10 ms·

Gov. Inslee signs bill to remove death penalty from Washington state law

158 points by runarberg 4y ago

ccooffee 4y ago
Is the title here editorialized, or is Axios doing some weird AB testing? The article I'm seeing is about the bill passing the Washington House, and concludes with: > What's next: To become law, the bill must clear Inslee's desk. But a veto looks unlikely.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Or OP just put the wrong URL. A quick search of Google News indicates Inslee has indeed signed the bill now.
- blakesterz 4y ago
  Maybe that's just the wrong link? Apparently it was really signed. https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/gov-inslee-signs-bill-repeal-death-penalty/Z4NXLTKQBVEHJOFDKSFXP3KPHM/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/gov-inslee-signs-bill-repea...
- andsoitis 4y ago
  Headline for me is: Washington Legislature votes to repeal death penalty
  - Arrath 4y ago
    And good riddance.
- ortusdux 4y ago
  OP's link is a week old. Inslee singed the bill an hour or two ago. https://www.kptv.com/2023/04/20/gov-inslee-signs-bill-remove-death-penalty-washington-state-law/ https://www.kptv.com/2023/04/20/gov-inslee-signs-bill-remove...
  - runarberg 4y ago
    I couldn’t find a news source I liked, so I just posted the same link as Inslee did in a tweet after he signed[1], while borrowing the headline from a more current news source[2]. Using the same headline would have been posting old news. 1. https://twitter.com/GovInslee/status/1649115596465008645 https://twitter.com/GovInslee/status/1649115596465008645 2: https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/gov-inslee-signs-bill-repeal-death-penalty/Z4NXLTKQBVEHJOFDKSFXP3KPHM/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/gov-inslee-signs-bill-repea...
    - dang 4y ago
      By posting that article, you did post old news. The solution was not to rewrite the title, but to post an article that contained the significant new information. I realize that local TV news affiliate websites aren't always appetizing sources, but it's more important to have up-to-date information.
  - dang 4y ago
    Ok, we've changed the URL to that from https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2023/04/11/death-penalty-washington-state-repeal https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2023/04/11/death-penalty... now. Thanks! If there's a better URL, we can change it again.
tialaramex 4y ago
> Some argued that if the death penalty is eliminated, prosecutors will lose what little leverage they have to get murder suspects to cooperate with police. This seems like a trivially testable hypothesis. Civilized countries outlawed the death penalty for murder a long time ago, do their murder suspects in fact simply refuse to cooperate with police since death isn't a possible penalty? I would assume the answer is "No". Many European countries don't even have life-without-parole as a possible sentence. All criminals in those countries can in principle be paroled, it's just that if you're an unrepentant murdering nazi, the parole decision is really easy, "Hmm, do we want this nazi to kill a bunch more people as he's repeatedly insisted he will if given a chance? No".
- abeppu 4y ago
  Even if it does remove a bit of leverage ... IIUC generally this kind of deal hinges on the state's discretion over whether to pursue a greater or lesser charge or ask for a greater or lesser sentence, and so we're talking about the state's ability to threaten and coerce someone who has not yet been convicted of anything through discretionary prosecution. Maybe that's leverage they shouldn't have?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- notch898c 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - rcme 4y ago
    They have fewer children killers so maybe that’s working.
    - zamalek 4y ago
      It also has a lot to do with avoiding lusting for revenge, instead focusing on rehabilitation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway I have been met with so many blank stares when explaining this concept to Americans, "but they killed children!" Sure, if it's revenge you want then help them understand and regret their actions; death is the easy way out.
maxwell 4y ago
pg's reason for ending the death penalty is conclusive to me. http://www.paulgraham.com/real.html http://www.paulgraham.com/real.html
- skadamou 4y ago
  The crux of PG's argument "This circus of incompetence and dishonesty is the real issue with the death penalty. We don't even reach the point where theoretical questions about the moral justification or effectiveness of capital punishment start to matter, because so many of the people sentenced to death are actually innocent. Whatever it means in theory, in practice capital punishment means killing innocent people."
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    If you've ever seen some of the background info when death penalty cases are overturned, it is extremely clear that a lot of people have a very scary definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt". I was in jury duty once and one of the attorneys went around and asked "What do you think about the statement that 'It's better to let 5 guilty men go free than put 1 innocent man in prison.'" The majority of people said they disagreed, that was too many guilty people going free. I'm thinking to myself "So these people are all OK with ~16% of prisoners being innocent? Are they all sadists?" I realize a lot of it is that people are just bad at math, but it general it's clear to me that, in a lot of trials the jury doesn't really differentiate between the "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of the evidence" standards.
    - nullc 4y ago
