“Kenny just began to gasp for air repeatedly and the execution took about 25 minutes total.”
Pretty compassionate way to kill a person.
Once again, the Law in the south is brutal.
“Kenny just began to gasp for air repeatedly and the execution took about 25 minutes total.”
Pretty compassionate way to kill a person.
Once again, the Law in the south is brutal.
The state tells you murder is illegal. Except when the state does it. You can’t expect people to follow, “do what I say, not what I do.”
It’s cruel, it’s a reflection of our morals. The death penalty is not a deterrent for murder. The death penalty is hypocrisy. The death penalty is for an unserious society.
But the death penalty is just a symptom of a greater chronic illness we suffer from. We’ll just continue to kill ourselves until we find a cure for the disease.
Edit: I see many do not like my wording for state sanctioned murder. If you are reading this and don’t understand, imagine if listening to George Bush (can’t remember which) tell the tv America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. He’s drawing a moral line in the sand with terrorism. That’s my point. We need to figure out where our moral line in the sand is with the death penalty, because right now it’s all over the place. Do I think outlawing the death penalty will solve our societal woes? No, I do not. The people will demand it until it is reinstated. For me I ask what is the purpose of the death penalty? Does it serve a greater good for a society? Obviously it does not. Americans are murdered all the time, so it serves no purpose.
The cure is education. Unfortunately they are killing that, too.
Good education is so underrated, yet so difficult to actually get, especially with these silly book bans and stuff which only serve to narrow students’ perspectives
I want to preface this by saying I am against the death penalty.
The argument
really falls apart when you consider all the other things the state is allowed to do that would be otherwise illegal. The simplest comparison is imprisonment but there are dozens of others.
Exactly, the government has a monopoly on a lot of things, among them violence and as an extent of that monopoly also incarceration.
I can see how some people have a hard time grasping that. I mean most of us would like to have no violence at all, so allowing some that power can seem strange. But how about traffic laws?
You can’t get in your car and go 200km/h down the road, which I sometimes would like to, but I hope we all can see how everyone doing 200, where 80 is more appropriate, would be a problem. So we’re ok with police/fire/rescue being the only ones allowed to break the speed limits and running red lights, right? It’s the same thing.
We’ve got specially trained people, who have been given strict guidelines for doing stuff ordinary citizens can’t do, because the society need something done that can’t be done without these powers … and who have oversight (hopefully), so these powers aren’t abused.
How’d you make your comment in bold font?
Does your text box not have a little “B” above it? If not **text** will make it bold. Surrounding the text with a single * will make it italics.
thank you*
I think you are onto something. The cure will be found when nobody is left. /S
Only situation I’d accept a death sentence is if a person indisputably poses a credible threat to other peoples lives, even while imprisoned.
Essentially, anybody previously convicted of murder who then proceeds to (beyond any doubt) attempt murder again. At that point it’s not about punishment, it’s about protecting human life.
I will also preface this by saying I am 100% against the death penalty. The fact that we could put an innocent person to death for what I see as zero gain makes it very hard to convince me otherwise.
However:
Murder is by definition the illegal killing of someone. Unless I’m mistaken, every state has some law on the book that allows you to kill someone, at least in the case of self defense or the defense of another when it’s reasonable to believe there is imminent danger to one’s life. And the defense of the DP is that it’s “defending” society against these criminals. It’s BS, but your point is also incorrect.
This is kind of a silly argument. The state is not a person. When they fine you money, it is not identical to someone stealing from you.
Ah, so it is okay for institutions to murder people. Gotcha.
The state doesn’t intentionally murder innocent people. Your argument is invalid.
The state does not care whether they are innocent as well, and that callousness is just as bad from the eyes of people living in a civilized society…
I’m pretty sure this guys’s guilt was beyond dispute. States have so many appeals and checks on capital punishment that it is much, much cheaper to default to life in prison. The economic argument isn’t noble but should be included in the debate.
It’s estimated that 4% of prisoners on death row are innocent. Sure, we’re certain about this guy, but that’s the case for those 4%, as well.
That’s a good argument for increasing the threshold of guilt for capital crimes. But of those legitimately and obviously guilty, do they owe a debt equal to their own life for murdering someone else?
How does their death pay for that debt? There is no compensation, no restitution has been made, nothing else is corrected. So, why?
It would be restoration by proxy. I once had a friend who stole money. He did not know the person and could never find him again. To make restoration he gave an equal amount plus reasonable interest to a charity, anonymously. The charity was a proxy for the man from whom he stole.
So, was the restoration something he lost, or something he returned to someone else? Would it have been restoration if he just burned the money instead of giving the money to someone?
Can you proved evidence to this opinion of yours?
Which opinion? That the state doesn’t care about whether a victim of a murderer is innocent or also a criminal? You can look up just about any criminal case and see that criminals are just as often victims of crime as any ‘innocent’ person. Literally, a compatriot dying while committing a crime with you will get you charged with Felony Murder.
If you mean that the state doesn’t care if it executes innocent people, well: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence
So aside from your opinion… and a link that doesn’t even suggest what states actually care about,
got anything else?
By your logic, then it’s okay to murder people I deem not innocent. Got it.
Woah there, kiddo. It appears you haven’t learned how crime and punishment works. You see, there are varying degrees of crimes, and thus- varying degrees of punishment.
This is why shoplifters aren’t executed.
Hopefully this simple reference will keep you from embarrassing yourself in the future.
Okay, I won’t “intentionally” murder innocent people then.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Civilian murderers also have justifications for their actions. I accept those justifications just as much as I do those of the State murderers.
This place is so stupid sometimes they’d fight for the rights of their own families murderer’s. No point in trying to put facts in front of people like that. They’ve made their decision.
Oh I know. I’d be surprised none of them reported my comment simply because they disagree with it. Lemmy LOVES being outraged.
Sorry, who’s being outraged here?
Seems Lemmy also loves coming to conclusions on people they know nothing about.
So how is what I said about you being outraged different from what you said about “Lemmy” being outraged?
Because I’m showing no indications of actually being outraged, and Lemmy does tens of thousands of times daily.
That’s how.
You sound pretty outraged.