• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Markratos

Hermen Hulst's Secret Account
Member
Feb 15, 2020
3,016
In my opinion they should also have executed Emperor Hirohito instead of maintaining the monarchy.
But I guess capital punishment only applies to ordinary people. Not the elites whose decisions can kill hundreds or thousands of people.
 

Arebours

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,656
Right, so both the death penalty and solitary confinement are very bad and should be outlawed worldwide... so what's the solution to violent criminals that absolutely must not be allowed near inmates that actually want to rehabilitate?
I can't believe I have to say this, but maybe you just teleported in from the middle ages. Treating criminals like shit, and killing them doesn't help. It actually makes everything worse. That's not an opinion, it's fact. The best outcomes are in countries that doesn't have solitary confinement, doesn't have life sentences, doesn't have the DP. The best outcomes are in countries where criminals are treated as humans who need help(even if they don't want it).

I mean i agree the criminals vile enough to be worthy of such things will in all likelihood be targeted therefore their life will be worse than death could ever be. Which is a more fitting punishment.
I just don't get this mindset of wanting more suffering. Especially since WE KNOW that it is counter productive. To me, the best outcome is that the vile criminal is rehabilitated and becomes a positive influence in the world. If I could wish for something to happen then that would be it. That would give me hope for humanity. So much vile and vengeful shit in this thread. Hugely disappointed in humanity here today.
 
Last edited:

Westbahnhof

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
10,120
Austria
I mean i agree the criminals vile enough to be worthy of such things will in all likelihood be targeted therefore their life will be worse than death could ever be. Which is a more fitting punishment.
How does that work? Because anyone targetting the killer would be criminals too.

ResetERA is a pretty centrist forum sometimes going slightly to the right when contentious issues like this are talked about. Just look at gaming side and the CD Projekt Red defense force.
I remember a poll about the death penalty, 60% were always against it, 30% were "only for it in very specific cases", and only 10% were comfortable simply saying "yes" to capital punishment. I guess that's the best we can expect, but man, it's sobering.
 

Deleted member 7051

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,254
I can't believe I have to say this, maybe you just teleported in from the middle ages. But treating criminals like shit, and killing them doesn't help. It actually makes everything worse. It's not an opinion, it's fact. The best outcomes are in countries that doesn't have solitary confinement, doesn't have life sentences, doesn't have the DP. The best outcomes are in countries where criminals are treated as humans who need help(even if they don't want it).

The best outcomes for who, exactly? This thread is discussing a man that targeted, sexually assaulted, murdered and then dismembered his victims. He happily admits what he did and shows no remorse whatsoever and your answer is "the world would be a better place with no life sentences, no solitary confinement and no death penalty"? On one of those we can agree, since I believe the death penalty achieves nothing and means nothing, but no life sentences? You'd actually let this man walk free after a few years to kill again? How would the families of his victims feel about that? Not exactly the best outcome for them, is it?
 

Tatsu91

Banned
Apr 7, 2019
3,147
How does that work? Because anyone targetting the killer would be criminals too.


I remember a poll about the death penalty, 60% were always against it, 30% were "only for it in very specific cases", and only 10% were comfortable simply saying "yes" to capital punishment. I guess that's the best we can expect, but man, it's sobering.
Obviously they would but even criminals to a degree have morals. Their lives would either be filled with torment from those people or in isolation punishments far worse than death. So if someone was worth such punishment Death would actually be mercy to them.
 

FuzzyWuzzy

Prophet of Truth
Member
Apr 7, 2019
2,098
Austria
ResetERA is a pretty centrist forum sometimes going slightly to the right when contentious issues like this are talked about. Just look at gaming side and the CD Projekt Red defense force.
Yeah, that is probably the point where I missed up. The death penalty is something that only far-right people bring up here, so I misjudged the spread of peoples opinions on it.
 

