181–190 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other errors can be remedied. Death penalty not so much.
But that's also one of the essential points of Kant's argument in favor of the death penalty: depriving another person of life is a uniquely irrestorable offense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Death is a permanent sentence while other sentences are not.
How is taking X years out of your live not permanent? Can a state give those years back if it admits a mistake? (Clarification: don't have an opinion on overall debate, just picking on details of individual arguments).
I think you can also get awarded up to something like 50-100k per year of wrongful imprisonment (though that hardly comes close to compensating you for the damage that would have caused)
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",
There is one good reason to keep the status quo (death penalty without any actual deaths) which is that anyone given a death sentence gets their case extensively reviewed and appealed by excellent lawyers working pro bono. The people who get life get no help at all. I have read of prisioners being upset when given a life sentence as they know that no one will help them appeal their conviction. If you are innocent you…
When I was young, I was certain the death penalty is obviously, trivially an incorrect thing to do. Regardless of what was done, there was no cause for society to choose to take someone's life. Now that I'm older, I worry about the possibility that banning the death penalty is an implicit acceptance of the policy of locking people away for life. According to the article 4% of people who are sentenced to the death pen…
This isn't an objective fact. Even some prisoners would certainly prefer to live their life behind bars than lose it completely.
Important note on Prop 66, which PG unfortunately glossed over: it will override 62 if it passes with more yes votes than the other measure. Therefore, if you're opposed to the death penalty and intend to vote yes on both measures--reasoning, for instance, that the reforms on 66 such as expedited appeals for death row inmates are an improvement regardless of whether 62 passes--you're undermining your own vote.
Important note on Prop 66, which PG unfortunately glossed over: it will override 62 if it passes with more yes votes than the other measure. Therefore, if you're opposed to the death penalty and intend to vote yes on both measures--reasoning, for instance, that the reforms on 66 such as expedited appeals for death row inmates are an improvement regardless of whether 62 passes--you're undermining your own vote.
That's not entirely true. In the event that both propositions pass, whichever proposition received more yes votes will supersede the other https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_66,_Death_Pen...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other errors can be remedied. Death penalty not so much.
But that's also one of the essential points of Kant's argument in favor of the death penalty: depriving another person of life is a uniquely irrestorable offense.
For example, if you blind someone, how is that not just as irrestorable?
I've noticed a strange pattern where wealthy elites like Paul Graham are obviously very disturbed by things like the death penalty, animal rights, and tragedies they see overseas but can hardly be bothered to care about the great suffering poor people face generally.
The only issues that they care about are ones that directly affect their own conscience and mental well-being.
"The death penalty is bad because it makes me feel bad"
Whereas people who don't live such privileged lives can see so many worse problems in everyday life, like being hungry, suffering from bad/no medical care, to being victimized by street crime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can release a wrongly imprisoned person or refund a wrongly imposed fine.
I finally created an account so I could say this exact thing, and in the minute it took to create the account three other people said it. So... yeah, I agree.