<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>dragonwriter</author><text>While that quote uses the phrase &amp;quot;legitimate avenger of crime&amp;quot;, the justification it gives -- that the punishments &amp;quot;give security to life by repressing outrage and violence&amp;quot; is &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; the retributive theory of justice, but instead a utilitarian view akin to general deterrence in that the purpose of the punishment is to prevent greater harm by modifying the behavior of others in the community (but distinguishable from it, in that it does not seek to do so by creating fear of punishment.)</text><parent_chain><item><author>michaelsbradley</author><text>There is the retributive argument, in which condign punishments play an important role in maintaining the balance of justice.&lt;p&gt;As summarized by the Catechism of Trent, a Christian religious text of historical importance:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment [against killing] which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;– &lt;i&gt;Catechism of the Council of Trent&lt;/i&gt;, Part III, 5, n. 4 (1566)&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;j.mp&amp;#x2F;CatechismTrentDeathPenalty&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;j.mp&amp;#x2F;CatechismTrentDeathPenalty&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>mikeash</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t know that life in prison is better than being executed, but it doesn&amp;#x27;t seem substantially worse. There doesn&amp;#x27;t seem to be any decent argument &lt;i&gt;for&lt;/i&gt; the death penalty, since the only two possible reasons, cost and deterrence, don&amp;#x27;t hold up. In the absence of a decisive factor, I vote for not killing people.</text></item><item><author>bpodgursky</author><text>Going to be contrarian here.  I see in other comments&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; costs millions of tax payer dollars because of the long appeals processes&lt;p&gt;Well... yes, but the alternative is that you throw someone in prison for life (likely without parole).  And since there is no upcoming &amp;quot;event&amp;quot; to force an appeals process (aka execution), it will just never happen.  Is that really a better fate for someone wrongfully accused?  If you are sentencing them to life in a cage, be honest and call it a death penalty.&lt;p&gt;So sure you can save some money by getting rid of the death penalty, but it is not likely to make Justice any better served, it will just make you feel better and leave people in prison forever without a guaranteed appeals process.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Nebraska Abolishes Death Penalty</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/nebraska-abolishes-death-penalty.html</url><text></text></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>aaronbrethorst</author><text>Which has seemingly been rejected by bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the pope. &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.usccb.org&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;15-019.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.usccb.org&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;15-019.cfm&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>michaelsbradley</author><text>There is the retributive argument, in which condign punishments play an important role in maintaining the balance of justice.&lt;p&gt;As summarized by the Catechism of Trent, a Christian religious text of historical importance:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment [against killing] which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;– &lt;i&gt;Catechism of the Council of Trent&lt;/i&gt;, Part III, 5, n. 4 (1566)&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;j.mp&amp;#x2F;CatechismTrentDeathPenalty&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;j.mp&amp;#x2F;CatechismTrentDeathPenalty&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>mikeash</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t know that life in prison is better than being executed, but it doesn&amp;#x27;t seem substantially worse. There doesn&amp;#x27;t seem to be any decent argument &lt;i&gt;for&lt;/i&gt; the death penalty, since the only two possible reasons, cost and deterrence, don&amp;#x27;t hold up. In the absence of a decisive factor, I vote for not killing people.</text></item><item><author>bpodgursky</author><text>Going to be contrarian here.  I see in other comments&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; costs millions of tax payer dollars because of the long appeals processes&lt;p&gt;Well... yes, but the alternative is that you throw someone in prison for life (likely without parole).  And since there is no upcoming &amp;quot;event&amp;quot; to force an appeals process (aka execution), it will just never happen.  Is that really a better fate for someone wrongfully accused?  If you are sentencing them to life in a cage, be honest and call it a death penalty.&lt;p&gt;So sure you can save some money by getting rid of the death penalty, but it is not likely to make Justice any better served, it will just make you feel better and leave people in prison forever without a guaranteed appeals process.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Nebraska Abolishes Death Penalty</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/nebraska-abolishes-death-penalty.html</url><text></text></story>