|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 18 2019 06:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2019 01:48 Yurie wrote:On March 17 2019 23:59 Sermokala wrote:
I support the concept of the death penalty and would defend it in a debate but its a lot like a reverse marijuana argument for me. I really agree with it but the reality of it means I can't really agree with it.
I mean hanging was pretty effective and human but that was pretty primitive. Lethal injection is (especially with the euro ban on the chemicals making shortages a thing) not a viable alternative to just jailing them for life the same that keeping pot illegal is not a viable alternative to heroin based pain meds. You mean the classical type of hanging where you drop the person 5 cm and they strangle to death? Or the more modern variant where you have a long drop so the neck breaks? The second one is more or less the same as a shooting squad or lethal injection. Tension up until the occasion, then done. The first one is a public spectacle that drew large audiences historically. Classical hanging would fall into the snuff category of entertainment if public. Which is illegal in most western countries. https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-61-blitz-painfotainment/That podcast/audio book is a pretty good summary of the history of executions. Yes I watched a good movie on a British dude who was in charge of it in WW2. Great movie on its own and as a discussion on the morals of execution and morals in general.
If we're doing that I recommend A Short Film About Killing which had a serious impact on the capital punishment debate in Poland at the time.
|
On March 18 2019 07:47 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2019 05:58 KwarK wrote:
Lifetime imprisonment is still a death sentence, the method used is just more cruel and unusual. The only meaningful advantage of lifetime imprisonment over hanging to me is that there is the opportunity to correct fuckups if they’re still alive.
If someone maintains their innocence and hopes time will vindicate them then I’m fine with life, if not I’m also fine with death. Putting them in a box and waiting for time to kill them isn’t a life, it’s a slow execution. This reasoning seems to operate from the premise that a life in prison has no value. What gives a human life value is a large philosophical question I don’t have a good answer to, but both to the individual ls thrmselves and to the people around them, I don’t think life imprisonment would feel functionally equivalent to death. Offered the choice of spending my remaining 50 years or w/e in prison or dying a lot sooner, I don’t know for certain what I would choose but I’m confident they wouldn’t seem like basically the same thing.
Remember that friends of family should also be taken into consideration, for them, it makes a hell of a difference!
|
On March 18 2019 18:15 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2019 07:47 ChristianS wrote:On March 18 2019 05:58 KwarK wrote:
Lifetime imprisonment is still a death sentence, the method used is just more cruel and unusual. The only meaningful advantage of lifetime imprisonment over hanging to me is that there is the opportunity to correct fuckups if they’re still alive.
If someone maintains their innocence and hopes time will vindicate them then I’m fine with life, if not I’m also fine with death. Putting them in a box and waiting for time to kill them isn’t a life, it’s a slow execution. This reasoning seems to operate from the premise that a life in prison has no value. What gives a human life value is a large philosophical question I don’t have a good answer to, but both to the individual ls thrmselves and to the people around them, I don’t think life imprisonment would feel functionally equivalent to death. Offered the choice of spending my remaining 50 years or w/e in prison or dying a lot sooner, I don’t know for certain what I would choose but I’m confident they wouldn’t seem like basically the same thing. Remember that friends of family should also be taken into consideration, for them, it makes a hell of a difference! no you shouldn't. once you start living for someone, your own life is done; you're no longer a free agent but subservient to whatever considerations other deem necessary/worthwhile for them.
if fixes nothing and only prolongs your agony.
|
On March 18 2019 19:34 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2019 18:15 Slydie wrote:On March 18 2019 07:47 ChristianS wrote:On March 18 2019 05:58 KwarK wrote:
Lifetime imprisonment is still a death sentence, the method used is just more cruel and unusual. The only meaningful advantage of lifetime imprisonment over hanging to me is that there is the opportunity to correct fuckups if they’re still alive.
If someone maintains their innocence and hopes time will vindicate them then I’m fine with life, if not I’m also fine with death. Putting them in a box and waiting for time to kill them isn’t a life, it’s a slow execution. This reasoning seems to operate from the premise that a life in prison has no value. What gives a human life value is a large philosophical question I don’t have a good answer to, but both to the individual ls thrmselves and to the people around them, I don’t think life imprisonment would feel functionally equivalent to death. Offered the choice of spending my remaining 50 years or w/e in prison or dying a lot sooner, I don’t know for certain what I would choose but I’m confident they wouldn’t seem like basically the same thing. Remember that friends of family should also be taken into consideration, for them, it makes a hell of a difference! no you shouldn't. once you start living for someone, your own life is done; you're no longer a free agent but subservient to whatever considerations other deem necessary/worthwhile for them. if fixes nothing and only prolongs your agony.
