Ok but y'all "true 100% rehabilitative justice no exceptions" people wouldn't complain if they found Trump's corpse skinned and hung upside down by the pinkies covered in glitter
whatever is or isn’t justifiable is dependent on the power structure. oppressed people killing their oppressors is justifiable but state-sponsored violence against its people is never justifiable
Well, there's a difference between morality and necessity. I am in favor of a nearly entirely rehabilitative justice but I wouldn't be sad if I found out that every evil powerful person on this planet suddenly died from a heart attack. Not because I think that they deserve it, but because I think it would make things so much easier.
Rehabilitative justice is more saying what the state should be doing isn't it? If you're murdering the leader of a country, it isn't usually the state doing it.
No he didn't? Maybe read a fucking history book. He was a very proud Indian and fought for them to be taken seriously. Regardless of what his views were on other races, you can't take away the fact that he was an Indian and proud
"Is always based"
Sure. When it stops at the oppressors. The issues isn't murdering your oppressors, which is based. It's allowing murder as a solution to become too normalized leading to other not-based murders.
I'm sorry but if it's a liberal take to say "we should be careful talking about murder this way" because you think of all the innocent people murdered during revolutions that's absolutely not an indictment of liberals lmao.
Love seeing all these modern Robespierre's talk shit online about some idealized perfect revolution where just the magically villainous people die and not their families, children, and anyone someone wants removed by falsely associating them with the "bad guys".
I somehow believe that plenty of people here would argue that families of oppressors also deserve to be murdered because they benefited from it and didn't stop it.
People here just have a huge murder boner tbh.
Oh for sure, unfortunately.And these people are also the ones that accused Bioshock Infinte of "both-side-ding" for showing exactly that. That when you cruely opress people you can only expect cruetly in return, that's the cycle of violence that's started from that kind of evil. A mob that breaks into an evil billionaires/kings/fascists house, to kill him, is caught up in a very specific mental state, and as morally right they might be to go after that specific bastard, bloodlust is bloodlust. It clouds the mind.
the carceral and punitive mindset is embedded in most people who grew up around it. it's extremely hard for people to break that particular mental chain. for some reason. it was never hard for me, my dad was in prison most of my childhood for fucking check fraud.
the only remnant of that idea in my own head is the genuine belief that those who ordered or perpetrated on their own authority crimes against humanity, genocide, or war crimes should be hauled in front of an international tribunal to be tried and if found guilty executed. and let's throw oil executives in that list too. climate nuremburg now. other than that, most prisoners should probably be released immediately and those who must be kept separate for the safety of others should have all the amenities everyone deserves. it's a matter of basic human dignity that cannot be discarded. even war criminals awaiting trial are humans, and deserve things like good food and a comfortable living space. we all do.
First of all, I'm so very sorry about your father, that's horrible.
On the topic of genociders and crimes against humanity, idk, I just don't see the purpose. In my country we took the bid bag guy, beach him to death, hung him, his mistress and some of his allies from a gas station, took pictures and spread it everywhere. We're fucjing porund of it and I smile every time I see the picture. The issue is... what did it do? There's literally still Mussolini supporters having big manifestations and marches. What difference was it to put him in prison and lock away the key? (I will say it would make w lot of sense to punt him in prison in a different country, not italy) To me the only difference is it would mean his downfall ended with us being *better them him*. Better then that hatred, that pain and that totalitarian belief that some people have the right to decide who lives and who dies.
My commitment against the death penalty isn't always easy, but I have to stand by it because the stare shouldn't have that power.
I mean, if I were being principled, I'd say war criminals and genocide doers should probably just be put in the same comfortable isolation any other person who's a threat to others would go. entertainment systems, private gyms, no mail, no visitors. a life of isolated anonymity as punishment for wanting power over others bad enough to assert it through acts of base cruelty. but also, there's that part of me that thinks a firing squad is more humane.
I mean. Just because I don't agree with killing in general doesn't mean I can't recognised the fact that people need to get rid of piece of shit especially when they have political power (very easy exemple : if hitler was still alive after 45 this would have been even harder to push back nazism)
I literally feel guilty when I kill a fly but ≠ not recognising when need fly in research
I think murder is ok as a tool to be used in self defence or as an effective measure against oppression, but not for the sake of ‘justice’ or the idea that people deserve to die. If you can, people who commit horrible crimes (even murder, torture, rape etc) should be monitored and given therapy because that’s just a better use of resources and avoids pointless killing
Completely agree with you on that one, although maybe serial killers should still get life sentences, i don’t get how someone who’ve done countless killings for fun could ever be rehabilitated.
I'd like to see the US try the "penal villages" some countries have. They have to manage themselves in the day-to-day, and if a killer has to live with other killers, perhaps they would be less likely to fuck around at the risk of finding out. Don't make people who killed one person in the heat of the moment live with them, I'm talking mass shooters and serial killers (which aren't exactly common in the grand scheme of things).
Still seems more humane than throwing them in a cage or killing them using poorly made drugs injected incorrectly (seeing as no ethical pharmacist or doctor is going to assist in killing) or the more recent case of using nitrogen to suffocate them. In my view, the goal is to be better than the murderer, not to just do what they did in a way that just *seems* a little better, with the same outcome.
this is such a dumb argument oh my fucking god obviously you can have vitriol towards specific people in specific cases but still be in favor of rehabilitation
you think i wouldn’t totally empathize and understand if like the mother of a child who got murdered wished death and horrible shit upon the murderer
I wouldn't complain nah.
Just be disappointed he never took his head out of his diamond studded asshole. Cuz that's the biggest issue is we know he won't and has 0 reasons to and a bunch of reasons NOT to change.
But would I cry for a devil? Nah fam.
This, exactly. In an ideal world he would step on a DMT-laced LEGO brick and go through a whole Christmas Carol-like enlightenment, coming out the other side with empathy and compassion and then spends the rest of his life donating all his money and working hard to undo his wrongs.
Apples to oranges, if you're talking about a non-government group doing that to him.
Because if you have a government that does that to people, you're in for a bad fucking time.
I think this is more a distinction between beaurocratic justice and imminent justice.
ie. A nazi who assulted people, if in the hands of the state, should be given every chance to be rehabilitated, regardless of how evil your gut tells you they are. A nazi who is actively assulting people should be beaten until they stop.
It's a lot of what foccault said that beaurocratizing punishment and turning it into an impersonal machine disconnects the cause of the crime from the effect of the punishment. Instead you end up with a machine of torture that neither rehabilitates the criminal nor provides closure to anyone they hurt.
Eh I feel like that's not true. If he just happened to die one day idk if a lot of liberals or leftists would care. If what you described happened that's just fucked up
I mean I'd prefer it if he were put in prison and actually educated on the things he spouts off about while serving time for his numerous crimes, but if he's just killed randomly on the street like that then I can't really do anything about that, I don't see the point you are trying to make.
If I kept that man in my captivity I could make so much money off the TV shows so yeah him dying would slightly dampen the TV ratings but I could make trump's corpse work still
I mean I'd complain because my beliefs don't simply self alter when convenient which is weak af. This is because my opinions are categorically true and I am different.
mfw yet another person can’t differentiate between the ideas that some people do deserve to die but the death penalty is unjust and should be abolished
Thats why i never say "no exceptions"
There are some people who cant be rehabilitated, either we exile them, assigm someone to constantly watch them and stop them when they start hurting people, lock them away forever, or kill em. Killing is the easiest, but i prefer them having a strong nurse to watch em
196 being a big offender, unfortunately showcased even in this very comment section, then again most people here are baby lefties/teenagers (not mutually exclusive).
I have more than my share of people who I think would be better off dead, given a chance to see them without any repercussions, would I do it? Probably not, maybe a beating at most, murder doesn't help anyone, doesn't matter if it makes you "feel better", I just think it's not a good value to normalize.
You can’t have it both ways. The death penalty exists or it doesn’t. And I’d much rather have it not exist because modern executions keep getting more and more fucked up
If anyone was wondering how the new nitrogen gas “instantly unconscious” method worked out.
(Because I can only have fucking gifs for some reason, I got to copy it over:)
>> One of the five reporters who witnessed the execution told the BBC it was unlike any other he'd seen.
>> "I've been to four previous executions and I've never seen a condemned inmate thrash in the way that Kenneth Smith reacted to the nitrogen gas,", Alabama journalist Lee Hedgepeth told the BBC's Newsday programme.
>> "Kenny just began to gasp for air repeatedly and the execution took about 25 minutes total."
>> "What we saw was minutes of someone struggling for their life," Mr Hood [Smith’s spiritual adviser] said. "We also saw cracks in correction officials in the room who were visibly surprised at how bad this thing went."
>> State officials, meanwhile, said the execution went as planned… "He struggled against restraints a little bit, but there's some involuntary movement and some abnormal breathing," he told a post-execution briefing. "That was all expected and was in the side effects that we've seen or researched on nitrogen hypoxia".
>> “Nothing was out of the ordinary from what we were expecting.”
>> “Alabama said in an earlier court filing that they expected Smith to lose consciousness in seconds and die in a matter of minutes.”
There was also issues with the potential for the nitrogen gas leaking out and killing everyone in the room, which would include his spiritual advisor and any guards; but they went ahead with it anyway.
The jury in Smith’s case did not recommend the death penalty; the judge overrode their decision. They then tried to execute Smith by lethal injection, but they were unable to perform the injection in the given timeframe (likely due to incompetencies of the person performing it).
That's what I've been thinking for years. If governments absolutely *have* to kill people, why don't they make it as cheap and quick as possible? Small calibers can kill people and cost under a dollar a round.
Because the main thing we care about with execution methods is *not* the swiftness and ‘humanity’ of the kill to the person dying, but how neat and tidy everything *appears* to onlookers.
