4 ms·

It'd argue the state should still not stoop down to the level of they people they're killing.

by ginko 5y ago

jackorange 5y ago
If someone is intent on committing crime. Say a serial killer who has killed many people, then while incarcerated continues attempting to attack and kill guards and other inmates, you would say this person should not be killed? I feel that your view is not realistic. The goal of executing criminals is not to punish them like "haha, we got you", it's to physically prevent them from continuing to cause chaos.
- ginko 5y ago
  So put them into high security or solitary confinement. You call that unrealistic, but it's handled like that in tons of places all over the world.
  - jackorange 5y ago
    In high security and solitary confinement there are guards that will have to deal with them, and the inmates are afforded rights like visitation or recreation where they can gain contraband, make shanks, extort and assault inmates and other guards. Inmates will pretend to or legitimately damage the cell or themselves to get guard attention and then assault the guards. Study these issues further and you will find it's not simply a matter of putting someone in a single cell by themselves and now that's it, they can never harm anyone again. There are elaborate criminal schemes that occur inside of correctional institutions. Eventually, society will have exhausted every recourse in attempting to accommodate this person, and I say not to be sarcastic, but to present you something to think about, would you welcome a known serial killer into your home since you are so against killing them and there's no place left to put them? How much do you expect others to suffer and sacrifice for one criminal and your own perceived social justice?
  - vadfa 5y ago
    That costs A LOT of money.
    - avh02 5y ago
      Yet is cheaper than processing for the death penalty https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/ https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalt...
spywaregorilla 5y ago
That feels kind of silly to me. If there were no state, and a rando came in and murdered a few people, then your gaggle of humans tracked them down and captured them; killing them seems like a reasonable action. Does the existence of an organized state really feel like it changes the ethics of the situation? I don't think so. Does the existence of prisons change the ethics? I don't think so either. Further I'd argue that the state going against the will of the people is unethical and an abuse of power. Lastly, murder as the ultimate sin seems like a pretty western religious oriented perspective. I don't think it holds as much weight as it used to. The only compelling reason in my opinion that capital punishment is unethical is that our criminal justice system is so shit.
- ginko 5y ago
  This argument is so weird to me I don't even know where to start. Are you saying that because a murderous mob would just kill someone the laws in large organized states should also be based on mob justice?
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    I'm not saying murderous mob. I'm saying group of humans. They don't need to be a mindless ravenous horde. They don't need to kill him on the spot. I'm saying this is probably the conclusion that rational humans would come to if an outsider arrived, killed people, and left. They should be killed, because, even ignoring themes of justice, he's a huge outlier threat. The entire pretext that killing him is morally outrageous is not a given at all. On some level if you're gonna play ball at the extreme ends of crime, then you should be willing to accept that you're gonna fucking die if society manages to stop you. It doesn't strike me as morally problematic to say "if you rape and murder child then we'll kill you", and then kill someone who rapes and murders a child. The problem, again, with both our justice system and mob justice that makes these not good is that they're easily manipulated, inaccurate, and emotionally swayed. And historically super racist if you care to bring that into the discussion.

It'd argue the state should still not stoop down to the level of they people they're killing.

by ginko 5y ago

It'd argue the state should still not stoop down to the level of they people they're killing.

If someone is intent on committing crime. Say a serial killer who has killed many people, then while incarcerated continues attempting to attack and kill guards and other inmates, you would say this person should not be killed? I feel that your view is not realistic. The goal of executing criminals is not to punish them like "haha, we got you", it's to physically prevent them from continuing to cause chaos.

ginko 5y ago
So put them into high security or solitary confinement. You call that unrealistic, but it's handled like that in tons of places all over the world.
- jackorange 5y ago
  In high security and solitary confinement there are guards that will have to deal with them, and the inmates are afforded rights like visitation or recreation where they can gain contraband, make shanks, extort and assault inmates and other guards. Inmates will pretend to or legitimately damage the cell or themselves to get guard attention and then assault the guards. Study these issues further and you will find it's not simply a matter of putting someone in a single cell by themselves and now that's it, they can never harm anyone again. There are elaborate criminal schemes that occur inside of correctional institutions. Eventually, society will have exhausted every recourse in attempting to accommodate this person, and I say not to be sarcastic, but to present you something to think about, would you welcome a known serial killer into your home since you are so against killing them and there's no place left to put them? How much do you expect others to suffer and sacrifice for one criminal and your own perceived social justice?
- vadfa 5y ago
  That costs A LOT of money.
  - avh02 5y ago
    Yet is cheaper than processing for the death penalty https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/ https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalt...

spywaregorilla 5y ago

That feels kind of silly to me. If there were no state, and a rando came in and murdered a few people, then your gaggle of humans tracked them down and captured them; killing them seems like a reasonable action. Does the existence of an organized state really feel like it changes the ethics of the situation? I don't think so. Does the existence of prisons change the ethics? I don't think so either. Further I'd argue that the state going against the will of the people is unethical and an abuse of power. Lastly, murder as the ultimate sin seems like a pretty western religious oriented perspective. I don't think it holds as much weight as it used to. The only compelling reason in my opinion that capital punishment is unethical is that our criminal justice system is so shit.

ginko 5y ago
This argument is so weird to me I don't even know where to start. Are you saying that because a murderous mob would just kill someone the laws in large organized states should also be based on mob justice?
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  I'm not saying murderous mob. I'm saying group of humans. They don't need to be a mindless ravenous horde. They don't need to kill him on the spot. I'm saying this is probably the conclusion that rational humans would come to if an outsider arrived, killed people, and left. They should be killed, because, even ignoring themes of justice, he's a huge outlier threat. The entire pretext that killing him is morally outrageous is not a given at all. On some level if you're gonna play ball at the extreme ends of crime, then you should be willing to accept that you're gonna fucking die if society manages to stop you. It doesn't strike me as morally problematic to say "if you rape and murder child then we'll kill you", and then kill someone who rapes and murders a child. The problem, again, with both our justice system and mob justice that makes these not good is that they're easily manipulated, inaccurate, and emotionally swayed. And historically super racist if you care to bring that into the discussion.