Can stage yellow support the death penalty?

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

Just now, zurew said:

If we would live in a society, where corruption would be almost at 0% and we would have a perfect or at least necessarily tech to convict someone , then I would go with death penalty, because in a society where the corruption level is really low and other pieces are relatively in place, it would be really really hard to argue how could we heal or repair those people, when they were born in almost perfect society.

Being aware that there is room for error and there is room for corruption, we shouldn't go with Leo's system where there is less investigation and evidence needed to convinct someone.

   So, when the world becomes a utopia? Basically, you agree with me, that in a stage yellow and turquoise society, handling such devilish persons that are okay committing horrific acts against society, and do not want reforming, must go. In such a utopia we would realistically have androids and robots like in the matrix determining, for the sake of long-term effects on the world, would make such determinations.

[zurew]

Just now, Danioover9000 said:

So, when the world becomes a utopia?

Basically yes, if that was your argument in the firstplace, then im sorry i misundertood your position, I assumed that you were talking about the current times.

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@zurew

   So, when the world becomes a utopia? Basically, you agree with me, that in a stage yellow and turquoise society, handling such devilish persons that are okay committing horrific acts against society, and do not want reforming, must go. In such a utopia we would realistically have androids and robots like in the matrix determining, for the sake of long-term effects on the world, would make such determinations.

But in such a society what if it was perfectly economical to imprison them.  And you could do this with ease.  Would you still want to execute them?  And if so  - why?

Edited September 4, 2022 by Inliytened1

[DocWatts]

23 minutes ago, at_anchor said:

When later? When you convict someone for a life sentence, you destroy their face and life forever. Jails are places where people get beaten, often they don't get enough sleep and there are issues with nutrition as well. The person who walks in there often comes out handicapped, humiliated and utterly destroyed. Prisoners are at the mercy of people that are not so conscious and compassionate and don't want them to change for the better. Often times on the contrary, the ones running the prison want them to stay the same or get even worse. So the death sentence is way better for them in most cases if we're gonna be honest. If these people end up convicted, often times there is no hope for them in life and they are gonna be in a cell, praying to God to take their life. 

"Our prison system is so inhumane and cruel that it's more merciful to put people to death" is if anything damning confirmation that we need substantive prison reform to end exactly the abuses you describe, than it is a good argument for the death penalty.

There's no justifiable reason that prisons have to be anywhere near as bad as they are in places like the United States.

Just because it's easier to kill people than to end the numerous human rights abuses in our prison system, doesn't mean that the easier solution is the correct one.

Edited September 4, 2022 by DocWatts

[Vrubel]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Both really.

It's not emotional vengeance, it's justice. Why should a human be allowed to kill many others and get away with his life? Makes no sense. You reap what you sow. Karma.

If you kill a bunch of civilians we have no obligation to be nice to you. You didn't value life, so then your life also has no value. Tis only fair.

Again, this is the classic example of Stage Red exploiting Stage Green compassion. Green is so soft to know how to handle Red properly, therefore Red ends up exploiting Green until Green runs dry.

You have compassion for these Reds at a distance. But if you actually had to live with them in close proximity, they would totally exploit and bully you until you lost your shit.

What is a principle worth? 

For me, it's more about principle than compassion, a social and civilizational principle for a government to not kill one's captured people. "Sanctity of life". Executions should be only applied in extremely exceptional and even historic cases. Like with nazi war criminals or Bin Laden (if he was captured alive). 

By your logic, we should just massacre all of the stage red people. 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Vrubel

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

Most of you can't stomach such imaginations, and at the collective scale too, and I am willing to engage with the full ramifications of every action possible.

   

   The stage green limitations of this thread are fucking ridiculous.

Its not about not being able to stomach these things, its more about thinking this issue through multiple perspectives and seeing all the problems and ramifications in each and every argument. If you do that, then I think you would agree, that in current times (not in an utopistic world) death penalty is worse than life imprisonment. 

Just because something is edgy and hard to stomach doesn't necessarily indicates, that thats the right thing from all the alternative choices. I agree that even the most ridiculous option should be ideally thought through to get a more holistic view on things, but I think if the edgy option is worse than a different alternative one, then we need to be honest and choose the best from all the alternatives.

Edited September 4, 2022 by zurew

[Vibes]

I don't want to derail this post, but I want you guys to answer this.

When you see an ant slowly dying, agonizing, what do you do?

Kill it or let it agonize to death thus not interfering with nature or whatever?

Before you say it, I'm not comparing death sentence with mercy killing. Just asking.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Vibes

[trenton]

3 minutes ago, Vibes said:

I don't want to derail this post, but I want you guys to answer this.

When you see an ant slowly dying, agonizing, what do you do?

Kill it or let it agonize to death thus not interfering with nature or whatever?

Before you assume, I'm not comparing death sentence with mercy killing. Just asking.

@Vibes I have a story about this.

