this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
432 points (91.7% liked)

World News

39023 readers
2564 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 year ago (3 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

[–] gowan@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong? -"Foolish Notion" Holly Near

[–] bobman@unilem.org -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] gowan@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Locking people in a cage as a consequence of their misdeeds is different than the state killing to prove killing people is wrong and immoral.

Take a minute to actually educate yourself about how incredibly badly we handle the death penalty. I have met too many men who were 100% innocent if their crime who got put on death row because of incompetence by investigators or prosecution to support it.

[–] bobman@unilem.org -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] gowan@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No one moved the goalposts before this. You provided a false equivalence and are now attempting to move the goalposts.

[–] bobman@unilem.org -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wait, what? Did you even read what I said?

Please say something of substance, I beg of you.

[–] gowan@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I did read what you wrote and that is why I wrote what I did.

Locking people up is a false equivalence with execution.

You are now attempting to move the goalposts now.

[–] bobman@unilem.org -2 points 1 year ago
[–] elscallr@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year 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.

[–] 10EXP@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] PickTheStick@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

To be fair, he ate chips with a neat soundtrack and flashy cuts. Whooooah.

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 -1 points 1 year ago

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