191–200 of 546 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Why does a murderer deserve another breath?
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…
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 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…
Thing is, most of the time, people who are subject to the death penalty are there because they did “inhuman and barbaric” acts.
It is kind of like the paradox of tolerance. For society to prosper, you need to punish inhuman and barbaric acts, or at least isolate people who do that from society. However, such punishment is likely inhuman and barbaric at least on some level. Limiting a persons freedom of movement and interaction is inhuman and barbaric.
In addition, by not having the death penalty, you are subjecting others to have to deal with the person who did the inhuman and barbaric acts, whether other inmates or guards.
I am of the opinion that there are some acts that are so heinous that a person should never be a part of human society again. In that case, rather than prolonged human isolation, which is actually barbaric in and of itself, I think it is actually more humane to end their life. It does not have to gruesome or painful, no more than euthanizing a beloved pet with a terminal condition has to be gruesome. But some acts are incompatible with ever being a member of human society in any form.
Edit:
In addition, there are a lot of stuff that could be considered inhuman and barbaric but we do them for what we think as the good of society.
Spaying and neutering your pet sounds inhuman and barbaric.
Modern surgery, especially cancer surgery where they remove large margins of apparently healthy looking tissue, could be considered inhuman and barbaric.
In the Middle Ages, dissecting dead human bodies was considered inhuman and barbaric.
So the fact that a person sees something as inhuman and barbaric really is not overwhelming evidence if something should be done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s all good and well to try and persuade someone, but like the GP sometimes I like to simply state my ideological viewpoint. The problem with narrowly arguing based on someone else’s ideals, is that any agreement isn’t a true meeting of the minds. For example people, once tried to end the deal then penalty by talking about to pain involved in hanging. Proponents agreed and eventually came up with the electric chair…
"You're a bad person if you disagree with me" is a great way to never get what you want. It's not simply stating your position, it's anti-persuasion whether you want it to be or not.
Saying “you’re a bad person if you disagree with me” draws a line in the sand that precludes civil disagreement and picks a fight. Most people like to avoid conflict, and any possible counterargument to “you’re a bad person” inevitably comes across as defensive.
In other words, the tactic is to bully the opposition into shutting up. And it works very well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s all good and well to try and persuade someone, but like the GP sometimes I like to simply state my ideological viewpoint. The problem with narrowly arguing based on someone else’s ideals, is that any agreement isn’t a true meeting of the minds. For example people, once tried to end the deal then penalty by talking about to pain involved in hanging. Proponents agreed and eventually came up with the electric chair…
That's called a compromise, right? Reducing the pain involved and increasing the burden of proof required are both concrete, positive reforms, even if it doesn't completely resolve the issue.
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…
> Justice, by which I mean reciprocity, is an end in itself. You misspelled "revenge" there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative also being barbaric doesn't make the death penalty less barbaric.
I would rather be killed than spend even 20 years in prison. Technically I might live another 20 years, but I would be very near EOL at that age. Could I get the choice?
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…
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…
The authors of the Declaration of Independence would perhaps agree.
But, keep in mind that stance — as they will knew — would result in the ‘disagreement’ being resolved by force and war.
Consequently, it’s wise to really give some thought to whether an issue is ‘self-evident.’ I personally do not think capital punishment is such an issue; that is, I acknowledge there are good arguments on both sides.
(Are there good arguments on both sides regarding whether some people — like King George — are inherently and divinely superior to others by virtue of their lineage? That’s a different matter... I would have fallen into the ‘self-evidently’ absurd camp on that one.)
If this had been written by anyone but pg, the headline would've been changed to "A Reason to End the Death Penalty" :D
The death penalty is immoral and unethical. The state should not have the power over the life of a person. However, the problem with removing the death penalty in the US is that it will not deal with the underlying systemic racism and the misaligned incentives of police and prosecution to "get a conviction". So yes, if the death penalty is removed, there is one less barbarism. However, for those who are not on death…
> The state should not have the power over the life of a person. Then it can't do war and can't defend its existence as a state unless it's somehow a dependent state of some other state that does have power over the life of a person. Like some small Pacific island that's protected by more militarily well equipped allies.