Have you made even the slightest effort to read this comment you're replying to in context?
We're discussing life imprisonment and the death penalty.
|
I kinda agree with xM(Z here (Things i thought i'd never say...)
When talking about the life of a person, only that person should matter. If you keep someone alive only to keep their family happy, that is weird and basically turns that person into an object.
Also, the postchain explicitly talks about being given the choice. In that circumstance, "I'd rather die, but i am going to spend the next 50 years in prison instead because me dying would make my family sad" fits neatly into what xM(Z said.
|
On March 18 2019 20:11 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2019 19:34 xM(Z wrote:On March 18 2019 18:15 Slydie wrote:On March 18 2019 07:47 ChristianS wrote:On March 18 2019 05:58 KwarK wrote:
Lifetime imprisonment is still a death sentence, the method used is just more cruel and unusual. The only meaningful advantage of lifetime imprisonment over hanging to me is that there is the opportunity to correct fuckups if they’re still alive.
If someone maintains their innocence and hopes time will vindicate them then I’m fine with life, if not I’m also fine with death. Putting them in a box and waiting for time to kill them isn’t a life, it’s a slow execution. This reasoning seems to operate from the premise that a life in prison has no value. What gives a human life value is a large philosophical question I don’t have a good answer to, but both to the individual ls thrmselves and to the people around them, I don’t think life imprisonment would feel functionally equivalent to death. Offered the choice of spending my remaining 50 years or w/e in prison or dying a lot sooner, I don’t know for certain what I would choose but I’m confident they wouldn’t seem like basically the same thing. Remember that friends of family should also be taken into consideration, for them, it makes a hell of a difference! no you shouldn't. once you start living for someone, your own life is done; you're no longer a free agent but subservient to whatever considerations other deem necessary/worthwhile for them. if fixes nothing and only prolongs your agony. Have you made even the slightest effort to read this comment you're replying to in context? We're discussing life imprisonment and the death penalty. he was explicitly commenting on this partOffered the choice of spending my remaining 50 years or w/e in prison or dying a lot sooner, I don’t know for certain what I would choose but I’m confident they wouldn’t seem like basically the same thing. implying that the choice belongs to someone else too.
Edit: on the subject, i'd go as far as to create centers in which people could legally choose to: assist me to commit suicide because ...; i wouldn't actually care about the because part but it would be opened to all kinds of prisoners.
the end result being, i'll be left with people that actually want to live.
|
On March 18 2019 20:17 Simberto wrote:
I kinda agree with xM(Z here (Things i thought i'd never say...)
When talking about the life of a person, only that person should matter. If you keep someone alive only to keep their family happy, that is weird and basically turns that person into an object.
Also, the postchain explicitly talks about being given the choice. In that circumstance, "I'd rather die, but i am going to spend the next 50 years in prison instead because me dying would make my family sad" fits neatly into what xM(Z said.
I think I would support that in principle, but only after several decades of prison and criminal justice reform in the US. The US prison system isn't ready for that level of responsibility, considering we cannot even bring our death penalty error rate down to 0%. Or collectively acknowledge that state killing innocent citizen should be avoided at all costs, even if that means a 20 year appeal process. Or even acknowledge that for profit prisons are terrible and should be outlawed. This country isn't reasonable enough to care for the people it imprisons, so I don't believe we are ready to responsibly assist prisoners who wish to end their life.
|
The fact that you could kill an innocent person is enough to never allow the death penalty ever.
I don't get how this isn't sufficent, the state kills a person (a citizen, not a poor middle eastern guy somewhere in far away) that was at the wrong place at the wrong time. It happened plenty of times and it will happen again.
With this knowledge, how can anyone argue for the death penalty? This shit could happen to you or someone you know...
|
Getting back onto the topic of this thread a bit, Trump had a bit of a fit this weekend, tweeting/retweeting over 50 times, including RTing conspiracy theorists and attacking the few Fox people who don't suck up to him 100% of the time while defending a host recently suspended for saying Islamophobic remarks about Ilhan Omar. He also has been attacking John McCain again (who, as a reminder, died last year) over the Steele dossier, claiming McCain was conspiring with the Democrats to release it before the election. McCain himself said he didn't see the dossier until a week after the election was done.
