4 ms·
I'd argue it's a minor component. Especially with something like a tick, that will go on to bite someone else. I am morally indifferent between life imprisonme
by sershe 5y ago
I'd argue it's a minor component. Especially with something like a tick, that will go on to bite someone else.
I am morally indifferent between life imprisonment and death, but life imprisonment costs more and can fail. On the other hand, the original comment framed death penalty as "hypocrisy" of "justice being about re-education"; I am saying justice doesn't have to be primarily about re-education, no supporter of death penalty argues that; there's no hypocrisy. I think the removal is the most important component. Punishment and re-education should be prioritized depending on the crime, but in any case both are just nice, optional perks.
- threatofrain 5y ago> Punishment and re-education should be prioritized depending on the crime, but in any case both are just nice, optional perks. Again there is this framing about what is deserved and what is owed. This is in contrast to the framing of what is best for society — if your prevailing theory is that some people are safe and some people are dangerous (as opposed to some people are criminals and some people are owed), then those individuals who still have a good future story ought be candidates for rehabilitation. From this perspective, it is not a matter of what is a "perk" and what is owed, but rather what the state has to gain.
- sershe 5y agoWell, is re-education better for society than removal? It's expensive and unreliable, whereas if you only consider the society of people whom we owe the respect of their negative rights (based on reciprocity), incarceration is cheaper and more reliable, and death penalty is cheaper and more reliable yet.