That sounds kind of cool, but although the binaries of Turbo Pascal are now downloadable from Borland's successor at no charge, the source code was never released. That makes the proposition less interesting than it would otherwise be. BDS C source code was released into the public domain a few years ago, so that might be an alternative. Or you could use MSDOS/FreeDOS that would give you a lot more flexibility while staying a similar text-based spirit.
There are quite a few single-board computers out there that appear on tindie, etc. Usually people design a board, get it up and running, sell it for a few months or years then it dies off.
RC2014 has been quite long-lived by contrast, I guess having the various extensions/addons helps encourage people to keep tinkering with it.
I bought a single-board Z80-based system a few months back, and I guestimate there are about 50 of those specific boards in existence - but it doesn't matter too much how many of a specific board exist, so long as the CP/M archives continue to be maintained a new design isn't so hard to create.
Presumably this is rising because of the topical current Basecamp saga.
But I don’t think Basecamp is like the simple model put forward here by Paul Graham, who is saying “if you’re famous you get fanboys and their opposite and that’s just an outcome of being famous”.
Basecamp and it’s founders have over many years taken extremely opinionated and contrarian positions, and it’s always been presented with an air of breathtakingly arrogant superiority. The tone of their communication has always to me seemed to be bursting with superiority and smugness. They haven’t just ended up with haters just because that’s what happens if you’re famous. They’ve ended up with haters because they almost appeared to actively be trying to create haters because they wanted to generate extreme opinions because it’s good publicity.
And now finally Basecamp founders have taken yet another contrarian arrogant position but this time it’s fallen flat and backfired severely. And now many former fanboys are haters and there’s no goodwill and all there is, is haters.
> And now many former fanboys are haters and there’s no goodwill and all there is, is haters.
That sounds like maybe they weren't fans, but rather were happy (and wanted to amplify) that their worldviews/political ideologies aligned, and now that that's not the case on some issue, they switch to hate (and want to see it burn).
It might be. Notice that it's only been in use for about 3 years. The difference is you don't tend to upset users due to underlying infrastructure changes.
Zanzibar has been in use for way more than 3 years. I used to work in the SRE team supporting it 7 years ago, and it already had significant users back then.
Rule of thumb when reading Google papers: if you start now and copy it perfectly, you'll still be at least ten years behind. With few exceptions they don't publish "industry-enabling" papers.
I think no other justification is needed to end the death penalty than “it’s inhuman and barbaric”.
Even discussing other factors arguments and considerations dilutes the core point that’s it’s straight up wrong unethical and inhuman to murder others in the name of the law.
Paul Graham has a valid point, but if you say “it’s wrong cause it’s inaccurate”, implies it’s right if it’s accurate. And it’s not... the death penalty is wrong no matter be it accurate or inaccurate.
I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but this sort of remark is why the left and intellectuals more widely fail at winning politically. Rather than use arguments that are amenable even to people who disagree on the fundamentals, you would rather retain the moral high-ground by refusing even to debate on their terms, thereby failing to actually influence policy (in this case a matter of life and death).
If the death penalty debate were framed more around "innocent people get killed" and less around more nebulous value-judgement based arguments (which, though valid, divide pretty neatly along partisan and class lines), perhaps the death penalty in the US would have gone long ago.
Framing this as a left vs right issue is an USA-centric way to frame the question. Consider how the US is basically the only country in the american continent that still goes ahead with capital punishment. Most other countries in the continent, from all kinds of political orientations, have either banned capital punishment outright or haven't executed anyone in more than a decade.
Referring to "the American continent" is a very South American thing to do. I think in the US they consider themselves to be sharing a continent with just Mexico and Canada.
Furthermore I think you don't go far enough. Around the world, abolishing the death penalty seems to be a mark of high development, apart from Japan (and arguably China and India) there aren't any highly developed nations that are still killing people.
Not getting into anything else, but I will remark that I got in trouble in 5th grade (in a US school) and a letter sent home to my parents about my bad attitude and showing of disrespect towards my teacher after she asserted that Mexico was in "South America" and that "North America" consisted exclusively of the USA and Canada. I argued with her and neither of us would back down. It was the first time I'd ever been in any kind of trouble. My parents were proud and took me out for ice cream. US public schools have some decent teachers but also some really ignorant ones.
Stretching the definition of "high development" here a bit (but since you're considering China and India) Belarus still has the death penalty (they were executing at least 1 almost every year until 2020).
Even in the US, "left vs right" on the death penalty is an oversimplification. A pretty good summary can be found here: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/religious-st... ... Anecdotally, as a religious person, I'd say that most Catholics I know either oppose the death penalty or would want it to be much more limited than it is now.
I once had a surreal conversation with a Jehovah's Witness priest who was proselytizing on my campus. It was around the time of the Iraq war, and he opened with something like "if killing is wrong, why do we have the death penalty." I managed to use Saddam Hussein's alleged human rights violations as a rhetorical lever to justify the killing of one to prevent the killing of many. As a supporter of neither the death penalty nor the war on Iraq, I've never walked away from a victory with so much regret
This "debate" has been over in all other nations that the US likes to be compared for years.
