4 ms·

Considering that death penalty is considered a punishment so great that lots of states banned it, I guess people think that death already punished the person so

by mcmoor 3y ago

Considering that death penalty is considered a punishment so great that lots of states banned it, I guess people think that death already punished the person so badly that their sins can be considered absolved. So whether or not people sanitize dead people's image correlates to their opinion on death itself.

saghm 3y ago
Mentioning someone's crimes isn't a punishment, especially when they're not around to hear them. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that people can still have criminal records after they've finished serving a prison sentence?
- mcmoor 3y ago
  Isn't mentioning it considered bad when someone has served their punishment? It's part of right-to-be-forgotten after all. When the crime is still recorded and even announced, it's considered part of the punishment because jail is deemed not enough. It's how we get sexual offender registry.
denkmoon 3y ago
Capital punishment is immoral not because death is sufficient to absolve guilt but because we lack sufficient certainty of guilt. Death is just death, it doesn't absolve guilt.
- globalise83 3y ago
  That's an interesting perspective to take. Those countries in Europe who have prohibited capital punishment have done so because we believe it is immoral even in the case of absolute certainty of guilt. Take Anders Breivik for example: there is no doubt whatsoever of his guilt - he is a mass murderer. Nevertheless, according to modern European concepts of morality he should be treated well even in prison, and the Norwegians take that to a level that many other countries would find absurd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
  - jl6 3y ago
    When we decline to execute a heinous offender, and decline to treat them as inhuman - even when they have offended inhumanly - it demonstrates the moral difference between us and them.
    - Probiotic6081 3y ago
      As Michelle Obama said: "When they go low, we go high"
    - asynchronous 3y ago
      And seemingly demonstrates our ability to be taken advantage of by said inhuman offenders-
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        Does Anders truly "win" by being simply in confinement forever, rather than being dead? What does he gain? His life? What life? Playing PS1 games forever, seeing the same four walls forever, acceptable but certainly not impressive meals forever. There is not a single thing anyone can do to him or anyone else to undo what he did, and causing him suffering certainly doesn't bring back any children. More importantly, killing him does not make any of the damage he caused go away. Americans love to piss and moan about all the freedoms we supposedly have, but are conspicuously unsatisfied with merely removing said freedoms as punishment for crimes. Maybe they don't think "freedom" is that important or meaningful
        metalcrow 3y ago
        There is continued harm though. Every day he is treated well, every day he gets food and shelter and care is food and shelter and care paid for by you, that could have been spent on others.
  - arp242 3y ago
    Breivik is also a single person; do you really want to change (or even burn down) the entire system just for one person? In principle I have no trouble just executing Breivik; his guilt is established beyond doubt, he committed an act of exceptional evil, and he more or less declares to want to do it again (well technically he says he wants to be a "non-violent Nazi" or some such, but that's a contradiction in terms: "oh that Holocaust thing was just brilliant, more of that!" is violent rhetoric). But Breivik-type case are rare. So rare it's not really worth changing the system over it. There's principle of a thing and the practicalities of it: in principle the death penalty is fine, but practically organizing that in a legal system with zero false positives is very difficult, so it's not really worth it. Aside from the US, you can also look at post-second world war in Europe, which saw some executions that were rather over the top in hindsight.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  Is that why? I find it hypocritical to punish murder with state sanctioned murder.
bowsamic 3y ago
Death penalty is supported because we think it sends the person to eternal torment in hell, not because we think it purifies them. It’s literally the opposite to what you are claiming
- chungy 3y ago
  That's a take I've certainly never heard before. Among support for the death penalty in the United States, is the fact that some criminals, particularly the serial killer type, have committed crimes so heinous that there is no chance of parole or rehabilitation to return to normal life. When one is burdened with 60 consecutive life sentences, it effectively requires that the state pay to sustain the criminal's life until it comes to an end. If the death penalty were enacted instead, we could both reduce the cost the state (which, in turn, is the tax payers), and reduce the suffering the criminal must endure for his crimes. If you'd like to take the afterlife into account, the "sends the person to eternal torment in hell" sounds like a particular theology not backed up by the Bible, the typical standard in American thinking. That verges way too much on passing ultimate judgment, which is itself reserved for God alone. Perhaps some people believe it. I don't (and I am religious).
- bagels 3y ago
  We, who? The practical reason to support it is that it guarantees there is no chance for them to murder more people, or as a (misguided?) deterrent for others not to murder.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > Death penalty is supported because we think it sends the person to eternal torment in hell, not because we think it purifies them. It is also supported because it can be used as a self-defence mechanism. We take it for granted that when we lock up 'really' dangerous people they will be safely away from society, but that kind of infrastructure is a fairly recent phenomena in human history. Prison breaks/escapes still happen: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prison_escapes#2022_–_present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prison_escapes#2022_–_... Not only from a building-prisoners perspective, but also from an excess-resources point of view: through most of human history, suggesting using society's surplus—which probably wasn't there—to feed someone 'evil' while everyone else had to work away would have seemed very unfair. If a single individual has the right to self-defence against an attacker, and a ("small") group of individuals have the same right (e.g., a bunch of folks worshipping in a temple, mosque, church), then wouldn't a "large" group of individuals (e.g., society) have a right to protect themselves from an attacker? With regards to "hell": someone, while waiting on death row, many repent of their actions and try to find redemption, but still be executed from a legal point of view: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(book) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(film)
ponector 3y ago
Following that though is to say dead Nazi's sins are absolved. I don't think so. Sin is a sin, crime is a crime, no matter person is dead it alive.
- mcmoor 3y ago
  Only if you consider it's absolvable with one death. Though it isn't like those are absolvable by any means in this world.
master-lincoln 3y ago
I never understood that stance. To me the death penalty is an easy way out compared to a life without freedom.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Ylpertnodi 3y ago
How does dying absolve anyone of sin?

