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

431–440 of 546 posts

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#431

Post by DoreenMichele »

sharkjacobs wrote: post #420
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."

Can't wait for cutting edge prisons which AB test changes to diet, schedule, and accommodations to maximize prisoner self terminations. All within the bounds of strict adherence to ethics regulations of course.

"Responsibly saving your tax dollars one assisted suicide at a time."

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#433

Post by qwytw »

Y_Y wrote: post #223
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.

Referring to "the American continent" is a very South American thing to do. I think in the US they consider themselves to be sharing a continent with just Mexico and Canada. Furthermore I think you don't go far enough. Around the world, abolishing the death penalty seems to be a mark of high development, apart from Japan (and arguably China and India) there aren't any highly developed nations that are still killing p…

Stretching the definition of "high development" here a bit (but since you're considering China and India) Belarus still has the death penalty (they were executing at least 1 almost every year until 2020).

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#434

Post by jjeaff »

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…

Actually, Chauvin's actions did not have to be the only cause of death. Reckless actions only had to contribute in order for him to be guilty. The fact that there were drugs involved or other medical conditions merely establish that he may have been easier to kill than a healthier individual.

You only need to be very sure that what Chauvin did was reckless and unreasonable and also very sure that had Chauvin not knelt on his neck for nearly 10 minutes, that Floyd wouldn't have died at that same moment anyway.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#435

Post by adriang133 »

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.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#436

Post by mbesto »

mrweasel wrote: post #345
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…

>By far, the largest factor of deterrence was the likelihood of getting caught. Does that mean it prevents people capable (mentally and morally) from committing a planned crime or is it in general? Because everything I've seen says most people who for instance attack others almost never consider the consequences.

I don't know for sure but the general problem is that while certainty is almost nearly more effective it's also way less enforceable, meaning, it's much more difficult to enact laws that create more certainty of punishment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(penology)#Certaint...

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#437

Post by qwytw »

jcims wrote: post #113
rswail wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "debate" has been over in all other nations that the US likes to be compared for years. It is similar to the "tough on crime" incarceration "debate" in the US, where perverse incentives and political expediency has led to the US being the highest-per-capita incarcerator in the world. Framing the death penalty debate around "innocent people get killed" will not change the partisan/class perceptions. The US crimin…

>Framing the death penalty debate around "innocent people get killed" will not change the partisan/class perceptions. I don't agree. All of these moral castigations about it being 'inhumane' or 'barbaric' don't strike me as rational or compelling in the least. I think the idea is humane in the context of those impacted by the crimes in question and I don't see how putting a person in a box for the remainder of their…

How about that it's significantly more expensive on average to execute a prisoner (due to the extensive appeal processes) than to imprison him for life? I would assume that should be a very compelling argument in favour of abolishing the death penalty for somebody who is "right of center".

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#438

Post by jjeaff »

Aunche wrote: post #397
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…

> Are you 99% certain of that? Chauvin's case was unique because the narrative of him being a murderer had already been broadcast across the entire country. While I'm not personally 99% sure of his guilt to second-degree murder, the jurors most likely were.

He was convicted of 2nd degree unintentional murder. Which, in Minnesota, one of the definitions is that you killed someone while committing a felony.

So even if fully an accident, if you kill someone while robbing a store, that's going to be 2nd degree murder.

And in the case of this trial, I assume the jury was simply convinced that kneeling on someone's neck for nearly 10 minutes while they beg for mercy and then continuing to apply pressure for minutes after they pass out is a crime in and of itself, even if he had not died.

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#439

Post by aaron695 »

wanderingstan wrote: post #121
aaron695 wrote: post #38

This argument is garbage. Of course there will be miscarriages of justice and this has been talked about since the beginning. There is nothing new here. > 4% of people on death row are innocent. This is not true, but it's irrelevant anyway since what is the acceptable level? Since it's not mentioned, we have gotten nowhere in this blog post. If we get it very close to zero, is it then ok then? Is the single incidence…

I don’t see your counter argument here. The post is indeed arguing that “zero people killed by the government for crimes they did not commit” is more ok than “greater than zero people killed.” This is a valid argument, drawing on the intuition that accidentally letting a guilty person escape death (even if we accept they deserve it) is a lesser evil than letting an innocent person die.

> because so many of the people sentenced to death are actually innocent.

He puts a vague number to it in my reading.

The government regularly lets people die. The government regularly lets innocent people die. The government regularly changes things that then changes who dies. A human life is only worth around $2,000,000 in the rich west like the US. People, inflate that number a lot, but it's actually low millions.

If the argument is it has to be 0.00 for direct action by the government that deliberately kills a person then say it. That's the end. It's not possible to get 0, don't bring in the fact it's 4% or x% or bring in case studies because that's just a changing goal post.

The reason for the 'changing goal post' is because no one can ask why is the direct killing of innocent people different to allowing innocent people to die.

[edit] Here's a 150 year old 'against' blog post that innocent people will die - https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/128491969 Back then it was all about the innocent witches (which still happens today sadly)

Re: The real reason to end the death penalty

#440

Post by gnicholas »

rmorey wrote: post #294
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

I'm aware that there is not strong evidence of a global deterrent effect. However, if we are looking to offset something like 1 death every four years, the magnitude of a countervailing effect could be small enough to be lost in the 'noise' of the existing research studies, but still be larger than the .25 annual deaths that it's being measured against.

I would also point out that looking at state-level differences in death penalty policies isn't as likely to pick up changes in attitudes among criminals. If the federal government outlawed the death penalty, there would be much broader awareness of the change (and therefore more likelihood of a change in criminal behavior).

Post reply on HN