There's been speculation that this recent tantrum might have been caused by him finding out something bad (for him) is going to happen soon. He's apparently acted like this in the past right before major news has broken.
Whether or not news is coming out, his behaviour is getting legitimately scary. He is quite clearly coming unraveled and isn't even remotely mentally or emotionally stable anymore. I can't even imagine how he will act if/when one of his children gets indicted.
|
On March 19 2019 04:50 Ben... wrote:
Getting back onto the topic of this thread a bit, Trump had a bit of a fit this weekend, tweeting/retweeting over 50 times, including RTing conspiracy theorists and attacking the few Fox people who don't suck up to him 100% of the time while defending a host recently suspended for saying Islamophobic remarks about Ilhan Omar. He also has been attacking John McCain again (who, as a reminder, died last year) over the Steele dossier, claiming McCain was conspiring with the Democrats to release it before the election. McCain himself said he didn't see the dossier until a week after the election was done.
There's been speculation that this recent tantrum might have been caused by him finding out something bad (for him) is going to happen soon. He's apparently acted like this in the past right before major news has broken.
Whether or not news is coming out, his behaviour is getting legitimately scary. He is quite clearly coming unraveled and isn't even remotely mentally or emotionally stable anymore. I can't even imagine how he will act if/when one of his children gets indicted.
I think every four to six months I hear the same two things:
Speculation that Trumps recent behavior means something bad is about to publicly drop about him or his administration.
This time, his behavior is legitimately scary. Like, the past times and the pattern of his behavior is nothing compared to current evidence that he’s coming unraveled.
All it’s missing is speculation that current unraveling will prompt 25th amendment proceedings.
Reflexive defense of people he feels are on “his side” is very much in keeping with his character, as is jeering at opponents (in this case dishonoring the dead). I’m afraid you do a poor job showing that something is very different this time. Are you going to link a histogram of frequency of retweeting to show mental instability?
|
On March 19 2019 05:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2019 04:50 Ben... wrote:
Getting back onto the topic of this thread a bit, Trump had a bit of a fit this weekend, tweeting/retweeting over 50 times, including RTing conspiracy theorists and attacking the few Fox people who don't suck up to him 100% of the time while defending a host recently suspended for saying Islamophobic remarks about Ilhan Omar. He also has been attacking John McCain again (who, as a reminder, died last year) over the Steele dossier, claiming McCain was conspiring with the Democrats to release it before the election. McCain himself said he didn't see the dossier until a week after the election was done.
There's been speculation that this recent tantrum might have been caused by him finding out something bad (for him) is going to happen soon. He's apparently acted like this in the past right before major news has broken.
Whether or not news is coming out, his behaviour is getting legitimately scary. He is quite clearly coming unraveled and isn't even remotely mentally or emotionally stable anymore. I can't even imagine how he will act if/when one of his children gets indicted. I think every four to six months I hear the same two things: Speculation that Trumps recent behavior means something bad is about to publicly drop about him or his administration. This time, his behavior is legitimately scary. Like, the past times and the pattern of his behavior is nothing compared to current evidence that he’s coming unraveled. All it’s missing is speculation that current unraveling will prompt 25th amendment proceedings. Reflexive defense of people he feels are on “his side” is very much in keeping with his character, as is jeering at opponents (in this case dishonoring the dead). I’m afraid you do a poor job showing that something is very different this time. Are you going to link a histogram of frequency of retweeting to show mental instability?
Danglars has a point, nothing about Trump seeming insane is new or has meaning....
Which is kinda really fucking scary
|
United States42017 Posts
Indeed. I remember when he was a draft dodger saying PoWs who got shot down and subsequently captured (due to broken legs etc) were losers and that he’d have gone Rambo had it been him, if he wasn’t too busy trying to avoid STDs. That was meant to be some kind of turning point. It turns out there really is nothing that someone on their “team” can do that will cause them to leave the team.
|
On March 19 2019 05:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2019 04:50 Ben... wrote:
Getting back onto the topic of this thread a bit, Trump had a bit of a fit this weekend, tweeting/retweeting over 50 times, including RTing conspiracy theorists and attacking the few Fox people who don't suck up to him 100% of the time while defending a host recently suspended for saying Islamophobic remarks about Ilhan Omar. He also has been attacking John McCain again (who, as a reminder, died last year) over the Steele dossier, claiming McCain was conspiring with the Democrats to release it before the election. McCain himself said he didn't see the dossier until a week after the election was done.
