The deeds are horrifying to read. You can do nothing wrong and die by hands of some piece of shit just because you were at wrong place at wrong time. follow up actions of some are even more sad and scary. Killing another human being meant nothing to some of murderers, like killing a fly.
Those apologies are too little too late. Good riddance.
I have no sympathy for them, and I’m all in for using those for involuntary dangerous drug testing and stuff like that. Those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did.
Yes, those acts are immensely terrible and the apologies feel minuscule by comparison. But I think there's room for more nuance here.
There are multiple reasons we put people in jail:
1. the victims can feel some vindication and retribution
2. other members of society can feel some vindication and retribution and a sense of justice
3. other would-be criminals are detered from committing similar crimes for fear of punishment
4. making people feel safe by showing them criminals are punished
5. removing a bad actor from society
6. reforming a bad actor and reintroducing them into society
Different cultures emphasize different combinations of reasons. For example, ine notable divide is how, in the US, 6. is considered to be the product of a naive mind, whereas in some nordic countries, that goal is taken seriously, with some amount of success (and perhaps at the detriment of other goals).
Anyway, I think your point is that, even if you take the convicts' apologies at face value, goals 1. and 2. remain unfulfilled. And 3. is probably weakened.
I've always felt very alone in my view on this, so don't feel bad if you disagree with me because most people probably do, but I just feel super morally icky when I hear about how part of our justice system is built around "retribution" / "vindication". Like it is one thing to punish, it is quite another to allow others to derive some sort of satisfaction from that punishment, even if they were victims, I just find it sick. It means as a society we are no better than the perpetrators at the end of the day.
> it is quite another to allow others to derive some sort of satisfaction from that punishment
I sometimes see this behavior in close friends, and it totally changes the way I see them. I don't know if it's a moral failing on their part, but I just don't experience the desire for vengeance the same way they do, and it really scares me to see how they experience it. What will they do when they start to have mental decline, and (incorrectly) decide they were wronged in some way? :(
I think this thought process is something that only people who have never been wronged can afford. There comes a time in life where the punishment must fit the crime, even if its only to make an example of the criminal.
Life is hard enough, we should deter crimes at every possibility, people are rarely punished for every evil they commit.
See this is my point though, it shouldn't matter what has happened to you, if that matters, then this is 100% emotional and not based on reason or justice.
Of course goal 1 is unfulfilled. Because victims are already dead. Often in very bad way.
I’m sure there are enough people who will consider goals 2, 4 and 5 fulfilled. I disagree with your assessment.
As I said - those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did. You don’t fix them or reintroduce them to society.
I don’t care about abstracts. I care about the fact that some of those scumbags were kept alive longer than their victims lived on this earth, and suffered less in their demise.
One of the man was convicted and put to death for killing his abusive mother. Don't get me wrong, killing is bad, he should feel bad and get punished, but his brother forgave him, he already did 20 (!) years, I don't know who you're protecting by putting him to death. A second mother?
I am not talking about generic inmates, who deserve all protection (“no cruel and unusual punishment”), I’m talking about people like ones from the website. Who did horrible stuff and were convicted to death for it.
I’m sure that if needed, society can develop necessary framework (declare them “legally dead” or something like that).
> I am not talking about generic inmates, who deserve all protection (“no cruel and unusual punishment”), I’m talking about people like ones from the website. Who did horrible stuff and were convicted to death for it.
The most horrible people, some of whom were actually innocent?
I understand your emotional desire to (indirectly) hurt them, but the fact is that we can never be 100% sure that they were fully guilty of the acts exactly as described and everyone else in the world was completely innocent.
This means there is a nonzero chance of a miscarriage of justice, and you can't exactly un-execute someone. The only question remaining is: how many tortured and/or killed innocent warrant one monster not being harmed quite as much as your desire for revenge would like?
I consider the risk of wrongful conviction to be an argument against the death penalty and for the very same reason I'm against performing any kind of inhuman treatment of them (which might be worse than death).
Even if 95% would totally deserve it, I don't think we should just accept that on average 4 innocent people every year are just treated as subhumans just so we can unleash our wrath over those who did truly horrible things.
Death is still a better option rather than being used as lab rat
There should be doubt. There should be due process.
