> Willacy attempted to strangle Sather with a telephone cord, and when that didn't work, he doused her in gasoline and set her on fire, records show. An autopsy determined that Sather had died from smoke inhalation, indicating she was still alive when she was set on fire.
> Is this article trying to make me feel bad for these people?
Its so loaded question.
You picked two cases, while ignoring huge flaws of the system, because of which there is a chance innocent people get executed. Frank Athen Walls is likely very different person today compared to what he was 40 years ago, what is the rational to execute him now?
When that compassion leads to them being back on the street to find more victims, that's a problem... a problem we seem to be facing more and more these days. Where is the love and compassion for the would-be victims of these people who have shown themselves to be the type to commit horrific acts? I have more compassion for innocent people I don't know than for murders I don't know.
Is the death penalty cruel or is it compassion? That's a hard question to answer. We say it's cruel to lock an animal up and let it suffer its whole life. The phrase people tend to use is, "put it out of its misery". When it comes to people we don't do that. We lock them up in a cage and let them stew with it for rest of their life. The whole time, giving them hope they might find a loophole to get out. A false hope is cruel, but letting them out if they find a loophole is also cruel to anyone who might end up their next victim.
I could flip the question around. What are the limits of your empathy? Are you willing to risk innocent lives to provide unlimited empathy and 2nd, 3rd, 10th chances for people who have committed horrific acts?
That's often what I see when people talk about compassion in this context, especially when talking about the limits of compassion. How far are you expecting a person's compassion to go? The ultimate extension of compassion for a person would be letting them out and expunging their record to give them a full second chance to start over.
Its not about vengeance or a desire for closure, I simply do not want these people to continue to exist. They offer no benefit to my society, they contribute nothing beneficial and never will, the sooner they are erased the better for society.
Trying to imagine the mind that comes up with “Is this graphic description of a person’s horrific acts meant to make me like them?” and drawing a blank lmao
A very heavy article. I'm not sure I agree with blaming the governer at all for this. I'm not supporting him in any way, but the court decided who was guilty sometimes decades before. Whether he throws a dart to decide who or not, the only options are people who were convicted.
I also take issue with this:
> As she sat in traffic looking at the commuters around her, she realized none of them had any idea that a man was slated to die that day.
It's a bit pedantic, but no she didn't. She may have hypothesized that, or guessed it, but she didn't realize it. She didn't know every person there. The commuter next to her might be even more in tune with the executions. She can't know that, so no she didn't realize that.
Just imagine how empty and devoid of meaning is the life of someone who goes to a prison and blasts “Another One Bites the Dust” to celebrate the execution of someone they never met. Don't they have anyone they'd rather spend time with? Or does anyone else want to spend time with them?
It's even sadder than that, he does this alone. He can't even find someone to counterprotest with him.
> The counterprotester, meanwhile, a lean retiree named Bill Campbell, tried to drown out the sound with a boom box blasting “Another One Bites the Dust.” [emphasis mine]
Not "One of the" or "Some" or "Among the counterprotesters", just the one lone counterprotester whose life is so devoid of meaning that he has chosen to fill it with a solitary celebration of death.
If they punish the wrong guy, the judge should get the death penalty... Or if the prosecutor asks for it, and it after the execution it turns out there's an error in their case, it's the prosecutor's head next. So you better present a bulletproof case if you're asking for an execution.
(I'm against the death penalty, but who wants to run the thought experiment?)
We seem to be incapable of creating a perfect predictor - there will always be false positives. How do you square the moral implications of killing people by chance?
I’ve long seen this class of conversation on HN and my answer is always the same: introduce a higher burden of proof, maybe even “no doubt,” for capital punishment.
Imagine a scenario where the Pulse nightclub shooter surrendered to police and was on death row now. There is no doubt at all that he did the killing. Why waste calories concerned for a demon like that?
I'm fine with that if we can remove the technical error rate and barriers to actually executing these people.
If you're caught in a situation like this you should not be in jail on death row for twenty years waiting for your execution while your lawyers try to find some narrow legal loophole to postpone your execution.
E.g. Iryna Zarutska's killer (Decarlos Dejuan Brown). He should be dead already.
Is this article trying to make me feel bad for these people?
> Frank Athen Walls was an American serial killer and rapist who committed five murders between 1985 and 1987
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_A._Walls
> Willacy attempted to strangle Sather with a telephone cord, and when that didn't work, he doused her in gasoline and set her on fire, records show. An autopsy determined that Sather had died from smoke inhalation, indicating she was still alive when she was set on fire.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/man-convicted-of-setting...
> Is this article trying to make me feel bad for these people?
Its so loaded question.
You picked two cases, while ignoring huge flaws of the system, because of which there is a chance innocent people get executed. Frank Athen Walls is likely very different person today compared to what he was 40 years ago, what is the rational to execute him now?
