That's exactly the kind of stuff that in my opinion the death penalty should be used for.
Edit: if what you are saying is true that's exactly the kind of behaviour that's undermining our entire justice system and faith in the government and the system as a whole.
This sort of rhetoric damages the quality we're hoping for here. Having a civil, substantive discussion about something mostly isn't compatible with advocating death for it.
I disagree, although I personally don't believe in the death penalty. He wasn't advocating vigilantism. American states that have the death penalty do so lawfully, in part as a deterrent.
Perhaps you should have asked him to clarify under what circumstances he would support the death penalty rather than admonishing him.
I don't believe in censoring opinions I don't happen to agree with. I think that is one of the ideas of the original article.
Sometimes there are borderline moderation calls, but this wasn't one. Perhaps it would be helpful to explain why.
HN is not all things. It is a site for civil, substantive discussion on topics of intellectual curiosity. A throwaway line suddenly invoking the death penalty is obviously not that—it's just talking smack on the internet. Maybe a detailed argument would have been different, but I doubt it. Pulling that rabbit out of hat is a stunt.
Not all opinions and contributions are equal. It's seductive to feel that they should be, until you realize that it isn't possible to treat all posts equally: if we did, the inflammatory, reflexive posts would win. That wouldn't just tip the balance—it would be a rout, because the people who prefer reflective, thoughtful discussion would leave. On HN we prefer reflective, thoughtful discussion. It's the rarer and more valuable species.
In a technical biological sense, no doubt all plants are equally valid. But if you want a garden you've got to pull weeds.
It sure was substantive! I'd never thought of the idea of using the death penalty as a punishment for crimes before reading it. And I certainly didn't know what his opinion was on whether a specific crime deserved death, and I was very delighted to hear it, and then imagine the punishment happen. It made me feel good.
In US law, treason is punishable by death. Abusing a government role undermines the legitimacy of gover and so is arguably treason (it isn't under current law, but some like GP believe it should be)
"undermining the legitimacy of gover [sic]" is far too squishy of a reason to execute someone. You need to prove that by killing them, society is better off than if we'd kept them in maximum security for the rest of their natural life.
I'm generally against the death penalty, but I'm definitely open to reconsidering that stance when it comes to willful and egregious nonsense like this.
You've been downvoted to oblivion, probably because you phrased your assertion wrong.
There is a large province of the Philippines called "Davao" which, 20 years ago (more or less), was a haven for terrible, corrupt people. Were you to make the mistake of going there, you would be kidnapped, held for ransom, and executed if your family/friends could not pay. This was pretty much a guarantee. So, more or less, you wouldn't go there.
Enter a man named Rodrigo Duterte. Mayor of the biggest town (also called Davao). He instituted martial law, brought in the military, and started executing police, drug dealers, and local officials who were corrupt.
Today, Davao is one of the safest and nicest regions in the Philippines. His daughter, now the mayor, carries on in his tradition, but since the corruption is largely gone, I don't think she gets around to executing too many government officials.
The country noticed this. In the last 12 months, he was basically drafted against his will to be the president of the Philippines, on the hopes that he would repeat the process on a national level.
He is doing so. He was sworn in sometime in June, and has begun executing the people responsible for corruption in Manila and other northern regions of the country.
Now one can argue all sorts of things in this case. It leaves an unsavory taste in my mouth and those of some very smart people I know. But at some point it ceases to be civil society policing itself, and becomes civil war. We simply hope that the chieftans disband when the civil war is over (Duterte is probably one of the few authoritarians who will actually do so, so I hold out hope).
I don't think the United States has quite reached the level of corruption the Philippines has, but I see it heading that direction. It's best to think what we will do if it goes that far. Maybe today the death penalty for being a corrupt government official is too much, but the status quo penalty of: "get paid leave until it blows over" is, I think, too lax.
Edit: if what you are saying is true that's exactly the kind of behaviour that's undermining our entire justice system and faith in the government and the system as a whole.