18 ms·

I think no other justification is needed to end the death penalty than “it’s inhuman and barbaric”. Even discussing other factors arguments and considerations

I think no other justification is needed to end the death penalty than “it’s inhuman and barbaric”. Even discussing other factors arguments and considerations dilutes the core point that’s it’s straight up wrong unethical and inhuman to murder others in the name of the law. Paul Graham has a valid point, but if you say “it’s wrong cause it’s inaccurate”, implies it’s right if it’s accurate. And it’s not... the death penalty is wrong no matter be it accurate or inaccurate.

tompccs 5y ago
I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but this sort of remark is why the left and intellectuals more widely fail at winning politically. Rather than use arguments that are amenable even to people who disagree on the fundamentals, you would rather retain the moral high-ground by refusing even to debate on their terms, thereby failing to actually influence policy (in this case a matter of life and death). If the death penalty debate were framed more around "innocent people get killed" and less around more nebulous value-judgement based arguments (which, though valid, divide pretty neatly along partisan and class lines), perhaps the death penalty in the US would have gone long ago.
- wideareanetwork 5y ago
  I’m not trying to win an argument, just stating what I believe.
  - tompccs 5y ago
    > Even discussing other factors arguments and considerations dilutes the core point... Fair enough, I understand that those are your beliefs (they are mine too) but you'd be surprised how poorly they hold up in the real world against the testimonies of victims of some truly horrific crimes. But from the sound of it you would prefer to weaken the case for abolishing the death penalty for the sake of making a more general point around the sanctity of life that, in the long run, will achieve...what exactly?
  - reedf1 5y ago
    An argument is what it will boil down to because there will be a group of people who don't believe that it is "inhuman and barbaric". For the record - I agree with you, but I also recognize there are people who do not agree with us.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    That means you are more interested in stating what you believe than winning an argument that will save innocent lives?
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    That's not really what "justification" is. I go through life assuming that only my mother and other loved ones care what I believe as such. Other people care about the arguments that I can make, with a bonus if I can make them using premises that they already accept.
  - escape_goat 5y ago
    That's fair enough, but he's pointing out the consequences of your beliefs. The crux of the objection is that you position yourself in opposition to the discussion of any other justification for abolishing the death penalty; it is not that the death penalty must be abolished, but that it must be abolished for a specific correct reason. This presents a relationship between the death penalty and your beliefs where it seems to your audience that you wish to abolish the death penalty not due to any urgency regarding its consequences, but because of your insistence on imposing your will on others.
- tchalla 5y ago
  Let's assume the "innocent people get killed" argument abolishes death penalty today. What are the second-order effects of that argument which can be detrimental to the society that you can think of?
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    I'm curious, what do you think those would be?
  - mattmanser 5y ago
    Well, none, we have plenty of evidence that there's none. Almost all the countries that have implemented it have lower homicide rates than the US. Usually significantly lower. Obviously there's probably also various other reasons for that too, like they usually also have heavily restricted gun ownership, but there's certainly no evidence that abolishing the death penalty has adverse effects.
  - olivierduval 5y ago
    Actually, the counter-argument is "innocent people get killed by already convincted murderer that went out of jail"... ECONOMICS: Another counter-argument is "the society pay for the whole life of the jailed murderer, so it's a cost paid by the society for something that broke society laws" And then another argument is "a murderer may prefer to be killed than to be kept in jail for the rest of his life". Actually, there's a whole philosophical debate around all this: what is the role of the sanction ? Is it revenge from breaking society laws ? Is it revenge from the victim ? Can someone that broke society laws (even in murder case) be changed by the jail time and come back to the society as a good citizen or are some crimes the mark that this people are forever lost to the society ? I'm against the death penalty. I'm french so we don't have it since 1980. And we don't really have "forever jail": it's 20 years I think and can even be shortened if prisoner show in jail that he's ready to come back to society (except if it would be a trouble for the society). As a consequence, there's from time to time a convicted criminal, out of jail after a reduced time, that kill/rape someone again. And each time, there's a public discussion about this...
    - 5y ago
- rswail 5y ago
  This "debate" has been over in all other nations that the US likes to be compared for years. It is similar to the "tough on crime" incarceration "debate" in the US, where perverse incentives and political expediency has led to the US being the highest-per-capita incarcerator in the world. Framing the death penalty debate around "innocent people get killed" will not change the partisan/class perceptions. The US criminal justice system requires root-and-branch reform, starting with issues around policing, cash bail, school-to-prison pipelines, and unfair drug and "victimless" crimes. Australia has been going through a similar debate and is at a similar point, without the death penalty, but dealing with the systemic racism and other class related issues.
  - Hard_Space 5y ago
    I don't know. Even the constitution acknowledges the possibility of truths that are 'self-evident'. I remember when the Guantanamo torture scandals emerged in the 2000s, how various political actors attempted to say 'Let's not get hot under the collar about this - let's put it on the table and talk it through.' For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act, as outlined in 'A Modest Proposal' . I agree with the parent poster that this is one of those cases. EDIT: This was supposed to be a response to the parent comment of the one it got attached to (for some reason).
    - rmcpherson 5y ago
      “We hold these truths to be self evident...” is from the Declaration of Independence. It does not appear in the Constitution.
      - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
        Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is not limited to the words of the document. The Constitution itself is derived from a history of law, letters, and intent that predate the very concept of the United States.
- mettamage 5y ago
  Sure, from a persuasion point of view I agree. But from a "trying to understand another human" point of view, I'd recommend you to read the Wikipedia page on ethics [1]. My own education on the topic: a course in college (as a business student) and watching some of the Harvard lectures on ethics [0]. IMO ethics courses teaches people to gain a more fine-grained vocabulary on explaining their own positions and understanding other's positions. GP clearly uses a deontological line of thinking on this matter. Something that GP considers to be "inhuman and barbaric" invokes a line of thinking in where he/she believes one ought to not do a certain action, because it simply is wrong. I'm not the best at explaining deontological ethics, nor are the people who think like this. My point is: a lot of thought has gone into the types of statements that GP makes, and IMO it's worth thinking about. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
  - ehnto 5y ago
    The trap you are both falling into is the thought that political discussions centre around trying to understand the other persons point of view. It is almost always the other way around, one person trying to persuade an unwilling party that they are wrong. So as the poster said, as right as you are, you would still lose the political argument if that was how you tried to argue for your view. You can be correct all day long and change nothing, or you can be persuasive and meet them in their thought bubble to coerce them toward aligning with your views. You can't just pop their world view with statements of fact, because they may very well think your fact is wrong. In this case not everyone believes the death penalty is immoral, so if your only argument is "the death penalty is immoral" you will change nothing.
    - true_religion 5y ago