It is similar to the "tough on crime" incarceration "debate" in the US, where perverse incentives and political expediency has led to the US being the highest-per-capita incarcerator in the world.
Framing the death penalty debate around "innocent people get killed" will not change the partisan/class perceptions.
The US criminal justice system requires root-and-branch reform, starting with issues around policing, cash bail, school-to-prison pipelines, and unfair drug and "victimless" crimes.
Australia has been going through a similar debate and is at a similar point, without the death penalty, but dealing with the systemic racism and other class related issues.
>Framing the death penalty debate around "innocent people get killed" will not change the partisan/class perceptions.
I don't agree. All of these moral castigations about it being 'inhumane' or 'barbaric' don't strike me as rational or compelling in the least. I think the idea is humane in the context of those impacted by the crimes in question and I don't see how putting a person in a box for the remainder of their life is qualitatively any less barbaric.
I don't know where pg lands politically but I'd say I'm probably right of center on the American spectrum and for me there are only two persuasive arguments that we should abolish the death penalty. One is that we make mistakes in who gets it, per TFA, and the other is that it's difficult to concretely describe the qualifications of who should get it, risking expansion at the whim of the populace. In other words I absolutely believe there are just executions, I'm just not entirely sure we can create a system to do it justly.
Why? If he (or she) believes or can be convinced that the death penalty should be abolished, why do you care if they also believe that some of the executions that already happened were just?
1) because it implies that one day they might be it favour of bringing them back with the right technology etc
2) because you want to convince people of important moral principles. I don't want you to not beat your wife because you'll get caught, but because it's inherently wrong.
Certainly fodder for ongoing discussion but I think it’s important to prioritize goals.
Alignment on public policy decisions allows for more degrees of freedom in underlying philosophical differences than attempts to align on the philosophical primitives themselves. It also achieves an immediate goal.
Plus if you are engaging in conversation in a good faith attempt to understand and be understood, you have to allow for the case that your views are moderated or changed as well.
(The distance you feel from that right now is approximately the same I feel in the opposite direction.)
How about that it's significantly more expensive on average to execute a prisoner (due to the extensive appeal processes) than to imprison him for life? I would assume that should be a very compelling argument in favour of abolishing the death penalty for somebody who is "right of center".
I can understand why you would say that based on all of the stereotypes floating around, but honestly I've never seen this argument move the needle for anyone.
For some they just say 'I'll do it for a dollar' and disengage. Realistically the cost of incarceration isn't what's driving their argument for the death penalty, it's just a talking point.
For me, it's just the price of due process.
Maybe to save a few keystrokes, I think we are too flippant about the death penalty today but I think its an essential part of a justice system.
It isn't really over, even now it pops its head up now and again. There's probably more people who believe in it than you realize.
For example in the UK 58% of people believe that the death penalty should be allowed for some crimes (e.g. terrorist attacks). Only 32% oppose it (presumably with 10% undecided):
So far from being the majority view, often anti-death penalty stance is the minority view but the political elite suppress it.
Let that really sink in, most of the comments here are very wrong in thinking the debate is over, with twice as many of the public still supporting it in a country where it's been abolished for over 50 years. Always remember to fight against capital punishment, the deal is not done.
I believe they do this as they understand the nuance better and realize that overall it causes more problems than it solves, so don't want to open that can of worms once it's shut. Looking back in history there's also significant political fallout every time someone is found innocent after their execution. Some hard-right politicians will band it around for easy points with their base, plus obviously the wider public too for more extreme crimes.
I could believe that there is a minority that is strongly opposed and a majority that weakly supports it. So that if you weigh it by passion, net sentiment is against it.
Some western countries have respectably high numbers: France 50%, UK 48%, Holland 42%.
Not that the USA wants to be compared to us, but here in Romania it's at 91% and we still don't have it. (I suspect that romantic notions of Vlad the Impaler's time has something to do with the percentage.)
I suspect that the very high percentage from Romania has much less to do with Vlad the Impaler than with the fact that there are still a large number of people alive who remember the unusual circumstances in which the death penalty was abolished in Romania.
In Romania, the death penalty was not abolished by any democratic institution and that action was not preceded by any public debate.
The gang who seized power in 1989 in Romania abolished the death penalty immediately after killing the dictator Ceausescu to remove the competition, because absolutely everybody expected that many other people who had important positions in the Communist must be also executed immediately, because only that would have been consistent with the messages spread by the new power in the previous days.
However, the people who had seized the power could not kill any other from the Communist leadership, because those were their friends, family or accomplices, so they used the surprise trick of promptly abolishing the death penalty.
This unexpected action was the moment when many people woke up from the euphoria after the supposed fall of the Communism and they began to suspect that the people composing the new power might not be who they claim to be, but it was already too late.
The immediate abolition of the death penalty in Romania had its desired effect, of transforming the former powerful communists into rich capitalists owning what had previously been called "the wealth belonging to all the people", so it is still strongly resented by many who remember those events.
