
What I Learned from Executing Two Men - pmcpinto
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/what-i-learned-from-executing-two-men.html?_r=1
======
saalweachter
The difficulty with trying to argue down the death penalty is that you end up
arguing on so many levels.

This article mentions the dollars and cents expense of the death penalty; this
is an empirical fact, either it is cheaper to execute someone or cheaper to
imprison them.

This article mentions the ineffectiveness in protecting society; this is also
an empirical question, although it is harder to measure than the monetary
cost.

Finally, the article speaks of the emotional and moral cost to those employed
to carry out the execution.

But the article only devotes a single sentence to the core of the argument, at
the very beginning: the author has come to believe that life is either
hallowed or not, and he prefers to believe that it is always hallow, and
killing always wrong.

This is the core of the problem. Some people believe killing is always wrong.
Some people believe justice requires the execution of those convicted of a
capital crime. Heck, sometimes these contradictory beliefs are held by the
same person.

All the other arguments don't matter. If killing is always wrong, you pay the
cost of life imprisonment and don't execute people to save money. If justice
requires a life for a life, you don't scrimp on that, either. You pay whatever
monetary, emotional, and moral costs are necessary for justice to be done.

~~~
raverbashing
If you think that killing is always wrong then you'll eventually be guilty of
killing by omission

As it was shown even this weekend in St. Cloud

Society has a lot of self-contradictory situations like that. Hence why I
think no value is absolute

~~~
freerobby
There's a big difference between killing defensively and killing in the name
of justice, though. There's no conflict in believing that (1) life is always
hallowed, (2) retributive killing is always wrong, and (3) killing is
justified in some situations to preserve life.

~~~
dsacco
Sure there is. What is your definition of "hallowed"? By implication, I
believe the author used it to mean "killing is always wrong", or "life must
always be preserved."

Is that is indeed the definition, #1 and #3 are directly incompatible. This is
the problem with using words like "hallowed" in philosophical debates. One
person uses a word without defining it, and they intend it one way. Then the
other party argues with their imperfect and improvised understanding of the
word's definition, and no one gets anywhere. This is how we end up with six
people debating whether or not "the good always matches the beautiful", and
it's one of the reasons philosophy as a discipline has a bad reputation to
outsiders.

If you dig deep enough, what will often happen is one or more parties will try
to create an empirical definition and the other parties will just use circular
definitions until it's clear they're not saying anything at all.

If "hallowed" doesn't mean "must always be preserved", I'm not sure it can
mean anything of consequence to the debate. You could define it as "must be
preserved unless there is a justifiable reason not to", but then you're not
saying anything new. It's redundant.

~~~
emodendroket
There is no incompatibility at all. If life is hallowed, it follows that the
only situation in which killing would be justified would be to prevent another
killing.

If anything, war makes a much more challenging case for this view, unless you
accept a position of total pacifism

~~~
dsacco
Please define "hallowed" for me. As I explained, I believe the only definition
of "hallowed" with any consequence to the debate is "must always be
preserved."

If that is the definition we're working with, it precludes "justifiable"
exceptions, because there are no exceptions allowed. You'd need to equate
passively allowing someone to kill another life with actively killing to
preserve a life, which is another entire debate before we can begin to take
that as a premise.

If that is not the definition, then why should we bother saying something like
"life is hallowed"? What could it mean that would have any consequence for, or
add any further meaning to the debate? "Life is meaningful."? "Life is to be
respected."?

This is the complexity inherent to engaging in dialectics, and in my opinion
words like "hallowed" should simply be avoided unless they're rigorously
defined by all parties.

~~~
emodendroket
"Should never be taken except to preserve another life" seems both
consequential and fitting.

~~~
dsacco
Fair enough, I suppose that does fit.

------
manish_gill
This is a strange article. The author glosses over the criminals charged with
death penalty easily and goes into depth about his and his staff's personal
experience and their moral burden/PTSD, the distress they might have felt.
While that's a valid point of view, it completely sidesteps the core issue of
why the author is advocating a change in his stance on the death penalty, or
worse, it's the only reason for the change.

Being an outsider, it's something I notice a lot in American media - a
tendency by law officials (and soldiers) to lament about their suffering while
not paying enough attention to the people who are the real figures of the
tragedies (death penalty, victims of war). It also relates to the hero worship
that I see in American culture (even online). Every soldier with a PTSD is
made out to be a "poor fellow who needs help". The person who said "yes" to
being comfortable in killing people telling his harrowing story about how
difficult it was for his staff.

Apologies in advance if the above comes across as too insensitive. Not sure
what I'm trying to say here but just dumping my immediate thoughts.

