Trump Reinstates Federal Executions

[Riedquat]

And yet it is statistically true that some people are so evil, they DESERVE to die.

An incredibly subjective statement so easy on the "true."

I've got a lot of views that make me regard a very large proportion of the human race with distaste but I'm happy I've not crossed the line whilst I remain uneasy about the idea that anyone deserves to die. Sure, some people, if what they did affected me personally, I'd want to kill them myself but I believe, and I sure as hell hope this is the case, that I'd be constantly questioning myself if I did that even whilst kicking their body.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well as if a direct democracy represents any sort of true justice.

[Yukaphile]

Justice is a myth. People get away with it more than you think. This is not the 24th century. Thus, if you can't get justice, the last resort is death. Vigilante justice. Some would call it revenge.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

No. Even with complete respect for what you're getting at. It is in no way a myth.

[Mecha82]

There is reason why vigilante justice is illegal. Modern western society can't have people going around killing each other because they feel that they are justified. It would be anarchy.

[Yukaphile]

It's a fine ideal, in theory - assuming the guilty are always caught, in theory. That you can't try an innocent man by mistake. Again, in theory. The big problem is technology is obfuscating reality more than ever. Look to stuff like that new voice-synthesis technology Canada is coming up with that's going to really complicate criminal proceedings once it's 100% perfected.

[TGLS]

Let's suppose we have a utopia where all and only criminals are ever convicted for their crimes. Let's further suppose that said utopia can also determine in advance whether or not the criminal could be eventually rehabilitated for their crimes. Would it be ethical to execute those who could not be rehabilitated?

I still think the answer is no. It's partially because I think that they would be incompetent to stand trial if they could never be rehabilitated, and partially because execution disgusts me.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

And yet it is statistically true that some people are so evil, they DESERVE to die.

That's not how statistics work. Even if that premise is accepted, there's still a lot more intellectual legwork to do before you reach "the death penalty is acceptable and/or necessary."

Still, I'm more in favor of the death penalty in theory than in practice. My current, tentative position is that there should be a death penalty option in the books, but with a standard of execution high enough that it would rarely, or never, be used.

It's conceivable that there might be a convict whose continued survival is a danger to the people around them or society as a whole. I don't know exactly what that person would look like, but it's possible. To me, it makes sense to have a legal avenue for dealing with such a person.

[Riedquat]

It's conceivable that there might be a convict whose continued survival is a danger to the people around them or society as a whole. I don't know exactly what that person would look like, but it's possible. To me, it makes sense to have a legal avenue for dealing with such a person.

If such a person is locked up then they shouldn't be a danger to the people around them or society as a whole (although that raises the whole question about violence in prisons). Before getting them locked up, well, most (probably all) countries, including those without the death penalty, are prepared to resort to killing someone if they're posing a great enough threat and can't be stopped and tried and locked up any other way.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

If such a person is locked up then they shouldn't be a danger to the people around them or society as a whole (although that raises the whole question about violence in prisons).

I don't necessarily mean danger in terms of the violence they might personally commit. I'm thinking of offenses closer to treason, domestic terrorism, a cult leader in the vein of Charles Manson, a domestic Hitler, etc. Someone like Anders Breivik, whose guarantee of continued survival could serve as inspiration to whackjobs everywhere (and might have been part of the plan from the beginning). Like I said, I don't know exactly what such a person would look like, it's just possible that they might exist.

Before getting them locked up, well, most (probably all) countries, including those without the death penalty, are prepared to resort to killing someone if they're posing a great enough threat and can't be stopped and tried and locked up any other way.

Well that's one of the points I was getting at, a person who was sufficiently dangerous would probably be killed one way or the other. I could be convinced otherwise, but I tend to think there should be a legal "nuclear option" to deal with the possibility of such people existing.