3 ms·

You're right that you can't get someone his life back: you can't give back someone the empty years he spent in prison; you can't remove the pain and agony of ye

by wtbob 11y ago

You're right that you can't get someone his life back: you can't give back someone the empty years he spent in prison; you can't remove the pain and agony of years removed from polite society; you can't remove the cruelty and abuse he experienced from other prisoners. Punishment's unpleasant (that's its nature); death and imprisonment are unpleasant. And yet, there are crimes which deserve death. Not to execute vicious murderers, rapists & traitors is a profound miscarriage of justice.

drabiega 11y ago
Well, you can't just execute those people. You either execute no one or you execute some innocent people along with the 'deserving'. You think it is more just to kill the innocent than simple imprison the 'deserving' for life?
- wtbob 11y ago
  > You either execute no one or you execute some innocent people along with the 'deserving'. Likewise with imprisonment. Innocents will die in prison even if they don't die on the gallows. > You think it is more just to kill the innocent than simple imprison the 'deserving' for life? Those aren't the choices: the choices are to be just in execution of the depraved (and unjust in accidentally executing the innocent) or to be unjust in imprisoning the depraved (and unjust in accidentally imprisoning the innocent). IMHO the justice delta between executing & imprisoning the truly evil is greater than that between accidentally executing & imprisoning the innocent.
toothbrush 11y ago
> Not to execute vicious murderers, rapists & traitors is a profound miscarriage of justice. > Not to murder murderers, ... is a profound miscarriage of justice. There, FTFY.
DanBC 11y ago
> Not to execute vicious murderers, rapists & traitors is a profound miscarriage of justice. That's a minority position. At least 100 countries don't use the death penalty at all. Another 50 countries have a death penalty but haven't executed anyone for at least 10 years. The 30 to 40 countries left are a list of oppressive regimes or countries with corrupt justice systems or justice systems that do not comply with human rights laws. It's more likely that the US is in violation of human rights laws than all those other countries have profound miscarriages of justice.
- wtbob 11y ago
  > > Not to execute vicious murderers, rapists & traitors is a profound miscarriage of justice. > That's a minority position. It's also correct. If 100 other countries jumped off of a bridge, would you? Although, if you do want to argue from popularity, polls consistently show majority support for capital punishment even in countries without it. From that standpoint, abolition of execution is undemocratic. There are many crimes for which the only just sentence is death (c.f. the Oklahoma man executed some time ago, who raped & buried alive a young woman, or the man in Washington, D.C. who tortured & murdered a family in their home): not to impose it is itself unjust. For, say, Hideki Tojo to have died peacefully in his bed after the deaths of millions would have been a moral outrage: his hanging was the only appropriate sentence. The State's monopoly on force is predicated on it assuming the duty of exacting vengeance on behalf of its citizens: if a State refuses to exact that vengeance in every circumstance, regardless of evidence and certainty, then its monopoly on violence loses its legitimacy.

by wtbob 11y ago

drabiega 11y ago

Well, you can't just execute those people. You either execute no one or you execute some innocent people along with the 'deserving'. You think it is more just to kill the innocent than simple imprison the 'deserving' for life?

wtbob 11y ago
> You either execute no one or you execute some innocent people along with the 'deserving'. Likewise with imprisonment. Innocents will die in prison even if they don't die on the gallows. > You think it is more just to kill the innocent than simple imprison the 'deserving' for life? Those aren't the choices: the choices are to be just in execution of the depraved (and unjust in accidentally executing the innocent) or to be unjust in imprisoning the depraved (and unjust in accidentally imprisoning the innocent). IMHO the justice delta between executing & imprisoning the truly evil is greater than that between accidentally executing & imprisoning the innocent.

toothbrush 11y ago

> Not to execute vicious murderers, rapists & traitors is a profound miscarriage of justice. > Not to murder murderers, ... is a profound miscarriage of justice. There, FTFY.

DanBC 11y ago

> Not to execute vicious murderers, rapists & traitors is a profound miscarriage of justice. That's a minority position. At least 100 countries don't use the death penalty at all. Another 50 countries have a death penalty but haven't executed anyone for at least 10 years. The 30 to 40 countries left are a list of oppressive regimes or countries with corrupt justice systems or justice systems that do not comply with human rights laws. It's more likely that the US is in violation of human rights laws than all those other countries have profound miscarriages of justice.

wtbob 11y ago
> > Not to execute vicious murderers, rapists & traitors is a profound miscarriage of justice. > That's a minority position. It's also correct. If 100 other countries jumped off of a bridge, would you? Although, if you do want to argue from popularity, polls consistently show majority support for capital punishment even in countries without it. From that standpoint, abolition of execution is undemocratic. There are many crimes for which the only just sentence is death (c.f. the Oklahoma man executed some time ago, who raped & buried alive a young woman, or the man in Washington, D.C. who tortured & murdered a family in their home): not to impose it is itself unjust. For, say, Hideki Tojo to have died peacefully in his bed after the deaths of millions would have been a moral outrage: his hanging was the only appropriate sentence. The State's monopoly on force is predicated on it assuming the duty of exacting vengeance on behalf of its citizens: if a State refuses to exact that vengeance in every circumstance, regardless of evidence and certainty, then its monopoly on violence loses its legitimacy.