If that's their defense strategy.... yeah, that's tasteless.Absolutly, but the I don't agree with their defense stategy of "the victims wanted to die"
If that's their defense strategy.... yeah, that's tasteless.Absolutly, but the I don't agree with their defense stategy of "the victims wanted to die"
The standard for murdering people is not "how useful are they to society"But yet they do and enough people are fine with it?
Can't see any value this human could give to society anymore.
That's the same dumb argument. If Hitler was alive would you not do the same thing Hitler did to Hitler?In some severe cases, i'd have to actually agree with having a death penalty. Not like in the US where innocent people have been sentenced, but in clear-cut cases like this i wouldn't bat an eye.
One example is here in Norway. Breivik in 2011 commited a heinous act and now the tax payers are paying to keep him alive and fed in jail. If Hitler or some other form of human scum was alive today, would a death sentence not be in order?
Depends. In some "justice systems" it's possible for the sentence to be carried out only one day after sentencing.
Yeah but there's zero evidence that the death penalty works as a deterrent over other forms of punishment.
After doing some minor research, it appears that you both are correct.
Serious question: How does that work? I've always heard that used in the arguments against the death penalty, but I never understood exactly why it would cost more than keeping another person alive for a multitude of years.The death penalty ends up costing more money than life sentences
Serious question: How does that work? I've always heard that used in the arguments against the death penalty, but I never understood exactly why it would cost more than keeping another person alive for a multitude of years.
People love performative justice rather than real justice. They want to feel good rather than doing what is best for society.Fucking hell, It always takes a thread like this to remind me how many people in this forum are ok with death penalties.
It's scary how popular that sentiment is.
Thanks for this
I would certainly WANT to, because it's human.
But it doesn't mean it's right or that it would easy my pain in some way.
Yes, very good point.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.
Maybe it would, but there are several objections to that.Why doesn't it save money if it is executed after 2 years in prison versus potentially 50 years in prison?
This is such a crucial point. It's utterly horrifying how eager society is to treat criminals as fundamentally evil subhumans, when so many of them are victims of their circumstances. It's such a grotesque failure in empathy and basic reasoning.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.
Why do you guys always bring up "innocent people who have been executed" in threads like this to argue against the death penalty.
This man is not innocent. People obviously don't want innocent people executed at the hands of the government.
There's no "ifs", he did it. Let people say he deserves to die and move on. Your moral compasses don't need go haywire in every death penalty thread of a confirmed guilty serial killer. They sure as hell don't go off as much when it's a dead politician or rich person you don't like either.
Why do you guys always bring up "innocent people who have been executed" in threads like this to argue against the death penalty.
This man is not innocent. People obviously don't want innocent people executed at the hands of the government.
There's no "ifs", he did it. Let people say he deserves to die and move on. Your moral compasses don't need go haywire in every death penalty thread of a confirmed guilty serial killer. They sure as hell don't go off as much when it's a dead politician or rich person you don't like either.
I can't stand all the rehabilitation arguments in this thread. The worst scum don't deserve to be rehabilitated while there victims are 6 feet under. Why is there so much empathy for scum who I would argue aren't even human anymore. Makes me sick to my stomach. Life in prison for these murderers will never be justice.
You're looking for revenge, not justice. Lives have been saved by rehabilitated criminals. Criminals can go on to make important contributions to society if they're motivated by getting a second chance.I can't stand all the rehabilitation arguments in this thread. The worst scum don't deserve to be rehabilitated while there victims are 6 feet under. Why is there so much empathy for scum who I would argue aren't even human anymore. Makes me sick to my stomach. Life in prison for these murderers will never be justice.
You believe everyone should have a chance at rehabilitation. What about child molesters? Should they be given a chance to be rehabilitated and rejoin society?I think everyone deserves to have the chance at rehabilitation and I have empathy for all people, as hard as it is to have. I understand why people feel the way you do.
