Are you for or against the death penalty if there are no false convictions

[Maneil99]

This is more of a morale question, the last thread on this was based in the real world. Obviously the death penalty shouldn't be in effect in the real world as innocents would be killed. Therefor that thread was pretty cut and dry.

We aren't going to go in specifics as to what would be worthy of the death penalty, rather if death is ever an acceptable punishment in a world where false convictions are impossible. Racial or class bias would not be in play here either.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

That's one hell of a hypothetical

 

[DJ_Lae]

In certain isolated cases, absolutely.

Anders Breivik should not be in jail, for example.

 

[Deleted member 42]

I remember this thread

 

[Shelbyville Milhouse]

I would still be against it.
I feel like life in prison is a way harsher sentence anyway

 

[kadotsu]

That counterfactual is on the level of: But would you say the n-word if it healed a dying child?

 

[Deleted member 8860]

No. I would not kill someone (except in direct self-defense) and I wouldn't want my government to kill people either, especially when there's a simple alternative.

 

[jaekeem]

Yes. It's like asking, if we had an omniscient god, would it be okay for him to smite the absolutely evil and cruel? Yes, I think it would.

But that world is impossible. For many reasons.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Revenge still isn't justice.

 

[Maneil99]

That counterfactual is on the level of: But would you say the n-word if it healed a dying child?

Click to shrink...

Well in that situation the answer for everyone is likely the same. The moral question of taking someone's life isn't. Hence the split results

 

[The Adder]

I am not against a person's life being forfeited for committing particular crimes, but eliminating the chance for error is only eliminating one of my two problems. The second being I am against the state executing its own citizens.

 

[Lucreto]

Death is a way out of punishment not an actual punishment.

Their freedom and locked in a cell for the rest of their lives is a fair better punishment.

 

[JeTmAn]

Revenge still isn't justice.

Click to shrink...

What makes the death penalty more "revenge" than life in prison?

 

[Lant_War]

Still against it

 

[Empress of ice cream]

Capital punishment is a violation of human dignity. No enlightened state should play any part in it.

 

[AimLow]

The death penalty is never acceptable. Period.

 

[Hella]

The death penalty is wrong no matter what.

 

[Prolepro]

The framing of this question has to posit an essential idea of what truth and justice is in infallible terms. It cannot be answered in a way that's meaningful for applying it to real world practice. A society or world in which the "truth" is universally flawless (i.e. "false convictions are impossible") would mean a society where penalty issued from a trial isn't needed because there is no need for the pursuit of "justice". If someone murdered another person in this world, there would be no need for a conviction, no need for a trial.

The whole reason for a justice system is that truth must be found, not used as a starting point.

There is no reason for the death penalty from a moral or practical perspective.

 

[IDreamOfHime]

Yes, but that's impossible so I'm against it.

 

[dorjjj]

Only for repeat offenders.

 

[free_bubble]

For it, definitely, but only if it is reserved for the most depraved crimes.

 

[Deleted member 44129]

If you're killing people how can you claim the higher moral ground?

 

[Bleu]

Death penalty is wrong, no exceptions.
Even the worst of the worst pos humanbeings worhty of it in a "i forget i'm civilised and just listen to my caveman reptilian brain for a second" moment people are rare.
rare to the point of being exceptions.
rare to the point it's not worthy tainting your society model with the sin of death penalty.
Jail for life is fine, and enough.

 

[Maneil99]

If you're killing people how can you claim the higher moral ground?

Click to shrink...

Because advocating for the state to quickly kill someone that has raped/tortured/killed innocents isn't the same level as what that person did?

 

[Saganator]

I'm against the state having the power to legally kill its citizens, no matter how shitty the citizen is.

 

[Aeferis]

Unless you're talking about some omniscient deity dispensing death on the absolute worst as it was an objective concept, there's no absolute correct way to decide who's worthy of being sentenced to death and who isn't. Take a handful of different periods in time and a bunch of different cultures and ask them what crime should be punished with death penalty and you'll have a gazillion different answers. So, even without false conviction, humanity will still decide on people's life on a completely subjective basis.

