I think that if you can justify deaths by war, then you can justify the death penalty for heinous crimes. If in future wars are won without any deaths or even injuries, then maybe abolishing the death penalty can be reconsidered.
This line of reasoning is very straightforward: if you find it necessary to send soldiers to possibly die in battle, why should people who commit heinous crimes be free from the possibility (not guaranteed) of the death penalty?
I think war is pretty clearly a different situation from punishment of crimes committed during peacetime. In war there is no monopoly on violence and it’s important to kill the right enemies in the right place and at the right time. When the state imprisons people in peacetime, why rush to kill people who could have been wrongly convicted? There is a cost to the state to keep people locked up but there is also a very high cost to executing people humanely, and it may not even be possible to do so. Is there anything to be gained really, besides some misguided, disembodied sense of “justice”?
There’s also the question of deterrence, but I believe punishment doesn’t meaningfully deter criminals. To me the purpose of life imprisonment and the death penalty is keeping dangerous people out of society, and neither one does that better than the other. It then becomes a matter of finality and ongoing costs when considering the difference, and considering the possibility of wrongful conviction, I don’t believe it is ever justified.
In practice, the number of people dying under the death penalty is nothing compared to the number of people killed in acts of crime, so this unhealthy obsession with “avoid killing innocent people under the state” and finding justification for the death penalty is unnecessary and missing the point.
I find this idealist notion of worrying about “wrongful convictions” to be very reactionary. Yes any wrongful convictions should be avoided, but no the death penalty shouldn’t be abolished just because there’s a nonzero chance of “wrongful convictions” occurring.
Wrongful convictions are actually quite common and if discovered in large numbers or affecting certain ethnic groups disproportionately could lead to resentment towards the police force and social instability. It’s just not worth the risk IMO.
Socialism is not poverty and even a socialist state that’s heavily affected by climate change should have the resources to lock people up for life, especially if you already have prisons because the people certainly won’t support enacting the death penalty for everyone who’s convicted. If you can afford to build and maintain a subway you can certainly afford to build and maintain a prison.
If you have the resources to keep dangerous people locked up for their lifetime, if they really are that dangerous, then it’s not that bad if it is a very small population.
Another thread in addition to the one posted: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/506123
I think that if you can justify deaths by war, then you can justify the death penalty for heinous crimes. If in future wars are won without any deaths or even injuries, then maybe abolishing the death penalty can be reconsidered.
This line of reasoning is very straightforward: if you find it necessary to send soldiers to possibly die in battle, why should people who commit heinous crimes be free from the possibility (not guaranteed) of the death penalty?
I think war is pretty clearly a different situation from punishment of crimes committed during peacetime. In war there is no monopoly on violence and it’s important to kill the right enemies in the right place and at the right time. When the state imprisons people in peacetime, why rush to kill people who could have been wrongly convicted? There is a cost to the state to keep people locked up but there is also a very high cost to executing people humanely, and it may not even be possible to do so. Is there anything to be gained really, besides some misguided, disembodied sense of “justice”?
There’s also the question of deterrence, but I believe punishment doesn’t meaningfully deter criminals. To me the purpose of life imprisonment and the death penalty is keeping dangerous people out of society, and neither one does that better than the other. It then becomes a matter of finality and ongoing costs when considering the difference, and considering the possibility of wrongful conviction, I don’t believe it is ever justified.
We need to move on from punitive justice to a restorative justice model.
I’ve said this before in that thread:
I find this idealist notion of worrying about “wrongful convictions” to be very reactionary. Yes any wrongful convictions should be avoided, but no the death penalty shouldn’t be abolished just because there’s a nonzero chance of “wrongful convictions” occurring.
Wrongful convictions are actually quite common and if discovered in large numbers or affecting certain ethnic groups disproportionately could lead to resentment towards the police force and social instability. It’s just not worth the risk IMO.
Socialism is not poverty and even a socialist state that’s heavily affected by climate change should have the resources to lock people up for life, especially if you already have prisons because the people certainly won’t support enacting the death penalty for everyone who’s convicted. If you can afford to build and maintain a subway you can certainly afford to build and maintain a prison.
If you have the resources to keep dangerous people locked up for their lifetime, if they really are that dangerous, then it’s not that bad if it is a very small population.