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

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#441

Post by ohazi » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 10:14 PM UTC

adriang133 wrote: post #435

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…

And putting them in prison for multiple years, or even decades, is better ? Hardly. I think the point should be more: the justice system sucks and we should work very hard to make it better, instead of complaining about a particular consequence of it, that is ultimately irrelevant.

That's a great whataboutism.

None of your points are wrong, none of your conclusions are wrong, yet your comment still derails and detracts from GP's well stated point. Don't do this.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#442

Post by spijdar » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 10:16 PM UTC

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.)

Well, he said to "not be too eager". I don't believe there were many instances of Gandalf and the crew chosing to seek out death in bloodlust? I guess it's all subjective, since you could argue they could have gone more out of their way to avoid more deaths.

That said, I don't believe Tolkien was ever totally comfortable with his treatment of orcs, he just never reconciled his morals and personal narratives with his desire to tell faerie tales and myths, where "evil goblins" are just part of the landscape. No sources for that, though, I just recall reading it somewhere, perhaps in his son's writings...

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#443

Post by nojs » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #418

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…

Reasonable doubt means doubts that a person is guilty. In probability terms it can be interpreted as a state of belief in the guilt (or innocence) of the accused. PG's 4% number is offered as the frequency of wrongful convictions. The two concepts are not related. For example, if a body of jurors say that they are 95% certain that John Smith murdered Jane Brown, that does not mean that there is a 5% probability that…

I think most people interpret the task of assigning a percentage to their belief of something like this as equivalent to estimating the percentage of the time they are likely to be wrong. So to say the two are not related is not true.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#444

Post by throwaway932234 » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 10:27 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #427

throwaway932234 wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The reason it isn't such a "major head fuckery" for me personally, is because I don't believe in free will and I think everything is predetermined. So, someone that has an "ill mindset" where they commit a crime worthy of being forever isolated from the general public, is in the sense very ill psychologically and comparable to someone suffering from a mental illness. The psychological pain that someone will suffer from forever by the isolation result because of their ill mindset that made them isolated should allow euthanasia like other countries allow someone with a psychological illness with intolerable suffering the choice to escape the intolerable pain. Anyway to me that's a kinder world than being stuck in pain until death and when it wasn't their choice to develop an ill mindset; similar to all other people with illnesses that are privileged to be able to decide for themselves if euthanasia is the right thing for them personally. Committing suicide without medical help can be terrifying and statistically more favourable to fail where brain damage could likely prevent further attempts.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#445

Post by ppp_qqq » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 10:28 PM UTC

I think the article misses the point of the main argument for the death penalty. The main argument is not whether it acts as a deterrent, or if it harms/benefits a group over another. Maybe these are the arguments thrown in public discussions.

But the central argument for death penalty is whether it is _just_ to punish a person by death, if they commit a certain crime, or if it is _just_ to imprison them. It is not a question of what benefits society, but whether it is a form of justice. Those who advocate for generally believe that punishment is not primitively a method for fixing behavior, though that might or might not occur. Instead, it is a form of intentionally inflecting damage/pain for justice[1].

But the article is right on that in practice, there are important and significant difficulties in carrying out the death penalty. But those who advocate for death penalty would say that it is unjust to not punish people by death when they commit certain crimes.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#446

Post by n4r9 » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 10:32 PM UTC

ppp_qqq wrote: post #445

I think the article misses the point of the main argument for the death penalty. The main argument is not whether it acts as a deterrent, or if it harms/benefits a group over another. Maybe these are the arguments thrown in public discussions. But the central argument for death penalty is whether it is _just_ to punish a person by death, if they commit a certain crime, or if it is _just_ to imprison them. It is not a…

I can't be the only one that finds this argument lacking. If justice is not good for society, why bother?

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#447

Post by de6u99er » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

Here's my take on it:

Capital punishment is applied to murderers. By killing the convict, you're basically committing the same crime you're punishing him for.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#448

Post by lurquer » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

spijdar wrote: post #442

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.)

Well, he said to "not be too eager". I don't believe there were many instances of Gandalf and the crew chosing to seek out death in bloodlust? I guess it's all subjective, since you could argue they could have gone more out of their way to avoid more deaths. That said, I don't believe Tolkien was ever totally comfortable with his treatment of orcs, he just never reconciled his morals and personal narratives with his…

In all seriousness, it’s an odd feeling one gets when writing fiction. Is the author morally responsible for the actions of his characters? In reality, Gandalf isn’t killing orcs... there are no orcs and there is no Gandalf and it’s just a bunch of ink on a piece of paper.

I write fiction occasionally. When wondering if it’s ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ for a character to do something repugnant, I often have to remind myself that none of it is real!

The ‘moral’ issue — if there is one — I suppose pertains to the author deliberately holding an immoral character up as an example of good behavior in the ‘real’ world. Maybe even then there is no real moral issue...

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#449

Post by mc32 » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 10:44 PM UTC

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.

Right, but you have to compare that to the alternatives that exist elsewhere. China, Japan, India, UK, Chile, Brazil, Indonesia and so on. You cannot compare against an ideal which does not exist in practice.

I’m only speaking about conviction and not commenting on the appropriateness of death penalties.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#450

Post by DoreenMichele » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 10:47 PM UTC

throwaway932234 wrote: post #444

DoreenMichele wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The reason it isn't such a "major head fuckery" for me personally, is because I don't believe in free will and I think everything is predetermined. So, someone that has an "ill mindset" where they commit a crime worthy of being forever isolated from the general public, is in the sense very ill psychologically and comparable to someone suffering from a mental illness. The psychological pain that someone will suffer fr…

Among other things: You are assuming they are actually guilty. The very article under discussion shows that innocent people go to prison.

There's a whole lot more I don't agree with here, but it seems unlikely to be a fruitful discussion.