Oddbean

The death penalty is murder. Every judge and jurer that has given the death sentence should be locked up for the remainder of their lives. I say this as a mostly conservative leaning person. Anyone advocating the death penalty is a probably a psychopath, and should be under the care of a psychiatrist, and kept away from children and other vulnerable people.

I was being understanding of your point, until > Anyone advocating the death penalty is probably a psychopath I'm certainly not a psychopath. Neither are the billions of people who support it. Maybe misled. Your hyperbole works against you, and if it isn't hyperbole, you're disconnected from reality. I could agree with you that the way it is administered by the state is not the best it could be or something like that. There is a certain percentage of the population that, no matter what you do, what deterrent you set, they'll harm those around them because either they can't control their outbursts or they like it. Those people must be removed. Besides that, I firmly believe that people have a right to revenge, that that subset of people I talked about is only deterred from praying on you if they fear retaliation. The death penalty is killing. It is not murder.

Psychopathy simply means "mental disease" - 'psych' = mind, 'pathy' = illness. Its probably a spectrum, and probably everyone is a little bit messed up in the head. I do think that stronger meaning of the word applies to people who advocate the death penalty. Maybe some people simply haven't thought it through, but I don't think most people fall into that category. I do agree with you that people have a right to revenge, but this is the only instance I can think of that a right should be denied. Justice is supposed to work better than revenge, so we should ensure that our justice system is actually delivering justice. I live in the US, and I would emphatically argue that there is no justice in our court system, for many reasons. There are three main problems with the death penalty. First, as someone already wrote, if an individual doesn't have the right to kill, for any reason, then a group cannot magically have the right to kill by virtue of being a group or having some higher status. Second, no human is perfect. If no individual is perfect, then no group is perfect. Their judgement may be wrong. Evidence and testimony may be faked. Incentives may reward them for judging wrongly. Power structures may be threatened, and the politics may demand the death of an innocent. None of these possibilities can be ruled out. Third, similar to how the judge and jury are imperfect and subject to incentives, the same is true of someone who actually did kill. Even if you know absolutely that they did it, its still wrong to kill them. Incentive structures are generally out of our control, and they work in positive and negative ways, and they work in both the short and long term. For example, the current monetary system of usury and perpetually devaluing money causes some amount of stress in people. How much stress? Impossible to know. It affects different people differently, and social emergent phenomena could amplify stress more on particular people, and those people will be more likely to break and do something violent. Entire belief structures are built around compensating for felt oppression. For example, both the state and religion are belief structures that relieve people's anxiety - these social structures emerge from fear. And both the state and religion cause people to kill, and they will never define such killing as murder. But would these structures even exist without the constant application of stress on people, subconsciously felt, from the devaluing of people's savings and work? You can see that, at least partially, incentive structures are self perpetuating cycles. The things that motivate behavior are mostly subconscious and out of an individual's control. Its not simply, "he decided to kill, he's just bad." That doesn't exist. That's a fantasy. And if justice boils down to such a simplistic view on behavior, then there's no hope of ever having 'justice.' This is too long already. I'll reiterate that the death penalty is wrong, and say that there are other options. And I'll reiterate that someone who thinks society should repay murder with murder is a psychopath. Definitely.

No one said they would be. That's an assumption, and a straw man argument. And you must either read 10x faster than me, or you didn't read my note and opted to skip to this brainless response. Shame on you for all three things. You must be quite a specimen.

This is incorrect. The negatively affected parties are paid compensation. If the murderer isn't able to pay, society pays. Its worth it. I an as anarcho capitalist as anyone, but that doesn't mean we stop having a court system. You can find all sorts of ways of paying for it, it doesn't have to be taxes. But if any tax is justified, its the tax that pays for the judicial system.

Also retard you don’t seem to understand crime- there are punishments and levies that are Just when the jury demands it of the criminal. The murderer is no longer a free person after they (proven with jury trial) aggressed against the free person and ended their life intentionally.

You are 100℅ a genuine psychopath. You respond with name calling after refusing to read a detailed argument. Clearly you love the death penalty because it provides moral camouflage for your desire to commit murder. There are a lot of people like you.