      I've wondered to what extent the death penalty is useful so that people can send an innocent person to life in prison while patting themselves on the back for being so civilized and compassionate that they didn't literally kill them. As a former engineer and manager whos partner is a lawyer I'll almost certainly never be empaneled to a jury, but I've heard from plenty of people who were. One instance comes to mind where a (ordinarily) bright coworker returned from jury duty and told me about how they convicted someone of a lesser charge which was logically impossible to be guilty of without being guilty of the more serious charge. The jury were convinced he was innocent but was also convinced that he was a bad dude and it didn't feel right that he'd get off. My understanding is that no one in the jury thought he was guilty of the crimes he was accused of (the lesser or the greater), but the prosecution had successfully (and perhaps rightfully) smeared the accused's character. I didn't talk about it with him further have hearing his description because I didn't know how to be civil about it, my coworker sent an person to prison who wasn't guilty. Not a jury, but him: 'cause a single person could have hung that jury and he didn't. I get that the social pressure can be intense, and I try to have sympathy for people who are trying to do the right thing in such situations... but... damn.
mynameishere 4y ago
[flagged]
- jjulius 4y ago
  >Man, there are people in this world who just need taken out and shot. >But then I've always been evil. Yeah, that tracks.
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  > Man, there are people in this world who just need taken out and shot. Why do they need to be shot? Is there something that would prevent society from imprisoning them for as long as needed?
  - mynameishere 4y ago
    Is there something that would prevent society from imprisoning them for as long as needed Yes, political change could prevent that. As a more practical matter, remember that you have a wild spectrum of crimes called "murder". At one end, you have some clueless cop restraining an OD while waiting for the ambulance he himself ordered. On the other end, you have the "hi fi murderers" who forced their victims to drink Drano in order to eliminate witnesses of their rape and robbery. To me, a public policy of keeping the same punishment for both crimes will effect the cost-benefit analysis that even flunky criminals are capable of performing. (Sometimes.) And partly, it's just a matter of vindictiveness. Someone who kills people by forcing them to drink Drano just needs removed from the species. That's an irrational evil feeling, but then everyone else seems motivated by irrational kumbaya feelings.
    - eropple 4y ago
      > And partly, it's just a matter of vindictiveness. You are unfit for any jury that could be sat.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?"
EMIRELADERO 4y ago
I feel like America's big prison problem is rooted on a deeper issue than mismanagement/corruption. The fundamental idea that "retribution" needs to be a component of the criminal justice system is erroneous and the big issue here. As long as the country legally recognizes that those who wronged others need to be wronged to "get their just desserts", the prison system will not reform to a sufficient degree as to stop the excessive incarceration and recidivism problem.
- bestsolution 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Buttons840 4y ago
    And do you acknowledge that sometimes people will be wrongly convicted of those crimes?
    - bestsolution 4y ago
      All you can ever do is the best that you can under the circumstances. Avoiding a wrongful execution is just one goal. Other goals include the ability of the innocent to enjoy life and the need for justice against wrongdoers.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - version_five 4y ago
    > Justice is not done unless people get what is due to them Even if it's momentarily rewarding, I don't think that's useful from a societal perspective. The justice system should focus on minimizing crime - if punishment does that, fine, but any kind of "getting even" just feeds our base instincts and doesn't accomplish anything. Emotion has no place in a justice system.
    - 4y ago
nivenkos 4y ago
It seems like a mistake, the role of the justice system should be to protect the public first and foremost. For serious cases this means they should never be released - the potential risk vs. reward just isn't worth it. Also the death penalty can allow some reimbursement of victims (via blood and plasma donation, etc.), without forced prison labour that causes issues by undercutting normal workers.
- maximilianroos 4y ago
  > Also the death penalty can allow some reimbursement of victims (via blood and plasma donation, etc.), without forced prison labour that causes issues by undercutting normal workers. One of the craziest takes on here, really saying something
  - Arrath 4y ago
    Yeah, no kidding. Might as well start harvesting organs, why not? /s
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Also the death penalty can allow some reimbursement of victims (via blood and plasma donation, etc.), without forced prison labour that causes issues by undercutting normal workers. Among the more minor reasons this is an insane take is that you can steal and sell body fluids from prisoners (and more of them, because they regenerate) as well as people you murder without forced prison labor, too (of course, if you are willing to steal and sell body parts, you probably are also willing to steal and sell labor, but doing one doesn’t require the other.)
- eropple 4y ago
  > It seems like a mistake, the role of the justice system should be to protect the public first and foremost. No. The role of the justice system is to find truth and render equitable punishment. State-sponsored killing is a one-way door and no court can rule with such complete surety of sufficient guilt and motive to make walking through that one-way door something that can be on the table. I would support capital punishment for elected politicians and law enforcement, to represent the higher stakes of their breach of the public trust, but that's because those jobs should not be aspirational and the retributive framework for them necessarily differs. But the cases that go to death row in America? It's nonsense. > Also the death penalty can allow some reimbursement of victims (via blood and plasma donation, etc.), without forced prison labour that causes issues by undercutting normal workers. This is a deeply ghastly sentiment and deserves no further address.
Veliladon 4y ago
It sort of does. If something truly heinous pops up the DoJ will be more than happy to throw the petite policy into the trash and drag the suspect into federal court under the most tenuous of circumstances where they will be executed on behalf of that state that abolished the barbaric practice.
shanecleveland 4y ago
A take I recently heard: You either have to believe ... The state doesn't make mistakes. OR The state sometimes kills innocent people.
