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.
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.
Strongly against the state having the option.
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 feel the need to speak out for them as if they’re worth saving while dismissing the actual victims.
If you truly believe that all humans are equal then you must also believe that it is impossible for one to stand in judgment of another. I believe that killing is wrong because it is one human standing in judgement of another. Society has a duty to protect its members, but judgement and the concept of “punishment” is something that should be left to God.
the concept of “punishment” is something that should be left to God
If a Christian kills an atheist child, the child goes to hell and the Christian can just “repent” and go to heaven.
God is not just.
Also, by this logic, it literally doesn’t matter to the Christian whether he is executed or not because he’s going to heaven anyway, because God doesn’t actually give a shit whether you’re good or evil, just whether you think he’s actually God. So why should the rest of us hellbound mortals have to deal with him for the rest of his natural life?
Heaven is almost certainly not real so I’m not sure where you’re getting that from.
It’s fine for other people, but I wouldn’t want it for myself.
Same
Not really, but I’m not against it. When you remember that in order to even get the death penalty, you have to be such a horrible person that you’re pretty much no longer human, I don’t see a problem with it. And then there is also the issue of the government has to pay potentially millions of dollars every years just for keeping you in prison/jail, so it also has financial benefits (not that the government needs more money, especially considering the fact that they constantly waste it on meaningless bullshit).
But I am also aware of the potential problems, like innocent people getting the death penalty. As a result, I think the death penalty should only be used in situations where there is absolutely no possibility of innocence. This means that the motive is clear and proven, and the evidence for even committing the crime(s) is/are solid.
When you remember that in order to even get the death penalty, you have to be such a horrible person that you’re pretty much no longer human
This is just absolutely not true. Throughout history countless innocent people have been executed not because of the facts, but because they were unable to defend themselves against the accusations. Meanwhile, many wealthy or powerful people have been guilty but never even charged with a crime. In fact, the nature of a crime has almost zero correlation with the sentence.
I mean, yes, but I can tell that you didn’t read my full comment before replying. I literally stated that I was aware of this issue in my second paragraph.
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’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.
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.
In this reality of fallible humans, ineptness, and corruption then no.
However, if it was guaranteed that the person was definitely guilty of certain crimes (such as raping kids. Being a fascist dictator. Premeditated murder. Spraying yourself orange and shitting yourself etc etc) then yeah I’m ok with it.
Ok, life is sacred and all that but if a person is steadfastly evil then they don’t deserve life.
And you get to determine who is “steadfastly evil”?
I think it’s appropriate in some cases, when a crime is disgusting and extremely selfish.
These are what I would approve it for.
-Murder for non idealogical reasons, or not for revenge, or also if the murder is cruel.
-Volent pedophilia, including kidnapping and rape or coercion.
-Political corruption or grand scams that hurt many people.
-Propaganda or profiting off destroying democratic institutions. Conspiracy against the public like fiat currencies.
-Sensless animal cruelty.
-promoting religion for power reasons while being a hypocrite.
-Extreme child neglect, like doing drugs while pregnant.
-Dissolving as a politician or advocating for the dissolution of basic human rights like privacy.
-High treason, as is a head of state or a chair of the house working with foreigners to subvert your political autonomy.
-Putting people in prison who are known to be innocent.
These are what I consider to be extremely serious crimes. Probably a few more I can add on there. Most of these as you can see mostly target people with power, the rest are just for cruelty and extreme selfishness at the expense of others which causes mass corruption.
I think the death penalty is more about vengeance than justice. If they’re going to happen the execution should be swift, public and if there were credible eyewitnesses to the crime, brutal!.
