321–330 of 546 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In other words I absolutely believe there are just executions I think that is the GP,s point: the real problem is to convince you otherwise.
Why? If he (or she) believes or can be convinced that the death penalty should be abolished, why do you care if they also believe that some of the executions that already happened were just?
I still don't think it is okay to end the life of another human being.
I think death penalty should be abolished for all crimes except mass murder. There was a killer in Norway that murdered something close to 70 people 8 or 9 years ago. Thanks to maximum sentences in Norway being 18 years or so, the guy will be walking free in another 9 years time. I'm sorry, but some people just want to watch the world burn and those people should be put down.
Simply not true that he will be walking free in 9 years time.
> A sentence of permanent detention can be imposed if there is considerable danger of repetition. Permanent detention is not subject to any timeframe. However, the court always fixes a timeframe that may not exceed 21 years. When the timeframe expires the offender may be re-assessed. If the court concludes that there is still a danger of repetition the timeframe may be extended by up to five years at a time. There is no upper limit to the number of times that the court may extend the timeframe.
I think death penalty should be abolished for all crimes except mass murder. There was a killer in Norway that murdered something close to 70 people 8 or 9 years ago. Thanks to maximum sentences in Norway being 18 years or so, the guy will be walking free in another 9 years time. I'm sorry, but some people just want to watch the world burn and those people should be put down.
This is not true. He was sentenced to 21 years in prison, but his prison stay can be extended, indefinitely, as long as he is deemed a danger to society.
I would be extremely surprised if Breivik walks at the end of the 21 years.
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…
> barbaric Sorry, but that's exactly the kind of world we live in. The world simply is barbaric no matter what we would prefer. When people mess up a little bit, we put them through a process that, despite its massive inadequacy, is intended to rehabilitate them so that they can return to society. The death penalty is for when someone commits a crime so severe that they cannot ever return to society. If you are not a…
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…
From a practical aspect a lot of benefits for death penalties: 1) Low cost. No need for jails and their associated costs 2) Great scaling. You can kill as many as you want, but you cannot build a jail every day 3) Safe. People don’t come back to repeat their mistakes. 4) It’s the only language that many criminals speak and understand. The downsides are of a moral nature and twofold: 1) We should not punish innocent p…
Assuming that we absolutely know that someone is guilt (ignoring how that would happen), it doesn't need to take years and millions of dollars to simply shoot someone.
Then there are the people who are not only a financial burden on society, they are actively making it worse, much worse. Sometimes we just sit back an wonder why even spend resources keep this person terrible person imprisoned for decades. People who have killed, raped or tortured and been in and out of jail multiple times, no we really need to keep them around?
Regardless of how much we may hate the idea of the death penalty, there is some cold, brutal logic to simply shooting someone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “diminished mental capacity” As we learn more about neuroscience, every murderer will look like they have "diminished mental capacity". This legal construct is merely a statement of our ignorance to understand what's actually going on in their brain.
Sure, free will may not exist, but we don’t have much of a civilization if we don’t pretend that it does.
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…
It isn't really over, even now it pops its head up now and again. There's probably more people who believe in it than you realize. For example in the UK 58% of people believe that the death penalty should be allowed for some crimes (e.g. terrorist attacks). Only 32% oppose it (presumably with 10% undecided): https://yougov.co.uk/topics/legal/articles-reports/2019/10/0... So far from being the majority view, often ant…
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.
Speaking as someone who has experienced a family member's murder, the death penalty would in no way "vindicate" anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a sensible belief, I have it too. It's not backed by the evidence, though. Harsher sentences do not decrease crime rates.
They don't seem to decrease crime rates in others, but how about crime rates for the people actually sentenced? Sentencing Alice to 20 years for some crime might not discourage Bob from doing the same crime, but it is at least going to stop Alice from doing that crime again for the next 20 years (assuming we are talking about a crime that Alice cannot do in prison).
1) The criminal is free to commit crimes against others in prison, which may further criminality in those individuals when they are released.
2) There is a burden on families, especially children of those incarcerated. The fostering system seems to result in a lot of future criminals.
3) The economic cost of a 20 year incarceration is probably about $50-100k per annum per prisoner in most first world countries. It's possible that this money being spent on programs to enable to impoverished to escape poverty or investment into programs or drugs to treat criminals would result in greater net reductions in crime to the public as compared to incarcerating a single individual.