The death penalty is always wrong.
Murder is not a punishment and once you’ve stripped her of her ill-got gains there is no longer any reason to kill her.
In other words, you don’t murder disarmed prisoners of war.
During class war they are the enemy and deserve what comes to them. If taken alive and their weapon of war removed, they don’t need to be dealt with the same way.
Once they are no longer a threat you can work on rehabilitation and restitution.
But…second…I struggle with the rehabilitation bit. Some people cannot be rehabilitated. It is a hard truth I have learned, coupled with pain and regret, many times in my life. I’m just curious what you think the course of action should be at that point?
I’m not suggesting death/murder, but I do struggle with the idea that if they’re miserable, and the people around them are made miserable, and the people trying to help them are made miserable…what do you do?
You do everything you can for them (whilst making sure they’re not a danger to other people), give the caretakers / wardens plenty of time off, and you give them the option for assisted suicide. In my ideal world, everyone would have the option for assisted suicide though
The way these people affect so many lives negatively with their fraud is much worse than a person committing murder.
Irrespective how is two bad things better than one bad thing? I would think fewer bad things would be net better.
The literal misery they cause to so many people for their own benefit without a fucking iota of shame and their sociopathic behavior is enough to consider eliminating them from society.
You speak of “sociopathic behavior” while advocating state murder. 🤨
How the hell are you supposed to play the game and “be better” than the opposition, when the opposition is taking advantage of you?
You do that by not murdering them after you have taken power and over the means of production.
Having all the world’s fortune in the hands of about 10 people. We can’t stop this by playing nice and asking nicely.
Alright so you’ve seized all the money in the world and taken over all the land and machinery that enables production through the application of labor via militant witholding of the same. You and your comrades have all the guns.
…why at that point do you need to use those guns to murder people who are no longer holding murderous control over those common resources?
I refuse to acquiesce to or defend a system of belief that requires people die.
Once you win, you don’t kill or you never had moral authority to employ violence in pursuit of winning in the first place.
I disagree. I don’t subscribe to a world view where every life is sacred. Society has a right to protect itself from persons that will always endanger other people and that includes killing them. However, it has been quite clear that we cannot guarantee that no innocent people are killed. And that’s why I’m OK with the death penalty only in principle, not in practice.
persons that will always endanger other people and that includes killing them.
You cannot know that, and if you have the ability to strap someone down and end their life, you have no need to do so since you clearly have complete control over their person.
I’m OK with the death penalty only in principle
You shouldn’t be. States qua arbiters of justice should not intentionally kill people under their control.
This is a discussion about personal morals. Some people think it’s OK to execute some criminals, others are completely opposed to that idea. There is no objective right or wrong here.
For you your arguments might be compelling, but they don’t convince me. I can have complete control over someone and still decide to kill them because I don’t want to bother with locking them up, for example. And who says a society should not kill? That’s not even an argument, just an opinion.
you don’t keep that control over billionaires.their money has too much loyalty.
so they need to be killed. I do agree that the state shouldn’t be making the decision, but Vietnam is weird and still at least dresses up as communist.
it takes seconds, other way takes years, and its not worth risking it getting away. it’s not human anymore, and its a danger to humans, so if its not down for trying to be human again; kill it. don’t waste the effort when there are living people who need help.
And you end up with dirty sheets. No matter how fast it is it doesn’t address your problem.
Don’t call people “it” my dude.
Irrespective how monstrous a person acts they’re still a human and you can’t distance yourself and your capacity to engage in the same monsterousness they did by dehumanizing them.
Taking their money away isn’t enough. These billionaires often have deep connections to people who could easily help them regain their wealth and power. I’m not sure what the answer is but taking the money won’t solve the problem in every case.
While I agree in principle I tend to think there are still unforgivable crimes and irredeemable people out there.
Then you don’t agree.
I wasn’t aware crime was about forgiveness.
I thought in-so-far as societies implemented systems of justice, their purpose was restitution and rehabilitiation.
No one gains anything from a person—irrespective their prior actions—being murdered and we all lose a bit of our soul each time a state execution is allowed to take place.
I really expected better from Vietnam, whose “quarantine at gunpoint” public health policies I heartily endorse.
