News
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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
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.
view the rest of the comments
This is what happens when you give the state the power of life and death over its citizens. Even the people who make up the low levels of power in the state have no actual voice when it comes to the state committing legally-sanctioned murder.
The actual argument on the death penalty - no matter if morally right or wrong, guilty or innocient, I sure as hell don't want the state to decide!
A lot of these people believe in god too apparently. They must have such little faith in an afterlife. If you actually believed god will judge evil people with eternal punishment what’s the rush? Let god, the all seeing all knowing judge them. Eternity seems like a long enough sentence. They’re not really acting like they believe it
Apparently their god is no longer omnipotent enough to smite, so they have to do it on his behalf. Weird, because he used to do a lot of smiting a few thousand years ago.
@FlyingSquid @SuckMyWang
Their God is on meth laying around his heavenly house trailer in his wife beater and he is doing absolutely nothing.
I’m still fascinated by commenting from other platforms in the fediverse. Do you just follow [email protected] on there?
And remember, your state is run by the same motherfuckers who can't reliably fix a pothole. And anyone expects them to catch the right guy 100% of the time?
The state always has this power. How naive you are.
Really? Then why is Anders Breivik still alive?
Somehow, Norway has not murdered him despite the fact that he murdered dozens of children.
The death penalty is appropriate for child rapists.
And you believe you can prove every single time beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused child rapist you are putting to death is not innocent of the crime? How would you be able to do so?
Are you trying to argue that it's okay to imprison innocent people but it's not okay to execute them? Because even without the death penalty, these innocent people you're referring to would just spend life in prison. I guess that's acceptable to you?
What if they die in prison? Even if their case gets overturned, they could've spent decades in prison. Is that okay to you?
Nothing about what they said implies that this would be ok.
Problem with homicide is that it's final. Someone falsely imprisoned has the chance of being let go. Anyone who is killed immediately loses that option.
False. He said we shouldn't execute them because they may be innocent. That implies imprisoning them is okay, unless he thinks we shouldn't imprison child rapists because they may be innocent.
Okay. So it's alright to punish innocent people as long as it's not permanent?
Unless of course they die in prison, in which case...?
And also, losing decades of your life in prison is permanent. You don't get that time back.
No it doesn't.
Nope.
You can let someone out of prison. You can't unkill them.
What about people who die in prison?
They generally do so when they're older than the people who get executed for the same accused crime. Meaning there's a chance they'll have a life outside of prison if they're innocent.
Again, you can't unkill someone. You can, however, not intentionally kill them.
Yeah, but what about those who don't get that chance?
What about them? They're not intentionally killed.
So? They still lose their lives.
You really don't understand the difference between an innocent person potentially dying in prison and an innocent person definitely dying in prison?
Of course I do. The end result is still the same for those who die in prison.
Again- potential vs. definite. Why is potential just as bad as definite to you?
There's the potential you will get hit by a car every time you walk down the street. Isn't that potential better than someone intentionally driving into you?
Because either way an innocent person is losing their life because of the state.
I just wanted you to admit that it's acceptable to imprison potentially innocent people for life but it's not okay to execute them, which you did.
I said no such thing. Do not lie.
Of course it is not acceptable to imprison potentially innocent people for life. That's why you give them many chances to appeal. Do you think that I believe people should not be given chances to appeal or something?
And, again, they only have the potential of being in prison for life. If their appeals have been exhausted but new evidence arises, special circumstances can be made.
People with the death penalty who have exhausted all of their appeals get killed.
Also, there is no restitution given to innocent people who were killed. Innocent people who were imprisoned and get let free get restitution.
Now, please answer me:
But that's what happens when we imprison people for life. Inevitably, someone innocent is going to end up there. Just like with the death penalty, right?
You're typing an essay because you don't realize how you've succumbed to doublethink.
You're ignoring that the state should rectify unacceptable situations. With wrongful imprisonment, the state can rectify the situation and compensate the innocent. With the death penalty, this is never possible. And even if such a rectification is not done, at least the prisoner was still able to live somewhat of a life.
This makes life imprisonment infintely more acceptable that the death penalty. There's no doublethink in admitting there are different gradations of unacceptable.
I guess that's why Anders Breivik wasn't imprisoned for life.
Now please answer my question.
Just checked his Account. 2 Days old, lots of negative Comment-ratio. Most likely a Troll.