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

201–210 of 242 posts

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

#201

Post by bolocker »

Karunamon wrote: post #191
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?

Yes but if you live in an elite life bubble you'll only care about things that make it through that bubble.

Why are so many rich celebrities obsessed with animal rights, the death penalty, and climate change?

Because those issues affect them personally in some way. They gnaw at their conscience in a way that the extreme suffering of hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens does not.

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

#202

Post by lr4444lr »

bluedino wrote: post #180
J-dawg wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can release a wrongly imprisoned person or refund a wrongly imposed fine.

You can't undo 10 years of imprisonment. You can't give back time or take away what the person had to live through.

And arguably, considering suicidal ideation of inmates and ex-inmates, may itself create death. I'd be curious to know how the rates compare with wrongful death penalty judgments.

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

#203

Post by magicalist »

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.

> 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

nobody was impeached. It was a normal judicial retention election.

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

#204

Post by bolocker »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #200
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.

Yes it does and that's not what seems to bother people about the death penalty. It's the act of killing that tugs on their heartstrings. They happily ignore the millions serving decades in prison because they didn't have the basic requirements to lead a good life.

The agenda is:

1. End the death penalty.

2. Assume someone else will help innocent people, which they largely won't.

3. Go bad to enjoying blissful ignorance.

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

#205

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#206

Post by orthros »

Karunamon wrote: post #191
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?

It's neither necessary nor sufficient.

One doesn't have to be affected by rape to oppose it.

I can reflect that there are others whose opinions I value. And thus throw support behind issues that, if left to my own opinion in a vacuum, would be of little concern.

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

#207

Post by serge2k »

bluedino wrote: post #180
J-dawg wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can release a wrongly imprisoned person or refund a wrongly imposed fine.

You can't undo 10 years of imprisonment. You can't give back time or take away what the person had to live through.

No, but you can try to make up for it as best you can.

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

#208

Post by lr4444lr »

caf wrote: post #188
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.

If Kant said that then he was trivially wrong. For example, if you blind someone, how is that not just as irrestorable?

I believe he was a pretty "eye for an eye" guy: "This is the right of retaliation (jus [lex] talionis); and, properly understood, it is the only principle which in regulating a public court (as opposed to individuals’ private judgement), can definitely assign both the quality and the quantity of a just penalty." (http://acad.depauw.edu/~jeremyanderson/old/120s05/120z_kant....)

But you have to realize, this is not to be read in isolation as a rehash of Hammurabi''s code. There is significant axiomatic and theoretical foundation that brings Kant to this conclusion, which has significant influence in modern ethics.

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

#209

Post by J-dawg »

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…

The US practice of locking people up for life is pretty shocking to many people in Europe. In the UK, the number of people who will never be released is somewhere around 50, in the USA it's something like 50,000.

Maybe I'm a limp wristed liberal, but 'Three strikes' has always seemed utterly barbaric to me. Even its name being based on a sports metaphor seems totally inappropriate for something so serious.

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

#210

Post by grondilu »

What is the acceptable rate of mistakes for the judiciary system? Death is an irreversible punishment, so I can understand that it seems incompatible with a wrong judge decision, but the alternative, that is for instance perpetual incarceration, is only reversible on a very theoretical basis (if an innocent is in prison, his case will be reviewed only if he's very lucky).

So arguably, any sentencing is unfair when it's wrong. Death only makes it more obvious. Then, what's the acceptable error rate in a judiciary system? The author mentions 4% being unacceptable. What about 0.1%? 0.0001%?

Crime can not be left unpunished, can it? And yet I doubt it is possible to always be absolutely sure of either guilt or innocence.

After all, doesn't the Law talk about "reasonable doubt"? Doesn't that also mean by contraposition that below a certain threshold, it becomes unreasonable to consider unlikely circumstances or extraordinary events that would prove a defendant non-guilty?

Post reply on HN