Hacker News Reader

Comment by seren | Hacker News Reader

Skimming the list, it seems only few of them are really repentant and understood the consequences of what they did. But, for the few of them, especially those referring to their family and children, it is hard to see what benefits their death will bring. Maybe some closure for the victim's family, but in some case, it sounds like the guy being executed as not much more in common with the criminal.

View on HN

> really repentant and understood the consequences of what they did.

No need to be repentant when you are innocent.

"I don’t think the world will be a better or safer place without me."

If they aren't executed, they will spend the rest of their life in jail. So by executing them our gains are two fold.

1. save tax dollars over keeping them in jail long term

2. give victims families peace

Something to think about.

There is a reasonable debate surrounding whether an execution is more expensive than simply incarcerating for life, mostly because of the numerous appeals involved with a death sentence. I have no opinion regarding capital punishment.

A little more than a decade ago, I had to do research on capital punishment for a college ethics class. In the United States, at that time, the cost for a death row inmate was several times greater than it was for an inmate in for life without parole.

Additionally, there are the questionable convictions and the legal convictions that are subsequently found to have been innocent but for which innocence is no longer considered (e.g. dobbsbob comment about Rob Will - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7822471).

Do those appeals still happen with a life sentence though? Did you compare the yearly cost of housing an inmate vs the cost to execute (including appeals etc)?

I was just identifying and summarizing calculations done by others. Among the calculations I analyzed, all included the cost of appeals and housing.

In many states there were mandatory appeals for death-row inmates which added to their costs. For most other sentences there were more limits on appeals which in-turn limited the life-sentence appeals costs.

There were higher housing costs for the death-row inmates, although I don't remember seeing a breakdown. I always assumed the differences were because of increased security costs. The housing costs were for entire expected sentences, not by year (while a life-sentence inmate would be expected to need housing for a longer time, the costs were still less than a death-row inmate's costs until execution).

Also, in many prisons, the life-sentence inmates could participate in work programs, with some of the related income being funneled back into the prison. At the time I was doing my research I couldn't find any work programs that allowed death-row inmates to participate. So not only were the life-sentence inmates cheaper, they could potentially work to reduce their own costs.

As for 2. I'd rather say "give victims families a sense of satisfaction" but I would not say "peace" as peace is a positive state (which requires the will of the person). And that "sense" of satisfaction may turn out to be quite wrong if later on they recapacitate and think "well, I might have been satisfied with the criminal still alive" or even "I would like to forgive the criminal".

When reworded, I don't know that I'd call your points "gains": 1. Saving some money by killing people 2. Exacting revenge

We might differ in opinion on the role of government, though. Personally, I don't think either task is the job we want our government to be in.

I totally agree with you. I was just speaking as though we needed to justify capital punishment somehow. I also shouldn't use "our" and "we". I live in a country without capital punishment so my perspective is from a far outsider.

Fair enough, and you pulled off playing the part well enough that I believed you might be sincere. :-) Sadly, part of the reason I thought you might be sincere is because those are the two most commonly used reasons for capital punishment. One can fancy it up with language so that it sounds noble and civilized ("victims' families can have closure"), but it boils down to "we're civilized and humane until it costs money" and "the victims' families want to see the motherfucker fry". (I only raise the last point as a counter-argument to those that have no more idea what the victims' families want than I do.)

It doesn't save money. Executing someone costs a ton of money.

The common response to this is something like, "Well, make it cheaper. Stop with all the appeals and other nonsense." The trouble is that we already execute far too many innocent people, and streamlining the process will only make it worse.

To carry out executions in anything resembling a just manner, it pretty much has to be more expensive than imprisoning someone for life.

As for #2, life without parole should be just as final as an execution as far as closure for the victims is concerned.

Ya I was really just responding in context of the parent comment, not necessarily my views. I oppose capital punishment and I don't think someone get's peace/closure from the death penalty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com