~~~
jonknee
> The author glosses over the criminals charged with death penalty easily and
> goes into depth about his and his staff's personal experience and their
> moral burden/PTSD, the distress they might have felt.

I think that is pretty much expected with an article titled "What I Learned
from Executing Two Men".

> Being an outsider, it's something I notice a lot in American media - a
> tendency by law officials (and soldiers) to lament about their suffering
> while not paying enough attention to the people who are the real figures of
> the tragedies (death penalty, victims of war).

But there _is_ damage on both sides. No one disputes the suffering of those
who are killed, but it's a fairly recent development to study the suffering of
those on the other end. I think it should be studied so that we know what
we're asking people to do (be it an executioner, soldier or first responder).

------
benevol
How can a society which calls itself "civilized" keep the death penalty?

There's so much deeply disturbingly wrong with it that I don't even.

~~~
dforrestwilson1
We kill less than 100 people per year via execution.

Not so bad compared to drone strikes:
[https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/dron...](https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-
graphs/)

The really horrifying thing to me is that drone strikes aren't even a serious
topic this election cycle. HRC is in favor for more. Trump wants to commit war
crimes. Perhaps I am biased because I helped to do a lot of them.

In the end it comes down to the same thing, judging the value of other
people's lives, or perhaps more callously never thinking about their lives at
all.

~~~
3pt14159
I'm pretty peaceful, but surgical, targeted drone strikes against combatants
that are currently a threat against civilians isn't exactly going to keep me
up at night.

Edit:

Yikes, the downvote brigade is swift. Here is what I'm saying: Compared to
traditional war. Where we lose tens of thousands of people or more on both
sides, targeted drone strikes are a net positive. I'm not for perpetual war in
the middle east, but realistically speaking we can't just pull out everywhere
and targeted drone strikes are better than conventional responses.

~~~
cyberferret
Does that mean you are 100% confident that these drone strikes are ONLY
killing bad guys that deserve it? How many collateral deaths of innocent men,
women and children do you consider OK before it begins to infringe on your
peaceful sleep?

~~~
3pt14159
We don't live in a Utopia. I don't need to be 100% confident that drone
strikes are ONLY killing 100% bad guys. Tens of millions of people died in
WW2. The answer to stoping drone strikes is increasing diplomacy in the Middle
East - not burying our head in the sand and banning drones from doing drone
strikes against enemy combatants.

~~~
dforrestwilson1
This is an easy thing to say when it isn't your country being bombed by
foreign powers.

------
agentgt
The article sort of delved into this but there are some convicts that
strangely find comfort in the future of being executed. In some ways I can
understand this as the thought of being in American prisons for an extended
period is rather terrifying.

Michael Shermer examined this in a recent article in Scientific America [1].

I'm sad to say I don't have that many strong thoughts on the subject because
as (some other commenters have posted) there are just so many other atrocities
that far more concerning both quantitatively and qualitatively.

[1]: [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-death-
row-i...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-death-row-inmates-
speak-of-love/)

~~~
John23832
I don't think that they find comfort in it. I think it's more they can't stop
the fact that they are going to die, and want some control over the process.
So they take control of _how_ they die, not whether they die or not. And that
seems like comfort.

------
mhb
This article unfortunately conflates the value (or absence of value) of the
death penalty with the unpleasantness involved with carrying it out.

If the process were better would he still be opposed to it?

~~~
willvarfar
> After much contemplation, I became convinced that, on a moral level, life
> was either hallowed or it wasn’t. And I wanted it to be.

Also

> I could not see that execution did anything to enhance public safety.

------
sickbeard
But the average citizen might find himself looking at the death row prisoner
in the eye when the said prisoner is doing the killing.

~~~
Pigo
Or maybe it's their 10 year old son who's lured away by some maniac, abused
and killed. It's a complicated issue, and really easy to talk about how
revenge doesn't solve anything from a great distance. I could see the absence
of a death penalty putting me in a situation where I would end up taking the
law into my own hands. Not that I think that's okay, but I could very much see
it happening in that situation.

~~~
saiya-jin
there is 7 billion people on earth, and number is growing fast. rather than
focusing on preserving quantity at all costs, which is not an issue anyway, we
should focus on quality (character, added value to mankind etc.).

With this reasoning, killing a murdered of your own child (or any similar
case, ie parents/loved one) isn't that much of a stretch. Extreme situations
call for extreme solutions

~~~
lorenzhs
It's a small step from what you're proposing to euthanizing "unwanted" or
"unproductive" parts of the population. Are you sure you want to go down that
path?

~~~
saiya-jin
my point was only concerning the case above - somebody intentionally, even
brutally kills someone closest to you.

I never suggested scaling it up to anyone else, liked or not, from where did
you get that?

