3 ms·

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. To

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?
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      I think the parent was implying most of the extensive process is there in the first place because of the same opponents insisting on them.
  - miley_cyrus 4y ago
    Activists against the death penalty raise costs by frivolous litigation and then claim that the death penalty is too expensive. The same thing they've done with other things they don't like, e.g. nuclear power. It's circular logic.
    - hackbinary 4y ago
      No, proponents of the capital punishment attempt to create process that attempts to mitigate complaints made by abolishionists. Nice attempt at shifting the goalposts and shifting blame. And making a false equivalence with nuclear power. Abolishionists want capital punishment abolished because capital punishment is inhumane, cruel, and morally objectionable.
- pknomad 4y ago
  Agreed. It also means that the justice system cannot ever make a mistake unless one is ok with "legally killing" an innocent person.
  - causality0 4y ago
    Right, which I might be if it was one in a thousand or maybe even one in a hundred, but even with an insanely lengthy appeals process it's one in twenty or even higher. Not acceptable.
throwaway6734 4y ago
From a purely practical perspective, the death penalty is bad because of inaccuracy in the legal system. From a morality perspective, how is the death penalty materially different than using lethal force in a war?
- kadoban 4y ago
  > From a morality perspective, how is the death penalty materially different than using lethal force in a war? Very few of the moral arguments in favor of killing people in war time have anything to do with killing people for punishment. If you have a captured criminal, they pose no threat to ~anyone and no threat to your society at large.
  - onetimeusename 4y ago
    > If you have a captured criminal, they pose no threat to ~anyone and no threat to your society at large. Is that true? Prisoners attack guards all the time. Prison guards actually have a statistically shortened lifespan as a result of stress presumably because of the danger. Prisoners can also attack other prisoners. A captured criminal could also be a famous or powerful person like Osama Bin Laden or a cartel boss and they could still run things from the prison or foment violence and revolution from supporters outside the prison.
    - kadoban 4y ago
      They at least have a very reduced ability to hurt anyone, to the point where most of the moral arguments seem like a _big_ stretch. Some random guy who's just vaguely unpleasant to be around is almost certainly damaging society more than the worst prisoner. Should we kill them too? Prison guards do badly mostly because our prisons are shit. Too few guards, too little pay, too few resources, no societal will to improve anything. > A captured criminal could also be a famous or powerful person like Osama Bin Laden or a cartel boss and they could still run things from the prison or foment violence and revolution from supporters outside the prison. In that case, the moral arguments start to be similar maybe, where prison isn't effectively stopping someone's evil actions enough.

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?
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    I think the parent was implying most of the extensive process is there in the first place because of the same opponents insisting on them.
- miley_cyrus 4y ago
  Activists against the death penalty raise costs by frivolous litigation and then claim that the death penalty is too expensive. The same thing they've done with other things they don't like, e.g. nuclear power. It's circular logic.
  - hackbinary 4y ago
    No, proponents of the capital punishment attempt to create process that attempts to mitigate complaints made by abolishionists. Nice attempt at shifting the goalposts and shifting blame. And making a false equivalence with nuclear power. Abolishionists want capital punishment abolished because capital punishment is inhumane, cruel, and morally objectionable.
pknomad 4y ago
Agreed. It also means that the justice system cannot ever make a mistake unless one is ok with "legally killing" an innocent person.
- causality0 4y ago
  Right, which I might be if it was one in a thousand or maybe even one in a hundred, but even with an insanely lengthy appeals process it's one in twenty or even higher. Not acceptable.

throwaway6734 4y ago

From a purely practical perspective, the death penalty is bad because of inaccuracy in the legal system. From a morality perspective, how is the death penalty materially different than using lethal force in a war?

kadoban 4y ago
> From a morality perspective, how is the death penalty materially different than using lethal force in a war? Very few of the moral arguments in favor of killing people in war time have anything to do with killing people for punishment. If you have a captured criminal, they pose no threat to ~anyone and no threat to your society at large.
- onetimeusename 4y ago
  > If you have a captured criminal, they pose no threat to ~anyone and no threat to your society at large. Is that true? Prisoners attack guards all the time. Prison guards actually have a statistically shortened lifespan as a result of stress presumably because of the danger. Prisoners can also attack other prisoners. A captured criminal could also be a famous or powerful person like Osama Bin Laden or a cartel boss and they could still run things from the prison or foment violence and revolution from supporters outside the prison.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    They at least have a very reduced ability to hurt anyone, to the point where most of the moral arguments seem like a _big_ stretch. Some random guy who's just vaguely unpleasant to be around is almost certainly damaging society more than the worst prisoner. Should we kill them too? Prison guards do badly mostly because our prisons are shit. Too few guards, too little pay, too few resources, no societal will to improve anything. > A captured criminal could also be a famous or powerful person like Osama Bin Laden or a cartel boss and they could still run things from the prison or foment violence and revolution from supporters outside the prison. In that case, the moral arguments start to be similar maybe, where prison isn't effectively stopping someone's evil actions enough.