The state shouldn't have the right to execute its citizens.You believe everyone should have a chance at rehabilitation. What about child molesters? Should they be given a chance to be rehabilitated and rejoin society?
do you have empathy for child molesters? Genuinely curious.
Even if they do contribute to society, my point is they don't deserve a second chance. There victims don't get a second chance at life, so neither should them.You're looking for revenge, not justice. Lives have been saved by rehabilitated criminals. Criminals can go on to make important contributions to society if they're motivated by getting a second chance.
The desire to punish a criminal by ending their existence doesn't outweigh everything we know about rehabilitation.
You're fine with killing a person... all because you read an article online?Why do you guys always bring up "innocent people who have been executed" in threads like this to argue against the death penalty.
This man is not innocent. People obviously don't want innocent people executed at the hands of the government.
There's no "ifs", he did it. Let people say he deserves to die and move on. Your moral compasses don't need go haywire in every death penalty thread of a confirmed guilty serial killer. They sure as hell don't go off as much when it's a dead politician or rich person you don't like either.
You believe everyone should have a chance at rehabilitation. What about child molesters? Should they be given a chance to be rehabilitated and rejoin society?
do you have empathy for child molesters? Genuinely curious.
he is a danger to society and should be removed to avoid causing further harms.He certainly does.
That doesn't mean it should be done though. A person's life should hold value to us as a society regardless of their actions.
I can respect that opinion even if I disagree. I strongly believe the heinous crimes these monsters commit should not be rewarded with a second chance through rehabilitation. I think we're we differ is I don't see them as human anymore, while you still do.Yes. I believe that they should be given a chance to be rehabilitated and rejoin society if they can without hurting anyone else. Now, I'm not saying they can be rehabilitated but they should have the chance to be. I believe that more should be done to prevent these kinds of disgusting crimes from happening by getting them help before they commit an act.
he is a danger to society and should be removed to avoid causing further harms.
I can respect that opinion even if I disagree. I strongly believe the heinous crimes these monsters commit should not be rewarded with a second chance through rehabilitation. I think we're we differ is I don't see them as human anymore, while you still do.
Sweeping it under the rug is exactly what it is and as you are saying it's important to recognize that criminals are also victims. All the fucked up things that precede a person becoming a criminal: their socio economic history, domestic violence and abuse, mental illness - these are areas where society is supposed to step in and help before things go bad.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.
Sweeping it under the rug is exactly what it is and as you are saying it's important to recognize that criminals are also victims. All the fucked up things that precede a person becoming a criminal: their socio economic history, domestic violence and abuse, mental illness - these are areas where society is supposed to step in and help before things go bad.
When you support the death penalty and horrible treatment of criminals, and then justify that by telling yourself that these criminals are evil, what you really are doing is absolving society of its responsibility for creating these criminals in the first place. Using words like "evil" is just a convenient way of never having to think about it. It's denial, sticking your head in the sand, sweeping it under the rug. Criminals don't just pop into existence. On a macro scale crime is predictable: when an area is stuck by poverty, crime rises. When a person suffers abuse they are much more likely to become violent. Crime is a manifestation of the failings of society not the failings of individuals. It's sad to see that even on a progressive place like era, when dealing with crime so many revert to their old testament "personal responsibility" morals.
In those cases, the person is set free?The problem isn't death penalty itself, it's how it's applied. This guy admitted to his murders and the police found body parts in his house. He killed a 15 years old girl. There's no rehabilitation here. He can provide nothing. Kill him.
Cases where guilt cannot be proven 100% shouldn't be death penalty cases. It's simple.
Eye for an eye? That might feel right and emotionally satisfying, but it serves no purpose beyond revenge. We don't torture people on behalf of murder victims' families, even if that would give the families satisfaction. And civilized societies don't hurt criminals for the sake of punishment. We shouldn't kill them either. It's all different degrees of inhumane.Even if they do contribute to society, my point is they don't deserve a second chance. There victims don't get a second chance at life, so neither should them.
