you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 9 months ago (15 children)

Give me one tangible, evidenced benefit

Deterrence. And unlike most criminal cases, these are people who do indeed have other options and can easily make a choice not to run rape rings for the wealthy, can easily choose not to fuck children, etc.

by suggesting that I respect my thinking on this topic.

Oh, so you don't respect it either? Cool bro, fuck off now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (14 children)

    Hahaha I had a typo in the last sentence, but you go off on that if you need it bud.

    The research is pretty clear that there is no demonstrable effect of the death penalty on deterrence (eg https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/13363/chapter/2), and the many other negative benefits would outweigh even minor positive benefits.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (13 children)

    Yes - and that's because most often it's applied to people who have few alternatives to criminality. There isn't a good deterrence when good alternatives don't exist. This is looking at the general population, and the death penalty is not effective then.

    Which is exactly what I stated above - it's different when you're dealing with elites, and there actually is a deterrence effect then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (12 children)

    In guessing you get to decide who is an elite.

    Look, I'm all for enforcing our laws and punishing elites and I happen to believe that billionaires shouldn't even exist, but frankly on the three main claimed benefits of the death penalty - deterrence, cost and incapacitation - the evidence is nonexistence or in outright opposition, and would be met with proper life without parole without running afoul of the Blackstone dilemma.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (11 children)

    Me? No. We supposedly decide laws through democratic means.

    I'd say individuals with a net worth of a billion dollars, or who are the President of the US, are a good start though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    I'm pretty sure we couldn't agree on a universal definition that wouldn't be subject to error or interpretation, and after we've killed an innocent person and likely created a martyr and a drive to retribution by some segment of the population, we can't really back out of that mess.

    There's a perfectly workable solution that aligns with the imperfections and uncertainties of justice, and conveniently also achieves the same or better metrics as evidenced by countless studies on the topic. Seems like an easy decision.

    However that won't satisfy retributive blood lust, or make anyone feel like a tough guy when advocating for it, so the death penalty persists where those things are important.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (9 children)

    I'm sure the victims of these people appreciate your enlightened views.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 children)

    Well, that understandable drive for retribution - which blinds us to principles of equality and justice - is exactly why we don't let victims administer justice or mete out punishments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (7 children)

    the principles of equality and justice

    "The law, in its infinite wisdom, prohibits both poor and rich alike from sleeping under bridges".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (6 children)

    I think you're making my point.

    France was talking about systemic inequality, and he's right: Systems claim to be fair and equal but they still make systematic errors. So why would we add an irreversible punishment, plus a vague ‘elite’ category that invites political targeting and misclassification?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (5 children)

    Because we're only discussing applying it to those most likely to be able to tip the scales of justice in their favor. That's exactly the point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    Again... To do that, you need to classify everyone accordingly as elite or not, which is subject to systematic error. Which is why we should just choose not to do it, since the death penalty is irreversible, and killing an innocent person runs counter to the way in which a liberal democracy chooses the values that structure its justice system - that is, that we prefer to run the risk that a guilty person go free to avoid, as much as possible, that an innocent person suffers.

    If you prefer a justice system built on different fundamental values, maybe you prefer China, Russia or Saudi Arabia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah, China has dealt with elite corruption better than the West recently. Not a hard call.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    So did Finland and Norway and not with the death penalty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments