reasons why we have incarceration, which I believe is absolutely necessary in some form in a case where a person is a danger to others (whether or not it's "their fault").
> we'd have to make excuses for peadophiles having 'messed up impulse control' too.
It's not an excuse, it's more a description of reality. And it would apply to child abusers as well, as well as other criminals, yes.
This isn't an argument against "punishing" these people. It's an argument for being clear about why we are "punishing" them, to make sure it's not a revenge motive (which is a heavily biologically driven motive in itself)
Which is one of the reasons why we have incarceration, which I believe is absolutely necessary in some form in a case where a person is a danger to others (whether or not it's "their fault").
> we'd have to make excuses for peadophiles having 'messed up impulse control' too.
It's not an excuse, it's more a description of reality. And it would apply to child abusers as well, as well as other criminals, yes.
This isn't an argument against "punishing" these people. It's an argument for being clear about why we are "punishing" them, to make sure it's not a revenge motive (which is a heavily biologically driven motive in itself)
It’s not metaphysical, there are documented cases of biological causes (tumor) causing pedophilia: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2943-brain-tumour-cau...
> They're still a danger to society.
That's a different argument. The OP said it he'd like muderers to have a fate similar to their victims, basically as revenge. When executing someone for this reason, their guilt clearly does matter - someone who enjoys killing is far worse than someone with a medical condition. Whether their death is 'practical' is a different matter.
That's a different argument. The OP said it he'd like muderers to have a fate similar to their victims, basically as revenge. When executing someone for this reason, their guilt clearly does matter - someone who enjoys killing is far worse than someone with a medical condition. Whether their death is 'practical' is a different matter.
Someone disabled to the point of having no compass for right and wrong would have what is legally known as “diminished mental capacity” and not be convicted of first degree murder.
If you genuinely hallucinate that I am an attacking Pit Bull and kill me, you are not guilty of first degree murder and I would not want you executed.
If you genuinely hallucinate that I am an attacking Pit Bull and kill me, you are not guilty of first degree murder and I would not want you executed.
> “diminished mental capacity”
As we learn more about neuroscience, every murderer will look like they have "diminished mental capacity". This legal construct is merely a statement of our ignorance to understand what's actually going on in their brain.
As we learn more about neuroscience, every murderer will look like they have "diminished mental capacity". This legal construct is merely a statement of our ignorance to understand what's actually going on in their brain.
Sure, free will may not exist, but we don’t have much of a civilization if we don’t pretend that it does.
It might not go that bad. But I suspect that as medical imaging hardware becomes better, we'll eventually face a crisis point: we'll be forced to re-evaluate most of what we call "character traits" and reclassify them as neurochemistry quirks. This is an important distinction, because as a society, we tend to hold people responsible for their character, but not for bugs in their brain.
We can already see some of this today. Many people that would've been shunned by society in the past as "unstable" and "crazy", can be fixed by giving them lithium. We know not to fault a person for what's just a bug in their hardware. Similarly, many people that today are called "lazy" or "annoying", and blamed for their obviously flawed character, can be instantly fixed by low doses of stimulant medication. This is something most people didn't get a memo on yet.
I find it highly likely that most homicides are also driven by fixable neurochemistry quirks, and that we'll learn to identify and fix them at some point, and we'll be appalled at the ease with which we jumped to killing people for having them.
We can already see some of this today. Many people that would've been shunned by society in the past as "unstable" and "crazy", can be fixed by giving them lithium. We know not to fault a person for what's just a bug in their hardware. Similarly, many people that today are called "lazy" or "annoying", and blamed for their obviously flawed character, can be instantly fixed by low doses of stimulant medication. This is something most people didn't get a memo on yet.
I find it highly likely that most homicides are also driven by fixable neurochemistry quirks, and that we'll learn to identify and fix them at some point, and we'll be appalled at the ease with which we jumped to killing people for having them.
The criminal justice system can still function without the false premise of free will and agency, and without the false premise that someone with a brain tumor magically has less agency than someone without a brain tumor but who has some more complicated and less understood problem with their brain.
It can be premised on concepts such as rehabilitation (which I believe mostly can't happen with murderers), deterrence, creating a sense of fairness in society (which builds trust), protecting people from the murderer, and so on.
It can be premised on concepts such as rehabilitation (which I believe mostly can't happen with murderers), deterrence, creating a sense of fairness in society (which builds trust), protecting people from the murderer, and so on.
Murder already has one of the lowest recidivism rates of crimes. Murderers typically don't murder again. And that's mostly because murder is a heat of the moment crime. Planned murders are fairly rare.
If you seriously wanted to use the death penalty to deter crime, you'd do better executing people for smaller offenses. If you got executed for drunk driving rather than a fine, there would be less drunk driving.
Not saying that's a good thing. But if you're looking to deter crime, executing murderers is not actually a good way to go about it.