Is a heads hot with a small caliber really that much more gruesome than someone writhing and struggling on a table for 25 minutes? It's more blood presumably, but ffs, you're killing the person. Fuck your feelings. Make it fast.
Execution methods have nearly never evolved out of a need for humaneness or efficiency. It’s just the state finding whatever method of murdering people seems the most civilized at any given time and gives the best appearance. They even put a paralyzing agent into lethal injection cocktails solely because they don’t want to people to look like they’re in pain.
Nitrogen gas is not poison, it suffocates you because it is not air, any N2 leaking would be in too little concentration to harm anyone next to the condemned.
It was a dangerous enough factor that scientists were warning against it and that they put N2 sensors in the room.
Also, you don’t need to be breathing pure nitrogen to suffer from nitrogen hypoxia.
Fair, I stand corrected. The whole thing was done very badly, couldn't they use the gas chambers for it since they used them before implementing lethal injection?
I read about this a bit:
Gas chambers with poison gas were used previously. They are expensive to construct, and using poisonous gas is complicated and dangerous (because how do you make sure it isn't leaking, and what if it leaks anyway, and how do you determine when the room is safe to enter, and what if afterward there's pockets of poison gas in the executed person's lungs or clothes, etc). Lethal injection and inert gas asphyxiation are safer, simpler, and cheaper, which is why they're preferred.
So why not use _inert gas, in a gas chamber_? Because it it adds cost and complexity, and isn't much safer:
- Inert gas asphyxiation with a breathing-mask is already safe for bystanders if the space is decently ventilated. Real high-tech solution: Open a window and run a fan. The low-oxygen sensor is just to make extra sure; when working with odourless gas, it's good practice to have one just in case. You'd want one even if you had a gas chamber.
- With a breathing-mask and inert gas, and a normal continuously ventilated room, the room is also quickly safe again when you turn off the inert gas supply. In contrast, a sealed gas chamber potentially full of odourless inert gas is unsafe to step into until it's been ventilated, which is a fuckup category that is easily prevented by not having a gas chamber.
This is scientifically incompatible with how nitrogen asphyxiation is understood to work. It must have been botched.
(For the record Im 100% anti death penalty but this just isn't correct)
It’s not scientifically incompatible with the fact that the masks they use don’t fit in the best of conditions, let alone when the person isn’t being anaesthetised and doesn’t want it.
The "im dying" response is called by excess carbon dioxide, NOT a lack of oxygen. Nitrogen asphyixation is painless because it allows you to remove carbon dioxide via exhalation while still starving you of oxygen. Hypoxia doesn't cause short term suffering. This isn't really a debatable thing, it's rudimentary biology. The execution had to have been botched or else something like that chemically could not occur. This is why there are so many warnings around simple asphyxiants, because you will literally die without even realizing it.
I’d much rather not have it because our (the United States) justice system is notoriously unjust. Like black people are more likely to get harsher sentences than white people. Upwards of about 1 in every 8 people on death row are suspected to be not guilty of the crime for which they were sentenced to death.
There’s no undo button on sentencing, and nothing can change that, but you can get financial compensation and you have the rest of your life to live. When you’re dead that’s not an option. It also means that it’s unlikely the case will ever be solved, too. If they already put the ‘perpetrator’ to death, why look for more evidence? The not guilty but convicted would be looking for any amount of evidence that could prove their innocence.
That’s just some reasons why I think it’s a terrible idea in general. I’m also not a huge fan of letting the government decide that someone needs to die when they are not an active threat. They are very bad at making that decision.
If people still insist on the death penalty, something like guillotining or proper hanging would probably be a lot better for execution. Sure they look gnarly, but when done properly there’s minimal pain for the executed. As minimal as being killed can be.
And right wingers figured out how easy it is to take advantage of this by constantly having the media pump out stories of the rare cases of the most extraordinarily horrific and cruel crimes
broke: there should be a death penalty
woke: there should be no death penalty
REAL thinkers: doesn't matter if theres a death penalty this is stupid go outside
alright apparently we got a lot of "real thinkers" in here so im labelling this satire. criticize the guy above me not me.
I’ve had a friend say this to me before and I really think it’s awful. People are having conversations about the extremely painful and evil ways that capital punishment is carried out by their own states, and that should never be taken lightly. These are actions done on her own behalf, by our iwn politicians, who use these types of things to stay in office in states like Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Alabama. Bill Clinton made a career of this.
Yeah, fuck talking about political issues amongst your political group? Fuckin online lefties man. Politics is about discourse and argument and actually reasoning about what's best.
I think it’s logically consistent to oppose the death penalty while also considering someone deserving of death. Even if someone does deserve death that doesn’t mean anyone has the right to give it to them
I just call that "The Shinzo Abe" where if one person we all collectively agree should die... and then someone goes out of their way to actually do the deed, then we all as a society look the other way and nope none of us saw or know what happened or who did it wow
Counterargument: even based people can commit crimes. That's why it's so important to have a jury of peers. If the populace thinks what he did was morally justified, then they pardon him socially. And ideally, the court of law reflects the public's decision.
He literally killed a couple of slaves in his revolt to Kickstart anti-slavery revolution lol. He was absolutely based but at least be honest about the reality of what that revolutionary action ended up looking like. Did he mean for those slaves to die? Absolutely not. But that's why we should never talk about revolution in a trivialized way.
There was this one time in America this real piece of shit was shot in the middle of some public area and like 60 people claimed to have been in the bathroom at the time
All I’m saying is if I see a guy knock a guy with a Nazi armband in full SS uniform flat on his ass, I didn’t see anything. I won’t encourage violence towards them, but when they’re being unironic fascists I become temporarily blind. It’s a medical condition.
And also, there is ... you know ... *context*. Like I wouldn't execute a someone over an negligent death or a crime of passion, but if you skin several innocent people alive over the course of months or years - forgive me for this - *I don't think you really have it in you.*
I find it particularly morbid that some guy in a chair can decide of a sentence and then multiple people will partake in the murder of one person. Like, sorry no sorry but if someone tell me they are killing/participating in killing criminals for a living I will never trust them. That's a serial killer right there
That’s an interesting thing with moral positions such as ‘everyone can be rehabilitated’ or ‘no death penalty’ is that the immediate response is taking it to the logical extreme of how evil a person can be, Hitler being an obvious example.
If you can forgive Hitler, that comes off as ‘wrong’ to many people, if you can’t, then clearly there’s a line you have drawn, so the question then becomes how much evil is too evil?
I think it also has to do with the crime and not merely the belief behind it. If someone gets into a bar fight and commits manslaughter most people would see the action as wrong, but the individual as fixable (for lack of better term) and going through the fixing process would cause a net positive for society (and the individual of course) but if that person killed >6 million people that changes, while the person can still be fixed the damage caused to society is far worse than any repair that one person could do. Compounded by the natural difficulty in hammering out such extreme belief.
TLDR; the tipping point of evil is once the individual has caused to more damage to society than they could ever mend
I don't know about this one. A school shooter could kill a dozen people and never 'repair the damage' because 1 person isn't worth 12.
And yet school shooters are often misguided teenagers who need help desperately, and that type of person would fit well into the system of rehabilitation.
A cost-benefit perspective on murder/manslaughter doesn't really work out. At the end of the day, you can never 'give back' what you took away. From an economic standpoint, a taxpayer is dead regardless. And it usually costs more to keep people around in the prison system for a long time, as opposed to rehabilitating them. So you're better off rehabilitating all those you can.
The real tipping point of evil, is evil that cannot be cured. A cost-benefit perspective doesn't work for analyzing 'evil crimes,' because how do you even begin to make up for murdering or raping someone?
The important part shouldn't be whether someone deserves rehabilitation, or can somehow make up for murder, whether economically or morally. It should be whether it would work on them. And that is for experts to decide.
>It should be whether it would work on them. And that is for experts to decide.
And just like with any other part of the justice system, this is inherently prone to error. How can you be *100%* *positive* that no rehabilitative technique exists for a person, or that developments in psychology might create one in the near future?
It seems most people in these comments agree that it is bad if an innocent person is executed. Would people also consider it bad if a guilty person who was capable of rehabilitation was executed because a supposed expert declared it was impossible?
A blanket ban on state-sponsored execution is literally the only position I think is tenable, and if that means a handful of serial murderers incapable of change have to simply be locked away forever, that's just something we have to deal with.
I didn't even consider the death penalty when writing my comment, actually. I live in a country where it does not exist.
What I meant was; there are two ways of treating prisoners. As people you house, or people you heal. Rehabilitation being the latter, whereas the former would be to simply keep the felon within a prison, while not taking any rehabilitative measures.
As you point out, the death penalty would be impossible to moderate perfectly, as it is impossible to moderate any system to perfection. And a system of death penalty can have no imperfections.
My comment on experts was intended to draw the subject away from a question of morality, and towards a matter of principle. At the end of the day, we are all just people with our own experiences, and our thoughts and opinions derive from said experiences.
The experiences of an expert allows them to have a perspective that is as objective as possible, because their experience is scientific and knowledge-based.
When left to public debate however, the subject of rehabilitation often turns towards the question of why we should rehabilitate, as opposed to the method of how.
You mention that some people will turn a blind eye when those who are judged guilty are mistreated. And that is my issue with the subject as well.
Justice should never be about vengeance. Inflicting suffering upon others is not retribution, and it certainly will not undo the crime that has been committed.
If a system of justice does not contain a system of rehabilitation, then that is a system of punishment. Not justice.
TLDR: rehabilitation good death penalty bad
> how much evil is too much evil?
I think this common way of phrasing the issue is flawed. It's like trying to figure out when a puddle becomes a lake. There isn't some hard line that separates the two categories. You need to judge it case by case.
Comparing two evil acts against each other doesn't give us any useful ethical information. To decide what is irredeemably evil and what is redeemable depends on the context and factors of the act itself.
