6 ms·

That's because the purpose of the death penalty is to function as a sort of secular human sacrifice, to ward off evil-doers possibly doing bad things, due to a

That's because the purpose of the death penalty is to function as a sort of secular human sacrifice, to ward off evil-doers possibly doing bad things, due to a belief that deep down bad guys are rational actors and will choose not to do commit capital murder based on punishment.

Filligree 3y ago
Um, no? It’s to achieve vengeance. This doesn’t seem that complicated.
- j_maffe 3y ago
  Yes that's usually the motive behind its supporters but not the used argument when it is criticized.
  - JohnBooty 3y ago
    Yeah. People (particularly politicians, in public) are afraid to say that mostly what they want is vengeance. So they frame it as "deterring others in the future" which sounds sort of noble. It's like they know the vengeance thing is f--ed up. Why else would they lie? Perhaps even worse is that the politicians themselves might not even crave vengeance. A lot of the time, they're just pandering to voters who want it.
dsego 3y ago
It's retributive justice, it's not a deterrent. To quote a post I recently found resonating with me: "Look, we don’t necessarily hang murderers to deter other people from committing the same offence. We kill them simply because the punishment has to carry the same weight as the offence. The family of the murderer must go through the same anguish and pain that the murder victim’s family went through. The killer has to be stopped from enjoying all the things that come with being alive. When you kill another person, you deprive them of worldly enjoyments like food, sex, conversations, bathing, laughing, crying and therefore it is only befitting that you too get deprived of same and the only way to do so is through the death sentence. If we are going to shy away from punishing wrong-doers on the basis that the punishment won’t stop other people from committing the same offence then we might as well not send anyone to jail because sending people to jail has never stopped other people from committing the same offences." https://www.sundaystandard.info/iocom-a-retributionist-i-support-the-death-penalty-2/ https://www.sundaystandard.info/iocom-a-retributionist-i-sup...
- Retric 3y ago
  Retribution would require mimicry of the original crimes. That’s not what’s going on, it’s simply an attempt to reframe an old argument. Some cultures actually did do retribution based executions, they where horrific and very different from lethal injection etc.
  - standardUser 3y ago
    "Retribution would require mimicry of the original crimes." No, it would not. That's not the definition of retribution.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Suggesting any negative consequence was retribution would imply that simply sending someone to prison was also retribution and thus the death penalty was unnecessary. The argument was one for the proportionality of death for death, but death wasn’t the only harm. That’s an inherent contradiction in the argument being made. You can’t argue an unequal punishment balances the scales here.
- i80and 3y ago
  I genuinely find this point of view viscerally repulsive. Maybe it's a common perspective, but I pray not. It really seems to be at the heart of a lot of issues with legal systems.
  - isleyaardvark 3y ago
    I'm still shocked when people suggest making people get punished for crimes committed by members of their family. It's indefensible and absurd.
    - hollerith 3y ago
      Are any of the people suggesting that American? That would surprise me!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chipsa 3y ago
The purpose of the justice system is many-fold: One is reform (serve your penance and be better). One is retribution: you did a bad thing, so bad things are going to happen to you. One is deterrence: knowing that you'll get caught, you won't want to spend time in jail, a flip side of retribution. The last is removal: it's hard to commit crimes against innocent people if you're not around innocent people. The death penalty is the ultimate in removal. But it's final. So, you can't fix it if you screwed up in applying it. And that's why I'm against it, generally speaking. Our justice system is not reliable enough to avoid innocents getting ground by the wheels of justice, even at the level of scrutiny of capital punishment. So, excepting things like killed a guy in prison, I can't support it.

Filligree 3y ago

Um, no? It’s to achieve vengeance. This doesn’t seem that complicated.

j_maffe 3y ago
Yes that's usually the motive behind its supporters but not the used argument when it is criticized.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  Yeah. People (particularly politicians, in public) are afraid to say that mostly what they want is vengeance. So they frame it as "deterring others in the future" which sounds sort of noble. It's like they know the vengeance thing is f--ed up. Why else would they lie? Perhaps even worse is that the politicians themselves might not even crave vengeance. A lot of the time, they're just pandering to voters who want it.

dsego 3y ago

It's retributive justice, it's not a deterrent. To quote a post I recently found resonating with me: "Look, we don’t necessarily hang murderers to deter other people from committing the same offence. We kill them simply because the punishment has to carry the same weight as the offence. The family of the murderer must go through the same anguish and pain that the murder victim’s family went through. The killer has to be stopped from enjoying all the things that come with being alive. When you kill another person, you deprive them of worldly enjoyments like food, sex, conversations, bathing, laughing, crying and therefore it is only befitting that you too get deprived of same and the only way to do so is through the death sentence. If we are going to shy away from punishing wrong-doers on the basis that the punishment won’t stop other people from committing the same offence then we might as well not send anyone to jail because sending people to jail has never stopped other people from committing the same offences." https://www.sundaystandard.info/iocom-a-retributionist-i-support-the-death-penalty-2/ https://www.sundaystandard.info/iocom-a-retributionist-i-sup...

Retric 3y ago
Retribution would require mimicry of the original crimes. That’s not what’s going on, it’s simply an attempt to reframe an old argument. Some cultures actually did do retribution based executions, they where horrific and very different from lethal injection etc.
- standardUser 3y ago
  "Retribution would require mimicry of the original crimes." No, it would not. That's not the definition of retribution.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Suggesting any negative consequence was retribution would imply that simply sending someone to prison was also retribution and thus the death penalty was unnecessary. The argument was one for the proportionality of death for death, but death wasn’t the only harm. That’s an inherent contradiction in the argument being made. You can’t argue an unequal punishment balances the scales here.
i80and 3y ago
I genuinely find this point of view viscerally repulsive. Maybe it's a common perspective, but I pray not. It really seems to be at the heart of a lot of issues with legal systems.
- isleyaardvark 3y ago
  I'm still shocked when people suggest making people get punished for crimes committed by members of their family. It's indefensible and absurd.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    Are any of the people suggesting that American? That would surprise me!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

chipsa 3y ago

The purpose of the justice system is many-fold: One is reform (serve your penance and be better). One is retribution: you did a bad thing, so bad things are going to happen to you. One is deterrence: knowing that you'll get caught, you won't want to spend time in jail, a flip side of retribution. The last is removal: it's hard to commit crimes against innocent people if you're not around innocent people. The death penalty is the ultimate in removal. But it's final. So, you can't fix it if you screwed up in applying it. And that's why I'm against it, generally speaking. Our justice system is not reliable enough to avoid innocents getting ground by the wheels of justice, even at the level of scrutiny of capital punishment. So, excepting things like killed a guy in prison, I can't support it.