I am not here to debate whether public executions are right or wrong but
“Carrying out executions in public adds to the inherent cruelty of the death penalty and can only have a dehumanising effect on the victim and a brutalising effect on those who witness the executions,”
If brutalizing here means people are gonna be shit scared after watching this when even thinking about killing someone, then this is a very bad argument
That’s a common assumption that’s based in “they’re all the same over there” style of racism.
The group the US backed in the 80s was the mujaheddin, which went to form the government which the Taliban (a separate group) all but overthrew. The last remnants of the pre-Taliban Afghanistan government was called the Northern Alliance, which was allied with the US when fighting the Taliban.
It was politically convenient for the left to along with a racist narrative to score cheap political points against Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld etcl. And yeah, fuck those guys for sure, but it was wrong to go along with a racist narrative to do so. Because of the “they’re all the same over there” kind of racism in both the left and right of the US, there wasn’t much chance for any kind of success in defeating the Taliban.
The only difference is time IMO. Same people. Same views. Just changed their name and fought against different people for different reasons. They will all still stone you to death for teaching math to women, they just disagree on who should be the caliph.
Do you think a death penalty for netanyahu unfair, in fact not giving a death penalty is unfair to all the children and women and everyone else he has killed
Fair? What does fair mean? Does an execution un-kill the victims? What a ridiculous notion that any sort of punishment for a perpetrator could be “fair” for the victims.
The death penalty is an abject failure. It has no benefits and numerous issues. Practicing barbarism can never be justice.
it definitely will make other people think twice before they do the same thing
There is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion.
There is no proof that the death penalty deters criminals. According to the National Academy of Sciences, “Research on the deterrent effect of capital punishment is uninformative about whether capital punishment increases, decreases, or has no effect on homicide rates.”
I believe that most developed countries have gotten rid of the death penalty, and a big part of that is because it doesn’t work as a deterrent.
Very few people decide whether or not to commit a crime based on the punishment. Most criminals think they won’t get caught at all, or if they do, they think they’ll get away with it in court.
This slightly misses the mark. The majority of crimes, including violent ones, are not committed by people performing a risk calculus. They’re done with minimal thought and more often than not in the heat of the moment. Effectively, they are not crimes that you can deter because for a crime to be deterred, the potential criminal has to assess whether it makes sense to commit the crime. This works in cases of like financial fraud and white collar crime. Someone shooting another person during an altercation, not so much.
No matter what follows this…yes, we do. You should need evidence to believe anything; understanding of course that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence needed.
giving them merely some jailtime is not working either, but whatever
Then imprison them for life. Guess what, life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty, and can be overturned if there’s an error.
That is the same thinking that those who own hand guns think. They think they will be safer, yet all the stats indicate other wise including all the children accidentally firing a gun and killing a family member. If risk of death was a deterrent, the USA would be among the safest place in the world.
I used the search functionality, they have a degree in criminology, history, and law.
I don’t know how common that combo is, neither do I want to cast doubt on this person’s comments… but it doesn’t help that the majority of them defy logic at every turn.
Just yesterday, @JustZ@lemmy.world told me they know more than South Africa about apartheid, and thus Israel cannot be an undemocratic apartheid state. They also told me that when America didn’t allow women and black people to vote, it was “still a democracy”. But they also said that an apartheid rule is when a minority has control over a majority (this is the only definition they offered)… that would mean, by @JustZ@lemmy.world’s own definition, that America before suffrage for women and black people was an apartheid state.
I will admit that part of my mind would support making a public example of any fascist leader, but any public execution or punishment serves only to normalize that violence.
Would I condemn anyone involved with the death of Mussolini? Absolutely not. Best of luck to any Israeli anti fascists in the right time and place.
you instill a feeling of fear in the public about what would happen if you do such a serious crime
Do you think the members of the general public are often considering committing those kinds of crimes?
“Gee whiz, I sure wish I could be a serial killer. Too bad they publicly executed that last serial killer, though! I’d better move to the US, where executions are done in private!”
No. What happens is the spectators get severely desensitized to violence. Especially if the spectators are young malleable teenagers. And suddenly sawing someone’s head off in front of a live broadcast becomes just another day on the job.
This doesn’t make sense. There have been public executions and torture all over the world for centuries, and yet murder and rape were much more frequent than now.
The brutalizing effect is the opposite: by seeing this kind of violence, people are more likely to normalize it and engage in violence themselves. That’s the hypothesis, anyway.
Suppose the theory would be that a spectator doesn’t picture himself in the shoes of the executed. Instead they get used to the idea that killing someone isn’t so crazy, if they think they deserve it.
I could believe this, particularly if it’s on some subconscious level. The rational mind might say “that could be me, I better be careful”, but getting desensitized might get rid of some fundamental revulsion. I’d also think the people at risk of committing murder are not likely to trend toward rational thinking, at least not in the moment of the crime.
Public execution seems hardly necessary for people to know the consequences, even if you think the death penalty is required. They know it anyway.
