Does method of execution, crime committed or overall cost matter to you?
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.
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.
For all intents and purposes, I’m opposed to death penalty. I am, in practice, less prone to violence than the vast majority of people. But I’m also honest and transparent about my beliefs.
The working class is so far from power that it’s virtually impossible to achieve victory while pulling punches. Either we roll over and accept things, or we go all out and use whatever means and tactics are most useful to secure power. If you go halfway and present an actual threat to power (even through nonviolence) they will use any means available to neutralize that threat. Failure means death, and it could be generations, centuries even, until there’s another opportunity for change. If you’re not prepared to use every method at your disposal to win, then you simply shouldn’t pick up the fight in the first place.
Of course, nonviolent tactics can be useful and pragmatic, in many cases, they are more effective than violent tactics. However, the choice of tactic should be driven by an honest and pragmatic assessment of the actual circumstances, and not by preconceived ideological notions about morality. And that goes both ways, it is also unacceptable to prioritize violent tactics just because someone finds them more appealing or exciting. And for the record, I’m not saying that violent tactics are the most suitable for the present circumstances. I’m just not willing to write them off for all circumstances.
For example: Suppose a resistance cell in France captures a group of SS soldiers as prisoners, but the Nazis are on their trail and preparing an attack. If the cell doesn’t execute the prisoners, there’s a chance they will be rescued and will end up contributing to the German war effort. On the other hand, perhaps those prisoners could provide valuable intel that outweighs the risk. The decision on whether to execute them should, ideally, be based on these tactical considerations, rather than either an emotional aversion to violence or an emotional desire for revenge (no matter how deserved it may be).
If you don’t have your head in the game and your eye on the prize, and the other side does, then you’re probably going to lose. And fighting and losing is worse than not fighting at all. It’s better to give up and roll over than to go out and get a bunch of people killed over a hopeless cause.
Naturally, all of this is very unrelated to the reality of how the death penalty is used in the present day, which I oppose unequivocally.
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.
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.
Strongly against the state having the option.
It’s fine for other people, but I wouldn’t want it for myself.
Same
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 do not trust the justice system what so ever. Nor the nation state that gave birth to this abomination.
No to the death sentence.
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.
It’s better because it’s life. Life is the medium of all value, everything else is physics.
And I don’t think prisons should be abusive torture chambers either. Revenge is poison. Prison should exist to separate the dangerous and harmful people from society, and to reform them as able.
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.
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.
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?
Yes. No one knows what happens when you die, no one truly knows if someone is guilty, no judicial system is perfect etc etc. Too much risk for the reward of killing someone (with a 10 ish percent of being innocent)
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.
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?
i’m not against killing per se. you can kill in self defense for example and be excused. people can kill in a war or a revolution and be excused. in a perfect world, of course, people wouldn’t have reasons to kill. i think the line is drawn if 1) someone massively kills or acts sadistically for chauvinistic reasons (i. e. for being part of a group of persons, not being of the right ethnicity or because they believe in some sort of pseudoscience, like anti-vaxers) 2) are or were in a position of power or high leadership 3) are at risk of returning to positions of power even after arrest (for example, they can be rescued from prison in a coup d’état by its supporters, or being pardoned by political shifts).
the regular serial killer such as manson or ed gein were not in real positions of power and were not at risk of returning to such positions, and could therefore be jailed forever. himmler, heydrich, eichmann, king leopold ii, mobutu, suharto, pretty much every latin american, african, european or asian dictator deserved to be judged with penalties up to the death penalty, and even some “democratic” leaders such us some british prime ministers and french presidents. not to say that i’m only restricting to right, i believe stalin, ceaucescu, enver hoxha and to some extent even mao should be defendants in processes that could lead up to death penalty.
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.
