While I don't necessarily approve of the conclusion, there are many important points that people seem to underestimate. (Briefly, before discussing them, I suspect that what currently makes death penalty so expensive is all the legal processes around it, so if we replaced all death penalty with life sentence in prison, we would spend more money on the prisoners, but less money on the lawyers, potentially saving money on the net.)

The key part is: While the truly horrible people are few, they cause vastly disproportional damage, plus all kinds of secondary damage (the population living in fear, not trusting each other, spending more money on security, or just not trying many projects because of the perceived risk). Eliminating these people from the streets might change the situation dramatically, possibly in ways that many of us can't even imagine. It could change a low-trust society into a high-trust society, with various positive impacts on mental health and economy.

I have also seen similar dynamics in other situations. For example, in school, there is often one child in a classroom that constantly keeps disrupting lessons, frustrating the teachers and reducing the learning opportunities for all their classmates. Removing that one child can dramatically change the entire experience for everyone involved. I have seen incredible changes during a week or two when the disruptive child got sick; but after their return the situation reverted to the usual.

There is a related problem, that crime is often difficult to prove (beyond the shadow of doubt, without doing something illegal yourself, etc.). For example, rape is often only witnessed by the two people involved; we get a "he said, she said" situation. Another example, in Slovakia the law about illegal drugs was changed so that it is no longer illegal to have the amount of drugs you need for your own consumption; only selling drugs is illegal. Sounds reasonable at first sight (catching the dealers is strategically more important than catching the users)... until you realize that in practice, selling is almost impossible to prove. Because you would have to be there, at the exact moment. A police arriving five minutes later (which is already a super optimistic scenario) can't prove anything: all people involved will claim that no exchange happened, that everyone who has drugs on them has already arrived with them, that it is all for their personal consumption, and that all they wanted was to talk. So I have literally the situation that people are selling drugs on my street, they are not even trying hard to hide (other than making sure that no one is closer than 10 meters to them at the moment the money changes hands), and they do it with complete impunity. So again, we have a situation where worrying about being needlessly harsh to the users made the crime itself... not literally legal, but not punished in practice either.

Which suggest a need of another "tough on crime" approach, like: if X is a crime you want to prevent, but it is extremely easy to pretend that X is Y, and there is no good reason why Y should be legal... then maybe you should also make Y illegal, just to make sure that the people doing X actually get punished. Basically, when making laws about Y, don't think about Y in isolation, but also about all things that can be plausibly made into Y. Even if the punishment for Y is smaller than the punishment for X, it should definitely be nonzero, and if it happens repeatedly, it is very likely X in disguise, so the punishments for repeated Y should be comparable to X.

We accept that innocent people die due to our actions all the time, and making a special exception here is an isolated demand for rigour.

This is also true for life imprisonment, actually. We'll be sentencing some innocent people to life imprisonment. And although perhaps some of them will be exonerated, it's a statistical certainty that not all of them will be, and a statistical certainty that therefore we will destroy some innocent people's lives piecemeal. But we're okay with that, or at least it doesn't get the ire that the death penalty does.

In fact, this is a general problem with all public policies. Anything you do that affects a large number of people is going to statistically kill a number of innocents, unless it's the absolute optimal policy. You can't avoid killing innocents whether you have executions or not.

"0.12% of the population (the most persistent offenders) accounted for 20% of violent crime convictions" https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/when-few-do-great-harm

I think the US has too much punishment as it is, with very high incarceration rate and prison conditions sometimes approaching torture (prison rape, supermax isolation).

I'd rather give serial criminals some kind of surveillance collars that would detect reoffending and notify the police. I think a lot of such people can be "cured" by high certainty of being caught, not by severity of punishment. There'd need to be laws to prevent discrimination against people with collars, though.

Have we considered cryopreservation as an alternative solution? It could protect society from dangerous offenders without resorting to irreversible execution, while potentially costing less than long-term incarceration. If medical and rehabilitative technologies advance, this would also preserve the possibility of future reform. Worth exploring as a middle ground that addresses both societal safety and moral concerns.