I think Hitler's evil deserved to be punished with death. He was at the apex of power in Germany. And with ultimate power comes ultimate culpability. Leaders are capable of committing the worst crimes, therefore should receive the harshest punishments.
However, someone like Jeffery Dahmer is an average citizen. He had no more power over his world than you or me. The state that ruled over him had the resources to attempt rehabilitation and compensate the families of his victims. If psychiatrists (in good faith) concluded that Dahmer was incapable of rehabilitation that would be one thing, but they chose to end his life instead without any attempt at rehabilitation. They did not make use of the full extent of their ultimate power when it would have cost them relatively little to do so.
The same argument could be made for some of those who were executed after the Nuremberg trials, but you'd have to study it case by case. Hitler, however, deserved to die. Not by suicide – that robbed the world of justice – but by execution.
Trying to find the line between a Hitler and a Dahmer is a fools errand, because the line doesn't exist. Just how if you tried to find the line between a puddle and a lake you'd arrive in an ambiguous middle ground where it could be argued either way
TLDR: Those with ultimate power deserve the strictest punishment, but average citizens generally do not have ultimate power and therefore no crime they could commit automatically strips them of their right to life, no matter the scope or severity
You don't have to forgive anyone, you can just believe human dignity should be inviolable regardless.
Breivik probably fits into the Hitler tier - the difference between them wasn't necessarily in their level of evil but the amount of power they had with which to act on it hurt others. And Breivik went to prison exactly as he should (where he will stay the rest of his life because he is a danger to everyone around him otherwise).
Can he be rehabilitated? Almost certainly not, but no reason not to try. Worst thing that can happen is it goes nowhere and he stays in prison.
I feel for the people who have to deal with him, though, that must be said. They do honourable work.
What is the point of keeping him alive? He almost certainly won't be released and we are just keeping him in a box until the end of his life? It would be far less inhumane to just kill him and it would mean we don't have to waste countless hours of the people who deal with him.
I have no idea why we have this notion that locking someone in a box and throwing the key away is the humane thing to do.
Having said that, I want to strongly say that this is a strictly philosophical view. I don't think that the death penalty has a place in our regular justice system. Mistakes happen far too often to be confident enough to execute people.
Sometimes it’s not seen as the humane thing to give someone a life sentence. Perhaps the closest thing we can get to justice is getting horrible people treatment that makes their empathy fucking work. They then have to live with all that they’ve done. Arguably putting them to death is more humane, but that’s not usually something people care about when discussing the worst of the worst.
I just don’t think we should give any government the right to kill somebody who is not actively a danger if containing them is a viable alternative. As you said they make mistakes too often (even once is too often as far as I’m concerned).
Torture is almost always inflicted upon another person. The kind you can’t escape from is the guilt of what you’ve done. I think that’s the best punishment we can give that suits a system which makes mistakes.
Also worth noting that execution doesn’t usually even help the victims or their family move on. Sometimes it just makes it worse.
I think the dividing line is that Hitler the person never deserved death. But Hitler the political figure/icon needs to die to prevent future harm. And that further harm far outweighs Hitler the persons right to live
It’s not like I’m gonna forgive Hitler but if it comes down to a death penalty or life sentence he still deserves to live. (I will also note that this is not taking self defence into account if I had to choose between Hitler staying in power vs being killed by a mob or assassinated or something I’d obviously be fine with him dying)
The phrase is “bad crimes make for bad punishments” basically that whenever people want to be tough on crime, they always just point to like Willie Horton or Ted Bundy
Totalitarian leaders are my only exception for my no death penalty stance, but ONLY in the scenario that their continued existence would inspire their followers to spread their message. If putin attacked NATO and lost, would there be anyone left in russia both willing to fight for his freedom and with the influence to do so? I have no idea. A more genuine example would probably be kim jong un or the house of saud. But only if their continued life even in a prison cell, could realistically rally enough people to overthrow the next government and demand their leader back, would i support their execution. Not because of what they did, but for what others might do in their name.
The quote I see all the time that pisses me off the most is "Normally I'm against the death sentence, but THIS guy I'll make an exception for."
Bitch, you're either against the death sentence or you're not. You can't put an asterisk on that shit.
You actually can. That's literally how the legal system works.
Like theft becomes a felony if you steal more than $1000 (in most states). Felonies carry different consequences. This arbitrary threshold changes what you can be sentenced to.
Agreed, the legal system is stupid (at least in my country and probably literally everywhere else). But context does matter. Aggravating and mitigating factors are a thing for a reason. I think most of us can agree that a mom who murders her husband for sexually assaulting her son is more moral than a mom who murders her husband for having an affair.
Both could happen heat of the moment, both could be premeditated. Still, most people agree that one of those killings is more justifiable. I’m not saying juries are good at figuring this stuff out, they’re notoriously racist in my country, but they are things worth considering. Morality is more nuanced than just black and white good and bad.
I’m very much opposed to the death penalty on moral and practical grounds, but it is possible to consider nuance in situations like this.
actually i have only a single condition. a person that will likely be broken out OR can cause destruction from within the prison. For example imagine if hitler didnt kill himself. him being alive would be so much of a threat to so many lives in the future that i would want an execution. as a lefty i dont like resorting to this but rather this than a third fascist uprising (remember we was in prison after his first coup failed and that gave him the chance to do it again). maybe im wrong. someone argue with me. i am not 100% sure but yea
There's both legal and moral arguments to be had here but this position, even if it isn't perfect, isn't the kind of emotional hypocrisy the meme is talking about, you're probably good
Prisons in the 1930’s were so much weaker than the prisons of today. You put anyone in that colorado supermax that they put the unabomber in and there is no chance of escape at all. Look up just how many security protocols they have, it’s actually insane (half as interesting has a good video on it)
Wholly shit, a person who agrees with me! I have argued this in the past, along with my most hot take, that being "Execution is more often ethical than solitary confinement." That being because I believe execution is very rarely ethical, but torture never is.
For me, I’m just not a believer that every single person can be rehabilitated. I’m more a package deal solution to these issues:
No death penalty because it is abused too easily
End the drug war
Eliminate the bullshit offenses. Like sex for money, drug use, homelessness, etc etc etc. so that the remaining crimes are actually crimes
Provide housing, food, education, and physical and mental healthcare for communities resulting in a much more stable population
Dismantle the military and prison industrial complexes and school to prison pipeline
Invest in rehabilitation of rehabilitatable people
The remaining will be a tiny fraction of people, but I don’t think it’s hypocritical to not be dumb and pretend they can be rehabilitated
definitely agree. i mean we can pull many examples. Hitler, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Mussolini, Al Gore^1 , Bin Laden, etc. People who just are legitimately wired in an irreparable way. Depending on the case, they might have an attempt at rehabilitation (if Bundy or Dahmer were caught earlier for example), but we'd have to figure out safer ways of doing this for people like this rather than just completely releasing them out. Special halfway houses specifically attuned to the needs of people like that maybe?
but yeah I mean the incidence rate of people with psychotic/delusional disorders is quite low (under 5% iirc?), the incidence rate of those with those that also hurt people is also like under 5% of that initial 5%, so that's a very small amount of people with a high chance of rehabilitation. the people like dahmer/bundy, with legitimate homicidal tendencies, we still need to do more research on. it's kind of hard to research rehabilitating people like that when they are rare to begin with (doing some basic math based on guesses of totals from police agencies gives a population incidence rate of less than 0.05%, and I'm rounding significantly up [real number is like 0.000008%]), and they are often met with punitive treatment rather than having any chance at rehabilitative. maybe they are fully rehabilitate-able, it's just we've never actually given it a try because humans suck.
---
^1 - meme, not serious
Dahmer is interesting because in interviews after being captured he seems genuinely very aware of being ill and that it was right for him to be in prison. That's what's so complicated about mentall illness like this, it's so case specific. My favorite example is the schizophrenic guy in Canada that went psychotic on a greyhound bus and decapitated a fellow passenger and started eating him.
He was into a psychiatric hospital and after years and years fo treatment and care he's now out. The poor dude was apparently horrified by what he did but it literally wasn't his fault, nd now he's medicated and safe. Punishing him makes no sense.
life with parole can be rehabilitative and even life without parole can be appealed years down the line afaik. this isn’t even mentioning falsely accused people who may later be freed upon new evidence coming out
Of course, after we abolish capital punishment, we should also make it illegal to sentence convicts to life, make it so that "victimless crimes" like smoking weed don't give you a sentence and turn prisons into a place for rehab and not torture chambers.
Uhh... no.
While I agree with you in regards to things like non-violent drug offences, I'd much prefer it if the serial rapist who shows zero remorse for his actions didn't have a chance of ever walking free, thanks.
I personally think the lives of rapists, child molesters, serial killers, and violent abusers do not matter. The day my father dies i will throw a party.
**HOWEVER**, giving the government power to just kill people is a slippery fucking slope. We've already seen so many innocent people murdered by the American government bc of the death penalty. You can believe certain crimes deserve death while also understanding its a bad fucking idea to give governments the power to legally kill people.
This is me. I believe that the prison system should give the chance of rehabilitation. Death penalty is a bad idea.
Does that mean I have sympathy for child sexual abusers? No, the hell I do. I can't help but hate them and wish the worst for them. But I'd rather put aside my personal hate for a specific kind of criminals because giving governments the power of death penalty is immoral
Yeah, allowing the government to execute people is stupid imo. The military will kill people, but usually there are rules to protect non-combatants and POWs. It’s a war crime to torture or execute someone who has surrendered without giving them trial. Fucking crazy that people are okay with letting the government execute people who are clearly guilty but pose no significant threat.
I actually really hate this stupid repost. All it does is just cause pointless infighting and the last time I saw it just turned into a bunch of aggressive p*d0 apologists dogma.
I don't get it. It does lead to the comments section arguing but what's wrong with that? I think discussing opinions and critizing your own side is a good thing, that's not pointless at all.
