

Nebraska Abolishes Death Penalty - joshrotenberg
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/nebraska-abolishes-death-penalty.html

======
perfTerm
Good. The death penalty ensures a false incarceration can never be corrected,
costs millions of tax payer dollars because of the long appeals processes, and
shows no correlation with decreased crime rates (states with out the death
penalty consistently have lower crime rates according to the FBI [0])

[0] - [http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-
de...](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-
penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates)

~~~
jwdunne
The family of the criminal also suffers. If my child was a murderer, I would
grieve. If my child was consequently executed I would grieve even more. That's
an incredible amount of pain for something I didn't do. After it's said and
done, my child would feel no pain. My pain would last forever. I would
honestly want to commit suicide over my failure as a parent.

~~~
Dylan16807
There's also the opposite argument that it gives closure.

~~~
jwdunne
As a parent, there would be no closure in my child's death, no matter what
they have done. I look at my 2 daughters and see the most beautiful girls I've
ever laid eyes upon. For one of them to commit such a heinous crime would ruin
me. For their death to be added on to that, life would mean nothing at all.

~~~
swombat
I think the parent meant closure for the family and friends of the victim, not
of the murderer.

~~~
Dylan16807
I meant everyone. The murderer is no longer suffering, and there's no longer
looming uncertainty as the days tick down toward a date that keeps changing.

In certain circumstances death is easier to deal than almost-death.

But that's more of an argument to stop death row from being a quagmire, rather
than a pro-death-penalty argument. I probably didn't put the comment in the
most ideal place.

------
jdreaver
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.

~~~
Inception
_> >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...](https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf)
[1] - [http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-
de...](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-
penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates)

~~~
tptacek
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.

~~~
Inception
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.

------
bpodgursky
Going to be contrarian here. I see in other comments

> costs millions of tax payer dollars because of the long appeals processes

Well... yes, but the alternative is that you throw someone in prison for life
(likely without parole). And since there is no upcoming "event" to force an
appeals process (aka execution), it will just never happen. Is that really a
better fate for someone wrongfully accused? If you are sentencing them to life
in a cage, be honest and call it a death penalty.

So sure you can save some money by getting rid of the death penalty, but it is
not likely to make Justice any better served, it will just make you feel
better and leave people in prison forever without a guaranteed appeals
process.

~~~
mikeash
I don't know that life in prison is better than being executed, but it doesn't
seem substantially worse. There doesn't seem to be any decent argument _for_
the death penalty, since the only two possible reasons, cost and deterrence,
don't hold up. In the absence of a decisive factor, I vote for not killing
people.

~~~
michaelsbradley
There is the retributive argument, in which condign punishments play an
important role in maintaining the balance of justice.

As summarized by the Catechism of Trent, a Christian religious text of
historical importance:

"Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is
entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of
which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this
power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount
obedience to this Commandment [against killing] which prohibits murder. The
end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the
punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger
of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by
repressing outrage and violence."

– _Catechism of the Council of Trent_ , Part III, 5, n. 4 (1566)

[http://j.mp/CatechismTrentDeathPenalty](http://j.mp/CatechismTrentDeathPenalty)

~~~
dragonwriter
While that quote uses the phrase "legitimate avenger of crime", the
justification it gives -- that the punishments "give security to life by
repressing outrage and violence" is _not_ the retributive theory of justice,
but instead a utilitarian view akin to general deterrence in that the purpose
of the punishment is to prevent greater harm by modifying the behavior of
others in the community (but distinguishable from it, in that it does not seek
to do so by creating fear of punishment.)

~~~
michaelsbradley
Actually, the Catechism text encapsulates both retributive and deterrence
arguments, though I would argue the text bears the former more strongly. The
key is to see the "outrage and violence" part not only with respect to
potential violence (which might be deterred in view of capital punishment) but
also the natural repercussions of injustices left festering when civil
authority fails to inflict fitting punishments on wrongdoers.

------
k-mcgrady
Welcome to civilised society Nebraska! :)

Good to see another state abolish this but as someone not too familiar with
how the US law system works why is something like this decided at the state
level? Shouldn't something like government sanctioned killing of humans be
controlled at a federal level? Also does the federal government have a
position on capital punishment?

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Capital punishment still exists for federal crimes, which is why the Boston
bomber was given the death penalty despite his offense occurring in
Massachusetts, which doesn't have it at the state level.