From another perspective, assuming attending a mass execution is not compulsory, what audience will choose to watch? People looking to receive a better understanding of what would await them if they comittied crime, or people excited to see violent death or vengeance? No one is voluntarily choosing to watch an execution while thinking “that could be me”, they are thinking “yeah, I’m here to see that evil dude get what he deserves”, in the most “favorable” scenario, some people are there just for pure bloodlust. Either way if these people find themselves in a serious chance to commit murder, it’s guaranteed that either they just revel in the violent death and don’t care about the morality, or they think their victim deserves it (can be as weak as the killer thinks he deserves a relationship, and the victim didn’t want one).
If we look at the data, per your belief we should see the handful of public execution countries enjoying a very low murder rate. They actually do not. In fact most countries without a death penalty at all consistently have lower murder rates than the countries with public executions.
It’s an interesting take to say if you can’t have public executions, you might as well not have any punishment at all.
When it comes to the visceral nature of violent behavior, a would-be murderer is not applying the nuance of “there was a judge involved in all those violent executions I saw in person, but not here”, the visceral emotion is “this dude deserves the same death I’ve personally seen metted out and I’m not repulsed by the concept since it’s jsut so normal”.
The rational mind, to the extent it is keeping a lid on murderous ambition, is already kept in check by the abstract knowledge of punishment. Seeing it first hand I think does nothing further for the rational mind. In fact, many nations without a death penalty at all enjoy some of the lowest murder rates, so long as everyone believes there is an effective justice system and they will be caught and receive a significant punishment. The less rational mind may succumb to the erosion of directly witnessed violent death. Hell, some might even actually yearn for a moment when a stadium of people is looking at him. There’s also something to be said for keeping the names of killers out of the news cycle, as that also seems to be a trigger for killers.
Think of how many abused people grow up both hating the abuse they had growing up but also inflicting it in turn. Our minds aren’t wired for the highest rational consideration of nuance and circumstance when it comes to violence.
I am not here to debate whether public executions are right or wrong but
If brutalizing here means people are gonna be shit scared after watching this when even thinking about killing someone, then this is a very bad argument
It does not reduce murder or crime in general - but it DOES devalue human life
At least they retained the USamerican values after kicking them out
The Taliban were assholes long before 9/11.
The Taliban were US-backed and US-funded long before 9/11.
That’s a common assumption that’s based in “they’re all the same over there” style of racism.
The group the US backed in the 80s was the mujaheddin, which went to form the government which the Taliban (a separate group) all but overthrew. The last remnants of the pre-Taliban Afghanistan government was called the Northern Alliance, which was allied with the US when fighting the Taliban.
It was politically convenient for the left to along with a racist narrative to score cheap political points against Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld etcl. And yeah, fuck those guys for sure, but it was wrong to go along with a racist narrative to do so. Because of the “they’re all the same over there” kind of racism in both the left and right of the US, there wasn’t much chance for any kind of success in defeating the Taliban.
It’s not racist to be aware of the fact that the US supported the Taliban after the fall of the Mujaheddin.
The only difference is time IMO. Same people. Same views. Just changed their name and fought against different people for different reasons. They will all still stone you to death for teaching math to women, they just disagree on who should be the caliph.
Yes that “they’re all the same over there” is a common opinion.
Can’t win a war when you can’t tell the difference between friend or foe. Which is why the US lost to the Taliban.
I suppose they think something similar about your govt
Yeah, so? There are many assholes in the world, you know. Pointing at some other group of assholes doesn’t make the Taliban not assholes.
Very insightfull. Is that a quote from Nietzsche?
deleted by creator
Any cases.
Fair? What does fair mean? Does an execution un-kill the victims? What a ridiculous notion that any sort of punishment for a perpetrator could be “fair” for the victims.
The death penalty is an abject failure. It has no benefits and numerous issues. Practicing barbarism can never be justice.
deleted by creator
There is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion.
US Department of Justice
deleted by creator
I believe that most developed countries have gotten rid of the death penalty, and a big part of that is because it doesn’t work as a deterrent.
Very few people decide whether or not to commit a crime based on the punishment. Most criminals think they won’t get caught at all, or if they do, they think they’ll get away with it in court.
This slightly misses the mark. The majority of crimes, including violent ones, are not committed by people performing a risk calculus. They’re done with minimal thought and more often than not in the heat of the moment. Effectively, they are not crimes that you can deter because for a crime to be deterred, the potential criminal has to assess whether it makes sense to commit the crime. This works in cases of like financial fraud and white collar crime. Someone shooting another person during an altercation, not so much.
deleted by creator
No matter what follows this…yes, we do. You should need evidence to believe anything; understanding of course that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence needed.
Then imprison them for life. Guess what, life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty, and can be overturned if there’s an error.
deleted by creator
Crime is decreasing year after year except during the pandemic. What do you mean it’s not working?
