4 ms·

Imagine the current cancel culture is even more widespread (it is a nightmare). [My personal point of view is that] the society should not punish, it should tr

by d0mine 4y ago

Imagine the current cancel culture is even more widespread (it is a nightmare). [My personal point of view is that] the society should not punish, it should try to prevent future crimes. For example, capital punishment: according to studies I've read, it is not a real deterrent, and false positives are likely (innocent people are killed) -- therefore I'm against capital punishment (if the capital punishment were effective to prevent murders, I'd reconsider it).

mihaic 4y ago
Sure, that's exactly my point: capital punishment is over the top, and prevention would have been achieved with much less. If light corporal punishment were shown to be just as efficient at prevention as a 1-year in jail sentence, would you consider it?
inglor_cz 4y ago
There definitely is an element of vengeance in capital punishment as well. "Eye for an eye". I am not fully on board with that, but, on the other hand, I cannot pretend to myself that I'd consider "Eichmann being hanged" somehow morally bad or evil. In a sense, he had it coming, like many of his peers. More recently, the people who raped and killed their way through Bucha, deserve the same treatment. But I can see that them hanging won't deter further butchers of next Buchas. People commit such crimes while feeling virtually sure that they won't ever be punished for them, and they are often right - too many war criminals expired in a luxurious bed at home. Notably, Stalin's executioners were never tried by an international tribunal unlike their Nazi counterparts, because the USSR won the war. If the butchers of Bucha were to hang, it would be mostly motivated by vengeance.
jimmygrapes 4y ago
Capital punishment certainly works as a deterrent in the sense that a dead person commits no crime. But the way its conducted and the number of false positives makes me not a fan, in most cases. I imagine there are some situations where it is highly effective, but only if done immediately; I cannot fathom the whole "death row" thing for those hypotheticals. I believe strongly in innocent until proven guilty, speedy trial, due process, beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, trial by jury of peers, and all that fun stuff, and I acknowledge even all that goes wrong sometimes. However, assuming full uncoerced confession and irrefutable evidence and eyewitness testimony, why do we still make a (say, serial killer) suffer in death row instead of just execute them immediately? Revenge?

by d0mine 4y ago

mihaic 4y ago

Sure, that's exactly my point: capital punishment is over the top, and prevention would have been achieved with much less. If light corporal punishment were shown to be just as efficient at prevention as a 1-year in jail sentence, would you consider it?

inglor_cz 4y ago

There definitely is an element of vengeance in capital punishment as well. "Eye for an eye". I am not fully on board with that, but, on the other hand, I cannot pretend to myself that I'd consider "Eichmann being hanged" somehow morally bad or evil. In a sense, he had it coming, like many of his peers. More recently, the people who raped and killed their way through Bucha, deserve the same treatment. But I can see that them hanging won't deter further butchers of next Buchas. People commit such crimes while feeling virtually sure that they won't ever be punished for them, and they are often right - too many war criminals expired in a luxurious bed at home. Notably, Stalin's executioners were never tried by an international tribunal unlike their Nazi counterparts, because the USSR won the war. If the butchers of Bucha were to hang, it would be mostly motivated by vengeance.

jimmygrapes 4y ago

Capital punishment certainly works as a deterrent in the sense that a dead person commits no crime. But the way its conducted and the number of false positives makes me not a fan, in most cases. I imagine there are some situations where it is highly effective, but only if done immediately; I cannot fathom the whole "death row" thing for those hypotheticals. I believe strongly in innocent until proven guilty, speedy trial, due process, beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, trial by jury of peers, and all that fun stuff, and I acknowledge even all that goes wrong sometimes. However, assuming full uncoerced confession and irrefutable evidence and eyewitness testimony, why do we still make a (say, serial killer) suffer in death row instead of just execute them immediately? Revenge?