So Romania is a very special case, which explains the unusually high percentage of support for the death penalty.
The US criminal justice system requires root-and-branch reform, starting with issues around policing, cash bail, school-to-prison pipelines, and unfair drug and "victimless" crimes.
I'd put our abusive plea bargaining system in there.
Sadly the rest of the world is moving towards that bad idea, rather than away. :-(
I don't know. Even the constitution acknowledges the possibility of truths that are 'self-evident'.
I remember when the Guantanamo torture scandals emerged in the 2000s, how various political actors attempted to say 'Let's not get hot under the collar about this - let's put it on the table and talk it through.'
For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act, as outlined in 'A Modest Proposal' . I agree with the parent poster that this is one of those cases.
EDIT: This was supposed to be a response to the parent comment of the one it got attached to (for some reason).
Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is not limited to the words of the document. The Constitution itself is derived from a history of law, letters, and intent that predate the very concept of the United States.
> For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act,
The authors of the Declaration of Independence would perhaps agree.
But, keep in mind that stance — as they will knew — would result in the ‘disagreement’ being resolved by force and war.
Consequently, it’s wise to really give some thought to whether an issue is ‘self-evident.’ I personally do not think capital punishment is such an issue; that is, I acknowledge there are good arguments on both sides.
(Are there good arguments on both sides regarding whether some people — like King George — are inherently and divinely superior to others by virtue of their lineage? That’s a different matter... I would have fallen into the ‘self-evidently’ absurd camp on that one.)
Very much agreed. The left and intellectuals have won the debate in most (all?) of the west and the US policies are widely considered barbaric, inhumane and corrupt. The current state of affairs in the US is unfortunately a testament to the US society.
Having said that, the US is quite a specific case and the truth is that the current approach of the left doesn't seem to work there. Progress is being made, but as an outsider, there seems to be too much partisanship on both sides. Too much us versus them. There is as much derogatory and hostile attitude in the left leaning forums as the right leaning ones, with a small sliver of moderates who get lost in the noise.
I can't claim to have a solution to this. The US seems to be a feudal society at this point, where a large portion of the serfs are actively undermining efforts to lift them from their serfdom, and a large portion of the liberators consider the serfs uneducated peasants who refuse to accept what's good for them. They are both led by a political elite whose incentives are to maintain (even entrench) the status quo because it gives them an easily manipulated voter base and a clear enemy to rally against.
Sure, from a persuasion point of view I agree. But from a "trying to understand another human" point of view, I'd recommend you to read the Wikipedia page on ethics [1]. My own education on the topic: a course in college (as a business student) and watching some of the Harvard lectures on ethics [0]. IMO ethics courses teaches people to gain a more fine-grained vocabulary on explaining their own positions and understanding other's positions.
GP clearly uses a deontological line of thinking on this matter. Something that GP considers to be "inhuman and barbaric" invokes a line of thinking in where he/she believes one ought to not do a certain action, because it simply is wrong.
I'm not the best at explaining deontological ethics, nor are the people who think like this. My point is: a lot of thought has gone into the types of statements that GP makes, and IMO it's worth thinking about.
The trap you are both falling into is the thought that political discussions centre around trying to understand the other persons point of view. It is almost always the other way around, one person trying to persuade an unwilling party that they are wrong. So as the poster said, as right as you are, you would still lose the political argument if that was how you tried to argue for your view.
You can be correct all day long and change nothing, or you can be persuasive and meet them in their thought bubble to coerce them toward aligning with your views. You can't just pop their world view with statements of fact, because they may very well think your fact is wrong. In this case not everyone believes the death penalty is immoral, so if your only argument is "the death penalty is immoral" you will change nothing.
It’s all good and well to try and persuade someone, but like the GP sometimes I like to simply state my ideological viewpoint. The problem with narrowly arguing based on someone else’s ideals, is that any agreement isn’t a true meeting of the minds.
For example people, once tried to end the deal then penalty by talking about to pain involved in hanging. Proponents agreed and eventually came up with the electric chair, then lethal injection. No pain, no problem right?
If we talk about innocents killed, proponents will add stricter guidelines, and allow for more appeals, or even say that the crime must have been videotaped in front of a crowd of witnesses. We might end up with a death penalty that applies to the likes of Derek Chauvin alone, but it’ll still be a death penalty.
That's called a compromise, right? Reducing the pain involved and increasing the burden of proof required are both concrete, positive reforms, even if it doesn't completely resolve the issue.
You can laugh all you want, but killing fewer innocent people is in fact a good thing. If you can't see the value in that, then politics is not for you :)
I think we should celebrate that kind of incremental progress so long as it's not progress towards some kind of inescapable local minimum. And even in that case, it just becomes more complicated, not obviously wrong either.
Reducing the number of innocent deaths is an improvement. It doesn't feel like it's worth patting yourself on the back over reducing the number of unnecessary deaths cause when the process itself should be eliminated. I reject the idea that "politics" means negotiating over how much completely unnecessary human suffering is acceptable because we have to compromise with the people who want humans to suffer for one reason or another. Not every issue has two sides. Sometimes people and ideas and practices are simply wrong.