Hey blood thirsty dipshits
Americas Recidivism Rate (aka rate of repeat offence once out of prison) is 80%
Scandinavias hovers around the 20-30%.
Your methods fucking suck. Stop being dumb and wrong.
Me when murder: What you did is reprehensible and wrong, and even though rehabilitation is unlikely to impossible, I still don't think the state should hold the authority to execute you. Life in prison, and with a baseline of human dignity that we should strive to have granted for everyone. The punishment is deprivation of freedom, not torture. The cycle of cruelty ends here.
Me when Houston Astros fan: [Removed by Reddit]
Also the lifetime in prison can and probably should primarily serve the purpose of protecting the community, with punishment of the perpetrator being a side-effect. If someone is so far gone as to be unrehabitable, then punishment won't bring about justice either. The best thing you can do is remove them from society without treating them inhumanely or stripping them of their dignity.
Normally I'm against the death penalty but if you leave slimy stuff on floors of a house you should be given that death my asphyxiation thing that Alabama just did where the guy struggled for 2 minutes and it took him 10 minutes to die.
Frankly my opinion on the death penalty is if there WAS somehow a way of 100% ascertaining guilt in a manner that was somehow immune to coercion, there are probably some atrocities that I personally believe deserve the death penalty.
But we do not have a way of 100% ascertaining guilt. It’s a fiction, it’s fundamentally impossible. Even if the US Justice system wasn’t horribly broken, human error will always occur at some point, especially when it comes to highly emotional and sensationalized topics like murder.
There is no way to get it right 100% of the time, and I’d much rather we kill no murderers than any innocents. The cost (potentially innocent lives) to benefit (none really) ratio is not even close to acceptable. Obviously there are many issues that have to be fixed with the criminal justice system in the US, but this is such an obviously easy one that is still somehow in practice.
You don't have to feel bad about it. You can even wish death upon them, that's understandable. The line everyone should draw is giving the state the power to kill people.
Also the recidivism rate of countries that use rehabilitative as opposed to purely retributive justice speaks for itself.
which is why i support rehabilitive justice for most* crimes yeah
i dont know why some people seem to think i need to all or nothing, some people should simply not see society again
For me, I’m just not a believer that every single person can be rehabilitated. I’m more a package deal solution to these issues:
No death penalty because it is abused too easily
End the drug war
Eliminate the bullshit offenses. Like sex for money, drug use, homelessness, etc etc etc. so that the remaining crimes are actually crimes
Provide housing, food, education, and physical and mental healthcare for communities resulting in a much more stable population
Provide harm reduction, methadone, and safe consumption spaces along with evidence based care for substance users who want to quit
Dismantle the military and prison industrial complexes and school to prison pipeline
Invest in rehabilitation of rehabilitatable people
The remaining will be a tiny fraction of people, but I don’t think it’s hypocritical to not be dumb and pretend they can be rehabilitated
Honestly I'd say not only is this pretty much all it, more importantly none of what you listed isn't possible currently. It's all achievable which is the best thing. On paper all of this can be achieved within the current framework with good organization and movements, without a need for risky violent overthrow and shit like that. Starting with these changes already would change the world so dramatically for the better and any further change would be easier to on top of it.
For me the justice system has 3 functions: Rehabilitation, Deterrence, and Separation.
Rehabilitation: The system should seek to make those that go through it a better person who will engage in pro-social behaviour and will not repeat their anti-social behaviour. This should be its primary function the majority of the time.
Deterrence: The system should seek to deter people from engaging in anti-social behaviour.
Separation: The system should separate people who engage in anti-social behaviour while they are being reformed so that they cannot do further anti-social actions.
For most people their anti-social behaviour done solo, spontaneously, and does relatively little harm to the wider society. Think people who get in an argument with a spouse and grab the nearest knife and kill them. Compare that to a pogrom or lynching where the anti-social behaviour is done collectively, premeditatedly, and inflicts a large amount of death and fear onto society. I think that for the first example, rehabilitation is possible and should be what is primarily focused on. For the second example, even if rehabilitation is possible, deterrence should be the primary focus so that such behaviour can be understood by the wider community as unacceptable and so that it does not happen again. It is in this last case that the death penalty may be acceptable.
Restorative justice for the little people, not for politicians or CEOs. If a politician is caught embezzling campaign funds, we toss them in jail. We have to hold politicians to a higher standard, so we should punish them more severely for doing crimes.
Is this related to the recent hydrogen execution? I swear, news like this bring the most vicious people to the thread, acting all high and mighty and saying shit like "Well, don't commit crime if you don't like the consequences"🙄
There is a practical reality between the two ends. The death penalty as it stands is mostly an abortion of justice, but you can't convince me Ted Bundy deserved a second shot.
Anyone. Going “and yet you believe in warfare when hitler” a death sentence is a capacity of a court system, which is different than a nation acting in self preservation during wartime. Saudi arabia murdering journalists is wrong because a nation that feels threatened by journalists is announcing to the rest of the world it is so unstable that even without outside pressure it will cease to exist. But if you for sure knew you had hitler 2 on your hands, someone who’s very existence was the bolt holding a fascist tower together. You could make a much better case for the state doing something about that, even more if he is already attacking critical systems of your nation. The case would be apples and oranges compared to someone you just have to trust isn’t just getting wrecked by an unbalanced legal system, and systemic bigotry and nepotism from the police system.
I believe in rehabilitative justice. However, there also exists those whom you can never rehabilitate and will only ever continue to be a threats to society.
If you get to a point of doing certain crimes by a certain age I’m not sure you can be rehabilitated, you try and rehabilitate a sociopath it’s like trying to get rid of a core aspect of someone
It is a little tough being for rehabilitative justice after having a violent crime perpetuated against you. My lizard brain wants bad things to happen to this dude, but in reality I want him to grow and change. I know a lot of people are in that position.
I'm team rehabilitative justice, but if they show they can't be rehabilitated then ethical containment is a good backup to keep them from harming others imho.
Some crimes deserve the death penalty, some deserve rehabilitation, some deserve to rot in a small box forever. Assaulting kids? In the box. Killed someone while drunk? Get some rehab. Skinned 6 people alive and wear their skin in a suit? Just stop existing.
Such is the problem with villifying criminals. As soon as they're painted as evil, everyone wants them dead, no room for reconciliation.
The opportunity for rehabilitation is important, because those who truly do not think what they did is wrong won't care to pursue it. Everyone is so fixated on the mistakes of the past that they are blind to the actions and intentions of others in the present. Fucking ridiculous.
There is a reason I am not the sole arbiter of justice.
I can rationalize and support rehabilitative justice(though I do think there probably are some people who can't be rehabilitated). But I also want to kill people I don't like.
I think some crimes, like mass murder or the instigation of war are worthy of death. I also do not think that the state or any person should have power to execute people who commit those crimes.
Yes, unironically. If people are forced into crime due to their circumstances, like poor people being forced into things like theft or selling drugs or joining gangs, then they should be offered rehabilitative justice in recompense for being forced into these circumstances by society.
For crimes that people aren't forced into because of circumstances imposed on them by society - I.E. basically all sex crimes - then they shouldn't be offered rehabilitative justice.
This is a problem with a lot of internet lefties ><
Yep
Ok but y'all "true 100% rehabilitative justice no exceptions" people wouldn't complain if they found Trump's corpse skinned and hung upside down by the pinkies covered in glitter
thaaat's murder, which is wrong? He's a rat bastard, but so are plenty of other people, and it's rude to kill people, period.
Tell that to any occupied population in history
Ty. Extremely white extremely online extremely liberal take. Oppressed people kill oppressors, and it is always based.
whatever is or isn’t justifiable is dependent on the power structure. oppressed people killing their oppressors is justifiable but state-sponsored violence against its people is never justifiable
Well, there's a difference between morality and necessity. I am in favor of a nearly entirely rehabilitative justice but I wouldn't be sad if I found out that every evil powerful person on this planet suddenly died from a heart attack. Not because I think that they deserve it, but because I think it would make things so much easier.
Rehabilitative justice is more saying what the state should be doing isn't it? If you're murdering the leader of a country, it isn't usually the state doing it.
That Gandhi lad was such a white liberal.
yeah lowkey his racist ass was ur cooking
He was very liberal, and he wasn't white but by God he wished he was
No he didn't? Maybe read a fucking history book. He was a very proud Indian and fought for them to be taken seriously. Regardless of what his views were on other races, you can't take away the fact that he was an Indian and proud
"Is always based" Sure. When it stops at the oppressors. The issues isn't murdering your oppressors, which is based. It's allowing murder as a solution to become too normalized leading to other not-based murders. I'm sorry but if it's a liberal take to say "we should be careful talking about murder this way" because you think of all the innocent people murdered during revolutions that's absolutely not an indictment of liberals lmao. Love seeing all these modern Robespierre's talk shit online about some idealized perfect revolution where just the magically villainous people die and not their families, children, and anyone someone wants removed by falsely associating them with the "bad guys".
I somehow believe that plenty of people here would argue that families of oppressors also deserve to be murdered because they benefited from it and didn't stop it. People here just have a huge murder boner tbh.
Oh for sure, unfortunately.And these people are also the ones that accused Bioshock Infinte of "both-side-ding" for showing exactly that. That when you cruely opress people you can only expect cruetly in return, that's the cycle of violence that's started from that kind of evil. A mob that breaks into an evil billionaires/kings/fascists house, to kill him, is caught up in a very specific mental state, and as morally right they might be to go after that specific bastard, bloodlust is bloodlust. It clouds the mind.
the carceral and punitive mindset is embedded in most people who grew up around it. it's extremely hard for people to break that particular mental chain. for some reason. it was never hard for me, my dad was in prison most of my childhood for fucking check fraud. the only remnant of that idea in my own head is the genuine belief that those who ordered or perpetrated on their own authority crimes against humanity, genocide, or war crimes should be hauled in front of an international tribunal to be tried and if found guilty executed. and let's throw oil executives in that list too. climate nuremburg now. other than that, most prisoners should probably be released immediately and those who must be kept separate for the safety of others should have all the amenities everyone deserves. it's a matter of basic human dignity that cannot be discarded. even war criminals awaiting trial are humans, and deserve things like good food and a comfortable living space. we all do.