Arebours

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,656
The best outcomes for who, exactly? This thread is discussing a man that targeted, sexually assaulted, murdered and then dismembered his victims. He happily admits what he did and shows no remorse whatsoever and your answer is "the world would be a better place with no life sentences, no solitary confinement and no death penalty"? On one of those we can agree, since I believe the death penalty achieves nothing and means nothing, but no life sentences? You'd actually let this man walk free after a few years to kill again? How would the families of his victims feel about that? Not exactly the best outcome for them, is it?
Best outcome for society. That's the entire point of justice.

He should be released if it were determined that he is no longer a risk to society. That might never happen, but it could. I come from a country(I actually live in japan now) where things work like that. We don't have life sentences and prisons there are very humane.
Whatever the family feels about this should have 0 weight. I'm super sympathetic to them, emotionally. But emotion has no place in justice.
 
Last edited:

Rosebud

Two Pieces
Member
Apr 16, 2018
44,013
I just don't get this mindset of wanting more suffering. Especially since WE KNOW that it is counter productive. To me, the best outcome is that the vile criminal is rehabilitated and becomes a positive influence in the world. If I could wish for something to happen then that would be it. That would give me hope for humanity. So much vile and vengeful shit in this thread. Hugely disappointed in humanity here today.

Yeah, wanting more suffering no matter what is instinctive (especially if you are close to the victim), but governments should always be rational.

We have a shit situation with police BECAUSE we give them too much power to deal with other peoples lives, as long they feel justified. They should never have this power.
 

Deleted member 7051

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,254
He should be released if it were determined that he is no longer a risk to society. Determining that will necessarily take a long time, it might indeed never happen if the criminal is unable to improve. I come from a country where things work like that. We don't have life sentences and prisons there are very humane.
Whatever the family feels about this should have 0 weight. I'm super sympathetic to them, emotionally. But emotion has no place in justice.

So, basically, yes you do indeed want him to walk free regardless of the consequences and the extent of your interest in how that affects the families of his victims basically ends at "thoughts and prayers". I'm sorry but that is a terrible and dangerous position to be peddling.

People in this thread have said that the reason they don't believe in the death penalty is because humans are fallible and we get things wrong. We can believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty of a crime they did not commit and an innocent person is executed as as a result. Yet here you are suggesting that as long as we determine a serial killer is no longer a risk to society, that's fine and he should be free to rejoin society. Surely if the death penalty should be abolished because even one wrong execution is too many, freeing all the serial killers in the world is even worse if even one of them goes on to kill more people?
 

Rosebud

Two Pieces
Member
Apr 16, 2018
44,013
So, basically, yes you do indeed want him to walk free regardless of the consequences and the extent of your interest in how that affects the families of his victims basically ends at "thoughts and prayers". I'm sorry but that is a terrible and dangerous position to be peddling.

People in this thread have said that the reason they don't believe in the death penalty is because humans are fallible and we get things wrong. We can believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty of a crime they did not commit and an innocent person is executed as as a result. Yet here you are suggesting that as long as we determine a serial killer is no longer a risk to society, that's fine and he should be free to rejoin society. Surely if the death penalty should be abolished because even one wrong execution is too many, freeing all the serial killers in the world is even worse if even one of them goes on to kill more people?

I don't believe in death penalty because no one should be executed, guilty or not.

Humans being fallible and death penalty actually being more expensive than life sentence are just other arguments.
 

CaptainNuevo

Mascot Maniac
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,986
Best outcome for society. That's the entire point of justice.

He should be released if it were determined that he is no longer a risk to society. That might never happen, but it could. I come from a country(I actually live in japan now) where things work like that. We don't have life sentences and prisons there are very humane.
Whatever the family feels about this should have 0 weight. I'm super sympathetic to them, emotionally. But emotion has no place in justice.
I'm curious how you think that's best determined. From what I hear determining mental state of patients and whether or not they're fit to leave mental hospitals is incredibly tough and hard to do in a meaningful way (often denying otherwise mentally sound people from leaving), and it seems to me like prison would just be a more extreme, higher risk version of that problem.
 

