31–40 of 233 posts
[deleted]
Obviously pg's writings are favorites of the community here, but if you look back through the history of HN you'll find that right from the beginning there were selected political stories that were on topic.
Is there a precise criterion? Nope. But as pg once said, note those words most and probably. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who do you think sets policy? DAs are elected. US attorneys are appointed by the president. Vote.
I think he meant (and I'm also curious) what we could individually do that would have a tangible difference. Not what could a large swathe of people in the US do collectively, which is a different question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Attorney_General_el...
[deleted]
> not sure why this is on topic Obviously pg's writings are favorites of the community here, but if you look back through the history of HN you'll find that right from the beginning there were selected political stories that were on topic. Is there a precise criterion? Nope. But as pg once said, note those words most and probably. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426 .
I upvoted this mainly because I think it's healthy that people consider the ethics by which they and their fellow citizens live. But generally speaking, this is a stupid reason not to kill someone. The DA basically told this guy point-blank that if you don't want to die, take this deal. If you do want to die, don't take the deal. He chose not to take the deal. Is there a chance that "good sense" could have prevailed,…
You can opine in harsh language about whether or not this guy made the "smart" choice all you want, but why is our "justice" system forcing this man to make such an unfair choice in the first place?
The point of a law is simply to put down the rules by which order is maintained, and that order is dictated by the morality of the majority of people who hold power in government. The justice system merely upholds the law set down and doles out what the law defines as a 'just' punishment or judgment.
A law can say literally anything, like, "Black people may not marry White people", or "Women may not vote", "Gay people may not get married", etc. Or they can say things like "At an intersection, the left-most lane may turn left onto the street it intersects with, but not the right-most lane." It can say anything; it doesn't have to do with "fairness" and "justice", it has to do with maintaining order.
The laws, once put down, are enforced, as long as they remain laws. The results of those laws being enforced will only stop once the laws are abolished (and even then, sometimes the states just like to keep going with 'em even if they've been abolished anyway).
We can't just selectively enforce or not enforce laws. Then there would be no point to the law. Then literally any local government official, judge, court, president, etc could abuse the rights of citizens or allow people to go free simply because they felt like it. And that's not in the public interest.
Therefore, laws which are deemed to be unfair or unjust must be amended or abolished. But - and this is the important part - they must simply be made by decree by will of the representatives of the public, and must not always meet a measurement of justice or fairness. Not only because there are plenty of laws which simply define what the proper procedures of daily life are, but because we'd literally never get any laws passed if we had to have a philosophical discussion about the potential pros and cons of the impact of the law on justice as a general idea.
So why are they forcing him to make an unfair choice? Laws aren't designed to be fair. Only the consequence of the law can be fair, according to that law. In this case, if you ask a guy if he wants to live, and he says, "No", is it fair to give him death, assuming he was of sound mind and body and understood the consequences of his decision?
Yeah.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, if I'm innocent, I should take a plea bargain (which, let's not forget, involves me standing up before God and everyone and saying, "yes, I did it," so that I can spend the rest of my life in a maximum security penitentiary, so that I can avoid being put to death? Not sure I agree with your logic there.
Here's a diagram of the logic. Do you want to die? Y -> Reject offer. -> Death penalty. N -> Accept offer. -> Life in prison. I don't know how I could simplify this further.
did you do it?
Y -> address "do you want to die" question
N -> "I don't deserve to either die or spend my life in prison" -> rely on the justice system to do the right thing
A solution is to build a platform that crowdsources such cases to raise awareness AND a call for action. The community would need to be unbelievable but it's not at all impossible. Once there are 100,000 signatures on any petition under 30 days, the White House guarantees a response. There are many great communities with more than 100,000 active users. Why not?
Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjWSW94-P3Y
Article: https://news.vice.com/article/president-obama-heads-to-priso...
RE: How people are and the death penalty The other day I was driving down the road and thinking about how people are. It was 33 years coming but here's what hit me: people do what they want, even in the face of devastating consequences. See that long line outside any burger joint? See the stats on the amount of hard drugs guaranteed to destroy your world we consume? See that person cheating? See that DA wanting a win…
Unfortunately most of the people who do this are children. They're usually in situations people would rather ignore. They're desperate. They want attention and they get it at some price that's ultimately... above market.