4 ms·

Please don’t rephrase me so it’s easier to argue. I am not talking about generic inmates, who deserve all protection (“no cruel and unusual punishment”), I’m t

by galkk 7mo ago

Please don’t rephrase me so it’s easier to argue. I am not talking about generic inmates, who deserve all protection (“no cruel and unusual punishment”), I’m talking about people like ones from the website. Who did horrible stuff and were convicted to death for it. I’m sure that if needed, society can develop necessary framework (declare them “legally dead” or something like that).

ithkuil 7mo ago
I consider the risk of wrongful conviction to be an argument against the death penalty and for the very same reason I'm against performing any kind of inhuman treatment of them (which might be worse than death). Even if 95% would totally deserve it, I don't think we should just accept that on average 4 innocent people every year are just treated as subhumans just so we can unleash our wrath over those who did truly horrible things. Death is still a better option rather than being used as lab rat
- galkk 7mo ago
  There should be doubt. There should be due process. At the same time, I think that with the advancement of the tech (surveillance cameras everywhere, dna tests, the cell tower triangulation and/or mobile device location tracking) there are cases when the guilt can be established without any doubt, and the overall chance of wrongful conviction will drop down. Hell, have you read the website? One of those pieces of shit made his accomplice to video the murder on the phone.
  - ithkuil 7mo ago
    I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those convicted are rightfully convicted. But paint me skeptical as to whether increased use of technology can actually improve the reliability of the proofs. Imagine a world where deep fakes are much better quality but our system hasn't yet caught up to take that into proper consideration etc. Serving for life is already a big deal as punishment goes. I'm just asking to not have experimental medical experiments on people. I'm not saying they should walk free
    - galkk 7mo ago
      I was thinking about deep fakes and tech advancements. Yes, that will add doubts etc. but you know what? There always will be ways. If somebody was convicted in 2015 most likely there weren’t any deep fakes. Let’s look at, let’s say, Apple and its tight control over entire hardware and software iPhone stack. Nothing prevents them to announce that starting from iPhone 19 they cryptographically sign the video to ensure that it’s authentic and, at least, the video and sound are what the camera saw. Pro cameras can do it, for Apple it’s even easier, more or less. I’m sure that even on this site there are experts who can design such system that is as secure as we expect from Apple devices. And that thing will slowly spread due to competitive pressures. —- Involuntarily drug testing was one of examples that I gave, and you seem to be against. To some it may be extreme, and I completely understand where you’re coming from. To me… as I said - for some examples from the side the murderers surely lost their human privilege. That comment summarized my feelings after reading the website in much more succinct form: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47302490#47305803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47302490#47305803 Killing 13 month infant, putting bleach on 20 yo gas station employee and setting her on fire, stranding female who was screaming for help during sa. Mate, if your kidney is compatible with someone who is in need, you made your choice way too long ago to have any right to say anything now. Or if there are other uses that will benefit society and humanity as a whole - they are allowed. You are guilty (without doubt and with clear evidence) and sentenced to death. Now you have same amount of rights as cadaver on the table, but probably more uses while you still breathing.
      - ithkuil 7mo ago
        The problem is that I do understand you! I do feel exactly as you do! My lizard brain would like to do all sorts of horrible retaliations to those people who performed such abhorrent acts. I get it, it's natural. But I think that society should prevent this kind of basic instinctive response to become the way that we collectively handled those monstrosities, mainly because those punishments will be abused against innocent scapegoats.
        adrianwaj 7mo ago
crote 7mo ago
> I am not talking about generic inmates, who deserve all protection (“no cruel and unusual punishment”), I’m talking about people like ones from the website. Who did horrible stuff and were convicted to death for it. The most horrible people, some of whom were actually innocent? I understand your emotional desire to (indirectly) hurt them, but the fact is that we can never be 100% sure that they were fully guilty of the acts exactly as described and everyone else in the world was completely innocent. This means there is a nonzero chance of a miscarriage of justice, and you can't exactly un-execute someone. The only question remaining is: how many tortured and/or killed innocent warrant one monster not being harmed quite as much as your desire for revenge would like?

by galkk 7mo ago

ithkuil 7mo ago

I consider the risk of wrongful conviction to be an argument against the death penalty and for the very same reason I'm against performing any kind of inhuman treatment of them (which might be worse than death). Even if 95% would totally deserve it, I don't think we should just accept that on average 4 innocent people every year are just treated as subhumans just so we can unleash our wrath over those who did truly horrible things. Death is still a better option rather than being used as lab rat

galkk 7mo ago
There should be doubt. There should be due process. At the same time, I think that with the advancement of the tech (surveillance cameras everywhere, dna tests, the cell tower triangulation and/or mobile device location tracking) there are cases when the guilt can be established without any doubt, and the overall chance of wrongful conviction will drop down. Hell, have you read the website? One of those pieces of shit made his accomplice to video the murder on the phone.
- ithkuil 7mo ago
  I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those convicted are rightfully convicted. But paint me skeptical as to whether increased use of technology can actually improve the reliability of the proofs. Imagine a world where deep fakes are much better quality but our system hasn't yet caught up to take that into proper consideration etc. Serving for life is already a big deal as punishment goes. I'm just asking to not have experimental medical experiments on people. I'm not saying they should walk free
  - galkk 7mo ago
    I was thinking about deep fakes and tech advancements. Yes, that will add doubts etc. but you know what? There always will be ways. If somebody was convicted in 2015 most likely there weren’t any deep fakes. Let’s look at, let’s say, Apple and its tight control over entire hardware and software iPhone stack. Nothing prevents them to announce that starting from iPhone 19 they cryptographically sign the video to ensure that it’s authentic and, at least, the video and sound are what the camera saw. Pro cameras can do it, for Apple it’s even easier, more or less. I’m sure that even on this site there are experts who can design such system that is as secure as we expect from Apple devices. And that thing will slowly spread due to competitive pressures. —- Involuntarily drug testing was one of examples that I gave, and you seem to be against. To some it may be extreme, and I completely understand where you’re coming from. To me… as I said - for some examples from the side the murderers surely lost their human privilege. That comment summarized my feelings after reading the website in much more succinct form: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47302490#47305803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47302490#47305803 Killing 13 month infant, putting bleach on 20 yo gas station employee and setting her on fire, stranding female who was screaming for help during sa. Mate, if your kidney is compatible with someone who is in need, you made your choice way too long ago to have any right to say anything now. Or if there are other uses that will benefit society and humanity as a whole - they are allowed. You are guilty (without doubt and with clear evidence) and sentenced to death. Now you have same amount of rights as cadaver on the table, but probably more uses while you still breathing.
    - ithkuil 7mo ago
      The problem is that I do understand you! I do feel exactly as you do! My lizard brain would like to do all sorts of horrible retaliations to those people who performed such abhorrent acts. I get it, it's natural. But I think that society should prevent this kind of basic instinctive response to become the way that we collectively handled those monstrosities, mainly because those punishments will be abused against innocent scapegoats.
      - adrianwaj 7mo ago

crote 7mo ago

> I am not talking about generic inmates, who deserve all protection (“no cruel and unusual punishment”), I’m talking about people like ones from the website. Who did horrible stuff and were convicted to death for it. The most horrible people, some of whom were actually innocent? I understand your emotional desire to (indirectly) hurt them, but the fact is that we can never be 100% sure that they were fully guilty of the acts exactly as described and everyone else in the world was completely innocent. This means there is a nonzero chance of a miscarriage of justice, and you can't exactly un-execute someone. The only question remaining is: how many tortured and/or killed innocent warrant one monster not being harmed quite as much as your desire for revenge would like?