4 ms·
What? This is one of the two main arguments against capital punishment (1: it's wrong even for the guilty, 2: it's irreversible for those later exonerated) and
by spoonjim 4y ago
What? This is one of the two main arguments against capital punishment (1: it's wrong even for the guilty, 2: it's irreversible for those later exonerated) and these two arguments together have gotten capital punishment banned in countries comprising 60% of the world's population.
- ogogmad 4y ago> 1: it's wrong even for the guilty What about an example I gave above: The commandant of Auschwitz? On a purely emotional level, I find the point of view that a pitiless mass-murderer deserves infinitely more mercy than what he granted others morally reprehensible. You get what you give, in my view.
- spoonjim 4y agoYou're preaching to the choir. I believe that 100% of murderers should be executed; I just don't trust any justice system to be 100% accurate in ascertaining who is and who isn't a murderer. Thus I am opposed to capital punishment as public policy, in all cases (except perhaps those where the level of doubt is infinitesimal).
- aaplok 4y agoThis is an interesting example. It would take a seriously deranged person to subject Auschwitz' commandant to what he subjected his prisoners. Unless you advocate applying all sorts of barbaric acts of torture on him, you are not really pushing the "you get what you give" credo. There is some level of odious behaviour that we all are unwilling to justify. I don't think it's fair to characterise this as "deserving mercy".