At the same time, I think that with the advancement of the tech (surveillance cameras everywhere, dna tests, the cell tower triangulation and/or mobile device location tracking) there are cases when the guilt can be established without any doubt, and the overall chance of wrongful conviction will drop down.
Hell, have you read the website? One of those pieces of shit made his accomplice to video the murder on the phone.
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those convicted are rightfully convicted.
But paint me skeptical as to whether increased use of technology can actually improve the reliability of the proofs.
Imagine a world where deep fakes are much better quality but our system hasn't yet caught up to take that into proper consideration etc.
Serving for life is already a big deal as punishment goes. I'm just asking to not have experimental medical experiments on people. I'm not saying they should walk free
I was thinking about deep fakes and tech advancements. Yes, that will add doubts etc. but you know what? There always will be ways. If somebody was convicted in 2015 most likely there weren’t any deep fakes.
Let’s look at, let’s say, Apple and its tight control over entire hardware and software iPhone stack. Nothing prevents them to announce that starting from iPhone 19 they cryptographically sign the video to ensure that it’s authentic and, at least, the video and sound are what the camera saw. Pro cameras can do it, for Apple it’s even easier, more or less. I’m sure that even on this site there are experts who can design such system that is as secure as we expect from Apple devices. And that thing will slowly spread due to competitive pressures.
—-
Involuntarily drug testing was one of examples that I gave, and you seem to be against. To some it may be extreme, and I completely understand where you’re coming from. To me… as I said - for some examples from the side the murderers surely lost their human privilege. That comment summarized my feelings after reading the website in much more succinct form: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47302490#47305803
Killing 13 month infant, putting bleach on 20 yo gas station employee and setting her on fire, stranding female who was screaming for help during sa. Mate, if your kidney is compatible with someone who is in need, you made your choice way too long ago to have any right to say anything now. Or if there are other uses that will benefit society and humanity as a whole - they are allowed. You are guilty (without doubt and with clear evidence) and sentenced to death. Now you have same amount of rights as cadaver on the table, but probably more uses while you still breathing.
The problem is that I do understand you! I do feel exactly as you do! My lizard brain would like to do all sorts of horrible retaliations to those people who performed such abhorrent acts. I get it, it's natural.
But I think that society should prevent this kind of basic instinctive response to become the way that we collectively handled those monstrosities, mainly because those punishments will be abused against innocent scapegoats.
Also, “in most states, there is no regular procedure for reconsidering the guilt of a convicted defendant after death; that’s one reason why posthumous exonerations are so rare.”
In the end it's more about the appearance of justice than actually performing it. And even in the performance of it, it is still just that: a performance.
If you were to have capital punishment, I'd make prosecutors liable for any knowingly false accusations and the withholding of evidence. And even without that, things could change fast after a few posthumous exonerations when the pitchforks of the deceased's relatives come out for the phony witnesses and corrupt cops.
It's called the "justice system" but how can people be so sure it is? Justice only for the rich or the "club members"? Is it audited? Who gets to hide or shield from it under the guise of "national security?" Are juries being manipulated through the "Reptile Brain trial strategy?"
I recently heard someone say: "Cops kill cops who don't trust other cops?" Why is that? Is a cop killing another cop part of national security too? Who decides? Who do you trust?
The US has executed around hundreds of innocent wrongly convicted people that we're mostly to pretty certain of. And it has thrown a significant fraction of the lives away of around a million who were either innocent or committed very minor infractions, and condemned millions more to near civil death to remain permanently banished from society... untold numbers of innocents swept up to feed the for-profits prison slave labor camps and prevent certain people from voting.
It's always naive, unlearned, horrible people who clamor for "deterrence" and "revenge" via "throw away the key" and executions. Like Trump and the Central Park Five.
95% of your text has nothing to do with what I said and the issue being discussed.
Invoking Trump (that I don’t care about, especially in the context of this conversation) is so cheap... I suggest you to go straight to Godwin law and compare me to literal Hitler, because that’s the quality of your argument (lack of there of, to be precise).
The presumption and occasional assumption of justice system infallibility is breathtakingly arrogant. And then the bloodthirsty, heartless rabble that cheers on more pain and death without regard to actual guilt, incompetency, or innocence. Judge not ...
And there is such small thing as state constitution that explicitly forbids any income tax.
Current government is using it as toilet paper, first by introducing capital gains tax, and now income tax.