Also, federal law isn't simply a grab bag of "really important" laws, with
states only existing to handle smaller, more trivial things. In theory,
federal law is restricted to addressing the things enumerated in the
Constitution. In practice, one of those is regulating interstate commerce,
which since [1] has steadily increased in scope. Nonetheless, a federal law
banning capital punishment would still need to be written with that in mind.

1:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)

~~~
dragonwriter
> In theory, federal law is restricted to addressing the things enumerated in
> the Constitution. [...] Nonetheless, a federal law banning capital
> punishment would still need to be written with that in mind.

Considering 8th Amendment incorporation under the 14th Amendment and the
enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment, that shouldn't be too difficult,
without even coming anywhere near the Commerce Clause.

~~~
tptacek
Since SCOTUS has already held that capital punishment is not intrinsically
"cruel and unusual", I'm not sure how the 8th Amendment gives the federal
government the power to regulate state capital sentences.

Meanwhile: if capital punishment ever is held to be "cruel and unusual", no
federal legislative action will be needed to abolish it; SCOTUS will do it by
fiat.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Since SCOTUS has already held that capital punishment is not intrinsically
> "cruel and unusual", I'm not sure how the 8th Amendment gives the federal
> government the power to regulate state capital sentences.

SCOTUS has never held that disadvantaging the disabled is intrinsically a
violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (relevant, as the
provision under which it has incorporated the 8th against the states),
nonetheless, it _has_ held that Congress acted within its power under the
enforcement clause of the 14th (and did not violate State reserved powers
under the 11th) in, under the ADA, requiring access to courthouses.

While the enforcement clause of the 14th is a fairly lightly litigated power,
its pretty clear that it _does_ extend beyond the things where legislation is
not necessary because any violation of the law Congress might impose to under
the enforcement clause would already necessary be prohibited by the bare text
of the Amendment, which seems to be your position.

~~~
tptacek
Prepared to be wrong, but: I don't think the federal government can pass laws
that bind on state criminal sentencing laws, or on state judges. For instance,
SCOTUS has held that federal sentencing ranges don't bind state courts, nor do
sentences falling outside those ranges fail for being unreasonable.

The federal government _can_ bind state courts not to violate the
constitutional rights of the accused, and so for instance Washington can't
pass laws requiring judges to apply mandatory sentences based on facts not
established by juries. But those actions belong to the federal courts, not
Congress.

I don't think Congress can pass a law banning state capital sentences.

~~~
learc83
I bet they could something...something... interstate commerce. Ban the import
and sale of lethal injection drugs, ban the manufacture of gas chambers and
electric chairs, and force states to use firing squads at the very least.

------
tptacek
Intelligence Squared had a pretty good debate on capital punishment a few
weeks ago:

[http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-
debates/item/1...](http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-
debates/item/1254-abolish-the-death-penalty)

~~~
aidos
OT but I'd never seen that site before. Looks really interesting!

~~~
tptacek
It's pretty great. The way debates are scored keeps any of them from being
foregone conclusions, and some of the results are pretty surprising to me
(given the NPR audience).

------
bklaasen
I've never understood the logic of a state killing its citizens in order to
show that killing is unacceptable.

~~~
LordKano
Do you understand the logic of the state seizing people and locking them up in
order to show that seizing people and locking them up is unacceptable?

That's what we do to kidnappers.

~~~
bklaasen
Right, and there's no qualitative difference between killing someone and
locking them up. You've convinced me that I'm wrong.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Your argument against capital punishment was that the role of an actor was
irrelevant to the morality of the action. It's entirely correct to apply that
logic to other types of action.

There may be plenty of valid arguments against capital punishment. Yours was
not one of them.

~~~
bklaasen
> the role of an actor [is] irrelevant to the morality of the action [carried
> out by the state]

That's precisely what I'm saying. You disagree, but that does not render my
argument invalid.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Then we're back to the beginning. Here is a syllogism that you just said you
agree with:

1\. An action is immoral without regard to the actor.

2\. Killing is immoral for a regular joe on the street.

3\. Therefore, killing is immoral for the government.

However, you don't seem as comfortable with:

1\. An action is immoral without regard to the actor.

2\. Demanding someone's money by force (e.g mugging) is immoral.

3\. Therefore, it is immoral for the government to issue a fine.

Or this one:

1\. An action is immoral without regard to the actor.

2\. Kidnapping someone and holding them for years is immoral for a regular
joe.

3\. Therefore, imprisonment is immoral for the government.

You could also remain consistent by saying that armed robbery and kidnapping
are moral. It's up to you.

EDIT: Typo and punctuation.

