Hacker News Reader

Comment by saagarjha | Hacker News Reader

> let's be honest here. Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand and many other countries have these laws, and while I disagree with them on many points, they deal harshly and swiftly with the dregs of society.

How do you know they're dealing with the "dregs of society", and not "here's someone we accidentally caught and killed"?

> I think the Saudis have it right when the cut off hands for theft.

> Why should I, a law-abiding tax payer have to pay for three hots and a cot for those who deserve the death penalty.

Because many do not agree with your views on who deserves the death penalty: note there are many criminals who have done things on your list and not become repeat offenders.

View on HN

That's a very liberal view inconsistent with justice. If you rape, murder, engage in paedophilia, sex trafficking, etc., just once, that's once too many times. You've broken the social compact to the point where you need to pay dearly.

I don't feel sorry for the evil in our society. These people cost us dearly by dint of housing them, feeding them, providing medical care, entertainment. All the while, their dead victims, their raped and permanently-violated victims get no justice other than knowing that the evil person is behind bars. That's not justice. That's sweeping it under the rug and calling it good. It's intellectually dishonest to say the death penalty should not be used for heinous crimes. It breaks the social compact with the victims and society at large.

It’s not

> If you <do bad things>

It’s actually:

> If you are convicted of <doing bad things>

You have made many very emotionally charged posts in this thread. Take a rest.

One of the limitations of the justice system: we cannot punish all people who do bad things, only those who have been caught and we can obtain the evidence against.

>You've broken the social compact to the point where you need to pay dearly.

The theory of the social contract is also a very liberal view.

>All the while, their dead victims, their raped and permanently-violated victims get no justice other than knowing that the evil person is behind bars.

That's the thing, though; justice is qualitative, not quantitative - why would you suppose that knowing the criminal is dead offers so much more solace than knowing they're behind bars? Isn't the whole puzzle and mystery of justice knowing how to balance fairness and the desire for retribution? Why are you assuming that retribution is the only relevant factor here?

>It's intellectually dishonest to say the death penalty should not be used for heinous crimes.

No it's not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com