I see in another comments though that you argue in bad faith by dismissing opponent arguments as “small amount”, “talking points”. If you don’t have anything real to say, don’t bother to answer.
The state constitution does not forbid an income tax. We both know it is more nuanced than that. Don't accuse me of bad faith in the same comment that you present an inaccuracy in the form of simplification that suits your argument
Neither the state nor any county, city, or other local jurisdiction in the state of Washington may tax any individual person on any form of personal income. For the purposes of this chapter, "income" has the same meaning as "gross income" in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 61.
Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Annuities;
(9) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(10) Pensions;
(11) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(12) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(13) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(14) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
Seems like his successor does not have much of a plan either.
> In another internal email addressing staff, the new Microsoft Gaming CEO Asha Sharma gave some hints as to how the future of Xbox will look.
She outlined three commitments: "First, great games." "Second, the return of Xbox." and "Third, future of play." She went on to say that the company will continue to invest in its franchises and studios, keep Xbox spreading across platforms to reduce barriers, while also inventing "business models and new ways to play."
Her press release and tweets sound like someone asked AI what to say to make Xbox fans like you. I tested what it would tell me to say if I was CEO and it gave me very similar talking points.
Sounds like a concept of a plan. I was always an Xbox person instead of PlayStation, I was part of the Xbox Live beta and had so many great memories from that era. After the lack of exclusives on the Xbox Series X, their game pass shenanigans, and the horrible UX decisions over the years, the Xbox brand is trash to me. Same with Halo, what a freaking waste of an IP.
It's safe to assume that her first e-mail to staff is not going to include a comprehensive breakdown of every action she plans to take.
Not saying she does or doesn't know what she's doing, but it would be weird if she went into much more detail at this point before she's even ramped up.
That's what Xbox has already been doing. New "Xbox" games run best on PS5 Pro (for consoles at least). I don't think there's a single Xbox Series exclusive, everything is on PC or some other console now.
Yep. There are no exclusives anymore, not even timed ones. Those releases that aren't Day 1 on Playstation now is only because they were too far along in development to make that happen. This is part of their "Everything is an XBox" mantra, giving people pretty much zero incentive to buy XBox hardware right now.
> New "Xbox" games run best on PS5 Pro (for consoles at least).
I dunno, the way Windows 11 is going these days that caveat is getting a lot of scrutiny. I would say that, in many cases, they run best on PS5 Pro full stop - at least until the GabeCube releases, for those who can afford it.
It feels that they’ve finally got understanding that Xbox is total mess and try? To reboot completely. Because “Xbox president” seemingly is booted too
> Alongside him, Xbox President Sarah Bond is also exiting the company, who many suspected would be Spencer's successor in leading Xbox.
Phil Spencer entered with Xbox in a total mess and he was never really able to get them out of the mess.
I like Phil as CEO of Microsoft. I think Microsoft's corporate strategy never really made sense for Microsoft and I think Microsoft has a massive and worsening culture problem. It seems like leadership fail upwards, which tells me that at the executive and junior executive level the job is internal politics.
There are rumors about upcoming handheld Xbox. Many like the idea
It is announced, marketed as handheld Xbox (asus xbox ally x). Quite expensive, but okay.
After some time (!) they reveal that this handheld Xbox actually won’t play your Xbox games/subscription. It will play your pc subscription and pc games. Wtf
Literally about time when the sales of the device actually start, Microsoft racks up the price of Xbox ultimate from $20 to $30 per month. They unsubscribe page is overloaded.
> Cultural narratives around vanity sizing often square the blame on female shoppers, not brands. Newsweek once called it “self-delusion on a mass scale” because women were more likely to buy items that were labeled as sizes smaller than reality. But there’s more to the story.
> Vanity sizing provides a powerful marketing strategy for brands. Companies found that whenever women needed a size larger than expected, they were less likely to follow through on their purchases. Some could even develop negative associations with the brand and never shop there again. But when manufacturers manipulated sizing labels, leading to a more positive customer experience, brands could maintain a slight competitive edge.
How one can seriously write the same thing twice in form of contradiction and make different conclusion?
Well, the first description puts it as "self delusion", while the other describes it as a rather natural reaction and puts the initiative for the change on the brands.
Those apologies are too little too late. Good riddance.
I have no sympathy for them, and I’m all in for using those for involuntary dangerous drug testing and stuff like that. Those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did.
reply