Child predators have recidivism rates of 10-35% depending on which studies you’re reading. Each one of those assaults is a potentially life-altering trauma induced in a child. Exactly how many should someone be able to do before we consider they’re not going to be rehabilitated?
A life in prison and state sanctioned execution are different, though.
It’s also worth considering why these criminals are criminals. If they were, say, violently abused as a child themselves…does that matter? Functionally, it doesn’t matter to the victim — I get that. But should the state be in the business of executing such people?
But should the state be in the business of executing such people?
Honestly I’ve always felt this was the strongest argument against a death penalty. That said the argument carries nearly the same weight for life imprisonment, and still some for the act of imprisonment at all. We continue to trust juries of fools to judge people to this day, but that is still unfortunately more palatable than giving the right to someone to unilaterally choose your jury.
I’m onboard with a culture of reform and education for convicts because it works, but I also recognize some people cannot be reformed and keeping them imprisoned is needlessly dangerous for many parties. There needs to be a line where we accept someone is too far gone.
It’s not just about the assault that happened, it’s also about the risk of considerable harm in the future. Killing someone for one act of sexual predation is going to be considered extreme by many but not all people. But what happens after the second or third times? How many is too many?
Add into that how you’ve just given child abusers incentive to murder their victims and scared children out of informing on a family member for which the death of whom they do not wish to be responsible.
But what kind of fucked up society can only stop anti-social behavior through murdering its perpetrators?
Yes, which is why my question isn’t just rhetorical. How many is too many? You could make a case for 1 (if you believe the crime is too heinous), or 2 (if you believe in second chances), or 3+ even. But where do you draw the line and accept someone isn’t going to stop?
OK, so ignoring that not going to change doesn’t mean the death penalty is valid (the very idea presupposes the existence of states and the idea that a power structure can put people to death), that using the upper limits of your statistics means that for every 1 (0.35) who would reoffend that is murdered, you’ve also murdered 2 (0.65) who would not.
So if you do want to go ahead on your executions, the number of reoffenses should be up at 3 or so as a minimum.
But there are better ways to deal with it, as executing people is bad for the people who have to do it, the families of the executed, and sometimes even the victims and families as they’re robbed of a chance for closure and understanding.
And do you think these child predators had charming upbringings? Or perhaps they were filled with horrors and trauma?
Yeah, there are absolutely evil people out there, and if you think the state should execute them, that’s your opinion. But to think that all heinous crimes come from a vacuum is naive.
Allow me some cognitive dissonance because I really don’t know what society should do about psychopaths, predators, or cases like those execs who put melamine into milk to spoof the protein metrics, leading to the horrible deaths of a large number of babies.
Holding them indefinitely is a useless drain on the state, killing them leads to the inevitability of innocent people dying.
The death penalty is always wrong.
Murder is not a punishment and once you’ve stripped her of her ill-got gains there is no longer any reason to kill her.
I hear you but if I’m honest, and tomorrow America announced it was going to execute every billionaire, I’m not going to put up too much of a protest.
Take the money, sure. Then they’re no longer billionaires and there’s no need to kill them.
In other words, you don’t murder disarmed prisoners of war.
During class war they are the enemy and deserve what comes to them. If taken alive and their weapon of war removed, they don’t need to be dealt with the same way.
Once they are no longer a threat you can work on rehabilitation and restitution.
First off, I agree with you.
But…second…I struggle with the rehabilitation bit. Some people cannot be rehabilitated. It is a hard truth I have learned, coupled with pain and regret, many times in my life. I’m just curious what you think the course of action should be at that point?
I’m not suggesting death/murder, but I do struggle with the idea that if they’re miserable, and the people around them are made miserable, and the people trying to help them are made miserable…what do you do?
You can’t know that. You only have evidence for people’s inability to’ve been rehabilitated so far.
Not murder.
…drugs?
You do everything you can for them (whilst making sure they’re not a danger to other people), give the caretakers / wardens plenty of time off, and you give them the option for assisted suicide. In my ideal world, everyone would have the option for assisted suicide though
Removed by mod
Irrespective how is two bad things better than one bad thing? I would think fewer bad things would be net better.
You speak of “sociopathic behavior” while advocating state murder. 🤨
Removed by mod
Nothing you have tried so far.
