|
DC Murderverse posted:7). Innocent people might die! There are plenty of cases of new evidence being found that exonerates people sitting on death row, and there are a small number of instances where there was evidence that could have exonerated someone who was executed by the state. I repeat: HOLY loving poo poo THE STATE KILLED PEOPLE FOR A CRIME THEY DID NOT COMMIT THAT IS hosed UP This is the really important point, I feel. Innocent people die from being executed, and the thing is that America is not a country that just executes on a whim. The death penalty is actually enacted only after an enormous amount of work has been done to not only establish guilt, but to establish it sufficiently to justify execution, and the exact reason people spend forever on Death Row is because they are entitled to a great many efforts to demonstrate innocence, or at least to demonstrate extenuating circumstances that justify commuting the sentence. (I am aware of the many, many problems in the justice system that make this imperfectly true at best, but bear with me) And innocent people are still executed. If you can't rely on a legal system as rigorous as the one prevailing in Europe and North America, you can't have faith in the death penalty. All that work, all those appeals, and innocent people have still gone to the chair. Even if they have no other issues with it at all, anyone who is willing to countenance the possibility of innocents being executed is a maniac who should have no say in matters of justice.
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think that is a rather facile argument. If your overriding concern is that no innocent party is ever harmed, the only logical conclusion is that the state should never use deadly force, even to pursue legitimate ends. I don't think this is compatible with the concept of a sovereign state. When you start talking about policy at the macro level, you have to accept some possibility of unintentional harm. The concept of the sovereign state is utterly bankrupt and morally reprehensible. But that notwithstanding, deadly force is justified when other options are not appropriate or will not work; war is a failure to find a mutually satisfactory agreement through peaceful means; using force to stop a criminal on a rampage is necessary because they are not responding to peaceful communication; etc. etc.. But when you have someone in custody and in the legal system, those exigent circumstances are absent. hakimashou posted:How does that give us a reason to keep the murderer alive? This is false and transparently nonsense, because the same sectors of society who argue for capital punishment are the exact same ones who want to gut the social safety net and let people in poverty or who are sick starve. In addition to this, you can make a moral case that it is acceptable to kill people, or even necessary, but those are questions of philosophy and ethics. Killing people because you, as the most highly developed and advanced technological society in history, can't find the resources is unfathomably reprehensible. Even if we DID live in a world where we couldn't pay for the criminal justice system, the answer is to either imprison fewer people or raise taxes, not to start killing people.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 06:01
|
|