[rswail]

This "debate" has been over in all other nations that the US likes to be compared for years.

It is similar to the "tough on crime" incarceration "debate" in the US, where perverse incentives and political expediency has led to the US being the highest-per-capita incarcerator in the world.

Framing the death penalty debate around "innocent people get killed" will not change the partisan/class perceptions.

The US criminal justice system requires root-and-branch reform, starting with issues around policing, cash bail, school-to-prison pipelines, and unfair drug and "victimless" crimes.

Australia has been going through a similar debate and is at a similar point, without the death penalty, but dealing with the systemic racism and other class related issues.

[jcims]

>Framing the death penalty debate around "innocent people get killed" will not change the partisan/class perceptions.

I don't agree. All of these moral castigations about it being 'inhumane' or 'barbaric' don't strike me as rational or compelling in the least. I think the idea is humane in the context of those impacted by the crimes in question and I don't see how putting a person in a box for the remainder of their life is qualitatively any less barbaric.

I don't know where pg lands politically but I'd say I'm probably right of center on the American spectrum and for me there are only two persuasive arguments that we should abolish the death penalty. One is that we make mistakes in who gets it, per TFA, and the other is that it's difficult to concretely describe the qualifications of who should get it, risking expansion at the whim of the populace. In other words I absolutely believe there are just executions, I'm just not entirely sure we can create a system to do it justly.

[Pet_Ant]

> In other words I absolutely believe there are just executions

I think that is the GP,s point: the real problem is to convince you otherwise.

[ectopod]

Why? If he (or she) believes or can be convinced that the death penalty should be abolished, why do you care if they also believe that some of the executions that already happened were just?

[Pet_Ant]

1) because it implies that one day they might be it favour of bringing them back with the right technology etc

2) because you want to convince people of important moral principles. I don't want you to not beat your wife because you'll get caught, but because it's inherently wrong.

[jcims]

Certainly fodder for ongoing discussion but I think it’s important to prioritize goals.

Alignment on public policy decisions allows for more degrees of freedom in underlying philosophical differences than attempts to align on the philosophical primitives themselves. It also achieves an immediate goal.

Plus if you are engaging in conversation in a good faith attempt to understand and be understood, you have to allow for the case that your views are moderated or changed as well.

(The distance you feel from that right now is approximately the same I feel in the opposite direction.)

[jcims]

Exactly.

[qwytw]

How about that it's significantly more expensive on average to execute a prisoner (due to the extensive appeal processes) than to imprison him for life? I would assume that should be a very compelling argument in favour of abolishing the death penalty for somebody who is "right of center".

[jcims]

I can understand why you would say that based on all of the stereotypes floating around, but honestly I've never seen this argument move the needle for anyone.

For some they just say 'I'll do it for a dollar' and disengage. Realistically the cost of incarceration isn't what's driving their argument for the death penalty, it's just a talking point.

For me, it's just the price of due process.

Maybe to save a few keystrokes, I think we are too flippant about the death penalty today but I think its an essential part of a justice system.

[sjg007]

You could also go with it's racist. The death penalty is racist.

[jcims]

I don’t see how it is inherently racist but there’s certainly a case to be made that its likely to inherit biases from the judicial system.

[mattmanser]

It isn't really over, even now it pops its head up now and again. There's probably more people who believe in it than you realize.

For example in the UK 58% of people believe that the death penalty should be allowed for some crimes (e.g. terrorist attacks). Only 32% oppose it (presumably with 10% undecided):

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/legal/articles-reports/2019/10/0...

So far from being the majority view, often anti-death penalty stance is the minority view but the political elite suppress it.

Let that really sink in, most of the comments here are very wrong in thinking the debate is over, with twice as many of the public still supporting it in a country where it's been abolished for over 50 years. Always remember to fight against capital punishment, the deal is not done.

I believe they do this as they understand the nuance better and realize that overall it causes more problems than it solves, so don't want to open that can of worms once it's shut. Looking back in history there's also significant political fallout every time someone is found innocent after their execution. Some hard-right politicians will band it around for easy points with their base, plus obviously the wider public too for more extreme crimes.

[im3w1l]

I could believe that there is a minority that is strongly opposed and a majority that weakly supports it. So that if you weigh it by passion, net sentiment is against it.

[bjourne]

Not disagreeing with your stats, but it seems that the long-term trend is decreasing support for the death penalty in the UK: https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media-centre/archived-press-rel...

