What a weird viewpoint, there's this thing called justice. Think if your daughter/son/mom/dad got slaughtered, do you think the pain would be less acute even two decades later?

We can debate capital punishment, of course, but calling it pointless frankly misses the point.

> there's this thing called justice

In pursuit of justice, we sometimes tip over into revenge.

Given the fact that we've sent innocent people to their executions, I'm uncomfortable labeling it justice.

The implementation of the death penalty itself is vengeful and barbaric.

Accidents in enclosed spaces lacking oxygen provide plenty of prior art for killing a human without panic nor suffering. I believe certain drugs such as morphine in high enough doses would also induce death with minimal pain.

Yet the state-sponsored murderers still use barbaric methods. Even in states where the "gas chamber" is a thing, cyanide is used instead of inert gases such as nitrogen, despite the latter surely being cheaper, easier to procure and safer to handle for the murderers and the rest of prison staff.

I don't agree or disagree with what you're saying, but isn't this the point of a "jury of your peers"? To exact a punishment befitting the crime?

That's the idea. The actual practice of it has never been near perfect.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/us/02jury.html

> In North Carolina, at least 26 current death row defendants were sentenced by all-white juries. In South Carolina, a prosecutor said he struck a black potential juror because he “shucked and jived” when he walked.

There are other selection biases at play; any of those peers who oppose the death penalty are struck from the jury as a matter of course.

Note, jury doesn’t necessarily decide sentencing. Just guilt or lack thereof.

If you mention you know about jury nullification you’re going to get dismissed as a juror.

There are 3 aspects to criminal justice:

- special prevention

- general prevention (=deterrence)

- revenge

I understand it to be:

- retribution (revenge)

- deterrence

- rehabilitation

- incapacitation (they can't re-offend if they're in prison or dead)

In these sort of discussions about justice online, the first is often cast as illegitimate, the second as impossible, the third as the gold standard, and the fourth is frequently ignored completely.

Few people ever defend retribution, so I will here. Many people who are victims of crimes have a desire to see retribution done. If the government does not play at least some lip service to the desire for retribution, then more people will take it into their own hands. They'll seek vigilante justice. Vigilante justice is dangerous to society because it's often capricious and disproportionate. It is better for governments to sate the desire for retribution using official processes which can be checked with safeguards, such as trials.

> If the government does not play at least some lip service to the desire for retribution, then more people will take it into their own hands. They'll seek vigilante justice.

If that were the case, we'd see significantly higher amounts of "vigilante justice" in countries that have abolished the death penalty, right?

I think "vigilante justice" is more often than not "vigilante policing", when people believe criminals aren't being sufficiently investigated and arrested, not when people believe criminals aren't being sufficiently executed

The intensity of desire for retribution depends on the cultural context. In any case, you're conflating retribution with the death penalty, but these are not synonymous. Imprisonment is a form of retribution too, as are fines, caning, etc. Any punishment that is unpleasant has an element of retribution.

> we'd see significantly higher amounts of "vigilante justice" in countries that have abolished the death penalty, right?

No. The death penalty is not the only way to satisfy this nature.

+1 for retribution and social benefits mentioned. Should be obvious. People don't watch enough gangster movies. Or, hell, visit one of the regions of the globe with blood feuds. Not great.

The opening scene of The Godfather is about this. An otherwise law abiding man, let down by the criminal justice system, asking the mob boss to deliver vigilante justice.

You forgot one: rehabilitation, or correction

Recidivism

Presuming that the only option for "justice" must be a death for a death also misses the point.

Can’t be that weird considering that the vast majority of the first world doesn’t partake in the death penalty. Perhaps you are the one with a strange take on justice.

> There is no justice in this world. No single punishment can correct an injustice, because what is past cannot be changed, and those to whom injustice was done remain with their loss. But even if justice were attained in some other world, for what was lost in this one, if in some other world those who had been injured had returned to them what they had lost here, that is not a return of their life’s fulfillment; it is only consolation. What is lost at a certain moment can never again be compensated, because what is lost was needed at the moment it disappeared.