I once found a dying bed in my backyard. It was on its side trying to fly. I used my shoe to flip it over so it could stand straight. I wanted to try to help the new first like I did when I found one in the swimming pool, so I rescued it. I came back ten minutes later and saw the same bee on its side again in the exact same place in my drive way. This time undecided to kill it.

For insects it is not practical to give them all the medical attention they need given the fact that their life span is much lower anyway and there are many things that hunt them like birds. Their numbers will not be hurt by stepping on one that is dying anyway. My position has changed and I now perform mercy kills on insects.

[at_anchor]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

If we would live in a society, where corruption would be almost at 0% and we would have a perfect or at least necessarily tech to convict someone , then I would go with death penalty, because in a society where the corruption level is really low and other pieces are relatively in place, it would be really really hard to argue how could we heal or repair those people, when they were born in almost perfect society.

 

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Being aware that there is room for error and there is room for corruption, we shouldn't go with Leo's system where there is less investigation and evidence needed to convinct someone.

Nobody is gonna investigate after the sentence is ordered. 

1 hour ago, DocWatts said:

"Our prison system is so inhumane and cruel that it's more merciful to put people to death" is if anything damning confirmation that we need substantive prison reform to end exactly the abuses you describe, than it is a good argument for the death penalty.

There's no justifiable reason that prisons have to be anywhere near as bad as they are in places like the United States.

Just because it's easier to kill people than to end the numerous human rights abuses in our prison system, doesn't mean that the easier solution is the correct one.

This is exactly right. 

5 minutes ago, trenton said:

My position has changed and I now perform mercy kills on insects.

Sad, but why not let it suffer? It makes absolutely no difference in the end. Suicide can be called a ''mercy killing''

Edited September 4, 2022 by at_anchor

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, at_anchor said:

Nobody is gonna investigate after the sentence is ordered. 

Thats exactly why we shouldn't sentence in an easy going way without doing the necessary investigation(s) first.

[Danioover9000]

@Vibes

20 minutes ago, Vibes said:

I don't want to derail this post, but I want you guys to answer this.

When you see an ant slowly dying, agonizing, what do you do?

Kill it or let it agonize to death thus not interfering with nature or whatever?

Before you say it, I'm not comparing death sentence with mercy killing. Just asking.

   I'd kill it, and that goes for wasps and spiders who are in agony in a heartbeat.

   It's not really considered unnatural to mercy kill, as that's part of nature as well. Otherwise, killing would not exist for other things in the first place.

   Maybe define what's natural and unnatural for you if I misunderstood your point.

[Vibes]

It feels like interference from ego to try to end others suffering. But ego is also natural and part of life. So... Hard to decide anything.

Sometimes I mercy kill them, sometimes I don't.

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, Vibes said:

It feels like interference from ego to try to end others suffering.

Yeah but that position's logical extension, is that we need to kill everyone, because then no one will be capable to suffer anymore. Optimizing everything and using the prevention of suffering as a main rule could lead to absurd conclusions.

There needs to be other principles that can overwrite the 'ending of a living creatures suffering'.

Edited September 4, 2022 by zurew

[Kksd74628]

@Vibes

What is natural and what isn't is just another mental concept. What you end up doing is natural no matter what you do.

[Kksd74628]

@zurew

Point is not to minimize suffering, but to maximize love and killing everyone doesn't do that.

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Kksd74628 said:

Point is not to minimize suffering, but to maximize love and killing everyone doesn't do that.

Now thats a completely different viewpoint, and I think thats a more reasonable principle to build from.

[Danioover9000]

   A brief derailing of the topic, because talking of death and stuff is morbid...why the hell are prisoners jacked?! It makes little sense as they're not bulking a bit, or have more fitness programs, but they still get jacked. Does anyone know why they can build muscle?

[zurew]

7 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Does anyone know why they can build muscle?

Imo most imprisoned people are already jacked when they go there, and also most people there, are bored and they don't have much things to do , so they start to train, because it can build their survival rate there.

Edited September 4, 2022 by zurew

[trenton]

44 minutes ago, at_anchor said:

Sad, but why not let it suffer? It makes absolutely no difference in the end. Suicide can be called a ''mercy killing''

True suicide often is a mercy killing because a person is in intense suffering and they believe that nothing can change it. For example, if a person is in one of the twin towers on the day of 9/11, then they might jump out of the building to avoid being burned to death. In a sense suicide is a twisted form of love in that the goal is to avoid intense suffering. It can be very sad.

@Danioover9000

I agree that we have been getting off topic and we should probably get back to the limitations of compassion. meanwhile @zurew beat me to the post. Prisoners must get jacked as a form of intimidation toward other inmates.

[Hello from Russia]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm not only pro death penalty, I am pro executing it rapidly. No waiting for 20 years, that is ridiculous and defeats the purpose. There is no good reason why it should take so long and cost so much. Other countries execute it better.

In obvious cases, like when we have video of a shooter, he can be executed immediately after the trial. This endless process of appeals for obvious cases is just silly.

How do you feel about execution for political reasons? Like in Belarussia, where they basically death sentence all of opposition activists. It's the only country in Europe that still has death sentence