Therefore: fuck no.

 

[The Adder]

If you're killing people how can you claim the higher moral ground?

Click to shrink...

Pretty easily if your morality has a level of complexity and nuance beyond "have you killed, yes or no"

 

[RDreamer]

In this hypothetical world of non faulty convictions have they also figured out an actually humane way of killing people? Because our current world is real fucked up in that regard.

 

[NinjaScooter]

If we are creating fantasy land scenarios why not create one where the death penalty is unnecessary because nobody rapes or murders other humans?

 

[Deleted member 44129]

Because advocating for the state to quickly kill someone that has raped/tortured/killed innocents isn't the same level as what that person did?

Click to shrink...

I disagree. If the state doesn't kill people, then the state is of a higher moral standing. The state needs to be squeaky clean. I can't respect a system that kills people intentionally, despite how much that person might "deserve it". For instance, I'd like to see a certain US politican dead, but I have to avoid thinking that way because that makes me as bad as or worse than that person.

 

[Deleted member 30544]

Against.

But.... i believe some people should get a punisment more severe. Like the mosque killer in Neo Zealand or pedos. So i don't know if that puts me in the high horse or not.

 

[Maneil99]

I disagree. If the state doesn't kill people, then the state is of a higher moral standing. The state needs to be squeaky clean. I can't respect a system that kills people intentionally, despite how much that person might "deserve it". For instance, I'd like to see a certain US politican dead, but I have to avoid thinking that way because that makes me as bad as or worse than that person.

Click to shrink...

I dont agree that you are as bad or worse than that person

 

[danm999]

No the state should not kill people

 

[plié]

No, not even for the worst of the worst like Anders Breivik .

 

[Rampage]

No. There is not a human society alive that is not unbiased, corrupt, or infallible. We should never give any government the license to kill.

 

[BAD]

I wasn't cursed with whatever brain cells make people want bloodlust to put their mind at ease

 

[HardRojo]

Put them in jail to rot for a few years with 0 contact with the outside world and then go for the death penalty. Some horrible people don't deserve to live for too long.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Yes. In my perfect scenario where there were no false convictions, unjust laws, or racial bias or corrupt governments misusing that authority for their own political ends.

Some lunatics simply need to be put down. Period.

But we don't live in that perfect world and never will.

 

[Polaris]

Even assuming no false convictions, it's still applied disproportionately to people of color and used so infrequently as to be unpredictable.

From a US legal perspective, I don't think it's a per se violation of the 8th Amendment, but as it is currently practiced it violates it as-applied and is pretty unsalvageable at this point. Thus I also think it's unconstitutional.

 

[sphagnum]

I don't believe that bourgeois states are truly legitimate, so I don't want them to have this power.

 

[loquaciousJenny]

Idk
I don't think killing them does anything, it doesn't erase what they've done, it just seems like revenge to me, not even from the victims but from society for breaking its peace.

 

[Shodan14]

No, the government should not kill people.

 

[IrishNinja]

the state already tries to monopolize violence, so shit yes im against this

 

[Deleted member 48897]

It's still expensive and cruel even if you've got a valid conviction

 

[Miles]

Absolutely for it.

But that won't ever happen.

 

[Deleted member 13328]

Firmly in camp no. It's not ok for the state to take a citizens life.

 

[Shodan14]

the state already tries to monopolize violence, so shit yes im against this

Click to shrink...

That's literally the foundation of any working government, sorry bud.

 

[Keikaku]

Evil motherfuckers deserve to die. I would gladly put them down for free.

 

[sph3re]

Only for the most vile criminals, incapable of being integrated into society as decided by a team of mental health experts

Basically, make it an extremely rare occurrence

 

[loquaciousJenny]

That's literally the foundation of any working government, sorry bud.

Click to shrink...

Yup, we could do away with it and suddenly the roving bands of Nazis with many more guns than us become far worse