I agree. I don’t want to watch it, I’d rather have no death penalty, but if the government for and by the people is okay with killing citizens then perhaps we should be facing that, not turning our backs.
Perhaps we could then rally behind getting rid of death penalty. Or at the very least, ensure we aren’t botching every other one.
You were downvoted but you're right, live by the sword and take the risk to die by it. If you don't like the odds - and let's all hope the judicial system is efficient enough to make those odds really unfavourable - it is easy to avoid them by not committing capital crimes.
He/she isn't right, though. Capital punishment, at its core, is an emotional rather than logical response to a criminal offense.
It serves no purpose in preventing future crimes. First, because you've already caught the criminal, the proposed alternate sentence of life imprisonment without chance for parole already handles preventing that individual from committing further offenses. And second, it's been proven repeatedly that ratcheting up punishment as some sort of deterrent doesn't work because most people committing crimes either believe they're going to get away with it or aren't in a frame of mind to care about any penalties (e.g., crimes of passion).
It also fails to be an efficient way of dealing with a caught criminal. The combination of incarceration time, resources spent on appeals, and the cost of the actual execution methods makes death row inmates more expensive than lifers. We actually pay more to put people to death than we would jailing them for the rest of their lives.
Instead, people fight so hard to keep capital punishment around because it scratches the itch for vengeance.
> And second, it's been proven repeatedly that ratcheting up punishment as some sort of deterrent doesn't work
Who proved that? Have you lived in a high trust society that punishes crimes, or do you not think they exist?
Your point seems to be that people don't believe they will be punished. Everywhere I've been people did know they would be punished, severely. Organized theft in Singapore if you're a male younger than 50 could get you caned. Perhaps you're arguing that public punishment would help raise their awareness?
The point isn't that people don't believe the punishment applies. It's that they don't significantly factor the consequence into their actions. They may be overwhelmed by emotion, they may think they can get away with it, or they may be under the influence. Moreover, is capital punishment that much more of a deterrent than life imprisonment?
This is just a bizarre non-sequitor. Do you think that people are opposed to the death penalty because they’re worried that they personally will get executed?
Thanks. Commenting the same logic but on the individual is definitely a downvote risk! Why have normal expectations of people when you can have extraordinary expectations of the state, and want other people to pay for it?
There are many people in these threads that state that they don't like capital punishment (OK?), add zero supporting arguments, and aggressively downvote anyone who supports the death penalty.
Making it public will invite the deviants who derive pleasure from the audience. Look up historical behaviours of crowds in some of the last public executions in France.
If this were livestreamed you'd have just insanely grotesque stuff like livestream commentators narrating and reacting to the footage while polymarket ads play over it, making memes and remixes of it like what happened with the Charlie Kirk assassination clips. It's all sick IMO.
Good, maybe that will cause the >50% who support capital punishment to reevaluate their stance. Or at least the 30% cowards who support it but don’t want to watch.
Palmer Luckey had an ... interesting perspective on it. I was against it before, and I'm still against it, but his point was that the killing of a citizen is one of the largest possible flexes that a state can exercise, and to prevent against its abuse it should probably be more visible to more people
I think that there is likely _enough_ visibility in the case of the classic execution, which is only done after the fifth amendment has been thoroughly exercised and appeals process fully depleted, and (ironically) not nearly enough visibility in the exercise of state power done by drone strikes and such, and so I take his point and appreciate it for what it is, which predominately is that I hadn't thought about it in that way before -- I still oppose the idea, but perhaps less strongly than before now that I know that bloodlust isn't the only viable interest (tho still a tremendous worry to me)
Why the downvotes? After AI takes our jobs, all of us technical people are going to have to resort to hunting and gathering, which puts us in the crosshairs of the Amish. It makes perfect sense.
Being "not nice" guarantees downvotes here. I'm engaging in exposure therapy so that people get used to it so we can actually have debate that isn't layered behind needless coddling and cotton-padding.
TLDR: the story is about a constellation that is seven sisters, but one is hiding; and that constellation does indeed have seven stars, but one hasn't been visible for 100k years.
Political campaigns spend enormous amounts of money on ads to influence public opinion. That makes politicians beholden to their donors. Which subverts democracy from "the will of the people" to "the will of the wealthy". All of these are uncontroversial facts and fit the narrative GP is saying.
True! But, you wouldn't just need SRV support in browsers--you'd need it in every part of your dev environment / stack that touches the network. If your backend talks to a database, then your backend needs to support SRV. So you need SRV support in your standard library and your browser.
But at a larger level this tool just makes everything work so smoothly. If you have two services with the same name, it pops up a notification in the tray. If you start a new process with a different name, you don't have to configure SRV; the DNS just becomes available automatically. HTTPS is auto configured. That sort of thing.
I think somebody could one day make something like this that was based on SRV, but it would still need all those niceties to make it work well for developers.
Unless we came up with a different funding mechanism. Joseph Stiglitz for example has advocated a prize system for pharmaceuticals, though he doesn't suggest replacing the patent system entirely.
Salk didn't need that temporary monopoly to invent the polio vaccine, which has gone on to be one of the biggest success stories of vaccines and modern medicine general.
Let me put it in another way, imagine we find clay in an asteroid. Does that alone imply the existence of ceramic in other places of the universe?
We need these molecules to build build a DNA strand, but their existence doesn't imply the existence of other life forms. Maybe exists a process that produce these molecules naturally and we just don't know about yet.
And remember that life(self replicating organisms) is way more complex than just DNA/RNA. In another crude analogy you could say that DNA is just the source code, to have life you still need to have all the hardware to run this code on. (fun fact: that is the reason why people argue about virus being something alive or not. Generally it has only the RNA necessary for the replication, and this is why it can only reproduce if it is able to take over another cell. In this analogy it has the source code but not the hardware, so how do we classify it?)
- Executing people in a way that makes us not have to think about it as a society, or only think about it in passing
- Executing people in our faces, so we have to think about it
Personally I find the first option gross. "Out of sight, out of mind"--you know what I mean?