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

141–150 of 242 posts

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

#141

Post by Jtsummers »

alphapapa wrote: post #133
jacquesm wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

> Jail is not there to remove people from the pool, it is there to rehabilitate. According to whom? > But executing them makes 'us' just as bad as 'them'. So you're saying that, for example, the state executing a mass murderer is just as bad as mass murder?

According to much of the Western world.

And even if you don't accept that, just consider: most crimes aren't murder. They don't get people sent away for life, but for a period of 1-a few years.

They will be released back into society. If we do not rehabilitate them, we can expect recidivism from either failing to counter the errant impulses, exposure to similar or worse criminal elements while incarcerated, or failure to reenter society (due to ostracism, failure to adapt to changes, lack of social structure like family and friends). We are literally creating the problem by failing to rehabilitate criminals, and instead focusing on "punishing" them.

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

#142

Post by maerF0x0 »

xiaoma wrote: post #104
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 is bad, but you can compensate an wrongfully jailed person afterwards. How do you compensate someone for being imprisoned (and likely raped) from the age of 28 to 45? In many cases, the death penalty is more humane.

As well, its fairly clear that the compensation offered is better than nothing. Sure, it may not be a 1:1 ratio of bad to good (rape to cash) but its clearly a step in the right direction to offer someone a "plus" in recompense for the negatives wrongly imposed.

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

#143

Post by jacquesm »

ikeboy wrote: post #139
jacquesm wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it all depends on how many people you intend to kill, it's all about the ratio npeopleinnocent/npeopleguilty after all. The problem is that no matter how small the ratio gets in absolute terms there is only the possibility of killing an innocent person or not killing an innocent person. Even if you assume that everybody is guilty I'd still make the argument that people can genuinely change and that no matter wh…

>Even if you assume that everybody is guilty I'd still make the argument that people can genuinely change and that no matter what you do you will not be bringing anybody back that's already dead. That may be (and I agree with it), but I'm critiquing PG's argument (in particular his assertion that it's obvious), not his conclusion. >The extreme example of that is a society that simply kills everybody that is convicted…

The justice system is - in principle - not about revenge but about balance, a balance between running a safe society and one where people that misbehave are placed in a spot where they can be re-habilitated and then can re-enter society. That path is closed in an extreme way by killing someone, there is no rehabilitation from that no matter what.

Deterrence and punishment have very little to do with each other (but deterrence and the chance of being caught do have a lot to do with each other).

So fundamentally the justice system is not about punishment at all, though from the victims perspective that might seem to be the case.

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

#144

Post by tptacek »

jacquesm wrote: post #140
tptacek wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing against persuasive essays. Persuasive essays are great. I'm saying that this isn't a persuasive essay. It's a political bulletin. I agree with its politics, but not with its place on the HN front page.

Even if the essay isn't persuasive the discussion could be. I also think that your flag-marshalling is in pretty poor taste, flagging it yourself for whatever reasons you have is fine but to call on others to do so as well is really not good.

You don't have to flag anything you don't want to.

Generally, if all I have to say about a submission is that I flagged it, I'll refrain from saying that. But that's not all I had to say here.

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

#145

Post by jacquesm »

tptacek wrote: post #144
jacquesm wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the essay isn't persuasive the discussion could be. I also think that your flag-marshalling is in pretty poor taste, flagging it yourself for whatever reasons you have is fine but to call on others to do so as well is really not good.

You don't have to flag anything you don't want to. Generally, if all I have to say about a submission is that I flagged it, I'll refrain from saying that. But that's not all I had to say here.

Sure, but calling for others to flag a post is - especially with your rep on HN - akin to killing an article and imnsho way across the line.

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

#146

Post by tptacek »

jacquesm wrote: post #145
tptacek wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to flag anything you don't want to. Generally, if all I have to say about a submission is that I flagged it, I'll refrain from saying that. But that's not all I had to say here.

Sure, but calling for others to flag a post is - especially with your rep on HN - akin to killing an article and imnsho way across the line.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in argumentum ad internet points. You can, of course, flag my comment, or mail hn@ycombinator.com about it.

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

#147

Post by greglindahl »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #121
greglindahl wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The population of the state simultaneously wanted the death penalty and to follow the Constitution. One role that the population of the state gave to judges is to referee these conflicting desires.

Not only did Californians vote to reinstate the death penalty, they then voted to impeach the justices of the State Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, who actively blocked its use after it became law again. So I don't think there is much argument that the courts were just implementing the will of the people.

I didn't make that argument. I was arguing that the people wanted contradictory things. The courts are just caught in the middle.

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

#148

Post by threatofrain »

murtnowski wrote: post #7

California already removed the death penalty in 1972 then later reinstated it. This resulted in killers like Charles Mason being relieved from execution and denying many victim's family member from obtaining a measure of justice they wanted. Since being reinstated only 13 people have been executed. And none in the past 10 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Californ...

Under the assumption that people believe executions offer relief, I think that killing people convicted of murder for the hope of delivering speculative folksy medical / psychological intervention for proximally injured parties values life as absurdly trivial.

At the very least, any rational person should see that compared to armchair speculation of medical interventions, organ extraction offers real value! And not to mention, think of all those who die or suffer because of the pace of medical research. With these worthy prisoners, we can change that! This mindset that values convicts' lives as so trivial is troubling and wasteful.

TLDR: Who cares if a family didn't get the speculative relief they wanted from somebody's execution? That's a perspective that treats life as absurdly trivial, and I doubt the medical community believes this as a serious intervention to clinically significant distress.

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

#149

Post by d_e_solomon »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #20
kobeya wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's hardly comparable. In 1972 the supreme court decided that the death penalty laws _of the time_ were unconstitutional. The death penalty was almost immediately restored by public vote, with some modifications (switching from hanging to lethal injection, changing the appeals process, etc.) The will of the people is the ultimate mandate in a democracy. In 1972 this mandate was for the death penalty. We'll see nex…

"The will of the people is the ultimate mandate in a democracy." Until a small group of judges say otherwise.

Majority rules with minority rights. The judges are there in part to ensure the rights of the minority are respected.

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

#150

Post by Taek »

lawpoop wrote: post #128
Taek wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Wow, this seems extremely naive. (Honestly I'm feeling like I got trolled.) You don't know of anybody who has never been imprisoned who is managing to live their life without interacting with any of the things you've mentioned? If not, I would recommend enlarging your circle of contact.

When you come back to society and try to make friends, everyone is going to be utilizing technology to shape their interactions. Uber makes new types of socializing reasonable. (bars and parties farther away). Phones change how people schedule events. Chips in credit cards change how you spend your money.

This isn't trolling. If you don't know how to use modern tech, it's going to be harder to socialize, especially if you are in a city (as they tend to adopt tech faster).

If even a person has successfully rejected some tech (maybe Facebook, maybe smartphones), it's doubtful that they've rejected all tech and if they have they've developed skills for living without it among people who otherwise expect them to have it.

I might be overstating this on a timeline of one decade, but it gets much worse on a timeline of 20 years.

20 years means you were likely using Windows 95. Texting wasn't a thing. Phones didn't have "apps". Banks didn't have websites. The average person's job had a lot less tech in it.

Can you survive? Sure, but your options are a lot more limited compared to someone who knows how to use the tech of the 21st century.

Post reply on HN