While I agree in principle I tend to think there are still unforgivable crimes and irredeemable people out there.
Then you don’t agree.
I wasn’t aware crime was about forgiveness.
I thought in-so-far as societies implemented systems of justice, their purpose was restitution and rehabilitiation.
No one gains anything from a person—irrespective their prior actions—being murdered and we all lose a bit of our soul each time a state execution is allowed to take place.
I really expected better from Vietnam, whose “quarantine at gunpoint” public health policies I heartily endorse.
Allow me some cognitive dissonance because I really don’t know what society should do about psychopaths, predators, or cases like those execs who put melamine into milk to spoof the protein metrics, leading to the horrible deaths of a large number of babies.
Holding them indefinitely is a useless drain on the state, killing them leads to the inevitability of innocent people dying.
Child predators have recidivism rates of 10-35% depending on which studies you’re reading. Each one of those assaults is a potentially life-altering trauma induced in a child. Exactly how many should someone be able to do before we consider they’re not going to be rehabilitated?
A life in prison and state sanctioned execution are different, though.
It’s also worth considering why these criminals are criminals. If they were, say, violently abused as a child themselves…does that matter? Functionally, it doesn’t matter to the victim — I get that. But should the state be in the business of executing such people?
But should the state be in the business of executing such people?
Honestly I’ve always felt this was the strongest argument against a death penalty. That said the argument carries nearly the same weight for life imprisonment, and still some for the act of imprisonment at all. We continue to trust juries of fools to judge people to this day, but that is still unfortunately more palatable than giving the right to someone to unilaterally choose your jury.
I’m onboard with a culture of reform and education for convicts because it works, but I also recognize some people cannot be reformed and keeping them imprisoned is needlessly dangerous for many parties. There needs to be a line where we accept someone is too far gone.
It’s not just about the assault that happened, it’s also about the risk of considerable harm in the future. Killing someone for one act of sexual predation is going to be considered extreme by many but not all people. But what happens after the second or third times? How many is too many?
Add into that how you’ve just given child abusers incentive to murder their victims and scared children out of informing on a family member for which the death of whom they do not wish to be responsible.
But what kind of fucked up society can only stop anti-social behavior through murdering its perpetrators?
Yes, which is why my question isn’t just rhetorical. How many is too many? You could make a case for 1 (if you believe the crime is too heinous), or 2 (if you believe in second chances), or 3+ even. But where do you draw the line and accept someone isn’t going to stop?
OK, so ignoring that not going to change doesn’t mean the death penalty is valid (the very idea presupposes the existence of states and the idea that a power structure can put people to death), that using the upper limits of your statistics means that for every 1 (0.35) who would reoffend that is murdered, you’ve also murdered 2 (0.65) who would not.
So if you do want to go ahead on your executions, the number of reoffenses should be up at 3 or so as a minimum.
But there are better ways to deal with it, as executing people is bad for the people who have to do it, the families of the executed, and sometimes even the victims and families as they’re robbed of a chance for closure and understanding.
And do you think these child predators had charming upbringings? Or perhaps they were filled with horrors and trauma?
Yeah, there are absolutely evil people out there, and if you think the state should execute them, that’s your opinion. But to think that all heinous crimes come from a vacuum is naive.
Then you don’t agree.
I wasn’t aware crime was about forgiveness.
I thought in-so-far as societies implemented systems of justice, their purpose was restitution and rehabilitiation.
No one gains anything from a person—irrespective their prior actions—being murdered and we all lose a bit of our soul each time a state execution is allowed to take place.
I really expected better from Vietnam, whose “quarantine at gunpoint” public health policies I heartily endorse.
Alright. I DON’T agree.
You should; death as a post-hoc punishment is abhorrent and serves no one.
I still don’t agree.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
What’s Lemmy?
I don’t think people getting murdered by the state is “inconsequential”, least of all for the murdered person.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Allow me some cognitive dissonance because I really don’t know what society should do about psychopaths, predators, or cases like those execs who put melamine into milk to spoof the protein metrics, leading to the horrible deaths of a large number of babies.
