Hacker News Reader

You're absolutely right but a lot of people do think this way. That regardless of crime or evidence, the state has no authority to take a life.

"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

View on HN

Isn't that sort of what a "state" is? In the absence of a state, individual humans would occasionally have to end the lives of other humans, but if one exists it will jealously guard that prerogative for itself.

Are you saying a "state" is just something that jealously guards prerogatives for itself (love that line btw)?

I agree occasionally humans do have to kill other humans because I'm not a pacifist but I think the death penalty isn't to stop a horrible act, because the person is already caught, but to punish.

Various states jealously guard various prerogatives, but the ur-prerogative is violence. The subjects of states without violence will eventually just live how they want to live. The whole point of states was to prevent that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com