|
Dead Reckoning posted:It isn't hypocritical at all. For example, a person might object to a parent locking their child in a room and only letting them out briefly a few times per day to eat, exercise, and use the restroom, while at the same time accepting the right of the state to impose such a penalty on someone duly convicted of murder. Life being sacred isn't an absolute, just a default presumption unless forfeited. What is even the meaning of the word 'sacred' if it can be forfeited?
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
What percentage of murders do you reckon have a completely obvious guilty party and who would you trust to accurately make that determination?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Lots of things can happen during a life sentence. Lot's of things can happen during a life sentence. You could be subject to the daily torture that is the US prison system. If you're dead, though, that's it. What I'm saying is anyone who has ever served on a US jury and known even the slightest bit about what US prison is actually like but returned a guilty verdict anyway is immoral. I don't care what the crime was or how guilty the defendant was.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Say that in the future we invent some perfect lie defector and mind reader, some form of advanced brain analyzer. What is the value of talking about any of this stuff in these kinds of completely abstracted and unreal scenarios? Should the United States as it exists today have the death penalty? That's the kind of question whose answer actually matters for anything more than words on the internet. It's the kind you can change policy off of, ie. affect actual human beings' lives and actually make the world a better place with. Bullshit hypotheticals are a waste of time and energy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
OK I've changed my mind. I'm now in favour of executing people who make disingenuous and terrible arguments on the internet. Seriously, through a whole bunch of semantic bullshit you're now trying to define giving money to person B to be something which benefits person A, who is dead. The gently caress is wrong with you?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't think it's semantic, since I think core mechanic of compensation here is the acknowledgement of an institutional failure, not that we want particular wronged people to specifically have $50k or whatever, since it's fundamentally impossible to truly pay back lost time, broken careers, neglected relationships, whatever abuse they might have endured, and such. But you apparently think its semantic, so what does giving a freed prisoner $50k practically accomplish that giving the heirs of an executed prisoner $50k doesn't? It accomplishes compensating the person who was unjustly harmed by the state. Having to type that out makes me feel disgusted. If you aren't trolling, your brain is broken as poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I suppose if you view the concept of justice as existing on aggregate rather than individually, it doesn't make as much difference who gets compensated. Maybe the state should mete out punishment to random citizens rather than guilty individuals whenever a crime is committed. You know, to serve justice on aggregate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Are we defining justice here as that funny feeling I get in my pants whenever I see other people suffering?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Booourns posted:Maybe they shouldn't kill people if they don't want to deal with the effects that killing people can have How the gently caress is getting paid to kill people morally acceptable anyhow?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean, the army exists. At least nominally exists to protect people rather than commit wars of aggression.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 22:07
|
|