4 ms·

The death penalty is barbaric. The only time when a criminal should die is when they immediately threaten another person's life and there is no other safe way t

by Kenji 9y ago

The death penalty is barbaric. The only time when a criminal should die is when they immediately threaten another person's life and there is no other safe way to stop them. That's why I'm so impressed with how Norway handled Breivik after he was arrested.

kuschku 9y ago
It’s interesting that an opinion that is supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by the EU (which ended up banning companies from exporting supplies for death penalty to the US due to that), and by the International Court of Human Rights, is downvoted on HN. It goes so far that countries in the ECHR can not extradite citizen to the US if they might face the death penalty, because the death penalty is something that, according to the European Council of Human Rights, no one, not even a criminal, deserves.
- catshirt 9y ago
  not interesting at all really. just a proxy metric for the quality of users we've been onboarding.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- __s 9y ago
  I didn't downvote, will probably be downvoted, but as someone who is atheist/nihilist/suicidal, I don't understand the great value placed on human life. We slaughter animals, we put down dogs which bite, I see no reason not to put down humans who have malfunctioned. All while being generally left wing. I think suffering should be an active goal, but I don't believe execution is suffering. There's enough effort to focus on progressing those who do buy into constructivism; those who don't wish to participate should exile themselves from society rather than lash out in deconstructivism This logic likely exists in a watered down form amongst the HN crowd more than Human Rights groups
  - orf 9y ago
    > put down humans who have malfunctioned What about the ones that have not, but are put down due to a malfunctioning justice system instead?
    - aaron-lebo 9y ago
      That's a flaw in the system. My uncle was (by his word, and I've seen the police reports which are a contradictory mess) falsely convicted. He got life in prison and could face parole after 20+ years. He didn't get a chance at that because he suffered and died in prison of cancer. Falsely being convicted and put to death is horrific, but we also have a very rigorous appeals process, which is why some of these guys don't die for a decade or more. You get falsely convicted and 20 years, you aren't going to get near the appeals and your life is just as ruined. Those 20 years inside your lonely cell might even be worse than just being put to death. It's never struck me as a realistic argument against the death penalty because of wrongful convictions. You could exaggerate your stance and suggest that no jails should exist and in fact no justice should ever be served because there are innocents. To just say no death penalty, lock em up for 30 years instead doesn't begin to solve the issue and perhaps even fails to recognize how horrific that sentence is.
      - anarazel 9y ago
        Sure, wrongfully convicted to long-term sentences is bad. But it's at least partially reversible. It's also cheaper to convict somebody of life without parole, than the death sentence. I personally think the extreme incarceration rate, the conditions in prison, the lack of measures aiming at reducing recidivism, the disproportional sentencing are bigger issues in the US than the death penalty. Not because the death penalty is OK in any way, purely because of the size of the effect. > Falsely being convicted and put to death is horrific, but we also have a very rigorous appeals process, which is why some of these guys don't die for a decade or more. There's plenty well documented cases where these appeals were done on an absolutely half-hearted basis, with very dodgy evidence. > It's never struck me as a realistic argument against the death penalty because of wrongful convictions. You could exaggerate your stance and suggest that no jails should exist and in fact no justice should ever be served because there are innocents. Reductio ad absurdum.
- ourmandave 9y ago
  Breivik spent hours on an island with a youth camp methodically killing children. I think that was the incident where a girl called her father on her cell while hiding and the last thing he got to hear was his crying daughter getting shot in the head at point blank range. But on the plus side, Breivik is currently working on his Poly Sci degree should they ever let him back into society.
  - jnardiello 9y ago
    I don't think Breivik is by anyhow a good base line for analogies.
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    On the flip side, you have Louisiana seeking the death penalty for a man who rolled over on his child. Dale Cox is a monster. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/06/revenge-killing http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/06/revenge-killing