Have you ever considered “Progaganda Of The Deed” to encompass modeling being better people than the opposition?
Removed by mod
You do that by not murdering them after you have taken power and over the means of production.
Alright so you’ve seized all the money in the world and taken over all the land and machinery that enables production through the application of labor via militant witholding of the same. You and your comrades have all the guns.
…why at that point do you need to use those guns to murder people who are no longer holding murderous control over those common resources?
I refuse to acquiesce to or defend a system of belief that requires people die.
Once you win, you don’t kill or you never had moral authority to employ violence in pursuit of winning in the first place.
you may be right but that’s still no reason to murder them
Up vote for use of iota correctly
I disagree. I don’t subscribe to a world view where every life is sacred. Society has a right to protect itself from persons that will always endanger other people and that includes killing them. However, it has been quite clear that we cannot guarantee that no innocent people are killed. And that’s why I’m OK with the death penalty only in principle, not in practice.
You cannot know that, and if you have the ability to strap someone down and end their life, you have no need to do so since you clearly have complete control over their person.
You shouldn’t be. States qua arbiters of justice should not intentionally kill people under their control.
This is a discussion about personal morals. Some people think it’s OK to execute some criminals, others are completely opposed to that idea. There is no objective right or wrong here.
For you your arguments might be compelling, but they don’t convince me. I can have complete control over someone and still decide to kill them because I don’t want to bother with locking them up, for example. And who says a society should not kill? That’s not even an argument, just an opinion.
No, the state killing people is objectively wrong.
Fucking lol. I love Lemmy. I’ve never seen such an obscure group of people speak in absolutes so consistently. Puts reddit to shame.
“I WILL DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG”
“I WILL DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD OR EVIL”
I don’t decide. The state murdering people is wrong. I just have the moral wherewithal to recognize the fact.
Which isn’t hard because it’s objectively true.
Hope this helps.
Ok, I’ll play along for a bit.
Prove it is wrong. Use facts and data to prove capital punishment is wrong.
Steven-Chowder-at-a-card-table over here.
I’m not gonna “debate me!” somebody who think murder is cool and good; it isn’t.
deleted by creator
you don’t keep that control over billionaires.their money has too much loyalty.
so they need to be killed. I do agree that the state shouldn’t be making the decision, but Vietnam is weird and still at least dresses up as communist.
Once you take the money they aren’t billionaires anymore.
but money is just an idea; easier to put a bullet in them than rewrite the entire social perception of them.
It’s easier to put bullets in things than to do alot of things, what’s your point?
It’s easier to shoot someone than to change your sheets but it doesn’t make your bed smell less of piss.
it takes seconds, other way takes years, and its not worth risking it getting away. it’s not human anymore, and its a danger to humans, so if its not down for trying to be human again; kill it. don’t waste the effort when there are living people who need help.
And you end up with dirty sheets. No matter how fast it is it doesn’t address your problem.
Don’t call people “it” my dude.
Irrespective how monstrous a person acts they’re still a human and you can’t distance yourself and your capacity to engage in the same monsterousness they did by dehumanizing them.
Taking their money away isn’t enough. These billionaires often have deep connections to people who could easily help them regain their wealth and power. I’m not sure what the answer is but taking the money won’t solve the problem in every case.
So take their money too.
While I agree in principle I tend to think there are still unforgivable crimes and irredeemable people out there.
Then you don’t agree.
I wasn’t aware crime was about forgiveness.
I thought in-so-far as societies implemented systems of justice, their purpose was restitution and rehabilitiation.
No one gains anything from a person—irrespective their prior actions—being murdered and we all lose a bit of our soul each time a state execution is allowed to take place.
I really expected better from Vietnam, whose “quarantine at gunpoint” public health policies I heartily endorse.
If child predators get executed, I don’t lose “a bit of my soul”, I gain more confidence that the world is now a better place.
Oh word? Did the horrific thing they did no longer happen?
Child predators have recidivism rates of 10-35% depending on which studies you’re reading. Each one of those assaults is a potentially life-altering trauma induced in a child. Exactly how many should someone be able to do before we consider they’re not going to be rehabilitated?