There's been speculation that this recent tantrum might have been caused by him finding out something bad (for him) is going to happen soon. He's apparently acted like this in the past right before major news has broken.
Whether or not news is coming out, his behaviour is getting legitimately scary. He is quite clearly coming unraveled and isn't even remotely mentally or emotionally stable anymore. I can't even imagine how he will act if/when one of his children gets indicted. I think every four to six months I hear the same two things: Speculation that Trumps recent behavior means something bad is about to publicly drop about him or his administration. This time, his behavior is legitimately scary. Like, the past times and the pattern of his behavior is nothing compared to current evidence that he’s coming unraveled. All it’s missing is speculation that current unraveling will prompt 25th amendment proceedings. Reflexive defense of people he feels are on “his side” is very much in keeping with his character, as is jeering at opponents (in this case dishonoring the dead). I’m afraid you do a poor job showing that something is very different this time. Are you going to link a histogram of frequency of retweeting to show mental instability?
All well and good, as long as you guys are willing to acknowledge the same about the regular "Time's up for Mueller" garbage. It's all wishful thinking until proven otherwise.
|
On March 19 2019 03:18 Velr wrote:
The fact that you could kill an innocent person is enough to never allow the death penalty ever.
I don't get how this isn't sufficent, the state kills a person (a citizen, not a poor middle eastern guy somewhere in far away) that was at the wrong place at the wrong time. It happened plenty of times and it will happen again.
With this knowledge, how can anyone argue for the death penalty? This shit could happen to you or someone you know...
I'm against the death penalty but I hate this argument and I especially hate that it's used so often. The same is true of any punishment. If you have life in prison instead of the death penalty, you could and you will sometimes put an innocent in prison for life.
In order to argue against the death penalty you need to show more than that it can fail sometimes. Anything can fail sometimes. If we didn't use cars, we would never have car accidents, and therefore less people would die; but cars are overall a benefit for society so we accept that some people will get killed as a result of us using them. The death penalty is not a benefit for society, which is why we shouldn't accept the accidents. If it was true that the death penalty was a benefit for society, which is what people who are for the death penalty believe, then it would also logically follow that accidents are acceptable.
|
On March 18 2019 20:17 Simberto wrote:
I kinda agree with xM(Z here (Things i thought i'd never say...)
When talking about the life of a person, only that person should matter. If you keep someone alive only to keep their family happy, that is weird and basically turns that person into an object.
Also, the postchain explicitly talks about being given the choice. In that circumstance, "I'd rather die, but i am going to spend the next 50 years in prison instead because me dying would make my family sad" fits neatly into what xM(Z said.
Sorry about coming back to this but remember you are talking about grand parents, spouses, parents, siblings, children and lifetime friends here, so "to keep them happy" is an incredibly shallow and cyncical way of talking about the state not killing someone. Lives are destroyed and deep emotional scars for life are inflicted. Sure, a lifetime in prison is not easy to deal with either, but it is not comparable to an execution. For the same reason, a suicide is maybe the most egoistic thing a human being can do because of how much it hurts the people close to you.
I am sure you all have lost someone...
|
On March 19 2019 05:29 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2019 05:18 Danglars wrote:On March 19 2019 04:50 Ben... wrote:
Getting back onto the topic of this thread a bit, Trump had a bit of a fit this weekend, tweeting/retweeting over 50 times, including RTing conspiracy theorists and attacking the few Fox people who don't suck up to him 100% of the time while defending a host recently suspended for saying Islamophobic remarks about Ilhan Omar. He also has been attacking John McCain again (who, as a reminder, died last year) over the Steele dossier, claiming McCain was conspiring with the Democrats to release it before the election. McCain himself said he didn't see the dossier until a week after the election was done.
There's been speculation that this recent tantrum might have been caused by him finding out something bad (for him) is going to happen soon. He's apparently acted like this in the past right before major news has broken.
Whether or not news is coming out, his behaviour is getting legitimately scary. He is quite clearly coming unraveled and isn't even remotely mentally or emotionally stable anymore. I can't even imagine how he will act if/when one of his children gets indicted. I think every four to six months I hear the same two things: Speculation that Trumps recent behavior means something bad is about to publicly drop about him or his administration. This time, his behavior is legitimately scary. Like, the past times and the pattern of his behavior is nothing compared to current evidence that he’s coming unraveled. All it’s missing is speculation that current unraveling will prompt 25th amendment proceedings. Reflexive defense of people he feels are on “his side” is very much in keeping with his character, as is jeering at opponents (in this case dishonoring the dead). I’m afraid you do a poor job showing that something is very different this time. Are you going to link a histogram of frequency of retweeting to show mental instability? Danglars has a point, nothing about Trump seeming insane is new or has meaning.... Which is kinda really fucking scary
Trump’s recent rant on twitter is just further evidence of why no one takes him seriously except people who are required to do so. He is just an old man yelling at a television over twitter who happens to also be the President. The scary part is how much power he has the the type of people that would be willing to work for someone like him.
|
On March 19 2019 06:17 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2019 20:17 Simberto wrote:
I kinda agree with xM(Z here (Things i thought i'd never say...)
