4 ms·

This, to me, is a profoundly disturbing comment that presumes a level of competence and positive intent within the American criminal justice system that is prov

This, to me, is a profoundly disturbing comment that presumes a level of competence and positive intent within the American criminal justice system that is provably absent.

conductr 4y ago
I think that's my point. I like the idea of it but most times I'm not even comfortable with agreeing the person is guilty to begin with. In certain cases, say Jeffrey Dahmer, it's pretty clear cut and I see no use to delay the punishment.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  What is the harm if they rot in jail? Why is it imperative that they be killed?
  - BarryMilo 4y ago
    Incredible that this needs to be asked, while the is the only western country with the death penalty. It's a remnant of a violent past.
lesuorac 4y ago
I always liked the Boston Bombing example. Should the Boston bombers [1] receive the death penalty? A lot of arguments against the death penalty are that for many cases you can't actually be sure the person who committed the crime is actually the one convicted. So in those situations I don't think its appropriate it (i.e almost every death penalty case). However, something like the Boston bombing it's really beyond any reasonable doubt. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing
- SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
  What? No, why do you like this example? There is nothing special about this case that makes his guilt any more "certain" than any other case. Confessions have been proven to be shit, physical evidence is disturbingly often faked, eyewitnesses are among the least reliable sources of information possible, etc. The American criminal justice system is designed to reach conclusions, and explicitly not designed to be accurate. That is no system upon which a capital punishment should ever be applied. I would argue the Boston bombing is a great example of why we shouldn't execute people. He is clearly a disturbed person who needs help, not death.

This, to me, is a profoundly disturbing comment that presumes a level of competence and positive intent within the American criminal justice system that is provably absent.

conductr 4y ago

I think that's my point. I like the idea of it but most times I'm not even comfortable with agreeing the person is guilty to begin with. In certain cases, say Jeffrey Dahmer, it's pretty clear cut and I see no use to delay the punishment.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
What is the harm if they rot in jail? Why is it imperative that they be killed?
- BarryMilo 4y ago
  Incredible that this needs to be asked, while the is the only western country with the death penalty. It's a remnant of a violent past.

lesuorac 4y ago

I always liked the Boston Bombing example. Should the Boston bombers [1] receive the death penalty? A lot of arguments against the death penalty are that for many cases you can't actually be sure the person who committed the crime is actually the one convicted. So in those situations I don't think its appropriate it (i.e almost every death penalty case). However, something like the Boston bombing it's really beyond any reasonable doubt. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing

SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
What? No, why do you like this example? There is nothing special about this case that makes his guilt any more "certain" than any other case. Confessions have been proven to be shit, physical evidence is disturbingly often faked, eyewitnesses are among the least reliable sources of information possible, etc. The American criminal justice system is designed to reach conclusions, and explicitly not designed to be accurate. That is no system upon which a capital punishment should ever be applied. I would argue the Boston bombing is a great example of why we shouldn't execute people. He is clearly a disturbed person who needs help, not death.