• astral_avocado@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    What’s even more sickening is him stabbing that woman to death, can you imagine how much fear and pain she went through?

    • lordkuri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yes, and 2 wrongs make a right of course. /s

      Or maybe it’s about vengeance and not about paying a due to society?

      • astral_avocado@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        It is about vengeance and also about not perpetually providing room and board for someone who lost their rights when they decided to take someone else’s rights to life away.

        Edit: why would they have an inalienable right to life, even if it is a meager life in prison, if they decided they can takeinnocent people’s lives for their own deranged reasons?

        • letsgo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s easy to answer. Justice is not perfect, and sooner or later you will execute an innocent person. We know this has happened in the UK, because DNA evidence proved that the person couldn’t have been there, and they would have been released had they not been executed.

          Death is final and you don’t just respawn at your bed, so this is the worst possible outcome. Abolishing the death penalty avoids this terrible situation, and yes it means you keep people like this alive until their natural death, but it also maximises the chance that new evidence can be found that proves that person didn’t in fact commit the crime.

          • astral_avocado@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Sure I’m sympathetic to that argument. I’ve recently looked up lists of some of the people that most likely were found innocent post execution.

            But what if we had stricter criteria. What about the people we are absolutely certain, with witnesses and camera footage, are guilty of murder? I’m specifically thinking of people like Nikolas Cruz, a school shooter who killed 17?

            • letsgo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              That’s the dilemma. The thing is, when we last executed an innocent, we believed we had absolute incontrovertible proof. We have always known a death sentence to be final.

              Maybe this argument will win the day: The value of human life is so high, and the execution of an innocent is so terrible, that we convert the death sentence to life imprisonment for the benefit of all those that will later be proven innocent. And yes this means some genuine criminals will live, but that is a better price to pay than executing even one innocent. The death penalty will ALWAYS have some collateral damage, and the only way to avoid that is to abolish it.

              In Cruz’s case of course another significant aspect is the lack of sensible gun control. But you Americans value guns more than you value kids, and until that changes you’ll be stuck with your Cruzes. Killing Cruz for a systemic failure is no solution.

            • moonpiedumplings@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Then it’s still a bad idea because of the literal cost to taxpayers.

              Life in prison is $70,000 per year (paid by taxpayers, of course).

              The legal battle around the death penalty is around $1.12 million, also paid around taxpayers

              https://www.cato.org/blog/financial-implications-death-penalty

              That’s 14 times more expensive.

              There are tons of things I would see the state spend money on rather than literally killing people. In the case of this, maybe mental health help for the victims.

              • astral_avocado@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Well one way to lower it is to settle law around the death penalty it seems. And they attribute part of the cost to battling chemical manufacturers, which could be moot with how cheap and easy it is to acquire nitrogen or even carbon monoxide.

                Also if it’s 70,000 a year to house an inmate… if an inmate is jailed for 20 years before death, total cost is 1.4 million. If an inmate is jailed at 20 and lives for another 60 years, that’s 4.2 million.

                So taking out a very young inmate would theoretically save the state about 3 million if they live until a natural age. Ted Kaczynski lived until 81 and absolutely deserved death.

    • atomicorange@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Yes, I think that should be illegal too! You’d have to be absolutely mental to want to kill someone.