- jimbob45 4y ago
  The death penalty isn't common at all. I'm seeing 18 individuals for 2022 and also that 2022 was the eighth consecutive year with less than 30 individuals served the death penalty. I'm finding it hard to believe that many mistakes were made with that few number of individuals (the data was kinda tough to find so I welcome better data if anyone has it). [0]https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/2021 https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/2021
  - roblabla 4y ago
    The very website you link has data about exonerations[0]. From a quick look, it looks like this is about people who are still alive, not dead people found innocent after the death penalty was carried through (I'm having a hard time finding that specific datapoint). Given the exoneration data though, I'd have a hard time believing that number is 0. [0]: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence EDIT: Oh boy that rabbit hole is deep. So here's some _potentially_ innocent people who have been put to death[1]. None of those are actually proven to be innocent, but there is at least some amount of evidence that spells reasonable doubt on their conviction. [1]: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/execute...
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      Is nobody here aware of the Innocence Project? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    What is "many" here? How many times is it OK for us to execute you for a crime you didn't commit? Is it alright so long as we only kill you once? It took a matter of minutes to find that Toforest Johnson was successfully convicted of murder based on somebody claiming they overheard him confessing. The prosecution had concealed from the defence the fact that they paid this witness a substantial sum of money. That sort of bullshit shouldn't work to give somebody a traffic ticket, never mind a death sentence and yet sure enough US courts thought that was good enough.
mark_l_watson 4y ago
Good. Capital punishment is an embarrassment to the USA, both for morality and because our legal system has proved to be sometimes inaccurate in convictions. Too high of an error rate.
- causality0 4y ago
  Right. It's also outrageously expensive.
  - notch898c 4y ago
    The expensive part is largely the (comparatively) exhaustive appeals process, which means counterintuitively the innocent may be even worse off now that they won't be on death row.
    - runarberg 4y ago
      Here you probably mean the innocent wrongfully convicted, but I wonder how an exhaustive appeals process affects the innocent living victims and innocent family members of victims of a rightfully convicted criminal. That they’re forced to relive the trauma of passed crimes again and again every time the death sentence is appealed for over a decade in most cases. It cannot be good for them. Much better for all involved to reopen a case if and when new evidence of wrongful convictions become convincing enough.
  - scottyah 4y ago
    Though I'm not advocating for the death penalty, it's high cost was created by the opponents of death penalty. I don't think "unfair" is the right word, but it sure is dirty.
    - pavlov 4y ago
      Doesn’t high cost just mean there’s an extensive process in place to try to prevent killing innocent people (and yet it still happens). Not sure why that qualifies as “dirty” — wouldn’t killing without the process to save money be dirtier?
say_it_as_it_is 4y ago
Lots of people here who are against the dealth penalty. Why is it so hard to empathize with the victims yet so easy for them to empathize with the murderers? Murderers go on death row, not petty criminals. What's the margin for error? How many of these murderers do you think are innocent? "One is too many" is not enough to justify a complete abolition of the death penalty. Life in prison sentencing ought to be used more, in consideration of those in the margin of error.
- kristjansson 4y ago
  Because biasing in favor of false negatives over false positives is a fundamental tenet of our system of justice?
- Pet_Ant 4y ago
  > Why is it so hard to empathize with the victims yet so easy for them to empathize with the murderers? Because it's not a zero-sum game. You can feel bad for both.
- crockeo 4y ago
  I don't believe in the death penalty because I believe taking a human life, no matter the context, is amoral. A murderer may have already committed that injustice, but it does not mean they deserve the same. To me there is no imbalance in empathy just an alignment with that core belief.
- least 4y ago
  > Why is it so hard to empathize with the victims yet so easy for them to empathize with the murderers? It's not hard. It's in fact very easy to empathize with victims and difficult to empathize with criminals. I just find it very much worthwhile to be empathetic towards all humans, even the ones that do terrible things because doing so allows us to understand humanity better and in turn may help prevent people from doing terrible things in the future. > "One is too many" is not enough to justify a complete abolition of the death penalty. Actually, it does in fact, do just that. Why do you think it doesn't? You're basically saying the value of a person who deserves to die's death (or many of their deaths) is more valuable than an innocent person's life. To me it's quite clear that's not the case.
runarberg 4y ago
The Death penalty has actually been abolished in Washington state since 2018 when the state’s supreme court ruled it unconstitutional as a punishment. Reasons cited was that the punishment was issued arbitrarily and with racial bias. The court’s decision was directly based off of a regression analysis study. https://magazine.washington.edu/feature/death-penalty-washington-state/ https://magazine.washington.edu/feature/death-penalty-washin... https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/WashRaceStudy2014OldVersion.pdf https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/WashRace... (PDF)
DueDilligence 4y ago
[dead]
jimnotgym 4y ago
To the advocates of the death penalty: You are arguing that you want to kill people who pose you no harm. Think what that says about you
LocalH 4y ago
Good. The state should not be able to kill its citizens, and even if you support it for "criminals", the state sometimes gets it wrong, and the state has murdered innocent people.

