3 ms·

I like his message mainly because I agree with the death penalty in principle. If you want to be a shitty human being, with 7B people on the planet we don't rea

by gxs 10y ago

I like his message mainly because I agree with the death penalty in principle. If you want to be a shitty human being, with 7B people on the planet we don't really need you. But, in practice, we will never get it 100% right. Probability of killing an innocent person will always be >0. For that reason alone, we should get rid of it.

jernfrost 10y ago
That was my perspective as well before, but what I never paid much attention to is the fact that every person is part of a network of relationships which gets affected by that person's death. The importance of that I think is clear with respect to the dynamics for terrorism and war. People who experience their loved ones dying easily get vengeful and radicalized. If I lost somebody dear to me, I don't think the execution of the killer that my increased satisfaction from this would likely pale compared to the sadness inflicted on those who cared about the killer. This is a fundamental thing in human psychology. We react more to losses than gains. If e.g. the boss takes money from you and gives to me as a bonus, then my joy from this will be significantly less, than the dissatisfaction you will feel from this loss. The sum is lesser than its parts so to speak ;-)
mibbiting 10y ago
Nothing is 100% certain. If you perform a heart operation, there's a chance you'll kill the patient. Does that mean we should get rid of heart operations? If you put a serial killer to death, you can be 100% sure they won't kill any more people. If you put him in prison, you can't. He may escape, or he may get released early and kill again. Or as often happens, he'll kill other prisoners whilst in prison. It's a question of whether you value potential victims, or potential falsely convicted innocent people. IMHO the former is a far bigger problem.
- scarmig 10y ago
  If there's a serial killer, even if you put a person accused of being that serial killer to death, you can't be sure that serial killer won't kill any more people. This isn't just an edge case: serial killers often claim credit for any and all crimes that might be attributed to them. Kill them off, attribute all the murders to them, and the actual serial killer is more likely to stay in the wild.
- gxs 10y ago
  This is a bit of a red herring as I am making no assertions regarding what else may or may be assured 100%. We have different tolerance for accuracy depending on the context, and my assertion was that in this case 100% would be necessary for, at least me, to feel comfortable carrying out the punishment.
  - mibbiting 10y ago
    But my point is that are you just "ignoring" the other side of the argument - if you don't put a serial killer to death, there's a chance others will be killed. If you don't put them to death, can you be 100% sure saving that life isn't going to cause more people to die? It's not simply a case of "punishment". It's preventing further crime and deaths.

by gxs 10y ago

jernfrost 10y ago

That was my perspective as well before, but what I never paid much attention to is the fact that every person is part of a network of relationships which gets affected by that person's death. The importance of that I think is clear with respect to the dynamics for terrorism and war. People who experience their loved ones dying easily get vengeful and radicalized. If I lost somebody dear to me, I don't think the execution of the killer that my increased satisfaction from this would likely pale compared to the sadness inflicted on those who cared about the killer. This is a fundamental thing in human psychology. We react more to losses than gains. If e.g. the boss takes money from you and gives to me as a bonus, then my joy from this will be significantly less, than the dissatisfaction you will feel from this loss. The sum is lesser than its parts so to speak ;-)

mibbiting 10y ago

Nothing is 100% certain. If you perform a heart operation, there's a chance you'll kill the patient. Does that mean we should get rid of heart operations? If you put a serial killer to death, you can be 100% sure they won't kill any more people. If you put him in prison, you can't. He may escape, or he may get released early and kill again. Or as often happens, he'll kill other prisoners whilst in prison. It's a question of whether you value potential victims, or potential falsely convicted innocent people. IMHO the former is a far bigger problem.

scarmig 10y ago
If there's a serial killer, even if you put a person accused of being that serial killer to death, you can't be sure that serial killer won't kill any more people. This isn't just an edge case: serial killers often claim credit for any and all crimes that might be attributed to them. Kill them off, attribute all the murders to them, and the actual serial killer is more likely to stay in the wild.
gxs 10y ago
This is a bit of a red herring as I am making no assertions regarding what else may or may be assured 100%. We have different tolerance for accuracy depending on the context, and my assertion was that in this case 100% would be necessary for, at least me, to feel comfortable carrying out the punishment.
- mibbiting 10y ago
  But my point is that are you just "ignoring" the other side of the argument - if you don't put a serial killer to death, there's a chance others will be killed. If you don't put them to death, can you be 100% sure saving that life isn't going to cause more people to die? It's not simply a case of "punishment". It's preventing further crime and deaths.