4 ms·

I agree. Some of the most violent criminals can't ever be re-integrated into society, so the only alternative is life imprisonment. I've seen many arguments tha

I agree. Some of the most violent criminals can't ever be re-integrated into society, so the only alternative is life imprisonment. I've seen many arguments that this is preferable to the death penalty because "We will accidentally execute some innocents", as Paul Graham's here, as well as "It costs more to execute someone due to the higher standard of proof required". In all such cases the corollary is "We can accept a lower standard of proof because we're not actually killing them. We're just locking them in a room forever and waiting until they die." I don't honestly see much difference between these outcomes. Why is one so morally superior to the other? There are much better arguments against the death penalty. One is that if the death penalty exists, it's much easier for the state to execute political dissidents. If the death penalty is abolished (and there are strong controls on extra-judicial killings, like police murdering civilians during arrests), it's much more difficult for the state to silence critics. Even if they are locked away in jail forever, they will still have a voice. Another good argument is that if the death penalty is a possibility it gives criminals nothing to lose which makes it more dangerous to apprehend them. If you want your police to be able to more peacefully arrest criminals, it makes sense to abolish the death penalty.

lreeves 5y ago
>I don't honestly see much difference between these outcomes. Why is one so morally superior to the other? One of them gives you your remaining lifetime for evidence to be found or overturned; one of them doesn't.
Lukeas14 5y ago
I agree that we shouldn't accept a lower standard of proof. However, life in prison isn't absolute in the same the death penalty is. There's always a small chance of the evidence changing and the justice system being able to rectify the mistake. There have been several convictions overturned because witnesses changed their story or were later found to be not credible, sometimes decades later. Once the death penalty is carried out, there's no going back.
lapetitejort 5y ago
> Some of the most violent criminals can't ever be re-integrated into society, so the only alternative is life imprisonment. I have to question this. Determining whether someone can be reintegrated into society cannot be determined during the sentencing process. I would rather prefer a Norway-like system where the max imprisonment time at the start is 21 years. At the end of that initial time, 5 more years can be added on if the prisoner has not reformed. The process repeats until the prisoner is released or dies. A small percentage of people will still die in prison, but I wager that that percentage will be less than the percentage of life imprisonment sentences currently.
dan-robertson 5y ago
I struggle with arguments that criminals are calculating people who make decisions in their best interests. There are surely exceptions (say pickpockets or confidence tricksters) but I don’t believe that things like typical sentencing have an effect on the impulsive decision making of a typical criminal (and I think policy should be targeted much more towards the typical criminal than the atypical one)

lreeves 5y ago

>I don't honestly see much difference between these outcomes. Why is one so morally superior to the other? One of them gives you your remaining lifetime for evidence to be found or overturned; one of them doesn't.

Lukeas14 5y ago

I agree that we shouldn't accept a lower standard of proof. However, life in prison isn't absolute in the same the death penalty is. There's always a small chance of the evidence changing and the justice system being able to rectify the mistake. There have been several convictions overturned because witnesses changed their story or were later found to be not credible, sometimes decades later. Once the death penalty is carried out, there's no going back.

lapetitejort 5y ago

> Some of the most violent criminals can't ever be re-integrated into society, so the only alternative is life imprisonment. I have to question this. Determining whether someone can be reintegrated into society cannot be determined during the sentencing process. I would rather prefer a Norway-like system where the max imprisonment time at the start is 21 years. At the end of that initial time, 5 more years can be added on if the prisoner has not reformed. The process repeats until the prisoner is released or dies. A small percentage of people will still die in prison, but I wager that that percentage will be less than the percentage of life imprisonment sentences currently.

dan-robertson 5y ago

I struggle with arguments that criminals are calculating people who make decisions in their best interests. There are surely exceptions (say pickpockets or confidence tricksters) but I don’t believe that things like typical sentencing have an effect on the impulsive decision making of a typical criminal (and I think policy should be targeted much more towards the typical criminal than the atypical one)