~~~
lorenzhs
Oh I'm not insinuating that you do! But you do make an argument about quality
of persons in the context of preserving life. That's a very dangerous path to
go down.

~~~
saiya-jin
indeed it is, but in the scenario above, rationality wouldn't be the strongest
part of most humans, me including.

All this topic is ridiculous and I hope that none of us would ever be facing
anything similar. But if we would, this kind of rationalization would keep at
least me sane afterwards... or so I think.

------
vilda
Does anybody have an opinion why not to use low pressure as a method killing
[0]? All the failed executions by electrical chairs and administered chemicals
makes me think about a safer and more human method. Just theoretical question,
not advocating for anything.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUfF2MTnqAw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUfF2MTnqAw)

Edit: Typo

~~~
dsacco
I agree that the methodology could probably be improved. If we're optimizing
for psychological comfort for the prisoner and certainty of the process
working, I'd actually recommend a close-range shot to the head with a high
caliber bullet.

Depending on the distance and round, not only will the prisoner not experience
their own death (they won't see or even hear it coming), it's astronomically
unlikely to fail. High velocity rounds will pierce through the tissue more
quickly than it can physically tear, and will technically exit the body before
the brain matter has begun tearing. The physics of this is fascinating,
because it not only ultimately destroys significant brain tissue; the process
stretches out the tissue, straining and damaging the rest of the surviving
brain tissue.

Of course, this is not optimized to be clean. It's gruesome, but I don't think
it's necessarily cruel. One moment they're alive, the next they're not. Blunt
force is still the quickest way to induce a cessation of consciousness. If the
prisoner were not aware of it happening, they would probably be at greater
peace at the time of their death. This could also be done remotely so as to
reduce the mental toll on the executioner.

Unfortunately, it would make an open casket unlikely. But I imagine most
prisoners due to be executed experience a lot of terror in the hours, days and
weeks preceding their final moments under the current system. I imagine living
with that anticipation is horrifying for some.

From what I can understand through cursory research, morphine is a painless
way to die, so much so that doctors use it to ease patients into death when
there is an acceptable lack of available treatment. Extreme euphoria followed
by unconsciousness doesn't sound like a bad way to do.

------
freerobby
It's nice to see a statement of regret, but it really bothers me how rarely
those who feel this way do anything about it while in positions of power. This
Warden claims to have felt it wrong in the moment, yet he did not make the
faintest of sacrifices to oppose it. It would be much more influential for a
well-regarded Warden to publicly oppose or resign over such policies, than to
obey them blindly and issue a mea culpa years later when he no longer has
influence. Read the passage below, and consider the lack of courage required
to kill someone in a way you feel is pointless at best, and morally heinous at
worst, because it's your "job." How many extra years of capital punishment
will we have, how many extra prisoners killed, because people in his position
took too long to speak up?

> Regardless of their crimes, the fact that I was now to be personally
> involved in their executions forced me into a deeper reckoning with my
> feelings about capital punishment. After much contemplation, I became
> convinced that, on a moral level, life was either hallowed or it wasn’t. And
> I wanted it to be.

> I could not see that execution did anything to enhance public safety. While
> death penalty supporters suggest that capital punishment has the power of
> deterrence, a 2012 report by the National Research Council found that
> research “is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases,
> increases or has no effect on homicide rates.”

> I now believed that capital punishment was a dismal failure as a policy, but
> I was still expected to do my job. So I met with my staff and explained my
> position. I made it known that anyone who felt similarly opposed could back
> out of our assignment. According to state policy, assisting in the
> executions was voluntary for everyone but the superintendent. And yet each
> of those asked to serve chose to stay to ensure that the job was done
> professionally.

~~~
overcyn
I disagree that it is so cut and dry. Does publicly opposing a̶n̶d̶ or
resigning prevent those deaths from occurring? Should all of the staff
involved be morally obligated to hand in their resignation _or publicly
oppose_ as well? What of the other prisoners under his custody that he may
feel responsibility for?

Quitting _or publicly opposing_ may be the most conspicuous way of opposing
the death penalty, but people need to be able to choose their battles.

