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

The Death Penalty in Louisiana

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 102 posts

Re: The Death Penalty in Louisiana

#81

Post by glesica »

seivan wrote: post #23
ablation wrote: post #14

No matter how many times I read about the death penalty in America, I just can't wrap my head around the fact that it still exists, that the powers that be kill their own citizens in such a way. It's so incredibly horrifying to me that it almost becomes an abstract concept, but then you read an article like this and - guilty or innocent - the true human cost and all that associated suffering comes right back to you.

What do you suggest in regards for money being spent on containing people who have zero chance on rehabilitation? Sweden can't afford cancer medication for certain people, but has no issues containing violent sadists. http://www.svd.se/effektiv-cancermedicin-anvands-inte http://www.sydsvenskan.se/skane/hon-fick-ny-cancermedicin-ut... Some people in the middle east tortured children, women and committed other atrociti…

My recollection is that the death penalty, with all the appeals and procedure that are involved, ends up costing more than a life sentence. One of the first links from a quick search... http://www.nbcrightnow.com/story/15519792/what-costs-more-th...

Re: The Death Penalty in Louisiana

#82

Post by gadders »

Jtsummers wrote: post #77
gadders wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the death penalty and gay marriage are not the same. As I obviously need to spell it out to you: - Some people's belief systems are against Gay Marriage - Some people's belief systems are against the Death Penalty Which set of personal beliefs is valid? Who decides which one should be allowed?

Private entities (individuals, companies, clubs, etc.) can refuse to participate in things they find objectionable (gay marriage, straight marriage, death penalty, life, whatever). There may be legal repercussions if, for instance, what they're refusing to do is to pay taxes, a legal obligation. But gay marriage is now legal in all states, so representatives of the states are obligated to perform those services. The…

>> Private entities (individuals, companies, clubs, etc.) can refuse to participate in things they find objectionable (gay marriage, straight marriage, death penalty, life, whatever). There may be legal repercussions if, for instance, what they're refusing to do is to pay taxes, a legal obligation.

Not always, at least not in the UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233

Again, not commenting for or against. I just think that the philosophical arguments of where freedom of conscience butts up against other people's rights is an interesting topic.

Re: The Death Penalty in Louisiana

#83

Post by dr_hercules »

BBC - The Science of Killing Human Beings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImQoyRs5cWc

It's easy, safe, cheap and humane to suffocate a delinquent with Nitrogen.

Those features are also obvious - so of course there are people in charge how do want the condemned man to suffer while dying.

Re: The Death Penalty in Louisiana

#84

Post by carlob »

kazinator wrote: post #73
sageabilly wrote: post #13

"Cox does not believe that the death penalty works as a deterrent, but he says that it is justified as revenge." That is so, so fucked up. An attorney, someone whose job it is to impartially argue the law, equally to everyone, saying "Yeah you know, we kill people FOR REVENGE ." Not even, you know, hey if we have the death penalty it'll maybe make people think twice about committing a serious crime, but straight up s…

Punishments for crimes are not merely deterrents; that is a secondary role. Punishments are ... punitive, of course! Suppose you break into someone's house and steal 50 bucks. You aren't just forced to return 50 bucks; you go to jail for a while. Even in civil suits, there are "punitive damages": remedies awarded to a plaintiff beyond actual damages. If you kill someone, then killing you is not even punitive really;…

IIRC in Turkey, they reintroduced death penalty for kidnapping and the number of people rescued from kidnapping declined dramatically: it is much simpler to do away with witnesses.

You can say you don't believe in deterrents, but you surely cannot believe that it's good to have punishments that encourage to commit more crimes.

For what is worth I agree with you that deterring from committing crime is not the primary purpose of legal punishment, but I think that the primary purpose should be reeducation and reintroduction in society. You'll probably call that a crypto-socialist intellectual angle, but I don't think a just society can exist with both death and life penalty.

Re: The Death Penalty in Louisiana

#85

Post by selimthegrim »

carlob wrote: post #84
kazinator wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Punishments for crimes are not merely deterrents; that is a secondary role. Punishments are ... punitive, of course! Suppose you break into someone's house and steal 50 bucks. You aren't just forced to return 50 bucks; you go to jail for a while. Even in civil suits, there are "punitive damages": remedies awarded to a plaintiff beyond actual damages. If you kill someone, then killing you is not even punitive really;…

IIRC in Turkey, they reintroduced death penalty for kidnapping and the number of people rescued from kidnapping declined dramatically: it is much simpler to do away with witnesses. You can say you don't believe in deterrents, but you surely cannot believe that it's good to have punishments that encourage to commit more crimes. For what is worth I agree with you that deterring from committing crime is not the primary…

This; this is also why the death penalty for rape (child or not) or molestation is a bad idea. You're just increasing the incentive for them to kill once they're done.