Deleted member 7051

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,254
I don't believe in death penalty because no one should be executed, guilty or not.

Humans being fallible and death penalty actually being more expensive than life sentence are just other arguments.

You won't find me arguing against abolishing the death penalty because I think it's both pointless and a meaningless gesture. I'm just left aghast at the idea that some members think serial killers like the guy this thread is about should be allowed to walk free if they convince someone they're no longer a risk, especially in a thread where members are stating the reason they oppose the death penalty is because there's always a risk of executing an innocent person. By that same merit, there's always a risk of freeing a serial killer that will absolutely kill again.
 

caliph95

Member
Oct 25, 2017
35,334
That's the main reason I'm against the death penalty.

But I'm not without contradiction, if one of my kids got murdered and the killer confessed, I'm not sure I would feel the same
I don't think anyone wouldn't feel the same and they said no they're lying I'm 100% (you could bring me down for war criminals as a compromise) against DP we should strive forward for rehabilitative but if someone killed someone I lovr or care about i would want to violently murder them
Though it's why i shouldn't be the one deciding their fate
 
May 26, 2018
24,106
I'm not for death penalty. I believe this isn't a way to do justice in a way that serve a purpose. But I'm not fondamentally against it, as if it was some moral bastion that couldn't be touched on. As for giving the judicial system such a powerful, the judicial system already has powerful tools.

You can't overturn a wrong execution, but you can't overturn a wrong imprisonment after 40 years. Even if you end up recovering your freedom... no one's going to give you those 40 years back. Your life is pretty much fucked up if all you've been doing since 20 to 60 was to be in a jail.

Then again, one could argue that death penalty could only be used in cases where there's not a litteral doubt that the murderer was caught killing. But with such speculations, we could rewrite a perfect world. But the reason I'm arguing on that topic is the following: While people question the right for the justice to kill or not, they never do so when it comes to military.

When you think of it, when a police officer or a military opens fire on a person, they become both a judge and a party and they decide by themselves to kill the person in question. In fact, it all comes down to "we should be better" line of thinking. Death penalty should be abolished worldwide because it's a useless and outdated system. It brings no justice, if anything it brings an escape to someone who will never have to face the consequences of their acts anymore. It also cant be outdone as you said, in case of wrong convictions.

But the line of thinking that "it's barbaric" "it's not moral" "we should be better" sounds really off to me, almost dangerous to where that kind of thinking is going. After all, detention is immoral. Restraining one person's freedom is immoral. Because they may be a danger to the society ? Well, one could say we cant foresee upcoming events.

What is this about no one questions the military when they question the death penalty? Millions of people question the military and the death penalty. It's a pretty popular perspective!
 

Alternade

Member
Oct 27, 2017
714
I can't understand how people are fine giving the power of killing to the government.



"An eye for an eye" is ancient. There's a reason most progressive countries are done with death penalty.
Chances are you live in a country with an active military force and government that has at some point been engaged in extrajudicial killing. Please spare me the moral superiority argument. Nobody is fine with government killing people but it's going to happen whether we like it or not.

Would you rather this person be a leech on resources that could go to someone with lesser offenses who could be helped by rehabilitation? What societal good is reintroducing a killer back into the population?
 

Soriku

Member
Nov 12, 2017
6,940
I used to believe that the death penalty was justified depending on the culprit, but I've grown to realize it doesn't benefit anyone. Even if we assume someone truly does all they are accused of, refusing the opportunity of rehabilitation highlights that "all life is not equal". If you sentence a serial killer to death, why not kill homeless people, drug addicts etc.

I'm not saying this guy will ever be a regular citizen, but the moral issue of "person X does not deserve life" doesn't take much to be abused, either by vigilantes, governments or institutions.

I'm not for the death penalty (especially as handling of the penalty is going to vary per country and case - in the US it'd clearly been used in conjunction with racism) but I don't see how comparing a serial killer (who has killed other people) to the homeless and drug addicts (who don't kill people- unless they do then that's a different story) on the subject of "do they deserve to live" is a good analogy here.
 