Prisoners are already removed from society. The death penalty executes confined people who pose no threat to people outside the prison walls -- with exceptions that are so rare they can be discounted in this discussion.he is a danger to society and should be removed to avoid causing further harms.
Great post. You make a very important point.Sweeping it under the rug is exactly what it is and as you are saying it's important to recognize that criminals are also victims. All the fucked up things that precede a person becoming a criminal: their socio economic history, domestic violence and abuse, mental illness - these are areas where society is supposed to step in and help before things go bad.
When you support the death penalty and horrible treatment of criminals, and then justify that by telling yourself that these criminals are evil, what you really are doing is absolving society of its responsibility for creating these criminals in the first place. Using words like "evil" is just a convenient way of never having to think about it. It's denial, sticking your head in the sand, sweeping it under the rug. Criminals don't just pop into existence. On a macro scale crime is predictable: when an area is stuck by poverty, crime rises. When a person suffers abuse they are much more likely to become violent. Crime is a manifestation of the failings of society not the failings of individuals. It's sad to see that even on a progressive place like era, when dealing with crime so many revert to their old testament "personal responsibility" morals.
I think it's mainly cost of various legal appeals prisoners can use. Act of killing itself is inexpensive. I mean they hang people in Japan, rope can't be that expensive.Serious question: How does that work? I've always heard that used in the arguments against the death penalty, but I never understood exactly why it would cost more than keeping another person alive for a multitude of years.
You can't separate the fact this man is absolutely guilty with the fact that as long as the death penalty exists, innocent people will die due to it.Gotta love how a monster can kill so many people and do such terribly depraved things and all this thread is about is moral grandstanding around the death penalty.
If your reason for opposing the death penalty is as flimsy as only potentially killing the wrong person, rather than killing itself being wrong, then you should have no problem with them executing a serial killer that freely admits to his crime and not only shows no remorse but clearly enjoys recounting what he did and why.
That man deserves the harshest of punishments possible, regardless. I tend to believe the death penalty is too easy for people like that, but I'm not even sure if he'd care if they threw him into a hole and left him there to rot for the rest of his life with no light, no sound and no company.
I understand your sentiment but also...there are people like Ted Bundy out there. Nothing happened to him in his childhood to make him a monster, he simply was one. He didn't have some sort of psychotic break at an early age or suffer from head trauma. He just felt the need to murder women. Calling all criminals "victims" is an odd stance to take, while you aren't wrong that some criminals truly are victims...a person keeping the human heads of the people he murdered maybe isn't one.Sweeping it under the rug is exactly what it is and as you are saying it's important to recognize that criminals are also victims. All the fucked up things that precede a person becoming a criminal: their socio economic history, domestic violence and abuse, mental illness - these are areas where society is supposed to step in and help before things go bad.
When you support the death penalty and horrible treatment of criminals, and then justify that by telling yourself that these criminals are evil, what you really are doing is absolving society of its responsibility for creating these criminals in the first place. Using words like "evil" is just a convenient way of never having to think about it. It's denial, sticking your head in the sand, sweeping it under the rug. Criminals don't just pop into existence. On a macro scale crime is predictable: when an area is stuck by poverty, crime rises. When a person suffers abuse they are much more likely to become violent. Crime is a manifestation of the failings of society not the failings of individuals. It's sad to see that even on a progressive place like era, when dealing with crime so many revert to their old testament "personal responsibility" morals.
I understand your sentiment but also...there are people like Ted Bundy out there. Nothing happened to him in his childhood to make him a monster, he simply was one.
