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

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#291

Post by a-posteriori » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 7:46 PM UTC

dane-pgp wrote: post #208

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #161

Here's a simple question: "would you trust a random politician with the life of your loved one if said loved one's life stood between the politician and greater political ambitions?" If your answer is yes, then by all means, support the death penalty. If you don't trust ambitious politicians, then you can't trust the process for selecting who is to be put to death by the state either, because DAs and AGs are politici…

I heard another interesting thought experiment on this topic recently. It said there should be a referendum about whether to keep (or adopt) the death penalty, but the names of everyone who voted for allowing the death penalty would be recorded in a list. Then, whenever someone sentenced to death was later found to be innocent (or pardoned), a random name on the list of "Yes" voters would be picked to be killed in pl…

I enjoyed this thought experiment, but isn't it sort of a false equivalence argument?

Wouldn't it make more sense as a thought experiment if only "Yes" voters could be executed only if and when convicted of a crime deserving of capital punishment?

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#292

Post by f38zf5vdt » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

im3w1l wrote: post #277

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no effect to the best of my knowledge. Long sentences appear to be a tool for gaining votes and wasting taxpayer resources rather than correcting behaviour. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-s...

Go to the article they cite and you will see two things. 1. They claim that longer sentences do in fact work (but are subject to diminishing returns). 2. The evidence is weak and full of caveats. Like it's not like we have RCT running for generations. We have observational studies rife with problems. They understandably try to make the best of what they have, but frankly it's just not good enough. https://onlinelibra…

Yes, it's possible incarceration itself is a sham treatment for criminal behaviour.

> One of the major justifications for the rise of mass incarceration in the United States is that placing offenders behind bars reduces recidivism by teaching them that “crime does not pay.” This rationale is based on the view that custodial sanctions are uniquely painful and thus exact a higher cost than noncustodial sanctions. An alternative position, developed mainly by criminologists, is that imprisonment is not simply a “cost” but also a social experience that deepens illegal involvement. Using an evidence-based approach, we conclude that there is little evidence that prisons reduce recidivism and at least some evidence to suggest that they have a criminogenic effect. The policy implications of this finding are significant, for it means that beyond crime saved through incapacitation, the use of custodial sanctions may have the unanticipated consequence of making society less safe.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003288551141522...

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#293

Post by lreeves » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 7:47 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 don't honestly see much difference between these outcomes. Why is one so morally superior to the other?

One of them gives you your remaining lifetime for evidence to be found or overturned; one of them doesn't.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#294

Post by rmorey » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #286

I'm surprised not to see any consideration of second-order effects. For example, if getting rid of the death penalty even slightly decreases the disincentive for committing crime, it's quite possible that more lives would be lost than saved. In any given year, there are relatively few executions in the US — in recent years it has been around 25. [1] If we assume the 4% figure as correct, then every four years there i…

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/deterrence

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#295

Post by sneak » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 7:48 PM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #290

sneak wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This position is, from my viewpoint, indistinguishable from that of a mass murderer, as that is literally what you are calling for. By a strict logical interpretation, you might consider executing yourself as you have met your own stated criterion for being eligible for execution.

No, it's not. Self defense is moral and justified. And some people are more dangerous alive than dead. Worse, some people develop a cult-of-personality and a following that they can even control or influence from jail. You telling me a mafia or gang leader or a former dictator guilty of genocide doesn't deserve the death penalty? Naive, to say the least. You know little of true evil, which does exist and no amount of…

Someone held securely in prison does not pose an imminent threat to you, and thus an argument from self-defense is void.

The fact that you move on so deftly to the word "deserve" suggests that it's vengeance you seek.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#296

Post by bena » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 7:49 PM UTC

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 death penalty is one are where we are making the deliberate choice to end someone's life. We can prevent that 4% rate simply by not making that choice. We can make that number zero and it would cost us practically nothing to do so.

I am not impressed by your faux-concern for automobile deaths.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#297

Post by cjfd » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 7:50 PM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #286

I'm surprised not to see any consideration of second-order effects. For example, if getting rid of the death penalty even slightly decreases the disincentive for committing crime, it's quite possible that more lives would be lost than saved. In any given year, there are relatively few executions in the US — in recent years it has been around 25. [1] If we assume the 4% figure as correct, then every four years there i…

Go back to grade school and learn your percentages anew. You are treating them very badly.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#298

Post by tzs » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 7:50 PM UTC

deanCommie wrote: post #237

im3w1l wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's my belief that the sentence length affects crime rate indirectly by affecting the collective unconscious . For instance if you see someone who did his time talk about his life in retrospect on the telly that affects you. When you see the (lack of) wrinkles on his face, that affects you. When you uncle Joey misses your birthday bash because he is still in jail, that affects you etc.

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).

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#299

Post by twodave » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 7:50 PM UTC

Is there a point where it becomes necessary to end the life of another person?

Maybe. Maybe if the person is obviously committed to harming others and refuses all attempts at reform. How do you know when someone is past helping? Anyway, there just aren't very many people who match this description.

As a Christian against the death penalty I find myself often in a very unexpected minority. Many Christians I know and grew up around are very pro-death-penalty, to the point of being religious about it. But even Jesus declined to carry out capital punishment when given the opportunity to (and if anyone had the right, it would be him).

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#300

Post by klelatti » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #265

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…

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 meaning that someone else feels that they have been vindicated).