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
I genuinely find this point of view viscerally repulsive. Maybe it's a common perspective, but I pray not. It really seems to be at the heart of a lot of issues with legal systems.

>>i80and+nz
Most people, moral or not, would never kill. Most people rarely feel a desire to kill, and most people know they would feel guilty for killing someone. A person's feelings will keep them in line even if their character won't. The police add an extra incentive.

But executions change all that. Whether or not a person supports capital punishment reveals if their morality is a flimsy thing of feelings and self-interest or a thing of principle. It is safe for someone to hate a heinous criminal and wish them ill. There's little fear of guilty feelings or reprisal. The average person will give in, baying for blood purely because they want to see the hated person suffer. A good person will refuse to hurt others no matter how badly they want to.

Capital punishment is a good litmus test. It reveals those who are murderers deep down inside.

>>adfgii+aa1
> A good person will refuse to hurt others no matter how badly they want to.

Does this include or exclude killing in self defense? Would a good person allow themselves to be killed rather than harming the attacker? Imagine that the assailant would be rehabilitated after serving 10-15 years for your murder and live a productive life with family and kids, does that change the equation? Is absolutist pacifism the end goal or is there an arbitrary line you are willing to draw?

>>dsego+Oc1
No, no, no, and no. In all of those cases the killing is justified by more than just bloodlust. I am not a pacifist and never have been.

Executions are different. People are not afraid to admit that they support executions because they like knowing that hated people will suffer. That is not something I will consider acceptable under any circumstances. If there were any evidence that capital punishment served a purpose beyond feeling good I might change my tune. But there isn't, so I won't.

You yourself admitted executions serve no practical purpose, so your self-defense hypotheticals are irrelevant.