Hacker News Reader

Comment by Taylorious | Hacker News Reader

Someone innocent being sentenced to death is a tragedy. However, there are innocent people who get charged with life sentences or many decades, and they end up dying in prison from natural causes, murder, suicide, etc. Even if you get rid of the death penalty there will still be some innocent people who die in prison, or they spend a good part of their life in prison before they are exonerated. Sure they get a big fat settlement, but who cares if you went into prison at 20 and came out at 70 a millionaire. Not worth it. The point is I'm not sure getting rid of the death penalty would statistically save that many innocent lives, as harsh as that sounds.

View on HN

Statistics don't matter, even if one innocent person is saved it's worth it. There is absolutely no advantage to the death penalty. I'm sure if you told any death row survivor (eg: Damien Echols) that you don't think it's worth abolishing it because their lives were over anyway they would have a strong disagreement. An important consideration is the way death row inmates are treated too, 10 years on death row is not good for a person so if they are found innocent they will have suffered serious damage (Damien Echols again), it's a complete waste. Damien Echols did an AMA on reddit last year: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/107jib/iam_damien_echo...

It saves money. That's at least one advantage.

If you include the cost of appeals (which are part and parcel of the death penalty in the US) the cost of executing a death row inmate becomes greater than the cost of incarceration for life. For example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/20/california-death...

Anyone arguing for the death penalty on the grounds of financial probity is so morally and intellectually bankrupt that it is fairly safe to disregard their opinion on this subject entirely and to consider their opinions on all others to be at best deeply suspect.

Statistics matter. Not everyone on death row is innocent. How many people on death row kill other inmates?

EDIT: I meant to say how many people serving life sentences. But I suppose it applies to people on death row who never actually get put to death.

It amazes me that people defend the US system, especially in this way. If a statistical majority of a group do something, is treating the whole group the same a good idea? Using the same logic, most US citizens didn't commit any crime punishable by imprisonment, so why imprison anyone?

In fairness, the parent poster said "There is absolutely no advantage to the death penalty" and (s)he retorted. Not sure it is a 100% defense as much as refuting the "absolutely no advantage".

Perhaps people are under the impression that I am pro-death penalty because of my posts here. I am pro-death penalty in theory/philosophy, but I am not for it in the real world. Simply for practical reasons (cost of appeals process, and yes the possibility of false positives, etc.). I just posted to show that the issue of the death penalty isn't as black and white as people claim, and that the people who are for it aren't necessarily knuckle dragging blood thirsty fools. There are logical arguments for both sides, and the parent post didn't seems to recognize that.

"Statistics don't matter, even if one innocent person is saved it's worth it. "

You realise you could use the same statement to defend the death penalty? There are dozens of people in the UK who have been killed by people on life sentences that have been released but in earlier times would have face the death penalty.

I'm not pro-death penalty. I don't trust governments enough. I'd be happy with whole of natural life (i.e. no release ever) sentences.

Yeah, I think a long time in prison is better, be it 50 years or a whole life, though it will be more expensive for the government.

In the US, the costs really depend on the state. Some states take years upon years and allow many appeals. They also provide lawyers (if you can't afford it). Not to mention keeping the prisoner in death row is more expensive than regular.

So because doing X would only solve x% of the problem (without significant cost, as noted by another poster) for x < 100, we shouldn't do it? That's an absolutely insane argument. Apply it to business, software development, or whatever field you work in. The real key here is that commuting every death sentence to life in prison would cost almost nothing. So if it saves even one life, there isn't even a callous cost-benefit argument in favor of the death penalty! I myself am swayed by the moral arguments, no cost-benefit needed, but that's just me.

>Sure they get a big fat settlement

Actually not that many do: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90978&page=1

Reply on news.ycombinator.com