[xdennis]

Just because it's banned doesn't mean the debate is over: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BytxHbenQyQ/V_O2hw4mUXI/AAAAAAAA8...

Some western countries have respectably high numbers: France 50%, UK 48%, Holland 42%.

Not that the USA wants to be compared to us, but here in Romania it's at 91% and we still don't have it. (I suspect that romantic notions of Vlad the Impaler's time has something to do with the percentage.)

[adrian_b]

I suspect that the very high percentage from Romania has much less to do with Vlad the Impaler than with the fact that there are still a large number of people alive who remember the unusual circumstances in which the death penalty was abolished in Romania.

In Romania, the death penalty was not abolished by any democratic institution and that action was not preceded by any public debate.

The gang who seized power in 1989 in Romania abolished the death penalty immediately after killing the dictator Ceausescu to remove the competition, because absolutely everybody expected that many other people who had important positions in the Communist must be also executed immediately, because only that would have been consistent with the messages spread by the new power in the previous days.

However, the people who had seized the power could not kill any other from the Communist leadership, because those were their friends, family or accomplices, so they used the surprise trick of promptly abolishing the death penalty.

This unexpected action was the moment when many people woke up from the euphoria after the supposed fall of the Communism and they began to suspect that the people composing the new power might not be who they claim to be, but it was already too late.

The immediate abolition of the death penalty in Romania had its desired effect, of transforming the former powerful communists into rich capitalists owning what had previously been called "the wealth belonging to all the people", so it is still strongly resented by many who remember those events.

So Romania is a very special case, which explains the unusually high percentage of support for the death penalty.

[btilly]

The US criminal justice system requires root-and-branch reform, starting with issues around policing, cash bail, school-to-prison pipelines, and unfair drug and "victimless" crimes.

I'd put our abusive plea bargaining system in there.

Sadly the rest of the world is moving towards that bad idea, rather than away. :-(

[Hard_Space]

I don't know. Even the constitution acknowledges the possibility of truths that are 'self-evident'.

I remember when the Guantanamo torture scandals emerged in the 2000s, how various political actors attempted to say 'Let's not get hot under the collar about this - let's put it on the table and talk it through.'

For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act, as outlined in 'A Modest Proposal' . I agree with the parent poster that this is one of those cases.

EDIT: This was supposed to be a response to the parent comment of the one it got attached to (for some reason).

[rmcpherson]

“We hold these truths to be self evident...” is from the Declaration of Independence. It does not appear in the Constitution.

[MisterBastahrd]

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is not limited to the words of the document. The Constitution itself is derived from a history of law, letters, and intent that predate the very concept of the United States.

[sjg007]

Depends on if you are an originalist or not.

[MisterBastahrd]

Nope. A textualist, maybe, but originalists would very much be looking towards English law for guidance on what the Constitution meant.

[sjg007]

It’s called originalism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

[lurquer]

> For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act,

The authors of the Declaration of Independence would perhaps agree.

But, keep in mind that stance — as they will knew — would result in the ‘disagreement’ being resolved by force and war.

Consequently, it’s wise to really give some thought to whether an issue is ‘self-evident.’ I personally do not think capital punishment is such an issue; that is, I acknowledge there are good arguments on both sides.

(Are there good arguments on both sides regarding whether some people — like King George — are inherently and divinely superior to others by virtue of their lineage? That’s a different matter... I would have fallen into the ‘self-evidently’ absurd camp on that one.)

[short_sells_poo]

Very much agreed. The left and intellectuals have won the debate in most (all?) of the west and the US policies are widely considered barbaric, inhumane and corrupt. The current state of affairs in the US is unfortunately a testament to the US society.

Having said that, the US is quite a specific case and the truth is that the current approach of the left doesn't seem to work there. Progress is being made, but as an outsider, there seems to be too much partisanship on both sides. Too much us versus them. There is as much derogatory and hostile attitude in the left leaning forums as the right leaning ones, with a small sliver of moderates who get lost in the noise.

I can't claim to have a solution to this. The US seems to be a feudal society at this point, where a large portion of the serfs are actively undermining efforts to lift them from their serfdom, and a large portion of the liberators consider the serfs uneducated peasants who refuse to accept what's good for them. They are both led by a political elite whose incentives are to maintain (even entrench) the status quo because it gives them an easily manipulated voter base and a clear enemy to rally against.

[viklove]

The only flaw I see in your analysis is that you seem to believe Europe is better off in any way. Feudalism is making a resurgence all over the west.