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
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
I recognize the unfortunate fact that innocent people have been and will continue to be killed unjustly. I’m saying drawing a moral line between one would need to extend to the other. If it’s wrong, its wrong. The idea that you’d pick and choose who deserves it just means you’re in favor of it.
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.
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.
Strongly against the state having the option.
The death penalty is incredibly stupid for more than one reason.
- If someone committed a crime that egregious, they should be punished every day, and you should help them live as long as possible.
- So many innocent people are put to death because our system for determining guilt is far from righteous, or right.
- You don’t talk about Fight Club.
So, I wholeheartedly agree with 2. Its the most reasonable and realistic argument against it in my opinion. I do have an issue with 1. Prison/incarnation will eventually become the new normal. Individuals will enjoy reading a book, making a friend, do drugs and in most cases continue criminal activity. In some cases even send information out, effectively running criminal enterprises from the inside. They wont be free, but, they won’t be as unhappy as people like to think.
You don’t talk about Fight Club.
No, but you mix PPV and Fight Club and it’s the best reality show ever.
It’s fine for other people, but I wouldn’t want it for myself.
Same
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.
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?
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.
Yeah the mentality from many commenters seems to be that once someone is in jail for life they are effectively dead. Which just isnt true at all.
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.
No thats not what anyone is saying. Prison reform is an important aspect of the conversation. But, in the instance of a serial rapist/murderer, is rehabilitation even remotely realistic at any point? Sure, its an uncommon fringe case, but, I feel the death penalty should only be used in uncommon fringe cases. No matter what the reform, the prisoner will still have some “good” days. They’ll read an interesting book, interact with someone positively, do drugs or really enjoy a jerk session. FUCK THAT I even if 90% of the days are terrible, in a decades long sentence, thats still alot of good days. An individual like the one we are talking about deserves zero good days. In my personal opinion.
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.
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.
Well put
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.)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.
I think it’s wrong to knowingly inflict suffering in others in any capacity.
Against, regardless of crime. Regardless of the system used to kill. Regardless of the system used to convict or identify the criminal. Even if they are unrepentant and said they’d do it again. Even under a perfect justice system.
Now life in prison, sure.
Why is life in prison any better or worse? In your opinion.
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.
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.
I’m strongly against death penalty when it comes to crimes of individual against individual.
I am for death penalty when it comes to crimes of influential individual against masses though.
A murderer or rapist who ruined one life doesn’t deserve death penalty. A corrupt politician who ruined countless lives cooperating with the billionaires does.
I don’t fully understand the rational. Is there a specific number of victims that would make them “deserve” it. Say you have a serial rapist with over a dozen victims, do they not deserve it because they aren’t an authority figure?
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.
Fully support it for murder, r*pe, human trafficking, genocide, trafficking and distribution of deadly drugs like fentanyl (which is equivalent to murder in my eyes), and accepting bribery as a government official or embezzlement of public funds over some amount. I really don’t see any other way to deal with those kinds of criminals and I can’t stand the people who get all high and mighty about “mercy” while dismissing the actual victims.
However, I do think the death penalty needs to be restricted to cases where it is absolutely certain they are guilty of the crimes charged. Beyond beyond a reasonable doubt, there needs to be zero doubt. This alone will spare the vast majority of those criminals and make actual executions extremely rare, but IMO death always needs to be on the table when everyone is absolutely sure they did it.
Additionally, I submit that having life in prison as the only option increases the chance of false convictions because people don’t see life in prison as “that serious” compared to death. People will very rightly flip their shit if they find out that an executed person was innocent, but when that same person is imprisoned for decades and is released with their spirit comprehensively broken and with only a few years of their natural life left, people are far more dismissive because they weren’t executed. “Oh well that’s sad but what can you do? The justice system is imperfect after all, just be glad we didn’t execute you.” The solution is not to keep people locked up for life on the off chance one of them is innocent, and when one of them is, claim moral superiority about only locking them up for life. The solution is to make absolutely damn sure they’re guilty before you sentence them.
Everyone gets hung up on life in prison being “reversible” and have this idealistic idea that if someone is truly innocent, the absolute truth will come out “eventually” and set them free. But look at actual court records and you’ll find that in practice it almost never gets reversed even when there is overwhelming evidence of their innocence, and when it does, the courts take their sweet time as if hoping to run out the clock and for the convicted to just die. Courts don’t like reopening cases especially for serious crimes because it reflects negatively on them, so you’re as good as condemned as soon as the hammer drops whether the sentence is life or death. People like to think of the innocent prisoner as being able to continuously fight for their innocence, but in reality you only get one chance to defend yourself and after that, no one in power will listen to you whether you’re alive to speak or not. Innocent people who get their life sentence reversed are the very very rare exception, not the rule, and usually only because their story resonated with the public in a way they cannot forsee or control, and it’s the public pressure that gets the courts to reconsider purely in order to preserve their image, not the guilt of potentially sentencing an innocent person. If you’re not noticed by the media or your story doesn’t resonate with the masses, like the vast majority of innocent convicts, you have no chance of getting out no matter how innocent you are. And the media and public has shown time and time again to be extremely race/culture selective in which convict they pay attention to, so a white person in the West is way more likely to be freed compared to an equally innocent person of colour.