A life in prison and state sanctioned execution are different, though.
It’s also worth considering why these criminals are criminals. If they were, say, violently abused as a child themselves…does that matter? Functionally, it doesn’t matter to the victim — I get that. But should the state be in the business of executing such people?
Honestly I’ve always felt this was the strongest argument against a death penalty. That said the argument carries nearly the same weight for life imprisonment, and still some for the act of imprisonment at all. We continue to trust juries of fools to judge people to this day, but that is still unfortunately more palatable than giving the right to someone to unilaterally choose your jury.
I’m onboard with a culture of reform and education for convicts because it works, but I also recognize some people cannot be reformed and keeping them imprisoned is needlessly dangerous for many parties. There needs to be a line where we accept someone is too far gone.
Don’t tell me what being abused as a child does to someone, thanks.
Does killing the person who did it make the assault not have happened?
It’s not just about the assault that happened, it’s also about the risk of considerable harm in the future. Killing someone for one act of sexual predation is going to be considered extreme by many but not all people. But what happens after the second or third times? How many is too many?
A single state murder is too many. Full stop.
Add into that how you’ve just given child abusers incentive to murder their victims and scared children out of informing on a family member for which the death of whom they do not wish to be responsible.
But what kind of fucked up society can only stop anti-social behavior through murdering its perpetrators?
Of course it doesn’t, that’s such a condescending question.
The obvious response is that the perpetrator has a 0% chance of reoffending if they’re executed and that does carry weight with a lot of people.
Is that equivalent to 65% don’t reoffend? Or am I misunderstanding the recidivism rate?
Yes, which is why my question isn’t just rhetorical. How many is too many? You could make a case for 1 (if you believe the crime is too heinous), or 2 (if you believe in second chances), or 3+ even. But where do you draw the line and accept someone isn’t going to stop?
OK, so ignoring that not going to change doesn’t mean the death penalty is valid (the very idea presupposes the existence of states and the idea that a power structure can put people to death), that using the upper limits of your statistics means that for every 1 (0.35) who would reoffend that is murdered, you’ve also murdered 2 (0.65) who would not.
So if you do want to go ahead on your executions, the number of reoffenses should be up at 3 or so as a minimum.
But there are better ways to deal with it, as executing people is bad for the people who have to do it, the families of the executed, and sometimes even the victims and families as they’re robbed of a chance for closure and understanding.
I’m not even going to dignify this response. Have a nice day
That’s a response.
Thank you. It’ll indeed be much nicer without you advocating state murder in it. 🙂
I wish, one day I will be as cool as you.
Everybody does, I have faith in you. 😘
Step 1: Stop doing uncool things like advocating States murder people.
They won’t repeat the horrific thing they did while dead, that’s for sure.
I’m against the death penalty but it’s not hard to see why some people support it.
Shut the fuck up. If there’s a “but” ever then no the fuck you are not.
Did the original horrific thing not happen? Does murder ameliorate past suffering in any way?
Vengeance is not justice, it is sick.
And if an innocent person gets executed for the crime?
And do you think these child predators had charming upbringings? Or perhaps they were filled with horrors and trauma?
Yeah, there are absolutely evil people out there, and if you think the state should execute them, that’s your opinion. But to think that all heinous crimes come from a vacuum is naive.
Huh. At least where I am from “Death penalty for child predators” is a common far-right talking point.
You’ve exposed me! I don’t sympathize with child predators, so I must be a Nazi!
Allow me some cognitive dissonance because I really don’t know what society should do about psychopaths, predators, or cases like those execs who put melamine into milk to spoof the protein metrics, leading to the horrible deaths of a large number of babies.
Holding them indefinitely is a useless drain on the state, killing them leads to the inevitability of innocent people dying.
Not if you use it to advocate state murder I won’t.
Innocent people will always have the ability to die, no matter how many people your state murders.
Alright. I DON’T agree.
You should; death as a post-hoc punishment is abhorrent and serves no one.
I still don’t agree.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
What’s Lemmy?
I don’t think people getting murdered by the state is “inconsequential”, least of all for the murdered person.
the death penalty is always wrong, billionaires should die in unpredictable extrajudicial ways. like aneurisms, pianos, etc.
but its something.