When talking about the life of a person, only that person should matter. If you keep someone alive only to keep their family happy, that is weird and basically turns that person into an object.
Also, the postchain explicitly talks about being given the choice. In that circumstance, "I'd rather die, but i am going to spend the next 50 years in prison instead because me dying would make my family sad" fits neatly into what xM(Z said. Sorry about coming back to this but remember you are talking about grand parents, spouses, parents, siblings, children and lifetime friends here, so "to keep them happy" is an incredibly shallow and cyncical way of talking about the state not killing someone. Lives are destroyed and deep emotional scars for life are inflicted. Sure, a lifetime in prison is not easy to deal with either, but it is not comparable to an execution. For the same reason, a suicide is maybe the most egoistic thing a human being can do because of how much it hurts the people close to you. I am sure you all have lost someone...
I am very clearly against the death penalty. I just don't think that that is a good reason. There are lots of far better reasons to be against the death penalty, from ethical ones, to economical ones, to practical ones. (And probably some other good categories that i just can't come up with right now)
The impact on friends and family of the criminal is not the best argument, and one of the least likely to convince people who are in favor of the death penalty, who will almost certainly claim that those family and friends should best abandon the criminal anyways.
Also, i do not agree with the suicide assessment. However, i also think that a discussion into that would go a bit far away from the topic of this thread.
|
On March 19 2019 06:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2019 03:18 Velr wrote:
The fact that you could kill an innocent person is enough to never allow the death penalty ever.
I don't get how this isn't sufficent, the state kills a person (a citizen, not a poor middle eastern guy somewhere in far away) that was at the wrong place at the wrong time. It happened plenty of times and it will happen again.
With this knowledge, how can anyone argue for the death penalty? This shit could happen to you or someone you know... I'm against the death penalty but I hate this argument and I especially hate that it's used so often. The same is true of any punishment. If you have life in prison instead of the death penalty, you could and you will sometimes put an innocent in prison for life. In order to argue against the death penalty you need to show more than that it can fail sometimes. Anything can fail sometimes. If we didn't use cars, we would never have car accidents, and therefore less people would die; but cars are overall a benefit for society so we accept that some people will get killed as a result of us using them. The death penalty is not a benefit for society, which is why we shouldn't accept the accidents. If it was true that the death penalty was a benefit for society, which is what people who are for the death penalty believe, then it would also logically follow that accidents are acceptable.
The difference is that an innocent man in prison can, one day, be vindicated.
What do you do when you find out you had the state murder an innocent man? Even if the death penalty was a benefit for society, that benefit would need to outweigh the negatives caused when the state finds out it murdered an innocent person. It does not. Indeed, it cannot. It's bad enough when you lock a man up for 18 years then let him out when you finally find out he was innocent, but there's healing to be had in that instance, the state can attempt to help the person build up their life again. If you kill an innocent man, justice is gone. It can't EVER be fixed. There's no reparations possible. You might not be able to give an innocent man his years back, but you can let him have a life again.
For a very relevant example: What about the central park 5? The 5 young black men who were convicted of raping a white woman? What if Trump's calls for what amounts to a state lynching had sent five innocent black youths to the chambers, and then OOPS, it turns out someone else did it?
Can you imagine the damage that would do to the black community?
The only people who think this would be acceptable are people who have no real understanding of justice in the first place, who view justice to be the same thing as revenge.
|
United States42017 Posts
On March 19 2019 07:48 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2019 06:16 Nebuchad wrote:On March 19 2019 03:18 Velr wrote:
The fact that you could kill an innocent person is enough to never allow the death penalty ever.
I don't get how this isn't sufficent, the state kills a person (a citizen, not a poor middle eastern guy somewhere in far away) that was at the wrong place at the wrong time. It happened plenty of times and it will happen again.
