Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This year we can end the death penalty in California

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 242 posts

Re: This year we can end the death penalty in California

#81

Post by rndmize »

brador wrote: post #31
rndmize wrote: post #25

I don't find the fact that some people are found innocent to be a convincing reason to be against the death penalty. The replacement, which is life in prison, strikes me as even less appealing. How is sending someone to jail and leaving them there for 20 years only to figure out that people fucked up and the guy wasn't actually guilty - "Sorry chap, but it's only a third of your life we've ripped away from you, you'v…

What if it was you? What if you were framed for a crime? Would you prefer the death penalty then or only if it's someone else's head on the line? State murder is an ugly business that has no part in any modern society.

"What if it was me?" is exactly what I'm considering. Life doesn't have infinite value in and of itself. Consider - if you were in a coma or vegetative state, is that a life worth living, even if we have the technology to keep that person alive? If you had Alzheimer's and were gradually losing all mental faculties, would there be a point where you'd rather be dead?

I'd consider being in long-term or life prison to be the next closest thing to those examples; a life without freedom, friends, family, with the potential for a wide variety of suffering beyond that - poor medical, poor food, guard abuse, fights, solitary, rape - what in this is worth living for? Prison is specifically meant to be a punishment, not a rehabilitation. And then maybe you get out a couple decades later, everything has changed, no one will hire you, everyone has moved on...

Re: This year we can end the death penalty in California

#82

Post by Analemma_ »

raverbashing wrote: post #70

" This is about whether it's ok to kill innocent people." So why is the discussion to eliminate the death penalty instead of ensuring more oversight or limitations? Something like: - Not applicable when only one murder committed - Bigger burden of proof for the DP to be applicable (not only relying on witnesses, for example)

> So why is the discussion to eliminate the death penalty instead of ensuring more oversight or limitations?

The Supreme Court has gradually been mandating more and more oversight and limitations on death penalty cases since 1976. It doesn't seem to have made a major dent in the false conviction rate or the arbitrariness of when capital punishment is used, especially with regards to race. And while I don't think cost should even be relevant to the discussion, it's worth noting that these limitations and oversight requirements- which still aren't good enough- are the main reason why it costs 10 times more to execute someone than to put them in prison for life. Combined with the death penalty's demonstrated lack of deterrent effect - simpler and better to just get rid of it.

Re: This year we can end the death penalty in California

#84

Post by jernfrost »

tptacek wrote: post #56

This kind of post isn't going to change anybody's mind, and isn't intended to (Paul Graham is a fine persuasive writer, and good persuasive writing tends not to include appeals like "a child could answer that one for you"). No, this is just an update, for Graham's California readers, most of whom can safely be assumed to agree with him, that they should take special care to vote this year. I'm glad California has a c…

So how do people ever change their mind on anything? I'd say that within any group with a certain conviction there will always be people at the fringes which are less convinced and who are willing to explore alternatives.

I once believed in the death penalty. I once believe in God. I was once a libertarian. Of course a single person didn't change my mind on these points, but being exposed to alternatives by many people over time changed my perspective. Although I guess often simply seeking information is what eventually does most to change opinions.

Re: This year we can end the death penalty in California

#85

Post by Taek »

jernfrost wrote: post #50
jsjohns2 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of an "undo" button is not exclusive to the death penalty, many serious forms of punishment are irreversible. Why, in your view, is it much worse for the state to jail an innocent person for a long time (say, their entire adult life) instead of killing them?

That is bad, but you can compensate an wrongfully jailed person afterwards. But I think it is a fair point, which is why I am also against harsh prison conditions. I think prison should mainly be about rehabilitation and shielding society from the danger of the person. If prison mainly means losing freedom, you aren't necessarily ruined mentally when you get out.

That depends. If you spend long enough isolated from society you won't be able to function in it anymore.

People coming out of jail after 10 years of imprisonment are used to the original iphone as the only smartphone. They don't know about Uber, Venmo, Bitcoin, Amazon and Google have both changed dramatically. Now you need an EZPass for most roads, healthcare laws are different, they missed the whole Snowden ordeal. Weed is borderline legal, gay marriage is legal, etc etc.