      It’s all good and well to try and persuade someone, but like the GP sometimes I like to simply state my ideological viewpoint. The problem with narrowly arguing based on someone else’s ideals, is that any agreement isn’t a true meeting of the minds. For example people, once tried to end the deal then penalty by talking about to pain involved in hanging. Proponents agreed and eventually came up with the electric chair, then lethal injection. No pain, no problem right? If we talk about innocents killed, proponents will add stricter guidelines, and allow for more appeals, or even say that the crime must have been videotaped in front of a crowd of witnesses. We might end up with a death penalty that applies to the likes of Derek Chauvin alone, but it’ll still be a death penalty.
- pydry 5y ago
  I don't think anybody really supports/opposes the death penalty because of a rational analysis of facts and statistics. It's usually an emotive decision - the notion that "revenge must be taken" or that "life is sacrosanct". These are pretty core parts of people's identity and it is hard for them to let go. Either way, stories (e.g. miscarriages of justice by an uncaring state) are likely a more effective way to convince in this controversy, not statistics: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/02/23/why-is-it-so-hard-to-persuade-people-with-facts/ https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/02/23/why-is-it-so-hard-to-pe...
- antman 5y ago
  Society, businesses and families fail when there is no ground truth, right or wrong, historical knowledge and are based on the most recent FUD or feelgoodery. Arguments and negotiations need to have common grounds on how thing are interpreted. Else the most immoral person flourishes. Me following this US debate from the other side of the world I mostly see it framed as “the innocent people getting killed” and not the “immoral to kill” debate as per this article. I don’s see it getting anywhere.
- watwut 5y ago
  The left is getting more votes and it seems like leftist ideas do well in polls. So when it comes to ability to convince people about issues, they actually do well. Also, I don't really see equivalent expectation routinely placed on right - they are not expected to proactively make compromises on their own heads before they even state position.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ufo 5y ago
  Framing this as a left vs right issue is an USA-centric way to frame the question. Consider how the US is basically the only country in the american continent that still goes ahead with capital punishment. Most other countries in the continent, from all kinds of political orientations, have either banned capital punishment outright or haven't executed anyone in more than a decade.
  - Y_Y 5y ago
    Referring to "the American continent" is a very South American thing to do. I think in the US they consider themselves to be sharing a continent with just Mexico and Canada. Furthermore I think you don't go far enough. Around the world, abolishing the death penalty seems to be a mark of high development, apart from Japan (and arguably China and India) there aren't any highly developed nations that are still killing people.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - qwytw 5y ago
      Stretching the definition of "high development" here a bit (but since you're considering China and India) Belarus still has the death penalty (they were executing at least 1 almost every year until 2020).
    - thraxil 5y ago
      Not getting into anything else, but I will remark that I got in trouble in 5th grade (in a US school) and a letter sent home to my parents about my bad attitude and showing of disrespect towards my teacher after she asserted that Mexico was in "South America" and that "North America" consisted exclusively of the USA and Canada. I argued with her and neither of us would back down. It was the first time I'd ever been in any kind of trouble. My parents were proud and took me out for ice cream. US public schools have some decent teachers but also some really ignorant ones.
  - jkingsbery 5y ago
    Even in the US, "left vs right" on the death penalty is an oversimplification. A pretty good summary can be found here: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/religious-statements/opinion-polls-death-penalty-support-and-religion https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/religious-st... ... Anecdotally, as a religious person, I'd say that most Catholics I know either oppose the death penalty or would want it to be much more limited than it is now.
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  > you would rather retain the moral high-ground by refusing even to debate on their terms Everyone has a moral high-ground that isn't debatable. The right does this as well for it's issues such as abortion. Left or Right, everyone thinks there is some moral high ground that's not debatable. Everyone has some line that they don't think should be crossed.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  Why do you think that the left and intellectuals ‘more widely fail at winning politically’? I’m not even sure what that is intended to mean - specifically the bit about intellectuals.
  - heyparkerj 5y ago
    I think it would be fair to interpret that as "failing to change as many minds as they could"
- posterboy 5y ago
  > arguments that are amenable even to people who disagree on the fundamentals Now I'm not sure what you think fundamental, but I am pretty sure that "murder" is a something the other side understands. The irony in this is iron clad. It is also hyperbole, because this is an internet comment, not a political debate.
- Blumfid 5y ago
  I don't want to kill someone. I don't know if or why a person became a murderer. It could be their upbringing which should be the responsibility of the society and clearly the society failed. It could be a medical issue. A biological one. It could be that the murderer did nothing wrong in their worldview. We have to understand this as a society. We have to teach it if people don't understand it.
  - samatman 5y ago
    That's fine, just understand that your moral intuition isn't universal. If there were some device (which doesn't exist and maybe can't) which simply lights up with perfect accuracy when pointed at someone who tortured someone before murdering them, I would support instant execution of that person by firing squad. I'm not willing to accept a 4% error rate however. I'm not sure how low it would have to go, but it's lower than it plausibly can. This isn't some kind of lack of "understanding" on my part, and you're not going to "teach" me to feel the same way about this issue as you do. We have different values. So you'll have to content yourself with my being on the same side of the policy question for different reasons.
    - jjk166 5y ago
      I don't know how anyone can acknowledge that moral intuitions aren't universal while simultaneously believing their moral intuition can be used to justify the death penalty.
    - Blumfid 5y ago
      I thought about this topic for decades now.when I was 16 I thought you should murder a murderer. I thought a lot about moral and ethics, the balance between being right and no right exists. So I do believe your thinking can and might change in the future. Your torture example still ignores the history of the torturer. Would you like to be killed after this from a society which had it easier and better then you and did not help you? Is that really fair to anyone? Do you believe in a god? Would you assume jesus would let you in after that? (I'm not religious, I do think so that either it's a good god and it doesn't matter believing in her but your actions) Do you believe that we are in a simulation? What if you wake up in your next life as a murderer? There are so many potential thoughts which we haven't thought through that removing a murderer from society to prison is the best choice we have as long as it is a prison who tries to rehabilitate a person.
donatj 5y ago
I think there is a somewhat reasonable argument that a punishment should mirror the crime, and any less than inhuman and barbaric to the inhuman and barbaric lacks actual justice? I’m not saying I agree, I don’t personally support the death sentence, but if you’re actually interested in changing peoples minds it’s good to know where they’re coming from, and why they may not find your argument compelling. I personally find the posts argument far more compelling.
- BrianOnHN 5y ago
  People themselves choose death over long prison sentences [1]. Which is less humane is a matter of perspective. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
- _hl_ 5y ago
  I'm not from the US, so my knowledge on the death penalty is quite limited. But I clicked on a link posted below listing executions in Texas, and I was shocked to see that the most recent execution was last year for a crime committed back in 1993. Why?? You've already locked the guy up for almost three decades, what possible benefit is there to executing him now? I get that he ruined (well, ended) someones life, but what does society gain from ruining his life in turn, to the point of what feels like mental torture: Being locked up for such a long time, all the while knowing that you will eventually just be executed.
  - piva00 5y ago
    > but what does society gain from ruining his life in turn, to the point of what feels like mental torture: Being locked up for such a long time, all the while knowing that you will eventually just be executed. From what I gather on Americans' comments about this over the years it's mostly about "not spending taxpayer money" to house, feed and take care of criminals that received a death penalty. I don't know how true this argument can be given all the costs over decades associated with a death penalty judgment (appeals, preparation for death row, maintaining death rows, etc.) Quick edit after reading the thread a bit more, an example of what I mentioned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26900987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26900987
