181–190 of 546 posts
[flagged]
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26900759.
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.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This "debate" has been over in all other nations that the US likes to be compared for years. It is similar to the "tough on crime" incarceration "debate" in the US, where perverse incentives and political expediency has led to the US being the highest-per-capita incarcerator in the world. Framing the death penalty debate around "innocent people get killed" will not change the partisan/class perceptions. The US crimin…
>Framing the death penalty debate around "innocent people get killed" will not change the partisan/class perceptions. I don't agree. All of these moral castigations about it being 'inhumane' or 'barbaric' don't strike me as rational or compelling in the least. I think the idea is humane in the context of those impacted by the crimes in question and I don't see how putting a person in a box for the remainder of their…
I think that is the GP,s point: the real problem is to convince you otherwise.
The best objection to the death penalty is indeed that we can't be trusted to administer it. I disagree with a lot of comments in this thread. The death penalty is in fact the appropriate punishment for murderers. This is not true in order to deter crime or so that we can create a better society or any other similar rationalization. Justice, by which I mean reciprocity, is an end in itself. A crime should be punished…
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
The best objection to the death penalty is indeed that we can't be trusted to administer it. I disagree with a lot of comments in this thread. The death penalty is in fact the appropriate punishment for murderers. This is not true in order to deter crime or so that we can create a better society or any other similar rationalization. Justice, by which I mean reciprocity, is an end in itself. A crime should be punished…
You misspelled "revenge" there.
On the subject of deterrence: If someone commits a premeditated crime carrying a guideline sentence of {20 years in State A, vs 30 years in State B} do we really think that they're more likely to commit the crime in State A? It's my intuition that for the most part, people committing crimes aren't thinking about potential repercussions, much less measuring them. I mean is someone thinking "Oh, only 10 years? I'll do…
That said, I have to snark a little about it, because I was in high school, in the 90s, when I came to the same realization about why the death penalty is wrong. So this seems pretty obvious to me.
Our justice system is not reliable enough to have the death penalty.
I have very strong beliefs about the death penalty. I believe it is the only just punishment for murder; that ALL murderers should be executed; that anything less than execution is a grave miscarriage of justice for a crime that is so horrible the mind cannot even wrap around it. I also think that pain should be part of the death penalty... that a murderer doesn’t deserve a quick and painless death but rather a healt…
> I believe it is the only just punishment for murder; that ALL murderers should be executed; That's such a twisted mind you have there.
Look at it this way: comments like what you posted here take the community further into hell war, which destroys the community. Even if you don't feel you owe the other commenter better, you definitely owe the community better if you're participating in it. The ecosystem is fragile—we all need to protect it. Setting it on fire because of how wrong you feel someone is is not a good idea.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
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…
Simply put we have better ways to spend money than housing people for 30 years who have inflicted horrific pain on society. I dont want to work to house, guard, and feed them.
There have been some political leaders in the past who have said the same about the disabled.
If we give our government the power to premeditatedly kill people merely to reduce the costs to taxpayers, we are stepping down a very dark path.