3 ms·

Joe Lonsdale, previously: >If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law. >We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And y

by r721 10mo ago

Joe Lonsdale, previously: >If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law. >We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others. https://x.com/JTLonsdale/status/1996947600533066185 https://x.com/JTLonsdale/status/1996947600533066185 https://thehill.com/opinion/robbys-radar/5640692-public-execution-crime-deterrence/ https://thehill.com/opinion/robbys-radar/5640692-public-exec...

estearum 10mo ago
Basic question to ask these people: is there evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent? Answer: No
- jrs235 10mo ago
  I wonder if it increases false accusations and turning in "enemies". EDIT: This in regards to knowing: "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes."
- tastyface 10mo ago
  The point is not deterrence. It’s gleeful sadism.
  - Gibbon1 10mo ago
    There is the whole thing where if no suitable victims can be found they'll make do with whoever is available.
- jutter 10mo ago
  [dead]
  - estearum 10mo ago
    That's not what deterrence means
    - jutter 10mo ago
      [dead]
- nailer 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - sshine 10mo ago
    I assume you're being funny, but the question is, will killing someone to make an example of them deter others? And the answer is: not as much as to justify killing people for being violent.
    - nailer 10mo ago
      I’m not.
      - bigyabai 10mo ago
        It's rather difficult to tell. Your comments read as bad-faith and have been flagged as such.
        nailer 10mo ago
        I’m not sure why you think pointing out that executing multiple time violent offenders stops violent offenders is ‘bad faith’ rather than logic, but I and presumably the others pointing out the same thing are not particularly bothered by your actions.
        sshine 10mo ago
        I answered you as if you weren't being funny, since the answer to you being funny is "ha ha". The problem with killing people for being violent is that violence is a spectrum with genocide and serial murder on the one end, and snarky comments on the other. Whereas the capital punishment is pretty far towards the killing end of violence. So when you seek to kill people for being violent, you need to at least specify how violent you need to be. Is killing one person enough? Or maiming multiple? Or just being really snarky for decades? While "an eye for an eye" seems direct, manslaughter comes in several degrees based on intent and state of mind. The main reason why capital punishment in the US is preceeded with decades of imprisonment is because killing people "legally" isn't simple. The only way to simplify killing people is to let go of your humanity.
- UncleMeat 10mo ago
  It doesn't matter to them. What they want is to hurt people (ideally, people from groups they hate). It isn't about building a flourishing society.
- landl0rd 10mo ago
  Yes, there is some (if not conclusive) evidence that speedy trial and persistent execution of the worst, most violent offenders reduces violence in the next generation: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10480901/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10480901/ It turns out killing the worst per cent of a generation's males provides a powerful selection effect. It's by no means the only cause or conclusive but worth considering.
  - estearum 10mo ago
    The evidence presented: The State killed a lot of people between the 14th and 20th centuries and also the homicide rate went down. Wow! QED Good thing there weren't other major confounding changes between errmmm... the longbow and the atomic bomb. Or Dante's Divine Comedy and jazz. I'm convinced. Why'd you even put the note "if not conclusive" with evidence this strong?
    - landl0rd 10mo ago
      I'd be more shocked if culling a full per cent of men yearly did nothing. Plus a lot died at the scene of crimes or in prison awaiting trial. The question is how much and precisely what. Doing reliable social science is hard enough on current data or interventions. It's very hard with historical data over that sort of time period. However, we get better knowledge by discussing interesting hypotheses and how to study them better. This one is interesting and there may be something to it. It's also at least quasi-testable; someone could fund a study on examining alleles associated with aggression in historical remains. Note that Frost and Harpending are pretty conservative in their estimates; they figure only ballpark half the decline could be explained by this.
      - estearum 10mo ago
        If you were to approach this question with intellectual honesty, you would identify pretty quickly that there are far better ways to try to answer it. Case-control methods, natural experiments, surveys of criminals, and meta-analyses of the prior. Literally any method other than "pick 600 year period and say 'vibes shifted generally across a continent and then homicide went down'" Of course this question has been studied extensively for decades and the current conclusion is: completely inconclusive! There's some evidence it increases violent crime, some that it decreases it, most evidence doesn't clearly show any effect at all. So whatever effect it may have, it almost certainly isn't very strong, or is countervailed by opposing effects. I think that if we're proposing the State, which we know to be fallible in so many cases, should make irreversible decisions like "executing suspected bad guys" more frequently, then we should have extremely strong evidence that it would actually achieve the desired result. > It's also at least quasi-testable; someone could fund a study on examining alleles associated with aggression in historical remains. Good luck establishing how "alleles associated with aggression" contributes to violence. I'm pretty sure most of the people who adopt your position would argue that their "aggressiveness" is a virtue in whatever competitive landscape they choose to occupy.