> Sometimes people and ideas and practices are simply wrong.
Of course, and I agree with you on this particular issue. All I mean is that if we can act today to chip away at the problem rather than just talking about the ideals, that's good, and in a democracy, that's what we accept as we work towards the ideal.
> It doesn't feel like it's worth patting yourself on the back over reducing the number of unnecessary deaths cause when the process itself should be eliminated.
Life's too short, I'm happy to celebrate progress. I'm proud to see the end of it in my home state of Virginia this year, even if it's not nationally outlawed.
"You're a bad person if you disagree with me" is a great way to never get what you want. It's not simply stating your position, it's anti-persuasion whether you want it to be or not.
Saying “you’re a bad person if you disagree with me” draws a line in the sand that precludes civil disagreement and picks a fight. Most people like to avoid conflict, and any possible counterargument to “you’re a bad person” inevitably comes across as defensive.
In other words, the tactic is to bully the opposition into shutting up. And it works very well.
I do agree with you, I think we're also kind of discussing two separate points. Of course just stating how you truly feel is perfectly fine, I don't disagree with that at all. A meeting of the minds as you put it requires people are candid, agreement and compromise isn't really required for that kind of discussion.
Additionally we're also discussing whether or not that approach can be effective at bringing in good policy, and I think that's often not the case. A hard stance with a binary argument is just very difficult to work with, you end up giving the opponent no opportunity to compromise and so they don't, you end up with no policy being written and things don't change.
Policy making is very intentionally an attempt to make a vast array of different views from across a nation coalesce into something that can be made into law, so it requires compromise.
Society, businesses and families fail when there is no ground truth, right or wrong, historical knowledge and are based on the most recent FUD or feelgoodery.
Arguments and negotiations need to have common grounds on how thing are interpreted. Else the most immoral person flourishes.
Me following this US debate from the other side of the world I mostly see it framed as “the innocent people getting killed” and not the “immoral to kill” debate as per this article. I don’s see it getting anywhere.
I don't think anybody really supports/opposes the death penalty because of a rational analysis of facts and statistics. It's usually an emotive decision - the notion that "revenge must be taken" or that "life is sacrosanct". These are pretty core parts of people's identity and it is hard for them to let go.
Either way, stories (e.g. miscarriages of justice by an uncaring state) are likely a more effective way to convince in this controversy, not statistics:
That's fine, just understand that your moral intuition isn't universal.
If there were some device (which doesn't exist and maybe can't) which simply lights up with perfect accuracy when pointed at someone who tortured someone before murdering them, I would support instant execution of that person by firing squad.
I'm not willing to accept a 4% error rate however. I'm not sure how low it would have to go, but it's lower than it plausibly can.
This isn't some kind of lack of "understanding" on my part, and you're not going to "teach" me to feel the same way about this issue as you do. We have different values. So you'll have to content yourself with my being on the same side of the policy question for different reasons.
I thought about this topic for decades now.when I was 16 I thought you should murder a murderer.
I thought a lot about moral and ethics, the balance between being right and no right exists.
So I do believe your thinking can and might change in the future.
Your torture example still ignores the history of the torturer. Would you like to be killed after this from a society which had it easier and better then you and did not help you? Is that really fair to anyone?
Do you believe in a god? Would you assume jesus would let you in after that? (I'm not religious, I do think so that either it's a good god and it doesn't matter believing in her but your actions)
Do you believe that we are in a simulation? What if you wake up in your next life as a murderer?
There are so many potential thoughts which we haven't thought through that removing a murderer from society to prison is the best choice we have as long as it is a prison who tries to rehabilitate a person.
I don't know how anyone can acknowledge that moral intuitions aren't universal while simultaneously believing their moral intuition can be used to justify the death penalty.
> Even discussing other factors arguments and considerations dilutes the core point...
Fair enough, I understand that those are your beliefs (they are mine too) but you'd be surprised how poorly they hold up in the real world against the testimonies of victims of some truly horrific crimes.
But from the sound of it you would prefer to weaken the case for abolishing the death penalty for the sake of making a more general point around the sanctity of life that, in the long run, will achieve...what exactly?
That's not really what "justification" is. I go through life assuming that only my mother and other loved ones care what I believe as such. Other people care about the arguments that I can make, with a bonus if I can make them using premises that they already accept.
An argument is what it will boil down to because there will be a group of people who don't believe that it is "inhuman and barbaric". For the record - I agree with you, but I also recognize there are people who do not agree with us.
That's fair enough, but he's pointing out the consequences of your beliefs. The crux of the objection is that you position yourself in opposition to the discussion of any other justification for abolishing the death penalty; it is not that the death penalty must be abolished, but that it must be abolished for a specific correct reason. This presents a relationship between the death penalty and your beliefs where it seems to your audience that you wish to abolish the death penalty not due to any urgency regarding its consequences, but because of your insistence on imposing your will on others.
