this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
138 points (94.2% liked)
Asklemmy
45322 readers
1019 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I lean pretty hard left who is also pro death-penalty (IN VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES)
If the case has absolutely been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
All appeals have been exhausted.
Proof is absolutely undeniable.
Guilty party shows no remorse.
Crime is suffiently heinous (mass murder, child killing, serial killers, etc...)
A legitimate psychiatric board has deemed that there is little to no chance at rehabilitation nor does the guilty party show any inclination to want to rehabilitate.
if ALL those things are true, (plus some that I haven't even considered) then I would rather execute them than pay for their living expenses for the rest of their natural life, or worse see them released at the end of their sentance absolutely knowing that they'll do it again.
I think we should create a system where people have a choice. Life in prison or death. I think k it would clear up a lot of the ethical issues of the death penalty.
that's an interesting angle I'd not thought of before...
No proof is absolutely undeniable. Especially not in an age when generative AI will soon be able to fabricate evidence easily.
You are absolutely correct regarding AI. I hadn't considered that. It gives me something to think about. Thanks!
DNA based proofs are pretty undeniable unless you have a twin.
It's not necessarily true. I mean you could be framed with your DNA. I'm not arguing that it's plausible, just not absolutely undeniable. For instance, I would bet dollars to donuts that somebody has tried to frame someone else using their DNA.
A lifetime imprisonment can be more inhumane than a death sentence.
Change my mind.jpg
(If there is enough solid proof ofc. You can't roll back a death penalty)
Edit: in italics
Most death row inmates fight for their life all the way until execution. That's proof enough.
How is the verity of the conviction related to how humane the punishment is?
Just specifying the proofs have to be solid bugs you? How weird.
Yeah, of course, death penalty is never acceptable and must be abolished entirely. Even setting aside that no proof of a physical event can be 100% solid, or all the other practicality arguments; even the worst rapists, murderers, terrorists and billionaires are still humans and do not deserve death when they present no danger anymore due to being apprehended.
It already is in all modern societies except like the USA.
I took this as a thought experiment. You seems to root awfully much for these bad people, I'd say let's help them when we have helped all their victims.
Given the original commenter was talking about "the left", I'm critiquing AES countries (e.g. China) here. USA is a lost cause when it comes to human rights anyways.
That's just basic human empathy combined with practicality. They are still human and deserve humane treatment, and also most of them (like 80% if we look at Scandinavia) can be reintegrated into the society in some way.
You won't be able to help them if you murder them
Now I said let's murder them?
Please don't use cheap discussing techniques, it makes any point you're trying to do look moot.
Interestingly you still only talk about the perpetrators and not the victims.
You're advocating for death penalty.
In countries that abolished it, if someone was executed it would be considered murder. So yes, you are advocating for murder.
What do victims have to do with this? I'm not proposing we kill them.
Surviving victims should of course be offered treatment, both physical and mental, as well as fair compensation. It is irrelevant to the question of the death penalty.
I'm not advocating for the death penalty, stop lying.
Are you some new type of troll or what? Or can't you fathom people having a thought experiment without actually thinking it is the right thing to do?