> Why not just let any depressed person commit suicide efficiently so they're not around bringing us down!

Criminals who would get life sentences are an order of magnitude different than average person who attempts suicide. They are net negative in almost all cases. if person A kills person B and C, the society will end up net negative no matter how you spin it. They destroyed many families, decreased economical output of the state, caused moral panic, and health issues among public on top of forcing people who took the most damage to pay for their prisons.

Additionally, I am not opposed to improved assistive suicide laws allowing for more use cases with focus on preventive measures.

> yeah, so when it turns out that a poor person who was innocent opted for death to give his starving family some money (remember, we're talking about America here) what's the clever response going to be then

A judge would be responsible for the final decision on matters related to money. We could simply remove giving money to the family but introduce it back into budget at the end of the day. Specifics of policy can be changed but for me, the most important question is whether society gains more or loose more in either scenario.

I don't believe letting a person rot in prison for life is better than giving them more options to choose from. I would definitely pick up death sentence if I were in that position. Many people would if given the choice.

I think that in an aspirational justice system, where you truly believe that justice is equally meted out and verdicts are consistent. Maybe there are arguments to be heard. Even if you assume 1/1000 will be falsely convicted, if the distribution of that false conviction is fair... maybe.

When you know, not think, know that your criminal justice system is biased and flawed in a myriad of ways - it just feels like a bad foundation to be absolutist upon

> if person A kills person B and C, the society will end up net negative no matter how you spin it.

Well, person B and C could be worse than person A.

> so when it turns out that a poor person who was innocent opted for death to give his starving family some money (remember, we're talking about America here)

America, where the poor people are... much richer than anywhere else in the world?

> what's the clever response going to be then?

What was the response when we saw a spike in deaths right before the inheritance tax came back into effect?

>America, where the poor people are... much richer than anywhere else in the world?

I've been poor in America and poor in Denmark.

You are definitely misinformed on this matter.

Well, I can't say much for the tone of the piece, but compare https://fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20-of-americans-are-ric... .

Yikes. This heavily slanted article is tailor made to suit the worldview of the "smug Young Republican" set.

>>The OECD data is particularly flawed because it is based on “income,” which excludes a host of non-cash government benefits and private charity that are abundant in the United States. Examples include but are not limited to:

- Health care provided by Medicaid, free clinics, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program

- Nourishment provided by food stamps, school lunches, school breakfasts, soup kitchens, food pantries, and the Women’s, Infants’ & Children’s program

-Housing and amenities provided through rent subsidies, utility assistance, and homeless shelters

Yes, of course, because no European nation provides these. What an idiotic article.

> Yes, of course, because no European nation provides these. What an idiotic article.

The finding is that average consumption for the bottom 20% of US households exceeds average consumption for the bottom 100% of e.g. Spanish households.

This is a comparison that automatically includes welfare benefits provided on both sides. What do you think is getting left out?

So now it's poor people in America are richer than some poor people in some nations? That seems like a more reasonable assertion, albeit much less meaningful.