In 1987, however, he and other family members told attorneys that Samuel Cowell [Bundy's granfather, suspected father through incest, and adoptive father] was a tyrannical bully and a bigot who hated blacks, Italians, Catholics, and Jews, beat his wife and the family dog, and swung neighborhood cats by their tails. He once threw Louise's younger sister Julia down a flight of stairs for oversleeping.[19] He sometimes spoke aloud to unseen presences,[20] and at least once flew into a violent rage when the question of Bundy's paternity was raised.[19]
I understand your sentiment but also...there are people like Ted Bundy out there. Nothing happened to him in his childhood to make him a monster, he simply was one. He didn't have some sort of psychotic break at an early age or suffer from head trauma. He just felt the need to murder women. Calling all criminals "victims" is an odd stance to take, while you aren't wrong that some criminals truly are victims...a person keeping the human heads of the people he murdered maybe isn't one.
I understand your sentiment but also...there are people like Ted Bundy out there. Nothing happened to him in his childhood to make him a monster, he simply was one. He didn't have some sort of psychotic break at an early age or suffer from head trauma. He just felt the need to murder women. Calling all criminals "victims" is an odd stance to take, while you aren't wrong that some criminals truly are victims...a person keeping the human heads of the people he murdered maybe isn't one.
This is such a crucial point. It's utterly horrifying how eager society is to treat criminals as fundamentally evil subhumans, when so many of them are victims of their circumstances. It's such a grotesque failure in empathy and basic reasoning.
Crimes don't just happen. How can people be held responsible for their own actions if their actions resulted from abuse, neglect, mental illness, or other powerful factors? But many, many people are just plain unwilling to follow this chain of reasoning, because it leads to uncomfortable questions about free will, and our traditional assumptions about responsibility.
Edit: Jesus, apologies for the triple post. Mobile is a nightmare sometimes. I could have sworn there were replies below my earlier posts.
Sweeping it under the rug is exactly what it is and as you are saying it's important to recognize that criminals are also victims. All the fucked up things that precede a person becoming a criminal: their socio economic history, domestic violence and abuse, mental illness - these are areas where society is supposed to step in and help before things go bad.
When you support the death penalty and horrible treatment of criminals, and then justify that by telling yourself that these criminals are evil, what you really are doing is absolving society of its responsibility for creating these criminals in the first place. Using words like "evil" is just a convenient way of never having to think about it. It's denial, sticking your head in the sand, sweeping it under the rug. Criminals don't just pop into existence. On a macro scale crime is predictable: when an area is stuck by poverty, crime rises. When a person suffers abuse they are much more likely to become violent. Crime is a manifestation of the failings of society not the failings of individuals. It's sad to see that even on a progressive place like era, when dealing with crime so many revert to their old testament "personal responsibility" morals.
It was a genuine question. The guy I was quoting believes everyone deserves rehabilitation including child molesters which I disagree with.Per Wikipedia:
You seem to be taking at face value Bundy's own account that nothing out of the ordinary happened during his childhood, when the truth is very different.
There's absolutely nothing "genuine" about this post.
That makes even less sense since I'd imagine that the majority of sex offenders and child abusers don't receive life sentences. Surely the outcomes--reducing recidivism and protecting children--are more important.It was a genuine question. The guy I was quoting believes everyone deserves rehabilitation including child molesters which I disagree with.
I think even more then it's easy to have empathy for minorities in a lot of cases here it's more like "it's easy to have empathy for people facing similar problems to yourself". A lot of people here are part of those minority groups so it's basically having empathy for yourself and your family/friends in those caseFully agreed. As to why Era seems to be so divided about this when it's otherwise pretty consistently leftist... I don't think it's that much of a mystery. Empathy and rationality are exercised far less often than the average Era poster would like to think; it's easy to be a leftist when the allies are the disenfranchised, and the enemy are greedy corporations. It's a lot harder to empathize with rapists and murderers, and to tell victims and their families "your feelings that this person should be dead are not enough".
But the thing is... is it truly empathy, if it's effortless? Is it really testing your empathy in any way to post in a message board in support of minorities versus bigots? What's the effort you're really making here? How progressive and commited to empathy Era members truly are, when Cyberpunk 2077 is still massively popular and played despite its transphobic issues, and when next-gen consoles are still bought day one, even knowing they're manufactured through slave labor?