The real reason to end the death penalty • Hacker News Board

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#311

Post by kazinator » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

klelatti wrote: post #300

kazinator wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The single rationale is perfectly fine. If we had a magic oracle which supplies us with the absolutely correct guilty or not guilty verdict, there would be no problem with the death penalty. > what does the death penalty actually achieve Rids the world of an instance of evil, efficiently and permanently. Vindicates victims.

You're reducing a human being to a single binary classification - evil or not evil - an assessment that ignores the circumstances of their life, mental state etc at a particular point in time. You're also saying that you're prepared to ignore the wider impact that the act of executing that individual has on society. On the apparent grounds that the dead victim is somehow vindicated (which I can only interpret as mean…

> You're reducing a human being to a single binary classification - evil or not evil

That is correct.

> You're also saying that you're prepared to ignore the wider impact that the act of executing that individual has on society.

That must specifically not be allowed to cloud our judgment. "Society" is word which refers to collection of people, the vast majority of whom have no connection to the case.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#312

Post by filoeleven » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 8:00 PM UTC

aeternum wrote: post #213

kelp wrote: post #188

I'm glad this is being shared widely, because I agree with it. 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.

But our justice system is reliable enough to lock people up for life just because there's a small chance we may find out they are innocent before they die in prison? There must be a better way.

Norway gave 21 years, their maximum sentence, plus “the possibility of one or more extensions for as long as he is deemed a danger to society” to Breivik for killing 69 people.

This seems like a better way to go. He will be evaluated for extensions of his sentence periodically, and (showing my ignorance of their system here) I presume the panel will include medical professionals who are more equipped to gauge his mental health and danger to society than a judge would.

A family member of mine was murdered in the 90s. I would advocate for the same treatment of the killer. Though I suppose I am still biased since it was unprovoked, and the killer would probably be judged a continual danger to society.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#313

Post by sneak » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 8:00 PM UTC

kelp wrote: post #188

I'm glad this is being shared widely, because I agree with it. 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.

Were our justice system provably 100% reliable, it would still be barbaric and uncivilized to execute human beings. pg is dead wrong on this one.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#314

Post by Consultant32452 » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 8:00 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #194

Consultant32452 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

That’s kind of the point. 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.

Sounds like we're in agreement that it's a tactic to shut the opposition up while ensuring we keep killing people indefinitely.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#315

Post by ixacto » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 8:01 PM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #274

djoldman wrote: post #179

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…

What I learned from Criminology 101 in college was this: By far, the largest factor of deterrence was the likelihood of getting caught. So, people, do in fact rationalize "I'm definitely going to get caught and the consequences are bad, I won't do it". So, to your point, the punishment itself is largely a deterrence. I think because a rational human being simply cannot grok the differences in long term effects. This…

The death penalty should not be abolished because to some criminals in society the threat of force is the only thing they respect.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#316

Post by jpmattia » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

To amplify Paul's point: The legal standard in all criminal trials is "Beyond a reasonable doubt":

> The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

And yet, DNA testing has exonerated many convicted in death-penalty cases where that standard should be applied with the most thought and care.

I don't think there any conclusion other than: The system of trial-by-peers is flawed with a measurable error rate. The judges failed, the juries failed and the prosecution failed; Innocent people have been put to death, while the real culprits have walked free.

Putting people to death based on such a flawed system is unconscionable.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#317

Post by svieira » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #282

It seems to me that multi-decade prison terms are at least as severe as death. It doesn't seem terrible as long as prisoners are able to kill themselves. But a life sentence in a prison with effective suicide prevention seems far harsher than a lethal injection next week.

But a life sentence in prison with a noose in it is humane?

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#318

Post by Consultant32452 » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 8:04 PM UTC

ufo wrote: post #197

Consultant32452 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If the only argument in favor of the death penalty is that the prison system is inhumane, to the point that someone would rather die than go through it, the answer to that should be to make the prison system more humane.

Death isn't categorically inhumane. There are many circumstances in life that I would choose death over survival. It's barbaric for you to force me, against my will, to keep going through such things.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#319

Post by Gauge_Irrahphe » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 8:04 PM UTC

There should be people paid for proving a person innocent.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#320

Post by Lukeas14 » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 8:04 PM UTC

ludocode wrote: post #278

klelatti wrote: post #232

I absolutely abhor the death penalty. I do find this reliance on a single rationale to stop the death penalty problematic though: - For many people I suspect that there is a combination of level of proof and severity of crime that would lead them to say the risk of erroneous conviction can be ignored. - Someone will say let's focus on improving the justice system to deal with the errors. I'd rather the burden of just…

I agree. Some of the most violent criminals can't ever be re-integrated into society, so the only alternative is life imprisonment. I've seen many arguments that this is preferable to the death penalty because "We will accidentally execute some innocents", as Paul Graham's here, as well as "It costs more to execute someone due to the higher standard of proof required". In all such cases the corollary is "We can accep…

I agree that we shouldn't accept a lower standard of proof. However, life in prison isn't absolute in the same the death penalty is. There's always a small chance of the evidence changing and the justice system being able to rectify the mistake. There have been several convictions overturned because witnesses changed their story or were later found to be not credible, sometimes decades later. Once the death penalty is carried out, there's no going back.