8 ms·
Nebraska Abolishes Death Penalty
- jdreaver 11y agoGood on them. I've seen way too many instances of people on death row that are eventually proved to be innocent. I think that even if the accuracy of death sentences was 99% (for every 99 criminals that truly did the crime, there is 1 that is innocent), that is unacceptably low. Furthermore, I am unconvinced that the death penalty actually deters crime. If you are committing a crime that results in you being sentenced to death, I don't think you are sane enough to have even considered the punishment.
- Inception 11y ago>>Furthermore, I am unconvinced that the death penalty actually deters crime. If you are committing a crime that results in you being sentenced to death, I don't think you are sane enough to have even considered the punishment. You would think that, but it turns out that isn't the case. [0][1] [0] - https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articl... [1] - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-de...
- tptacek 11y agoI'm not sure what either of these two sources are supposed to mean --- I mean, literally, I don't know which case you're trying to make (for or against deterrence). In any case: you can't reasonably make inferences about the effectiveness of the death penalty simply by counting murders in states that do or don't have it, since there are so many other factors influencing how many murders a state will record.
- Inception 11y agoI was trying to make the case against deterrence. You're right, it is hard to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness by looking at murder numbers alone. It seems most experts would argue against deterrence being effective though and I would agree. If you can't say for certain whether or not something such as the death penalty is effective, then I think it is best to error on the side of not killing people.
- jdreaver 11y agoBoth of your sources agree with my statement. I don't get your point.
- Inception 11y agoMy mistake...I initially read 'unconvinced' as 'convinced'
- qwerty853443246 11y agoI already linked to an academic study says there's a deterrence effect with the death penalty above. We should rely on empirical research, not links to websites that have agendas.
- tertius 11y agoIf you think abolishing all punishment that has a error rate in conviction of 1% is unacceptable then we're in for a lot of trouble... The argument that the death penalty is inhumane or against universal human rights it seems is a better angle to take.
- jdreaver 11y ago> abolishing all punishment I didn't say that. Killing someone is irreversible, so the error rate better be extremely low, or you just shouldn't do it. I understand that justice can't be perfect.
- tertius 11y ago5 years in prison is also irreversible. My point isn't that we shouldn't abolish the death penalty, rather that you should be able to apply your argument to all forms of punishment.
- learnstats2 11y agoPutting someone in prison for 5 years in error is also highly problematic, yes. The argument the parent is making applies to incarceration, but it applies more urgently to the death penalty. The parent already makes your point by (hypothetically) applying an percentage error rate that would be acceptable.
- learnstats2 11y ago> If you think abolishing all punishment that has a error rate in conviction of 1% is unacceptable then we're in for a lot of trouble... If the punishment, e.g. a fine, can be appropriately redressed, e.g. by paying it back (with compensation), then the error rate matters far less. You can't redress human life.
- dtf 11y agoDeath row stats: for every 9 people executed in the US, 1 person is exonerated. There was an exploration of these numbers on this BBC Radio 4 segment (not sure if available outside UK): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rf5qj http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rf5qj
- Florin_Andrei 11y agoIf only one, just ONE, innocent was put on the death row, that's one mistake too many. Irreversible punishment is the height of arrogance.
- baddox 11y agoAre other mistaken sentences, like life in prison, acceptable?
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Are other mistaken sentences, like life in prison, acceptable? Clearly, they are undesirable and, if detected, the remedies may be imperfect, but nowhere near as imperfect as the remedies for a mistaken death sentence once it has been executed.
- baddox 11y agoThen this argument against capital punishment isn't simply that mistaken application of capital punishment is bad, because all mistaken legal sentencing is bad.
- dragonwriter 11y agoNo, the argument against capital punishment is that its existences increases the harms resulting from mistaken legal sentencing without offering any concrete, demonstrable benefit to society to weigh against that increased harm. (While "any mistaken legal sentencing is bad" is perhaps part of the foundation on which that argument rests, it is not the whole, or even the important part, of the argument.)
- Florin_Andrei 11y agoNo mistaken sentences are "acceptable" in a naive sense. But a death sentence, after it's been executed, is 100% irreversible. A prison sentence is reversible in the sense that the individual could be released; sure, the time lost cannot be retrieved, but the individual is still alive.
- perfTerm 11y agoGood. The death penalty ensures a false incarceration can never be corrected, costs millions of tax payer dollars because of the long appeals processes, and shows no correlation with decreased crime rates (states with out the death penalty consistently have lower crime rates according to the FBI [0]) [0] - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-de...
- jwdunne 11y agoThe family of the criminal also suffers. If my child was a murderer, I would grieve. If my child was consequently executed I would grieve even more. That's an incredible amount of pain for something I didn't do. After it's said and done, my child would feel no pain. My pain would last forever. I would honestly want to commit suicide over my failure as a parent.
- Dylan16807 11y agoThere's also the opposite argument that it gives closure.
