I'm opposed to the bourgeois state using the death penalty against proles.
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2025
34 points (92.5% liked)
Asklemmy
50915 readers
464 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.
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.
It's fine for other people, but I wouldn't want it for myself.
Same
I think some crimes deserve death, but I just don't trust the government βany government!β to make that decision.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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.
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)
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.
It's better because it's life. Life is the medium of all value, everything else is physics.
And I don't think prisons should be abusive torture chambers either. Revenge is poison. Prison should exist to separate the dangerous and harmful people from society, and to reform them as able.
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.
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)
I think even one innocent person being executed makes it all not worth it. Though that may be clouded by the facts, it doesn't deter crime and it costs more than life imprisonment.
In a perfect world, I think the death penalty could have a deterrence effect for white collar crime. I'd support the death penalty in that case. The line I draw where the death penalty is deserved is when someone systematically makes the world a worse place. Even serial killers don't reach that threshold for me.
There's no world where we can do that without ever executing an innocent person though. So I am firmly against the death penalty.
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)
Yes. No one knows what happens when you die, no one truly knows if someone is guilty, no judicial system is perfect etc etc. Too much risk for the reward of killing someone (with a 10 ish percent of being innocent)
I'm against it. It does nothing to protect people that a life sentence doesn't do. It's permanent, there's no correcting for mistakes. It's about punishment, not deterrent.
Killing even a killer when there's an option to lock them up instead is unnecessary. It smacks of religious/moral judgement that is beyond what a justice system should be focused on. If an afterlife exists and is run by some supernatural deity(ies), they will take care of punishment.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next βΊ