A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
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.
I think some crimes deserve death, but I just don't trust the government βany government!β to make that decision.
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?
So they wonβt do it again? We already have them locked up, theyβre done commiting crimes.
People run gangs while inside. Being incarcerated definitely doesn't stop them from committing crimes.
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.
If killing people is wrong, its wrong.
Ummm, checks notes, yes, killing people is wrong.
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).
And sometimes we execute innocent people. Like, how many of your family members would you be willing to put to death to keep the death penalty? Every innocent victim of the death penalty had a family, and that family never imagined it could happen to them.
Yeah nothing has come out showing it has any tangible positive benefits. Shocking I know haha.
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.
I think the death penalty is silly even from an evil standpoint, death is a kind release compared to life in an American prison.
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.
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.
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.
the only people who should get the death penalty, are people who support it
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.
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 recognize that sentiment. I've heard arguments that a person can/will eventually find a level of happiness/contentment while incarcerated. They will eventually enjoy a book or have a friend. Same can't be said for their deceased victims.