Life imprisonment is cheaper (in the US) for the taxpayer than execution. Morally, I think the death penalty does not have a leg to stand on. Even in the most egregious cases, who truly has the right to end a life? Can any justice system be 100% accurate? If there is even a slim chance that an innocent could be murdered by the state, the state should not murder. It's valid to have a visceral reaction to horrific crimes like this, but to advocate for murdering even of a guilty party just doesn't mesh with at least my ethics
who truly has the right to end a life?
Many who live deserve death. Some who die deserve life: can you give it to them?
That visceral reaction is exactly why victims or their families can't have input. Of course you'd want them to be punished, of course you'd want it to be cruel and unusual.
While I agree the State shouldn't kill, if someone decided not to spend those millions of dollars and instead took these bastards behind the jail and put a $0.15 bullet in each of their skulls I wouldn't be angry.
You say that now, but what about death penalties in Sudan? Iran? China? Are western executions more moral? What is the purpose? Revenge? Deterrence? The death penalty in the real world disproportionally affects minority and disadvantaged populations. It is not a deterrent to crime, and there is truly no humane way to end a person's life. What of the executioner's psyche? What of the innocent family of the condemned? There are so many terrible consequences.
As tired and trite as it is, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" applies and is true. The death penalty only continues the cycle of violence.
edit: I missed your point đŸ˜… I still can't condone violence in any capacity
This would be so much easier if someone could write their names in a notebook, and somehow kill them of a heart attack as a result of it.
Add a dude eating chips, another dude eating a cupcake, pad it out with 11 hours of nothing at all happening and you've got a hit on your hands somehow
To be fair, he ate chips with a neat soundtrack and flashy cuts. Whooooah.
You know, in political theory the entire conceptual basis of the state is that the state is the has the sole monopoly on violence. That’s it, that’s what the state is. It is the sole purveyor of social norms and order by using violence as a tool of enforcement.
You know, in political theory the entire conceptual basis of the state is that the state is the has the sole monopoly on violence.
No it isn't. What fucking theory are you reading to come up with this bullshit?
It doesn't need to be more expensive to execute someone than to house them.
Every dollar wasted on keeping them locked up could be better just about anywhere else in society.
It isn't clear to me if execution is actually cheaper or not. And the 8th amendment effectively bans the simple methods of killing. It needs to be sterile and mostly painless for most people.
Would I like to make an exception for pedophiles, where we castrate them, physically and chemically? Yes. But we've agreed as a society that we won't dole out cruel punishments as a cost for ensuring our government stays in check. I generally prefer lifetime imprisonment without parole for two reasons.
There were a lot of executions where, when we went back to look at them with newer technology for DNA evidence, we realized the accused was actually innocent, and the criminal got away. You can imagine there was a racial component as well which meant death sentences were assigned more often to non white people than white people. It would be hubris for us to think that our systems are perfect now. Another technological development in the future could exonerate people we think are definitely guilty. I don't want any more innocent people to die where we realize their innocence too late.
Being locked up for life sounds like a fate worse than depth, especially if it's solitary confinement. Let them rot and go and insane.
If life-imprisonment is a fate worse than death (most prisoners disagree, that's why it's common to plea a death sentence down to a life-sentence), then doesn't this mean that it is preferable to erroneously execute innocent people rather than give them life-imprisonment?
Your second point really severely undermines your first argument.
No, because life imprisonment has the possibility of exoneration and freedom.
Only if additional evidence emerges. Innocent people are still going to face life imprisonment, and the argument is that it's better to execute people than life imprisonment.
Even then this is extremely subjective, many people who have never been imprisoned or faced imminent death think that they would prefer execution, and somehow generalise this feeling to all people when in reality very few people choose execution when given the option.
Why are we paying for them to stay alive? Lol.
Life imprisonment is cheaper (in the US) for the taxpayer than execution. Morally, I think the death penalty does not have a leg to stand on. Even in the most egregious cases, who truly has the right to end a life? Can any justice system be 100% accurate? If there is even a slim chance that an innocent could be murdered by the state, the state should not murder. It's valid to have a visceral reaction to horrific crimes like this, but to advocate for murdering even of a guilty party just doesn't mesh with at least my ethics
Many who live deserve death. Some who die deserve life: can you give it to them?
That visceral reaction is exactly why victims or their families can't have input. Of course you'd want them to be punished, of course you'd want it to be cruel and unusual.
While I agree the State shouldn't kill, if someone decided not to spend those millions of dollars and instead took these bastards behind the jail and put a $0.15 bullet in each of their skulls I wouldn't be angry.
You say that now, but what about death penalties in Sudan? Iran? China? Are western executions more moral? What is the purpose? Revenge? Deterrence? The death penalty in the real world disproportionally affects minority and disadvantaged populations. It is not a deterrent to crime, and there is truly no humane way to end a person's life. What of the executioner's psyche? What of the innocent family of the condemned? There are so many terrible consequences.
As tired and trite as it is, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" applies and is true. The death penalty only continues the cycle of violence.
edit: I missed your point đŸ˜… I still can't condone violence in any capacity
This would be so much easier if someone could write their names in a notebook, and somehow kill them of a heart attack as a result of it.
Add a dude eating chips, another dude eating a cupcake, pad it out with 11 hours of nothing at all happening and you've got a hit on your hands somehow
To be fair, he ate chips with a neat soundtrack and flashy cuts. Whooooah.
You know, in political theory the entire conceptual basis of the state is that the state is the has the sole monopoly on violence. That’s it, that’s what the state is. It is the sole purveyor of social norms and order by using violence as a tool of enforcement.
No it isn't. What fucking theory are you reading to come up with this bullshit?
It doesn't need to be more expensive to execute someone than to house them.
To punish them lol
Looks like we're punishing ourselves, lol.
Every dollar wasted on keeping them locked up could be better just about anywhere else in society.
It isn't clear to me if execution is actually cheaper or not. And the 8th amendment effectively bans the simple methods of killing. It needs to be sterile and mostly painless for most people.
Would I like to make an exception for pedophiles, where we castrate them, physically and chemically? Yes. But we've agreed as a society that we won't dole out cruel punishments as a cost for ensuring our government stays in check. I generally prefer lifetime imprisonment without parole for two reasons.
There were a lot of executions where, when we went back to look at them with newer technology for DNA evidence, we realized the accused was actually innocent, and the criminal got away. You can imagine there was a racial component as well which meant death sentences were assigned more often to non white people than white people. It would be hubris for us to think that our systems are perfect now. Another technological development in the future could exonerate people we think are definitely guilty. I don't want any more innocent people to die where we realize their innocence too late.
Being locked up for life sounds like a fate worse than depth, especially if it's solitary confinement. Let them rot and go and insane.
If life-imprisonment is a fate worse than death (most prisoners disagree, that's why it's common to plea a death sentence down to a life-sentence), then doesn't this mean that it is preferable to erroneously execute innocent people rather than give them life-imprisonment?
Your second point really severely undermines your first argument.
No, because life imprisonment has the possibility of exoneration and freedom.
Only if additional evidence emerges. Innocent people are still going to face life imprisonment, and the argument is that it's better to execute people than life imprisonment.
Even then this is extremely subjective, many people who have never been imprisoned or faced imminent death think that they would prefer execution, and somehow generalise this feeling to all people when in reality very few people choose execution when given the option.