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

191–200 of 242 posts

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

#191

Post by Karunamon »

bolocker wrote: post #189

Why can't we just get that 4% bad convictions down to 0% for the death penalty? There are many cases where no one disputes the guilt of the perpetrator, like mass shooters or murderers that film themselves in the act. Death penalties could have an even higher standard. 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…

The only issues that they care about are ones that directly affect their own conscience

Is it not a prerequisite that a wrong begin to effect your conscience before you want to do something about it?

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

#192

Post by danieltillett »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #184
danieltillett wrote: post #152

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…

What's to say banning He death penalty entirely won't move that pro bono work to life sentences, even if only partially..?

Well it might, but given it doesn’t now in states without the death penalty there is no reason to think it will in the future.

I know if I was innocent and poor and had been convicted of a crime that was either life in prison or death that I would want a death sentence.

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

#195

Post by danhak »

sdml wrote: post #187
danhak wrote: post #169

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.

> a yes vote on 66 overrides a yes vote on 62 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...

Good point, I should've been more precise. Edited the comment accordingly.

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

#196

Post by Maultasche »

danhak wrote: post #169

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.

Generally, I imagine that anti-death-penalty voters will vote Yes on 66 and No on 62 and vice versa for pro-death-penalty voters. However, it's possible that a voter is simply motivated to clear death row by any means necessary because of all the extra costs it involves. Maintaining death row is expensive.

In that case, voting Yes on both makes sense. Either death row will get cleared out by getting rid of the death penalty or it will get cleared out by killing them faster. Either way, it's a cost savings. I find that logic to be cold and impersonal, but I imagine there are plenty of people who think that way.

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

#197

Post by lr4444lr »

marricks wrote: post #181
lr4444lr wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Arguing with the ghost of Kant seems like something one should avoid, but here I go... isn't that also an argument for why a state should not impose capital punishment? Mistakenly taking someone's life is something a state could never remedy.

Kant did not appear to grapple with the fallibility of the judicial system in the way that we do now, and I neither intend to defend his views or put words into his mouth on that point (though I welcome someone more knowledgeable in his work than I to do otherwise and cite). My point is that there aren't easy answers to these questions, which is why I upvoted the OP comment, because it implies a mature understanding that fallibility is also a value judgment.

(Edited for grammar. I hate typing on a smartphone.)

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

#198

Post by boterock »

I find interesting that you in the US are thinking in banning the death penalty.

Here in Colombia death penalty was banned about a century ago, unfortunately, it has done more harm than good, because criminals (even very bad ones, the kid rapists and stuff) are not scared of prison, prisons are so crowded that sentences are short (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Garavito is a good example, I don't think a lifetime of prison would forgive all he did, he should be condemned for 1800 years) and this has led to crime rise.

There is a common belief that politicians banned death penalty long ago to be able to be corrupt without any risk, in the long run if they're not dying, they could steal a lot of money and then use half of it to get out of prison early.

I know US corruption is not as bad as Colombian corruption. Unfortunately we have to deal with our system, and the ban of death penalty has kept terrible people in our country for a long time. It may be unethical to kill someone, but in the end is the lesser evil, because it will never compare to the harm that this person does to the society. As a Colombian I feel that corruption and crime is going down now, and we are proud for it, but I also feel that if we took the 'evil' decision earlier, we would be much better now.

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

#199

Post by njharman »

breatheoften wrote: post #174

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…

I also was/am certain death penalty is obviously incorrect thing to do. But not cause society has not cause for sanctioned murder (it does). But rather there are no "take backs" with death penalty. We make too many mistakes. Our punishments should take that fact into account

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

#200

Post by fauigerzigerk »

bolocker wrote: post #189

Why can't we just get that 4% bad convictions down to 0% for the death penalty? There are many cases where no one disputes the guilt of the perpetrator, like mass shooters or murderers that film themselves in the act. Death penalties could have an even higher standard. 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…

Miscarriage of justice is something that mostly affects poor people who can't afford good lawyers.
Post reply on HN