The death penalty is always wrong.
Murder is not a punishment and once you’ve stripped her of her ill-got gains there is no longer any reason to kill her.
In other words, you don’t murder disarmed prisoners of war.
During class war they are the enemy and deserve what comes to them. If taken alive and their weapon of war removed, they don’t need to be dealt with the same way.
Once they are no longer a threat you can work on rehabilitation and restitution.
But…second…I struggle with the rehabilitation bit. Some people cannot be rehabilitated. It is a hard truth I have learned, coupled with pain and regret, many times in my life. I’m just curious what you think the course of action should be at that point?
I’m not suggesting death/murder, but I do struggle with the idea that if they’re miserable, and the people around them are made miserable, and the people trying to help them are made miserable…what do you do?
You do everything you can for them (whilst making sure they’re not a danger to other people), give the caretakers / wardens plenty of time off, and you give them the option for assisted suicide. In my ideal world, everyone would have the option for assisted suicide though
I disagree. I don’t subscribe to a world view where every life is sacred. Society has a right to protect itself from persons that will always endanger other people and that includes killing them. However, it has been quite clear that we cannot guarantee that no innocent people are killed. And that’s why I’m OK with the death penalty only in principle, not in practice.
persons that will always endanger other people and that includes killing them.
You cannot know that, and if you have the ability to strap someone down and end their life, you have no need to do so since you clearly have complete control over their person.
I’m OK with the death penalty only in principle
You shouldn’t be. States qua arbiters of justice should not intentionally kill people under their control.
This is a discussion about personal morals. Some people think it’s OK to execute some criminals, others are completely opposed to that idea. There is no objective right or wrong here.
For you your arguments might be compelling, but they don’t convince me. I can have complete control over someone and still decide to kill them because I don’t want to bother with locking them up, for example. And who says a society should not kill? That’s not even an argument, just an opinion.
While I agree in principle I tend to think there are still unforgivable crimes and irredeemable people out there.
Then you don’t agree.
I wasn’t aware crime was about forgiveness.
I thought in-so-far as societies implemented systems of justice, their purpose was restitution and rehabilitiation.
No one gains anything from a person—irrespective their prior actions—being murdered and we all lose a bit of our soul each time a state execution is allowed to take place.
I really expected better from Vietnam, whose “quarantine at gunpoint” public health policies I heartily endorse.
The way these people affect so many lives negatively with their fraud is much worse than a person committing murder.
The literal misery they cause to so many people for their own benefit without a fucking iota of shame and their sociopathic behavior is enough to consider eliminating them from society.
The way these people affect so many lives negatively with their fraud is much worse than a person committing murder.
Irrespective how is two bad things better than one bad thing? I would think fewer bad things would be net better.
The literal misery they cause to so many people for their own benefit without a fucking iota of shame and their sociopathic behavior is enough to consider eliminating them from society.
You speak of “sociopathic behavior” while advocating state murder. 🤨
I know. It sounds fucked. But these people are a cancer on society. There’s very little that can be done to reform these people. And the problem is that capitalism rewards this kind of behaviour.
These people currently are ruling the world. If they aren’t the head of some large company, there the head of a government. Because of their large wealth, they have a huge influence on the policies. They’re basically dictating the laws that are governing them. It’s like playing Monopoly with your own made up rules.
You can’t stop those people any other way. The French understood this. When the price of food was out of reach, heads started to roll. Literally. Nowadays the people can’t be violent anymore. Heck, the mere act of peacefully protesting is met with police violence and oppression. How the fuck are we supposed to get the message across when those people have their own militia protecting them and their interests?
That’s the problem. There’s one side that’s trying to play by the rules and be nice because they have empathy. Then there’s the other side who lie, cheat, and break the rules for their own benefit without shame.
How the hell are you supposed to play the game and “be better” than the opposition, when the opposition is taking advantage of you?
There has to be clear and grave consequences to discourage them from abusing the system and the people. If it has to be the death penalty, then so be it.
I’m tired of our societies being run by a bunch of industry barons who own everything. Food barons, healthcare barons, banking barons, housing barons, you name it. The mega conglomerates that we can’t escape from who are literally destroying this planet and leeching off of everybody with made up excuses about the state of the “economy”. Having all the world’s fortune in the hands of about 10 people. We can’t stop this by playing nice and asking nicely. Not when they control governments with their financial influence or because they’ve become too big to fail. No. You build fucking guillotines and you execute the motherfuckers.
How the hell are you supposed to play the game and “be better” than the opposition, when the opposition is taking advantage of you?
You do that by not murdering them after you have taken power and over the means of production.
Having all the world’s fortune in the hands of about 10 people. We can’t stop this by playing nice and asking nicely.
Alright so you’ve seized all the money in the world and taken over all the land and machinery that enables production through the application of labor via militant witholding of the same. You and your comrades have all the guns.
…why at that point do you need to use those guns to murder people who are no longer holding murderous control over those common resources?
I refuse to acquiesce to or defend a system of belief that requires people die.
Once you win, you don’t kill or you never had moral authority to employ violence in pursuit of winning in the first place.
The death penalty is always wrong.
Murder is not a punishment and once you’ve stripped her of her ill-got gains there is no longer any reason to kill her.
I hear you but if I’m honest, and tomorrow America announced it was going to execute every billionaire, I’m not going to put up too much of a protest.
Take the money, sure. Then they’re no longer billionaires and there’s no need to kill them.