Goce Smilevski

> Think if your daughter/son/mom/dad got slaughtered, do you think the pain would be less acute even two decades later?

Yeah it would definitely be less acute, still there every day, but less acute. Like most trauma.

Would killing the murderer in 2021 make me feel any better? To that question the answer is without a doubt "no".

And honestly if your answer to this is yes, you’re in need of deep help.

This is silly. It’s fine to disagree, but millions (billions?) of healthy, morally ordinary people support the death penalty.

They might of course be wrong, in some sense, but they don’t “need help,” for crying out loud.

Yes. They do. If you support the death penalty then you’re probably in need of therapy to figure out some deep traumas.

You ever heard the proverb "revenge is a dish best served cold"?

I'm sure you'll get a few cheap virtue points for your rhetoric but the reality of the society we live in seems to contradict your opinion.

And for the record (which is really just a fancy way of saying "if I don't say this some jerk will come along and imply otherwise) I am against the death penalty because I think the risk of executing an innocent person is too great.

> Yeah it would definitely be less acute, still there every day, but less acute. Like most trauma.

I hope you realize you are co-opting someone's pain for your own political or ethical brownie points. A lot of people are completely happy watching their child's murderer/rapist be punished via the death penalty.

You're just trivializing an incredibly complex moral conundrum.

You're just "trivializing an incredibly complex moral conundrum" -- by stating someone is "co-opting someone's pain for your own political or ethical brownie points" for having an opposing view point on " an incredibly complex moral conundrum."

Given the rest of what you have written in this thread, your idea of justice comes off as being based in a punitive approach, and it shouldn't be surprising not everyone agrees with that.

I get the feeling you're projecting a bit? "co-opting someone's pain" means using someone's (inferred) pain to justify something you believe in.

Are you seriously arguing that the pain of someone's child being raped & murdered is inferred? Talk about the onus being on you to prove that. Your argument form is something like "if I chop your arm off, your pain is inferred" -- like, uh, guy, we all know it would hurt, it's not inferred.

Didn't you start this whole argument by doing just that and trying to coopt the pain of a victims family to try and prove a argumentive point?

How is it different when you did it?

Nope, because the default, prima facia, position is that killing people is bad and causes pain and requires some kind of response. That's why arguing against the death penalty is actually quite hard. Especially when faced with incontrovertible evidence (video/confessions/etc.).

Life in prison isn't a response?

Re: the edit, calling confessions "incontrovertible" is... unsupported. https://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvict...

> Life in prison isn't a response?

It is. Some people argue that it's actually a more harsh punishment than death, though. A lot of rich literature here.

> calling confessions "incontrovertible"

You're missing the forest for the trees, my point was "assuming guilt by default... blah blah." I know confessions aren't technically always reliable.

> killing people is bad

> arguing against the death penalty is actually quite hard

Almost in the same sentence too

You do realize there's a difference between the state killing as a punishment and an individual killing for sport, right? These are two different categories. To wit, it's obvious I was referring to the latter.

There's actually more categories as well: killing in a war as a combatant, euthanasia, abortion, and so on.

>and an individual killing for sport,

What about individuals killing as a punishment? That's a lot more common than organized recreational killings.

False confessions are a lot more common than you seem to think; a confession is hardly "incontrovertible". Confessions aren't an exception either, many forms of evidence are less reliable than many think or wish.

You didn't actually answer my question. You started by co-opting someones pain for your argument, asked us to put ourselves in their position and then told us we were wrong for doing exactly what you asked and did.

And if your default argument is that killing people is wrong then how is the state executing someone better and in favor of the death penalty? Your arguments make no sense.

> We can debate capital punishment, of course, but calling it pointless frankly misses the point.

They're in the process of debating capital punishment. They didn't miss the point.

Capital punishment itself is a whole can of worm to discuss on a forum. But wouldn't killing inmate exactly be pointless for someone aruging for abolishing capital punishment ? That seems to be the core of the philosophy to me.