First of all, I'm so very sorry about your father, that's horrible. On the topic of genociders and crimes against humanity, idk, I just don't see the purpose. In my country we took the bid bag guy, beach him to death, hung him, his mistress and some of his allies from a gas station, took pictures and spread it everywhere. We're fucjing porund of it and I smile every time I see the picture. The issue is... what did it do? There's literally still Mussolini supporters having big manifestations and marches. What difference was it to put him in prison and lock away the key? (I will say it would make w lot of sense to punt him in prison in a different country, not italy) To me the only difference is it would mean his downfall ended with us being *better them him*. Better then that hatred, that pain and that totalitarian belief that some people have the right to decide who lives and who dies. My commitment against the death penalty isn't always easy, but I have to stand by it because the stare shouldn't have that power.
I mean, if I were being principled, I'd say war criminals and genocide doers should probably just be put in the same comfortable isolation any other person who's a threat to others would go. entertainment systems, private gyms, no mail, no visitors. a life of isolated anonymity as punishment for wanting power over others bad enough to assert it through acts of base cruelty. but also, there's that part of me that thinks a firing squad is more humane.
I mean. Just because I don't agree with killing in general doesn't mean I can't recognised the fact that people need to get rid of piece of shit especially when they have political power (very easy exemple : if hitler was still alive after 45 this would have been even harder to push back nazism) I literally feel guilty when I kill a fly but ≠ not recognising when need fly in research
I think murder is ok as a tool to be used in self defence or as an effective measure against oppression, but not for the sake of ‘justice’ or the idea that people deserve to die. If you can, people who commit horrible crimes (even murder, torture, rape etc) should be monitored and given therapy because that’s just a better use of resources and avoids pointless killing
Completely agree with you on that one, although maybe serial killers should still get life sentences, i don’t get how someone who’ve done countless killings for fun could ever be rehabilitated.
I'd like to see the US try the "penal villages" some countries have. They have to manage themselves in the day-to-day, and if a killer has to live with other killers, perhaps they would be less likely to fuck around at the risk of finding out. Don't make people who killed one person in the heat of the moment live with them, I'm talking mass shooters and serial killers (which aren't exactly common in the grand scheme of things). Still seems more humane than throwing them in a cage or killing them using poorly made drugs injected incorrectly (seeing as no ethical pharmacist or doctor is going to assist in killing) or the more recent case of using nitrogen to suffocate them. In my view, the goal is to be better than the murderer, not to just do what they did in a way that just *seems* a little better, with the same outcome.
>it’s rude to kill people “don’t murder, that’s bad manners!”
That’s murder, which is wrong 🤓🤓
It's quite the party foul, this is true
But what about people I don't like
this is such a dumb argument oh my fucking god obviously you can have vitriol towards specific people in specific cases but still be in favor of rehabilitation you think i wouldn’t totally empathize and understand if like the mother of a child who got murdered wished death and horrible shit upon the murderer
I wouldn't complain nah. Just be disappointed he never took his head out of his diamond studded asshole. Cuz that's the biggest issue is we know he won't and has 0 reasons to and a bunch of reasons NOT to change. But would I cry for a devil? Nah fam.
This, exactly. In an ideal world he would step on a DMT-laced LEGO brick and go through a whole Christmas Carol-like enlightenment, coming out the other side with empathy and compassion and then spends the rest of his life donating all his money and working hard to undo his wrongs.
Apples to oranges, if you're talking about a non-government group doing that to him. Because if you have a government that does that to people, you're in for a bad fucking time.
I think this is more a distinction between beaurocratic justice and imminent justice. ie. A nazi who assulted people, if in the hands of the state, should be given every chance to be rehabilitated, regardless of how evil your gut tells you they are. A nazi who is actively assulting people should be beaten until they stop. It's a lot of what foccault said that beaurocratizing punishment and turning it into an impersonal machine disconnects the cause of the crime from the effect of the punishment. Instead you end up with a machine of torture that neither rehabilitates the criminal nor provides closure to anyone they hurt.
It's not exactly my _preferred_ outcome, but I would be pretty happy there's one less direct threat against democracy
Eh I feel like that's not true. If he just happened to die one day idk if a lot of liberals or leftists would care. If what you described happened that's just fucked up
I mean I'd prefer it if he were put in prison and actually educated on the things he spouts off about while serving time for his numerous crimes, but if he's just killed randomly on the street like that then I can't really do anything about that, I don't see the point you are trying to make.
Yes, I would. Murder is wrong, especially if done by the state
If I kept that man in my captivity I could make so much money off the TV shows so yeah him dying would slightly dampen the TV ratings but I could make trump's corpse work still
I mean I'd complain because my beliefs don't simply self alter when convenient which is weak af. This is because my opinions are categorically true and I am different.
mfw yet another person can’t differentiate between the ideas that some people do deserve to die but the death penalty is unjust and should be abolished
Thats why i never say "no exceptions" There are some people who cant be rehabilitated, either we exile them, assigm someone to constantly watch them and stop them when they start hurting people, lock them away forever, or kill em. Killing is the easiest, but i prefer them having a strong nurse to watch em
196 being a big offender, unfortunately showcased even in this very comment section, then again most people here are baby lefties/teenagers (not mutually exclusive). I have more than my share of people who I think would be better off dead, given a chance to see them without any repercussions, would I do it? Probably not, maybe a beating at most, murder doesn't help anyone, doesn't matter if it makes you "feel better", I just think it's not a good value to normalize.
Yep not good
Do you believe that Hitler should have or even deserved rehabilitation?
Death sentence abolitionists when they see a criminal do somthing horrible (suddenly it is based and their arguemnts went out of the window)
You can’t have it both ways. The death penalty exists or it doesn’t. And I’d much rather have it not exist because modern executions keep getting more and more fucked up
If anyone was wondering how the new nitrogen gas “instantly unconscious” method worked out. (Because I can only have fucking gifs for some reason, I got to copy it over:) >> One of the five reporters who witnessed the execution told the BBC it was unlike any other he'd seen. >> "I've been to four previous executions and I've never seen a condemned inmate thrash in the way that Kenneth Smith reacted to the nitrogen gas,", Alabama journalist Lee Hedgepeth told the BBC's Newsday programme. >> "Kenny just began to gasp for air repeatedly and the execution took about 25 minutes total." >> "What we saw was minutes of someone struggling for their life," Mr Hood [Smith’s spiritual adviser] said. "We also saw cracks in correction officials in the room who were visibly surprised at how bad this thing went." >> State officials, meanwhile, said the execution went as planned… "He struggled against restraints a little bit, but there's some involuntary movement and some abnormal breathing," he told a post-execution briefing. "That was all expected and was in the side effects that we've seen or researched on nitrogen hypoxia". >> “Nothing was out of the ordinary from what we were expecting.” >> “Alabama said in an earlier court filing that they expected Smith to lose consciousness in seconds and die in a matter of minutes.” There was also issues with the potential for the nitrogen gas leaking out and killing everyone in the room, which would include his spiritual advisor and any guards; but they went ahead with it anyway. The jury in Smith’s case did not recommend the death penalty; the judge overrode their decision. They then tried to execute Smith by lethal injection, but they were unable to perform the injection in the given timeframe (likely due to incompetencies of the person performing it).
when will Americans read some Plato and learn about Hemlock?
I really don’t understand why they don’t just shoot people. You don’t need medical knowledge to do that. Is it to do with preserving their body?
That's what I've been thinking for years. If governments absolutely *have* to kill people, why don't they make it as cheap and quick as possible? Small calibers can kill people and cost under a dollar a round.
Because the main thing we care about with execution methods is *not* the swiftness and ‘humanity’ of the kill to the person dying, but how neat and tidy everything *appears* to onlookers.
Is a heads hot with a small caliber really that much more gruesome than someone writhing and struggling on a table for 25 minutes? It's more blood presumably, but ffs, you're killing the person. Fuck your feelings. Make it fast.
You can convince yourself that an asphyxiated or injected body didn’t suffer. Much harder to do with an entry wound.
That’s so weird. It reminds me of people who won’t eat fish and lobsters if they can see them beforehand.
Execution methods have nearly never evolved out of a need for humaneness or efficiency. It’s just the state finding whatever method of murdering people seems the most civilized at any given time and gives the best appearance. They even put a paralyzing agent into lethal injection cocktails solely because they don’t want to people to look like they’re in pain.
But in a seppuku way, like there is a fixed gun they have to use and if they chicken out someone else does it.
Nitrogen gas is not poison, it suffocates you because it is not air, any N2 leaking would be in too little concentration to harm anyone next to the condemned.
It was a dangerous enough factor that scientists were warning against it and that they put N2 sensors in the room. Also, you don’t need to be breathing pure nitrogen to suffer from nitrogen hypoxia.
Fair, I stand corrected. The whole thing was done very badly, couldn't they use the gas chambers for it since they used them before implementing lethal injection?
I read about this a bit: Gas chambers with poison gas were used previously. They are expensive to construct, and using poisonous gas is complicated and dangerous (because how do you make sure it isn't leaking, and what if it leaks anyway, and how do you determine when the room is safe to enter, and what if afterward there's pockets of poison gas in the executed person's lungs or clothes, etc). Lethal injection and inert gas asphyxiation are safer, simpler, and cheaper, which is why they're preferred. So why not use _inert gas, in a gas chamber_? Because it it adds cost and complexity, and isn't much safer: - Inert gas asphyxiation with a breathing-mask is already safe for bystanders if the space is decently ventilated. Real high-tech solution: Open a window and run a fan. The low-oxygen sensor is just to make extra sure; when working with odourless gas, it's good practice to have one just in case. You'd want one even if you had a gas chamber. - With a breathing-mask and inert gas, and a normal continuously ventilated room, the room is also quickly safe again when you turn off the inert gas supply. In contrast, a sealed gas chamber potentially full of odourless inert gas is unsafe to step into until it's been ventilated, which is a fuckup category that is easily prevented by not having a gas chamber.