neilwilson 5y ago
Moreover life imprisonment is far more of a punishment. The individual has to get up every day and contemplate what they have done - with no way to end that other than the passage of time and the hope of commutation. If you're from a part of the world where the death penalty was consigned to history decades ago, it's quite astonishing that a supposedly civilised nation would defend it. The USA has some odd hangups.
- unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
  This comment is internally inconsistent-- favoring a more barbaric penalty of life incarceration does not mean a nation has a higher morality.
Vhano 5y ago
inhuman and barbaric why? You sound intelligent so go on: why is it inhuman?
hntroll666 5y ago
> barbaric Sorry, but that's exactly the kind of world we live in. The world simply is barbaric no matter what we would prefer. When people mess up a little bit, we put them through a process that, despite its massive inadequacy, is intended to rehabilitate them so that they can return to society. The death penalty is for when someone commits a crime so severe that they cannot ever return to society. If you are not able to think of this kind of situation, I suggest you may not be very familiar with the details of truly horrendous crimes. If we don't have the death penalty, we end up in the strange position of housing and feeding and providing medical care for the most harmful people in society at the expense of their victims.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  This right here I think arguing for its abolition on the basis of "the system is bad" is completely valid > familiar with the details of truly horrendous crimes And this still happens. And I agree, society is sometimes too tolerant with people who have no business in being in it (which, true, is a much smaller percentage of people on death row) But don't expect the legal system to try to improve how many innocents they convict.
- piva00 5y ago
  With this type of argument you attack one of the central tenets of human rights where every human life, no matter what, is worth the same. The moment you define that there are certain crimes where a human life is not the same as other human lives, no matter the reason, you move away from this core tenet. It's all a matter if you believe in that core piece of universal human rights or not.
  - gher-shyu3i 5y ago
    > one of the central tenets of human rights where every human life, no matter what, is worth the same. You have to define who made up this right. Not everyone will agree. Most people will have boundaries on that no matter what all human lives are the same. Killing someone else on purpose breaks that boundary.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
GuB-42 5y ago
That is not a helpful argument. It certainly is inhuman and barbaric, but is it less inhuman and barbaric than the alternatives? Criminals sentenced to death are supposed to be a danger to society so great that the only solution is to eliminate them. So, typical trolley problem: is it better to kill a criminal or let him go, potentially resulting in the death or several more innocent victims. Prison for life is another option, but is permanently restraining someone and endangering guards and other inmates a good alternative? So yes, other justifications are needed. And the article gives one.
- spuz 5y ago
  If the only reason we sentence people to death were because it is more humane than putting them in prison for life, then it would be given as an option to the prisoner. I don't know of any case of someone sentenced to life in prison who argued they would rather be put to death. Edit: I've now done some research and found some death-row-inmates do express a preference for a death sentence: https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/09/25/why-death-row-inmates-oppose-life-without-parole/ https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/09/25/why-death-row-inmates-... https://www.quora.com/Is-prison-crueller-than-the-death-penalty?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Is-prison-crueller-than-the-death-pena... http://www.bu.edu/pilj/files/2015/09/17-2SmithArticle.pdf http://www.bu.edu/pilj/files/2015/09/17-2SmithArticle.pdf
Causality1 5y ago
That's a philosophical point. In most areas of legal justice, the penalty exacted for transgressions far exceeds the damages. That is to say, the man who steals a hundred dollars or who punches someone in the face loses far more value from his life as punishment than he caused someone else to lose. A life for a life is a rather mild punishment compared to the rest of the justice system, especially considering the death penalty is typically meted out for multiple brutal murders, often preceded by torture and rape. A just world would have these monsters subjected to the same nightmare to which they treated the innocent. However, I agree with Paul. The fact that anyone not guilty of the crime is executed is unacceptable, to say nothing of the startlingly bad accuracy of the system in practice.
bluecalm 5y ago
This argument is useless because what inhuman and barbaric my means depends on your belief system. Abortion is inhuman and barbaric to significant % of the population and death penalty isn't. They use murder argument as well. Of course death penalty is not murder nor is abortion if you're honest about what the word means but here we are with those absolute statements about ethics. If we just use this argument and don't try to establish general principles we end up with a pointless shouting contest. For once I think the death penalty is at least worth considering from the utilitarian point of view (in our current system the consensus is that it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life though but it might change in the future) as well as from revenge/restitution point of view as a lot of people strongly think someone doing deliberate great harm deserves to be killed. One way or another it's not simple from either ethical nor practical point of view. Personally I consider death penalty as desirable penalty for some crimes but I would never vote for it as I have no faith in our politicians being able to implement it in a fair way and flawed justice system not to abuse it.
- User23 5y ago
  Opposition to abortion and capital punishment is pretty basic moral reasoning and really not challenging. The premise is killing innocent human beings is wrong. In the case of abortion the innocence of the person being killed is assured. In the case of capital punishment that’s not necessarily true, but since we can’t truly know for certain the convict isn’t innocent we ought to err on the side of caution to avoid the possibility of killing an innocent person. It’s odd to me how controversial both issues are when the moral reasoning required is so easy. Taking any other position requires denying the premise that it’s wrong to destroy innocent human life. One can, but accepting that has some very nasty consequences.
  - bluecalm 5y ago
    You're wrong about it being easy, that's why it doesn't make sense to you. There are many ethical systems in which both death penalty and abortion are justified. Death penalty is any easy one. It was considered to be a proper penalty for various crimes for most of the human history in many cultures. It just takes understanding of ethical values of those cultures to understand why it was justified. Your argument about taking innocent human life is a naive one. We do a lot of things that cost innocent human lives. Allowing diesel cars in cities cost more innocent lives than all death penalties in the history of humanity combined and it's not a small difference. It's about tradeoffs and priorities. It's natural for a tribe or state to kill for treason for example as disincentivizing treason is more important (saves more lives, prevents suffering and destruction of your countrymen) than occasional mistake. Putting long term survival and well being of your society is more important than individual lives. Our wealth clouds the picture so well. If it was required of everyone one to spend addition 20 hours a week providing food and shelter for a murderer atop of all the work we need to put into getting food and shelter for ourselves and our families you would be very quick to accept death penalty instead. As the choices would be about caring for your family and making sure the murderer doesn't die in custody. Today we can arguably afford it but if that's the argument then we already agree it's about tradeoffs and where the exact line is not obvious. Even if you don't agree you can at least see it's a justified view. It's all about tradeoffs.
pfortuny 5y ago
Ouch: things are not so clear-cut. What happens on a small ship?
bruceb 5y ago