Right

Member
Nov 24, 2017
1,069
Killing criminals is an ethical disaster. It doesn't resurrect victims, it doesn't reduce crime, it doesn't save money, it ensures that victims of wrongful convictions will be killed (even one is too many), and it ruins any opportunity for the criminal to contribute to society in any way -- if only to provide insight that can help prevent future tragedies. It's wrong, period.
Why doesn't it save money if it is executed after 2 years in prison versus potentially 50 years in prison?
 

StrangeADT

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,078
I am honestly shocked to see so many people here arguing for the death penalty, seems completely out of line with what this forum tries to eb
People don't get banned here for supporting the death penalty. They do get banned here for expressing other shitty views. You generally don't see those other views expressed because people that have been here long enough know precisely what they can say without getting banned. The forum moderation dictates the views you *see* expressed here, not the actual views people have. It's an illusion. Or I'm super cynical. Or a mixture of both.
 
Last edited:

Conal

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
2,868
Killing criminals is an ethical disaster. It doesn't resurrect victims, it doesn't reduce crime, it doesn't save money, it ensures that victims of wrongful convictions will be killed (even one is too many), and it ruins any opportunity for the criminal to contribute to society in any way -- if only to provide insight that can help prevent future tragedies. It's wrong, period.

It also provides a framework through which the government can kill it's citizens. Something that is much easier to expand than to create.

Just because you are OK with who the current government wants to kill, does not mean that will always be the case.
 

Tya

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,669
You can only be in favor of the death penalty if you are fine with innocent people being killed. There is no such thing as a flawless justice system that never makes mistakes, and death is final.
 

Stove

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,093
No moral grandstanding here. Have seriously struggled with this in the past and have seen red a few times. But in the end I cannot see any justification for it, innocent people will be killed and Governments should not have the authority to kill its citizens under any circumstance.

Again, I feel so much for the loved ones and families suffering through all this.
 

Vyse

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,404
I rather they let them all free and let grandmas hunt them down while Era works out the movie deals.
 

Amnesty

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,689
A lot of things are wrong and so is killing eight people. I don't think there is any question if he was responsible. Some people care more about ethics than others.

I always put myself in the position of the victims, the parents for example. If someone killed my daughter I wouldn't care about anything. I would rip this person into pieces. As long as I can't say I wouldn't do this I can't disagree with this sentence. I know it's problematic but why lie if this is how I feel.
The law should be designed to prevent feelings like yours from contributing to how it operates.
 

FuzzyWuzzy

Prophet of Truth
Member
Apr 7, 2019
2,098
Austria
Think about this for all of 5 seconds. People don't get banned here for supporting the death penalty. They do get banned here for expressing other shitty views. You generally don't see those other views expressed because people that have been here long enough know precisely what they can say without getting banned. The forum moderation dictates the views you *see* expressed here, not the actual views people have. It's an illusion. Or I'm super cynical. Or a mixture of both.
It probably is a mixture of both to be honest. I am aware that bans cause people to hold their tongues. I am not expressing myself well today but basically I am surprised it is an accepted view that not only is held by many but also allowed to be held openly(as in it doesn't risk a ban).
 

Weltall Zero

Game Developer
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
19,343
Madrid
That's the main reason I'm against the death penalty.

But I'm not without contradiction, if one of my kids got murdered and the killer confessed, I'm not sure I would feel the same

That's not a contradiction, it's being human. That's why a proper justice system actively prevents victims or their families from dictating the punishment. "What is fair" and "what I want" don't need to be the same, and it's only trying to convince yourself that they should be the same that causes cognitive dissonance.

I always put myself in the position of the victims,

That's your mistake; see above. The problem here is that you're exercising selective empathy, and you're doing so because it's much easier to put yourself in the position of the victims than the murderer or his family. It being the easiest and most confortable mindset to take doesn't mean it's the right one.