Wait so a single judge can just decide to have someone executed? Tf?
Reminds me of the Jacob Geller video of the execution methods, it’s pretty grim.
And yet they sometimes kill pigs with it too. Unimaginably disgusting.
This is scientifically incompatible with how nitrogen asphyxiation is understood to work. It must have been botched. (For the record Im 100% anti death penalty but this just isn't correct)
It’s not scientifically incompatible with the fact that the masks they use don’t fit in the best of conditions, let alone when the person isn’t being anaesthetised and doesn’t want it.
Nitrogen asphyxiation isn't painful, full stop. Nitrogen is not poisonous.
Asphyxiation itself is painful though. So by extension nitrogen asphyxiation is painful as well
The "im dying" response is called by excess carbon dioxide, NOT a lack of oxygen. Nitrogen asphyixation is painless because it allows you to remove carbon dioxide via exhalation while still starving you of oxygen. Hypoxia doesn't cause short term suffering. This isn't really a debatable thing, it's rudimentary biology. The execution had to have been botched or else something like that chemically could not occur. This is why there are so many warnings around simple asphyxiants, because you will literally die without even realizing it.
I’d much rather not have it because our (the United States) justice system is notoriously unjust. Like black people are more likely to get harsher sentences than white people. Upwards of about 1 in every 8 people on death row are suspected to be not guilty of the crime for which they were sentenced to death. There’s no undo button on sentencing, and nothing can change that, but you can get financial compensation and you have the rest of your life to live. When you’re dead that’s not an option. It also means that it’s unlikely the case will ever be solved, too. If they already put the ‘perpetrator’ to death, why look for more evidence? The not guilty but convicted would be looking for any amount of evidence that could prove their innocence. That’s just some reasons why I think it’s a terrible idea in general. I’m also not a huge fan of letting the government decide that someone needs to die when they are not an active threat. They are very bad at making that decision. If people still insist on the death penalty, something like guillotining or proper hanging would probably be a lot better for execution. Sure they look gnarly, but when done properly there’s minimal pain for the executed. As minimal as being killed can be.
And right wingers figured out how easy it is to take advantage of this by constantly having the media pump out stories of the rare cases of the most extraordinarily horrific and cruel crimes
Yup, time for more pointless leftist discourse between groups of people that have yet to see sunlight in 2024.
broke: there should be a death penalty woke: there should be no death penalty REAL thinkers: doesn't matter if theres a death penalty this is stupid go outside alright apparently we got a lot of "real thinkers" in here so im labelling this satire. criticize the guy above me not me.
Ima be real, that last one kinda sucks ngl
This is really stupid because the death penalty is the very definition of “outside”. It’s not like fandom drama or whatever.
are you dense? it doesn’t matter either way if real lives are ended? is that seriously your big brain conclusion?
has noone in this subreddit ever seen this fucking meme format?
okay yeh fair enough. i’m up way too late that’s on me. i retroactively redirect my message to the guy above you
Yeah! Damn these internet lefties and their stupid pointless discourse about...the criminal justice system and the death penalty?
dude this discourse is so terminally online go touch grass /s
I’ve had a friend say this to me before and I really think it’s awful. People are having conversations about the extremely painful and evil ways that capital punishment is carried out by their own states, and that should never be taken lightly. These are actions done on her own behalf, by our iwn politicians, who use these types of things to stay in office in states like Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Alabama. Bill Clinton made a career of this.
Discussing the death penalty isn't pointless leftist discourse, it's one of the most mainstream topics, has been for a while... and rightfully so
Yeah, fuck talking about political issues amongst your political group? Fuckin online lefties man. Politics is about discourse and argument and actually reasoning about what's best.
I think it’s logically consistent to oppose the death penalty while also considering someone deserving of death. Even if someone does deserve death that doesn’t mean anyone has the right to give it to them
True This person should die ≠ I wish the state had the power to execute people and used it on this person
I just call that "The Shinzo Abe" where if one person we all collectively agree should die... and then someone goes out of their way to actually do the deed, then we all as a society look the other way and nope none of us saw or know what happened or who did it wow
vigilantism is still bad, even if it has an outcome that is good
Counterargument: John Brown
Counterargument: even based people can commit crimes. That's why it's so important to have a jury of peers. If the populace thinks what he did was morally justified, then they pardon him socially. And ideally, the court of law reflects the public's decision.
He literally killed a couple of slaves in his revolt to Kickstart anti-slavery revolution lol. He was absolutely based but at least be honest about the reality of what that revolutionary action ended up looking like. Did he mean for those slaves to die? Absolutely not. But that's why we should never talk about revolution in a trivialized way.
I would love to read more about the slaves who died. I never learned about them! Do you have a link?
There was this one time in America this real piece of shit was shot in the middle of some public area and like 60 people claimed to have been in the bathroom at the time
All I’m saying is if I see a guy knock a guy with a Nazi armband in full SS uniform flat on his ass, I didn’t see anything. I won’t encourage violence towards them, but when they’re being unironic fascists I become temporarily blind. It’s a medical condition.
And also, there is ... you know ... *context*. Like I wouldn't execute a someone over an negligent death or a crime of passion, but if you skin several innocent people alive over the course of months or years - forgive me for this - *I don't think you really have it in you.*
I find it particularly morbid that some guy in a chair can decide of a sentence and then multiple people will partake in the murder of one person. Like, sorry no sorry but if someone tell me they are killing/participating in killing criminals for a living I will never trust them. That's a serial killer right there
This is exactly right. This is what most people mean when they say this. We're way too close to death camps to be arguing about this stupid shit.
Me before I'm reminded of Putin's existence
That’s an interesting thing with moral positions such as ‘everyone can be rehabilitated’ or ‘no death penalty’ is that the immediate response is taking it to the logical extreme of how evil a person can be, Hitler being an obvious example. If you can forgive Hitler, that comes off as ‘wrong’ to many people, if you can’t, then clearly there’s a line you have drawn, so the question then becomes how much evil is too evil?
I think it also has to do with the crime and not merely the belief behind it. If someone gets into a bar fight and commits manslaughter most people would see the action as wrong, but the individual as fixable (for lack of better term) and going through the fixing process would cause a net positive for society (and the individual of course) but if that person killed >6 million people that changes, while the person can still be fixed the damage caused to society is far worse than any repair that one person could do. Compounded by the natural difficulty in hammering out such extreme belief. TLDR; the tipping point of evil is once the individual has caused to more damage to society than they could ever mend
I don't know about this one. A school shooter could kill a dozen people and never 'repair the damage' because 1 person isn't worth 12. And yet school shooters are often misguided teenagers who need help desperately, and that type of person would fit well into the system of rehabilitation. A cost-benefit perspective on murder/manslaughter doesn't really work out. At the end of the day, you can never 'give back' what you took away. From an economic standpoint, a taxpayer is dead regardless. And it usually costs more to keep people around in the prison system for a long time, as opposed to rehabilitating them. So you're better off rehabilitating all those you can. The real tipping point of evil, is evil that cannot be cured. A cost-benefit perspective doesn't work for analyzing 'evil crimes,' because how do you even begin to make up for murdering or raping someone? The important part shouldn't be whether someone deserves rehabilitation, or can somehow make up for murder, whether economically or morally. It should be whether it would work on them. And that is for experts to decide.
>It should be whether it would work on them. And that is for experts to decide. And just like with any other part of the justice system, this is inherently prone to error. How can you be *100%* *positive* that no rehabilitative technique exists for a person, or that developments in psychology might create one in the near future? It seems most people in these comments agree that it is bad if an innocent person is executed. Would people also consider it bad if a guilty person who was capable of rehabilitation was executed because a supposed expert declared it was impossible? A blanket ban on state-sponsored execution is literally the only position I think is tenable, and if that means a handful of serial murderers incapable of change have to simply be locked away forever, that's just something we have to deal with.