Simply put we have better ways to spend money than housing people for 30 years who have inflicted horrific pain on society. I dont want to work to house, guard, and feed them.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > I dont want to work to house, guard, and feed them. There have been some political leaders in the past who have said the same about the disabled. If we give our government the power to premeditatedly kill people merely to reduce the costs to taxpayers, we are stepping down a very dark path.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
elisbce 5y ago
It's inhuman and barbaric to sentence criminals to death penalty (usually very quick less painful), and yet, the usually much worse criminal acts (cold-blood torturing, mass murdering, beheadings, etc.) that they ACTUALLY conducted on other completely innocent human beings are just not inhuman and barbaric and unethical enough for you to the point that you think it is not even worth discussing and a no-brainer to forgive. This is why the crimes are on the rise in this world, and justice is not being enforced by law due to the hypocritical "empathy" for the real criminals.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
gher-shyu3i 5y ago
It's not inhumane nor barbaric (appease to emotions fallacy). It has to be applied correctly however. When someone kills someone else on purpose and with determinism, they have forfeit their right to live. It's quite simple. Of course, the application of the death penalty in the US is very wrong. Other cultures have solved this issue a long time ago.
simonh 5y ago
I think the state legitimately reserves for itself the right to resort to lethal force. National defence and effective policing can require violence when necessary. The key issue for me is necessity. It is not necessary to execute criminals, even murderers. I do have sympathy for the view that murderers deserve death, maybe many of them do, but then you get into drawing lines between cases that deserve death and ones that don't. Is the evidence in this case good enough to kill, but this one the evidence is only good enough to incarcerate. It politicises the judicial and criminal justice system. So I oppose the death penalty not because it's barbaric or morally wrong per se, but because it introduces moral hazard that compromises the system. We can see this in the US where prosecutors fight tooth and nail to preserve convictions and ensure convicts get executed largely in order to protect the system of executions from the embarrassment of death row inmates getting exonerated. Defending the system becomes more important than serving justice. As a Brit I think politicisation is the thing that concerns me most about the US justice system. Elected prosecutors, elected judges, the politicisation of executions I described above. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but comparatively speaking all that just isn't a thing over here at all. Political debate on criminal justice is focused on laws and the administration of policing. That's really about it. It's not like we don't have miscarriages of justice, our system is far from perfect but it's mainly sees as being independent and professionalised.
- umvi 5y ago
  What if the criminal is extremely wealthy and powerful and can continue to exert his influence even from within prison (and possibly have a corrupting influence on prison guards)? This actually happens with cartel heads and crime syndicate leaders...
  - simonh 5y ago
    Most such criminals are likely to be imprisoned for crimes other than murder, so you're going to have the problem anyway. Better to address the actual issue rather than use it as an excuse.
tzs 5y ago
Doesn't that exact same argument work as well when applied to jailing people? It's wrong if I kidnap someone and keep them confined for years in a small room, so how can it not be wrong for the state to do it in the name of the law?
helloworld11 5y ago
Countries regularly kill others in the name of international laws about the preservation of peace and security. This has been the case since at least the Second World War, when many countries allied together to crush the Nazis and Imperial Japan. This was wholesale killing on a global scale for the sake of preventing certain states from doing more of their own vast killing while breaking many international norms, agreements and laws. Much of it was unjust, yes, but would you argue that an absolutist stance of it being wrong to kill others in the name of the law justified doing nothing while these ruthless empires conquered more territory and enslaved millions more people into a slow death? Or how about self defense? If a person is protecting their lawful rights, home, property and family and in the process must kill an aggressor to do these things, should they just not do so out of a certain absolute ethical posture about the wrongness of killing other human beings? Just to clarify where your own fundamental posture on killing in the name of the law this draws some lines or exceptions.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
harshreality 5y ago
Improper or mistaken convictions, where reasonable oversight would have detected the error, are barbaric. If you want barbarism, you can find plenty in the way the criminal justice system is run for all offenders. Prison is inhumane and barbaric, and has the opposite of the intended effect most of the time. Many ex-cons have become hardened criminals through their time on the inside, and even for those who haven't and want to reintegrate productively, the outside world does its best to prevent reintegration. How many innocent people are killed in prison, not by the state, or have their lives ruined? You can say as long as they're alive there's hope they'll achieve something and be happy, but statistically those prospects are dimmer every year they spend inside. The only remaining good thing prison does is keep bad people from causing problems in society for some number of years. Which is the same thing the death penalty does. I don't know if the most productive way to use political capital to reform the criminal justice system is to abolish the death penalty. Unjustified state-sanctioned death might be terrible, but so are things like the drug war which probably do more aggregate harm. In an ideal world we'd get rid of prisons somehow, too. In addition to ending the drug war and trying to fix neighborhoods that have been broken by it, fixing misaligned incentives for prosecution and law enforcement to prosecute cases would have a massive impact, far greater than any squabbles about the death penalty. Too often the prosecutors and law enforcement have desire to convict someone, and the defendant is the best chance they have, so they go ahead. More neutrality has to be introduced somehow. Judges being allowed to direct questions to witnesses might be a place to start.
- ufo 5y ago
  The alternative also being barbaric doesn't make the death penalty less barbaric.
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    I would rather be killed than spend even 20 years in prison. Technically I might live another 20 years, but I would be very near EOL at that age. Could I get the choice?
    - 5y ago
NoKnowledge 5y ago
That's simply a logical fallacy: P => Q does not imply (not P) => (not Q). Here: "If it is inaccurate, then it is wrong" does not imply "If it is accurate, then it is right."
DiffEq 5y ago
In-human; what does this mean? It has been a human condition throughout all ages to kill each other. So by basic observation one could easily conclude it is human to kill each other. Fortunately what has developed over the ages is a framework or legal system for reasons to do so as apposed to just the whim of one individual.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
> I think no other justification is needed to end the death penalty than “it’s inhuman and barbaric”. Thing is, most of the time, people who are subject to the death penalty are there because they did “inhuman and barbaric” acts. It is kind of like the paradox of tolerance. For society to prosper, you need to punish inhuman and barbaric acts, or at least isolate people who do that from society. However, such punishment is likely inhuman and barbaric at least on some level. Limiting a persons freedom of movement and interaction is inhuman and barbaric. In addition, by not having the death penalty, you are subjecting others to have to deal with the person who did the inhuman and barbaric acts, whether other inmates or guards. I am of the opinion that there are some acts that are so heinous that a person should never be a part of human society again. In that case, rather than prolonged human isolation, which is actually barbaric in and of itself, I think it is actually more humane to end their life. It does not have to gruesome or painful, no more than euthanizing a beloved pet with a terminal condition has to be gruesome. But some acts are incompatible with ever being a member of human society in any form. Edit: In addition, there are a lot of stuff that could be considered inhuman and barbaric but we do them for what we think as the good of society. Spaying and neutering your pet sounds inhuman and barbaric. Modern surgery, especially cancer surgery where they remove large margins of apparently healthy looking tissue, could be considered inhuman and barbaric. In the Middle Ages, dissecting dead human bodies was considered inhuman and barbaric. So the fact that a person sees something as inhuman and barbaric really is not overwhelming evidence if something should be done.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

