I'm opposed to the bourgeois state using the death penalty against proles.
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2025
33 points (92.3% liked)
Asklemmy
50904 readers
746 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
What if its a business owner being axed? If the proletariat rose up, axing anyone involved in ownership on the morally fine table ?
I didn't say that. I'm not giving some kind of blanket endorsement about "axing anyone involved in ownership." It's not an all or nothing deal.
Sorry, thats just what tends to happen when the proletariat overthrows the bourgeoisie.
Yes, revolutions do tend to be bloody. That doesn't mean that I have to choose between endorsing every act of violence or condemning every act of violence.
The reality is, in any conflict, innocent people usually end up getting hurt. It's unfortunate, but if that conflict means preventing or ending other conflicts, then it's potentially justifiable in my eyes.
If the government is, for example, drafting people en masse and forcing them to kill and die for no good reason, then overthrowing that government is justifiable, because innocent people were getting hurt anyway.
THERE were two βReigns of Terror,β if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the βhorrorsβ of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terrorβthat unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
-Mark Twain
Yes, I believe it's nearly always immoral, and the exception is public figures directly involved in crimes against humanity.
If you have to have a trial to figure out if you got the right person, that's too much doubt. It's just Nuremberg, Saddam, the radio guy from Rwanda, and folks like them. Everything else regardless of how monstrous the state should only kill if they are absolutely incapable of keeping that person from taking more lives.
Also governments should be held accountable when one prisoner kills another in a situation that could have been predicted. And yes this includes pedos being stabbed in prison.
I don't personally see a difference in a serial rapist and a public figure like you stated. I think both should be axed, assuming dead to rights evidence of crime.
Because for non public figures we keep thinking we have dead to rights evidence of crimes and executing people who turn out innocent
I recognize the unfortunate fact that innocent people have been and will continue to be killed unjustly. I'm saying drawing a moral line between one would need to extend to the other. If it's wrong, its wrong. The idea that you'd pick and choose who deserves it just means you're in favor of it.
In terms of view. Yes. I am against it. In terms of using it as a bargaining chip to pass other annoying laws quid pro quo like it, no.
The death penalty should ALMOST never be used. The only use for the death penalty is for world leaders that direct their subordinates to commit atrocious acts.
Normal civilians, no matter how dangerous, should only ever be treated with dignity. There is no place for state sanctioned murder.
A) It is immoral.
B) The justice system isn't perfect, and death is final.
C) The actual cost of going through all the trials and effort to put someone to death is typically higher than just keeping them locked up.
D) There is no humane way to put someone to death.
E) It is not effective at preventing crime. It only makes it so people have nothing to lose by being caught.
B and E are the strongest cases against it in my opinion. I think C could be mitigated with new practices. A is arguable dependent on the individuals morals, ethically, youd have a better argument. D feels like we just haven't tried, what about a FAT dose of fent or a gunshot to the head. I'd be fine with killing convicted serial rapists, serial murderers and serial pedophiles. But that brings up B, wrongful convictions happen all the time and you're right, it is final.
C) Cutting the cost of putting someone to death just increases the chances that you're putting the wrong person to death. It's expensive cause that's the best way to ensure that it's being done right. Cutting costs just means you're going to make more mistakes.
D) The reason we can't do it humanely is because anyone with the training to do it right doesn't want to participate in the process. It's not that we're not smart enough. And even if we can do it painlessly, it doesn't mean that it's still not a horrible experience.
Why are you putting people do death? What's the purpose? Cause it makes you feel better that this person isn't alive anymore? Then that's a terrible reason.
So they won't do it again? We already have them locked up, they're done commiting crimes.
So it stops others from doing it? Well, we already know that doesn't work.
So what's the reason?
So they wonβt do it again? We already have them locked up, theyβre done commiting crimes.
People run gangs while inside. Being incarcerated definitely doesn't stop them from committing crimes.
Yeah the mentality from many commenters seems to be that once someone is in jail for life they are effectively dead. Which just isnt true at all.
So because we have a poorly run prison system, we should just murder people instead since we're too lazy to fix it?
Those are your opinions, not mine. I didn't offer an opinion on capital punishment. I just pointed out the pretty f'n obvious flaw in your logic.