by mcmoor 3y ago

saghm 3y ago

Mentioning someone's crimes isn't a punishment, especially when they're not around to hear them. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that people can still have criminal records after they've finished serving a prison sentence?

mcmoor 3y ago
Isn't mentioning it considered bad when someone has served their punishment? It's part of right-to-be-forgotten after all. When the crime is still recorded and even announced, it's considered part of the punishment because jail is deemed not enough. It's how we get sexual offender registry.

denkmoon 3y ago

Capital punishment is immoral not because death is sufficient to absolve guilt but because we lack sufficient certainty of guilt. Death is just death, it doesn't absolve guilt.

globalise83 3y ago
That's an interesting perspective to take. Those countries in Europe who have prohibited capital punishment have done so because we believe it is immoral even in the case of absolute certainty of guilt. Take Anders Breivik for example: there is no doubt whatsoever of his guilt - he is a mass murderer. Nevertheless, according to modern European concepts of morality he should be treated well even in prison, and the Norwegians take that to a level that many other countries would find absurd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
- jl6 3y ago
  When we decline to execute a heinous offender, and decline to treat them as inhuman - even when they have offended inhumanly - it demonstrates the moral difference between us and them.
  - Probiotic6081 3y ago
    As Michelle Obama said: "When they go low, we go high"
  - asynchronous 3y ago
    And seemingly demonstrates our ability to be taken advantage of by said inhuman offenders-
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      Does Anders truly "win" by being simply in confinement forever, rather than being dead? What does he gain? His life? What life? Playing PS1 games forever, seeing the same four walls forever, acceptable but certainly not impressive meals forever. There is not a single thing anyone can do to him or anyone else to undo what he did, and causing him suffering certainly doesn't bring back any children. More importantly, killing him does not make any of the damage he caused go away. Americans love to piss and moan about all the freedoms we supposedly have, but are conspicuously unsatisfied with merely removing said freedoms as punishment for crimes. Maybe they don't think "freedom" is that important or meaningful
      - metalcrow 3y ago
        There is continued harm though. Every day he is treated well, every day he gets food and shelter and care is food and shelter and care paid for by you, that could have been spent on others.
- arp242 3y ago
  Breivik is also a single person; do you really want to change (or even burn down) the entire system just for one person? In principle I have no trouble just executing Breivik; his guilt is established beyond doubt, he committed an act of exceptional evil, and he more or less declares to want to do it again (well technically he says he wants to be a "non-violent Nazi" or some such, but that's a contradiction in terms: "oh that Holocaust thing was just brilliant, more of that!" is violent rhetoric). But Breivik-type case are rare. So rare it's not really worth changing the system over it. There's principle of a thing and the practicalities of it: in principle the death penalty is fine, but practically organizing that in a legal system with zero false positives is very difficult, so it's not really worth it. Aside from the US, you can also look at post-second world war in Europe, which saw some executions that were rather over the top in hindsight.
lostlogin 3y ago
Is that why? I find it hypocritical to punish murder with state sanctioned murder.

bowsamic 3y ago

Death penalty is supported because we think it sends the person to eternal torment in hell, not because we think it purifies them. It’s literally the opposite to what you are claiming

chungy 3y ago
That's a take I've certainly never heard before. Among support for the death penalty in the United States, is the fact that some criminals, particularly the serial killer type, have committed crimes so heinous that there is no chance of parole or rehabilitation to return to normal life. When one is burdened with 60 consecutive life sentences, it effectively requires that the state pay to sustain the criminal's life until it comes to an end. If the death penalty were enacted instead, we could both reduce the cost the state (which, in turn, is the tax payers), and reduce the suffering the criminal must endure for his crimes. If you'd like to take the afterlife into account, the "sends the person to eternal torment in hell" sounds like a particular theology not backed up by the Bible, the typical standard in American thinking. That verges way too much on passing ultimate judgment, which is itself reserved for God alone. Perhaps some people believe it. I don't (and I am religious).
bagels 3y ago
We, who? The practical reason to support it is that it guarantees there is no chance for them to murder more people, or as a (misguided?) deterrent for others not to murder.
throw0101b 3y ago
> Death penalty is supported because we think it sends the person to eternal torment in hell, not because we think it purifies them. It is also supported because it can be used as a self-defence mechanism. We take it for granted that when we lock up 'really' dangerous people they will be safely away from society, but that kind of infrastructure is a fairly recent phenomena in human history. Prison breaks/escapes still happen: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prison_escapes#2022_–_present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prison_escapes#2022_–_... Not only from a building-prisoners perspective, but also from an excess-resources point of view: through most of human history, suggesting using society's surplus—which probably wasn't there—to feed someone 'evil' while everyone else had to work away would have seemed very unfair. If a single individual has the right to self-defence against an attacker, and a ("small") group of individuals have the same right (e.g., a bunch of folks worshipping in a temple, mosque, church), then wouldn't a "large" group of individuals (e.g., society) have a right to protect themselves from an attacker? With regards to "hell": someone, while waiting on death row, many repent of their actions and try to find redemption, but still be executed from a legal point of view: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(book) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(film)

ponector 3y ago

Following that though is to say dead Nazi's sins are absolved. I don't think so. Sin is a sin, crime is a crime, no matter person is dead it alive.

mcmoor 3y ago
Only if you consider it's absolvable with one death. Though it isn't like those are absolvable by any means in this world.

master-lincoln 3y ago

I never understood that stance. To me the death penalty is an easy way out compared to a life without freedom.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Ylpertnodi 3y ago

How does dying absolve anyone of sin?