Hacker News Reader

Comment by LinuxBender | Hacker News Reader

Yep, definitely comparable scenarios.

I think it is. Pakastan can create whatever laws fit its culture. I would never dare to imagine imposing my values or beliefs on them. They should create their own Wiki alternative and make it popular within their nation.

[Edit] Or if their people see fit change their laws, overthrow their government or whatever they deem appropriate for their culture. But that is entirely on them. Now if they want to ask how to bypass censorship, I would be happy to provide a myriad of methods just as I did for the Iranians that posted here in the recent past.

View on HN

> I would never dare to imagine imposing my values or beliefs on them

As I get older, I realize that while this may be idealized values - this works very poorly in the "real world". At some point, you realize that your arbitrary morals are simply better - better for everyone. Death penalty for blasphemy would be one of them - the world would simply be a better place if this did not exist.

The death penalty is abhorrent and indefensible, and religious freedom and the right to free expression are both included in the universal declaration of human rights, to which Pakistan is a signatory.

>The death penalty is abhorrent and indefensible

Believe it or not, but some places don't have the resources to hold people in jail for decades.

If there was a murderer and the place had no way to actually keep the murderer away from the general population, what would you recommend? Just ask the murderer to not murder again?

What countries don't have the prison capacity for murderers?

Even the bankrupt Taliban manages to keep 14k people in their prisons. https://www.voanews.com/a/taliban-refill-afghan-jails/693518...

Burundi's the last on the list of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... and manages prisons, as well.

They're not opting for executions for the cost savings.

"Even the bankrupt Taliban manages to keep 14k people in their prisons"

Yes, but if they actually jailed all criminals the number would be far higher.

Afghanistan's murder rate is approx 2800 people per year (6.7/100k, population 40 million). Assuming only a 10 year sentence for murder they should have twice as many people in prison -- assuming no other crimes whatsoever, which of course isn't the case.

"They're not opting for executions for the cost savings."

Don't be so sure. I agree with the above commenter - maintaining jails can be prohibitively expensive for undeveloped countries.

To be clear, I was just using murder as an example. You have to add in rape, terrorism, and other crimes that the Taliban executes people for.

We have no clue how many people they are holding in jail and how many are executed. Do you think they could actually hold thousands of additional prisoners who are amongst the most violent?

We also don't know how many of the guards agree with the terrorists. It probably wouldn't be a good thing to have a prison full of terrorists where the guards agree. They likely would "accidentally" let some of them escape.

The problem is that you cannot ascertain with certainty that someone is, in fact, a murderer. Countries with the death penalty will always execute innocent people. Roughly 5% of convicted persons are estimated to be innocent, and an execution makes the possibility of appeal or exoneration moot. At least 190 people in the United States have been sentenced to death and were later found to be innocent.

I don't think anybody is denying that innocent people will be killed by the death penalty.

Which is worse: 100 innocent people being killed by the death penalty or 100 innocent people getting killed by murderers? This is the calculation that many underdeveloped countries have to look at.

Allowing a murderer to live in a country that doesn't have the means to support them will lead to additional suffering of the prisoner (due to less resources), additional suffering of those not in prison (due to additional taxes), and an additional risk to additional murders by the murderer (if they kill other prisoners, guards or escape).

It is easy for people in the first world to say we don't have the need to have the death penalty, but to tell the poorest they are too stupid to know better is kind of arrogant.

Other comments addressed your (ridiculous) argument so that I don't have to, I encourage you to read them instead.

I encourage you to talk to some people in extremely undeveloped countries about the problems with detaining people for decades.

I would especially recommend talking to people in the most remote areas of the underdeveloped countries. They literally are unable to keep people in prison.

Over the past few decades, most areas have been solving these issues, but there are still a few areas where there is no alternative.

Not at all, unless the FBI can drone strike you for posting something they don't like.

Deferring blindly to any government is a dumb strategy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com