Does method of execution, crime committed or overall cost matter to you?

  • LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

    • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

      • LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        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?

        • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          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.

        • chillpanzee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          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.

            • chillpanzee@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 days ago

              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.

            • chillpanzee@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 days ago

              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.

  • nullpotential@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

    • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

  • qt0x40490FDB@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    I think the death penalty could be just, but, unfortunately our justice system is too capricious and dysfunctional to be worthy of administering it.

    • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

  • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    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.

    • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

      • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        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”.

        • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          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.

          • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            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.

            • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 days ago

              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.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    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).

  • pebbles@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

  • Vanth@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      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?

    • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

  • BarrelsBallot@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    I think the death penalty is silly even from an evil standpoint, death is a kind release compared to life in an American prison.

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    I think some crimes deserve death, but I just don’t trust the government –any government!– to make that decision.

    • Aeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

  • chosensilence@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    I do not trust the justice system what so ever. Nor the nation state that gave birth to this abomination.

    No to the death sentence.

  • vfreire85@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    I’m all against death penalty in any form, except perhaps for some fascist leaderships. There are those who deserve to dance the Spandau ballet.

    • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      I just dont understand that rationale. I’ve seen it among several comments here. Killing is killing, if you’ve got a moral issue with it, why be inconsistent. Wouldn’t the argument that life in prison would be worse be applicable to any person?

  • Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    I think even one innocent person being executed makes it all not worth it. Though that may be clouded by the facts, it doesn’t deter crime and it costs more than life imprisonment.

    In a perfect world, I think the death penalty could have a deterrence effect for white collar crime. I’d support the death penalty in that case. The line I draw where the death penalty is deserved is when someone systematically makes the world a worse place. Even serial killers don’t reach that threshold for me.

    There’s no world where we can do that without ever executing an innocent person though. So I am firmly against the death penalty.

  • MarieMarion@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    I’d be against it even if we could magically know without a doubt the person’s guilty. Even if it had a negative cost. Even for raping a child.
    Life is sacred, whatever “sacred” means for an atheist like me.
    (And I was raped as a child, fwiw.)

    • silly goose meekah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      I agree, but for a different reason. I don’t think life is sacred, but as an atheist I do think people get off the hook too easily if they’re just killed. I think it’s fair for them to suffer the rest of their lifetime, just like the victims did.