My paraphrase of Gandalf: "Many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do the next best thing, and deal out death in judgement to the many that live who deserve it." 

I'm a bit conflicted on the subject of death penalty. I do agree with the view some solution is needed for incorrigible cases where you just don't want that person out in general society. But I honestly don't know if killing them versus imprisoning them for life is more or less humane. In terms of steelmanning the case I think one might explore this avenue. Which is the cruelest punishment?

But I would also say one needs to consider alternatives to either prison or death. Historically it was not unheard of to exile criminals to near impossible to escape locations -- Australia possibly being a best example. 

> Imprisoning someone for one year in the USA costs in the order of 100,000 dollars

There surely must be some way to decrease that by *at least* a factor of 4 or so, possibly by an order of magnitude, if we wanted to?  (The poverty line for a 8-person household in the contiguous US in 2025 is $54,150.)  Surely that might involve treating prisoners in rather questionable ways, but still way less questionable than f---ing killing them, IMO.

Another objection I have is that [waaay too many things are considered crimes that shouldn't be](https://archive.org/details/threefeloniesday0000silv) -- what fraction of people in prison are there for reasons comparable to any of your examples?

Some conclusions should be drawn from  existing countries which use the death penalty well, example Singapore. Low crime is great!

In a sufficiently wealthy society we would never kill anyone for their crimes.

In a sufficiently wealthy society, there're far fewer forgivable/tolerable crimes.  I'm opposed to the death penalty in current US situation, mostly for knowledge and incentive reasons (too easy to abuse, too hard to be sure).  All of the arguments shift in weight by a lot if the situation changes.  If the equilibrium shifts significantly so that there are fewer economic reasons for crimes, and fewer economic reasons not to investigate very deeply, and fewer economic reasons not to have good advice and oversight, there may well be a place for it.

I have major disagreements with the arguments of this post (with the understanding that it is a steelman), but I do want to say that it has made me moderately update towards the suitability of the death penalty as a punishment, from a purely utilitarian perspective (though it has not tipped the scale). It has also showcased interesting and important figures, so thank you for that.

Deterrence and recidivism

At that point killing 3 million criminals to save the lives of 2.4 million

How many of those 2.4 million were murdered by recidivists? Even if we assume that the death penalty instituted on a larger scale would save a significant chunk of these people (evidence being very uncertain and model-dependent), there is (weak) evidence that most murderers do not re-murder (less than 10%). Violent re-offenses, however, from what I have seen, range between 20 and 50%, which is definitely significant.

As for escalation, stopping violent pre-murderers might be feasible, but over 40% of offenders of all kinds had zero criminal history, so at most about half of them could have been executed before taking anyone's life. I suspect this number is much lower, because:

After all, might as well be hung for a cow as a sheep. Yes this is a likely cost of the death penalty. I do not think it comes near to tipping the scales.

My intuition is the opposite, though I have not found concrete research either way. This would likely need to be tested, as our extrapolations regarding (say) the current behaviour of serial shoplifters might not extend in a manner we would expect when under such regimes.

One minor point: homicide and violent crime in general has been decreasing quite steadily since the 90s, approaching early 60s levels, in spite of the fall of use of the death penalty (or increasing incarceration rates, for that matter). Shifting the threshold may not even be necessary in the future, if trends continue.

Costs

Imprisoning someone for one year in the USA costs in the order of 100,000 dollars.

The SSC article you link explains that this is for California, with most other states being between 30,000 and 60,000 (which can be cut further [LW(p) · GW(p)], if needed). This halving (possible in California as well) would make the calculations you have made severely less dire. 1-2% of state/federal budgets can be gathered from other sources (such as military spending), and saying that the US is "not prepared to pay" when such large death penalty reforms are even further afield of the Overton window is somewhat strange.