- jwdunne 11y agoAs a parent, there would be no closure in my child's death, no matter what they have done. I look at my 2 daughters and see the most beautiful girls I've ever laid eyes upon. For one of them to commit such a heinous crime would ruin me. For their death to be added on to that, life would mean nothing at all.
- swombat 11y agoI think the parent meant closure for the family and friends of the victim, not of the murderer.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
- k-mcgrady 11y agoWelcome to civilised society Nebraska! :) Good to see another state abolish this but as someone not too familiar with how the US law system works why is something like this decided at the state level? Shouldn't something like government sanctioned killing of humans be controlled at a federal level? Also does the federal government have a position on capital punishment?
- koenigdavidmj 11y agoCapital punishment still exists for federal crimes, which is why the Boston bomber was given the death penalty despite his offense occurring in Massachusetts, which doesn't have it at the state level. Also, federal law isn't simply a grab bag of "really important" laws, with states only existing to handle smaller, more trivial things. In theory, federal law is restricted to addressing the things enumerated in the Constitution. In practice, one of those is regulating interstate commerce, which since [1] has steadily increased in scope. Nonetheless, a federal law banning capital punishment would still need to be written with that in mind. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- dragonwriter 11y ago> In theory, federal law is restricted to addressing the things enumerated in the Constitution. [...] Nonetheless, a federal law banning capital punishment would still need to be written with that in mind. Considering 8th Amendment incorporation under the 14th Amendment and the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment, that shouldn't be too difficult, without even coming anywhere near the Commerce Clause.
- tptacek 11y agoSince SCOTUS has already held that capital punishment is not intrinsically "cruel and unusual", I'm not sure how the 8th Amendment gives the federal government the power to regulate state capital sentences. Meanwhile: if capital punishment ever is held to be "cruel and unusual", no federal legislative action will be needed to abolish it; SCOTUS will do it by fiat.
- bpodgursky 11y agoGoing to be contrarian here. I see in other comments > costs millions of tax payer dollars because of the long appeals processes Well... yes, but the alternative is that you throw someone in prison for life (likely without parole). And since there is no upcoming "event" to force an appeals process (aka execution), it will just never happen. Is that really a better fate for someone wrongfully accused? If you are sentencing them to life in a cage, be honest and call it a death penalty. So sure you can save some money by getting rid of the death penalty, but it is not likely to make Justice any better served, it will just make you feel better and leave people in prison forever without a guaranteed appeals process.
- Karunamon 11y agoit will just never happen Interested third parties (say, the Innocence Project[1]) have gotten these cases overturned in the past. In any case, this chance existing is still better than the state executing its citizens. [1]: http://www.innocenceproject.org http://www.innocenceproject.org
- yummyfajitas 11y agoBut now we get to pretend that we don't have hundreds of thousands of people rotting away in jail for crimes they didn't commit. Some years back I pointed out that the percentage of people exonerated for capital crimes is > 2x the number of people exonerated for life imprisonment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3025718#up_3026567 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3025718#up_3026567 Having that moment of execution seems to force us to check for errors in a way that life imprisonment doesn't.
- tptacek 11y agoThat would be reassuring if it wasn't so likely that we've executed innocent people within the last few decades.
- dragonwriter 11y agoThe recent revelations about the FBI and fiber analysis [0] are particularly disturbing in that regard. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hair-mass-disaster-false-conviction http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hair...
- bklaasen 11y agoI've never understood the logic of a state killing its citizens in order to show that killing is unacceptable.
- LordKano 11y agoDo you understand the logic of the state seizing people and locking them up in order to show that seizing people and locking them up is unacceptable? That's what we do to kidnappers.
- bklaasen 11y agoRight, and there's no qualitative difference between killing someone and locking them up. You've convinced me that I'm wrong.
- koenigdavidmj 11y agoYour argument against capital punishment was that the role of an actor was irrelevant to the morality of the action. It's entirely correct to apply that logic to other types of action. There may be plenty of valid arguments against capital punishment. Yours was not one of them.
- bklaasen 11y ago> the role of an actor [is] irrelevant to the morality of the action [carried out by the state] That's precisely what I'm saying. You disagree, but that does not render my argument invalid.
- koenigdavidmj 11y agoThen we're back to the beginning. Here is a syllogism that you just said you agree with: 1. An action is immoral without regard to the actor. 2. Killing is immoral for a regular joe on the street. 3. Therefore, killing is immoral for the government. However, you don't seem as comfortable with: 1. An action is immoral without regard to the actor. 2. Demanding someone's money by force (e.g mugging) is immoral. 3. Therefore, it is immoral for the government to issue a fine. Or this one: 1. An action is immoral without regard to the actor. 2. Kidnapping someone and holding them for years is immoral for a regular joe. 3. Therefore, imprisonment is immoral for the government. You could also remain consistent by saying that armed robbery and kidnapping are moral. It's up to you. EDIT: Typo and punctuation.
- tptacek 11y agoIntelligence Squared had a pretty good debate on capital punishment a few weeks ago: http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/1254-abolish-the-death-penalty http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/1...