That is the same thinking that those who own hand guns think. They think they will be safer, yet all the stats indicate other wise including all the children accidentally firing a gun and killing a family member. If risk of death was a deterrent, the USA would be among the safest place in the world.
deleted by creator
Can you rephrase as I am not understanding your point I think.
deleted by creator
I have a degree in criminology and there is no truth to this. People don’t ever rationally decide to do crimes.
Do you really have a degree in criminology? What kind of lawyer are you exactly?
deleted by creator
I used the search functionality, they have a degree in criminology, history, and law. I don’t know how common that combo is, neither do I want to cast doubt on this person’s comments… but it doesn’t help that the majority of them defy logic at every turn.
Just yesterday, @JustZ@lemmy.world told me they know more than South Africa about apartheid, and thus Israel cannot be an undemocratic apartheid state. They also told me that when America didn’t allow women and black people to vote, it was “still a democracy”. But they also said that an apartheid rule is when a minority has control over a majority (this is the only definition they offered)… that would mean, by @JustZ@lemmy.world’s own definition, that America before suffrage for women and black people was an apartheid state.
https://lemmy.world/comment/7897946
I will admit that part of my mind would support making a public example of any fascist leader, but any public execution or punishment serves only to normalize that violence.
Would I condemn anyone involved with the death of Mussolini? Absolutely not. Best of luck to any Israeli anti fascists in the right time and place.
deleted by creator
Do you think the members of the general public are often considering committing those kinds of crimes?
“Gee whiz, I sure wish I could be a serial killer. Too bad they publicly executed that last serial killer, though! I’d better move to the US, where executions are done in private!”
deleted by creator
No. What happens is the spectators get severely desensitized to violence. Especially if the spectators are young malleable teenagers. And suddenly sawing someone’s head off in front of a live broadcast becomes just another day on the job.
deleted by creator
This doesn’t make sense. There have been public executions and torture all over the world for centuries, and yet murder and rape were much more frequent than now.
deleted by creator
Holy shit how are there people this ignorant out there in the world. Not one period in the entire post.
Making an example, as you say, is the opposite of the idea of justice
The brutalizing effect is the opposite: by seeing this kind of violence, people are more likely to normalize it and engage in violence themselves. That’s the hypothesis, anyway.
Huh? After seeing this people will want to kill people? I am talking extra-judicial killing here
Suppose the theory would be that a spectator doesn’t picture himself in the shoes of the executed. Instead they get used to the idea that killing someone isn’t so crazy, if they think they deserve it.
I could believe this, particularly if it’s on some subconscious level. The rational mind might say “that could be me, I better be careful”, but getting desensitized might get rid of some fundamental revulsion. I’d also think the people at risk of committing murder are not likely to trend toward rational thinking, at least not in the moment of the crime.
deleted by creator
I’m sorry to say that you may be seeing it the wrong way.
The experts tend to agree with the previous commenter.
Here’s one study that discusses potential avenues for this.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/exposure-to-violence
deleted by creator
Public execution seems hardly necessary for people to know the consequences, even if you think the death penalty is required. They know it anyway.
From another perspective, assuming attending a mass execution is not compulsory, what audience will choose to watch? People looking to receive a better understanding of what would await them if they comittied crime, or people excited to see violent death or vengeance? No one is voluntarily choosing to watch an execution while thinking “that could be me”, they are thinking “yeah, I’m here to see that evil dude get what he deserves”, in the most “favorable” scenario, some people are there just for pure bloodlust. Either way if these people find themselves in a serious chance to commit murder, it’s guaranteed that either they just revel in the violent death and don’t care about the morality, or they think their victim deserves it (can be as weak as the killer thinks he deserves a relationship, and the victim didn’t want one).
If we look at the data, per your belief we should see the handful of public execution countries enjoying a very low murder rate. They actually do not. In fact most countries without a death penalty at all consistently have lower murder rates than the countries with public executions.
It’s an interesting take to say if you can’t have public executions, you might as well not have any punishment at all.
When it comes to the visceral nature of violent behavior, a would-be murderer is not applying the nuance of “there was a judge involved in all those violent executions I saw in person, but not here”, the visceral emotion is “this dude deserves the same death I’ve personally seen metted out and I’m not repulsed by the concept since it’s jsut so normal”.
The rational mind, to the extent it is keeping a lid on murderous ambition, is already kept in check by the abstract knowledge of punishment. Seeing it first hand I think does nothing further for the rational mind. In fact, many nations without a death penalty at all enjoy some of the lowest murder rates, so long as everyone believes there is an effective justice system and they will be caught and receive a significant punishment. The less rational mind may succumb to the erosion of directly witnessed violent death. Hell, some might even actually yearn for a moment when a stadium of people is looking at him. There’s also something to be said for keeping the names of killers out of the news cycle, as that also seems to be a trigger for killers.
Think of how many abused people grow up both hating the abuse they had growing up but also inflicting it in turn. Our minds aren’t wired for the highest rational consideration of nuance and circumstance when it comes to violence.
deleted by creator
never mind the fact that the taliban also does this for sexual assault victims and gay people not just murderers…