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

351–360 of 546 posts

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#351

Post by chrisco255 »

Eezee wrote: post #340
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.

I have no idea why you would think that. The maximum sentence is 21 years, they much is true, but that doesn't mean he will be released. There will be extensive psychological evaluations and the sentence can be extended indefinitely if Breivik is still considered a danger to society. This seems honestly like something you would read on a far-right conspiracy website about what a liberal hellhole Europe is.

I'll do the psychological evaluation for you, free of charge: he killed 70 people, admitted to it, and admitted to premeditating it. He's a psychopath.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#352

Post by sneak »

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…

There is significant tradition in the criminal justice system for the error bias to be in the other direction (in theory, if not in practice):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

I believe that to be "working as designed" we would see a lot more guilty people going free than innocent people being convicted.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#353

Post by jandrese »

ixacto wrote: post #315
mbesto wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I learned from Criminology 101 in college was this: By far, the largest factor of deterrence was the likelihood of getting caught. So, people, do in fact rationalize "I'm definitely going to get caught and the consequences are bad, I won't do it". So, to your point, the punishment itself is largely a deterrence. I think because a rational human being simply cannot grok the differences in long term effects. This…

The death penalty should not be abolished because to some criminals in society the threat of force is the only thing they respect.

They don't fear prison at all? It's not like the options are limited to killing them or letting them go.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#354

Post by lurquer »

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.)

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#355

Post by thinkindie »

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…

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

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#356

Post by tzs »

dane-pgp wrote: post #235
risyachka wrote: post #101

Though I agree that in most cases death penalty should not be used, in some very specific but not rare cases - like mass shootings with dozens dead - where you have a lot of video and DNA evidence and dozens of witnesses - I just can't find a single argument against it. If I find any - I would gladly change my mind.

> If I find any - I would gladly change my mind. Then let me offer you this question to ponder: What benefit is there to adding another tally to the body count from a mass shooting, once the perpetrator has been taken into custody? Executing someone doesn't reduce the number of unnecessarily lost lives, it only increases it.

One possible benefit is that it might help provide closure for the people who lost friends and relatives in the mass shooting.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#357

Post by chrisco255 »

Per_Bothner wrote: post #332
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.

"There was a killer in Norway that murdered something close to 70 people 8 or 9 years ago." Assuming you're talking about Breivik and the Utøya-massacre, that happened in 2011. And he is unlikely to ever "go free". He was sentenced to "containment" (sikring), which can extended indefinitely (and almost certainly will be).

My argument is that the guy is a psychopath and should be put down. Not that his containment should be up for debate. He killed 70 people. 70.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#358

Post by rayiner »

sneak wrote: post #352
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…

There is significant tradition in the criminal justice system for the error bias to be in the other direction (in theory, if not in practice): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio I believe that to be "working as designed" we would see a lot more guilty people going free than innocent people being convicted.

> I believe that to be "working as designed" we would see a lot more guilty people going free than innocent people being convicted

How do you know that’s not the case?

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#359

Post by exclusiv »

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…

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 issues with peers (and witnesses). I was in a large lecture hall some time ago and someone came in to do an staged purse snatch. You couldn't see the person's face and they were moving fast.

When the class was shown a lineup to say who it was, most all agreed it was one of the suspects. When asked why, they said he was tall (he was much taller than the others in the lineup).

And that was the whole point. People will try and identify based on little info and they make the incorrect assumption that the lineup they were presented with actually has the real perpetrator!

So if you presented a lineup (maybe an impartial organization other than the police) and made it really clear to the witnesses that the perp may very well NOT be in the lineup, you would probably fix a lot of bad identifications. And you wouldn't have detectives trying to influence a decision. That would be a good start.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#360

Post by klyrs »

jkingsbery wrote: post #276
ufo wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Framing this as a left vs right issue is an USA-centric way to frame the question. Consider how the US is basically the only country in the american continent that still goes ahead with capital punishment. Most other countries in the continent, from all kinds of political orientations, have either banned capital punishment outright or haven't executed anyone in more than a decade.

Even in the US, "left vs right" on the death penalty is an oversimplification. A pretty good summary can be found here: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/religious-st... ... Anecdotally, as a religious person, I'd say that most Catholics I know either oppose the death penalty or would want it to be much more limited than it is now.

I once had a surreal conversation with a Jehovah's Witness priest who was proselytizing on my campus. It was around the time of the Iraq war, and he opened with something like "if killing is wrong, why do we have the death penalty." I managed to use Saddam Hussein's alleged human rights violations as a rhetorical lever to justify the killing of one to prevent the killing of many. As a supporter of neither the death penalty nor the war on Iraq, I've never walked away from a victory with so much regret
Post reply on HN