In general, your assertion that "we are not a sufficiently wealthy society" is not sufficiently supported by the evidence, and seems somewhat arbitrary. The issue of investment in these matters is another of the many budget-nudging issues out there, and they can be resolved from within the current political paradigm (irrespective of whether large, systemic shifts are desirable, which they can be, of course).

If the answer to either of those is no, then they are not safe to be released into society, and we are not a society wealthy enough to lock every such person up.

Same consideration. Furthermore, those with illnesses that predispose them to commit crimes are either psychopathy (which does not automatically make one a violent criminal, and as such they should be treated like any median citizen) or disorders like schizophrenia, where the person in question would have already been medicated/in an institution. The costs would still be there.

Justice and due process

I do not believe in vengeance or justice.

An utilitarian analysis cannot include solely economic or (more) easily measurable factors. A widespread belief in justice, trust towards the state, public disinclination towards violence as a means of solving societal problems are necessary for a politically stable society, and removing those might impose major costs on society as a whole (as Knight Lee pointed out [LW(p) · GW(p)]). Justice cannot be simply dismissed as a factor here.

This is also related to:

Yes, if you wait 20 years and go through umpteen rounds of court cases to finally elaborately kill a small percentage of the people you originally started the process with it's not going to save you any money. We would obviously have to significantly streamline the process, such that people are executed within 6 months of being caught or so.

There seems to be a general assumption that all of the lengthy due processes, the necessary costs for lawyers, judges, impartial jurors, associated legal staff etc., and the concrete determination of culpability and the degree of severity of the acts committed, are all merely unnecessary bureaucratic fluff that can be easily dispensed with. These processes have developed for centuries in order to ensure that every citizen receives a fair hearing, someone to represent their interests, and a method to dialectically get as close as possible to a reasonable truth, not to mention moral and practical standards of guilt for every possible degree and type of action possible (which would be rendered worthless).

Exceptions cannot be made for certain citizens over others, especially not in high-stakes situations, as that would erode the presumption of innocence and rule of law, trust in institutions, amplify existing systemic problems, and veer dangerously close to authoritarian police states, which have had unpleasant social consequences for its citizens (see the general malaise and low-trust nature resulting in high crime rates of many post-communist states).

Many (though not all, of course) death row convictions drag on due to problems with previous trials, new evidence being produced, and many other considerations. There is also the fact that our society has decided that sentencing and assigning guilt should not be governed by Bayesian standards of probability: even if the evidence is above 50% for guilt, the requirement for "beyond a reasonable doubt" pushes the threshold to the 80-90% territory, due to an acknowledgement of human subjectivity, and a belief in the necessity of the presumption of innocence for a free society where its members are not scared of being wrongfully convicted by an overly-powerful state.^[1] Loosening these norms may have unintended consequences.

All of these problems would be exacerbated the lower a bar is set for the death penalty. Their impact is difficult to measure, but could be massive and potentially society-eroding (as you yourself have pointed out with the issue of scale).

But yes, some innocent people will be killed. Just like some innocent people are killed by police shootings, and numerous innocent people are killed by the US Army, murderers who were let free, and mistaken medical diagnosis. We accept that innocent people die due to our actions all the time, and making a special exception here is an isolated demand for rigour.

Most of the situations you have described are wholly technical in nature. Determining proper guilt is also a technical problem, and as such requires the resources previously mentioned. Streamlining the process would make the rate of innocents killed even higher (see Isusr's comment [LW(p) · GW(p)]). Not to mention that the act of execution is very deliberate and isolated, with the moral aspect of the act being front and centre. The situations you list here are not (no one is actively trying to kill bystanders or a patient, but the person being accused is being targeted, especially if due process is eroded). Furthermore, as was mentioned, homicidal recidivism is low enough that the cost of being let free might not be offset by an execution (~100% murder rate).

