161–170 of 546 posts
If your answer is yes, then by all means, support the death penalty.
If you don't trust ambitious politicians, then you can't trust the process for selecting who is to be put to death by the state either, because DAs and AGs are politicians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know. Even the constitution acknowledges the possibility of truths that are 'self-evident'. I remember when the Guantanamo torture scandals emerged in the 2000s, how various political actors attempted to say 'Let's not get hot under the collar about this - let's put it on the table and talk it through.' For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about h…
“We hold these truths to be self evident...” is from the Declaration of Independence. It does not appear in the Constitution.
I think no other justification is needed to end the death penalty than “it’s inhuman and barbaric”. Even discussing other factors arguments and considerations dilutes the core point that’s it’s straight up wrong unethical and inhuman to murder others in the name of the law. Paul Graham has a valid point, but if you say “it’s wrong cause it’s inaccurate”, implies it’s right if it’s accurate. And it’s not... the death…
Improper or mistaken convictions, where reasonable oversight would have detected the error, are barbaric. If you want barbarism, you can find plenty in the way the criminal justice system is run for all offenders. Prison is inhumane and barbaric, and has the opposite of the intended effect most of the time. Many ex-cons have become hardened criminals through their time on the inside, and even for those who haven't an…
This is the obvious reason, but of course there are many more: executions are quite expensive, they don't seem to actually deter crime, they're fundamentally pessimistic ("this person will never be useful to society"). Plus, they're kind of unnecessarily cruel: if we wanted to execute people painlessly we could just pump a room full of nitrogen and let the person drift off into unconsciousness and death relatively qu…
> this person will never be useful to society I'm against the death penalty, but, since the alternative is most likely life in prison, this is very probably true for rightfully convicted. > My personal guess is that people like to watch for some sort of catharsis which a silent death doesn't give them, but of course I'm not necessarily in a position to judge this well. There's a very interesting documentary called "h…
The thing I find distasteful is the 'sanitization' of execution. I've got some ideas on how to spice it up: Brushing away of the wrongful executions as a price of justice. Hold a monthly lottery of the population, with the random 'winner' being executed. Out of a population of millions you wouldn't even notice, but would send a message to the world that you were OK with the cost. Secondly. Repercussions for those tha…
>Hold a monthly lottery of the population, ... The point you're making is that living in society each day is a ticket in lottery where we could be falsely accused of a crime, falsely convicted, and unjustly punished. That's horrific all around, a death penalty is a factor but not even the biggest. On the contrary, if we need a death penality to make someone like your audience care about that horror of punishing innoc…
I think no other justification is needed to end the death penalty than “it’s inhuman and barbaric”. Even discussing other factors arguments and considerations dilutes the core point that’s it’s straight up wrong unethical and inhuman to murder others in the name of the law. Paul Graham has a valid point, but if you say “it’s wrong cause it’s inaccurate”, implies it’s right if it’s accurate. And it’s not... the death…
Improper or mistaken convictions, where reasonable oversight would have detected the error, are barbaric. If you want barbarism, you can find plenty in the way the criminal justice system is run for all offenders. Prison is inhumane and barbaric, and has the opposite of the intended effect most of the time. Many ex-cons have become hardened criminals through their time on the inside, and even for those who haven't an…
I am not interested in some esoteric academic ethics argument.. in this, I want to hear, from people who lost loved ones - who are against Death penalty.
Who endured and still endure the suffering of a losing loved ones. If we get an even split from this group of people, may be then only then I will consider the academic arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Improper or mistaken convictions, where reasonable oversight would have detected the error, are barbaric. If you want barbarism, you can find plenty in the way the criminal justice system is run for all offenders. Prison is inhumane and barbaric, and has the opposite of the intended effect most of the time. Many ex-cons have become hardened criminals through their time on the inside, and even for those who haven't an…
The alternative also being barbaric doesn't make the death penalty less barbaric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but this sort of remark is why the left and intellectuals more widely fail at winning politically. Rather than use arguments that are amenable even to people who disagree on the fundamentals, you would rather retain the moral high-ground by refusing even to debate on their terms, thereby failing to actually influence policy (in this case a matter of life and death). If the de…
I’m not trying to win an argument, just stating what I believe.
I think no other justification is needed to end the death penalty than “it’s inhuman and barbaric”. Even discussing other factors arguments and considerations dilutes the core point that’s it’s straight up wrong unethical and inhuman to murder others in the name of the law. Paul Graham has a valid point, but if you say “it’s wrong cause it’s inaccurate”, implies it’s right if it’s accurate. And it’s not... the death…