Let's assume the "innocent people get killed" argument abolishes death penalty today. What are the second-order effects of that argument which can be detrimental to the society that you can think of?
Actually, the counter-argument is "innocent people get killed by already convincted murderer that went out of jail"...
ECONOMICS: Another counter-argument is "the society pay for the whole life of the jailed murderer, so it's a cost paid by the society for something that broke society laws"
And then another argument is "a murderer may prefer to be killed than to be kept in jail for the rest of his life".
Actually, there's a whole philosophical debate around all this: what is the role of the sanction ? Is it revenge from breaking society laws ? Is it revenge from the victim ? Can someone that broke society laws (even in murder case) be changed by the jail time and come back to the society as a good citizen or are some crimes the mark that this people are forever lost to the society ?
I'm against the death penalty. I'm french so we don't have it since 1980. And we don't really have "forever jail": it's 20 years I think and can even be shortened if prisoner show in jail that he's ready to come back to society (except if it would be a trouble for the society). As a consequence, there's from time to time a convicted criminal, out of jail after a reduced time, that kill/rape someone again. And each time, there's a public discussion about this...
> And we don't really have "forever jail": it's 20 years I think and can even be shortened if prisoner show in jail that he's ready to come back to society (except if it would be a trouble for the society).
20 year is the maximum required in case of non-premeditated murder (or manslaughter on minor i think).
In some cases (murder of a minor, group manslaughter of a state agent, premeditated murder of a state agent and one other case i can't remember), the criminal can be given "incompressible" perpetuity. After a minimum of 30 year, on a judge decision (often because the murderer is dying or very, very old), the "incompressible" part can get shafted.
Also death penalty is expensive. More than keeping prisonners locked up.
> Actually, the counter-argument is "innocent people get killed by already convincted murderer that went out of jail"...
Counter-argument to what? Surely not counter-argument to the death penalty since "releasing people" is not the alternative to the death penalty, life imprisonment is.
Well, none, we have plenty of evidence that there's none. Almost all the countries that have implemented it have lower homicide rates than the US. Usually significantly lower.
Obviously there's probably also various other reasons for that too, like they usually also have heavily restricted gun ownership, but there's certainly no evidence that abolishing the death penalty has adverse effects.
The left is getting more votes and it seems like leftist ideas do well in polls. So when it comes to ability to convince people about issues, they actually do well.
Also, I don't really see equivalent expectation routinely placed on right - they are not expected to proactively make compromises on their own heads before they even state position.
This argument is useless because what inhuman and barbaric my means depends on your belief system. Abortion is inhuman and barbaric to significant % of the population and death penalty isn't. They use murder argument as well. Of course death penalty is not murder nor is abortion if you're honest about what the word means but here we are with those absolute statements about ethics.
If we just use this argument and don't try to establish general principles we end up with a pointless shouting contest.
For once I think the death penalty is at least worth considering from the utilitarian point of view (in our current system the consensus is that it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life though but it might change in the future) as well as from revenge/restitution point of view as a lot of people strongly think someone doing deliberate great harm deserves to be killed.
One way or another it's not simple from either ethical nor practical point of view.
Personally I consider death penalty as desirable penalty for some crimes but I would never vote for it as I have no faith in our politicians being able to implement it in a fair way and flawed justice system not to abuse it.
Opposition to abortion and capital punishment is pretty basic moral reasoning and really not challenging. The premise is killing innocent human beings is wrong. In the case of abortion the innocence of the person being killed is assured. In the case of capital punishment that’s not necessarily true, but since we can’t truly know for certain the convict isn’t innocent we ought to err on the side of caution to avoid the possibility of killing an innocent person.
It’s odd to me how controversial both issues are when the moral reasoning required is so easy. Taking any other position requires denying the premise that it’s wrong to destroy innocent human life. One can, but accepting that has some very nasty consequences.
You're wrong about it being easy, that's why it doesn't make sense to you.
There are many ethical systems in which both death penalty and abortion are justified.
Death penalty is any easy one. It was considered to be a proper penalty for various crimes for most of the human history in many cultures. It just takes understanding of ethical values of those cultures to understand why it was justified.
Your argument about taking innocent human life is a naive one. We do a lot of things that cost innocent human lives. Allowing diesel cars in cities cost more innocent lives than all death penalties in the history of humanity combined and it's not a small difference.
It's about tradeoffs and priorities. It's natural for a tribe or state to kill for treason for example as disincentivizing treason is more important (saves more lives, prevents suffering and destruction of your countrymen) than occasional mistake. Putting long term survival and well being of your society is more important than individual lives.
Our wealth clouds the picture so well. If it was required of everyone one to spend addition 20 hours a week providing food and shelter for a murderer atop of all the work we need to put into getting food and shelter for ourselves and our families you would be very quick to accept death penalty instead. As the choices would be about caring for your family and making sure the murderer doesn't die in custody. Today we can arguably afford it but if that's the argument then we already agree it's about tradeoffs and where the exact line is not obvious.
