If a child killer is duly convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt, then that is the fitting end. Full stop. It's not murder, it's justice. I'm rather sick of how soft the West has gotten in dealing with serious crimes. You murder someone, especially an innocent child, you have broken the social compact and you deserve to be removed from society permanently. Tax payers should not be spending their hard-earned money keeping the evil murderers alive.
> Tax payers should not be spending their hard-earned money keeping the evil murderers alive.
The problem is the justice system is run by human beings and is subject to error and corruption. Convictions can and have been wrong. If the evidence is not 100%-confirmed-not-fake video showing the act, then there is always the possibility someone has lied or been paid off.
So I definitely think if we have to have the death penalty, the decade or longer that often passes by until it's actually administered is a really good idea. We should be 100% sure the best we can before we commit irreversible actions. If the state/taxpayer can't afford to do this then it can't afford to pursue justice.
Your emotional response and generalization about "the West", while justified in the case of actual child killers, is a weakness, because it contributes to moral panics that end up diluting rights and justice, rather than the opposite.
>You murder someone... you deserve to be removed from society permanently
I disagree, if only in the sense that I may consider some killings that meet the legal definition of murder to not deserve permanent removal from society.
>You murder [an innocent child]... you deserve to be removed from society permanently
I agree, but, barring practical constraints, killing isn't the only way to do that. It is, unfortunately, the easiest, as well as the most gratifying to many people's sense of bloodlust in regards to people they hate who perhaps are not as evil as child murderers, or perhaps have been wrongly or disproportionately convicted. I think there is a dramatic problem where, more and more, people want to use emotions to dictate laws. If somebody hurt my child badly enough, I'd want them dead - and not just in the heat of the moment. But I'd consider it dystopic to enshrine my pain and emotional need for revenge into law.
>Tax payers should not be spending their hard-earned money keeping the evil murderers alive.
I agree, but I think this problem is one entire tier of gravity down from the decision of whether or not to institutionalize the killing of citizens, and does not have a place in the moral question, which is the interesting and relevant one.
>Full stop.
You're immediately broadcasting an unwillingness to engage and discuss, which I think is antithetical to the spirit of HN.
> If a child killer is duly convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt,
I.e. never. Even if killing someone in cold blood for selfish and primitive reasons somehow wasn't murder when the state does it, only killing those who "deserve" it is simply not possible.
> I'm rather sick of how soft the West has gotten in dealing with serious crimes.
I'm sick of how soft the West still is in dealing with people who advocate murder. You should be removed from society. It's not vengeance (what you think is "justice"), it's self defence. Only until you can be resocialized, of course. Because for civilized people, that's the purpose of punishments.
Killing their murderers won't bring those children back. It won't protect anyone either, the death penalty doesn't deter people any more than life sentences do. Nor is someone locked up for life more able to commit crimes than someone dead. Unless of course they do get released because they were wrongfully convicted. Saving money could be a reason for the death penalty but it actually doesn't do that and killing someone because it's cheap is a monstrous idea anyway.
The only reason for the death penalty is to satisfy peoples' primitive bloodlust. Likely by murdering mentally ill people. Sane people rarely murder others or, for that matter, cheer those who do.
That's why they've been chosen first. So people won't say "wtf, but instead say 'good riddance'". That gets people over the shock of the state beginning to execute people again, and will make the road to broader applications of the death penalty easier.
The new protocol replaces the controversial three-drug lethal injection combination with the method that Texas has had since 2012 — using only pentobarbital, a sedative. Texas purchases the drug from compounding pharmacies kept secret from the public, where drugs are mixed without federal regulation. The state has used pentobarbital in 79 executions.
It's difficult to get a hold of pentobarbital, which makes me think these federal executions are going to be delayed.
It's been a while since I attempted to seek evidence on this, but:
1. Does anyone know if there are statistics on how executions help victims' families/friends? eg. Does it result in lower depression, anxiety, PTSD, etc. rates?
