Why can't we just get that 4% bad convictions down to 0% for the death penalty? There are many cases where no one disputes the guilt of the perpetrator, like mass shooters or murderers that film themselves in the act. Death penalties could have an even higher standard.
I've noticed a strange pattern where wealthy elites like Paul Graham are obviously very disturbed by things like the death penalty, animal rights, and tragedies they see overseas but can hardly be bothered to care about the great suffering poor people face generally.
The only issues that they care about are ones that directly affect their own conscience and mental well-being.
"The death penalty is bad because it makes me feel bad"
Whereas people who don't live such privileged lives can see so many worse problems in everyday life, like being hungry, suffering from bad/no medical care, to being victimized by street crime.
Yes but if you live in an elite life bubble you'll only care about things that make it through that bubble.
Why are so many rich celebrities obsessed with animal rights, the death penalty, and climate change?
Because those issues affect them personally in some way. They gnaw at their conscience in a way that the extreme suffering of hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens does not.
I don't think this is right. Climate change is not known for personally affecting anybody. It's more of an ineffable millenarian idea.
Rather, I would say rich celebrities are obsessed with animal rights, the death penalty, and climate change because those ideas are fashionable among rich celebrities, not because they're relevant to rich celebrities for any fundamental (i.e. would still apply if no one knew what the celebrity believed) reason.
Plenty of educated elites are well aware the problems climate change could cause for them personally. Civil unrest, rising sea levels, and pollution. Things personal wealth only partially mitigates.
One doesn't have to be affected by rape to oppose it.
I can reflect that there are others whose opinions I value. And thus throw support behind issues that, if left to my own opinion in a vacuum, would be of little concern.
You oppose rape because you know it's wrong. Why do you know it's wrong? Because you know the effect it has on its victims. How does that wrongness translate into a moral stance on your part?
Well, I could care less about most environmental regulation - I rather think it's a waste of time and resources - but I am OK with supporting certain laws that are supported by people who I respect, even though I personally could care less.
My hope would be that people would consider their utility vs. the utility of all those who also want something. I've certainly supported modest tax increases because my neighbors were passionately in favor where my own view would be to oppose it.
Is it too much to hope that people will consider broader societal interests and not just their own narrow ones?
Yes it does and that's not what seems to bother people about the death penalty. It's the act of killing that tugs on their heartstrings. They happily ignore the millions serving decades in prison because they didn't have the basic requirements to lead a good life.
The agenda is:
1. End the death penalty.
2. Assume someone else will help innocent people, which they largely won't.
He's like someone who is anti-abortion but doesn't worry at all about people after they exit the womb. They're lying when they say they actually care about life. In reality, they just care about how abortion makes them feel.
He's anti-death penalty in the same way. The orders of magnitude more suffering in our prison system can't get a tweet but the nearly disused California death penalty urgently bothers him...
Clearly not, since that argument applies far more strongly to non-death penalty cases where there is far less scrutiny.
It's also clearly an argument intended for Other People who need pragmatic reasons for ending the death penalty. He is against it on purely ethical grounds, or in my opinion, because it makes him feel bad about himself.
