The important question to ask is “how many innocent people” are worth killing to achieve an end? A 2014 study estimated that 4% of death row inmates would be exonerated, had they remained under sentence of death indefinitely, which means the real proportion of innocent people getting executed is higher than 4% and we don’t know how much higher.
If death sentences are expanded, then the fraction of innocent people getting executed would increase to well over 4%. I feel that that’s too high, especially if 1% of the population is being executed. But suppose the number is 4% and stayed at 4%, which is a known under-estimate. If 1% of the US population is executed and 4% of those executed are innocent (again, a conservative under-estimate of the collateral damage), then that means executing 136,000 innocent people. I oppose deliberately and knowingly executing 136,000 innocent civilians. I feel deontological grounds are sufficient.
Then there’s the issue of what happens after laws change. Right now there are people in prison for selling marijuana in Washington state, while selling marijuana is legal in Washington state. [Edit: See comment thread.] Imagine if they had been executed, instead.
As for cost savings, the death penalty (USA, again) is more expensive than life imprisonment. This is because so much effort is put into making sure death penalties are imposed on people who are really innocent. If the US switches from life imprisonment to massive imposition of the death penalty, then we can expect the ratio of innocent people getting executed to skyrocket.
This isn’t particularly high on my list of concerns, but there is a reason most suicide victims use a gunshot to the head if they can. It is the simplest, most reliable, and quickest way of killing someone. But it blows brains all over the wall, which makes people feel squeamish.
So instead we inject people with a lethal combination of drugs which can take hours to work, if it works at all, often leaving them in agonising pain the whole way. The solution is to just use the gun.
Like you, Nazi Germany needed to execute large numbers of mostly nonviolent people too. They originally used bullets, which seemed cheap, but that method ultimately caused psychological trauma for the people doing the mass executions. That was psychologically unsustainable for the Nazis, including the SS, so they switched to gas chambers, instead, which provided psychological comfort for their employees. I recommend you learn from their mistake and just start with the gas chambers.
(Trollish reply. I’m not in favor of the death penalty.) I take your point re: that a death penalty cannot be implemented if individual executioners need to kill individual people via guns. But I’ll counter that it also can’t be implemented in the 21st century via gas chambers, because your executioners will realize the parallel to Nazi Germany. (“Are we the baddies?”) To split the difference, how about having executioners execute people via drones armed with bullets?
I accept this compromise. To improve your suggestion even further, I propose we gamify the drone-operating app. Utopia is within our grasp. We need only the courage to do what must be done.
The important question to ask is “how many innocent people” are worth killing to achieve an end? A 2014 study estimated that 4% of death row inmates would be exonerated, had they remained under sentence of death indefinitely,
“Exonerated” doesn’t usually mean “innocent”, it typically means “is guilty of something slightly lesser”.
I’ve reviewed many of these cases and it typically means the prosecutors changed from a tough-on-crime prosecutor to a restorative justice prosecutor who’s looking to get a nice media headline. The convicted man is still obviously guilty, but because they found one piece of evidence that cuts against guilt, but is in no way exonerating, they decide to let the convicted rapist/murderer/etc. go free.
Best example is the Central Park 5. If any aspiring-bayesian take a look at that case they’ll realize very quickly that the 5 people convicted definitely held down a woman while she was being raped. Yet for some reason they are now lauded as innocent men wrongly convicted.
If you only execute repeat offenders the fraction of “completely” innocent people executed goes way down.
The idea of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and then being executed gives me pause.
The idea of being framed for shop lifting, framed for shop lifting again, wrongfully convicted of a violent crime and then being at the wrong place at the wrong time is ridiculous.
First of all, thank you for the correction. Legalization occurred in 2012, and the statutory maximum penalty for selling marijuana[1] is four years in prison.
That said, your specific bet that sounds messy to adjudicate. Consider this example:
A father and son from Seattle were each sentenced today [February 13, 2024] to 30 months in prison for their scheme to violate the state’s marijuana production regulations and produce and sell marijuana on the black market, announced U.S. Attorney Tessa M. Gorman.
They’re in prison for selling marijuana without following the established regulations. (Firearms were involved, but it’s unclear me if they’re officially part of the charges for which the two went to prison.) Does that count? You may say no, but I feel your stated resolution criteria leaves room for interpretation.
I would say this clearly falls outside my bet as I said “solely for sale of Marijuana” and this news release says, “were each sentenced today to 30 months in prison” and “pleaded guilty in November 2023 to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana and conspiracy to commit money laundering”
So really a no-brainer. Unless I can look at their sentencing agreement and it says they got time-served on the conspiracy to commit money laundering and their sentence to 30 months is solely for the conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana count.
It seems like you’ve done some research on this topic now. Do you want to take me up on my bet?
edit: Also your article is for a 30 months sentence which started back in November 2023. I’d also bet that those defendants are either released right now or are very close to it.
I’m not taking your bet. There are many reasons for this, but a sufficient dealbreaker is that I only place bets with legibly unambiguous resolution criteria. Your proposal fails to meet my standards in that dimension. I feel that betting with you carries a significant likelyhood that you and I have a disagreement about who won the bet. That makes this bet a non-starter.
I’ll let you operationalize it and give you 3 to 1 odds.
edit: My main point is that a lot of people who are otherwise very smart have no idea how the criminal justice system works. They think our prisons are overflowing with people convicted of non-violent drug offenses when nothing could be further from the truth. Our prisons are overflowing with robbers, stabbers, rapists, arsonists, burglars, and murderers. That’s because the media and activist groups lie and misrepresent the truth. We wouldn’t ever have to execute a non-violent drug dealer to free up prison space.