~~~
freerobby
I said "publicly oppose _or_ resign." There are many ways to protest and draw
attention to things that are broken; my point isn't that he failed to do all
of them, it's that he failed to do any of them.

~~~
overcyn
He failed to do any that you are aware of, with regards to this single issue
of many that affect his facility.

~~~
freerobby
> He failed to do any that you are aware of

The whole premise of this piece is that the author went along with a broken
system because "that's the way it's supposed to work" \-- that people on the
inside oil the machine and people on the outside look the other way, and both
are to blame for their part in it.

The author bends over backwards throughout to show that he was no exception,
that he went right along with it, and he seems to regret that now. If evidence
to the contrary is available, I'm all ears.

> with regards to this single issue of many that affect his facility.

Well yeah, but "this single issue" is the premise of the article, a major
social issue, and the topic of discussion here. I'm not saying this guy
shirked his moral duties all throughout life; I'm saying he shirked them on
capital punishment.

~~~
overcyn
I think that had he, as warden, resigned/publicly opposed the executions they
still would have happened. I think that as warden, he has many other
opportunities for reform within his prison. I therefore don't think that he
has a moral obligation to resign/publicly oppose the executions. We live in a
society of broken systems. If we have to protest every wrongdoing that we
encounter, we wouldn't be able to get anything done.

As to the warden's own lack of "the faintest sacrifice to oppose it" and
"bending over backwards". What do you consider an appropriate sacrifice for an
ordinary citizen who opposes capital punishment? Campaigning for more
progressive political leaders? Communicating with state officials? How do you
know he did none of these things? I don't have evidence that he did but
neither do you have evidence that he didn't. I don't understand the
condemnation of this individual you know only through an op-ed.

~~~
freerobby
Public opinion is turning on capital punishment[1]. Anything those with power
can do to draw attention to its failures will continue and further that
momentum. Yeah, those two guys were probably going to be executed either way,
but he could have impacted others by accelerating the pace of reform. Similar
impact has been made elsewhere in the last decade, in states like Illinois
where moratoriums have been imposed when officials and governors have come to
their senses before the lawmakers.

In terms of what an appropriate sacrifice is, I suppose there's a pretty wide
spectrum. At the extreme, he could've publicly resigned and refused to have
any part in something so unethical. On the lighter end, he could've penned an
op/ed stating that it's a terrible practice but that he's going to stay and do
his part to make it as comfortable as possible for the condemned, while
calling on lawmakers to end the practice. I'm not prescriptive about how
exactly people should react when their ethics are challenged, but I think it's
reasonable to ask them to wander in the direction of their moral compass even
when their job points the other way.[2]

[1] [http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/16/less-support-for-
deat...](http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/16/less-support-for-death-
penalty-especially-among-democrats/)

[2] Obviously, some people would be hurting for work if they lost their job,
and cannot afford to take big risks or piss off their bosses. But that doesn't
apply to prison wardens, and if anything, the imperative of a prison warden to
have solid ethics is much higher than that of a typical worker.

------
jordache
on the subject of deterrence, if the author argues that the death penalty is
not a deterrence, how does he explain the relatively low levels of drug crimes
in asian countries where death penalty is more heavily used? It appears to me
the death penalty, while used as a potential punishment threat in the U.S, is
actually a sparsely applied. Criminals know that, so its deterrence factor is
effectively diminished

~~~
VLM
You may be confusing the metric of convictions with the metric of activity
(proxy for deterrence)

The way it works in the USA for example, is if the punishment for cocaine
dealing is draconian, for white people it'll be plea bargained down to time
served and some probation for a small possession charge, but black people will
get convicted and go to prison on a full trafficking and conspiracy charge, so
the metric you're actually measuring is the racial ratio of coke dealers
caught by the cops.

Likewise what you're likely really measuring in the Asian countries is the
ratio of border guards and cops who can be bought off and stay bought off.
There may be some occasional extremely aggressive bribe negotiation
situations, or a much disliked or distrusted courier is ratted out by his own
guys (or an opposing group?). Another metric that's actually being measured is
the local technologies and ratios of shipments; its quite possible that things
in the USA are extremely personal with trunks full of stuff in personally
owned vehicles but in Asia anonymous shipping containers in government owned
and operated ports that don't legally exist are the primary source or maybe
something even sneakier.

~~~
aminok
Drug abuse is far less common in Singapore, to take one example, than Western
countries. That would suggest low activity.

