Does method of execution, crime committed or overall cost matter to you?
I’m opposed to the bourgeois state using the death penalty against proles.
What if its a business owner being axed? If the proletariat rose up, axing anyone involved in ownership on the morally fine table ?
I didn’t say that. I’m not giving some kind of blanket endorsement about “axing anyone involved in ownership.” It’s not an all or nothing deal.
Sorry, thats just what tends to happen when the proletariat overthrows the bourgeoisie.
Yes, revolutions do tend to be bloody. That doesn’t mean that I have to choose between endorsing every act of violence or condemning every act of violence.
The reality is, in any conflict, innocent people usually end up getting hurt. It’s unfortunate, but if that conflict means preventing or ending other conflicts, then it’s potentially justifiable in my eyes.
If the government is, for example, drafting people en masse and forcing them to kill and die for no good reason, then overthrowing that government is justifiable, because innocent people were getting hurt anyway.
THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
-Mark Twain
It’s a good quote for this discussion and I understand where you’re coming from. So, killing someone because it serves the greater good (whatever your definition of that may be) is acceptable in your eyes. This sounds like you are in support of the death penalty, you just dont like the current form of government enforcing it. Based on the statement and quote would be fine with mass executions as long as your enemies are the ones in the guillotine.
In terms of view. Yes. I am against it. In terms of using it as a bargaining chip to pass other annoying laws quid pro quo like it, no.
Yes, I believe it’s nearly always immoral, and the exception is public figures directly involved in crimes against humanity.
If you have to have a trial to figure out if you got the right person, that’s too much doubt. It’s just Nuremberg, Saddam, the radio guy from Rwanda, and folks like them. Everything else regardless of how monstrous the state should only kill if they are absolutely incapable of keeping that person from taking more lives.
Also governments should be held accountable when one prisoner kills another in a situation that could have been predicted. And yes this includes pedos being stabbed in prison.
I don’t personally see a difference in a serial rapist and a public figure like you stated. I think both should be axed, assuming dead to rights evidence of crime.
Because for non public figures we keep thinking we have dead to rights evidence of crimes and executing people who turn out innocent
In a just society it will always cost more to execute a person than it would cost to imprison them for life. If that’s always going to be the case in a just society you may as well imprison them for life. The outcome is the same.
The reason execution should always cost more is because you have to be absolutely sure to the best of our abilities that the person is guilty. Until we come up with a fool proof way to determine guilt we will always run the risk of executing the wrong person for a crime.
I oppose it simply because it doesn’t work. It is not a deterrent, and it does not serve justice to put people to death, and it costs far more to execute someone than it does to rehabilitate them (the most expensive alternative - I’m not suggesting rehabilitation is an option for everyone).
Yeah nothing has come out showing it has any tangible positive benefits. Shocking I know haha.
If we had some omniscient and perfectly fair justice system that could confirm there is no other option, sure. But jeesh, how much further could we be from that yk? The US justice system is becoming increasingly blatantly political.
Also, as someone who thinks punishment is vindictive and unnecessary compared to rehabilitation, the ultimate punishment does not appeal to me.
I can agree with that.
The death penalty should ALMOST never be used. The only use for the death penalty is for world leaders that direct their subordinates to commit atrocious acts.
Normal civilians, no matter how dangerous, should only ever be treated with dignity. There is no place for state sanctioned murder.
A) It is immoral.
B) The justice system isn’t perfect, and death is final.
C) The actual cost of going through all the trials and effort to put someone to death is typically higher than just keeping them locked up.
D) There is no humane way to put someone to death.
E) It is not effective at preventing crime. It only makes it so people have nothing to lose by being caught.
Well put
B and E are the strongest cases against it in my opinion. I think C could be mitigated with new practices. A is arguable dependent on the individuals morals, ethically, youd have a better argument. D feels like we just haven’t tried, what about a FAT dose of fent or a gunshot to the head. I’d be fine with killing convicted serial rapists, serial murderers and serial pedophiles. But that brings up B, wrongful convictions happen all the time and you’re right, it is final.
C) Cutting the cost of putting someone to death just increases the chances that you’re putting the wrong person to death. It’s expensive cause that’s the best way to ensure that it’s being done right. Cutting costs just means you’re going to make more mistakes.
D) The reason we can’t do it humanely is because anyone with the training to do it right doesn’t want to participate in the process. It’s not that we’re not smart enough. And even if we can do it painlessly, it doesn’t mean that it’s still not a horrible experience.
Why are you putting people do death? What’s the purpose? Cause it makes you feel better that this person isn’t alive anymore? Then that’s a terrible reason.
So they won’t do it again? We already have them locked up, they’re done commiting crimes.
So it stops others from doing it? Well, we already know that doesn’t work.
So what’s the reason?
I appreciate your points and they are valid.I agree with you for the most part honestly. If there was video evidence of them committing the crimes I could see expediting the process. But with AI now even that isn’t 100%. The most reasonable argument for it I’ve heard goes something like the following. The person being put to death should never have the opportunity to experience happiness again. Which they will have the opportunity to do while incarcerated. They will enjoy a book, make a friend, have a good conversation or enjoy drugs/exercise. I don’t really have any empathy for a serial rapist and I don’t personally believe a person like that deserves or is capable of any type or rehabilitation.