Psychopathy simply means "mental disease" - 'psych' = mind, 'pathy' = illness. Its probably a spectrum, and probably everyone is a little bit messed up in the head. I do think that stronger meaning of the word applies to people who advocate the death penalty. Maybe some people simply haven't thought it through, but I don't think most people fall into that category. > I live in the US, and I would emphatically argue that there is no justice in our court system, for many reasons. I am 100% with you. The way we do it is unjust. I don't think that means that a group putting people to death is unjust though, as I'll explain later, I just think we need a better way of doing it and better reasoning about when it's warranted. > First, as someone already wrote, if an individual doesn't have the right to kill, for any reason, then a group cannot magically have the right to kill by virtue of being a group or having some higher status. An individual does have the right to kill though in some circumstances. > Second, no human is perfect. If no individual is perfect, then no group is perfect. Their judgement may be wrong. Evidence and testimony may be faked. Incentives may reward them for judging wrongly. Power structures may be threatened, and the politics may demand the death of an innocent. None of these possibilities can be ruled out. Yup, which is why I agree with you that putting people to death the way our society does it is wrong. > Even if you know absolutely that they did it, its still wrong to kill them. I am in complete disagreement with you about this. I reason that if someone is a threat to the safety those around them and will continue to be, it is just for a group to kill them. > Incentive structures are generally out of our control, and they work in positive and negative ways, and they work in both the short and long term. For example, the current monetary system of usury and perpetually devaluing money causes some amount of stress in people. How much stress? Impossible to know. It affects different people differently, and social emergent phenomena could amplify stress more on particular people, and those people will be more likely to break and do something violent. Entire belief structures are built around compensating for felt oppression. For example, both the state and religion are belief structures that relieve people's anxiety - these social structures emerge from fear. And both the state and religion cause people to kill, and they will never define such killing as murder. But would these structures even exist without the constant application of stress on people, subconsciously felt, from the devaluing of people's savings and work? You can see that, at least partially, incentive structures are self perpetuating cycles. The things that motivate behavior are mostly subconscious and out of an individual's control. Its not simply, "he decided to kill, he's just bad." That doesn't exist. That's a fantasy. And if justice boils down to such a simplistic view on behavior, then there's no hope of ever having 'justice.' There's a lot going on here. I think you're right, there are plenty of social structures that make people behave erratically and violently, often they convince themselves they are justified when they're not. But in the world, we still can't let those people run wild. They present a danger *now.* Ultimately we have to hold individuals responsible for their behavior, and then we have to fix those other issues separate from that. > This is too long already. I'll reiterate that the death penalty is wrong, and say that there are other options. And I'll reiterate that someone who thinks society should repay murder with murder is a psychopath. Definitely. I can say, when I talk about the death penalty, I'm saying that when a group is threatened by an individual, either by words or demonstration of intent with action, that group has a right to neutralize that threat. So it's not really repayment, not a penalty by my reasoning, it's more of a self defense measure. But I do believe that groups killing individuals is just in such a scenario.

Why can't we just put a wall around the state of New Jersey and throw the convicts in there? Technically a prison, but we don't need to pay all the upkeep of a prison, beyond making sure the wall isn't breached. The land is decent enough that they can grow food. Its not killing, and it removes them from society. And it fixes the problem of New Jersey existing. That shithole is an embarrassment and should be put to better use. My point is, all the reasons for killing are moot while there are other options. The reasons you mention for killing sometimes being justified are really only two scenarios. Self defense and rebellion against oppression. And this is why IMO we should stop violating the 2nd Amendment. Those two scenarios don't carry over to the justice system. Justice is only administered with the defendant in custody, which means they don't pose a threat. The threat is neutralized. Justice can't be revenge.

I'd add a third scenario, vengeance. You're talking about exile now, which I also think is justified. But now you've got to consider, is it just to put someone in a cage with monsters? If it's not just to kill someone for being bad to those around them, it's certainly not just to lock them in a cage with people who will prey on them, that's more akin to torture. If someone is damaged in some way to the point where they present mortal danger to those around them, it is unjust to subject anyone to that behavior, even another like them. I have some very unpopular views on this topic, and some popular ones, but I've thought a lot about it and I think I understand pretty clearly what a just justice system would look like, and it doesn't preclude the death penalty, or other corporal punishment, but it does preclude prison.

Exile, imprisonment, forced servitude as a monk while getting to know God... Doesn't matter. Imagine whatever. The only bottom line is that murder is wrong, for several reasons - its so wrong that its wrong from multiple viewpoints. Don't do it. The state is definitely committing murder when it executes someone because that person is already in custody. Not a threat. They are under control. So a jury deciding to kill them is no different than you colluding with your buddy to kidnap someone and then murder them. Its the exact same scenario. You and your bud may think you're entirely justified. Its the same.

Well, I think imprisonment is cruel and unjust, but aside that, you and I have already agreed that killing someone in self defense is just, and you haven't actually responded to my reasoning at all. You're reiterating your position, which is fine but doesn't lend itself well to fruitful discussion. A jury, the state, all that I can agree with. That doesn't mean though that a group putting someone to death is always unjust, just that our mechanisms for doing it are. I'd argue that me and my buddy deciding to go grab someone and kill them for, say for example, killing my cousin or raping my nephew or threatening to do so is entirely just.

Well, youre saying "bottom line murder is wrong", I'm saying it's not always murder, we seem to be in agreement on that. You're saying when the state does it they commit injustice because of the process by which they do it, I'm in agreement with you. But you keep making those same points which aren't in contention at all and which we have already addressed.

A jury is explicitly not the state. We haven’t had real juries for a long time. My entire argument about death sentence rests on first restoring the true jury trial. https://mises.org/library/book/lets-abolish-government