158 points by runarberg 4y ago

Is the title here editorialized, or is Axios doing some weird AB testing? The article I'm seeing is about the bill passing the Washington House, and concludes with: > What's next: To become law, the bill must clear Inslee's desk. But a veto looks unlikely.

ceejayoz 4y ago
Or OP just put the wrong URL. A quick search of Google News indicates Inslee has indeed signed the bill now.
blakesterz 4y ago
Maybe that's just the wrong link? Apparently it was really signed. https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/gov-inslee-signs-bill-repeal-death-penalty/Z4NXLTKQBVEHJOFDKSFXP3KPHM/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/gov-inslee-signs-bill-repea...
andsoitis 4y ago
Headline for me is: Washington Legislature votes to repeal death penalty
- Arrath 4y ago
  And good riddance.
ortusdux 4y ago
OP's link is a week old. Inslee singed the bill an hour or two ago. https://www.kptv.com/2023/04/20/gov-inslee-signs-bill-remove-death-penalty-washington-state-law/ https://www.kptv.com/2023/04/20/gov-inslee-signs-bill-remove...
- runarberg 4y ago
  I couldn’t find a news source I liked, so I just posted the same link as Inslee did in a tweet after he signed[1], while borrowing the headline from a more current news source[2]. Using the same headline would have been posting old news. 1. https://twitter.com/GovInslee/status/1649115596465008645 https://twitter.com/GovInslee/status/1649115596465008645 2: https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/gov-inslee-signs-bill-repeal-death-penalty/Z4NXLTKQBVEHJOFDKSFXP3KPHM/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/gov-inslee-signs-bill-repea...
  - dang 4y ago
    By posting that article, you did post old news. The solution was not to rewrite the title, but to post an article that contained the significant new information. I realize that local TV news affiliate websites aren't always appetizing sources, but it's more important to have up-to-date information.
- dang 4y ago
  Ok, we've changed the URL to that from https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2023/04/11/death-penalty-washington-state-repeal https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2023/04/11/death-penalty... now. Thanks! If there's a better URL, we can change it again.