Now think of your father getting sent to jail and executed for a crime he didn't commit. You're saying that's a worthwhile risk in the pursuit of justice?

Do you think the pain would be less acute after the killer was killed 22 years later?

And there is reason why we don't let justice be dispensed by the victim.

> As always, getting hardcore downvoted by HN programmers thinking they know ethics without reading a shred of the literature, so I'll stop responding.

How on earth did you graduate philosophy thinking there's a settled, correct answer on this subject?

Don't even try to reason with HN downvoters. They're not interested in your reasons.

There’s a very good reason we don’t put people with this mindset in charge of justice.

Hopefully you’ll learn that someday.

He said killing, no imprisoning.

From Wikipedia:

Jones experienced 'brutal conditions' during his childhood, suffering neglect by his parents, sexual assault by his siblings, and extreme poverty.[7][4][8] His mother threatened him with a gun, and when he was seven years old his older siblings forced him to have sex with his stepsister.[8] He shot himself twice, once in the hand to placate gang members and later in the chest in a suicide attempt. He became addicted to drugs by his early teens

Yes, contrast this with the bloodlust of The People. We are no so far aware from crucifixions, torture and the brutal death sentences in the circuses.

What this awful species, ad populum, calls justice is little more than a boderline erotic enjoyment of the torture of those "who deserve it".

The problem is that people struggle with non-binary thinking.

It is not only possible, but probable that this person who has suffered so much is also broken and anti-social person.

Hey don't blame the species!

There’s something very odd to me about the modern progressive position that, more or less, if you can explain a crime, then you can in some sense excuse it.

That description of his childhood works for me in sociological terms — let’s avoid stuff that we know to create monsters — but not on individual ones (i.e. the monster, having been created, is indeed a monster).

The question is, do you blame the monster for being a monster? Or do you blame the people that made them one?

There are valid points both ways. IMO I think the idea is that if you can explain the crime then maybe the monster was created by society and thus can be redeemed by society. If you can't explain the crime, maybe the monster is just a monster.

>IMO I think the idea is that if you can explain the crime then maybe the monster was created by society and thus can be redeemed by society.

I think that might be the thought process, but I do not think it is very accurate. Some damage simply cant be undone, especially early childhood trauma and developmental damage.

Similarly, blame isn't binary, both can be true. If we have dispensed with the concept of free will, then nothing is to blame, neither society or the individual. It simply is.

Once you reach that point you have to ask, what is it, independent of the assignment of blame.

Are they a monster? Did they brutally murder 3 people?

As a materialist and a determinist I accept implicitly that everything has a cause and nobody is really responsible for anything, in some sense. But I find it’s pretty hard to actually live as though that’s true.

Taken to its logical conclusions: I’m not even responsible for my belief that he’s responsible, and so on.

My response to this materialist argument is that it essentially goes full circle.

Once everyone has no responsibility, you are just left with what are they and what did they do. Did they act like monster, independent of the upstream causality?

I try to apply the same logic to myself when I get into a deterministic ego trip.

The question of if I can choose to go the gym today is irrelevant. The relevant question is do I think I am a dedicated person who will go to the gym today. If I am are kind, loving, and charitable myself, I find that the answer is "Yes, S1artibartfast is the kind of hard working person who would go to the gym".

It’s funny you say this, because it’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot recently. If you take the materialist position to its logical conclusion, then, in my view, instead of being exculpatory, you arrive back at an essentialist position.

Exactly my conclusion as well.

The interesting and challenging aspect of the essentialist position is understanding and believing in change. Past performance is not guarantee of future performance, even for the material determinist, as the world is not static.

Maybe you have never been to the gym, but today could be the first day. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what induced the change, but if you will fight it. In this way, I think that determinism is best paired with a optimistic and charitable perspective.

Most people have good intentions. I think that usually the biggest difference between those who act them out and those who don't is their essential optimism or pessimism. To that end, I try to encourage more optimism.

>There’s something very odd to me about the modern progressive position that, more or less, if you can explain a crime, then you can in some sense excuse it.

