234
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
234 points (96.1% liked)
News
23014 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Protecting people from further harm. Punishment instead of rehabilitation. It's fine if you wouldn't, but understand plenty of people feel differently. Surely you're onboard with some punishment or rehabilitation. There are those who would go further.
As a matter of practice, I oppose the death penalty. But I acknowledge there are people that deserve to die.
That's what prisons are for.
Yes, I understand bloodlust, I just think it's wrong.
What about the other people in the prisons? Is solitary sufficient for you? What about the psychological harm that can do? Does a life sentence of torture work? What amount of resources should we direct to keeping a dangerous person locked up alive and not psychologically tortured? Are there other government functions you'd be fine losing at the cost of housing them? In the US we can manage that, but other countries maybe not.
Sorry... are you claiming the death penalty is more humane than not killing a person? Because, considering the number of appeals, I would suggest that shows that the actual people on death row would prefer the psychological torture.
No. I'm saying unintended effects and the impact to the rest of society needs to be considered. Solitary confinement has been equated with torture. Would you be fine effectively torturing people you want kept alive? If the cost of incarceration left the rest of the society in danger due to lack of resources, would you shoulder that burden?
I never said anything about solitary confinement. You brought that up. Somehow we've been doing fine with multiple domestic terrorists and serial killers being in supermax prisons without keeping them in solitary.
You're too focused on the US. Those are broader hypotheticals.
What part of the world could they not keep people in similar conditions as a supermax? If it's a matter of money and that's the only reason they don't have them, that seems like an argument in favor of funding them, not in favor of the death penalty. I can't think of another reason.
Incidentally, the fact that the U.S. is the only Western country with the death penalty, sharing that honor mostly with theocracies and dictatorships, should tell you something about the ethics of it.
The hypothetical doesn't need to exist in reality. It's part of the thought process. It's not meant to be an argument for a realistic applicant of the death penalty. Again... I oppose the death penalty.
Now imagine a society (this can be fictitious) without the resources to house criminals indefinitely. How do you manage using resources, to the detriment of the innocent, to house criminals with a life sentence?
We don't need to imagine it. It's on that map I posted. All those non-dictatorships that don't have the death penalty are able to manage it. i.e. the entirety of Europe save Belarus, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries.
So you can't entertain a hypothetical?
Again, a hypothetical isn’t necessary when we have dozens of real world examples of what you’re talking about that you’re just hand waving away as if none of them count but your imaginary country does.
Again a hypothetical is exactly intended to avoid this minutia. What originally started this was when I said there are people that deserve to die. This would necessarily avoid the question of actual guilt vs wrongfully convicted. You've seemingly not balked at that while continuing to run with your "real world" shtick that has no bearing on the underlying ethical question. And again it's perfectly fine if you don't think there is anyone that deserves to die no matter what evil they get up to. The problem is that you will continue to flail and bang your head against the wall if you refuse to understand there are other people in the world who think differently.
It’s not a schtick. It’s like you want to discuss astronomy and tell me to imagine a gas giant and when I say, “ok, I’m imagining Jupiter,” and you respond that you are talking about a hypothetical gas giant and Jupiter does not apply because it exists.
If you wish to discuss things outside of your fantasies that happen in the real world, let me know.