tialaramex 4y ago

> Some argued that if the death penalty is eliminated, prosecutors will lose what little leverage they have to get murder suspects to cooperate with police. This seems like a trivially testable hypothesis. Civilized countries outlawed the death penalty for murder a long time ago, do their murder suspects in fact simply refuse to cooperate with police since death isn't a possible penalty? I would assume the answer is "No". Many European countries don't even have life-without-parole as a possible sentence. All criminals in those countries can in principle be paroled, it's just that if you're an unrepentant murdering nazi, the parole decision is really easy, "Hmm, do we want this nazi to kill a bunch more people as he's repeatedly insisted he will if given a chance? No".

abeppu 4y ago
Even if it does remove a bit of leverage ... IIUC generally this kind of deal hinges on the state's discretion over whether to pursue a greater or lesser charge or ask for a greater or lesser sentence, and so we're talking about the state's ability to threaten and coerce someone who has not yet been convicted of anything through discretionary prosecution. Maybe that's leverage they shouldn't have?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
notch898c 4y ago
[flagged]
- rcme 4y ago
  They have fewer children killers so maybe that’s working.
  - zamalek 4y ago
    It also has a lot to do with avoiding lusting for revenge, instead focusing on rehabilitation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway I have been met with so many blank stares when explaining this concept to Americans, "but they killed children!" Sure, if it's revenge you want then help them understand and regret their actions; death is the easy way out.

maxwell 4y ago

pg's reason for ending the death penalty is conclusive to me. http://www.paulgraham.com/real.html http://www.paulgraham.com/real.html

skadamou 4y ago
The crux of PG's argument "This circus of incompetence and dishonesty is the real issue with the death penalty. We don't even reach the point where theoretical questions about the moral justification or effectiveness of capital punishment start to matter, because so many of the people sentenced to death are actually innocent. Whatever it means in theory, in practice capital punishment means killing innocent people."
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  If you've ever seen some of the background info when death penalty cases are overturned, it is extremely clear that a lot of people have a very scary definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt". I was in jury duty once and one of the attorneys went around and asked "What do you think about the statement that 'It's better to let 5 guilty men go free than put 1 innocent man in prison.'" The majority of people said they disagreed, that was too many guilty people going free. I'm thinking to myself "So these people are all OK with ~16% of prisoners being innocent? Are they all sadists?" I realize a lot of it is that people are just bad at math, but it general it's clear to me that, in a lot of trials the jury doesn't really differentiate between the "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of the evidence" standards.
  - nullc 4y ago
    I've wondered to what extent the death penalty is useful so that people can send an innocent person to life in prison while patting themselves on the back for being so civilized and compassionate that they didn't literally kill them. As a former engineer and manager whos partner is a lawyer I'll almost certainly never be empaneled to a jury, but I've heard from plenty of people who were. One instance comes to mind where a (ordinarily) bright coworker returned from jury duty and told me about how they convicted someone of a lesser charge which was logically impossible to be guilty of without being guilty of the more serious charge. The jury were convinced he was innocent but was also convinced that he was a bad dude and it didn't feel right that he'd get off. My understanding is that no one in the jury thought he was guilty of the crimes he was accused of (the lesser or the greater), but the prosecution had successfully (and perhaps rightfully) smeared the accused's character. I didn't talk about it with him further have hearing his description because I didn't know how to be civil about it, my coworker sent an person to prison who wasn't guilty. Not a jury, but him: 'cause a single person could have hung that jury and he didn't. I get that the social pressure can be intense, and I try to have sympathy for people who are trying to do the right thing in such situations... but... damn.

mynameishere 4y ago

[flagged]

jjulius 4y ago
>Man, there are people in this world who just need taken out and shot. >But then I've always been evil. Yeah, that tracks.
EMIRELADERO 4y ago
> Man, there are people in this world who just need taken out and shot. Why do they need to be shot? Is there something that would prevent society from imprisoning them for as long as needed?
- mynameishere 4y ago
  Is there something that would prevent society from imprisoning them for as long as needed Yes, political change could prevent that. As a more practical matter, remember that you have a wild spectrum of crimes called "murder". At one end, you have some clueless cop restraining an OD while waiting for the ambulance he himself ordered. On the other end, you have the "hi fi murderers" who forced their victims to drink Drano in order to eliminate witnesses of their rape and robbery. To me, a public policy of keeping the same punishment for both crimes will effect the cost-benefit analysis that even flunky criminals are capable of performing. (Sometimes.) And partly, it's just a matter of vindictiveness. Someone who kills people by forcing them to drink Drano just needs removed from the species. That's an irrational evil feeling, but then everyone else seems motivated by irrational kumbaya feelings.
  - eropple 4y ago
    > And partly, it's just a matter of vindictiveness. You are unfit for any jury that could be sat.
shadowgovt 4y ago
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?"

