Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdreaver | Hacker News Reader

Good on them. I've seen way too many instances of people on death row that are eventually proved to be innocent. I think that even if the accuracy of death sentences was 99% (for every 99 criminals that truly did the crime, there is 1 that is innocent), that is unacceptably low. Furthermore, I am unconvinced that the death penalty actually deters crime. If you are committing a crime that results in you being sentenced to death, I don't think you are sane enough to have even considered the punishment.

View on HN

Death row stats: for every 9 people executed in the US, 1 person is exonerated. There was an exploration of these numbers on this BBC Radio 4 segment (not sure if available outside UK):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rf5qj

>>Furthermore, I am unconvinced that the death penalty actually deters crime. If you are committing a crime that results in you being sentenced to death, I don't think you are sane enough to have even considered the punishment.

You would think that, but it turns out that isn't the case. [0][1]

[0] - https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articl... [1] - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-de...

I'm not sure what either of these two sources are supposed to mean --- I mean, literally, I don't know which case you're trying to make (for or against deterrence).

In any case: you can't reasonably make inferences about the effectiveness of the death penalty simply by counting murders in states that do or don't have it, since there are so many other factors influencing how many murders a state will record.

I was trying to make the case against deterrence.

You're right, it is hard to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness by looking at murder numbers alone. It seems most experts would argue against deterrence being effective though and I would agree. If you can't say for certain whether or not something such as the death penalty is effective, then I think it is best to error on the side of not killing people.

Both of your sources agree with my statement. I don't get your point.

My mistake...I initially read 'unconvinced' as 'convinced'

I already linked to an academic study says there's a deterrence effect with the death penalty above. We should rely on empirical research, not links to websites that have agendas.

If only one, just ONE, innocent was put on the death row, that's one mistake too many.

Irreversible punishment is the height of arrogance.

Are other mistaken sentences, like life in prison, acceptable?

> Are other mistaken sentences, like life in prison, acceptable?

Clearly, they are undesirable and, if detected, the remedies may be imperfect, but nowhere near as imperfect as the remedies for a mistaken death sentence once it has been executed.

Then this argument against capital punishment isn't simply that mistaken application of capital punishment is bad, because all mistaken legal sentencing is bad.

No, the argument against capital punishment is that its existences increases the harms resulting from mistaken legal sentencing without offering any concrete, demonstrable benefit to society to weigh against that increased harm.

(While "any mistaken legal sentencing is bad" is perhaps part of the foundation on which that argument rests, it is not the whole, or even the important part, of the argument.)

No mistaken sentences are "acceptable" in a naive sense. But a death sentence, after it's been executed, is 100% irreversible.

A prison sentence is reversible in the sense that the individual could be released; sure, the time lost cannot be retrieved, but the individual is still alive.

If you think abolishing all punishment that has a error rate in conviction of 1% is unacceptable then we're in for a lot of trouble...

The argument that the death penalty is inhumane or against universal human rights it seems is a better angle to take.

> abolishing all punishment

I didn't say that. Killing someone is irreversible, so the error rate better be extremely low, or you just shouldn't do it. I understand that justice can't be perfect.

5 years in prison is also irreversible.

My point isn't that we shouldn't abolish the death penalty, rather that you should be able to apply your argument to all forms of punishment.

Putting someone in prison for 5 years in error is also highly problematic, yes.

The argument the parent is making applies to incarceration, but it applies more urgently to the death penalty.

The parent already makes your point by (hypothetically) applying an percentage error rate that would be acceptable.

> If you think abolishing all punishment that has a error rate in conviction of 1% is unacceptable then we're in for a lot of trouble...

If the punishment, e.g. a fine, can be appropriately redressed, e.g. by paying it back (with compensation), then the error rate matters far less.

You can't redress human life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com