------
retrogradeorbit
Essential reading on this topic:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish)

The opening I will never forget. It is a detailed historical description of
one of the last public executions in France for Regicide. A powerful opening
to a very thought provoking book. It details the decline of capital punishment
as the public began to see the punishment as worse than the crime, and the
moving from the taking of life by the state (execution), to the taking of
bodily freedom (imprisonment). From punishing the soul of the man, to merely
punishing his body.

After reading the book I became sure that this trend in the reform of
punishment will continue and that it is inevitable that eventually capital
punishment will disappear completely from the world.

------
arethuza
The video "Hanging with Frank" covers the details of the process the UK used
to use:

[https://vimeo.com/24804876](https://vimeo.com/24804876)

------
tim333
You could make a general case that the government shouldn't kill anyone unless
it's obviously beneficial to do so. That would rule out capital punishment
since imprisonment works ok, would allow for killing armed attackers in self
defence and probably for assisted dying for the terminally ill. It gets more
tricky with regime change and the like but you could make a case for opposing
the Saddams and Assads financially rather than with bombs.

------
Ace17
Do we actually have numbers that shows death penalty actually impacts
criminality rates? Why put any emotional stuff (revenge, punishment,
suffering) in the equation?

------
choko
While it may not serve as a deterrent, in my opinion there are people that
have performed actions so heinous and grizzly that they should not be allowed
to live. The death penalty should be reserved for only the most depraved and
irredeemable members of society.

If you don't agree, how about an opposing viewpoint instead of downvotes?

~~~
sillysaurus3
Many people have been proven innocent after they were on death row.

~~~
choko
If there is any question of guilt, then the death penalty would not be an
appropriate sentence. There are many examples where there is no question of
guilt, where I feel the death penalty would be completely appropriate.
Admitted serial killers for example. I'm not advocating a liberal use of the
death sentence, but I still feel that there are cases where it's needed. If
anyone doesn't agree, make an argument instead of downvoting. HN is better
than that.

~~~
teddyh
> Admitted serial killers for example.

Like this man?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sture_Bergwall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sture_Bergwall)

~~~
choko
"With no eyewitnesses or technical forensic evidence to connect him to the
crimes..."

So no, not like that at all.

~~~
teddyh
He was at one point _convicted_ of eight murders, and had confessed to more
than 20 more. Who, if not that man, would you nominate for a death penalty? Or
is a conviction not a conviction?

~~~
choko
I'm thinking more along the lines of a Jeffery Dahmer. There was overwhelming
forensic evidence of guilt, along with full confessions. In that case, guilt
was all but irrefutable. I've yet to hear an argument as to why someone like
that, and under those circumstances, should be allowed to remain alive.

I submit that allowing such unrepentant and irredeemable evil to exist is more
barbaric than a quick death.

~~~
teddyh
You still have not clearly defined how you would differentiate between the two
cases. Both were convicted, with forensic evidence, and had confessed, to
multiple murders. If a _conviction_ is not enough, what would be?

~~~
choko
I'm not a lawyer or a legislator. I don't have the legal wherewithal to know
exactly how to word a potential codification of death penalty requirements
based on a large amount of forensic evidence and a confession. It doesn't
change my opinion that there are some people (in extremely rare cases) that
should lose their lives.

For what it's worth, the article you cited states that there was a lack of
technical forensic evidence, which was not a problem in the Dahmer case.

~~~
teddyh
So what you seem to be saying is that the death penalty is only for when we’re
_really, really sure_ that the person is guilty. The problem is, we already
have such a thing, and we call it a _conviction in court_. This is _already_
only supposed to happen when we’re _really, really sure_ of a person’s guilt.
What you are proposing is some sort of “super-conviction”, and the question of
where to draw the line between the two forms of conviction, and how they
should be defined, becomes _extremly subjective_. Until you have some concrete
objective measures which can stand up to legislative scrutiny, I doubt the
possibility of even doing such a thing.

~~~
choko
There's guilty, where you have evidence that points to a suspects guilt, and
then there's (for example) "I did this thing in full view of 100 people and
cameras" guilty. That's already pretty big difference between levels of
assurance of guilt.

As I said before, I can't come up with legal, concrete, and objective measures
because I haven't studied law. It's completely unreasonable for you to ask
that. Furthermore, as a taxpayer and regular voter, I help fund and choose the
people that have said training. It's up to them to figure out how to implement
a solution. I can't be expected to do everything.

------
Splendor
I'm curious about the intersection of two policies that each seem to be
gaining momentum:

1) Discouraging the death penalty

2) Encouraging "end of life" options for the terminally ill

Should an inmate serving life without parole have the option of voluntarily
ending their own life?