EMIRELADERO 4y ago

I feel like America's big prison problem is rooted on a deeper issue than mismanagement/corruption. The fundamental idea that "retribution" needs to be a component of the criminal justice system is erroneous and the big issue here. As long as the country legally recognizes that those who wronged others need to be wronged to "get their just desserts", the prison system will not reform to a sufficient degree as to stop the excessive incarceration and recidivism problem.

bestsolution 4y ago
[flagged]
- Buttons840 4y ago
  And do you acknowledge that sometimes people will be wrongly convicted of those crimes?
  - bestsolution 4y ago
    All you can ever do is the best that you can under the circumstances. Avoiding a wrongful execution is just one goal. Other goals include the ability of the innocent to enjoy life and the need for justice against wrongdoers.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- version_five 4y ago
  > Justice is not done unless people get what is due to them Even if it's momentarily rewarding, I don't think that's useful from a societal perspective. The justice system should focus on minimizing crime - if punishment does that, fine, but any kind of "getting even" just feeds our base instincts and doesn't accomplish anything. Emotion has no place in a justice system.
  - 4y ago

nivenkos 4y ago

It seems like a mistake, the role of the justice system should be to protect the public first and foremost. For serious cases this means they should never be released - the potential risk vs. reward just isn't worth it. Also the death penalty can allow some reimbursement of victims (via blood and plasma donation, etc.), without forced prison labour that causes issues by undercutting normal workers.

maximilianroos 4y ago
> Also the death penalty can allow some reimbursement of victims (via blood and plasma donation, etc.), without forced prison labour that causes issues by undercutting normal workers. One of the craziest takes on here, really saying something
- Arrath 4y ago
  Yeah, no kidding. Might as well start harvesting organs, why not? /s
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Also the death penalty can allow some reimbursement of victims (via blood and plasma donation, etc.), without forced prison labour that causes issues by undercutting normal workers. Among the more minor reasons this is an insane take is that you can steal and sell body fluids from prisoners (and more of them, because they regenerate) as well as people you murder without forced prison labor, too (of course, if you are willing to steal and sell body parts, you probably are also willing to steal and sell labor, but doing one doesn’t require the other.)
eropple 4y ago
> It seems like a mistake, the role of the justice system should be to protect the public first and foremost. No. The role of the justice system is to find truth and render equitable punishment. State-sponsored killing is a one-way door and no court can rule with such complete surety of sufficient guilt and motive to make walking through that one-way door something that can be on the table. I would support capital punishment for elected politicians and law enforcement, to represent the higher stakes of their breach of the public trust, but that's because those jobs should not be aspirational and the retributive framework for them necessarily differs. But the cases that go to death row in America? It's nonsense. > Also the death penalty can allow some reimbursement of victims (via blood and plasma donation, etc.), without forced prison labour that causes issues by undercutting normal workers. This is a deeply ghastly sentiment and deserves no further address.

Veliladon 4y ago

It sort of does. If something truly heinous pops up the DoJ will be more than happy to throw the petite policy into the trash and drag the suspect into federal court under the most tenuous of circumstances where they will be executed on behalf of that state that abolished the barbaric practice.

shanecleveland 4y ago

A take I recently heard: You either have to believe ... The state doesn't make mistakes. OR The state sometimes kills innocent people.