2. Does anyone know if there are statistics on how executions help crime rates?
Or alternatively:
3. Do we have statistics that highlight any proven benefit to executions as punishment?
> Results from least squares and negative binomial estimations indicate that capital punishment does deter: each execution results in, on average, three fewer murders. In addition, capital punishment deters murders previously believed to be undeterrable: crimes of passion and murders by intimates. Moreover, murders of both African‐American and white victims decrease after executions, which suggests that capital punishment benefits people of all races. However, longer waits on death row before execution lessen the deterrence. Specifically, one less murder is committed for every 2.75‐year reduction in death row waits. Thus, recent legislation to shorten the wait should strengthen capital punishment's deterrent effect.
I'm opposed to the death penalty for a number of reasons, one is as stated in the article: the discrepancies in our criminal justice system make it so that black folks are disproportionately executed.
Secondly, this subtlety shows how much power prosecutors have in our criminal justice system. In the past few years many prosecutors have sought out the death penalty knowing full well that the DOJ put a moratorium on executions -- one has to wonder how many prosecutors would continue forward if an execution was guaranteed to occur.
Woah. It's hard to talk politics here but this is hard to read. Unsure if this is allowed, but tough to read how apparently it's a single person, William Barr, who's asking for people to be killed. Secondly, the people they choose to kill first "is a member of a white supremacist group", with the straight up goal of not allowing people to play the race card in debating this. Oof.
Typing that up it really makes me feel like this link shouldn't be posted here on HN. Even though the people leaving comments are are much more relatable and better than other online boards, it seems more fitting to be talked about in another place.
Inert gas asphyxiation seems, to me, like the ideal option for capital punishment. Probably nitrogen gas. It requires no medical training to administer, is commonly available, causes loss of consciousness and death quickly, and does not cause unduly distressing physiological symptoms.
I often wonder what is causing us to have such a hard time killing people without pain or distress or the perception of cruelty (as much as that's possible when killing a person). Why aren't prisoners put to sleep with gas and then killed as cheaply (and non-gruesomely) as possible thereafter?
I‘m not sure such a controversial topic should be on here.
Given that people are being killed for a broken tail light or because they encountered the wrong cop at the wrong time, the death penalty is just the logical conclusion in a culture that values the right to kill more than the right to live.
From my european perspective, capital punishment is such a weird idea. Never I have came across strong evidence for a deterrent effect. And if you just quickly look at the Wikipedia article [1], it looks like it's really difficult to say whether it actually results in a more peaceful society or not (I mean Japan uses it extensively).
To me, it looks like something that has more to do with a country's culture than with actual scientific studies arguing for or against.
Full disclosure : I think we're better without capital punishment where I live. If only because it's easier to "fix" a mistrial when the convict is not dead meat.
But also because I think it's to powerful a tool for an autoritarian leader that would get elected and could use it right away. That does not mean that such a leader could not reinstate it in a country that does not have capital punishment anymore, but that would take more time and maybe some people could use this time to realize what kind of leader this person is.
Well that's my two cents. It is only my opinion, I'm not trying to offend or convince anyone else. And I don't presume any moral high ground for my point of view or anything. Just saying how I see this subject having been raised in a country that dropped death penalty since before I was born, is all.
(Trying to be extra careful here since it's a sensitive subject and the USA is not my country and English is not my mother tongue. Sorry if I offended someone).
21 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 51.2 ms ] threadThe problem is the justice system is run by human beings and is subject to error and corruption. Convictions can and have been wrong. If the evidence is not 100%-confirmed-not-fake video showing the act, then there is always the possibility someone has lied or been paid off.
So I definitely think if we have to have the death penalty, the decade or longer that often passes by until it's actually administered is a really good idea. We should be 100% sure the best we can before we commit irreversible actions. If the state/taxpayer can't afford to do this then it can't afford to pursue justice.
Your emotional response and generalization about "the West", while justified in the case of actual child killers, is a weakness, because it contributes to moral panics that end up diluting rights and justice, rather than the opposite.
I disagree, if only in the sense that I may consider some killings that meet the legal definition of murder to not deserve permanent removal from society.