Death penalty arguments always devolve into "empathize with the victim or their family", as if that was hard to do at all, and death penalty detractors were unfeeling monsters incapable of doing that. It's empathizing with the killer and their family that's exponentially harder. If we can't do both, then that's fine; but then, we should do neither.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 10612

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,774
As this thread derailed anyway I will post again.

This is not about convicting the wrong person. You could throw out the entire justice system if you look at it that way. But some cases are very on the nose, like this one.

Also why do people try to argue that the death sentence is barbaric but in the same sentence say they want them to have life in prison so they suffer for their lifetime?

And I don't really care about the aspect of saving money, but in the case of this nutter, why isn't it cheaper to off him and not have him in prison?
They need to go to prison for rehabilitation, if that takes a life time so be it. They should not go there to rot in misery. The way we treat our worst reflects who we are as people.
 

Rosebud

Two Pieces
Member
Apr 16, 2018
44,013
Chances are you live in a country with an active military force and government that has at some point been engaged in extrajudicial killing. Please spare me the moral superiority argument. Nobody is fine with government killing people but it's going to happen whether we like it or not.

Would you rather this person be a leech on resources that could go to someone with lesser offenses who could be helped by rehabilitation? What societal good is reintroducing a killer back into the population?

What country isnt envolved in any extrajudicial killing? Please spare me this "In my country police is always perfect"

"Nobody is fine with government killing people but it's going to happen whether we like it or not." and proceeds to make an argument to why you think it's fine?

About the resources: death penalty is more expensive https://www.thebalance.com/comparing-the-costs-of-death-penalty-vs-life-in-prison-4689874

  • In California, the death penalty has cost more than $4 billion since 1978. That includes the costs of trials, appeals, and incarceration on death row. In 2019, the California governor issued a moratorium on the death penalty.
  • In Florida, enforcing the death penalty costs $51 million a year more than it would have to give all first-degree murderers life in prison without parole.
  • In North Carolina, death penalty cases cost $2.16 million per execution more than sentencing murderers to life imprisonment.
 

Arebours

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,656
So, basically, yes you do indeed want him to walk free regardless of the consequences and the extent of your interest in how that affects the families of his victims basically ends at "thoughts and prayers". I'm sorry but that is a terrible and dangerous position to be peddling.

People in this thread have said that the reason they don't believe in the death penalty is because humans are fallible and we get things wrong. We can believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty of a crime they did not commit and an innocent person is executed as as a result. Yet here you are suggesting that as long as we determine a serial killer is no longer a risk to society, that's fine and he should be free to rejoin society. Surely if the death penalty should be abolished because even one wrong execution is too many, freeing all the serial killers in the world is even worse if even one of them goes on to kill more people?
Accidentally killing an innocent is only marginally better than accidentally locking them up for most of their life. My reasons for objecting to DP goes much deeper than simply avoiding accidents. The fact that many here are against DP __because__ they want the criminal to really suffer for a long time is absolutely subhuman levels of despicable. A person who is for swift and painless executions has more moral ground to stand on than anyone who maliciously wants suffering to be inflicted.

I said they should walk free if it could be determined with some certainty that setting them free was safe. That's going to be very difficult for a serial killer, but it happens. Being against life sentencing doesn't mean dangerous people can't be locked up forever.

I'm curious how you think that's best determined. From what I hear determining mental state of patients and whether or not they're fit to leave mental hospitals is incredibly tough and hard to do in a meaningful way (often denying otherwise mentally sound people from leaving), and it seems to me like prison would just be a more extreme, higher risk version of that problem.
I have no idea, but I'm sure we are getting better at it.
 

mozbar

Member
Feb 20, 2018
856
Chances are you live in a country with an active military force and government that has at some point been engaged in extrajudicial killing. Please spare me the moral superiority argument. Nobody is fine with government killing people but it's going to happen whether we like it or not.

Would you rather this person be a leech on resources that could go to someone with lesser offenses who could be helped by rehabilitation? What societal good is reintroducing a killer back into the population?