I'm not following here. Who, specifically, is claiming that those who commit crimes shouldn't be held accountable (prosecuted, incarcerated, etc.) for those crimes because they had a rough childhood/suffered abuse/etc? Please do name names.

As a mild example, just as being drunk is a reason for being obnoxious/nasty, it's not an excuse.

As a person who is somewhat to the left of what other Americans call "progressives," (who are center/leaning center-left), I don't think that understanding something makes everything okay or that crimes should be ignored because of negative stuff in the perpetrator's past. In fact, I've never heard anyone make such a claim.

Many folks (at least in the US, and I'm sure elsewhere too) have been abused by society and the legal system. And we should make every effort to combat that.

However, there absolutely are folks who should be removed from society, as they've shown they cannot live in a society without harming it and/or those within it. And those people should be kept apart from society -- for the protection of society.

>That description of his childhood works for me in sociological terms — let’s avoid stuff that we know to create monsters — but not on individual ones (i.e. the monster, having been created, is indeed a monster).

Seems like a good idea. But no one (AFAIK) is trying to "excuse" criminal behavior even as we try to understand the causes.

>Seems like a good idea. But no one (AFAIK) is trying to "excuse" criminal behavior even as we try to understand the causes.

I think the knee jerk response would be about perspectives on poverty and class, but I think the more interesting response is that the criminal justice system already takes causes into account.

Provoked Crimes of Passion are treated differently than premeditated ones. Questions of mental capacity are relevant to sentencing. We have things like the twinkie defense and temporary insanity. We have Justified homicide due to self-defense.

In reality, the justice system almost always takes causes into account. Just not all causes. The interesting question is why some but not others.

>In reality, the justice system almost always takes causes into account. Just not all causes. The interesting question is why some but not others.

Absolutely. Circumstances are usually relevant and should be examined.

But GP[0] claimed that "progressives" argue that understanding the causes for the commission of crimes should "excuse" those actions.

Which is an unsupported assertion and I reject it because, at least AFAIK, no one takes that position.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34317453

Edit: Added the missing link, cleaned up prose.

There’s a kind of thing that happens in these discussions where somebody makes a complaint about an extremist position and somebody else responds that nobody thinks that and they’re kind of talking past one another.

To be clear, I acknowledge that we’re talking about an extreme, broadly unpopular position, but it is one running through certain segments of leftish twitter and academia. (No, I don’t keep a file of such utterances, so I can’t produce a list offhand.)

>To be clear, I acknowledge that we’re talking about an extreme, broadly unpopular position, but it is one running through certain segments of leftish twitter and academia. (No, I don’t keep a file of such utterances, so I can’t produce a list offhand.)

That's as may be, but lots of people say lots of stupid/ridiculous/untrue things all the time.

Who, in a position of power or influence (or reasonably adjacent to such power/influence), advocates such a view?

I can say all sorts of things, ranging from the mundane ("I like coffee.") to the ridiculous ("There is an underground advance alien invasion base under Biscayne Bay."). And while that does mean I will make coffee for myself tomorrow morning, it most certainly doesn't mean that the Army Corps of Engineers will be planting nukes in Biscayne Bay to destroy those evil aliens.

And it doesn't matter how many times I say it or to whom I say it, the Army Corps of Engineers aren't going to nuke Biscayne Bay. And no one should pay any attention to such ramblings.

And so I have to ask, why are you giving credence to (as you readily state) what some unbalanced rando thinks about prosecuting crime. And not just giving such credence, you also claimed that such views were those of "progressives."

You're now walking that back, but you (and that's what I responded to) implied that "excusing" criminal acts was somehow a "progressive" position.

It is not, and never has been.

There are those who claim that certain government officials routinely abduct babies and small children in order to murder them and extract some hormone to make them live longer.

Overwhelmingly, at least in the US, the folks who make (and/or believe -- not the same thing) such claims almost exclusively supported one political party over another.

Does that mean that everyone who supports that political party (or even a a tiny fraction) also believes such things?

