By certain people DO deserve death. The problem is making the absolute determination of guilt. Courts and governments get that wrong all the time. For that reason I’m against the death penalty.
Why does anyone deserve to be murdered by the state or by anyone else no matter what they themselves have done? What does that achieve other than satisfying a bloodlust?
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.
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?
Oh so now the social contract is void???
I guess I didn’t realize “certain people deserve death” was part of the social contract.
In that case, yes. I would say it should be abandoned.
By certain people DO deserve death. The problem is making the absolute determination of guilt. Courts and governments get that wrong all the time. For that reason I’m against the death penalty.
Why does anyone deserve to be murdered by the state or by anyone else no matter what they themselves have done? What does that achieve other than satisfying a bloodlust?
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?
Being tolerant of the intolerant leads to the rise of fascism.
There is a massive gulf between tolerating the intolerant and saying some people deserve death.