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

A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 513 posts

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#311

Post by thaumasiotes »

andrewaylett wrote: post #299
GuiA wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, question- if you actively support putting people behind bars with the intent of seeing them die there, why not just kill them right away? If the intent is for them to not cause any harm to society, then that'll get the job done while saving money for society and making them suffer for a shorter period of time. Unless the goal is to make them suffer for their entire life as punishment; in which case, why not just…

It's very difficult to release an executed man if new evidence shows he's innocent after all.

This is a nicety that might ring hollow to someone who spent the time between turning 22 and turning 60 in jail, only to finally be released on evidence that the prosecutor framed him. In the same way that you can't resurrect the wrongfully executed, you can't restore the vitality, family, or place in the world that the innocent guy would have had.

I don't find the death penalty especially sui generis for that reason.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#312

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

fleitz wrote: post #173
latch wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to distill these issues and hold a self-righteous opinion, but I personally find most too complex to form anything resembling an educated opinion. Take land mines. I've heard that they play a critical role in South Korea's defense, which was a major reason Clinton didn't sign. Military experts talk about how it's an effective tool that, when used responsibly, can benefit civilians more than harm them. They…

I'm pretty sure North Korea used the exact same reasoning when they didn't sign.

If it is good enough for North Korea, it ought to be good enough for us! Right?

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#313

Post by yummyfajitas »

anu_gupta wrote: post #308
yummyfajitas wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privatizing prisons generally reduce the financial incentive to incarcerate more people. In non-privatized states, you generally have a prison guard union. The prison guard union lobbies for more prisoners and gets more money. Simple as that. A non-monopolistic prison corporation spends their own money lobbying, and all the other prison corporations get to reap the benefits. Classic collective action problem. http://…

> Privatizing prisons generally reduce the financial incentive to incarcerate more people. That made me laugh - thanks :)

Such a well reasoned counterargument.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#314

Post by tehwebguy »

anu_gupta wrote: post #305
drivingmissm wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U.S. violent crime rates have plummeted in part because of higher incarceration. A lot of people on this list don't remember when cities like New York and Washington, DC were very dangerous places and all native born inhabitants were leaving.

> all native born inhabitants were leaving. What does that even mean?

He means people born in those cities were leaving?

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#315

Post by [deleted] »

x0054 wrote: post #289
joyeuse6701 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criticism of government has it's limits. Snowden is questionable because what he said was not public knowledge and had crippling negative effects towards security of the state, but say, expressing your criticism of government by blowing up a federal building...

So releasing documents that prove that US Government is knowingly violating its citizens constitutional rights is equivalent in your mind to killing a lot of people with an explosive?

[deleted]

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#317

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

waps wrote: post #276
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No

I keep wondering how people can possibly defend what Snowden did. He used social engineering exploits in his job as sysadmin on a large scale, then published the resulting information. He apparently even compromised personal accounts of the people he was supposed to help. Are we seriously suggesting letting people do this if they think the goal is just ? It seems so. I shudder to think what the consequences of that w…

I keep wondering how people can possibly defend the government's conduct.

>Are we seriously suggesting letting people do this

Do what? Expose evidence of government corruption? It is written in the law that this is exactly the case. There are numerous examples of the failure of the laws meant to protect us from this scenario.

> if they think the goal is just ? It seems so.

There is no justice in following unjust laws.

>I shudder to think what the consequences of that would be.

An informed electorate? Backroom-dealing politicians have to work harder to conceal their works? We should be so lucky.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#318

Post by jnbiche »

spodek wrote: post #7

It's a crying shame. Normally that's an empty phrase, but it describes this. I can't imagine reading this and not feeling tears well up. No sense of what I would call humanity. From what perspective does this make the world a better place? What am I missing about being human that this fits into that I don't understand?

Almost sadder is the fact that if these people were ever released, they're in the exact same position as every other ex-con. Which means that finding a job goes from being a challenging task (for most of us) to almost impossible.

If you manage to find the very rare employer willing to overlook a felony conviction, there's also the challenge of finding an apartment with a criminal record (apartments can and do reject ex-cons from leasing).

Never mind the emotional hurdle of reuniting with family (if you're lucky), and the huge challenge of socially re-integrating with society.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#319

Post by madaxe »

lostlogin wrote: post #33
spodek wrote: post #7

It's a crying shame. Normally that's an empty phrase, but it describes this. I can't imagine reading this and not feeling tears well up. No sense of what I would call humanity. From what perspective does this make the world a better place? What am I missing about being human that this fits into that I don't understand?

Failure to sign the Ottawa treaty (anti landmine) and the international criminal court agreements, execution of minors (and execution at all), assassination of opponents even if citizens (via drones), torture, war crimes, illegal invasions, use of phosphorus (probably comes under war crimes), continual killing of civilians in non declared wars, massive prison population, secret prisons, outsourcing torture, supportin…

The majority of Americans, sadly.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#320

Post by Perseids »

latch wrote: post #125
lostlogin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Failure to sign the Ottawa treaty (anti landmine) and the international criminal court agreements, execution of minors (and execution at all), assassination of opponents even if citizens (via drones), torture, war crimes, illegal invasions, use of phosphorus (probably comes under war crimes), continual killing of civilians in non declared wars, massive prison population, secret prisons, outsourcing torture, supportin…

It's easy to distill these issues and hold a self-righteous opinion, but I personally find most too complex to form anything resembling an educated opinion. Take land mines. I've heard that they play a critical role in South Korea's defense, which was a major reason Clinton didn't sign. Military experts talk about how it's an effective tool that, when used responsibly, can benefit civilians more than harm them. They…

> It's easy to distill these issues and hold a self-righteous opinion, but I personally find most too complex to form anything resembling an educated opinion.

The problem is the other extreme of not expressing an opinion where you have reasonable doubt will lead to leaving the discussion to everyone else. And there will always be a huge crowd of people who will voice their very uniformed opinion no matter what.

Even worse, you become extremely susceptible to malign publicity tactics. For example I would not see it beyond the US government[1] to argue with South Korea's defense even if the land mine treaty explicitly had an exception for these well cataloged mines in narrowed down locations [2]. They would of course word their public statement carefully so they can later refuse to acknowledge a causal connection between the two in case their bluff is called.

[1] And my government on other topics.

[2] I'm assuming the best case here. I don't know how the mines along the border are actually distributed, or even if there are mines at all.

Post reply on HN