Even if you don't agree you can at least see it's a justified view. It's all about tradeoffs.
Right, despite mostly common human emotions (justice, reciprocity, etc), specific moral beliefs are normative and vary wildly by upbringing, religion, and political persuasion.
I think there is a somewhat reasonable argument that a punishment should mirror the crime, and any less than inhuman and barbaric to the inhuman and barbaric lacks actual justice?
I’m not saying I agree, I don’t personally support the death sentence, but if you’re actually interested in changing peoples minds it’s good to know where they’re coming from, and why they may not find your argument compelling.
I personally find the posts argument far more compelling.
You can never 'match' the crime. Even if you go justicing around 'an eye for an eye' style, the perp will always have taken the initiative. You can never get that back. Everything you do is just a reaction.
That is what makes crime so heinous.
So your focus should be prevention at any cost first and foremost, then justice as prevention (= rehabilitation) as well. Murdering a murderer is pretty solid prevention though, I give you that.
> You can never get that back. Everything you do is just a reaction.
Yes, but you can try. I can see why the loved ones of a murdered person feel someone is 'getting away' when he is still alive. Killing them feels much more like payback.
I don't that this does reasonably make sense, but I can understand where they are coming from.
As the loved one of a murdered person, I can speak to this. Nothing will bring back my loved one. Nothing. Gone forever. A hole left unfilled for eternity. Executing her killer won't bring her back. It won't help anyone "heal" or "find solace" or any other words that politicians use.
I'm sure many find that it didn't feel like it at all, because of my argumentation. Payback will always be incomplete. It can never be paid in full.
Even if you kill someone over and over again (some Sci-Fi comes to mind), the perp always took the first step and elevated his role in society unjustly.
Lack of punishment can lead to more crime if people lose faith in the system. To take it to an extreme, if murder were punished with only a fine then victim families would just hire assassins to kill off a murderer if they feel the fine doesn’t suffice.
I'm not from the US, so my knowledge on the death penalty is quite limited. But I clicked on a link posted below listing executions in Texas, and I was shocked to see that the most recent execution was last year for a crime committed back in 1993. Why?? You've already locked the guy up for almost three decades, what possible benefit is there to executing him now?
I get that he ruined (well, ended) someones life, but what does society gain from ruining his life in turn, to the point of what feels like mental torture: Being locked up for such a long time, all the while knowing that you will eventually just be executed.
It's the result of a decades-long lawfare campaign by anti-death penalty activists. The more protracted and expensive it is to carry out the death penalty, the easier it is to argue for abolishing it on the practical grounds of cost rather than convincing Americans of the ethical case. A rather messed up byproduct of this is cases like the one you highlight, where the convicted person is left on death row for decades as they make hail-mary appeals.
> but what does society gain from ruining his life in turn, to the point of what feels like mental torture: Being locked up for such a long time, all the while knowing that you will eventually just be executed.
From what I gather on Americans' comments about this over the years it's mostly about "not spending taxpayer money" to house, feed and take care of criminals that received a death penalty.
I don't know how true this argument can be given all the costs over decades associated with a death penalty judgment (appeals, preparation for death row, maintaining death rows, etc.)
The death penalty used to be much faster. But through a series of laws and court rulings starting in the 1970's, they decided that the case has to go through a super long sequence of appeals and court proceedings, with the intent of making doubly triply extra sure we're not executing innocent people.
Doesn't that exact same argument work as well when applied to jailing people? It's wrong if I kidnap someone and keep them confined for years in a small room, so how can it not be wrong for the state to do it in the name of the law?
Moreover life imprisonment is far more of a punishment. The individual has to get up every day and contemplate what they have done - with no way to end that other than the passage of time and the hope of commutation.
If you're from a part of the world where the death penalty was consigned to history decades ago, it's quite astonishing that a supposedly civilised nation would defend it.
That is not a helpful argument. It certainly is inhuman and barbaric, but is it less inhuman and barbaric than the alternatives?
Criminals sentenced to death are supposed to be a danger to society so great that the only solution is to eliminate them. So, typical trolley problem: is it better to kill a criminal or let him go, potentially resulting in the death or several more innocent victims. Prison for life is another option, but is permanently restraining someone and endangering guards and other inmates a good alternative?
So yes, other justifications are needed. And the article gives one.
If the only reason we sentence people to death were because it is more humane than putting them in prison for life, then it would be given as an option to the prisoner. I don't know of any case of someone sentenced to life in prison who argued they would rather be put to death.
Edit: I've now done some research and found some death-row-inmates do express a preference for a death sentence:
I think the state legitimately reserves for itself the right to resort to lethal force. National defence and effective policing can require violence when necessary.
The key issue for me is necessity. It is not necessary to execute criminals, even murderers. I do have sympathy for the view that murderers deserve death, maybe many of them do, but then you get into drawing lines between cases that deserve death and ones that don't. Is the evidence in this case good enough to kill, but this one the evidence is only good enough to incarcerate. It politicises the judicial and criminal justice system. So I oppose the death penalty not because it's barbaric or morally wrong per se, but because it introduces moral hazard that compromises the system.
