• naught@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Life imprisonment is cheaper (in the US) for the taxpayer than execution. Morally, I think the death penalty does not have a leg to stand on. Even in the most egregious cases, who truly has the right to end a life? Can any justice system be 100% accurate? If there is even a slim chance that an innocent could be murdered by the state, the state should not murder. It’s valid to have a visceral reaction to horrific crimes like this, but to advocate for murdering even of a guilty party just doesn’t mesh with at least my ethics

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So, it’s not wrong to lock people in a cage?

        Lol. The ‘logic’ of the anti-death penalty crowd never ceases to astound me.

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

            Lol. You don’t understand.

            You’re trying to say that “killing people is bad, therefore we shouldn’t kill as a punishment.”

            I’m trying to say that “locking people up is bad, therefore we shouldn’t lock people up as a punishment.”

            Stop moving the goalposts. Stop saying one punishment is ‘better than another’ while trying to say hurting someone is bad.

            If you, as an free person lock someone up, you’re in the wrong. Just as if you, as free person kill someone, it is bad.

            Stop. You’re not fooling anyone but yourself and who wants to be fooled. Some people need to die.

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

      That visceral reaction is exactly why victims or their families can’t have input. Of course you’d want them to be punished, of course you’d want it to be cruel and unusual.

      While I agree the State shouldn’t kill, if someone decided not to spend those millions of dollars and instead took these bastards behind the jail and put a $0.15 bullet in each of their skulls I wouldn’t be angry.

      • 10EXP@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This would be so much easier if someone could write their names in a notebook, and somehow kill them of a heart attack as a result of it.

        • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Add a dude eating chips, another dude eating a cupcake, pad it out with 11 hours of nothing at all happening and you’ve got a hit on your hands somehow

      • naught@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You say that now, but what about death penalties in Sudan? Iran? China? Are western executions more moral? What is the purpose? Revenge? Deterrence? The death penalty in the real world disproportionally affects minority and disadvantaged populations. It is not a deterrent to crime, and there is truly no humane way to end a person’s life. What of the executioner’s psyche? What of the innocent family of the condemned? There are so many terrible consequences.

        As tired and trite as it is, “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” applies and is true. The death penalty only continues the cycle of violence.

        edit: I missed your point 😅 I still can’t condone violence in any capacity

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know, in political theory the entire conceptual basis of the state is that the state is the has the sole monopoly on violence. That’s it, that’s what the state is. It is the sole purveyor of social norms and order by using violence as a tool of enforcement.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You know, in political theory the entire conceptual basis of the state is that the state is the has the sole monopoly on violence.

          No it isn’t. What fucking theory are you reading to come up with this bullshit?

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t need to be more expensive to execute someone than to house them.