The issue is that social media allows Looneybat #25,608 to find Looneybat #14,204. And then they organise a march.
You know as a progressive, I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. Itâs vengeful, costs a LOT more money to kill someone, and doesnât reduce crime.
However, for this piece of shit, Iâm willing to make an exception.
And thatâs why America still has a death penalty.
We wonât get past it until we finally understand that the state killing people as a punishment for crime is wrong. Even if the person is a mentally disturbed murderer/pedophile/whatever.
Maybe not have the state do it, but if someone decides to pull a Jack Ruby Iâm not going to be too broken up about it. This asshole killed a father of four and a 23 year old who just graduated from Reed last year with his whole life ahead of him.
Heâd better get life with no parole.
This has long been my stance.
The state should not put prisoners to death. Theyâre relatively helpless and are not serious threats to others when detained (thereâs an argument to be made about how allotment of resources can impact the health of citizens, but thatâs a bit too thin for my taste). However, if an individual went vigilante and killed a murderer and took responsibility for their actions (which would normally then involve jail time), I can totally understand and respect that decision. It doesnât make it the right thing to do, but I can respect how someone could arrive at that decision.
My problem is that I donât want to put them to death. I want to put them to hard work. But it seems more humane to execute them then toss them into the proverbial salt mines since the existence of salt mines are themselves a moral hazard.
Why?..
Itâs self evident.
But itâs unethical. Killing people for crimes is vengeance. It makes the amygdala feel good, but it is irrational behavior for a state to carry out executions.
Richard Spencer has had his podcast banned from SoundCloud because it violates the audio platformâs terms of use which explicitly forbid hate speech.
The leading white supremacist, who rose to fame for being punched at an anti-Trump protest, is credited with coining the term âalt-rightâ and used his podcast to discuss his controversial views with guests.
Noting that Mr Spencerâs âalt-right Radioâ show did not fit with SoundCloudâs community guidelines, a freelance investigative journalist alerted the streaming site, which has 175 million monthly listeners, to the clash in ethics.
Awesome.
Killing people for crimes can be justified as removing both a resource sink (vs lifetime imprisonment) and a likely source of future crimes.
Itâs not self evident at all. And itâs been accepted by humanity for basically the entirety of human existence.
Capital punishment prevents that person from ever committing crimes again, and means that the society does not need to waste resources imprisoning them.
Slavery has too, and thatâs not an argument in its favor. Itâs primitive, brutal and unethical.
I actually think using economic values to consider whether taking a life is ethical or not is misguided as hell and a perversion of value. Going with economic efficiency you can get to justify pretty horrible stuff, so I donât get why that argument is valid regarding capital punishment and not regarding other atrocities (we also waste resources on sick people that are never going to be productive. Or elderly people).
But going with your reasoning: The resources spent towards keeping somebody in prison (about $32k annual on average in the US) pales in comparison to the average contribution to the economy per working citizen. Assuming reinsertion is possible, on average you would not have wasted resources if an individual returns to the working pool in time.
Itâs fine for you to think that, but itâs nowhere near self evident. You would have to make an argument for why itâs misguided.
Because I can easily make an argument for why itâs not.
Societyâs resources are limited. Every dollar that you spend to keep a prisoner alive could be better spent providing food, shelter, education, etc. for an innocent person or child.
That is not even a remotely valid assumption. Especially given that the alternative in the capital crime cases we are talking about is a punishment like life without parole, where you are explicitly stating that they will NEVER be reinserted into society.
[quote=âTimex, post:494, topic:128049, full:trueâ]Itâs fine for you to think that, but itâs nowhere near self evident. You would have to make an argument for why itâs misguided.
Because I can easily make an argument for why itâs not.
Societyâs resources are limited. Every dollar that you spend to keep a prisoner alive could be better spent providing food, shelter, education, etc. for an innocent person or child.
[/quote]
So if a prisoner is sentenced to, say, 40 years of prison at 50, we should kill them? Societyâs resources are limited. Every dollar you spend to keep a sick/unemployed/undesirable person alive could be better spent providing food, shelter, education, etc. for a productive/healthy person or child. What does this rhetoric remind you of?
Human life can/should not be given an economic value. Otherwise enlightened ethics fall apart.
The way you use those arguments to justify death penalty but you canât even fathom the other applications of the argument means the real reason you (and many others) feel capital punishment is right comes from a want of revenge, not solid reasoning.
Here life sentencing is illegal. Maximum allowed time in prison is 40 years. The system is, by constitutional mandate, geared towards reinsertion, so an unpardonable life prison is unconstitutional. I am against death penalty, but I am also against life prison. Such a system is workable.
No, because presumably you are saying that his payment to society is completed after some finite amount of time, and then he can be free again.
Human life can/should not be given an economic value. Otherwise enlightened ethics fall apart.
Resources are limited. Your choice to spend money keeping a prisoner alive, for his entire life, when he will never participate in society again and WILL eventually just die in prison, means that you are not spending those resources on other things. You are causing others to suffer as a result.
You are just pretending that your choice has no cost, and then weighing it against the costs of a criminal dying. While even that criminalâs life may have some value, your evaluation of the decision is not valid because you arenât considering the reality. Youâre just saying, âSince his life has some value, then it must be preserved.â No, thatâs not valid.[quote=âJuan_Raigada, post:495, topic:128049â]
Here life sentencing is illegal. Maximum allowed time in prison is 40 years. The system is, by constitutional mandate, geared towards reinsertion, so an unpardonable life prison is unconstitutional. I am against death penalty, but I am also against life prison. Such a system is workable.
[/quote]
Well thatâs a different system from ours. It is perhaps more consistent with banning capital punishment, but it means that you are reintroducing criminals into society who may still be dangerous.
If you release a prisoner, and they kill another person, then you have failed that victim. And the net result is worse than if you had just executed the prisoner.
You are refusing to address why this doesnât apply to sick people, people with disabilities⌠etc.
Why is that argument only valid when talking capital punishment?
Clearly some humans are less human than other humans.
Iâm sure the nice people in the jury in Gofuckyourself, Mississippi will decide relative levels of humanity completely fairly though, so donât worry.
Because when a person commits capital crime, they cede certain rights.
Interesting discussion to come up now. Canada is currently grappling with this issue. Karla Homolka is apparently volunteering at an elementary school. Due to her participation in the abduction, rape, and murder of at least three girls in the early 90âs, people are understandably upset at this newest revelation.
If you donât know who she is, you should read up on it. Basically, she helped her serial killer boyfriend Paul Bernardo commit a series of rapes and murders. When they were caught, she struck a plea deal by testifying against Bernardo and claiming that she was bullied into helping. After the the deal was made, videos came out that the killers had made showed she was totally in on it all along. Homolka drugged the girls, abused them, and encouraged Bernardoâs crimes. She only served 12 years thanks to the deal.