Hacker News Reader

Comment by spoonjim | Hacker News Reader

Why does a murderer deserve another breath?

Please don't post flamebait or take HN threads into generic ideological arguments. They are exceedingly repetitive and convince no one—they just get people activated and angry. This place is for curious conversation.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Just lacked therapy. Murderer was a cop, and made a mistake. Murderer was provoked. Family of murderee forgives murderer. Murderee was merely an 3 months old embryo. Evidence not 100% conclusive. Murderer claims self defense.

I can continue. The world is messy. Black white thinking will not do it justice.

Not that I agree with these reasons in all circumstances. I just want to point out there are reasons to treat a murderer less harsh.

Because I care deeply about everybody – no matter what they have done. Because forgiveness and love are my core values, even if it doesn't usually show up in my day to day life. Because revenge is always bad. Torturing somebody no matter their crime would go fundamentally against those few things that I feel very deeply about – not that different from loving my family or caring about the longterm wellbeing of humanity.

If that sounds irrational to you: That's because it is irrational. Whether we choose to end another persons life is fundamental in our understanding of life itself, which is highly subjective.

But your belief that we should kill other humans is also irrational and subjective.

Edit: Also this paragraph in your first answer

>> I also think that pain should be part of the death penalty... that a murderer doesn’t deserve a quick and painless death but rather a healthy period of searing agony to experience the anguish that they themselves wrought on another."

is actually terrifying to me. Even reading it causes me some physical discomfort.

What if your love and forgiveness allow a killer to strike again? I share similar values but I'm prepared to compromise on them if necessary. Even incarceration is a compromise. Values are ideals, not absolutes.

I agree that incarceration is a necessary compromise and of course I don't want a killer to strike again. Forgiveness doesn't mean that I'm against all punishment. But I think that it means there always has to be a chance for somebody to change – no matter what they did. Even life sentences without any chance of parole should not be possible: if somebody is no longer a danger to society they should be allowed to return at some point.

They're human. Revenge has no place in civilized society.

“Revenge has no place in a civilized society” is just an opinion. Mine is different. I don’t believe a society is civilized if it treats murderers with anything less than the most extreme vengeance.

Then the world would be better off without you.

That may be, but I can tell you without whom the world would be MUCH better off: murderers.

Which is why incarceration exists. The death penalty was necessary back when society simply couldn't afford prisons, but not today.

Which civilized society? In which baby Bush "finishes off" what papa Bush started?

What kind of argument is this? You're already barbarians so might as well be consistent?

It's more like: I see a pattern.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com