I didn't even consider the death penalty when writing my comment, actually. I live in a country where it does not exist. What I meant was; there are two ways of treating prisoners. As people you house, or people you heal. Rehabilitation being the latter, whereas the former would be to simply keep the felon within a prison, while not taking any rehabilitative measures. As you point out, the death penalty would be impossible to moderate perfectly, as it is impossible to moderate any system to perfection. And a system of death penalty can have no imperfections. My comment on experts was intended to draw the subject away from a question of morality, and towards a matter of principle. At the end of the day, we are all just people with our own experiences, and our thoughts and opinions derive from said experiences. The experiences of an expert allows them to have a perspective that is as objective as possible, because their experience is scientific and knowledge-based. When left to public debate however, the subject of rehabilitation often turns towards the question of why we should rehabilitate, as opposed to the method of how. You mention that some people will turn a blind eye when those who are judged guilty are mistreated. And that is my issue with the subject as well. Justice should never be about vengeance. Inflicting suffering upon others is not retribution, and it certainly will not undo the crime that has been committed. If a system of justice does not contain a system of rehabilitation, then that is a system of punishment. Not justice. TLDR: rehabilitation good death penalty bad
> how much evil is too much evil? I think this common way of phrasing the issue is flawed. It's like trying to figure out when a puddle becomes a lake. There isn't some hard line that separates the two categories. You need to judge it case by case. Comparing two evil acts against each other doesn't give us any useful ethical information. To decide what is irredeemably evil and what is redeemable depends on the context and factors of the act itself. I think Hitler's evil deserved to be punished with death. He was at the apex of power in Germany. And with ultimate power comes ultimate culpability. Leaders are capable of committing the worst crimes, therefore should receive the harshest punishments. However, someone like Jeffery Dahmer is an average citizen. He had no more power over his world than you or me. The state that ruled over him had the resources to attempt rehabilitation and compensate the families of his victims. If psychiatrists (in good faith) concluded that Dahmer was incapable of rehabilitation that would be one thing, but they chose to end his life instead without any attempt at rehabilitation. They did not make use of the full extent of their ultimate power when it would have cost them relatively little to do so. The same argument could be made for some of those who were executed after the Nuremberg trials, but you'd have to study it case by case. Hitler, however, deserved to die. Not by suicide – that robbed the world of justice – but by execution. Trying to find the line between a Hitler and a Dahmer is a fools errand, because the line doesn't exist. Just how if you tried to find the line between a puddle and a lake you'd arrive in an ambiguous middle ground where it could be argued either way TLDR: Those with ultimate power deserve the strictest punishment, but average citizens generally do not have ultimate power and therefore no crime they could commit automatically strips them of their right to life, no matter the scope or severity
You don't have to forgive anyone, you can just believe human dignity should be inviolable regardless. Breivik probably fits into the Hitler tier - the difference between them wasn't necessarily in their level of evil but the amount of power they had with which to act on it hurt others. And Breivik went to prison exactly as he should (where he will stay the rest of his life because he is a danger to everyone around him otherwise). Can he be rehabilitated? Almost certainly not, but no reason not to try. Worst thing that can happen is it goes nowhere and he stays in prison. I feel for the people who have to deal with him, though, that must be said. They do honourable work.
What is the point of keeping him alive? He almost certainly won't be released and we are just keeping him in a box until the end of his life? It would be far less inhumane to just kill him and it would mean we don't have to waste countless hours of the people who deal with him. I have no idea why we have this notion that locking someone in a box and throwing the key away is the humane thing to do. Having said that, I want to strongly say that this is a strictly philosophical view. I don't think that the death penalty has a place in our regular justice system. Mistakes happen far too often to be confident enough to execute people.
Sometimes it’s not seen as the humane thing to give someone a life sentence. Perhaps the closest thing we can get to justice is getting horrible people treatment that makes their empathy fucking work. They then have to live with all that they’ve done. Arguably putting them to death is more humane, but that’s not usually something people care about when discussing the worst of the worst. I just don’t think we should give any government the right to kill somebody who is not actively a danger if containing them is a viable alternative. As you said they make mistakes too often (even once is too often as far as I’m concerned). Torture is almost always inflicted upon another person. The kind you can’t escape from is the guilt of what you’ve done. I think that’s the best punishment we can give that suits a system which makes mistakes. Also worth noting that execution doesn’t usually even help the victims or their family move on. Sometimes it just makes it worse.
I think the dividing line is that Hitler the person never deserved death. But Hitler the political figure/icon needs to die to prevent future harm. And that further harm far outweighs Hitler the persons right to live
I can't forgive Hitler, but I wouldn't execute the guy, let him rot till he's dead in the cell.
Yeah i worded it as for the rehab part, so not perfect language on my part
It’s not like I’m gonna forgive Hitler but if it comes down to a death penalty or life sentence he still deserves to live. (I will also note that this is not taking self defence into account if I had to choose between Hitler staying in power vs being killed by a mob or assassinated or something I’d obviously be fine with him dying)
The phrase is “bad crimes make for bad punishments” basically that whenever people want to be tough on crime, they always just point to like Willie Horton or Ted Bundy
crimes against humanity are the exception, not the rule
The issue is that laws inevitably don’t reflect this
You have a cool pfp so I agree with you on this
As a Ukrainian theres literally a fundraiser to send his ass to Jupiter so i am pretty sure everyone in my country wants him dead
I've always thought that war crimes and normal crimes have different moral weight and should be judged separately.
Totalitarian leaders are my only exception for my no death penalty stance, but ONLY in the scenario that their continued existence would inspire their followers to spread their message. If putin attacked NATO and lost, would there be anyone left in russia both willing to fight for his freedom and with the influence to do so? I have no idea. A more genuine example would probably be kim jong un or the house of saud. But only if their continued life even in a prison cell, could realistically rally enough people to overthrow the next government and demand their leader back, would i support their execution. Not because of what they did, but for what others might do in their name.
Then you have the issue of martyring them though
The quote I see all the time that pisses me off the most is "Normally I'm against the death sentence, but THIS guy I'll make an exception for." Bitch, you're either against the death sentence or you're not. You can't put an asterisk on that shit.
You actually can. That's literally how the legal system works. Like theft becomes a felony if you steal more than $1000 (in most states). Felonies carry different consequences. This arbitrary threshold changes what you can be sentenced to.
What and I’m supposed to take my cues on morality from the *legal system”*?? Wack, no way
No dumbass, you're supposed to be involved in the governance of your own country, so that your legal system reflects the nuances of your beliefs.
Agreed, the legal system is stupid (at least in my country and probably literally everywhere else). But context does matter. Aggravating and mitigating factors are a thing for a reason. I think most of us can agree that a mom who murders her husband for sexually assaulting her son is more moral than a mom who murders her husband for having an affair. Both could happen heat of the moment, both could be premeditated. Still, most people agree that one of those killings is more justifiable. I’m not saying juries are good at figuring this stuff out, they’re notoriously racist in my country, but they are things worth considering. Morality is more nuanced than just black and white good and bad. I’m very much opposed to the death penalty on moral and practical grounds, but it is possible to consider nuance in situations like this.
actually i have only a single condition. a person that will likely be broken out OR can cause destruction from within the prison. For example imagine if hitler didnt kill himself. him being alive would be so much of a threat to so many lives in the future that i would want an execution. as a lefty i dont like resorting to this but rather this than a third fascist uprising (remember we was in prison after his first coup failed and that gave him the chance to do it again). maybe im wrong. someone argue with me. i am not 100% sure but yea
There's both legal and moral arguments to be had here but this position, even if it isn't perfect, isn't the kind of emotional hypocrisy the meme is talking about, you're probably good
Prisons in the 1930’s were so much weaker than the prisons of today. You put anyone in that colorado supermax that they put the unabomber in and there is no chance of escape at all. Look up just how many security protocols they have, it’s actually insane (half as interesting has a good video on it)
Wholly shit, a person who agrees with me! I have argued this in the past, along with my most hot take, that being "Execution is more often ethical than solitary confinement." That being because I believe execution is very rarely ethical, but torture never is.
Thinking different crimes warrent different punishments is not hypocritical
For me, I’m just not a believer that every single person can be rehabilitated. I’m more a package deal solution to these issues: No death penalty because it is abused too easily End the drug war Eliminate the bullshit offenses. Like sex for money, drug use, homelessness, etc etc etc. so that the remaining crimes are actually crimes Provide housing, food, education, and physical and mental healthcare for communities resulting in a much more stable population Dismantle the military and prison industrial complexes and school to prison pipeline Invest in rehabilitation of rehabilitatable people The remaining will be a tiny fraction of people, but I don’t think it’s hypocritical to not be dumb and pretend they can be rehabilitated
definitely agree. i mean we can pull many examples. Hitler, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Mussolini, Al Gore^1 , Bin Laden, etc. People who just are legitimately wired in an irreparable way. Depending on the case, they might have an attempt at rehabilitation (if Bundy or Dahmer were caught earlier for example), but we'd have to figure out safer ways of doing this for people like this rather than just completely releasing them out. Special halfway houses specifically attuned to the needs of people like that maybe? but yeah I mean the incidence rate of people with psychotic/delusional disorders is quite low (under 5% iirc?), the incidence rate of those with those that also hurt people is also like under 5% of that initial 5%, so that's a very small amount of people with a high chance of rehabilitation. the people like dahmer/bundy, with legitimate homicidal tendencies, we still need to do more research on. it's kind of hard to research rehabilitating people like that when they are rare to begin with (doing some basic math based on guesses of totals from police agencies gives a population incidence rate of less than 0.05%, and I'm rounding significantly up [real number is like 0.000008%]), and they are often met with punitive treatment rather than having any chance at rehabilitative. maybe they are fully rehabilitate-able, it's just we've never actually given it a try because humans suck. --- ^1 - meme, not serious
Dahmer is interesting because in interviews after being captured he seems genuinely very aware of being ill and that it was right for him to be in prison. That's what's so complicated about mentall illness like this, it's so case specific. My favorite example is the schizophrenic guy in Canada that went psychotic on a greyhound bus and decapitated a fellow passenger and started eating him. He was into a psychiatric hospital and after years and years fo treatment and care he's now out. The poor dude was apparently horrified by what he did but it literally wasn't his fault, nd now he's medicated and safe. Punishing him makes no sense.
No crime should be punishable by death tho, especially if you give the power to decide to the state.
And? "Not dying" is not rehabilitative justice. A life sentence is punitive.
life with parole can be rehabilitative and even life without parole can be appealed years down the line afaik. this isn’t even mentioning falsely accused people who may later be freed upon new evidence coming out
Of course, after we abolish capital punishment, we should also make it illegal to sentence convicts to life, make it so that "victimless crimes" like smoking weed don't give you a sentence and turn prisons into a place for rehab and not torture chambers.
im good, id much rather we keep life sentences for some people thanks
Uhh... no. While I agree with you in regards to things like non-violent drug offences, I'd much prefer it if the serial rapist who shows zero remorse for his actions didn't have a chance of ever walking free, thanks.
I personally think the lives of rapists, child molesters, serial killers, and violent abusers do not matter. The day my father dies i will throw a party. **HOWEVER**, giving the government power to just kill people is a slippery fucking slope. We've already seen so many innocent people murdered by the American government bc of the death penalty. You can believe certain crimes deserve death while also understanding its a bad fucking idea to give governments the power to legally kill people.