By your logic, the answer should be "yes." Is that correct?

I could give a host of other examples of other ridiculous tropes from the extremes. None of which have support from anyone with or near any real power.

The upshot is that I took issue with you (specifically you, dionidium) smearing a broad group of folks (progressives) with a broad brush, claiming that an extreme stance by folks who may or may not consider themselves part of that group is the default belief of a group.

That's a clear example of "othering"[0], in which you are attempting to besmirch folks with beliefs they do not hold.

If you'd instead said something like "some extremist positions claim that people shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes if they had a bad childhood," I would have heartily agreed.

But "othering" has no place in reasoned discourse. Don't like progressives? I'm sure you can find stuff that's actually true to beat up on them. But just making shit up is low effort and doesn't add to the discussion.

[0] https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-othering-5084425

Edit: Added the missing link.

> * Does that mean that everyone who supports that political party (or even a a tiny fraction) also believes such things? By your logic, the answer should be "yes." Is that correct?*

I think the source of the conflict here is that, no, this does not follow. The position I described is distinctly progressive in nature, on the opposite end of the spectrum from a belief that one might characterize as conservative. That does not imply that everybody who identifies as progressive believes it.

>I think the source of the conflict here is that, no, this does not follow. The position I described is distinctly progressive in nature, on the opposite end of the spectrum from a belief that one might characterize as conservative. That does not imply that everybody who identifies as progressive believes it.

No. The source of the "conflict," as you describe (I call it a spirited conversation, but whatever blows your skirt up) is that you made an unsupported assertion (that the "progressive" position is that people with bad childhoods shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes they go on to commit), and I asked for specific information as to who, exactly, claims that to be not only their position, but that of progressives in general.

You danced around that very specific request and then somewhat backed off your (ridiculous) assertion.

And no, you didn't say "it's a progressive position," you said[0]:

   There’s something very odd to me about the modern
   progressive position that, more or less, if you can
   explain a crime, then you can in some sense excuse
   it.

Not "a progressive postion," which is debatable at best, you called it "the progressive position" implying that was the belief of most who call themselves "progressive."

That's simply not true. Nor has it ever been.

And I called you out on your wholly unsupported, unsubstantiated and flat wrong assertion.

You are seemingly trying to walk back your statement and chalk it up to "conflict."

No. I'm not in conflict with you at all. You may think you're in conflict with me, but I'm just here trying to have good faith discussions.

You might try it some time.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34317453

Edit: clarified my prose.

> Not "a progressive position," which is debatable at best, you called it "the progressive position" implying that was the belief of most who call themselves "progressive."

I am actually the world's foremost expert on what I mean when I say something. If we ever have a debate about what I meant, then I am 100% correct and you are 100% incorrect. When I do helpfully clarify something for you, that's not "walking back" anything. There is no debate to be had here. You can ask me to clarify something, but only I know what I meant.

Quoting somebody's words back to them as if to say, "but but but you said this!" is basically never useful, because you're always talking to the preeminent scholar on what that person meant and you should only ever be in the posture of accepting what they tell you they meant by those words.

If there appears to be some confusion about what I meant, then I am, as one former president so eloquently put it, "the decider."

>If we ever have a debate about what I meant, then I am 100% correct and you are 100% incorrect.

You are the person others perceive you to be, at least as far as they're concerned. Perhaps that's something to keep in mind when you're attempting to share your thoughts.

And that's the last I'll say on the matter.

Have a nice day.

> That description of his childhood works for me in sociological terms — let’s avoid stuff that we know to create monsters — but not on individual ones (i.e. the monster, having been created, is indeed a monster).

Can you elaborate on this

this is sickening. makes me not want to move to the US. that, and mass killings without gun law changes, & health insurance letting people die or bankrupt, even if I wouldn't have that problem myself

> And you would let him.

I would not. But I does not mean that I kill people - whether it is murder or capital punishment.

Is it less pointless to keep him in jail for the rest of his life?

To be fair. The decades of stays that separate his crime from his punishment were his choice.