tompccs 5y ago

I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but this sort of remark is why the left and intellectuals more widely fail at winning politically. Rather than use arguments that are amenable even to people who disagree on the fundamentals, you would rather retain the moral high-ground by refusing even to debate on their terms, thereby failing to actually influence policy (in this case a matter of life and death). If the death penalty debate were framed more around "innocent people get killed" and less around more nebulous value-judgement based arguments (which, though valid, divide pretty neatly along partisan and class lines), perhaps the death penalty in the US would have gone long ago.

wideareanetwork 5y ago
I’m not trying to win an argument, just stating what I believe.
- tompccs 5y ago
  > Even discussing other factors arguments and considerations dilutes the core point... Fair enough, I understand that those are your beliefs (they are mine too) but you'd be surprised how poorly they hold up in the real world against the testimonies of victims of some truly horrific crimes. But from the sound of it you would prefer to weaken the case for abolishing the death penalty for the sake of making a more general point around the sanctity of life that, in the long run, will achieve...what exactly?
- reedf1 5y ago
  An argument is what it will boil down to because there will be a group of people who don't believe that it is "inhuman and barbaric". For the record - I agree with you, but I also recognize there are people who do not agree with us.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  That means you are more interested in stating what you believe than winning an argument that will save innocent lives?
- pessimizer 5y ago
  That's not really what "justification" is. I go through life assuming that only my mother and other loved ones care what I believe as such. Other people care about the arguments that I can make, with a bonus if I can make them using premises that they already accept.
- escape_goat 5y ago
  That's fair enough, but he's pointing out the consequences of your beliefs. The crux of the objection is that you position yourself in opposition to the discussion of any other justification for abolishing the death penalty; it is not that the death penalty must be abolished, but that it must be abolished for a specific correct reason. This presents a relationship between the death penalty and your beliefs where it seems to your audience that you wish to abolish the death penalty not due to any urgency regarding its consequences, but because of your insistence on imposing your will on others.
tchalla 5y ago
Let's assume the "innocent people get killed" argument abolishes death penalty today. What are the second-order effects of that argument which can be detrimental to the society that you can think of?
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  I'm curious, what do you think those would be?
- mattmanser 5y ago
  Well, none, we have plenty of evidence that there's none. Almost all the countries that have implemented it have lower homicide rates than the US. Usually significantly lower. Obviously there's probably also various other reasons for that too, like they usually also have heavily restricted gun ownership, but there's certainly no evidence that abolishing the death penalty has adverse effects.
- olivierduval 5y ago
  Actually, the counter-argument is "innocent people get killed by already convincted murderer that went out of jail"... ECONOMICS: Another counter-argument is "the society pay for the whole life of the jailed murderer, so it's a cost paid by the society for something that broke society laws" And then another argument is "a murderer may prefer to be killed than to be kept in jail for the rest of his life". Actually, there's a whole philosophical debate around all this: what is the role of the sanction ? Is it revenge from breaking society laws ? Is it revenge from the victim ? Can someone that broke society laws (even in murder case) be changed by the jail time and come back to the society as a good citizen or are some crimes the mark that this people are forever lost to the society ? I'm against the death penalty. I'm french so we don't have it since 1980. And we don't really have "forever jail": it's 20 years I think and can even be shortened if prisoner show in jail that he's ready to come back to society (except if it would be a trouble for the society). As a consequence, there's from time to time a convicted criminal, out of jail after a reduced time, that kill/rape someone again. And each time, there's a public discussion about this...
  - 5y ago
rswail 5y ago
This "debate" has been over in all other nations that the US likes to be compared for years. It is similar to the "tough on crime" incarceration "debate" in the US, where perverse incentives and political expediency has led to the US being the highest-per-capita incarcerator in the world. Framing the death penalty debate around "innocent people get killed" will not change the partisan/class perceptions. The US criminal justice system requires root-and-branch reform, starting with issues around policing, cash bail, school-to-prison pipelines, and unfair drug and "victimless" crimes. Australia has been going through a similar debate and is at a similar point, without the death penalty, but dealing with the systemic racism and other class related issues.
- Hard_Space 5y ago
  I don't know. Even the constitution acknowledges the possibility of truths that are 'self-evident'. I remember when the Guantanamo torture scandals emerged in the 2000s, how various political actors attempted to say 'Let's not get hot under the collar about this - let's put it on the table and talk it through.' For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act, as outlined in 'A Modest Proposal' . I agree with the parent poster that this is one of those cases. EDIT: This was supposed to be a response to the parent comment of the one it got attached to (for some reason).
  - rmcpherson 5y ago
    “We hold these truths to be self evident...” is from the Declaration of Independence. It does not appear in the Constitution.
    - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is not limited to the words of the document. The Constitution itself is derived from a history of law, letters, and intent that predate the very concept of the United States.
mettamage 5y ago
Sure, from a persuasion point of view I agree. But from a "trying to understand another human" point of view, I'd recommend you to read the Wikipedia page on ethics [1]. My own education on the topic: a course in college (as a business student) and watching some of the Harvard lectures on ethics [0]. IMO ethics courses teaches people to gain a more fine-grained vocabulary on explaining their own positions and understanding other's positions. GP clearly uses a deontological line of thinking on this matter. Something that GP considers to be "inhuman and barbaric" invokes a line of thinking in where he/she believes one ought to not do a certain action, because it simply is wrong. I'm not the best at explaining deontological ethics, nor are the people who think like this. My point is: a lot of thought has gone into the types of statements that GP makes, and IMO it's worth thinking about. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
- ehnto 5y ago
  The trap you are both falling into is the thought that political discussions centre around trying to understand the other persons point of view. It is almost always the other way around, one person trying to persuade an unwilling party that they are wrong. So as the poster said, as right as you are, you would still lose the political argument if that was how you tried to argue for your view. You can be correct all day long and change nothing, or you can be persuasive and meet them in their thought bubble to coerce them toward aligning with your views. You can't just pop their world view with statements of fact, because they may very well think your fact is wrong. In this case not everyone believes the death penalty is immoral, so if your only argument is "the death penalty is immoral" you will change nothing.
  - true_religion 5y ago
    It’s all good and well to try and persuade someone, but like the GP sometimes I like to simply state my ideological viewpoint. The problem with narrowly arguing based on someone else’s ideals, is that any agreement isn’t a true meeting of the minds. For example people, once tried to end the deal then penalty by talking about to pain involved in hanging. Proponents agreed and eventually came up with the electric chair, then lethal injection. No pain, no problem right? If we talk about innocents killed, proponents will add stricter guidelines, and allow for more appeals, or even say that the crime must have been videotaped in front of a crowd of witnesses. We might end up with a death penalty that applies to the likes of Derek Chauvin alone, but it’ll still be a death penalty.
pydry 5y ago
I don't think anybody really supports/opposes the death penalty because of a rational analysis of facts and statistics. It's usually an emotive decision - the notion that "revenge must be taken" or that "life is sacrosanct". These are pretty core parts of people's identity and it is hard for them to let go. Either way, stories (e.g. miscarriages of justice by an uncaring state) are likely a more effective way to convince in this controversy, not statistics: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/02/23/why-is-it-so-hard-to-persuade-people-with-facts/ https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/02/23/why-is-it-so-hard-to-pe...
antman 5y ago
Society, businesses and families fail when there is no ground truth, right or wrong, historical knowledge and are based on the most recent FUD or feelgoodery. Arguments and negotiations need to have common grounds on how thing are interpreted. Else the most immoral person flourishes. Me following this US debate from the other side of the world I mostly see it framed as “the innocent people getting killed” and not the “immoral to kill” debate as per this article. I don’s see it getting anywhere.
watwut 5y ago
The left is getting more votes and it seems like leftist ideas do well in polls. So when it comes to ability to convince people about issues, they actually do well. Also, I don't really see equivalent expectation routinely placed on right - they are not expected to proactively make compromises on their own heads before they even state position.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ufo 5y ago
Framing this as a left vs right issue is an USA-centric way to frame the question. Consider how the US is basically the only country in the american continent that still goes ahead with capital punishment. Most other countries in the continent, from all kinds of political orientations, have either banned capital punishment outright or haven't executed anyone in more than a decade.
- Y_Y 5y ago
  Referring to "the American continent" is a very South American thing to do. I think in the US they consider themselves to be sharing a continent with just Mexico and Canada. Furthermore I think you don't go far enough. Around the world, abolishing the death penalty seems to be a mark of high development, apart from Japan (and arguably China and India) there aren't any highly developed nations that are still killing people.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - qwytw 5y ago
    Stretching the definition of "high development" here a bit (but since you're considering China and India) Belarus still has the death penalty (they were executing at least 1 almost every year until 2020).
  - thraxil 5y ago
    Not getting into anything else, but I will remark that I got in trouble in 5th grade (in a US school) and a letter sent home to my parents about my bad attitude and showing of disrespect towards my teacher after she asserted that Mexico was in "South America" and that "North America" consisted exclusively of the USA and Canada. I argued with her and neither of us would back down. It was the first time I'd ever been in any kind of trouble. My parents were proud and took me out for ice cream. US public schools have some decent teachers but also some really ignorant ones.
- jkingsbery 5y ago
  Even in the US, "left vs right" on the death penalty is an oversimplification. A pretty good summary can be found here: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/religious-statements/opinion-polls-death-penalty-support-and-religion https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/religious-st... ... Anecdotally, as a religious person, I'd say that most Catholics I know either oppose the death penalty or would want it to be much more limited than it is now.
UncleOxidant 5y ago
> you would rather retain the moral high-ground by refusing even to debate on their terms Everyone has a moral high-ground that isn't debatable. The right does this as well for it's issues such as abortion. Left or Right, everyone thinks there is some moral high ground that's not debatable. Everyone has some line that they don't think should be crossed.
lostlogin 5y ago
Why do you think that the left and intellectuals ‘more widely fail at winning politically’? I’m not even sure what that is intended to mean - specifically the bit about intellectuals.
- heyparkerj 5y ago
  I think it would be fair to interpret that as "failing to change as many minds as they could"
posterboy 5y ago
> arguments that are amenable even to people who disagree on the fundamentals Now I'm not sure what you think fundamental, but I am pretty sure that "murder" is a something the other side understands. The irony in this is iron clad. It is also hyperbole, because this is an internet comment, not a political debate.
Blumfid 5y ago
I don't want to kill someone. I don't know if or why a person became a murderer. It could be their upbringing which should be the responsibility of the society and clearly the society failed. It could be a medical issue. A biological one. It could be that the murderer did nothing wrong in their worldview. We have to understand this as a society. We have to teach it if people don't understand it.
- samatman 5y ago
  That's fine, just understand that your moral intuition isn't universal. If there were some device (which doesn't exist and maybe can't) which simply lights up with perfect accuracy when pointed at someone who tortured someone before murdering them, I would support instant execution of that person by firing squad. I'm not willing to accept a 4% error rate however. I'm not sure how low it would have to go, but it's lower than it plausibly can. This isn't some kind of lack of "understanding" on my part, and you're not going to "teach" me to feel the same way about this issue as you do. We have different values. So you'll have to content yourself with my being on the same side of the policy question for different reasons.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    I don't know how anyone can acknowledge that moral intuitions aren't universal while simultaneously believing their moral intuition can be used to justify the death penalty.
  - Blumfid 5y ago
    I thought about this topic for decades now.when I was 16 I thought you should murder a murderer. I thought a lot about moral and ethics, the balance between being right and no right exists. So I do believe your thinking can and might change in the future. Your torture example still ignores the history of the torturer. Would you like to be killed after this from a society which had it easier and better then you and did not help you? Is that really fair to anyone? Do you believe in a god? Would you assume jesus would let you in after that? (I'm not religious, I do think so that either it's a good god and it doesn't matter believing in her but your actions) Do you believe that we are in a simulation? What if you wake up in your next life as a murderer? There are so many potential thoughts which we haven't thought through that removing a murderer from society to prison is the best choice we have as long as it is a prison who tries to rehabilitate a person.