  - cortesoft 9y ago
    What he did was absolutely horrible. However, killing him is not going to bring anyone back. Do you really think killing him is going to act as a deterrent to future mass murders? He committed his crime thinking he would die. Study after study shows that there is no deterrent effect from the death penalty. So, what is the point of executing someone? The only thing it does is reduce our own humanity, it doesn't solve any problem.
    - ourmandave 9y ago
      There have been killers who have plead guilty to manslaughter to avoid the death penalty and spare victims from testifying in a trial.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  > the death penalty is something that, according to the European Council of Human Rights, no one, not even a criminal, deserves. Is that actually the opinion of the council? It's about whether they deserve it? I am against the death penalty because I don't believe we can prevent political convictions of innocent people. But I do believe there are many criminals who deserve to die. Heck I think there are nonviolent offenders who deserve to die.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    > Is that actually the opinion of the council? It's about whether they deserve it? It’s about whether a person deserves the right to live, and the European Council of Human Rights is of the opinion that the right to live can not be limited for any reason, it is inviolable. Everyone deserves the right to live.
- mebassett 9y ago
  I didn't downvote, but was tempted to because I thought the comment was out of context and likely to start a political flame war. Not because I disagreed.
lb1lf 9y ago
-Breivik claimed during initial interrogation that he fully expected to be executed by the police shortly after being captured, IIRC. It somehow feels very 'right' for lack of a better term - that rather than going out in what would, to him, probably be a martyresque way he now spends the rest of his days seeing how his plan - to sow the seeds of a fascist revolution - failed miserably. To him, that probably feels much worse than being murdered by the state.
- virtualwhys 9y ago
  > he now spends the rest of his days iirc, his sentence was @20 years, not life.
  - panzer_wyrm 9y ago
    It is effectively life. In 20 years they will have to consider releasing him or locking him for 20 more. And on and on.
  - ourmandave 9y ago
    The maximum sentence is 21 years, but they can renew it every 5 years forever.
  - lb1lf 9y ago
    -I can't remember off-hand what his sentence was in years, but we have a form of sentencing for criminals being deemed extra dangerous to society called 'forvaring' (literally - 'safekeeping'). If sentenced under this statute, your case will be up for review by a board after a few years; if they find that the inmate is still likely to pose a danger to society, they'll just shrug and say 'tough luck', then schedule another review in a couple of years time. No worries. Breivik is not being released anytime soon.
ourmandave 9y ago
My first preference is that the mass murderer / hostage taker quickly dies in a hail of gunfire or blows their own head off. (It makes it hard to get why they did it when they're dead, but I really give zero f*cks about the monster's backstory.) My 2nd preference is hearing that they were later killed in prison (a'la Jeffery Dahmer).
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  > I really give zero fucks about the monster's backstory And this is exactly why it keeps happening.
  - ourmandave 9y ago
    Wat? It was concluded that the Sandy Hook shooter was a pedo that liked to shoot children. The Colombine High School shooters were trying to kill the most people possible (but were shitty at making bombs). The Colorado Theater (Batman) shooter said killing someone took their value and gave it to his life. The Oklahoma City bomber said it was a counter attack against the Feds for Waco. Dennis Nilsen killed 15 boys and slept next to their bodies because he felt lonely. Son of Sam was a Satan follower listening to a demon that spoke to him through his neighbor's dog. The Green River Killer murdered 48 women and girls, dumped them in the woods and then returned to f*ck the bodies. His motivation was to kill as many women as he could. Not sure how knowing any of that stops the next one.
    - Mithaldu 9y ago
      What you're saying is, they all had undiagnosed mental issues, that could've been treated. And the main reason for them not getting the treatment they needed is that people with opinions like yours set the tone.
      - ourmandave 9y ago
        Really? Is my hating on practicing cannibals the problem? If it's really a life choice someone is considering then I'm 1,000% behind them seeking help. If they've already started dumping bodies in ravines, not so much.

