4 ms·

It's weird because life is both overvalued and undervalued. The same people who believe that the death penalty is barbaric (hey, we all die, that's the hard tr

It's weird because life is both overvalued and undervalued. The same people who believe that the death penalty is barbaric (hey, we all die, that's the hard truth) get fixated more on the tragedy of the criminal on death row than the dozens of people they killed. I do mean that literally. Monsters like John Wayne Gacy don't need to live any more. They have nothing to offer society but a sneering "kiss my ass" as they are put to death.

mrec 9y ago
I think your position is perfectly coherent, but I don't think the opposing view is necessarily that weird, for two reasons. The first is that this isn't zero-sum; there's no evidence I'm aware of that the death penalty reduces homicide. Killing a murderer isn't going to bring the victims back, anyone even mildly sceptical about the criminal justice system should be against irreversible punishments, and (speaking personally and emotionally for a moment) I think it does something bad to a society when "giving up on one of your citizens completely" becomes an option. The second is the idea that a lot of the passion surrounding the death penalty is about signalling membership of a political tribe rather than about any of the individuals involved. This is the "I can tolerate anything except the outgroup" theory [1]: tribe A attacks/defends murderer M not because they hate/like M but to emphasis their difference from tribe B. [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  You're right. Didn't mean that suggest that the other side is weird, just that society's back and forth is weird, your second point gets to that. Yet another controversial topic that gets at that friction is people's view on abortion and war. Some people will fervently protect an unborn child but see nothing wrong with carpet bombing fifty others. On the other hand some people are fervently anti-war but see nothing odd about someone having six abortions (slow down maybe?). So much of it does seem like political signaling. You are right the deterrent argument is dumb and unsupported. > it does something bad to a society when "giving up on one of your citizens completely" becomes an option Human societies have been like this forever, though. Sometimes the protection of the society is more valuable than an individual's life. That stance can be taken too far, but I struggle to see what the point of keeping individuals like Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy around. We can give up on them. We give up quicker on lots of people in society, why not someone who is a mass murderer? They've got nothing to offer and they've given up their rights in taking the rights of and normalcy of hundreds of others.
  - mrec 9y ago
    Abortion is actually a different case, I think; that comes down to incompatible axioms. Two people can both believe 100% sincerely that killing people is wrong, but if one of them considers a foetus to be a person and the other doesn't, they aren't going to agree on abortion. > We can give up on them. We give up quicker on lots of people in society, why not someone who is a mass murderer? Yeah, I know. Ultimately I think my unease here is a kind of slippery-slope argument, and deserves to be taken with the same generous pinch of salt as any other slippery-slope argument. I suspect that much of the opposition to capital (and corporal) punishment has to do with how strong and visceral a mental impression it makes on those witnessing or even thinking about it. Conversely, I'm sure we underestimate the soul-destroying misery of long-term incarceration, because it doesn't offend our sensibilities as much. Same goes for many of the other people we give up on, which goes back to your point. In any case, thanks for the thoughtful replies. Being able to have a reasonable discussion on an emotive topic with someone holding different views is always a breath of fresh air.
olavk 9y ago
If executing a murderer would somehow bring the victims back to life, then your value comparison might make sense. But it doesn't, so being opposed to the death penalty does not mean you don't care about the victims.
vacri 9y ago
> on the tragedy of the criminal on death row than the dozens of people they killed. Most people on death row didn't kill "dozens of people". It's a bad way to make an argument.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  But people on death row do, and they do commit heinous crimes. A Six Deuce Brim gang member, Adams was already serving life in prison for a Santa Barbara robbery-homicide when he was sentenced to death for killing three young men in South Los Angeles in 1994 in a gang-related shooting. Aguayo was already in prison for the attempted murder of a woman when a DNA match linked him with the 1979 rape and killing of a pregnant woman. Alcala is serial killer whose total victim count is unknown. He worked as a photographer and had been a “Dating Game” contestant. He was convicted three times for the 1979 kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Robin Samsoe. The first two convictions were overturned. He also strangled to death four Los Angeles area women and in 2013 confessed to killing two women in New York during the 1970s. He was charged in September 2016 for an eighth murder in Wyoming. Aldana was convicted of torture and murder for killing a 16-year-old runaway, who was living with him, after he believed she had become pregnant. He stabbed her more than 100 times. Real people on death row with much smaller victim counts. Why do these people deserve to live?
  - vacri 9y ago
    Adams - killed three Aguayo - killed one, tried to kill another Alcala - unknown, eight known Aldana - killed one None of these are "a criminal with dozens of murders". When you said that, you were mocking the efforts of people trying to stop capital punishment. In truth, most people asking governors for stays of execution are not 'fixated on the tragedy of the criminal over the dozens they killed', because a) none of these criminals did that; and b) it's a false dichotomy to say that they're not concerned about the victims. Basically, you're strawmanning in order to make your point emotively rather than with reasoned arguments.