If you seriously wanted to use the death penalty to deter crime, you'd do better executing people for smaller offenses. If you got executed for drunk driving rather than a fine, there would be less drunk driving.
Not saying that's a good thing. But if you're looking to deter crime, executing murderers is not actually a good way to go about it.
Nothing about my opinion is based on the existence or non-existence of a deterrent effect.
I'm happy with the conclusion you have reached, but boy is your first paragraph terrifying. It seems that you're conflating justice and accountability with revenge.
> I believe it is the only just punishment for murder; that ALL murderers should be executed;
That's such a twisted mind you have there.
That's such a twisted mind you have there.
Whoa - going straight to personal attack like that is not allowed here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.
Look at it this way: comments like what you posted here take the community further into hell war, which destroys the community. Even if you don't feel you owe the other commenter better, you definitely owe the community better if you're participating in it. The ecosystem is fragile—we all need to protect it. Setting it on fire because of how wrong you feel someone is is not a good idea.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Look at it this way: comments like what you posted here take the community further into hell war, which destroys the community. Even if you don't feel you owe the other commenter better, you definitely owe the community better if you're participating in it. The ecosystem is fragile—we all need to protect it. Setting it on fire because of how wrong you feel someone is is not a good idea.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
I can somehow understand that argument, "Eye for an eye" and all that, kind of makes sense.
Later on is where things gets scary though, where even death is not enough and it needs to be agonized death!
> I also think that pain should be part of the death penalty [...] rather a healthy period of searing agony
It is beyond fucked up to not only wanting to execute people but also make sure they feel pain while doing so.
Later on is where things gets scary though, where even death is not enough and it needs to be agonized death!
> I also think that pain should be part of the death penalty [...] rather a healthy period of searing agony
It is beyond fucked up to not only wanting to execute people but also make sure they feel pain while doing so.
Why does a murderer deserve another breath?
Please don't post flamebait or take HN threads into generic ideological arguments. They are exceedingly repetitive and convince no one—they just get people activated and angry. This place is for curious conversation.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Just lacked therapy. Murderer was a cop, and made a mistake. Murderer was provoked. Family of murderee forgives murderer. Murderee was merely an 3 months old embryo. Evidence not 100% conclusive. Murderer claims self defense.
I can continue. The world is messy. Black white thinking will not do it justice.
Not that I agree with these reasons in all circumstances. I just want to point out there are reasons to treat a murderer less harsh.
I can continue. The world is messy. Black white thinking will not do it justice.
Not that I agree with these reasons in all circumstances. I just want to point out there are reasons to treat a murderer less harsh.
Because I care deeply about everybody – no matter what they have done. Because forgiveness and love are my core values, even if it doesn't usually show up in my day to day life. Because revenge is always bad. Torturing somebody no matter their crime would go fundamentally against those few things that I feel very deeply about – not that different from loving my family or caring about the longterm wellbeing of humanity.
If that sounds irrational to you: That's because it is irrational. Whether we choose to end another persons life is fundamental in our understanding of life itself, which is highly subjective.
But your belief that we should kill other humans is also irrational and subjective.
Edit: Also this paragraph in your first answer
>> I also think that pain should be part of the death penalty... that a murderer doesn’t deserve a quick and painless death but rather a healthy period of searing agony to experience the anguish that they themselves wrought on another."
is actually terrifying to me. Even reading it causes me some physical discomfort.
If that sounds irrational to you: That's because it is irrational. Whether we choose to end another persons life is fundamental in our understanding of life itself, which is highly subjective.
But your belief that we should kill other humans is also irrational and subjective.
Edit: Also this paragraph in your first answer
>> I also think that pain should be part of the death penalty... that a murderer doesn’t deserve a quick and painless death but rather a healthy period of searing agony to experience the anguish that they themselves wrought on another."
is actually terrifying to me. Even reading it causes me some physical discomfort.
What if your love and forgiveness allow a killer to strike again? I share similar values but I'm prepared to compromise on them if necessary. Even incarceration is a compromise. Values are ideals, not absolutes.
I agree that incarceration is a necessary compromise and of course I don't want a killer to strike again. Forgiveness doesn't mean that I'm against all punishment. But I think that it means there always has to be a chance for somebody to change – no matter what they did. Even life sentences without any chance of parole should not be possible: if somebody is no longer a danger to society they should be allowed to return at some point.
They're human. Revenge has no place in civilized society.
“Revenge has no place in a civilized society” is just an opinion. Mine is different. I don’t believe a society is civilized if it treats murderers with anything less than the most extreme vengeance.
> The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
And yet, DNA testing has exonerated many convicted in death-penalty cases where that standard should be applied with the most thought and care.
I don't think there any conclusion other than: The system of trial-by-peers is flawed with a measurable error rate. The judges failed, the juries failed and the prosecution failed; Innocent people have been put to death, while the real culprits have walked free.
Putting people to death based on such a flawed system is unconscionable.