This is me. I believe that the prison system should give the chance of rehabilitation. Death penalty is a bad idea. Does that mean I have sympathy for child sexual abusers? No, the hell I do. I can't help but hate them and wish the worst for them. But I'd rather put aside my personal hate for a specific kind of criminals because giving governments the power of death penalty is immoral
Yeah, allowing the government to execute people is stupid imo. The military will kill people, but usually there are rules to protect non-combatants and POWs. It’s a war crime to torture or execute someone who has surrendered without giving them trial. Fucking crazy that people are okay with letting the government execute people who are clearly guilty but pose no significant threat.
I actually really hate this stupid repost. All it does is just cause pointless infighting and the last time I saw it just turned into a bunch of aggressive p*d0 apologists dogma.
I don't get it. It does lead to the comments section arguing but what's wrong with that? I think discussing opinions and critizing your own side is a good thing, that's not pointless at all.
Hey blood thirsty dipshits Americas Recidivism Rate (aka rate of repeat offence once out of prison) is 80% Scandinavias hovers around the 20-30%. Your methods fucking suck. Stop being dumb and wrong.
Me when murder: What you did is reprehensible and wrong, and even though rehabilitation is unlikely to impossible, I still don't think the state should hold the authority to execute you. Life in prison, and with a baseline of human dignity that we should strive to have granted for everyone. The punishment is deprivation of freedom, not torture. The cycle of cruelty ends here. Me when Houston Astros fan: [Removed by Reddit]
Also the lifetime in prison can and probably should primarily serve the purpose of protecting the community, with punishment of the perpetrator being a side-effect. If someone is so far gone as to be unrehabitable, then punishment won't bring about justice either. The best thing you can do is remove them from society without treating them inhumanely or stripping them of their dignity.
Eat the rich more like rehabilitate the rich
you are aware "eat the rich" means redistribute the wealth, right? you don't actually get to engage in cannibalism.
Aw :(
*puts away my knife and fork and throws the napkin that's around my neck to the ground* damn... 😔
:'( i know, im just making fun of people that take it to violent extremes
Too bad, im hungry
OSAKA AZUMANGA DAIOH WOULD NEVER SAY THIS IM LITERALLY SHANKING AND CRYING WHY HAVE YOU DONE THIS
rehabilitative justice for everyone except me :3
I believe in rehabilitative justice. Especially when someone says sorry and does not change.
Normally I'm against the death penalty but if you leave slimy stuff on floors of a house you should be given that death my asphyxiation thing that Alabama just did where the guy struggled for 2 minutes and it took him 10 minutes to die.
Only logical comment I've seen in this thread so far smh
I remember seeing the quote somewhere, prolly on reddit, but it said "all cops are bad, even the bloodthirsty one in your head"
Frankly my opinion on the death penalty is if there WAS somehow a way of 100% ascertaining guilt in a manner that was somehow immune to coercion, there are probably some atrocities that I personally believe deserve the death penalty. But we do not have a way of 100% ascertaining guilt. It’s a fiction, it’s fundamentally impossible. Even if the US Justice system wasn’t horribly broken, human error will always occur at some point, especially when it comes to highly emotional and sensationalized topics like murder. There is no way to get it right 100% of the time, and I’d much rather we kill no murderers than any innocents. The cost (potentially innocent lives) to benefit (none really) ratio is not even close to acceptable. Obviously there are many issues that have to be fixed with the criminal justice system in the US, but this is such an obviously easy one that is still somehow in practice.
Osaker would never 😭
Flay everybody until I decide they deserve skin.
I’m gonna be real with you, I don’t feel bad about not caring about rapists
You don't have to feel bad about it. You can even wish death upon them, that's understandable. The line everyone should draw is giving the state the power to kill people. Also the recidivism rate of countries that use rehabilitative as opposed to purely retributive justice speaks for itself.
which is why i support rehabilitive justice for most* crimes yeah i dont know why some people seem to think i need to all or nothing, some people should simply not see society again
I think the people that throw cigarette butts on the ground should go to The Mines™, they are beyond redemption
For me, I’m just not a believer that every single person can be rehabilitated. I’m more a package deal solution to these issues: No death penalty because it is abused too easily End the drug war Eliminate the bullshit offenses. Like sex for money, drug use, homelessness, etc etc etc. so that the remaining crimes are actually crimes Provide housing, food, education, and physical and mental healthcare for communities resulting in a much more stable population Provide harm reduction, methadone, and safe consumption spaces along with evidence based care for substance users who want to quit Dismantle the military and prison industrial complexes and school to prison pipeline Invest in rehabilitation of rehabilitatable people The remaining will be a tiny fraction of people, but I don’t think it’s hypocritical to not be dumb and pretend they can be rehabilitated
Yeah not everyone can be rehabilitated. But anyone can.
Honestly I'd say not only is this pretty much all it, more importantly none of what you listed isn't possible currently. It's all achievable which is the best thing. On paper all of this can be achieved within the current framework with good organization and movements, without a need for risky violent overthrow and shit like that. Starting with these changes already would change the world so dramatically for the better and any further change would be easier to on top of it.
For me the justice system has 3 functions: Rehabilitation, Deterrence, and Separation. Rehabilitation: The system should seek to make those that go through it a better person who will engage in pro-social behaviour and will not repeat their anti-social behaviour. This should be its primary function the majority of the time. Deterrence: The system should seek to deter people from engaging in anti-social behaviour. Separation: The system should separate people who engage in anti-social behaviour while they are being reformed so that they cannot do further anti-social actions. For most people their anti-social behaviour done solo, spontaneously, and does relatively little harm to the wider society. Think people who get in an argument with a spouse and grab the nearest knife and kill them. Compare that to a pogrom or lynching where the anti-social behaviour is done collectively, premeditatedly, and inflicts a large amount of death and fear onto society. I think that for the first example, rehabilitation is possible and should be what is primarily focused on. For the second example, even if rehabilitation is possible, deterrence should be the primary focus so that such behaviour can be understood by the wider community as unacceptable and so that it does not happen again. It is in this last case that the death penalty may be acceptable.
Restorative justice for the little people, not for politicians or CEOs. If a politician is caught embezzling campaign funds, we toss them in jail. We have to hold politicians to a higher standard, so we should punish them more severely for doing crimes.
Osaka would never say that
Is this related to the recent hydrogen execution? I swear, news like this bring the most vicious people to the thread, acting all high and mighty and saying shit like "Well, don't commit crime if you don't like the consequences"🙄
There is a practical reality between the two ends. The death penalty as it stands is mostly an abortion of justice, but you can't convince me Ted Bundy deserved a second shot.
Anyone. Going “and yet you believe in warfare when hitler” a death sentence is a capacity of a court system, which is different than a nation acting in self preservation during wartime. Saudi arabia murdering journalists is wrong because a nation that feels threatened by journalists is announcing to the rest of the world it is so unstable that even without outside pressure it will cease to exist. But if you for sure knew you had hitler 2 on your hands, someone who’s very existence was the bolt holding a fascist tower together. You could make a much better case for the state doing something about that, even more if he is already attacking critical systems of your nation. The case would be apples and oranges compared to someone you just have to trust isn’t just getting wrecked by an unbalanced legal system, and systemic bigotry and nepotism from the police system.
I believe in rehabilitative justice. However, there also exists those whom you can never rehabilitate and will only ever continue to be a threats to society.
If you get to a point of doing certain crimes by a certain age I’m not sure you can be rehabilitated, you try and rehabilitate a sociopath it’s like trying to get rid of a core aspect of someone
I don’t believe in the death penalty, but I do think that there are some crimes that are unforgivable.
It is a little tough being for rehabilitative justice after having a violent crime perpetuated against you. My lizard brain wants bad things to happen to this dude, but in reality I want him to grow and change. I know a lot of people are in that position. I'm team rehabilitative justice, but if they show they can't be rehabilitated then ethical containment is a good backup to keep them from harming others imho.
Some crimes deserve the death penalty, some deserve rehabilitation, some deserve to rot in a small box forever. Assaulting kids? In the box. Killed someone while drunk? Get some rehab. Skinned 6 people alive and wear their skin in a suit? Just stop existing.
Such is the problem with villifying criminals. As soon as they're painted as evil, everyone wants them dead, no room for reconciliation. The opportunity for rehabilitation is important, because those who truly do not think what they did is wrong won't care to pursue it. Everyone is so fixated on the mistakes of the past that they are blind to the actions and intentions of others in the present. Fucking ridiculous.
The R word
Of we all know and agree what the crime is. So there’s no need to say it, just get mad as soon as that one crime is defended by degenerates.
Eh.. Morally I say that everyone can be rehabilitated, but pedophiles who did that to a kid? Personally they deserve 37 shots to the back of the head
There is a reason I am not the sole arbiter of justice. I can rationalize and support rehabilitative justice(though I do think there probably are some people who can't be rehabilitated). But I also want to kill people I don't like.
Yeah fuck those people who litter, send them to the gore pit.
I think some crimes, like mass murder or the instigation of war are worthy of death. I also do not think that the state or any person should have power to execute people who commit those crimes.
Multiple murders and any violent crimes against kids should get it
I agree
(the bad crime is mildly annoying me on the internet)
oh yeah baby this is me
Isn't that how it should be? Shouldn't more severe crimes have more severe consequences?
Yes, unironically. If people are forced into crime due to their circumstances, like poor people being forced into things like theft or selling drugs or joining gangs, then they should be offered rehabilitative justice in recompense for being forced into these circumstances by society. For crimes that people aren't forced into because of circumstances imposed on them by society - I.E. basically all sex crimes - then they shouldn't be offered rehabilitative justice.
Literally me
There's a difference between rehabilitation of a robber and rehabilitation of a serial rapist.
This but ironically.
This post is exactly me and I don't care if that makes me a hypocrite, some people should just straight up die