jimbob45 4y ago
The death penalty isn't common at all. I'm seeing 18 individuals for 2022 and also that 2022 was the eighth consecutive year with less than 30 individuals served the death penalty. I'm finding it hard to believe that many mistakes were made with that few number of individuals (the data was kinda tough to find so I welcome better data if anyone has it). [0]https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/2021 https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/2021
- roblabla 4y ago
  The very website you link has data about exonerations[0]. From a quick look, it looks like this is about people who are still alive, not dead people found innocent after the death penalty was carried through (I'm having a hard time finding that specific datapoint). Given the exoneration data though, I'd have a hard time believing that number is 0. [0]: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence EDIT: Oh boy that rabbit hole is deep. So here's some _potentially_ innocent people who have been put to death[1]. None of those are actually proven to be innocent, but there is at least some amount of evidence that spells reasonable doubt on their conviction. [1]: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/execute...
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Is nobody here aware of the Innocence Project? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project
- tialaramex 4y ago
  What is "many" here? How many times is it OK for us to execute you for a crime you didn't commit? Is it alright so long as we only kill you once? It took a matter of minutes to find that Toforest Johnson was successfully convicted of murder based on somebody claiming they overheard him confessing. The prosecution had concealed from the defence the fact that they paid this witness a substantial sum of money. That sort of bullshit shouldn't work to give somebody a traffic ticket, never mind a death sentence and yet sure enough US courts thought that was good enough.

mark_l_watson 4y ago

Good. Capital punishment is an embarrassment to the USA, both for morality and because our legal system has proved to be sometimes inaccurate in convictions. Too high of an error rate.

causality0 4y ago
Right. It's also outrageously expensive.
- notch898c 4y ago
  The expensive part is largely the (comparatively) exhaustive appeals process, which means counterintuitively the innocent may be even worse off now that they won't be on death row.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    Here you probably mean the innocent wrongfully convicted, but I wonder how an exhaustive appeals process affects the innocent living victims and innocent family members of victims of a rightfully convicted criminal. That they’re forced to relive the trauma of passed crimes again and again every time the death sentence is appealed for over a decade in most cases. It cannot be good for them. Much better for all involved to reopen a case if and when new evidence of wrongful convictions become convincing enough.
- scottyah 4y ago
  Though I'm not advocating for the death penalty, it's high cost was created by the opponents of death penalty. I don't think "unfair" is the right word, but it sure is dirty.
  - pavlov 4y ago
    Doesn’t high cost just mean there’s an extensive process in place to try to prevent killing innocent people (and yet it still happens). Not sure why that qualifies as “dirty” — wouldn’t killing without the process to save money be dirtier?

say_it_as_it_is 4y ago

Lots of people here who are against the dealth penalty. Why is it so hard to empathize with the victims yet so easy for them to empathize with the murderers? Murderers go on death row, not petty criminals. What's the margin for error? How many of these murderers do you think are innocent? "One is too many" is not enough to justify a complete abolition of the death penalty. Life in prison sentencing ought to be used more, in consideration of those in the margin of error.

kristjansson 4y ago
Because biasing in favor of false negatives over false positives is a fundamental tenet of our system of justice?
Pet_Ant 4y ago
> Why is it so hard to empathize with the victims yet so easy for them to empathize with the murderers? Because it's not a zero-sum game. You can feel bad for both.
crockeo 4y ago
I don't believe in the death penalty because I believe taking a human life, no matter the context, is amoral. A murderer may have already committed that injustice, but it does not mean they deserve the same. To me there is no imbalance in empathy just an alignment with that core belief.
least 4y ago
> Why is it so hard to empathize with the victims yet so easy for them to empathize with the murderers? It's not hard. It's in fact very easy to empathize with victims and difficult to empathize with criminals. I just find it very much worthwhile to be empathetic towards all humans, even the ones that do terrible things because doing so allows us to understand humanity better and in turn may help prevent people from doing terrible things in the future. > "One is too many" is not enough to justify a complete abolition of the death penalty. Actually, it does in fact, do just that. Why do you think it doesn't? You're basically saying the value of a person who deserves to die's death (or many of their deaths) is more valuable than an innocent person's life. To me it's quite clear that's not the case.

runarberg 4y ago

The Death penalty has actually been abolished in Washington state since 2018 when the state’s supreme court ruled it unconstitutional as a punishment. Reasons cited was that the punishment was issued arbitrarily and with racial bias. The court’s decision was directly based off of a regression analysis study. https://magazine.washington.edu/feature/death-penalty-washington-state/ https://magazine.washington.edu/feature/death-penalty-washin... https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/WashRaceStudy2014OldVersion.pdf https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/WashRace... (PDF)

DueDilligence 4y ago

[dead]

jimnotgym 4y ago

To the advocates of the death penalty: You are arguing that you want to kill people who pose you no harm. Think what that says about you

LocalH 4y ago

Good. The state should not be able to kill its citizens, and even if you support it for "criminals", the state sometimes gets it wrong, and the state has murdered innocent people.