you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 26 points 2 years ago (4 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years 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?

  • source
  • parent