------
libeclipse
>During a prisoner’s final days, staff members keep the condemned person under
24-hour surveillance to, among other things, ensure that he doesn’t harm or
kill himself, thus depriving the people of Oregon of the right to do the same.

------
jokoon
I wonder what happens if a death row inmate keeps yelling and fighting. Do
they sedate him?

That would be a deterrent for those officers, having to handle inmates who
won't consent to their own death.

------
marcoperaza
On a purely moral level, I think capital punishment for murderers and traitors
is absolutely justified. You, who have stolen a man's most precious
possession, his life, shall not enjoy the rest of your own. You, who have
betrayed our nation and our security, will never again enjoy our protection.

But in its practicalities, the chance for wrongful conviction, the cost to
society, the anguish it causes the executioners, and the potential for abuse,
I see many good reasons for abolition.

~~~
pilsetnieks
> You, who have betrayed your nation and its security, will never again enjoy
> its protection.

Which can also be accomplished by exile instead of killing.

~~~
adrianN
The world ran out of Australias to send people to.

~~~
majewsky
That might be an interesting venue for space travel. Gather a bunch of
convicts sentenced to exile, put them in a space ship where they can sustain
themselves for the rest of their life [1], and send the ship onto a locked
course into outer space.

[1] At least in theory. In practice, a society of convicts will likely not
hold up very long.

------
abrookewood
I can't even begin to imagine the anguish that taking another human's life in
that manner would cause me.

------
homero
While death penalty supporters suggest that capital punishment has the power
of deterrence, a 2012 report by the National Research Council found that
research “is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases,
increases or has no effect on homicide rates.”

~~~
dforrestwilson1
Put deterrence aside for a moment. Let's talk about the cost of keeping guilty
murderers alive in prison for the remainder of their lives. Is it worth it?

~~~
TelmoMenezes
The progress of civilization towards an increasingly better society requires
cost and effort.

Either you consider human life a fundamental value, or you do not. There are
no final answers in this mysterious, apparently indifferent universe, but
there is a lot of empirical data. Over and over, cultures that place a high
value on human life lead to the societies where the most people prefer to
live.

Another issue is that an old religious superstition survives even among
atheists/agnostics, because it is disguised as a philosophical concept. This
superstition is called "free will". Some people are born with problematic
brains, others are raised in environments where they never have the chance to
develop a healthy mind. Does society have to protect itself from these people?
Absolutely. Do we want to live in a society that decides to kill them because
it is more economically effective? I don't.

Yet another issue is that of certainty. It is never possible to be 100%
certain that someone is guilty. Even if they confess, even if there is video
evidence. There is always a tiny probability that there is something
fundamental that we are missing. A culture that place a very high value on
human life will not be willing to take this chance.

Consider also that, in the EU, not only is there no death penalty but not even
life sentences. Typically, the harshest sentence you can get is 20-something
years, no matter how terrible your crime. And yet, there is less violent crime
in the EU than in the US. EU countries spend much less resources in keeping
people incarcerated than the US. Why do you think that is?

~~~
majewsky
> This superstition is called "free will". Some people are born with
> problematic brains, others are raised in environments where they never have
> the chance to develop a healthy mind.

How can you know that what you're saying is not a superstition itself?

~~~
TelmoMenezes
Because I have never seen a coherent definition of what "free will" is
supposed to mean, let alone how to empirically test for its existence. What is
this "will" free from? The workings of the brain? If that is the case, then we
are talking about the supernatural. If not, then we know that the brain
develops according to genetic instructions and the environment, and we also
know that both these things can go wrong by no fault of the person.

~~~
ncd
I suggest reading
[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill)
for a pretty good overview of the arguments in favor of the existence of "free
will" (which itself has many definitions).

Which isn't to say you're wrong, but I think it's pretty uncharitable to say
there aren't any "coherent" arguments in favor of free will. You did say you
haven't "seen" any arguments, which I suppose is not the same as a claim that
are none, but a cursory glance at that article should be illuminating for you.
People have been thinking about this for a very long time, and no consensus
seems to have emerged. :-)

You might also be interested in
[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-
eliminative](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative), which
seems to fit what little you've said about your current thinking.

------
SFJulie
Misery is a very well used form of slow painful execution, why do people wish
to use more flashy forms that are counterproductive in keeping our systems so
perfect?

The poor needs to fear the wealthy in order to not disrupt a perfect society
that have proven being an example of progress, humanitarian values and eco-
friendly system.