donatj 5y ago

I think there is a somewhat reasonable argument that a punishment should mirror the crime, and any less than inhuman and barbaric to the inhuman and barbaric lacks actual justice? I’m not saying I agree, I don’t personally support the death sentence, but if you’re actually interested in changing peoples minds it’s good to know where they’re coming from, and why they may not find your argument compelling. I personally find the posts argument far more compelling.

BrianOnHN 5y ago
People themselves choose death over long prison sentences [1]. Which is less humane is a matter of perspective. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
_hl_ 5y ago
I'm not from the US, so my knowledge on the death penalty is quite limited. But I clicked on a link posted below listing executions in Texas, and I was shocked to see that the most recent execution was last year for a crime committed back in 1993. Why?? You've already locked the guy up for almost three decades, what possible benefit is there to executing him now? I get that he ruined (well, ended) someones life, but what does society gain from ruining his life in turn, to the point of what feels like mental torture: Being locked up for such a long time, all the while knowing that you will eventually just be executed.
- piva00 5y ago
  > but what does society gain from ruining his life in turn, to the point of what feels like mental torture: Being locked up for such a long time, all the while knowing that you will eventually just be executed. From what I gather on Americans' comments about this over the years it's mostly about "not spending taxpayer money" to house, feed and take care of criminals that received a death penalty. I don't know how true this argument can be given all the costs over decades associated with a death penalty judgment (appeals, preparation for death row, maintaining death rows, etc.) Quick edit after reading the thread a bit more, an example of what I mentioned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26900987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26900987

neilwilson 5y ago

Moreover life imprisonment is far more of a punishment. The individual has to get up every day and contemplate what they have done - with no way to end that other than the passage of time and the hope of commutation. If you're from a part of the world where the death penalty was consigned to history decades ago, it's quite astonishing that a supposedly civilised nation would defend it. The USA has some odd hangups.

unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
This comment is internally inconsistent-- favoring a more barbaric penalty of life incarceration does not mean a nation has a higher morality.

