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
And that's why it's horrible. The first family is miserable, so in return you make another family miserable as well. Just more misery, not good for anybody.

We consider murderers the lowest of the low, therefore we stoop to the same level. That's the thinking?

In the US, the same people who think government should not have much power, are against taxes, think that abortion is a kind of murder and should be illegal, these people are nevertheless fine with government murdering citizens. I don't get it.

>>Scarbl+Rz
Doesn't have to be miserable, in theory, if it's used for serious murders with sexual/aggravating components; it doesn't have to hurt the other family.

What hurt them is the behavior. You really going to feel good about your brother senselessly murdering three people, because "at least he's alive".

The notion of standing behind loved ones, no matter what, is not universal.

>>P_I_St+8V2
The comment I replied to said: "The family of the murderer must go through the same anguish and pain that the murder victim’s family went through".

So that's the explicit goal.

>>Scarbl+VW3
Yeah, the listed it among many things, and I agree that's messed up, but honestly only that part in a really visceral way.

I wonder if they were really focusing on the family needing to be punished, vs. the murderer knowing what they've done to their family. In such a case, you could argue that it does not and should not hurt the family any more (or not much).

You don't have to stand by family, and can feel very little different about their receiving justice; perhaps a bit worse, since you don't know what else they could do before being laid to rest.

I thought this was getting dismissed too quickly, but I forgot how directly this was said. Yes, if you literally want to hurt their families, that's just insanity; lashing out at people who had nothing to do with it...

... although there's a really interesting argument that you're always doing this when you punish someone.