Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The real reason to end the death penalty

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 546 posts

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#391

Post by benjohnson »

thinkindie wrote: post #355
rayiner wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean in probability terms? Most people say 90-95%, which suggests even Graham’s 4% number (which is on the high end of such estimates, see: https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&con... ) is actually consistent with the system working as designed. Also, while you’re thinking about that, what’s your estimate of the probability that Derek Chauvin’s negligence was…

try to tell the family of people in the 4% that the system is working as designed.

It’s not ideal. But if we don’t have a working criminal justice system, victims will take the law into their own hands and their error rate will most likely be much worse.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#392

Post by pvarangot »

lurquer wrote: post #354
fegu wrote: post #306

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." - Fellowship of the ring (Tolkien)

(Said shortly before Gandalf and the gang slaughtered a gazillion orcs, goblins, ‘wild-men’, and the like... still, though... it was a good line.)

Those are the tortured bodies of creatures who's soul has already moved on. Or something like that, see also the Gollum arc.

Tolkien fought in WW1 and it's easy to tell from his writing he was a very sensitive individual. There's not much in LOTR about killing but his notes and the Silmarillion do shed some light on his moral view on the matter of ending a life.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#393

Post by kazinator »

Gauge_Irrahphe wrote: post #362
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.

>Rids the world of an instance of evil, efficiently and permanently. That sounds like a motive for murder.

For someone acting alone, deciding who and what is evil, it could well be. That's why the state and its courts need to control that instrument.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#394

Post by throwaway932234 »

I seriously think the ability to end one's life "if sentenced to life in prison" is the ethical, humane, and moral thing to allow for everyone. We're starting to allow euthanasia for intolerable suffering from medical conditions. Well, I assert that people being isolated from society for a severe crime because of their "ill mindset" is identical to severe illnesses and where they may suffer intolerable psychological pain from the isolation of a life sentence. I seriously see no downsides to allowing euthanasia as a choice for persons with life sentences. Only thing it possibly takes away is a feeling of vengeance the victims may have and if they personally dislike the idea of a person that harmed them being able to die early.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#395

Post by jjk166 »

tzs wrote: post #298
deanCommie wrote: post #237

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).

Well by that logic, if you pre-emptively lock up both alice and bob you can avoid crime altogether.

But we don't lock people up because we suspect they will commit a crime, we lock them up as a punishment for the crimes we can show beyond a reasonable doubt that they did commit.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#396

Post by heavyset_go »

rayiner wrote: post #377
sneak wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conviction and plea bargain rates. Most (>90%) people who are charged (in the US) end up with either a guilty verdict or a guilty plea. IIRC even the ones that don't plead out are ~90% conviction rate, at least at the federal level. Doesn't jive at all with what we know of competence and bias levels observed in police and prosecutors in the US.

Most people plead out because they’re ridiculously guilty. I’m a crunchy hippie on criminal justice, but I’ve also seen these cases first hand working for an appellate judge. Prosecutors go after cases that are open and shut. You wouldn’t believe how much evidence there is in a typical case that doesn’t go to trial. They have the guy on CCTV with stolen goods in his car and cell phone records of fencing. Innocence Pr…

> Most people plead out because they’re ridiculously guilty.

Most people plead out because they can't afford expensive trials.

It's also a rational choice when prosecutors promise that they'll throw the book at you if you go to trial, and it's often your word against the word of cops, prosecutors and the expensive expert witnesses they can afford to hire but you can't. Juries and judges tend to side with law enforcement because they're authority figures and valued members of the justice system, after all.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#397

Post by Aunche »

rayiner wrote: post #348
jpmattia wrote: post #316

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 man…

What does “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean in probability terms? Most people say 90-95%, which suggests even Graham’s 4% number (which is on the high end of such estimates, see: https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&con... ) is actually consistent with the system working as designed. Also, while you’re thinking about that, what’s your estimate of the probability that Derek Chauvin’s negligence was…

> Are you 99% certain of that?

Chauvin's case was unique because the narrative of him being a murderer had already been broadcast across the entire country. While I'm not personally 99% sure of his guilt to second-degree murder, the jurors most likely were.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#399

Post by chrisco255 »

klelatti wrote: post #323
chrisco255 wrote: post #269

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.

Anders Breivik. 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 re…

That's a relief, but the guy should be put to death. It does no one any favors to keep stringing them along on an arbitrary indefinite attention. The victims have to be worried that he'll get let loose and strike again. The perpetrator is meanwhile tortured through indefinite extensions. Rarely, but sometimes the case such as Breivik presents itself for which, death is mercy to all involved.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#400

Post by spfzero »

dan-robertson wrote: post #367
exclusiv wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how you could replace the jurors but I think they're only as good as the rest of the system. I mean, if they don't get to hear or see certain evidence because it was deemed non-permissible or it was hidden or destroyed, they can't make a good decision. Not to mention at one point we had no DNA evidence. We relied on junk science with bite marks and shoe prints and other things. Although there are indeed…

I think the suggestion is that not having a death penalty reduces the harm of incorrect decisions

I agree. Mistakes are going to happen at some rate, 4% seems realistic. At least if the wrongfully-convicted person is still alive in prison, they can be released and compensated. They may be able to bring a civil suit if there was sufficient malfeasance or incompetence. Some redress can happen.

As well, once someone has been executed, interest in finding the truth goes away, and any chance to correct and improve the system based on that case's specifics is gone.

Post reply on HN