5 ms·

The nightmare is also that in some countries, when the police knocks on the door to arrest you, you might get killed in a gruel archaic ritual called "execution

by geff82 10y ago

The nightmare is also that in some countries, when the police knocks on the door to arrest you, you might get killed in a gruel archaic ritual called "execution" at the end, even if you did nothing wrong, just the odds were against you. Here in Germany I do not have to fear the police. If if the judges wrongly sent me to jail "for life", at least I'd have some hope that one day I can convince them they were wrong and get to freedom again.

08-15 10y ago
After two or three decades behind bars, you don't care about your freedom anymore. (Watch "The Shawshank Redemption" and see what happens to Brooks, if you don't get what I mean.) I really don't get where this ridiculous focus of human rights activists on the death penalty come from. Sure, death is irreversible, but so is locking someone away for decades. I actually think decades behind bars is more cruel than a swift death. Which reminds me... why aren't the false experts who caused the convictions of innocents locked away themselves? How is killing a man by lying about evidence not murder?
- voxic11 10y ago
  You have to prove they lied and we're not simply dumb or mistaken, which is sadly often the case.
  - 08-15 10y ago
    Indeed, but why? Any professional is responsible for the damage they cause, whether on purpose or by neglect. These forensic "professionals" are not. And that's messed up. Besides, if you are both a professional and dumb or mistaken, you say that you don't know. Lying about your lack of confidence destroys human lives, and that's why I think bad "experts" should be tried for murder and probably convicted for (involuntary) manslaughter. Making expert witnesses responsible for the BS they spout would align their incentives correctly.
zeveb 10y ago
> If if the judges wrongly sent me to jail "for life", at least I'd have some hope that one day I can convince them they were wrong and get to freedom again. Is your German government any more able to restore your lost decades than my government is able to restore lost life? For some crimes execution is unjust; for others it is just. It is just as unjust to allow someone who deserves death to live as it is unjust to execute someone who deserves life.
- jlg23 10y ago
  > Is your German government any more able to restore your lost decades than my government is able to restore lost life? You get 25E per day[1] of unjust imprisonment. And it's not 25E you actually get, some amount is subtracted for "lodging and food". And when you need social benefits, you'll have to use that money first before getting them. But what the comment you were responding to said is true: At least you are not dead. Though I'm not sure there is much difference for those who have to suffer such injustice. [1] (german) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haftentsch%C3%A4digung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haftentsch%C3%A4digung
- vkou 10y ago
  > It is just as unjust to allow someone who deserves death to live as it is unjust to execute someone who deserves life. No, it's not. For one thing, 50/50 guilty or innocent is nowhere near sufficient to qualify as 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' that can convict someone - which is exactly what your moral equivalence implies. There are plenty of arguments to be made about how convicting an innocent person creates far more injustice then not convicting a guilty one, the difference between a well-oiled, 'cool-headed' criminal system meting out injustice, compared to a crime of passion, systemic bias...
- bzbarsky 10y ago
  > It is just as unjust to allow someone who deserves death to live as it is unjust to execute someone who deserves life It's long been a general principle of criminal law, at least in the US, that convicting someone who is innocent is in fact more unjust than acquitting someone who is guilty. The sentiment has been expressed by Voltaire, Blackstone, Ben Franklin, and a good number of others, going back to at least the 18th century. This is why (again in the US) conviction requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt".
ransom1538 10y ago
"Here in Germany I do not have to fear the police." Really? That lesson didn't stick.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  It never does, for some reason.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by geff82 10y ago

08-15 10y ago

After two or three decades behind bars, you don't care about your freedom anymore. (Watch "The Shawshank Redemption" and see what happens to Brooks, if you don't get what I mean.) I really don't get where this ridiculous focus of human rights activists on the death penalty come from. Sure, death is irreversible, but so is locking someone away for decades. I actually think decades behind bars is more cruel than a swift death. Which reminds me... why aren't the false experts who caused the convictions of innocents locked away themselves? How is killing a man by lying about evidence not murder?

voxic11 10y ago
You have to prove they lied and we're not simply dumb or mistaken, which is sadly often the case.
- 08-15 10y ago
  Indeed, but why? Any professional is responsible for the damage they cause, whether on purpose or by neglect. These forensic "professionals" are not. And that's messed up. Besides, if you are both a professional and dumb or mistaken, you say that you don't know. Lying about your lack of confidence destroys human lives, and that's why I think bad "experts" should be tried for murder and probably convicted for (involuntary) manslaughter. Making expert witnesses responsible for the BS they spout would align their incentives correctly.

zeveb 10y ago

> If if the judges wrongly sent me to jail "for life", at least I'd have some hope that one day I can convince them they were wrong and get to freedom again. Is your German government any more able to restore your lost decades than my government is able to restore lost life? For some crimes execution is unjust; for others it is just. It is just as unjust to allow someone who deserves death to live as it is unjust to execute someone who deserves life.

jlg23 10y ago
> Is your German government any more able to restore your lost decades than my government is able to restore lost life? You get 25E per day[1] of unjust imprisonment. And it's not 25E you actually get, some amount is subtracted for "lodging and food". And when you need social benefits, you'll have to use that money first before getting them. But what the comment you were responding to said is true: At least you are not dead. Though I'm not sure there is much difference for those who have to suffer such injustice. [1] (german) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haftentsch%C3%A4digung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haftentsch%C3%A4digung
vkou 10y ago
> It is just as unjust to allow someone who deserves death to live as it is unjust to execute someone who deserves life. No, it's not. For one thing, 50/50 guilty or innocent is nowhere near sufficient to qualify as 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' that can convict someone - which is exactly what your moral equivalence implies. There are plenty of arguments to be made about how convicting an innocent person creates far more injustice then not convicting a guilty one, the difference between a well-oiled, 'cool-headed' criminal system meting out injustice, compared to a crime of passion, systemic bias...
bzbarsky 10y ago
> It is just as unjust to allow someone who deserves death to live as it is unjust to execute someone who deserves life It's long been a general principle of criminal law, at least in the US, that convicting someone who is innocent is in fact more unjust than acquitting someone who is guilty. The sentiment has been expressed by Voltaire, Blackstone, Ben Franklin, and a good number of others, going back to at least the 18th century. This is why (again in the US) conviction requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt".

ransom1538 10y ago

"Here in Germany I do not have to fear the police." Really? That lesson didn't stick.

CamperBob2 10y ago
It never does, for some reason.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]