Comment by r721
6 days ago
Joe Lonsdale, previously:
>If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law.
>We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others.
https://x.com/JTLonsdale/status/1996947600533066185
https://thehill.com/opinion/robbys-radar/5640692-public-exec...
Basic question to ask these people: is there evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent?
Answer: No
Yes, there is some (if not conclusive) evidence that speedy trial and persistent execution of the worst, most violent offenders reduces violence in the next generation: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10480901/ It turns out killing the worst per cent of a generation's males provides a powerful selection effect. It's by no means the only cause or conclusive but worth considering.
The evidence presented:
The State killed a lot of people between the 14th and 20th centuries and also the homicide rate went down.
Wow!
QED
Good thing there weren't other major confounding changes between errmmm... the longbow and the atomic bomb. Or Dante's Divine Comedy and jazz.
I'm convinced. Why'd you even put the note "if not conclusive" with evidence this strong?
3 replies →
I wonder if it increases false accusations and turning in "enemies".
EDIT: This in regards to knowing: "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes."
It doesn't matter to them. What they want is to hurt people (ideally, people from groups they hate). It isn't about building a flourishing society.
The point is not deterrence. It’s gleeful sadism.
There is the whole thing where if no suitable victims can be found they'll make do with whoever is available.
It's 100% effective for at least one person.
That's not what deterrence means
1 reply →
[flagged]
I assume you're being funny, but the question is, will killing someone to make an example of them deter others? And the answer is: not as much as to justify killing people for being violent.
8 replies →