In other words, you don’t murder disarmed prisoners of war.
During class war they are the enemy and deserve what comes to them. If taken alive and their weapon of war removed, they don’t need to be dealt with the same way.
Once they are no longer a threat you can work on rehabilitation and restitution.
First off, I agree with you.
But…second…I struggle with the rehabilitation bit. Some people cannot be rehabilitated. It is a hard truth I have learned, coupled with pain and regret, many times in my life. I’m just curious what you think the course of action should be at that point?
I’m not suggesting death/murder, but I do struggle with the idea that if they’re miserable, and the people around them are made miserable, and the people trying to help them are made miserable…what do you do?
You do everything you can for them (whilst making sure they’re not a danger to other people), give the caretakers / wardens plenty of time off, and you give them the option for assisted suicide. In my ideal world, everyone would have the option for assisted suicide though
You can’t know that. You only have evidence for people’s inability to’ve been rehabilitated so far.
Not murder.
…drugs?
I disagree. I don’t subscribe to a world view where every life is sacred. Society has a right to protect itself from persons that will always endanger other people and that includes killing them. However, it has been quite clear that we cannot guarantee that no innocent people are killed. And that’s why I’m OK with the death penalty only in principle, not in practice.
You cannot know that, and if you have the ability to strap someone down and end their life, you have no need to do so since you clearly have complete control over their person.
You shouldn’t be. States qua arbiters of justice should not intentionally kill people under their control.
This is a discussion about personal morals. Some people think it’s OK to execute some criminals, others are completely opposed to that idea. There is no objective right or wrong here.
For you your arguments might be compelling, but they don’t convince me. I can have complete control over someone and still decide to kill them because I don’t want to bother with locking them up, for example. And who says a society should not kill? That’s not even an argument, just an opinion.
No, the state killing people is objectively wrong.
Fucking lol. I love Lemmy. I’ve never seen such an obscure group of people speak in absolutes so consistently. Puts reddit to shame.
“I WILL DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG”
“I WILL DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD OR EVIL”
I don’t decide. The state murdering people is wrong. I just have the moral wherewithal to recognize the fact.
Which isn’t hard because it’s objectively true.
Hope this helps.
Ok, I’ll play along for a bit.
Prove it is wrong. Use facts and data to prove capital punishment is wrong.
Steven-Chowder-at-a-card-table over here.
I’m not gonna “debate me!” somebody who think murder is cool and good; it isn’t.
While I agree in principle I tend to think there are still unforgivable crimes and irredeemable people out there.
Then you don’t agree.
I wasn’t aware crime was about forgiveness.
I thought in-so-far as societies implemented systems of justice, their purpose was restitution and rehabilitiation.
No one gains anything from a person—irrespective their prior actions—being murdered and we all lose a bit of our soul each time a state execution is allowed to take place.
I really expected better from Vietnam, whose “quarantine at gunpoint” public health policies I heartily endorse.
Alright. I DON’T agree.
You should; death as a post-hoc punishment is abhorrent and serves no one.
The way these people affect so many lives negatively with their fraud is much worse than a person committing murder.
The literal misery they cause to so many people for their own benefit without a fucking iota of shame and their sociopathic behavior is enough to consider eliminating them from society.
Irrespective how is two bad things better than one bad thing? I would think fewer bad things would be net better.
You speak of “sociopathic behavior” while advocating state murder. 🤨
I know. It sounds fucked. But these people are a cancer on society. There’s very little that can be done to reform these people. And the problem is that capitalism rewards this kind of behaviour.
These people currently are ruling the world. If they aren’t the head of some large company, there the head of a government. Because of their large wealth, they have a huge influence on the policies. They’re basically dictating the laws that are governing them. It’s like playing Monopoly with your own made up rules.
You can’t stop those people any other way. The French understood this. When the price of food was out of reach, heads started to roll. Literally. Nowadays the people can’t be violent anymore. Heck, the mere act of peacefully protesting is met with police violence and oppression. How the fuck are we supposed to get the message across when those people have their own militia protecting them and their interests?
Nothing you have tried so far.
Have you ever considered “Progaganda Of The Deed” to encompass modeling being better people than the opposition?
That’s the problem. There’s one side that’s trying to play by the rules and be nice because they have empathy. Then there’s the other side who lie, cheat, and break the rules for their own benefit without shame.
How the hell are you supposed to play the game and “be better” than the opposition, when the opposition is taking advantage of you?
There has to be clear and grave consequences to discourage them from abusing the system and the people. If it has to be the death penalty, then so be it.
I’m tired of our societies being run by a bunch of industry barons who own everything. Food barons, healthcare barons, banking barons, housing barons, you name it. The mega conglomerates that we can’t escape from who are literally destroying this planet and leeching off of everybody with made up excuses about the state of the “economy”. Having all the world’s fortune in the hands of about 10 people. We can’t stop this by playing nice and asking nicely. Not when they control governments with their financial influence or because they’ve become too big to fail. No. You build fucking guillotines and you execute the motherfuckers.
You do that by not murdering them after you have taken power and over the means of production.
Alright so you’ve seized all the money in the world and taken over all the land and machinery that enables production through the application of labor via militant witholding of the same. You and your comrades have all the guns.
…why at that point do you need to use those guns to murder people who are no longer holding murderous control over those common resources?
I refuse to acquiesce to or defend a system of belief that requires people die.
Once you win, you don’t kill or you never had moral authority to employ violence in pursuit of winning in the first place.