I will clarify my position: I’m not going to bet with you on any subject whatsoever, regardless of the odds. I take bets very seriously, and require as a prerequisite that I and the other person are on the same page regarding lots of peripheral details regarding bets. I feel that you and I have different implicit understandings of how bets should work. This has nothing to do with the criminal justice system, and everything to do with precision of language.
The important question to ask is “how many innocent people” are worth killing to achieve an end? A 2014 study estimated that 4% of death row inmates would be exonerated, had they remained under sentence of death indefinitely, which means the real proportion of innocent people getting executed is higher than 4% and we don’t know how much higher.
If death sentences are expanded, then the fraction of innocent people getting executed would increase to well over 4%. I feel that that’s too high, especially if 1% of the population is being executed. But suppose the number is 4% and stayed at 4%, which is a known under-estimate. If 1% of the US population is executed and 4% of those executed are innocent (again, a conservative under-estimate of the collateral damage), then that means executing 136,000 innocent people. I oppose deliberately and knowingly executing 136,000 innocent civilians. I feel deontological grounds are sufficient.
Then there’s the issue of what happens after laws change.
Right now there are people in prison for selling marijuana in Washington state, while selling marijuana is legal in Washington state.[Edit: See comment thread.] Imagine if they had been executed, instead.As for cost savings, the death penalty (USA, again) is more expensive than life imprisonment. This is because so much effort is put into making sure death penalties are imposed on people who are really innocent. If the US switches from life imprisonment to massive imposition of the death penalty, then we can expect the ratio of innocent people getting executed to skyrocket.
Like you, Nazi Germany needed to execute large numbers of mostly nonviolent people too. They originally used bullets, which seemed cheap, but that method ultimately caused psychological trauma for the people doing the mass executions. That was psychologically unsustainable for the Nazis, including the SS, so they switched to gas chambers, instead, which provided psychological comfort for their employees. I recommend you learn from their mistake and just start with the gas chambers.
(Trollish reply. I’m not in favor of the death penalty.) I take your point re: that a death penalty cannot be implemented if individual executioners need to kill individual people via guns. But I’ll counter that it also can’t be implemented in the 21st century via gas chambers, because your executioners will realize the parallel to Nazi Germany. (“Are we the baddies?”) To split the difference, how about having executioners execute people via drones armed with bullets?
I accept this compromise. To improve your suggestion even further, I propose we gamify the drone-operating app. Utopia is within our grasp. We need only the courage to do what must be done.
“Exonerated” doesn’t usually mean “innocent”, it typically means “is guilty of something slightly lesser”.
I’ve reviewed many of these cases and it typically means the prosecutors changed from a tough-on-crime prosecutor to a restorative justice prosecutor who’s looking to get a nice media headline. The convicted man is still obviously guilty, but because they found one piece of evidence that cuts against guilt, but is in no way exonerating, they decide to let the convicted rapist/murderer/etc. go free.
Best example is the Central Park 5. If any aspiring-bayesian take a look at that case they’ll realize very quickly that the 5 people convicted definitely held down a woman while she was being raped. Yet for some reason they are now lauded as innocent men wrongly convicted.
If you only execute repeat offenders the fraction of “completely” innocent people executed goes way down.
The idea of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and then being executed gives me pause.
The idea of being framed for shop lifting, framed for shop lifting again, wrongfully convicted of a violent crime and then being at the wrong place at the wrong time is ridiculous.
I’ll bet you $100 there is nobody in prison solely for sale of Marijuana in Washington state.
First of all, thank you for the correction. Legalization occurred in 2012, and the statutory maximum penalty for selling marijuana[1] is four years in prison.
That said, your specific bet that sounds messy to adjudicate. Consider this example:
They’re in prison for selling marijuana without following the established regulations. (Firearms were involved, but it’s unclear me if they’re officially part of the charges for which the two went to prison.) Does that count? You may say no, but I feel your stated resolution criteria leaves room for interpretation.
At least, the one particular version I looked up.
I would say this clearly falls outside my bet as I said “solely for sale of Marijuana” and this news release says, “were each sentenced today to 30 months in prison” and “pleaded guilty in November 2023 to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana and conspiracy to commit money laundering”
So really a no-brainer. Unless I can look at their sentencing agreement and it says they got time-served on the conspiracy to commit money laundering and their sentence to 30 months is solely for the conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana count.
It seems like you’ve done some research on this topic now. Do you want to take me up on my bet?
edit: Also your article is for a 30 months sentence which started back in November 2023. I’d also bet that those defendants are either released right now or are very close to it.
I’m not taking your bet. There are many reasons for this, but a sufficient dealbreaker is that I only place bets with legibly unambiguous resolution criteria. Your proposal fails to meet my standards in that dimension. I feel that betting with you carries a significant likelyhood that you and I have a disagreement about who won the bet. That makes this bet a non-starter.
I’ll let you operationalize it and give you 3 to 1 odds.
edit: My main point is that a lot of people who are otherwise very smart have no idea how the criminal justice system works. They think our prisons are overflowing with people convicted of non-violent drug offenses when nothing could be further from the truth. Our prisons are overflowing with robbers, stabbers, rapists, arsonists, burglars, and murderers. That’s because the media and activist groups lie and misrepresent the truth. We wouldn’t ever have to execute a non-violent drug dealer to free up prison space.
I will clarify my position: I’m not going to bet with you on any subject whatsoever, regardless of the odds. I take bets very seriously, and require as a prerequisite that I and the other person are on the same page regarding lots of peripheral details regarding bets. I feel that you and I have different implicit understandings of how bets should work. This has nothing to do with the criminal justice system, and everything to do with precision of language.