They probably should have just executed him 40 years ago. What took so long?
Can you have compassion, love even, for someone who has committed horrific acts? Honest question, what are your limits of compassion?
When that compassion leads to them being back on the street to find more victims, that's a problem... a problem we seem to be facing more and more these days. Where is the love and compassion for the would-be victims of these people who have shown themselves to be the type to commit horrific acts? I have more compassion for innocent people I don't know than for murders I don't know.
Is the death penalty cruel or is it compassion? That's a hard question to answer. We say it's cruel to lock an animal up and let it suffer its whole life. The phrase people tend to use is, "put it out of its misery". When it comes to people we don't do that. We lock them up in a cage and let them stew with it for rest of their life. The whole time, giving them hope they might find a loophole to get out. A false hope is cruel, but letting them out if they find a loophole is also cruel to anyone who might end up their next victim.
I could flip the question around. What are the limits of your empathy? Are you willing to risk innocent lives to provide unlimited empathy and 2nd, 3rd, 10th chances for people who have committed horrific acts?
How did you get from me have compassion to concluding that this meant releasing them?
That's often what I see when people talk about compassion in this context, especially when talking about the limits of compassion. How far are you expecting a person's compassion to go? The ultimate extension of compassion for a person would be letting them out and expunging their record to give them a full second chance to start over.
Can you clarify what you meant?
Can you have compassion, love even, for someone who has been the victim of horrific acts? Honest question, what are your limits of compassion?
Do you have compassion, love, or have you given a thought to the next victim of these criminals?
Yes, I feel compassion for the victims of horrific crimes too. I can hold both of them in my heart at the same time.
Simultaneously, I can understand the desire for the closure that comes with enacting the death penalty while being completely against it.
Its not about vengeance or a desire for closure, I simply do not want these people to continue to exist. They offer no benefit to my society, they contribute nothing beneficial and never will, the sooner they are erased the better for society.
Trying to imagine the mind that comes up with “Is this graphic description of a person’s horrific acts meant to make me like them?” and drawing a blank lmao
A very heavy article. I'm not sure I agree with blaming the governer at all for this. I'm not supporting him in any way, but the court decided who was guilty sometimes decades before. Whether he throws a dart to decide who or not, the only options are people who were convicted.
I also take issue with this:
> As she sat in traffic looking at the commuters around her, she realized none of them had any idea that a man was slated to die that day.
It's a bit pedantic, but no she didn't. She may have hypothesized that, or guessed it, but she didn't realize it. She didn't know every person there. The commuter next to her might be even more in tune with the executions. She can't know that, so no she didn't realize that.
Just imagine how empty and devoid of meaning is the life of someone who goes to a prison and blasts “Another One Bites the Dust” to celebrate the execution of someone they never met. Don't they have anyone they'd rather spend time with? Or does anyone else want to spend time with them?
It's even sadder than that, he does this alone. He can't even find someone to counterprotest with him.
> The counterprotester, meanwhile, a lean retiree named Bill Campbell, tried to drown out the sound with a boom box blasting “Another One Bites the Dust.” [emphasis mine]
Not "One of the" or "Some" or "Among the counterprotesters", just the one lone counterprotester whose life is so devoid of meaning that he has chosen to fill it with a solitary celebration of death.
This is probably the case for 80% of all jobs. People having fulfilling jobs is the exception, not the rule.
Protip, don’t murder someone in Florida.
So you're ok with the state killing criminals? What if they get the wrong person?
If they punish the wrong guy, the judge should get the death penalty... Or if the prosecutor asks for it, and it after the execution it turns out there's an error in their case, it's the prosecutor's head next. So you better present a bulletproof case if you're asking for an execution.
(I'm against the death penalty, but who wants to run the thought experiment?)
> So you're ok with the state killing criminals?
Yes.
> What if they get the wrong person?
Don't kill those.
We seem to be incapable of creating a perfect predictor - there will always be false positives. How do you square the moral implications of killing people by chance?
I do not seek perfection.
We have a justice system which makes those determinations, its not about perfection, it never has been.
I’ve long seen this class of conversation on HN and my answer is always the same: introduce a higher burden of proof, maybe even “no doubt,” for capital punishment.
Imagine a scenario where the Pulse nightclub shooter surrendered to police and was on death row now. There is no doubt at all that he did the killing. Why waste calories concerned for a demon like that?
I'm fine with that if we can remove the technical error rate and barriers to actually executing these people.
If you're caught in a situation like this you should not be in jail on death row for twenty years waiting for your execution while your lawyers try to find some narrow legal loophole to postpone your execution.
E.g. Iryna Zarutska's killer (Decarlos Dejuan Brown). He should be dead already.
Yes