Holding them indefinitely is a useless drain on the state, killing them leads to the inevitability of innocent people dying.
Not if you use it to advocate state murder I won’t.
Innocent people will always have the ability to die, no matter how many people your state murders.
If child predators get executed, I don’t lose “a bit of my soul”, I gain more confidence that the world is now a better place.
Oh word? Did the horrific thing they did no longer happen?
They won’t repeat the horrific thing they did while dead, that’s for sure.
I’m against the death penalty but it’s not hard to see why some people support it.
Shut the fuck up. If there’s a “but” ever then no the fuck you are not.
Did the original horrific thing not happen? Does murder ameliorate past suffering in any way?
Vengeance is not justice, it is sick.
Child predators have recidivism rates of 10-35% depending on which studies you’re reading. Each one of those assaults is a potentially life-altering trauma induced in a child. Exactly how many should someone be able to do before we consider they’re not going to be rehabilitated?
A life in prison and state sanctioned execution are different, though.
It’s also worth considering why these criminals are criminals. If they were, say, violently abused as a child themselves…does that matter? Functionally, it doesn’t matter to the victim — I get that. But should the state be in the business of executing such people?
Honestly I’ve always felt this was the strongest argument against a death penalty. That said the argument carries nearly the same weight for life imprisonment, and still some for the act of imprisonment at all. We continue to trust juries of fools to judge people to this day, but that is still unfortunately more palatable than giving the right to someone to unilaterally choose your jury.
I’m onboard with a culture of reform and education for convicts because it works, but I also recognize some people cannot be reformed and keeping them imprisoned is needlessly dangerous for many parties. There needs to be a line where we accept someone is too far gone.
Don’t tell me what being abused as a child does to someone, thanks.
Does killing the person who did it make the assault not have happened?
It’s not just about the assault that happened, it’s also about the risk of considerable harm in the future. Killing someone for one act of sexual predation is going to be considered extreme by many but not all people. But what happens after the second or third times? How many is too many?
A single state murder is too many. Full stop.
Add into that how you’ve just given child abusers incentive to murder their victims and scared children out of informing on a family member for which the death of whom they do not wish to be responsible.
But what kind of fucked up society can only stop anti-social behavior through murdering its perpetrators?
Of course it doesn’t, that’s such a condescending question.
The obvious response is that the perpetrator has a 0% chance of reoffending if they’re executed and that does carry weight with a lot of people.
Is that equivalent to 65% don’t reoffend? Or am I misunderstanding the recidivism rate?
Yes, which is why my question isn’t just rhetorical. How many is too many? You could make a case for 1 (if you believe the crime is too heinous), or 2 (if you believe in second chances), or 3+ even. But where do you draw the line and accept someone isn’t going to stop?
OK, so ignoring that not going to change doesn’t mean the death penalty is valid (the very idea presupposes the existence of states and the idea that a power structure can put people to death), that using the upper limits of your statistics means that for every 1 (0.35) who would reoffend that is murdered, you’ve also murdered 2 (0.65) who would not.
So if you do want to go ahead on your executions, the number of reoffenses should be up at 3 or so as a minimum.
But there are better ways to deal with it, as executing people is bad for the people who have to do it, the families of the executed, and sometimes even the victims and families as they’re robbed of a chance for closure and understanding.
I’m not even going to dignify this response. Have a nice day
That’s a response.
Thank you. It’ll indeed be much nicer without you advocating state murder in it. 🙂
I wish, one day I will be as cool as you.
Everybody does, I have faith in you. 😘
Step 1: Stop doing uncool things like advocating States murder people.
And if an innocent person gets executed for the crime?
And do you think these child predators had charming upbringings? Or perhaps they were filled with horrors and trauma?
Yeah, there are absolutely evil people out there, and if you think the state should execute them, that’s your opinion. But to think that all heinous crimes come from a vacuum is naive.
Huh. At least where I am from “Death penalty for child predators” is a common far-right talking point.
You’ve exposed me! I don’t sympathize with child predators, so I must be a Nazi!