So they won’t do it again? We already have them locked up, they’re done commiting crimes.
People run gangs while inside. Being incarcerated definitely doesn’t stop them from committing crimes.
So because we have a poorly run prison system, we should just murder people instead since we’re too lazy to fix it?
Those are your opinions, not mine. I didn’t offer an opinion on capital punishment. I just pointed out the pretty f’n obvious flaw in your logic.
I didn’t offer my opinion on the death penalty. You made an absurd claim to support your position; I merely pointed out how wildly wrong you were.
You cannot be punished if you are dead. The death penalty is just convenient catharsis and a release of burden for the living.
Not the death penalty, but the lost prophets guy who got stabbed to death recently got off easy. Death was too good for him.
Not the death penalty, but the lost prophets guy who got stabbed to death recently got off easy. Death was too good for him.
Yeah I’m 1000% against the death penalty but I also reserve the right to feel that people like him deserve death or worse. I reserve the right to feel schadenfreude and to celebrate when monsters are destroyed, even if I think that rehabilitation would be a better outcome if possible in finite time.
I think the death penalty could be just, but, unfortunately our justice system is too capricious and dysfunctional to be worthy of administering it.
Yeah, its tough because I feel like if we KNOW a person has commited atrocities, kill em. But, there have been so many cases of wrongful conviction it gets messy.
The death penalty is wrong because life is precious and even the worst people can change if given enough time and help.
However, if it is strictly necessary to kill someone currently engaging in murder to stop them (i.e. the capitalist class), i.e. the situation is so time-sensitive that innocent people are going to die if the murderer isn’t stopped, then I’m 1000% cool with killing the murderers until they stop murdering or are dead, whichever happens first.
Oh yeah I draw a heavy distinction between those two things. In fact, according to my moral compass, not killing someone actively engaging in murder would be immoral. Like if one person is stabbing an innocent person, green light 1000%. But thats just my morals.
not killing someone actively engaging in murder would be immoral
Are you sure? Like I wouldn’t condemn you for stabbing a murderer frankly, but let’s say you can tackle or distract or knock out the murderer, or just do something that isn’t stabbing them but still stops them without hurting you, then only if it is feasible to do so, then surely that’s a better outcome? Again, I would 1000% not fault you for acting quickly in a real situation and stabbing a murderer, but since we are in the proverbial armchair we can afford to be a little bit more subtle here.
IMO I think “could be” is more accurate than “would be”.
Yes that would be a better outcome but, absolutely a much bigger risk. Im a particularly big/strong guy. I’ve spent a couple years training 2 martial arts disciplines lately. I also grew up a middle school, high school and college wrestler. I still don’t see a way I could be 100% sure I wouldn’t be fataly injured by getting involved, unless I had a gun. Ideally nobody dies but its such a crazy huge risk to attack someone with a weapon.
Yeah I feel you. Personally I have almost 0 martial arts training, almost 0 self-defense experience, and an utterly ambivalent will to live. So if I’m at the point where I’m willing to get physical at all, then I’ve already flown off the handle and my personal safety is just not a factor in the calculation anymore.
Yeah it would depend on the situation. I’d like to think I’d get involved regardless. But, I’ve never been and hopefully will never be in the situation. Interesting hypothetical though. Definitely not something I run through my head all the time on my commute haha.
I’m against it. It does nothing to protect people that a life sentence doesn’t do. It’s permanent, there’s no correcting for mistakes. It’s about punishment, not deterrent.
Killing even a killer when there’s an option to lock them up instead is unnecessary. It smacks of religious/moral judgement that is beyond what a justice system should be focused on. If an afterlife exists and is run by some supernatural deity(ies), they will take care of punishment.
Killing even a killer when there’s an option to lock them up instead is unnecessary.
So if keeping them locked up is not an option, say in a emergency situation or a failed state, you’d be okay with it?
That’s a reasonable view. I agree with just about everything you’ve said. I don’t see how its a religous judgement necessarily though.
I think the death penalty is silly even from an evil standpoint, death is a kind release compared to life in an American prison.
Are you saying prisons in America are a cruel and/or unusual punishment?
If killing people is wrong, its wrong.
Ummm, checks notes, yes, killing people is wrong.
So, checks notes, we shouldn’t do it. State sanctioned murder is still, checks notes, murder.
Our notes appear to be in alignment. Let the minutes show that 1. Murder is wrong and 2. We shouldn’t do it.
I think some crimes deserve death, but I just don’t trust the government –any government!– to make that decision.
I’ll go one further, I wouldn’t trust any human being to make that decision.
Yeah pretty much this. If you make the death penalty for the “ickiest bad crime” the govt will accuse the people it wants to get rid of by expanding the definition.
the state should never enforce the death penalty. remove any hierarchical structures keeping together the justice system and bring in a community council operating under direct democracy and subject to regulation and recall. make sure the people ultimately have the power if corruption is suspected.
the death penalty should be a true rarity for extreme cases. i am currently unsure what i would consider for my own beliefs but i do know rehabilitation should be prioritized regardless.