Vhano 5y ago

inhuman and barbaric why? You sound intelligent so go on: why is it inhuman?

hntroll666 5y ago

> barbaric Sorry, but that's exactly the kind of world we live in. The world simply is barbaric no matter what we would prefer. When people mess up a little bit, we put them through a process that, despite its massive inadequacy, is intended to rehabilitate them so that they can return to society. The death penalty is for when someone commits a crime so severe that they cannot ever return to society. If you are not able to think of this kind of situation, I suggest you may not be very familiar with the details of truly horrendous crimes. If we don't have the death penalty, we end up in the strange position of housing and feeding and providing medical care for the most harmful people in society at the expense of their victims.

raverbashing 5y ago
This right here I think arguing for its abolition on the basis of "the system is bad" is completely valid > familiar with the details of truly horrendous crimes And this still happens. And I agree, society is sometimes too tolerant with people who have no business in being in it (which, true, is a much smaller percentage of people on death row) But don't expect the legal system to try to improve how many innocents they convict.
piva00 5y ago
With this type of argument you attack one of the central tenets of human rights where every human life, no matter what, is worth the same. The moment you define that there are certain crimes where a human life is not the same as other human lives, no matter the reason, you move away from this core tenet. It's all a matter if you believe in that core piece of universal human rights or not.
- gher-shyu3i 5y ago
  > one of the central tenets of human rights where every human life, no matter what, is worth the same. You have to define who made up this right. Not everyone will agree. Most people will have boundaries on that no matter what all human lives are the same. Killing someone else on purpose breaks that boundary.
saiya-jin 5y ago

GuB-42 5y ago

That is not a helpful argument. It certainly is inhuman and barbaric, but is it less inhuman and barbaric than the alternatives? Criminals sentenced to death are supposed to be a danger to society so great that the only solution is to eliminate them. So, typical trolley problem: is it better to kill a criminal or let him go, potentially resulting in the death or several more innocent victims. Prison for life is another option, but is permanently restraining someone and endangering guards and other inmates a good alternative? So yes, other justifications are needed. And the article gives one.

spuz 5y ago
If the only reason we sentence people to death were because it is more humane than putting them in prison for life, then it would be given as an option to the prisoner. I don't know of any case of someone sentenced to life in prison who argued they would rather be put to death. Edit: I've now done some research and found some death-row-inmates do express a preference for a death sentence: https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/09/25/why-death-row-inmates-oppose-life-without-parole/ https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/09/25/why-death-row-inmates-... https://www.quora.com/Is-prison-crueller-than-the-death-penalty?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Is-prison-crueller-than-the-death-pena... http://www.bu.edu/pilj/files/2015/09/17-2SmithArticle.pdf http://www.bu.edu/pilj/files/2015/09/17-2SmithArticle.pdf

Causality1 5y ago

That's a philosophical point. In most areas of legal justice, the penalty exacted for transgressions far exceeds the damages. That is to say, the man who steals a hundred dollars or who punches someone in the face loses far more value from his life as punishment than he caused someone else to lose. A life for a life is a rather mild punishment compared to the rest of the justice system, especially considering the death penalty is typically meted out for multiple brutal murders, often preceded by torture and rape. A just world would have these monsters subjected to the same nightmare to which they treated the innocent. However, I agree with Paul. The fact that anyone not guilty of the crime is executed is unacceptable, to say nothing of the startlingly bad accuracy of the system in practice.

bluecalm 5y ago

This argument is useless because what inhuman and barbaric my means depends on your belief system. Abortion is inhuman and barbaric to significant % of the population and death penalty isn't. They use murder argument as well. Of course death penalty is not murder nor is abortion if you're honest about what the word means but here we are with those absolute statements about ethics. If we just use this argument and don't try to establish general principles we end up with a pointless shouting contest. For once I think the death penalty is at least worth considering from the utilitarian point of view (in our current system the consensus is that it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life though but it might change in the future) as well as from revenge/restitution point of view as a lot of people strongly think someone doing deliberate great harm deserves to be killed. One way or another it's not simple from either ethical nor practical point of view. Personally I consider death penalty as desirable penalty for some crimes but I would never vote for it as I have no faith in our politicians being able to implement it in a fair way and flawed justice system not to abuse it.

User23 5y ago
Opposition to abortion and capital punishment is pretty basic moral reasoning and really not challenging. The premise is killing innocent human beings is wrong. In the case of abortion the innocence of the person being killed is assured. In the case of capital punishment that’s not necessarily true, but since we can’t truly know for certain the convict isn’t innocent we ought to err on the side of caution to avoid the possibility of killing an innocent person. It’s odd to me how controversial both issues are when the moral reasoning required is so easy. Taking any other position requires denying the premise that it’s wrong to destroy innocent human life. One can, but accepting that has some very nasty consequences.
- bluecalm 5y ago
  You're wrong about it being easy, that's why it doesn't make sense to you. There are many ethical systems in which both death penalty and abortion are justified. Death penalty is any easy one. It was considered to be a proper penalty for various crimes for most of the human history in many cultures. It just takes understanding of ethical values of those cultures to understand why it was justified. Your argument about taking innocent human life is a naive one. We do a lot of things that cost innocent human lives. Allowing diesel cars in cities cost more innocent lives than all death penalties in the history of humanity combined and it's not a small difference. It's about tradeoffs and priorities. It's natural for a tribe or state to kill for treason for example as disincentivizing treason is more important (saves more lives, prevents suffering and destruction of your countrymen) than occasional mistake. Putting long term survival and well being of your society is more important than individual lives. Our wealth clouds the picture so well. If it was required of everyone one to spend addition 20 hours a week providing food and shelter for a murderer atop of all the work we need to put into getting food and shelter for ourselves and our families you would be very quick to accept death penalty instead. As the choices would be about caring for your family and making sure the murderer doesn't die in custody. Today we can arguably afford it but if that's the argument then we already agree it's about tradeoffs and where the exact line is not obvious. Even if you don't agree you can at least see it's a justified view. It's all about tradeoffs.

pfortuny 5y ago

Ouch: things are not so clear-cut. What happens on a small ship?

