Frankly I find it barbaric and think it should be abolished
No need to make it all official. Just withdraw all opportunity, community, and support for your troublesome minority of choice. Then, call it freedom; they’ll die on their own, eventually, and you can blame them for not being sufficiently resourceful.
i’m ok with executing CEOs who poison children because they cut costs on maintenance or safety checks etc.
if you have the resources of a state and you’re not in a precarious position you should be able to Puyi most criminals.
Maybe it’s my psych degree, but I refuse to believe that any human is completely irredeemable. While many mental illnesses cannot be ‘cured’ in a traditional sense, they can be treated and even incredibly dangerous people can heal. When you kill someone, you remove their chance to heal forever.
There’s just no excuse for capital punishment. It’s a vile practice done for the benefit of other people’s perverted sense of justice.
If a person is going to continue being threat to the lives/wellbeing of others, they should be kept away from others.
If you lack the resources to keep them in an institution indefinitely, then killing them is the way you keep them away from others.
For example, a person who isnt in their right mind committing homicide because the voices in their head tell them to should be institutionalized by the government.
Whereas a billionaire pedophile should probably just be killed because they can bribe their way out of any institution/law so murder is unfortunately more likely to prevent future harm than attempting to institutionalize them
I feel like a billionaire pedophile can afford to buy a fall guy to take the death penalty for them.
A good (not for-profit) criminal justice system is built upon the idea of reintegration. If you 100% cannot reintegrate a(n ex-)criminal, then sure, relieve society from that burden.
EXCEPT that you can never be 100% sure of either guilt nor lack of reintegration, so lifelong internment is the only solution.
To quote Gandalf: “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it.”
How do you capital punishment? Like this:
!PUNISHMENT!<
I like guillotines. I wouldn’t use them against the 99% though.
“We kill people who kill people, to show that killing people is wrong”
It’s fucked. NO ONE, at all, ever, has the right to take the life from someone who does not want to die. Not the government, not murderers etc. It’s hypocritical.
You are going to run into a self defense deadend there.
The problem with “self-defense” is that it is often a “pre-emptive self-defense”, which is indistinguishable from aggression. Especially when it becomes a question of personal self defense using lethal weapons.
So someone who is abused is the real aggressor if they finally end the abuse by ending the abuser? I certainly don’t think so.
The fault is society for allowing the situation to get to that point. Desperate people do desperate things. Its foolish and cruel to look down on your pedestal and declare life is black and white and a person who takes a life never has a reason.
There are times when it is horrible but not acknowledging the complexity is exactly how you get people who look the other way when the killing is obscure in a system of policies. Say how we kill thousands a year through poverty or homelessness. Those deaths are not seen as horrible because it’s slow and painful, instead of quick and painful. Maybe you will come back and say you don’t feel this way but such quick snap judgment without analysis is exactly how we get here.
It would be nice if self defense often meant an abused person ending their abuser, but what it usually looks like is shooting minorities.
While in some types of crime I would absuluteley use it (mass murderers, child rapists etc.), the problem with it is that you can’t take it back. There have been and will be cases of innocent peolpe eho get convicted. If they are imprisoned they can be released and given restitutions. If they are executed they are basically murder victims. Thus I think it shouldn’t be used, because humans are not all-knowing.
Its not useful for murderers, since most murder isn’t a risk vs reward calculation, but I could see it being used for white collar crime and political corruption severe enough to cause multiple social murders.
Should only ever be used for anti-humans ie people who are a threat to our entire species. In that case, it’s a matter of survival. Just like cannibalism there are a very few situations where it’s acceptable.
Agreed.
should be applied to everyone whose net worth is over 1 billion
I agree. It should be abolished.
Some people commit such horrific crimes that they are too dangerous to be among people & a waste of funding to deserve continued life.
4% of Americans on death row, with it’s admittedly low bar compared to the rest of developed countries, are innocent. So how many people who haven’t committed horrific crimes are you okay with killing so you can kill the people who have committed horrific crimes? And given that we already spend vast amounts to reduce that amount to 4%, often more than life imprisonment would cost, only to continue to have that 4% innocence rate, how much more are you willing to spend so we can kill less innocent people? Or do you think we should just spend less on confirming their innocence so we can save some money on killing those people who committed horrific crimes, thus ensuring we have more innocent people being killed, as well?