by r721 10mo ago

estearum 10mo ago

Basic question to ask these people: is there evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent? Answer: No

jrs235 10mo ago
I wonder if it increases false accusations and turning in "enemies". EDIT: This in regards to knowing: "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes."
tastyface 10mo ago
The point is not deterrence. It’s gleeful sadism.
- Gibbon1 10mo ago
  There is the whole thing where if no suitable victims can be found they'll make do with whoever is available.
jutter 10mo ago
[dead]
- estearum 10mo ago
  That's not what deterrence means
  - jutter 10mo ago
    [dead]
nailer 10mo ago
[flagged]
- sshine 10mo ago
  I assume you're being funny, but the question is, will killing someone to make an example of them deter others? And the answer is: not as much as to justify killing people for being violent.
  - nailer 10mo ago
    I’m not.
    - bigyabai 10mo ago
      It's rather difficult to tell. Your comments read as bad-faith and have been flagged as such.
      - nailer 10mo ago
        I’m not sure why you think pointing out that executing multiple time violent offenders stops violent offenders is ‘bad faith’ rather than logic, but I and presumably the others pointing out the same thing are not particularly bothered by your actions.
        sshine 10mo ago
        I answered you as if you weren't being funny, since the answer to you being funny is "ha ha". The problem with killing people for being violent is that violence is a spectrum with genocide and serial murder on the one end, and snarky comments on the other. Whereas the capital punishment is pretty far towards the killing end of violence. So when you seek to kill people for being violent, you need to at least specify how violent you need to be. Is killing one person enough? Or maiming multiple? Or just being really snarky for decades? While "an eye for an eye" seems direct, manslaughter comes in several degrees based on intent and state of mind. The main reason why capital punishment in the US is preceeded with decades of imprisonment is because killing people "legally" isn't simple. The only way to simplify killing people is to let go of your humanity.
UncleMeat 10mo ago
It doesn't matter to them. What they want is to hurt people (ideally, people from groups they hate). It isn't about building a flourishing society.
landl0rd 10mo ago
Yes, there is some (if not conclusive) evidence that speedy trial and persistent execution of the worst, most violent offenders reduces violence in the next generation: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10480901/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10480901/ It turns out killing the worst per cent of a generation's males provides a powerful selection effect. It's by no means the only cause or conclusive but worth considering.
- estearum 10mo ago
  The evidence presented: The State killed a lot of people between the 14th and 20th centuries and also the homicide rate went down. Wow! QED Good thing there weren't other major confounding changes between errmmm... the longbow and the atomic bomb. Or Dante's Divine Comedy and jazz. I'm convinced. Why'd you even put the note "if not conclusive" with evidence this strong?
  - landl0rd 10mo ago
    I'd be more shocked if culling a full per cent of men yearly did nothing. Plus a lot died at the scene of crimes or in prison awaiting trial. The question is how much and precisely what. Doing reliable social science is hard enough on current data or interventions. It's very hard with historical data over that sort of time period. However, we get better knowledge by discussing interesting hypotheses and how to study them better. This one is interesting and there may be something to it. It's also at least quasi-testable; someone could fund a study on examining alleles associated with aggression in historical remains. Note that Frost and Harpending are pretty conservative in their estimates; they figure only ballpark half the decline could be explained by this.
    - estearum 10mo ago
      If you were to approach this question with intellectual honesty, you would identify pretty quickly that there are far better ways to try to answer it. Case-control methods, natural experiments, surveys of criminals, and meta-analyses of the prior. Literally any method other than "pick 600 year period and say 'vibes shifted generally across a continent and then homicide went down'" Of course this question has been studied extensively for decades and the current conclusion is: completely inconclusive! There's some evidence it increases violent crime, some that it decreases it, most evidence doesn't clearly show any effect at all. So whatever effect it may have, it almost certainly isn't very strong, or is countervailed by opposing effects. I think that if we're proposing the State, which we know to be fallible in so many cases, should make irreversible decisions like "executing suspected bad guys" more frequently, then we should have extremely strong evidence that it would actually achieve the desired result. > It's also at least quasi-testable; someone could fund a study on examining alleles associated with aggression in historical remains. Good luck establishing how "alleles associated with aggression" contributes to violence. I'm pretty sure most of the people who adopt your position would argue that their "aggressiveness" is a virtue in whatever competitive landscape they choose to occupy.