No thats not what anyone is saying. Prison reform is an important aspect of the conversation. But, in the instance of a serial rapist/murderer, is rehabilitation even remotely realistic at any point? Sure, its an uncommon fringe case, but, I feel the death penalty should only be used in uncommon fringe cases. No matter what the reform, the prisoner will still have some "good" days. They'll read an interesting book, interact with someone positively, do drugs or really enjoy a jerk session. FUCK THAT I even if 90% of the days are terrible, in a decades long sentence, thats still alot of good days. An individual like the one we are talking about deserves zero good days. In my personal opinion.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
The death penalty is incredibly stupid for more than one reason.
- If someone committed a crime that egregious, they should be punished every day, and you should help them live as long as possible.
- So many innocent people are put to death because our system for determining guilt is far from righteous, or right.
- You don't talk about Fight Club.
So, I wholeheartedly agree with 2. Its the most reasonable and realistic argument against it in my opinion. I do have an issue with 1. Prison/incarnation will eventually become the new normal. Individuals will enjoy reading a book, making a friend, do drugs and in most cases continue criminal activity. In some cases even send information out, effectively running criminal enterprises from the inside. They wont be free, but, they won't be as unhappy as people like to think.
You donβt talk about Fight Club.
No, but you mix PPV and Fight Club and it's the best reality show ever.
Strongly against the state having the option.
In a just society it will always cost more to execute a person than it would cost to imprison them for life. If that's always going to be the case in a just society you may as well imprison them for life. The outcome is the same.
The reason execution should always cost more is because you have to be absolutely sure to the best of our abilities that the person is guilty. Until we come up with a fool proof way to determine guilt we will always run the risk of executing the wrong person for a crime.
It's fine for other people, but I wouldn't want it for myself.
Same
I'd be against it even if we could magically know without a doubt the person's guilty. Even if it had a negative cost. Even for raping a child.
Life is sacred, whatever "sacred" means for an atheist like me.
(And I was raped as a child, fwiw.)
I agree, but for a different reason. I don't think life is sacred, but as an atheist I do think people get off the hook too easily if they're just killed. I think it's fair for them to suffer the rest of their lifetime, just like the victims did.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think some crimes deserve death, but I just don't trust the government βany government!β to make that decision.
I'll go one further, I wouldn't trust any human being to make that decision.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I do not trust the justice system what so ever. Nor the nation state that gave birth to this abomination.
No to the death sentence.
Against, regardless of crime. Regardless of the system used to kill. Regardless of the system used to convict or identify the criminal. Even if they are unrepentant and said they'd do it again. Even under a perfect justice system.
Now life in prison, sure.
Why is life in prison any better or worse? In your opinion.
I'm strongly against death penalty when it comes to crimes of individual against individual.
I am for death penalty when it comes to crimes of influential individual against masses though.
A murderer or rapist who ruined one life doesn't deserve death penalty. A corrupt politician who ruined countless lives cooperating with the billionaires does.
I don't fully understand the rational. Is there a specific number of victims that would make them "deserve" it. Say you have a serial rapist with over a dozen victims, do they not deserve it because they aren't an authority figure?
the state should never enforce the death penalty. remove any hierarchical structures keeping together the justice system and bring in a community council operating under direct democracy and subject to regulation and recall. make sure the people ultimately have the power if corruption is suspected.
the death penalty should be a true rarity for extreme cases. i am currently unsure what i would consider for my own beliefs but i do know rehabilitation should be prioritized regardless.
I oppose it simply because it doesn't work. It is not a deterrent, and it does not serve justice to put people to death, and it costs far more to execute someone than it does to rehabilitate them (the most expensive alternative - I'm not suggesting rehabilitation is an option for everyone).
And sometimes we execute innocent people. Like, how many of your family members would you be willing to put to death to keep the death penalty? Every innocent victim of the death penalty had a family, and that family never imagined it could happen to them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The death penalty is wrong because life is precious and even the worst people can change if given enough time and help.
However, if it is strictly necessary to kill someone currently engaging in murder to stop them (i.e. the capitalist class), i.e. the situation is so time-sensitive that innocent people are going to die if the murderer isn't stopped, then I'm 1000% cool with killing the murderers until they stop murdering or are dead, whichever happens first.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Fully support it for murder, r*pe, human trafficking, genocide, trafficking and distribution of deadly drugs like fentanyl (which is equivalent to murder in my eyes), and accepting bribery as a government official or embezzlement of public funds over some amount. I really don't see any other way to deal with those kinds of criminals and I can't stand the people who get all high and mighty about "mercy" while dismissing the actual victims.