I do agree that resolving the issue of the method of execution is doable, with the firing squad a (somewhat) reasonable solution. This has historically been extremely fraught, however, with many false promises of humane and efficient executions, and increased demand might make the forces that lead to those many follies resurface, even if it solvable with enough care and integrity.

1. ^{^}

   I do have to concede that the citizens of low-crime rate Japan do not seem to suffer from this, despite flagrant presumption of guilt in their legal system. Trying to implement something similar in the US, however, would rightly lead to civil rights protests.

While I find your analysis mostly correct, I'd be strongly against weakening norms against killing people through legal institutions.

I believe this would increase the value of lawfare, as instead of lengthy drawn out jail time where an enemy could pull a reversal they are simply dead. 

This would worry me at the political, ideological and private levels

But yes, some innocent people will be killed.

The important question to ask is "how many innocent people" are worth killing to achieve an end? A 2014 study estimated that 4% of death row inmates would be exonerated, had they remained under sentence of death indefinitely, which means the real proportion of innocent people getting executed is higher than 4% and we don't know how much higher.

If death sentences are expanded, then the fraction of innocent people getting executed would increase to well over 4%. I feel that that's too high, especially if 1% of the population is being executed. But suppose the number is 4% and stayed at 4%, which is a known under-estimate. If 1% of the US population is executed and 4% of those executed are innocent (again, a conservative under-estimate of the collateral damage), then that means executing 136,000 innocent people. I oppose deliberately and knowingly executing 136,000 innocent civilians. I feel deontological grounds are sufficient.

Then there's the issue of what happens after laws change. Right now there are people in prison for selling marijuana in Washington state, while selling marijuana is legal in Washington state. [Edit: See comment thread.] Imagine if they had been executed, instead.

As for cost savings, the death penalty (USA, again) is more expensive than life imprisonment. This is because so much effort is put into making sure death penalties are imposed on people who are really innocent. If the US switches from life imprisonment to massive imposition of the death penalty, then we can expect the ratio of innocent people getting executed to skyrocket.

What do you think about exiling them to a zone where extreme criminals have to fend for themselves such as they did with Australia?

Epistemic status: this is an attempt to steelman the case for the death penalty

...

I do not believe in vengeance or justice. I do however believe in fixing problems. And it's clear the only way to fix this problem is to put such people in positions where they cannot do anyone any harm.

Some people have complained that, when their opponents "steelman" their position, in practice it can mean they steelman a particular argument that is not their main argument.  This struck me as a remarkably explicit and self-aware example of that.

I don't know what the solution is.  Maybe tell people not to use "steelmanning" in such cases, maybe tell people to stop expecting "steelmanning" to necessarily mean it won't miss a central argument.  Maybe decide that you should, e.g., say "I'm steelmanning this particular argument", because if you say "I'm steelmanning the case for this conclusion" then that means you're supposed to capture all important arguments for that conclusion.

But what you're probably not aware of is that 0.8% of the US population ends up dieing due to intentional homicide

That is an insane statistic. According to a bit of googling this indeed seems plausible, but would still be interested in your source if you can provide it.

If you are a cold hearted utilitarian, the answer is no, we should not massively increase the death penalty, because it will worsen the diplomatic situation, increase racial hostilities, and move the Overton window on "killing vile people," such that assassinations, coups and other instability would feel less shocking and be more likely to succeed.

If you are a normal human, the answer is also no, because people don't deserve to die. A child who is unlucky enough to be born with bad genes or brain connections, does not deserve to be later executed when he grows up. A child raised in a bad environment also does not deserve to be later executed when he grows up. Finally, an adult who had bad luck does not deserve to be executed.

But if you believe the universe is made of atoms and physics, then all crime is caused by a combination of genes, environment, and luck--none of which makes you deserve to die.

It reminds me of this Nobel Prize economist who suggested, each time Hamas launches a terrorist rocket at Israel, Israel should automatically launch a terrorist rocket back at the Gaza strip. Academics should beware of taking for granted the hard learned lessons of history, in the name of "reasoning from first principles."

