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

421–430 of 546 posts

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#421

Post by simonh »

umvi wrote: post #262
simonh wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the state legitimately reserves for itself the right to resort to lethal force. National defence and effective policing can require violence when necessary. The key issue for me is necessity. It is not necessary to execute criminals, even murderers. I do have sympathy for the view that murderers deserve death, maybe many of them do, but then you get into drawing lines between cases that deserve death and ones…

What if the criminal is extremely wealthy and powerful and can continue to exert his influence even from within prison (and possibly have a corrupting influence on prison guards)? This actually happens with cartel heads and crime syndicate leaders...

Most such criminals are likely to be imprisoned for crimes other than murder, so you're going to have the problem anyway. Better to address the actual issue rather than use it as an excuse.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#422

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

matkoniecz wrote: post #410
lurquer wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That were actively trying to murder them.

They were fighting a war. How come it's only the bad guys that can be murderers in a war?

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#423

Post by lurquer »

matkoniecz wrote: post #410
lurquer wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That were actively trying to murder them.

Please...

The gang of thugs possessed the Ring of Power, stolen from its rightful owner, and capable of killing millions; it’s like a nuclear bomb!

If some gang of trespassers snuck into your dwelling with a nuclear bomb, I think “shoot first, ask questions later” would be the order of the day.

The only character that seemed to have his shit together was Sauron. Even Sauramon agreed the safest thing to do would be to peacefully return the ring to its rightful owner before anyone got hurt...

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#424

Post by tremon »

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…

Maybe going against the grain here, but I'm not on principle opposed to the death penalty. There's lots of strong practical arguments to make, like the fallibility of the court system, but yes, I do believe that there are some crimes (of mass bodily harm) for a which a state could rightfully determine to forfeit someone's right to live. My sole moral objection to the death penalty is that no one should have "end someone's life" as his job description.

However, my version of the world in which the death penalty would be admissible is a lot different from what we have now. In that version, a death sentence would never be executed on first conviction; the verdict would contain a suspended death sentence, more or less. After serving time, a criminal could be put to death only when convicted a second time for a similar offense. I'd also want to see the burden of proof reversed for that punishment: not only must the crime be proven in court (not by plea), but the government must show it provided adequate support and rehabilitation to avoid relapse.

That would be the only world in which I would defend the use of capital punishment. I don't think I'll ever see it happen.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#425

Post by throwaway932234 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #402
throwaway932234 wrote: post #394

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…

That's an amazingly slippery slope if I ever saw one: "We've eliminated the death penalty because we are so enlightened. But now that we've sentenced you to life in prison, every morning with breakfast, we offer a side of poison just in case you would like to exercise your right to check out of this hell hole. No pressure. Just being helpful."

That's the most ridiculous response I didn't expect to read towards my comment. Of course, all precautions should be similar to the existing process of having euthanasia. No coercion or manipulation present while the decision comes from the person, and a doctor or nurse trained in euthanasia would be doing the evaluation(s) of the person requesting it. Currently, people are receiving euthanasia for intolerable medical conditions and without anyone finding slippery slope imaginary scenarios that people write as fears.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#426

Post by themacguffinman »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #402
throwaway932234 wrote: post #394

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…

That's an amazingly slippery slope if I ever saw one: "We've eliminated the death penalty because we are so enlightened. But now that we've sentenced you to life in prison, every morning with breakfast, we offer a side of poison just in case you would like to exercise your right to check out of this hell hole. No pressure. Just being helpful."

(not the person you're replying to) I can't deny there are ethical problems, but on a very personal level I strongly agree with GP's premise: if I was sentenced to life imprisonment, I would consider it so intolerable I would want to kill myself (especially true in specific countries with notoriously unpleasant or corrupt prison systems). I'm honestly not sure how that should square with potential ethical problems of prison euthanasia but I feel compelled to point out that it's a real desire that deserves consideration, just like normal euthanasia. Similar problems exist with regular euthanasia and they tend to be mitigated with policies like waiting periods, redundant consent, and minimum requirements.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#427

Post by DoreenMichele »

throwaway932234 wrote: post #425
DoreenMichele wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an amazingly slippery slope if I ever saw one: "We've eliminated the death penalty because we are so enlightened. But now that we've sentenced you to life in prison, every morning with breakfast, we offer a side of poison just in case you would like to exercise your right to check out of this hell hole. No pressure. Just being helpful."

That's the most ridiculous response I didn't expect to read towards my comment. Of course, all precautions should be similar to the existing process of having euthanasia. No coercion or manipulation present while the decision comes from the person, and a doctor or nurse trained in euthanasia would be doing the evaluation(s) of the person requesting it. Currently, people are receiving euthanasia for intolerable medica…

I'm pro right to die and not sure how I feel about the death penalty, but the minute you say "We are going to sentence you to decades of torture and kindly help you escape that by offering some version of euthanasia" you are really doing some major head fuckery that actively encourages people to commit suicide.

People in prison sometimes already commit suicide, in spite of it being hard to do.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#428

Post by jcims »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #404
ectopod wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

1) because it implies that one day they might be it favour of bringing them back with the right technology etc 2) because you want to convince people of important moral principles. I don't want you to not beat your wife because you'll get caught, but because it's inherently wrong.

Certainly fodder for ongoing discussion but I think it’s important to prioritize goals.

Alignment on public policy decisions allows for more degrees of freedom in underlying philosophical differences than attempts to align on the philosophical primitives themselves. It also achieves an immediate goal.

Plus if you are engaging in conversation in a good faith attempt to understand and be understood, you have to allow for the case that your views are moderated or changed as well.

(The distance you feel from that right now is approximately the same I feel in the opposite direction.)

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#429

Post by impendia »

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…

> What does “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean in probability terms?

When serving as a juror in a criminal trial, I asked precisely this question of the judge.

Her response was that the law does not prescribe a percentage.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#430

Post by Traster »

bena wrote: post #296
Traster wrote: post #99

I want to preface what I'm about to say with: I'm against the death penalty. However, innocent people die every day, they're hit by cars, they're shot by police, they commit suicide. If your argument is that you want to save the lives of innocent poeple then you should be having a discussion about reducing the use of cars. If your argument isn't about the state's role, then what is the distinction between these thing…

We have discussions about how to reduce the number of deaths by cars every day. Don't pretend we don't. We have discussions about suicide prevention. Cancer prevention and treatment. Healthy living, blah blah blah. Yes, the number of people who die from those things are still non-zero. But what you're suggesting is that we need to get those to zero before we address the death penalty. That's a false dichotomy. The de…

I'm not suggesting that we need to get those things to zero. I'm suggesting that's what PG is making the argument for. You can't have it both ways, you can't argue that the death penalty is a unique harm because of the innocent deaths whilst ignoring other innocent deaths. The death penalty is all about the state's role -that is the thing that distinguishes it from traffic deaths. If you really do subcribe to PG's argument then the answer is "Well, if that's the priority, the death penalty isn't bad compared to 1000 other things". We're literally talking about more innocent people dying from car deaths in a day that from being sentenced to death in a year.

What PG is doing here is making the argument for the death penalty weaker by arguing for it on the weakest possible basis.

Oh and also, it's not 0 cost. It's probably a hugely expensive long and drawn out politial process to get rid of. For the pay off that's similar in scope to a moderate sized town lowering its speed limit. Not to mention the fact that these people who are sentenced to death incorrectly aren't being set free, they're likely still spending decades in prison.

Post reply on HN