Thread

1. tombert · 1790831351 · focus · HN ↗

   Oh yeah, I read about this.

   I'm pretty against capital punishment in general, so take that for what it is, but executing someone for something they did when they were eighteen really bothers me.

   I've never been a violent person but I do know that I was even more of an idiot then than I am now.

   1. sippingabonedry · 1790831581 · focus · HN ↗

      > for something they did when they were eighteen really bothers me

      She lured a classmate into the woods, slit her throat with a box cutter after torturing her for half an hour, bashed her skull open with a rock for good measure, then brought a piece of her skull to school the next day.

      > I was even more of an idiot then than I am now

      Do you think the above should be chalked up as normal childhood indiscretion?

      1. tombert · 1790832165 · focus · HN ↗

         > Do you think the above should be chalked up as normal childhood indiscretion?

         I didn't say there shouldn't be consequences. I just think that executing someone who committed a crime when they were effectively a child is kind of upsetting. I do not see how you extrapolated that I think it's "normal childhood indiscretion" out of what I said.

         1. sippingabonedry · 1790832464 · focus · HN ↗

            I interpreted it as an implication that it should be viewed as a lesser crime due to the perpetrator's age. At 18 you can:

            • Vote

            • Fight in the military

            • Act in pornography

            • Rent a car in MI, NY, QC

            • Many other adult things

            The crime perpetrated was premeditated and particularly demonic. It's a far cry from shoplifting a Snickers bar.

            > is kind of upsetting

            Bringing a chunk of the victim's skull to school to show your friends how good you are at murdering was probably pretty upsetting to a few people, like the victim's family and friends.

            1. jrflowers · 1790833192 · focus · HN ↗

               Execution is a weird thing for a civilized society to do and the bizarre people that fetishize it say weird shit like “It makes sense to murder somebody if they made other people upset” to avoid talking about how it doesn’t solve any problems that aren’t already solved by life imprisonment. The justification for execution is always “I want the state to kill people because I enjoy that sort of thing”

               1. eudamoniac · 1790866836 · focus · HN ↗

                  Society does not have an obligation to house and feed such people for decades on end. I'd rather they be killed because it should be much cheaper; whether it actually is or not by some aberration of dumb policy is not relevant to the philosophy. They are the enemy of society and are owed absolutely nothing but swift death, not room and board.

                  1. tombert · 1790868904 · focus · HN ↗

                     It’s not cheaper, and it really can’t or shouldn’t be.

                     In the US you have a right to appeal your sentence, which is a good thing. If the government is going to be killing people, we want to (at the very least) make sure they have dotted every “i” and crossed every “t”. You have to pay someone to read these appeals, typically an attorney or multiple attorneys and/or a judge. There can be a backlog so it can take awhile to get through all of them.

                     This is inherent to how capital punishment works in the US, and anything less would be borderline tyranny, so I reject your framing of it as “aberration or some dumb policy”.

                     1. eudamoniac · 1790869682 · focus · HN ↗

                        Well I reject your framing of it being impossible. If it is cheaper to house and feed a man for sixty years than it is to kill him, that is a policy decision, not a law of the universe. Other respectable countries manage to achieve this.

                        1. EMIRELADERO · 1790870539 · focus · HN ↗

                           Those policies are there to make sure all possible appeals can go through. And can you believe even then it's not enough to stop all executions of innocents?

                           At the end of the day, the death penalty's only possible justification is retribution. It does not deter crime and incapacitation of the criminal can already be achieved by locking them up. Your logic presupposes that "an eye for an eye" is a legitimate philosophy for a modern State to hold, which is reprehensible.

                           1. eudamoniac · 1790870906 · focus · HN ↗

                              The philosophy of a state should be that which engenders the greatest wellbeing among its citizens. People largely feel a greater trust in the state and a greater sense of justice and peace of mind when heinous criminals are killed. Ivory tower philosophizing at the cost of social unity is not so great. Some innocents will die; we accept worse consequences for smaller gains. There have only been ~140 people in the history of the death penalty who have been exonerated from appeal. 140 people die in war every day for less worthy ends.

                              1. EMIRELADERO · 1790871130 · focus · HN ↗

                                 How do you explain the Nordic countries and Western Europe generally, where retribution has been explicitly rejected as a principle in the criminal justice system? Moreover, how would eliminating the death penalty endanger social unity?

                                 1. eudamoniac · 1790871198 · focus · HN ↗

                                    1. Cultural homogeneity; 2. When heinous criminals get to live out their days, people feel that justice is not being done, breeding vigilantes and unrest. Especially when they get released early, but even if they are never released.

                                    1. tombert · 1790871629 · focus · HN ↗

                                       Sorry, is there any evidence for point 2 or is this just vibes? Violent crime is significantly lower in these countries than the US.

                                       There are a billion potential reasons for this, but it doesn’t appear to be that people have started dawning costumes and LARPing as the Punisher in large numbers.

                                       1. eudamoniac · 1790872134 · focus · HN ↗

                                          Evidence for "When heinous criminals get to live out their days, people feel that justice is not being done" is the history of any society prior to 1800 and basic human nature? I don't know, read history and literature and philosophy of the premodern age, or I guess you could call it vibes sure. I believe it to be true and find it self evident.

                                          1. tombert · 1790874496 · focus · HN ↗

                                             It is decidedly not self evident given that it is directly contradicted by statistical evidence. Again, violent crime in most European countries is significantly lower than the United States. I would agree that there are lots of reasons for it but it certainly doesn’t appear that the lack of capital punishment is causing massive spikes in crime.

                                             1. jrflowers · 1790896660 · focus · HN ↗

                                                Eudamoniac is pretty clear that this is entirely about their feelings. When the state murders somebody it feels good and when it doesn’t murder people it feels bad.

                                                > society needs to feel that the state executes justice

                                                > People largely feel a greater trust in the state and a greater sense of justice and peace of mind when heinous criminals are killed

                                                > people feel that justice is not being done

                                                (and again)

                                                > people feel that justice is not being done

                                                They’re not going to give anybody a rational argument here because

                                                > I guess you could call it vibes sure

                                                It’s like asking somebody to justify why they’re really into ABDL stuff. The important part is that they just are, and won’t be talked out of it.

                                                1. eudamoniac · 1790899240 · focus · HN ↗

                                                   Correct. The value judgements (feelings) of the demos should be reflected in the policies that the democracy enacts and is governed by. That's part of what a government of and by the people means. Governing by any other system, like utilitarianism, or arbitrary moral principles like 'killing criminals is wrong' that the majority of constituents don't hold, needs heavy justification, and may not be justifiable in a democracy. If you'd prefer an oligarchy or monarchy wherein someone can impose their own minority value system on the people, even if that system objectively results in 'better outcomes' whatever that means to you, that's fine, but just be honest about it.

                                                   In brief, it doesn't matter what "is best" in some utilitarian framework if the democracy is not attuned to that framework. It doesn't matter if the death penalty actually increases crime. What matters is that the government should be doing what the people want it to be doing. If the people really want to kill criminals, any system that prevents that is non-democratic.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.