Re: The Death Penalty in Louisiana

#86

Post by selimthegrim »

selimthegrim wrote: post #67
pjc50 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are far too many people who have no place in society and there is zero benefit to society to continue their existence That's the sort of rhetoric that normally preceeds genocides.

From a Pakistani television debate on the death penalty for blasphemy: (anti-blasphemy commentator): How do you decide which half of the country gets to be the executioners?

To clarify, obviously I meant (anti-death penalty for blasphemy), although this man (Pervez Hoodbhoy) in fact opposes any penalty for blasphemy

Re: The Death Penalty in Louisiana

#87

Post by selimthegrim »

kazinator wrote: post #76
carlob wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are you trolling?

You mean, am I misrepresenting my real life beliefs for the purpose of online entertainment? Certainly not. Moreover, this isn't a throwaway account; you can deduce my identity without much effort. People who disagree with your views on crime and punishment, or anything else, aren't necessarily trolls.

Have you thought about the effects this might have on the executioner? Take the case of the serial killer in Lahore who would cut up little boys and dissolve them in barrels of acid. The sessions court judge at his first trial was inspired to pass the same sentence on him until cooler heads prevailed in higher courts on appeal.

Re: The Death Penalty in Louisiana

#88

Post by tzs »

sageabilly wrote: post #13

"Cox does not believe that the death penalty works as a deterrent, but he says that it is justified as revenge." That is so, so fucked up. An attorney, someone whose job it is to impartially argue the law, equally to everyone, saying "Yeah you know, we kill people FOR REVENGE ." Not even, you know, hey if we have the death penalty it'll maybe make people think twice about committing a serious crime, but straight up s…

I don't think the edit worked.

If I read your comment, with my best guess as to what it said before the edit applied, it makes sense.

As it stands now, with the edit applied, it reads as if you don't think attorneys are supposed to express opinions on the philosophical issues or societal goals behind the laws, which is a bizarre notion.

And since HN does not report edit times on comments, I cannot tell which responses were pre-edit and which post-edit. (Not that reporting edit times would help much, since HN stops reporting minutes on comment times once they are an hour old...).

Several responses I agree with if they were posted before the edit, and strongly disagree with if they were posted after. And several more I agree with if they were posted after, and strongly disagree with if they were posted before!

Re: The Death Penalty in Louisiana

#89

Post by jkyle »

seivan wrote: post #23
ablation wrote: post #14

No matter how many times I read about the death penalty in America, I just can't wrap my head around the fact that it still exists, that the powers that be kill their own citizens in such a way. It's so incredibly horrifying to me that it almost becomes an abstract concept, but then you read an article like this and - guilty or innocent - the true human cost and all that associated suffering comes right back to you.

What do you suggest in regards for money being spent on containing people who have zero chance on rehabilitation? Sweden can't afford cancer medication for certain people, but has no issues containing violent sadists. http://www.svd.se/effektiv-cancermedicin-anvands-inte http://www.sydsvenskan.se/skane/hon-fick-ny-cancermedicin-ut... Some people in the middle east tortured children, women and committed other atrociti…

> What do you suggest in regards for money being spent on containing people who have zero chance on rehabilitation?

Life in prison without parole is cheaper than the death penalty. In fact, it's 10x more expensive to put someone to death than to imprison them for life. [1]

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/cons...

Re: The Death Penalty in Louisiana

#90

Post by jkyle »

gadders wrote: post #16
tokenadult wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet in the US there is this "crisis" of not being abel to source the injections needed. Many medical doctors (persons with legal authority to prescribe drugs) and pharmacists (persons with legal authority to dispense drugs) object to capital punishment, and thus will not supply prisons with drugs that have the sole purpose of killing someone.

So they wouldn't supply medication for assisted suicide either? Also, allowing people to opt out on supplying the drug on matters of conscience is a slippery slope. What about letting people opt-out of providing abortions? Or marrying gay couples? A case could made for people refusing to do these as matters of conscience as well.

> What about letting people opt-out of providing abortions?

No doctor, hospital, or medical facility has _ever_ been forced into providing abortions. Ever. None.

> Or marrying gay couples?

No private organization has or ever will be forced to marry gay couples. Ever. None.

> A case could made for people refusing to do these as matters of conscience as well.

They don't have to make a case. They can just do it. Now. And forever.

Post reply on HN