12 ms·

> The US spends obscene amounts of money proving that someone sentenced to execution is guilty of their crime. I feel like you’re implying that this is a bad t

> The US spends obscene amounts of money proving that someone sentenced to execution is guilty of their crime. I feel like you’re implying that this is a bad thing to rigorously prove whether a crime has occurred?

ogogmad 4y ago
I'm saying that many would want to execute the commandant of Auschwitz, especially if the evidence for their guilt is overwhelming. I think a standard of proof high enough can sometimes be met, and the crime sufficiently deserving. On a purely emotional level, I would want to punish a war criminal more severely than a common murderer.
- pavlov 4y ago
  On a more rational level, executing the commander of Auschwitz does nothing but provide short-term satisfaction, but treating even the monster to a humane standard affirms the values of democracy and sets an example for future generations. Think of how the American prison scandals of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib affected the global perception of American justice. It was just a massive loss of international goodwill and credibility accumulated over a century. All the torture and kidnappings delivered very little practical return in the end.
- kiba 4y ago
  I put human welfare above every priority, so I don't see why 'crime sufficiently deserving' would be something I should care about. Ultimately, I want less people to be murdered, incarcerated, or otherwise undergoing human suffering. We should inflict the least amount of suffering for the purpose of preventing moral harms. Our goal should be to prevent someone like the commandant of Auschwitz from existing, or failing that, address the reasons why it came about.
dento 4y ago
Death penalty with proper trial is more expensive than life-without-parole sentence, at least in the US currently [1]. I'm not sure if this means that non-death-penalty crimes are not inspected properly. In such system the only reason for the capital punishment is revenge. 1: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs

ogogmad 4y ago

I'm saying that many would want to execute the commandant of Auschwitz, especially if the evidence for their guilt is overwhelming. I think a standard of proof high enough can sometimes be met, and the crime sufficiently deserving. On a purely emotional level, I would want to punish a war criminal more severely than a common murderer.

pavlov 4y ago
On a more rational level, executing the commander of Auschwitz does nothing but provide short-term satisfaction, but treating even the monster to a humane standard affirms the values of democracy and sets an example for future generations. Think of how the American prison scandals of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib affected the global perception of American justice. It was just a massive loss of international goodwill and credibility accumulated over a century. All the torture and kidnappings delivered very little practical return in the end.
kiba 4y ago
I put human welfare above every priority, so I don't see why 'crime sufficiently deserving' would be something I should care about. Ultimately, I want less people to be murdered, incarcerated, or otherwise undergoing human suffering. We should inflict the least amount of suffering for the purpose of preventing moral harms. Our goal should be to prevent someone like the commandant of Auschwitz from existing, or failing that, address the reasons why it came about.

dento 4y ago

Death penalty with proper trial is more expensive than life-without-parole sentence, at least in the US currently [1]. I'm not sure if this means that non-death-penalty crimes are not inspected properly. In such system the only reason for the capital punishment is revenge. 1: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs