Can stage yellow support the death penalty?

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Such a silly argument. Abusers are reformable and this assumes they've served their time so they will be free regardless.

You're not putting abusers in jail for life. Abusers should still get a punishment, whatever is warranted.

I admit it's a silly argument. But why is being unreformable a necessary criteria for the death penalty? And how do you decide who is unreformable?

Edited October 15, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[AtheisticNonduality]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

From what I understand that's how our current system works.

The current system is based around punishment and not rehabilitation.

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Because resources are stretched thin.

No, resources are collected as salaries / profits because prison is a massive industry (the prison-industrial complex). This isn't even mentioning the aristocrats of society that could have their resources stolen for the common good.

[zurew]

@Leo Gura So, what goal(s) could we achieve in your system, that would be unlikely or impossible in a system without death penalty?

What thing(s) would be better statistically?

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I admit it's a silly argument. But why is being unreformable a necessary criteria for the death penalty?

Does that even need a response?

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

And how do you decide who is unreformable?

Well, that's tricky, I'll grant you that.

5 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

The current system is based around punishment and not rehabilitation.

No, resources are collected as salaries / profits because prison is a massive industry (the prison-industrial complex). This isn't even mentioning the aristocrats of society that could have their resources stolen for the common good.

Obviously prisons should be made non-profit. That's an independent issue.

Not one is sayimg here that prison reform isn't necessary. So don't muddle things up.

4 hours ago, zurew said:

@Leo Gura So, what goal(s) could we achieve in your system, that would be unlikely or impossible in a system without death penalty?

What thing(s) would be better statistically?

Resources would be better allocated to rehabilitating lesser offenders.

[Carl-Richard]

57 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Does that even need a response?

Yes. What is the justification? To save the economy? To save the prison guards?

[Bad_anarchist]

On 03/09/2022 at 2:28 AM, Leo Gura said:

I support death penalty.

Some people are too far gone and a huge drain on resources.

I can agree that some people are just to far gone.

However I do consider death penalty a sign of a less developed and sophisticated legal system and society. We don’t have death penalty in Sweden and there is really no reason for it. People like Ted Bundy doesn’t exist because we get to them before it goes to far and I would argue that this is a reflection of the society. America has the highest rates of convicted serial killers and this says something about the society as a whole. Crimes are many times a symptom of something that is happening within a system and within a society. So the question to ask is, why do America have so many serial killers and how do we fix the system. Death penalty doesn’t solve anything and it doesn’t scare people away from committing crimes either, plus it is costly. 

If poverty is a problem that is going to result in poverty related crime. Like drugs, stealing etc. Once poverty is no longer an issue, these types of crimes will no longer exist. Poverty related crime in Sweden doesn’t exist because we have so many protective nets. If you lose your job and are not entitled to any insurance money or what we call “A-kassa” for whatever reason social services will pay all your nessicary bills, This includes Wi-Fi . Then they will give you about 400$ in allowance for food which is more than enough to ensure you have housing and food. (the system isn’t perfect and I know from first hand experience how much abuse of power goes on)This prevents poverty related crime and is cheaper for the society than having to lock up people in jail. Recently Sweden has had issues with death shootings, mainly committed by young first and second immigrant males from the ages of about 16-23. This has never been an issue before and is a symptom of something happening within the society . 
 

This also leaves the question if serial killers for example are born or made(Could be applied to any group really). If serial killers don’t exist in some societies, (or at least barley exists ) than the case can’t be that they are simply born. The structure of the society has to play a huge part.

Also, the more violence the government uses, the more violent the society will be. We are all dependent on government and if we can’t trust it, people will take matters in to their own hands. There is a reason why in anarchist societies, crime is not an issue.

[RareGodzilla]

I wonder if it has an effect on scaring criminals from committing crime. I remember the New Zealand Christchurch mosque shooter chose New Zealand for his killing spree because it didn't even have a lifetime sentence, let alone a death penalty.

I suppose those people would probably still be alive if New Zeland had stricter punishments. The guy had a plan to get out eventually and take advantage of the compassionate system to spread his white supremacist message. It's a good thing they were able to change laws and find a way to keep him locked up forever.

Still, my biggest problem with the death penalty is the potential for corruption. The question is whether killing one inocent person justifies giving those other tens of thousands of people what they deserve. Still, I can't argue that with the Christchurch shooter It's pretty obvious that he did it. The risk of killing an inoccent man is pretty much minimal.

Although personally, if we speak of scarce resources, I think that it's more rational to just put them to work.

Edited October 16, 2022 by RareGodzilla

[Bad_anarchist]

9 hours ago, RareGodzilla said:

I wonder if it has an effect on scaring criminals from committing crime. I remember the New Zealand Christchurch mosque shooter chose New Zealand for his killing spree because it didn't even have a lifetime sentence, let alone a death penalty.

I suppose those people would probably still be alive if New Zeland had stricter punishments. The guy had a plan to get out eventually and take advantage of the compassionate system to spread his white supremacist message. It's a good thing they were able to change laws and find a way to keep him locked up forever.

Still, my biggest problem with the death penalty is the potential for corruption. The question is whether killing one inocent person justifies giving those other tens of thousands of people what they deserve. Still, I can't argue that with the Christchurch shooter It's pretty obvious that he did it. The risk of killing an inoccent man is pretty much minimal.

Although personally, if we speak of scarce resources, I think that it's more rational to just put them to work.

Studies have been done on this and no, death penalty doesn’t scare people away from committing crimes. How much crime and the nature of the crimes committed within a society is a direct reflection of the system. If there is a lot of poverty, there will be a lot of poverty related crime for example. The US has the highest number of convicted serial killers for example, so the right question to ask would be WHY this is the case and work towards prevent it and restructure the system. Death penalty doesn’t solve this. I consider death penalty to be a symptom of a less sophisticated and developed system, it is again a reflection. If people like Ted Bundy didn’t exist to begin with, death penalty would not be on the table or nessicary. And yes, I am implying that people like this aren’t simply born because I live in Sweden and People like Ted bundy doesn’t exist here. There have been a handful of people in the past 100 years, but most of these are not considered to be serial killers. Also the government works to actively prevent crime, which means they get to them before shit hits the fan So to speak. 
 

you also said the potential of corruption. On that point I would say that (and with the previous points I have made) death penalty is a symptom of a form of corruption happening within a system. A less corrupt system would have no reason for death penalty to begin with.

[actuallyenlightened]

I was thinking that perhaps the death penalty could deter certain types of crimes. For example, anyone caught selling drugs laced with fentanyl or selling that drug itself would be executed but someone selling heroine would be imprisoned. As opposed to violent criminals, many of who won't be deterred by anything; I'd say most drugs dealers who would lace their drugs are interested in making a quick buck and wouldn't risk it if the stakes were too high. That would force them to take it upon themselves to test the purity. 

So in general, some sort of situation where someone could commit one of two crimes. One of which being slightly more lucrative but much more dangerous to society.