However, I do think the death penalty needs to be restricted to cases where it is absolutely certain they are guilty of the crimes charged. Beyond beyond a reasonable doubt, there needs to be zero doubt. This alone will spare the vast majority of those criminals and make actual executions extremely rare, but IMO death always needs to be on the table when everyone is absolutely sure they did it.
Additionally, I submit that having life in prison as the only option increases the chance of false convictions because people don't see life in prison as "that serious" compared to death. People will very rightly flip their shit if they find out that an executed person was innocent, but when that same person is imprisoned for decades and is released with their spirit comprehensively broken and with only a few years of their natural life left, people are far more dismissive because they weren't executed. "Oh well that's sad but what can you do? The justice system is imperfect after all, just be glad we didn't execute you." The solution is not to keep people locked up for life on the off chance one of them is innocent, and when one of them is, claim moral superiority about only locking them up for life. The solution is to make absolutely damn sure they're guilty before you sentence them.
Everyone gets hung up on life in prison being "reversible" and have this idealistic idea that if someone is truly innocent, the absolute truth will come out "eventually" and set them free. But look at actual court records and you'll find that in practice it almost never gets reversed even when there is overwhelming evidence of their innocence, and when it does, the courts take their sweet time as if hoping to run out the clock and for the convicted to just die. Courts don't like reopening cases especially for serious crimes because it reflects negatively on them, so you're as good as condemned as soon as the hammer drops whether the sentence is life or death. People like to think of the innocent prisoner as being able to continuously fight for their innocence, but in reality you only get one chance to defend yourself and after that, no one in power will listen to you whether you're alive to speak or not. Innocent people who get their life sentence reversed are the very very rare exception, not the rule, and usually only because their story resonated with the public in a way they cannot forsee or control, and it's the public pressure that gets the courts to reconsider purely in order to preserve their image, not the guilt of potentially sentencing an innocent person. If you're not noticed by the media or your story doesn't resonate with the masses, like the vast majority of innocent convicts, you have no chance of getting out no matter how innocent you are. And the media and public has shown time and time again to be extremely race/culture selective in which convict they pay attention to, so a white person in the West is way more likely to be freed compared to an equally innocent person of colour.
If you truly believe that all humans are equal then you must also believe that it is impossible for one to stand in judgment of another. I believe that killing is wrong because it is one human standing in judgement of another. Society has a duty to protect its members, but judgement and the concept of "punishment" is something that should be left to God.
the concept of βpunishmentβ is something that should be left to God
If a Christian kills an atheist child, the child goes to hell and the Christian can just "repent" and go to heaven.
God is not just.
Also, by this logic, it literally doesn't matter to the Christian whether he is executed or not because he's going to heaven anyway, because God doesn't actually give a shit whether you're good or evil, just whether you think he's actually God. So why should the rest of us hellbound mortals have to deal with him for the rest of his natural life?
That's not really how that works, at all.
Heaven is almost certainly not real, and I didn't mention that. I only mentioned God as as example of something "greater" than man. I did not say God or heaven was real.
You're the one who brought God into this.
I think the death penalty could be just, but, unfortunately our justice system is too capricious and dysfunctional to be worthy of administering it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm all against death penalty in any form, except perhaps for some fascist leaderships. There are those who deserve to dance the Spandau ballet.
I just dont understand that rationale. I've seen it among several comments here. Killing is killing, if you've got a moral issue with it, why be inconsistent. Wouldn't the argument that life in prison would be worse be applicable to any person?
i'm not against killing per se. you can kill in self defense for example and be excused. people can kill in a war or a revolution and be excused. in a perfect world, of course, people wouldn't have reasons to kill. i think the line is drawn if 1) someone massively kills or acts sadistically for chauvinistic reasons (i. e. for being part of a group of persons, not being of the right ethnicity or because they believe in some sort of pseudoscience, like anti-vaxers) 2) are or were in a position of power or high leadership 3) are at risk of returning to positions of power even after arrest (for example, they can be rescued from prison in a coup d'Γ©tat by its supporters, or being pardoned by political shifts).
the regular serial killer such as manson or ed gein were not in real positions of power and were not at risk of returning to such positions, and could therefore be jailed forever. himmler, heydrich, eichmann, king leopold ii, mobutu, suharto, pretty much every latin american, african, european or asian dictator deserved to be judged with penalties up to the death penalty, and even some "democratic" leaders such us some british prime ministers and french presidents. not to say that i'm only restricting to right, i believe stalin, ceaucescu, enver hoxha and to some extent even mao should be defendants in processes that could lead up to death penalty.
view more: next βΊ