mrec 9y ago

I think your position is perfectly coherent, but I don't think the opposing view is necessarily that weird, for two reasons. The first is that this isn't zero-sum; there's no evidence I'm aware of that the death penalty reduces homicide. Killing a murderer isn't going to bring the victims back, anyone even mildly sceptical about the criminal justice system should be against irreversible punishments, and (speaking personally and emotionally for a moment) I think it does something bad to a society when "giving up on one of your citizens completely" becomes an option. The second is the idea that a lot of the passion surrounding the death penalty is about signalling membership of a political tribe rather than about any of the individuals involved. This is the "I can tolerate anything except the outgroup" theory [1]: tribe A attacks/defends murderer M not because they hate/like M but to emphasis their difference from tribe B. [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...

aaron-lebo 9y ago
You're right. Didn't mean that suggest that the other side is weird, just that society's back and forth is weird, your second point gets to that. Yet another controversial topic that gets at that friction is people's view on abortion and war. Some people will fervently protect an unborn child but see nothing wrong with carpet bombing fifty others. On the other hand some people are fervently anti-war but see nothing odd about someone having six abortions (slow down maybe?). So much of it does seem like political signaling. You are right the deterrent argument is dumb and unsupported. > it does something bad to a society when "giving up on one of your citizens completely" becomes an option Human societies have been like this forever, though. Sometimes the protection of the society is more valuable than an individual's life. That stance can be taken too far, but I struggle to see what the point of keeping individuals like Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy around. We can give up on them. We give up quicker on lots of people in society, why not someone who is a mass murderer? They've got nothing to offer and they've given up their rights in taking the rights of and normalcy of hundreds of others.
- mrec 9y ago
  Abortion is actually a different case, I think; that comes down to incompatible axioms. Two people can both believe 100% sincerely that killing people is wrong, but if one of them considers a foetus to be a person and the other doesn't, they aren't going to agree on abortion. > We can give up on them. We give up quicker on lots of people in society, why not someone who is a mass murderer? Yeah, I know. Ultimately I think my unease here is a kind of slippery-slope argument, and deserves to be taken with the same generous pinch of salt as any other slippery-slope argument. I suspect that much of the opposition to capital (and corporal) punishment has to do with how strong and visceral a mental impression it makes on those witnessing or even thinking about it. Conversely, I'm sure we underestimate the soul-destroying misery of long-term incarceration, because it doesn't offend our sensibilities as much. Same goes for many of the other people we give up on, which goes back to your point. In any case, thanks for the thoughtful replies. Being able to have a reasonable discussion on an emotive topic with someone holding different views is always a breath of fresh air.

olavk 9y ago

If executing a murderer would somehow bring the victims back to life, then your value comparison might make sense. But it doesn't, so being opposed to the death penalty does not mean you don't care about the victims.

vacri 9y ago

> on the tragedy of the criminal on death row than the dozens of people they killed. Most people on death row didn't kill "dozens of people". It's a bad way to make an argument.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
But people on death row do, and they do commit heinous crimes. A Six Deuce Brim gang member, Adams was already serving life in prison for a Santa Barbara robbery-homicide when he was sentenced to death for killing three young men in South Los Angeles in 1994 in a gang-related shooting. Aguayo was already in prison for the attempted murder of a woman when a DNA match linked him with the 1979 rape and killing of a pregnant woman. Alcala is serial killer whose total victim count is unknown. He worked as a photographer and had been a “Dating Game” contestant. He was convicted three times for the 1979 kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Robin Samsoe. The first two convictions were overturned. He also strangled to death four Los Angeles area women and in 2013 confessed to killing two women in New York during the 1970s. He was charged in September 2016 for an eighth murder in Wyoming. Aldana was convicted of torture and murder for killing a 16-year-old runaway, who was living with him, after he believed she had become pregnant. He stabbed her more than 100 times. Real people on death row with much smaller victim counts. Why do these people deserve to live?
- vacri 9y ago
  Adams - killed three Aguayo - killed one, tried to kill another Alcala - unknown, eight known Aldana - killed one None of these are "a criminal with dozens of murders". When you said that, you were mocking the efforts of people trying to stop capital punishment. In truth, most people asking governors for stays of execution are not 'fixated on the tragedy of the criminal over the dozens they killed', because a) none of these criminals did that; and b) it's a false dichotomy to say that they're not concerned about the victims. Basically, you're strawmanning in order to make your point emotively rather than with reasoned arguments.