• bobman@unilem.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah. Torture is fine, so is a simple bullet to the back of the head.

    Whichever is a bigger deterrent for these crimes should be enacted.

    • Custodian1623@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      people don’t commit these crimes with the expectation that they’re going to be caught. I don’t know how serious you are but I find it a little disturbing to condone torture

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        What do you think would be a more effective deterrent?

        Sorry reality disturbs you. Let me know when you think of something better. It looks like these people weren’t deterred by the possible consequences of their actions.

    • LoafyLemon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Knowing that one’s existence will cease if they commit such crimes should serve as a sufficient deterrent.

      • elscallr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t, though. There’s no evidence that the death penalty serves any sort of deterrent. It isn’t a punitive measure, it’s vengeance. If you’re ok with vengeance I respect your opinion though I disagree, but we can’t pretend it’s anything but vengeance.

        • LoafyLemon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I believe the use of the death penalty in severe cases isn’t driven by vengeance; it’s more about preventing the individual from causing harm to others in the future. It’s important to recognize that not all criminals can be successfully rehabilitated, such as psychopaths or serial killers.

          However, if the death penalty were to exist, I believe it should be carried out by the person who pronounces the verdict personally. This would ensure that such a grave decision is not made lightly.

          • elscallr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Could you not prevent them from causing additional harm by not killing them? What if you’re wrong? There’s plenty of reason to leave them alive, but only one real reason to kill them, and that reason is vengeance.

            • LoafyLemon@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Are you familiar with how the psychopathic mind functions? They lack empathy, and I don’t mean it in a pejorative sense, no, I mean it literally.

              Psychopaths are hard to reason with due to their lack of aforementioned empathy, manipulative nature, impulsivity, shallow emotions, and absence of remorse.

              If they killed once, they will kill again.

        • LoafyLemon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          As a society, we should strive to be better than the people we judge for their crimes. Torturing people is just wrong, cruel, and unnecessary.

          • bobman@unilem.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m sorry you feel that way. Maybe when you get more life experience, you’ll realize that most scumbags will only avoid engaging in heinous acts if the deterrent for doing so is appropriate.

            • elscallr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If that was a deterrent you wouldn’t have people still working for Mexican cartels, would you?

            • RoquetteQueen@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Let’s say we do decide to torture murderers. Who is going to torture them? Are we going to pay for these people to have therapy (because they’re really going to need it)? How would you feel if you found out your next-door neighbour tortures people for a living? What do we do when we find out, years later, that we’ve been torturing an innocent person?

              I think you need a little more life experience so you can realize that things aren’t as simple as you seem to think they are.

              • bobman@unilem.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Gee, how did we ever do it in the past? It’s never been done before, lol.

                I think you need a little more life experience so you can realize that things aren’t as simple as you seem to think they are.

                Study history, then come back.

                  • bobman@unilem.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You were arguing that it was impossible.

                    Now try to say something of substance.