>You murder [an innocent child]... you deserve to be removed from society permanently
I agree, but, barring practical constraints, killing isn't the only way to do that. It is, unfortunately, the easiest, as well as the most gratifying to many people's sense of bloodlust in regards to people they hate who perhaps are not as evil as child murderers, or perhaps have been wrongly or disproportionately convicted. I think there is a dramatic problem where, more and more, people want to use emotions to dictate laws. If somebody hurt my child badly enough, I'd want them dead - and not just in the heat of the moment. But I'd consider it dystopic to enshrine my pain and emotional need for revenge into law.
>Tax payers should not be spending their hard-earned money keeping the evil murderers alive.
I agree, but I think this problem is one entire tier of gravity down from the decision of whether or not to institutionalize the killing of citizens, and does not have a place in the moral question, which is the interesting and relevant one.
>Full stop.
You're immediately broadcasting an unwillingness to engage and discuss, which I think is antithetical to the spirit of HN.
I.e. never. Even if killing someone in cold blood for selfish and primitive reasons somehow wasn't murder when the state does it, only killing those who "deserve" it is simply not possible.
> I'm rather sick of how soft the West has gotten in dealing with serious crimes.
I'm sick of how soft the West still is in dealing with people who advocate murder. You should be removed from society. It's not vengeance (what you think is "justice"), it's self defence. Only until you can be resocialized, of course. Because for civilized people, that's the purpose of punishments.
The only reason for the death penalty is to satisfy peoples' primitive bloodlust. Likely by murdering mentally ill people. Sane people rarely murder others or, for that matter, cheer those who do.
The new protocol replaces the controversial three-drug lethal injection combination with the method that Texas has had since 2012 — using only pentobarbital, a sedative. Texas purchases the drug from compounding pharmacies kept secret from the public, where drugs are mixed without federal regulation. The state has used pentobarbital in 79 executions.
It's difficult to get a hold of pentobarbital, which makes me think these federal executions are going to be delayed.
1. Does anyone know if there are statistics on how executions help victims' families/friends? eg. Does it result in lower depression, anxiety, PTSD, etc. rates?
2. Does anyone know if there are statistics on how executions help crime rates?
Or alternatively:
3. Do we have statistics that highlight any proven benefit to executions as punishment?
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/421571
> Results from least squares and negative binomial estimations indicate that capital punishment does deter: each execution results in, on average, three fewer murders. In addition, capital punishment deters murders previously believed to be undeterrable: crimes of passion and murders by intimates. Moreover, murders of both African‐American and white victims decrease after executions, which suggests that capital punishment benefits people of all races. However, longer waits on death row before execution lessen the deterrence. Specifically, one less murder is committed for every 2.75‐year reduction in death row waits. Thus, recent legislation to shorten the wait should strengthen capital punishment's deterrent effect.
Secondly, this subtlety shows how much power prosecutors have in our criminal justice system. In the past few years many prosecutors have sought out the death penalty knowing full well that the DOJ put a moratorium on executions -- one has to wonder how many prosecutors would continue forward if an execution was guaranteed to occur.
Typing that up it really makes me feel like this link shouldn't be posted here on HN. Even though the people leaving comments are are much more relatable and better than other online boards, it seems more fitting to be talked about in another place.
Given that people are being killed for a broken tail light or because they encountered the wrong cop at the wrong time, the death penalty is just the logical conclusion in a culture that values the right to kill more than the right to live.
To me, it looks like something that has more to do with a country's culture than with actual scientific studies arguing for or against.
Full disclosure : I think we're better without capital punishment where I live. If only because it's easier to "fix" a mistrial when the convict is not dead meat.
But also because I think it's to powerful a tool for an autoritarian leader that would get elected and could use it right away. That does not mean that such a leader could not reinstate it in a country that does not have capital punishment anymore, but that would take more time and maybe some people could use this time to realize what kind of leader this person is.
Well that's my two cents. It is only my opinion, I'm not trying to offend or convince anyone else. And I don't presume any moral high ground for my point of view or anything. Just saying how I see this subject having been raised in a country that dropped death penalty since before I was born, is all.
(Trying to be extra careful here since it's a sensitive subject and the USA is not my country and English is not my mother tongue. Sorry if I offended someone).
[1]Capital punishment by country : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country