Things have changed a lot in the past 10 years. If you weren't allowed to keep up with it, you probably don't know how to navigate society anymore.

Re: This year we can end the death penalty in California

#86

Post by Jtsummers »

jacquesm wrote: post #48
nf05papsjfVbc wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This resulted in killers like Charles Mason being relieved from execution and denying many victim's family member from obtaining a measure of justice they wanted. That qualifies more as 'revenge' than as 'justice'.

The whole idea of a punitive system is broken at the foundation. Jail is not there to remove people from the pool (though in some cases that is a happy side effect), it is there to rehabilitate. In extreme cases this means people will never be released. But executing them makes 'us' just as bad as 'them'.

It should be there to rehabilitate, because (EDIT: in large part, there are other reasons) ultimately the vast majority of the incarcerated will be released back into society.

Unfortunately, the US has long since decided that punishment is the purpose, that these people are getting what they deserve. It's a very frustrating culture to be surrounded by.

Re: This year we can end the death penalty in California

#87

Post by jacquesm »

justabee wrote: post #83
jacquesm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You actually believe that present cases have 'perfect evidence'? Preventable deaths are a step or two removed from state inflicted and sanctioned murder.

.

> We shouldn't be coddling those who commit violent acts against others.

How is spending a lifetime in prison coddling?

> The derrent of death alone would save far many more people.

That isn't true, criminals as a rule have a hard time tying consequences to their actions, have a high incidence of mental issues. If deterrence would work at all it would be nice but it rarely does.

http://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx

Re: This year we can end the death penalty in California

#88

Post by raverbashing »

a13n wrote: post #47
jernfrost wrote: post #44

The death penalty makes no logical sense. It only appeals to primitive emotions. Why have a penalty which 1) Can never be reversed if you kill an innocent 2) Cost a lot more than life in prison. Now why it might be argued that a killer has no right to life, what about those close to the killer? Killers might have a wife, husband, brother, sister, friends, mother and a a father. By killing the killer you inflict hards…

The death penalty costs more than life in prison? Source?

I usually read this as "lawyers are asking for more money"

Re: This year we can end the death penalty in California

#89

Post by Jtsummers »

Taek wrote: post #85
jernfrost wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is bad, but you can compensate an wrongfully jailed person afterwards. But I think it is a fair point, which is why I am also against harsh prison conditions. I think prison should mainly be about rehabilitation and shielding society from the danger of the person. If prison mainly means losing freedom, you aren't necessarily ruined mentally when you get out.

That depends. If you spend long enough isolated from society you won't be able to function in it anymore. People coming out of jail after 10 years of imprisonment are used to the original iphone as the only smartphone. They don't know about Uber, Venmo, Bitcoin, Amazon and Google have both changed dramatically. Now you need an EZPass for most roads, healthcare laws are different, they missed the whole Snowden ordeal.…

They aren't buried under rocks or in darkened caves.

Their failure to adapt is our failure as a society to prepare them. By imprisoning them we become their guardians and stewards, we are responsible.

Re: This year we can end the death penalty in California

#90

Post by WillPostForFood »

jernfrost wrote: post #44

The death penalty makes no logical sense. It only appeals to primitive emotions. Why have a penalty which 1) Can never be reversed if you kill an innocent 2) Cost a lot more than life in prison. Now why it might be argued that a killer has no right to life, what about those close to the killer? Killers might have a wife, husband, brother, sister, friends, mother and a a father. By killing the killer you inflict hards…

"In prison this person can't hurt anybody else" - totally false. The homicide rate in prison is about double that of the rest of the country. In California it is 15 per 100,000 - terribly high.

"Cost a lot more than life in prison" - death penalty opponents have driven up the cost, so if cost was a real reason you oppose the death penalty, then we could keep it and focus on reducing cost.

"By killing the killer you inflict hardship on these people"- in your opinion. I think it would be a bigger hardship to have to have a living murderer as part of the family.

"I think the desire for revenge" - Why is incarceration not revenge? Justice flows from the notion that punishment is proportional to the crime. Taking a life should mean losing your life Whether is is lifetime imprisonment or the death penalty, you can call it revenge or punishment or justice.

Post reply on HN