4 ms·

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-

by 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.

by mrec 9y ago

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.