I'm curious about the purpose of this post. I think I understand the concept of steelmanning, but I’m struggling to see the specific goal here.

The post doesn’t address countries with low crime rates that don’t use the death penalty, and just seems to double down on executing vast number of criminals rather than any number of other possible options to reduce crime. Also speculating here but I imagine the impacts on social cohesion and flow on effects from ease of executions (political prisoners etc) would make the cure worse than the disease. 

Is excluding these concerns part of the steelmanning process? I think the post could have been a bit clearer on what is being steelmanned and what are arguments you are making. 

What you describe is the system of justice we had back 250 years ago. The whole reason for the formalistic procedures involving a jury and Judge and all these rights given to the accused were because if he was convicted then he was most likely looking at a quick public hanging. The State has to prove guilt beyond any and all reasonable doubt because there's no going back once the guy's head rolls off the chopping block. Over time however, punishments got more lenient, judges became way softer, and due to the way the appeals process and appellate courts work, justice can only get ratcheted one way, softer.

Now somehow there's US Supreme Court precedent saying it's cruel and unusual punishment to execute someone for a crime that didn't result in anyone's death. How does that make any sense when back during the founding of the US they were executing people for horse thievery?

Your post is obviously correct and I think there's about 3 reasons right now that it's anathema to public policy. 1) The general public has a totally mistaken understanding of why people commit crimes, how they could be made to stop, and how criminals are being punished right now. 2) Judges and other people in the criminal justice system are numb to just how evil criminals are because they have to interact with these depraved people every single day. 3) There is now a sizable portion of the population who is actively pro-criminal because they hate the US.

Wait, the case for extreme costs seems to include both the crime, and the price of the reaction. If the expected cost of deterrence (that is the sum of individualized deterrence), is much greater then the expected actual harm from  the crime, that seems like a market inefficiency. That is, insuring everybody against the harm, is cheaper than preventing it. (this seems like a bad policy, but it is the approach taken towards credit fraud)

That is, in this model most of the costs come from social (not market) reactions to crime.  (because you cannot just pay people back socially the way you can with money/resources). (If most costs are monetary, they are insurable, and insurance is mostly efficient (that is close to the expected costs, in most instances)

That is, the framing as crime being about criminals and the model that generates disproportionate costs (where we divide the total opportunity cost of the best policy for people when they expect ~0 crime and the current state of affairs by the number of crimes) are not the same model. The uninsurable costs come from living in a society where crime is a thing that happens. There is no guarantee that those costs are at all linear with crime, because they are dependent of perception, and game theoretic behavior.

That is to say, dike races cost more than flood insurance

We would obviously have to significantly streamline the process, such that people are executed within 6 months of being caught or so.

This is one of the biggest hurdles, IMO. How do you significantly streamline the process without destroying due process? In the US, this would require a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system to be feasible.

Similar disclaimer: don't assume these are my opinions. I'm merely advocating for a devil.

If we're going for efficiency, I feel like we can get most of the safety gains with tamer measures. For example, you could cut off a petty thief's hand, or castrate a rapist. The actual procedure would be about as expensive as execution, but if a mistake was made there is still a living person to pay reparations to. I think you could also make the argument that this is less cruel than imprisoning someone for years—after all, people have a "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", not a right to all their limbs and genitals.

Another thing we can do is punish not only the criminal, but their friends and family too. We can model people as having the policy to take certain actions in a given environment. The ultimate goal of the justice system is to decrease the weight of certain defective policies in the general populace, either through threat, force, or elimination. When we get good enough mindreaders, we can just directly compare each person's policy to the defective ones, and change the environment to mitigate defection. Until then, we have to make do with approximations, and one's culture, especially the shared culture among friends and family, is a very good measure for how similar two people's policies will be. So, if we find someone defecting, it makes sense to punish not only them, but their friends and family for a couple generations too.