Conversation
Notices
-
tbh, getting shot sounds more pleasant than their mixed-results lethal injection.
-
@kaia There are people that deserve it. But our justice system is too flawed to be sure we're punishing the right person so I'm basically against it.
-
@Moon @kaia how does a person deserve being killed
-
@Moon makes sense. what's your opinion on capital punishment?
-
@kaia apparently some chemical sales places have tried to prevent them from being used for lethal injection by not selling it to states. But I think they underestimate how dedicated to the death penalty some states are.
-
@shmibs @kaia killing kids
-
@Moon @kaia yeh, this is how everyone responds. it's always "but what about *bad thing*", and it's always a different bad thing
-
@Moon @kaia not "state power". someone feeling justified in killing someone else
-
@shmibs @kaia but
-
@shmibs @kaia I don't really like the idea of state power being used to kill people
-
@guizzy @Moon @kaia rogue/mob killing doesn't go so well for pakistan etc
-
@Moon @kaia @shmibs It's a simple and elegant solution to not giving the government the authority to kill other than in clear cases of defending someone, while preserving resources, having the full dissuasive effect of the death penalty and giving the family of victims justice.The downside I see is how society will see those who carry out these permitted executions. Be it the family, or anyone they might hire if they don't have the stomach for it themselves. The existing systems attempt (as much as it can) to depersonalize the act as much as possible to shield the executioners from guilt or social consequences by making it more of a process than a single act. Maybe putting back the personal investment into it could reduce the number of times it's carried out. Maybe it could be illegal to hire someone else to do it, only the family has the right to do it and the thought of having to do it themselves and live with it would actually encourage mercy.Not saying I'm sure of anything here, just thinking out loud.
-
@Moon @shmibs @kaia I would prefer the ruling letting them at the mercy of the family of the victim, or the community in general. Sort of a "rejection of human status", removing any sort of police protection from them. Keeps the hands of the government philosophically clean, achieves the same result.
-
@guizzy @kaia @shmibs you're describing the mark of cain and it was for the first murder
-
@guizzy @Moon @kaia worst of both options- "state" decides who dies- people are killed in public places by random other people who feel they are justifiedis how rogue/mob killings happen. person is accused of, for example, blasphemy, and then a mob shows up at that person's housewhy not just... not kill people?
-
@shmibs @Moon @kaia It wouldn't be rogue though. It would still require a judgement to be given forfeiting that person's life.
-
@guizzy @Moon @kaia don't know, seen to much death to believe that
-
@shmibs @Moon @kaia You're arguing details that haven't been worked out yet, it wouldn't necessarily have to be in any public space, the rejection of protection could be restricted to a specific place, specific time and specific means, and only to the family.I'm not saying this is the best solution necessarily, but some victims deserve justice in a way that seeing the perpetrator live out the rest of their lives provided for by the state doesn't give.
kaia
Infected Moomin
バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
an actual bear in a hazmat suit
All senooken JP Social content and data are available under the