I agree with this line of thinking. There's only so much you can do with rehabilitation. It's easier to be a on moral high ground if the society around is relatively stable. If there is more than enough resources to create upstanding citizens if it's not distributed equitably. Other places are not as fortunate (and even see punishment by mob sometimes).

Not to mention, that there are many places around the world where these repeat offenders often have their way. Without an adequate judicial or law enforcement system in place.

Is it moral to kill anyone? No. Do I want innocent people to be mistakenly killed? Heavens no. But I grew up in enough environments to stop cutting people slack. They had their chance to be upstanding. And by upstanding I mean not commit heinous crimes.
 

Rosebud

Two Pieces
Member
Apr 16, 2018
44,013
I agree with this line of thinking. There's only so much you can do with rehabilitation. It's easier to be a on moral high ground if the society around is relatively stable. If there is more than enough resources to create upstanding citizens if it's not distributed equitably. Other places are not as fortunate (and even see punishment by mob sometimes).

I live in Brazil, a country filled with crime and inequality.

And that's why I'm against death penalty, I know who would take it and who wouldn't (rich, white drug dealers).
 

Arebours

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,656
Death penalty arguments always devolve into "empathize with the victim or their family", as if that was hard to do at all, and death penalty detractors were unfeeling monsters incapable of doing that. It's empathizing with the killer and their family that's exponentially harder. If we can't do both, then that's fine; but then, we should do neither.
this is the most insightful sentence in this entire thread, and it's also why being against DP just to avoid accidents isn't good enough.
 

CerealKi11a

Chicken Chaser
Member
May 3, 2018
1,961
But yet they do and enough people are fine with it?
Can't see any value this human could give to society anymore.
It's not about the punishment. It's about the fact that even one person who is innocent can be executed, and history dictates that this has happened many, many times, especially to marginalized people.

Just lock them up forever. We can eat the tax dollars.
 

2Blackcats

Member
Oct 26, 2017
16,161
I'm assuming anybody that says DP is ok in certain circumstances lives in a country where it's allowed.

Do you think New Zealand would be a better country if they executed Brenton Tarrant?

What other things condemned by amnesty international do you think are ok in certain circumstances?
 

mozbar

Member
Feb 20, 2018
856
I live in Brazil, a country filled with crime and inequality.

And that's why I'm against death penalty, I know who would take it and who wouldn't (rich, white drug dealers).

I know we're going off topic. But how would you tackle the crime problems there? I'm not supporting the use of death squads at all.

The crimes I see there sometimes instill the fear of God in me. And unfortunately, a lot of my countrymen copy a lot of it due to whatsapp videos going around.
 

Thrill_house

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,692
I don't always support the death penalty as legal systems are kind of biased and all over the place it seems but in this circumstance I most definitely do. Good riddance. Fuck this guy.
 

Chadtwo

Member
Oct 29, 2017
655
Sorry but the loved ones and the families should have no choice in the punishment of the guilty.

Abolish it. I can't support the death penalty under any circumstance.
Not only shouldn't they as a matter of ethics, taking this approach is actually inconsistent with the stated purpose of criminal law (at least in America) — prosecutors indict to represent the interests of the people in the relevant jurisdiction writ large (hence criminal cases often having "People" or "State" as one party), not the family of victims. Any justification for the dp that rests on a consideration of the family's wishes is therefore misplaced imo
 

Rosebud

Two Pieces
Member
Apr 16, 2018
44,013
I know we're going off topic. But how would you tackle the crime problems there? I'm not supporting the use of death squads at all.

The crimes I see there sometimes instill the fear of God in me. And unfortunately, a lot of my countrymen copy a lot of it due to whatsapp videos going around.

There's no rehabilitation here, a boy with weed is put in jail (if not rich), where many true criminals make him a student.

It's a shitty situation and I have no clue how to solve it. Police is trigger happy, but it makes some places even MORE violent.
 