We can see this in the US where prosecutors fight tooth and nail to preserve convictions and ensure convicts get executed largely in order to protect the system of executions from the embarrassment of death row inmates getting exonerated. Defending the system becomes more important than serving justice.
As a Brit I think politicisation is the thing that concerns me most about the US justice system. Elected prosecutors, elected judges, the politicisation of executions I described above. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but comparatively speaking all that just isn't a thing over here at all. Political debate on criminal justice is focused on laws and the administration of policing. That's really about it. It's not like we don't have miscarriages of justice, our system is far from perfect but it's mainly sees as being independent and professionalised.
What if the criminal is extremely wealthy and powerful and can continue to exert his influence even from within prison (and possibly have a corrupting influence on prison guards)? This actually happens with cartel heads and crime syndicate leaders...
Most such criminals are likely to be imprisoned for crimes other than murder, so you're going to have the problem anyway. Better to address the actual issue rather than use it as an excuse.
> I think no other justification is needed to end the death penalty than “it’s inhuman and barbaric”.
Thing is, most of the time, people who are subject to the death penalty are there because they did “inhuman and barbaric” acts.
It is kind of like the paradox of tolerance. For society to prosper, you need to punish inhuman and barbaric acts, or at least isolate people who do that from society. However, such punishment is likely inhuman and barbaric at least on some level. Limiting a persons freedom of movement and interaction is inhuman and barbaric.
In addition, by not having the death penalty, you are subjecting others to have to deal with the person who did the inhuman and barbaric acts, whether other inmates or guards.
I am of the opinion that there are some acts that are so heinous that a person should never be a part of human society again. In that case, rather than prolonged human isolation, which is actually barbaric in and of itself, I think it is actually more humane to end their life. It does not have to gruesome or painful, no more than euthanizing a beloved pet with a terminal condition has to be gruesome. But some acts are incompatible with ever being a member of human society in any form.
Edit:
In addition, there are a lot of stuff that could be considered inhuman and barbaric but we do them for what we think as the good of society.
Spaying and neutering your pet sounds inhuman and barbaric.
Modern surgery, especially cancer surgery where they remove large margins of apparently healthy looking tissue, could be considered inhuman and barbaric.
In the Middle Ages, dissecting dead human bodies was considered inhuman and barbaric.
So the fact that a person sees something as inhuman and barbaric really is not overwhelming evidence if something should be done.
It's inhuman and barbaric to sentence criminals to death penalty (usually very quick less painful), and yet, the usually much worse criminal acts (cold-blood torturing, mass murdering, beheadings, etc.) that they ACTUALLY conducted on other completely innocent human beings are just not inhuman and barbaric and unethical enough for you to the point that you think it is not even worth discussing and a no-brainer to forgive. This is why the crimes are on the rise in this world, and justice is not being enforced by law due to the hypocritical "empathy" for the real criminals.
That's simply a logical fallacy: P => Q does not imply (not P) => (not Q). Here:
"If it is inaccurate, then it is wrong" does not imply "If it is accurate, then it is right."
In-human; what does this mean? It has been a human condition throughout all ages to kill each other. So by basic observation one could easily conclude it is human to kill each other. Fortunately what has developed over the ages is a framework or legal system for reasons to do so as apposed to just the whim of one individual.
Countries regularly kill others in the name of international laws about the preservation of peace and security. This has been the case since at least the Second World War, when many countries allied together to crush the Nazis and Imperial Japan. This was wholesale killing on a global scale for the sake of preventing certain states from doing more of their own vast killing while breaking many international norms, agreements and laws. Much of it was unjust, yes, but would you argue that an absolutist stance of it being wrong to kill others in the name of the law justified doing nothing while these ruthless empires conquered more territory and enslaved millions more people into a slow death?
Or how about self defense? If a person is protecting their lawful rights, home, property and family and in the process must kill an aggressor to do these things, should they just not do so out of a certain absolute ethical posture about the wrongness of killing other human beings? Just to clarify where your own fundamental posture on killing in the name of the law this draws some lines or exceptions.
That's a philosophical point. In most areas of legal justice, the penalty exacted for transgressions far exceeds the damages. That is to say, the man who steals a hundred dollars or who punches someone in the face loses far more value from his life as punishment than he caused someone else to lose. A life for a life is a rather mild punishment compared to the rest of the justice system, especially considering the death penalty is typically meted out for multiple brutal murders, often preceded by torture and rape. A just world would have these monsters subjected to the same nightmare to which they treated the innocent.
However, I agree with Paul. The fact that anyone not guilty of the crime is executed is unacceptable, to say nothing of the startlingly bad accuracy of the system in practice.
Improper or mistaken convictions, where reasonable oversight would have detected the error, are barbaric. If you want barbarism, you can find plenty in the way the criminal justice system is run for all offenders.