by Kenji 9y ago

kuschku 9y ago

It’s interesting that an opinion that is supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by the EU (which ended up banning companies from exporting supplies for death penalty to the US due to that), and by the International Court of Human Rights, is downvoted on HN. It goes so far that countries in the ECHR can not extradite citizen to the US if they might face the death penalty, because the death penalty is something that, according to the European Council of Human Rights, no one, not even a criminal, deserves.

catshirt 9y ago
not interesting at all really. just a proxy metric for the quality of users we've been onboarding.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
__s 9y ago
I didn't downvote, will probably be downvoted, but as someone who is atheist/nihilist/suicidal, I don't understand the great value placed on human life. We slaughter animals, we put down dogs which bite, I see no reason not to put down humans who have malfunctioned. All while being generally left wing. I think suffering should be an active goal, but I don't believe execution is suffering. There's enough effort to focus on progressing those who do buy into constructivism; those who don't wish to participate should exile themselves from society rather than lash out in deconstructivism This logic likely exists in a watered down form amongst the HN crowd more than Human Rights groups
- orf 9y ago
  > put down humans who have malfunctioned What about the ones that have not, but are put down due to a malfunctioning justice system instead?
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    That's a flaw in the system. My uncle was (by his word, and I've seen the police reports which are a contradictory mess) falsely convicted. He got life in prison and could face parole after 20+ years. He didn't get a chance at that because he suffered and died in prison of cancer. Falsely being convicted and put to death is horrific, but we also have a very rigorous appeals process, which is why some of these guys don't die for a decade or more. You get falsely convicted and 20 years, you aren't going to get near the appeals and your life is just as ruined. Those 20 years inside your lonely cell might even be worse than just being put to death. It's never struck me as a realistic argument against the death penalty because of wrongful convictions. You could exaggerate your stance and suggest that no jails should exist and in fact no justice should ever be served because there are innocents. To just say no death penalty, lock em up for 30 years instead doesn't begin to solve the issue and perhaps even fails to recognize how horrific that sentence is.
    - anarazel 9y ago
      Sure, wrongfully convicted to long-term sentences is bad. But it's at least partially reversible. It's also cheaper to convict somebody of life without parole, than the death sentence. I personally think the extreme incarceration rate, the conditions in prison, the lack of measures aiming at reducing recidivism, the disproportional sentencing are bigger issues in the US than the death penalty. Not because the death penalty is OK in any way, purely because of the size of the effect. > Falsely being convicted and put to death is horrific, but we also have a very rigorous appeals process, which is why some of these guys don't die for a decade or more. There's plenty well documented cases where these appeals were done on an absolutely half-hearted basis, with very dodgy evidence. > It's never struck me as a realistic argument against the death penalty because of wrongful convictions. You could exaggerate your stance and suggest that no jails should exist and in fact no justice should ever be served because there are innocents. Reductio ad absurdum.
ourmandave 9y ago
Breivik spent hours on an island with a youth camp methodically killing children. I think that was the incident where a girl called her father on her cell while hiding and the last thing he got to hear was his crying daughter getting shot in the head at point blank range. But on the plus side, Breivik is currently working on his Poly Sci degree should they ever let him back into society.
- jnardiello 9y ago
  I don't think Breivik is by anyhow a good base line for analogies.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  On the flip side, you have Louisiana seeking the death penalty for a man who rolled over on his child. Dale Cox is a monster. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/06/revenge-killing http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/06/revenge-killing
- cortesoft 9y ago
  What he did was absolutely horrible. However, killing him is not going to bring anyone back. Do you really think killing him is going to act as a deterrent to future mass murders? He committed his crime thinking he would die. Study after study shows that there is no deterrent effect from the death penalty. So, what is the point of executing someone? The only thing it does is reduce our own humanity, it doesn't solve any problem.
  - ourmandave 9y ago
    There have been killers who have plead guilty to manslaughter to avoid the death penalty and spare victims from testifying in a trial.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
erikpukinskis 9y ago
> the death penalty is something that, according to the European Council of Human Rights, no one, not even a criminal, deserves. Is that actually the opinion of the council? It's about whether they deserve it? I am against the death penalty because I don't believe we can prevent political convictions of innocent people. But I do believe there are many criminals who deserve to die. Heck I think there are nonviolent offenders who deserve to die.
- kuschku 9y ago
  > Is that actually the opinion of the council? It's about whether they deserve it? It’s about whether a person deserves the right to live, and the European Council of Human Rights is of the opinion that the right to live can not be limited for any reason, it is inviolable. Everyone deserves the right to live.
mebassett 9y ago
I didn't downvote, but was tempted to because I thought the comment was out of context and likely to start a political flame war. Not because I disagreed.

lb1lf 9y ago

-Breivik claimed during initial interrogation that he fully expected to be executed by the police shortly after being captured, IIRC. It somehow feels very 'right' for lack of a better term - that rather than going out in what would, to him, probably be a martyresque way he now spends the rest of his days seeing how his plan - to sow the seeds of a fascist revolution - failed miserably. To him, that probably feels much worse than being murdered by the state.

virtualwhys 9y ago
> he now spends the rest of his days iirc, his sentence was @20 years, not life.
- panzer_wyrm 9y ago
  It is effectively life. In 20 years they will have to consider releasing him or locking him for 20 more. And on and on.
- ourmandave 9y ago
  The maximum sentence is 21 years, but they can renew it every 5 years forever.
- lb1lf 9y ago
  -I can't remember off-hand what his sentence was in years, but we have a form of sentencing for criminals being deemed extra dangerous to society called 'forvaring' (literally - 'safekeeping'). If sentenced under this statute, your case will be up for review by a board after a few years; if they find that the inmate is still likely to pose a danger to society, they'll just shrug and say 'tough luck', then schedule another review in a couple of years time. No worries. Breivik is not being released anytime soon.

ourmandave 9y ago

My first preference is that the mass murderer / hostage taker quickly dies in a hail of gunfire or blows their own head off. (It makes it hard to get why they did it when they're dead, but I really give zero f*cks about the monster's backstory.) My 2nd preference is hearing that they were later killed in prison (a'la Jeffery Dahmer).

Mithaldu 9y ago
> I really give zero fucks about the monster's backstory And this is exactly why it keeps happening.
- ourmandave 9y ago
  Wat? It was concluded that the Sandy Hook shooter was a pedo that liked to shoot children. The Colombine High School shooters were trying to kill the most people possible (but were shitty at making bombs). The Colorado Theater (Batman) shooter said killing someone took their value and gave it to his life. The Oklahoma City bomber said it was a counter attack against the Feds for Waco. Dennis Nilsen killed 15 boys and slept next to their bodies because he felt lonely. Son of Sam was a Satan follower listening to a demon that spoke to him through his neighbor's dog. The Green River Killer murdered 48 women and girls, dumped them in the woods and then returned to f*ck the bodies. His motivation was to kill as many women as he could. Not sure how knowing any of that stops the next one.
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    What you're saying is, they all had undiagnosed mental issues, that could've been treated. And the main reason for them not getting the treatment they needed is that people with opinions like yours set the tone.
    - ourmandave 9y ago
      Really? Is my hating on practicing cannibals the problem? If it's really a life choice someone is considering then I'm 1,000% behind them seeking help. If they've already started dumping bodies in ravines, not so much.