Drksage

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,295
Goodbye and good riddance.

edit. I would like to know how many people in Era are against death sentences, but are ok with killing the rich. There are just so many guillotine posts in any thread about rich people and nobody talks against "death sentences" in those threads. Given it's a mob rule in those cases and not government sanctioned kill.

one is decided and enacted by the rich

the other is decided and enacted by the majority
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,143
Im not entirely in favor of the death sentence mainly for the fact that innocent people have been executed. But I also believe that if there is no doubt that said individual committed this horrendous crime such as in this case, they don't need to exist anymore and im ok with it.
The words you use betray any sense of logical approach. "They don't need to exist" well neither do fucking I. I'm a 20-something living in my parents' upper middle class suburban house pursuing a master's degree so I can get some government job that probably could've been filled by 10 other people. That's not an argument for execution. There has to be some benefit gained that we would've otherwise not gotten, and it has to be a really good benefit too when the line your crossing is state-sanctioned killing.
 

ohlawd

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,307
Phantagrande
hate these kind of threads. it's always "thoughts and prayers" for the victims' families and nothing else and an endless debate on what to do with the murderer. I'm against the death penalty but until it's completely eradicated from our planet and is still a thing in some countries I'm just indifferent to when someone does get the death sentence like this guy. honestly man if folks wanna think that you forfeit some things in life the moment you take someone else's away then by all means I won't argue with them. all I'm saying is I wouldn't go out of my way to save a guy like this given a chance
 

Weltall Zero

Game Developer
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
19,343
Madrid
this is the most insightful sentence in this entire thread, and it's also why being against DP just to avoid accidents isn't good enough.

Thank you. I've been particularly thinking about this since the thread about the Trump admin speedrunning executions before his term is over. A lot of people were obviously shocked at the execution of Brandon Bernard a black man that had killed no one, but set fire (purportedly under threat) to a man and woman murdered by his partners in crime; someone who had since (20+ years!) remade his life in prison and become a model inmate and a completely different person. However, many others were entirely on board with the execution of Lisa Montgomery, a woman who (spoilering because horrific) killed a pregnant woman and cut her open to claim her child as her own.

And, I mean, "fuck this monster" would probably be the normal gut reaction of any normal human being, but then you read the less publicised part of how she had in turn been physically and sexually assaulted her whole life (raped and beaten by her stepfather as a kid; threatened with a gun at 14 by her mother when she found out; beaten by both of her husbants), resulting in permanent brain damage, psychosis, bipolar disorder and PSTD, and, well... it feels like it's victims all the way down; that society keeps failing people over and over. That labelling them "subhuman monsters" and killing them is just a convenient way to sweep them under the rug, so as to avoid any collective responsibility.
 

Normandie

Banned
Jul 14, 2020
77
I don't disagree that prison need reform. They're awful. I hate the prison industrial complex. I'd love to learn more about them next year. I've read some, but I'm still learning about it.

But the death penally, at least in the US, is incredibly racist. It's problematic nature has been discussed and documented for decades.

Yes, we need to make prison safer. Not just homicides mind you. Prisons are notorious for high sexual assault as well.
I worked in the American prison system. I can tell you how the sausage is made here.

I always hesitate to wade into these discussions. There is so much ignorance about prisons on this form. It wouldn't bother me so much if people didn't say things they know nothing about with such conviction.

I hope you do learn more about this subject. Just remember to come at it from all different angles. This is such an important and complex topic it's hard to talk about it on a forum.

Too many people get their idea of prison through movies and TV. I've talked to a lot of inmates and gotten a lot of perspective straight from the people who've lived it. One would think somebody who's actually seen what death row looks like and seen the people on it I would have a definite opinion about it. I don't. That's the facts. Even after seeing it first-hand I still don't know what the answer is.

Also the fact that this takes place in Japan makes me even less inclined to have an informed decision about this. Hell, prisons vary wildly from state to state. I have no idea what life in prison would be like in Japan.

If I wasn't so new I'd start a OT just to talk about the American prison system. I'm past 50 years old now and haven't worked in a prison since the 90's but if anyone wants to pm me I'll give you my honest answer about anything. I don't want to derail this topic anymore.