Prison is inhumane and barbaric, and has the opposite of the intended effect most of the time. Many ex-cons have become hardened criminals through their time on the inside, and even for those who haven't and want to reintegrate productively, the outside world does its best to prevent reintegration.
How many innocent people are killed in prison, not by the state, or have their lives ruined? You can say as long as they're alive there's hope they'll achieve something and be happy, but statistically those prospects are dimmer every year they spend inside.
The only remaining good thing prison does is keep bad people from causing problems in society for some number of years. Which is the same thing the death penalty does.
I don't know if the most productive way to use political capital to reform the criminal justice system is to abolish the death penalty. Unjustified state-sanctioned death might be terrible, but so are things like the drug war which probably do more aggregate harm. In an ideal world we'd get rid of prisons somehow, too.
In addition to ending the drug war and trying to fix neighborhoods that have been broken by it, fixing misaligned incentives for prosecution and law enforcement to prosecute cases would have a massive impact, far greater than any squabbles about the death penalty. Too often the prosecutors and law enforcement have desire to convict someone, and the defendant is the best chance they have, so they go ahead. More neutrality has to be introduced somehow. Judges being allowed to direct questions to witnesses might be a place to start.
I would rather be killed than spend even 20 years in prison. Technically I might live another 20 years, but I would be very near EOL at that age. Could I get the choice?
If the only argument in favor of the death penalty is that the prison system is inhumane, to the point that someone would rather die than go through it, the answer to that should be to make the prison system more humane.
Death isn't categorically inhumane. There are many circumstances in life that I would choose death over survival. It's barbaric for you to force me, against my will, to keep going through such things.
Sorry, but that's exactly the kind of world we live in. The world simply is barbaric no matter what we would prefer. When people mess up a little bit, we put them through a process that, despite its massive inadequacy, is intended to rehabilitate them so that they can return to society. The death penalty is for when someone commits a crime so severe that they cannot ever return to society. If you are not able to think of this kind of situation, I suggest you may not be very familiar with the details of truly horrendous crimes. If we don't have the death penalty, we end up in the strange position of housing and feeding and providing medical care for the most harmful people in society at the expense of their victims.
With this type of argument you attack one of the central tenets of human rights where every human life, no matter what, is worth the same. The moment you define that there are certain crimes where a human life is not the same as other human lives, no matter the reason, you move away from this core tenet.
It's all a matter if you believe in that core piece of universal human rights or not.
> one of the central tenets of human rights where every human life, no matter what, is worth the same.
You have to define who made up this right. Not everyone will agree. Most people will have boundaries on that no matter what all human lives are the same. Killing someone else on purpose breaks that boundary.
I think you're sadly mistaken that there's any intent to rehabilitate people "who mess up a little bit." Our criminal justice system is an emotional retributive system. Rehabilitation gets perhaps 1% of the attention it should, and is far outweighed by the inherent brutality of the entire system.
I think arguing for its abolition on the basis of "the system is bad" is completely valid
> familiar with the details of truly horrendous crimes
And this still happens. And I agree, society is sometimes too tolerant with people who have no business in being in it (which, true, is a much smaller percentage of people on death row)
But don't expect the legal system to try to improve how many innocents they convict.
Its way way way more complex than that. One point is that you have life imprisonment without parole - the same effect of people not coming back to society is achieved. Another one is expense - death row costs AFAIK are higher than life imprisonment, so the harmed society pays even more.
As for truly horrible crimes (which is something else to each of us), there are also tons of different views - do we want to be in society that is above emotional vengeful reactions, and more about compassionate loving ones? Ie like all good christians/muslims/etc are supposed to be according to their holiest books? You have to start somewhere if you even want to get there. You have to be morally strong to act in smart and compassionate way if you want to claim progress of mankind in this area. And so on.
I don't have a clear position on this myself and not stating some higher moral ground, since there are many pros and cons on both sides and quick emotional reaction to some murderous pedophile is as expected. But I am 100% certain that this very topic reveals a lot about mankind and us humans in our progression to be a better species, compared to primitive uneducated masses of the past. Or regression, its up to us.
It's not inhumane nor barbaric (appease to emotions fallacy). It has to be applied correctly however. When someone kills someone else on purpose and with determinism, they have forfeit their right to live. It's quite simple.
Of course, the application of the death penalty in the US is very wrong. Other cultures have solved this issue a long time ago.
Indeed though I find it silly when I buy something like a laptop (I’m probably good for a couple of years) and start getting bombarded by “hey laptops galore!”ads. I just bought one, don’t need another !
It would be cleverer to identify the replacement cycle for each kind of product and only promote stuff the victim is likely to be looking for at that point in time (after 3 years likeliness of looking for a laptop replacement is higher).
A bank transaction would not reveal what product you bought whereas a receipt would.
If prices were unique you could deduce something from a few items bought together though.
In the business of advertisements the user pays for clicks. However, it would be much more reliable for the user to pay for ads that led to actual transactions instead of just clicks.
Is there some reason for why this hasn't happened so far? (Or has it already happened?)
It’s my path to $2B.
Don’t tell anyone my idea.