zlacker

>>YeGobl+(OP)
The way death row inmates are treated is arguably a reason to be against death row. There was also a case where a person on death row couldn’t present exculpatory evidence to prove his innocence because his last appeals lawyer didn’t do it. The Supreme Court literally decided you can prove you have evidence that proves your innocence, that you were done dirty by an incompetent lawyer, it doesn’t matter, you should still be killed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinn_v._Ramirez

>>Samoye+Eg
That's because the purpose of the death penalty is to function as a sort of secular human sacrifice, to ward off evil-doers possibly doing bad things, due to a belief that deep down bad guys are rational actors and will choose not to do commit capital murder based on punishment.

>>spamiz+Ov
It's retributive justice, it's not a deterrent.

To quote a post I recently found resonating with me:

"Look, we don’t necessarily hang murderers to deter other people from committing the same offence. We kill them simply because the punishment has to carry the same weight as the offence. The family of the murderer must go through the same anguish and pain that the murder victim’s family went through. The killer has to be stopped from enjoying all the things that come with being alive. When you kill another person, you deprive them of worldly enjoyments like food, sex, conversations, bathing, laughing, crying and therefore it is only befitting that you too get deprived of same and the only way to do so is through the death sentence. If we are going to shy away from punishing wrong-doers on the basis that the punishment won’t stop other people from committing the same offence then we might as well not send anyone to jail because sending people to jail has never stopped other people from committing the same offences."

https://www.sundaystandard.info/iocom-a-retributionist-i-sup...

>>dsego+Yx
> It's retributive justice, it's not a deterrent.

Or it's a form of societal self-defence: there are some folks that will continue to be a menace to society, whether they'll do murder or other bad things, and society wants to eliminate the risk/threat.

If someone comes at you with a knife or gun, you have a right to protect yourself, potentially up to the point of killing the attacker. If someone comes at a group of people (e.g., at a temple, mosque, church), they have a right to protect yourself, potentially up to the point of killing the attacker.

If someone keeps coming at member of society, society has a right to protect itself.

In modern times, with modern prisons, it is much easier to keep these people isolated from society at large, and so the need for the mechanism has been diminished, but the principle is still there.