3 ms·

I also was/am certain death penalty is obviously incorrect thing to do. But not cause society has not cause for sanctioned murder (it does). But rather there ar

I also was/am certain death penalty is obviously incorrect thing to do. But not cause society has not cause for sanctioned murder (it does). But rather there are no "take backs" with death penalty. We make too many mistakes. Our punishments should take that fact into account

zeveb 10y ago
There are no take-backs with imprisonment either: you can't restore lost decades any more than you can restore lost life. You can even, really, compensate for it: prison changes someone's psyche permanently. If we're worried about punishing innocents, we should address that problem, not proxies for it. If the justice system can't be trusted with execution, then it can't be trusted with imprisonment or even fines. The other question is if execution of an actually-guilty person is just. I hold that it is, and that not to execute certain criminals is a miscarriage of justice, just as not imprisoning certain criminals is a miscarriage of justice. Certainly, we should err on the side of the innocent, but at the end of the day we're going to have some people who must be isolated from others, and we're going to have some people who must be killed.
- njharman 10y ago
  There is a quantitate difference between "sorry our bad, we'll let you out of prison" and "sorry our bad, you're still dead". Which one would you prefer? It's wrong to believe we can (or even should) have a justice system that doesn't make mistakes. Human fallibility exists. "some people who must be killed." That's a moral opinion.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > There is a quantitate difference between "sorry our bad, we'll let you out of prison" and "sorry our bad, you're still dead". Which one would you prefer? I think I'd prefer to be executed at the end of the month than be released after a decade in prison. I'm almost certain of it, to be honest. That doesn't mean that some crimes shouldn't be punished with decades (or life) in prison: they should be. Even if we don't think of it as punishment, there are people who should not be released back into society. But if we have imprisonment, then we will imprison innocents. As you note, our justice system will always be fallible. But, fallible as it is, we need it: the alternative is worse. We live in an imperfect world, and everything we do will have at least a few downsides along with the upsides. > > some people who must be killed > That's a moral opinion. Of course it is. 'We shouldn't kill people' is also a moral opinion. From today's NYT article on the Greek property-tax issue[1]: > Greeks were stunned in 1987 when the police uncovered a gang that had killed at least eight rich elderly people after forging their wills. The plot’s leader was a lawyer and former mayor of an Athens suburb; accomplices included a notary public and a gravedigger. I think it's pretty indisputable that people who forge folks' wills and then murder them deserve to be executed. [1] http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/opinion/in-greece-property-is-debt.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/opinion/in-greece-prope...

zeveb 10y ago

There are no take-backs with imprisonment either: you can't restore lost decades any more than you can restore lost life. You can even, really, compensate for it: prison changes someone's psyche permanently. If we're worried about punishing innocents, we should address that problem, not proxies for it. If the justice system can't be trusted with execution, then it can't be trusted with imprisonment or even fines. The other question is if execution of an actually-guilty person is just. I hold that it is, and that not to execute certain criminals is a miscarriage of justice, just as not imprisoning certain criminals is a miscarriage of justice. Certainly, we should err on the side of the innocent, but at the end of the day we're going to have some people who must be isolated from others, and we're going to have some people who must be killed.

njharman 10y ago
There is a quantitate difference between "sorry our bad, we'll let you out of prison" and "sorry our bad, you're still dead". Which one would you prefer? It's wrong to believe we can (or even should) have a justice system that doesn't make mistakes. Human fallibility exists. "some people who must be killed." That's a moral opinion.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > There is a quantitate difference between "sorry our bad, we'll let you out of prison" and "sorry our bad, you're still dead". Which one would you prefer? I think I'd prefer to be executed at the end of the month than be released after a decade in prison. I'm almost certain of it, to be honest. That doesn't mean that some crimes shouldn't be punished with decades (or life) in prison: they should be. Even if we don't think of it as punishment, there are people who should not be released back into society. But if we have imprisonment, then we will imprison innocents. As you note, our justice system will always be fallible. But, fallible as it is, we need it: the alternative is worse. We live in an imperfect world, and everything we do will have at least a few downsides along with the upsides. > > some people who must be killed > That's a moral opinion. Of course it is. 'We shouldn't kill people' is also a moral opinion. From today's NYT article on the Greek property-tax issue[1]: > Greeks were stunned in 1987 when the police uncovered a gang that had killed at least eight rich elderly people after forging their wills. The plot’s leader was a lawyer and former mayor of an Athens suburb; accomplices included a notary public and a gravedigger. I think it's pretty indisputable that people who forge folks' wills and then murder them deserve to be executed. [1] http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/opinion/in-greece-property-is-debt.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/opinion/in-greece-prope...