With this knowledge, how can anyone argue for the death penalty? This shit could happen to you or someone you know... I'm against the death penalty but I hate this argument and I especially hate that it's used so often. The same is true of any punishment. If you have life in prison instead of the death penalty, you could and you will sometimes put an innocent in prison for life. In order to argue against the death penalty you need to show more than that it can fail sometimes. Anything can fail sometimes. If we didn't use cars, we would never have car accidents, and therefore less people would die; but cars are overall a benefit for society so we accept that some people will get killed as a result of us using them. The death penalty is not a benefit for society, which is why we shouldn't accept the accidents. If it was true that the death penalty was a benefit for society, which is what people who are for the death penalty believe, then it would also logically follow that accidents are acceptable. The difference is that an innocent man in prison can, one day, be vindicated. What do you do when you find out you had the state murder an innocent man? Even if the death penalty was a benefit for society, that benefit would need to outweigh the negatives caused when the state finds out it murdered an innocent person. It does not. Indeed, it cannot. It's bad enough when you lock a man up for 18 years then let him out when you finally find out he was innocent, but there's healing to be had in that instance, the state can attempt to help the person build up their life again. If you kill an innocent man, justice is gone. It can't EVER be fixed. There's no reparations possible. You might not be able to give an innocent man his years back, but you can let him have a life again. For a very relevant example: What about the central park 5? The 5 young black men who were convicted of raping a white woman? What if Trump's calls for what amounts to a state lynching had sent five innocent black youths to the chambers, and then OOPS, it turns out someone else did it? Can you imagine the damage that would do to the black community? The only people who think this would be acceptable are people who have no real understanding of justice in the first place, who view justice to be the same thing as revenge.
Can we imagine? Yes, we can. The police execute innocent black men all the time.
|
On March 19 2019 07:48 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2019 06:16 Nebuchad wrote:On March 19 2019 03:18 Velr wrote:
The fact that you could kill an innocent person is enough to never allow the death penalty ever.
I don't get how this isn't sufficent, the state kills a person (a citizen, not a poor middle eastern guy somewhere in far away) that was at the wrong place at the wrong time. It happened plenty of times and it will happen again.
With this knowledge, how can anyone argue for the death penalty? This shit could happen to you or someone you know... I'm against the death penalty but I hate this argument and I especially hate that it's used so often. The same is true of any punishment. If you have life in prison instead of the death penalty, you could and you will sometimes put an innocent in prison for life. In order to argue against the death penalty you need to show more than that it can fail sometimes. Anything can fail sometimes. If we didn't use cars, we would never have car accidents, and therefore less people would die; but cars are overall a benefit for society so we accept that some people will get killed as a result of us using them. The death penalty is not a benefit for society, which is why we shouldn't accept the accidents. If it was true that the death penalty was a benefit for society, which is what people who are for the death penalty believe, then it would also logically follow that accidents are acceptable. The difference is that an innocent man in prison can, one day, be vindicated. What do you do when you find out you had the state murder an innocent man? Even if the death penalty was a benefit for society, that benefit would need to outweigh the negatives caused when the state finds out it murdered an innocent person. It does not. Indeed, it cannot. It's bad enough when you lock a man up for 18 years then let him out when you finally find out he was innocent, but there's healing to be had in that instance, the state can attempt to help the person build up their life again. If you kill an innocent man, justice is gone. It can't EVER be fixed. There's no reparations possible. You might not be able to give an innocent man his years back, but you can let him have a life again. For a very relevant example: What about the central park 5? The 5 young black men who were convicted of raping a white woman? What if Trump's calls for what amounts to a state lynching had sent five innocent black youths to the chambers, and then OOPS, it turns out someone else did it? Can you imagine the damage that would do to the black community? The only people who think this would be acceptable are people who have no real understanding of justice in the first place, who view justice to be the same thing as revenge.
You're not going to give the innocent dude who you let out of prison after 30 years his years back, no matter how much you compensate him. Killing him is worse, but the principle of "what if he was innocent" remains the same. Imprisoning someone for 30 years when he hasn't done anything is awful. So then you do some calculation as to whether having people imprisoned for 30 years is beneficial for society or not (I don't think it is), and if it is, you come out in favor of 30-year+ prison sentences and accept that sometimes you'll do that to an innocent.
People who are in favor of the death penalty don't think it's awesome that you kill innocents sometimes - I mean I'm sure some don't mind if they're black. They think the benefit outweighs the disadvantages. If we're just saying "Look at this disadvantage" again and again, we're not addressing their position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