bruceb 5y ago

Simply put we have better ways to spend money than housing people for 30 years who have inflicted horrific pain on society. I dont want to work to house, guard, and feed them.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> I dont want to work to house, guard, and feed them. There have been some political leaders in the past who have said the same about the disabled. If we give our government the power to premeditatedly kill people merely to reduce the costs to taxpayers, we are stepping down a very dark path.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

elisbce 5y ago

It's inhuman and barbaric to sentence criminals to death penalty (usually very quick less painful), and yet, the usually much worse criminal acts (cold-blood torturing, mass murdering, beheadings, etc.) that they ACTUALLY conducted on other completely innocent human beings are just not inhuman and barbaric and unethical enough for you to the point that you think it is not even worth discussing and a no-brainer to forgive. This is why the crimes are on the rise in this world, and justice is not being enforced by law due to the hypocritical "empathy" for the real criminals.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

gher-shyu3i 5y ago

It's not inhumane nor barbaric (appease to emotions fallacy). It has to be applied correctly however. When someone kills someone else on purpose and with determinism, they have forfeit their right to live. It's quite simple. Of course, the application of the death penalty in the US is very wrong. Other cultures have solved this issue a long time ago.

simonh 5y ago

I think the state legitimately reserves for itself the right to resort to lethal force. National defence and effective policing can require violence when necessary. The key issue for me is necessity. It is not necessary to execute criminals, even murderers. I do have sympathy for the view that murderers deserve death, maybe many of them do, but then you get into drawing lines between cases that deserve death and ones that don't. Is the evidence in this case good enough to kill, but this one the evidence is only good enough to incarcerate. It politicises the judicial and criminal justice system. So I oppose the death penalty not because it's barbaric or morally wrong per se, but because it introduces moral hazard that compromises the system. We can see this in the US where prosecutors fight tooth and nail to preserve convictions and ensure convicts get executed largely in order to protect the system of executions from the embarrassment of death row inmates getting exonerated. Defending the system becomes more important than serving justice. As a Brit I think politicisation is the thing that concerns me most about the US justice system. Elected prosecutors, elected judges, the politicisation of executions I described above. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but comparatively speaking all that just isn't a thing over here at all. Political debate on criminal justice is focused on laws and the administration of policing. That's really about it. It's not like we don't have miscarriages of justice, our system is far from perfect but it's mainly sees as being independent and professionalised.

umvi 5y ago
What if the criminal is extremely wealthy and powerful and can continue to exert his influence even from within prison (and possibly have a corrupting influence on prison guards)? This actually happens with cartel heads and crime syndicate leaders...
- simonh 5y ago
  Most such criminals are likely to be imprisoned for crimes other than murder, so you're going to have the problem anyway. Better to address the actual issue rather than use it as an excuse.

tzs 5y ago

Doesn't that exact same argument work as well when applied to jailing people? It's wrong if I kidnap someone and keep them confined for years in a small room, so how can it not be wrong for the state to do it in the name of the law?

helloworld11 5y ago

Countries regularly kill others in the name of international laws about the preservation of peace and security. This has been the case since at least the Second World War, when many countries allied together to crush the Nazis and Imperial Japan. This was wholesale killing on a global scale for the sake of preventing certain states from doing more of their own vast killing while breaking many international norms, agreements and laws. Much of it was unjust, yes, but would you argue that an absolutist stance of it being wrong to kill others in the name of the law justified doing nothing while these ruthless empires conquered more territory and enslaved millions more people into a slow death? Or how about self defense? If a person is protecting their lawful rights, home, property and family and in the process must kill an aggressor to do these things, should they just not do so out of a certain absolute ethical posture about the wrongness of killing other human beings? Just to clarify where your own fundamental posture on killing in the name of the law this draws some lines or exceptions.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

harshreality 5y ago

Improper or mistaken convictions, where reasonable oversight would have detected the error, are barbaric. If you want barbarism, you can find plenty in the way the criminal justice system is run for all offenders. Prison is inhumane and barbaric, and has the opposite of the intended effect most of the time. Many ex-cons have become hardened criminals through their time on the inside, and even for those who haven't and want to reintegrate productively, the outside world does its best to prevent reintegration. How many innocent people are killed in prison, not by the state, or have their lives ruined? You can say as long as they're alive there's hope they'll achieve something and be happy, but statistically those prospects are dimmer every year they spend inside. The only remaining good thing prison does is keep bad people from causing problems in society for some number of years. Which is the same thing the death penalty does. I don't know if the most productive way to use political capital to reform the criminal justice system is to abolish the death penalty. Unjustified state-sanctioned death might be terrible, but so are things like the drug war which probably do more aggregate harm. In an ideal world we'd get rid of prisons somehow, too. In addition to ending the drug war and trying to fix neighborhoods that have been broken by it, fixing misaligned incentives for prosecution and law enforcement to prosecute cases would have a massive impact, far greater than any squabbles about the death penalty. Too often the prosecutors and law enforcement have desire to convict someone, and the defendant is the best chance they have, so they go ahead. More neutrality has to be introduced somehow. Judges being allowed to direct questions to witnesses might be a place to start.

ufo 5y ago
The alternative also being barbaric doesn't make the death penalty less barbaric.
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  I would rather be killed than spend even 20 years in prison. Technically I might live another 20 years, but I would be very near EOL at that age. Could I get the choice?
  - 5y ago

NoKnowledge 5y ago

That's simply a logical fallacy: P => Q does not imply (not P) => (not Q). Here: "If it is inaccurate, then it is wrong" does not imply "If it is accurate, then it is right."

DiffEq 5y ago

In-human; what does this mean? It has been a human condition throughout all ages to kill each other. So by basic observation one could easily conclude it is human to kill each other. Fortunately what has developed over the ages is a framework or legal system for reasons to do so as apposed to just the whim of one individual.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

> I think no other justification is needed to end the death penalty than “it’s inhuman and barbaric”. Thing is, most of the time, people who are subject to the death penalty are there because they did “inhuman and barbaric” acts. It is kind of like the paradox of tolerance. For society to prosper, you need to punish inhuman and barbaric acts, or at least isolate people who do that from society. However, such punishment is likely inhuman and barbaric at least on some level. Limiting a persons freedom of movement and interaction is inhuman and barbaric. In addition, by not having the death penalty, you are subjecting others to have to deal with the person who did the inhuman and barbaric acts, whether other inmates or guards. I am of the opinion that there are some acts that are so heinous that a person should never be a part of human society again. In that case, rather than prolonged human isolation, which is actually barbaric in and of itself, I think it is actually more humane to end their life. It does not have to gruesome or painful, no more than euthanizing a beloved pet with a terminal condition has to be gruesome. But some acts are incompatible with ever being a member of human society in any form. Edit: In addition, there are a lot of stuff that could be considered inhuman and barbaric but we do them for what we think as the good of society. Spaying and neutering your pet sounds inhuman and barbaric. Modern surgery, especially cancer surgery where they remove large margins of apparently healthy looking tissue, could be considered inhuman and barbaric. In the Middle Ages, dissecting dead human bodies was considered inhuman and barbaric. So the fact that a person sees something as inhuman and barbaric really is not overwhelming evidence if something should be done.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]