The Law The Death Penalty

[Episode IV]

So I guess the 100 million(top estimate tbf, as yours are) for the genocide of native north Americans would equal that yeh?

We'll call it even

Not even close to fair.
I'm going to guess that that "top estimate" came from a very early google hit - Wikipedia.
From here, right?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popul...es for the Indigenous,end of the 20th century.
There are a few other sources easily found which list Dobyns estimate as a high water mark, so to speak, and one reason for the discrepancy between his and others is the methods by which the estimates are calculated. Dobyns has come in for some criticism in that regard, but I'll leave you to research that for yourself.

There are a few other a few other issues I have with your post.

Firstly, you've used just one researcher's numbers rather than looking into others, which are detailed further down the page on a table. I don't know how many other studies have been done other than those listed, probably more than a few, and I'd imagine their estimates vary quite widely for several reasons, one of the most obvious (as noted) being methodology. However, of the twelve listed on that table alone, none of the others even came close to one hundred million. The majority, as noted in the opening paragraph, came up with a number somewhere around half that, with more coming to the conclusion that it was considerably less.

Secondly, you've used an extreme high estimate, that being the 100 million, as a population figure for "native North Americans". The low figure, by way of comparison, is around 8 million.
Now, if you'd bothered to read a little further, you'd find that that figure (and most of the other estimates) combines the populations of both American continents, split into several regions. Of those regions, the populations of the southern areas were considerably higher than those of the North.
Population figures given by the researchers listed barely broke into double figures (in millions) for North America and Canada.
Dobyns, the researcher you've used in your post, came up with less than 13 million for the North American continent (inc. Canada), plus another 35 odd million for Mexico. The figure of 100 million, even as a high estimate, for the North America region is, quite frankly, laughable - even if one considers only the most sympathetic estimates.

Thirdly, I dislike the overuse of the term genocide in popular discourse to describe events (of the past in particular). It represents an oversimplification of the true nature of the tragedy, that oversimplification being that it all happened as a result of "White" colonisation. Malice aforethought, as it were. It just isn't that simple.

When one is discussing genocide, the question of intent becomes one of importance. There is no question that in many instances it certainly was the result of deliberate action, but that forms only a part of the picture with regard to the true extent of the population reduction (and the subsequent eradiation of many cultures). One factor of paramount importance is that of disease, for example. We have access to documented, historical records showing that there were many cases of deliberate attempts to spread disease among native populations in the Americas - but in order for that to occur, there had to be a natural spread and subsequent result, demonstrating the effectiveness such a tactic might have.

Not only that, but it worked both ways. Many early attempts at settlement in the Americas failed, and one of the reasons for failure was disease. Jamestown, one of the more (eventually) successful early colonies, was located in Virginia, and in its early history plagued by diseases Europeans didn't have much resistance to - such as Malaria. I'd suggest you read up on the history of the early settlements, and decide for yourself just how much disease factored in to the success and failure rate of those colonies. As late as the 18th century, potential colonists to Northern America, particularly in the southern colonies, were warned to prepare for "the seasoning" - the amount of time it took for a colonist to build up a tolerance for the local diseases, mostly described simply as "fevers".
Many never did. There are quite a few "failed" colonies in America's history, and while disease was not the only factor in their demise, it certainly was one of the more influential ones. Europeans were susceptible to diseases spread via different methods (e.g. Mosquitos, particularly in Virginia) than they had built up resistance to in Europe. Estimates and historical records indicate that, in the case of Jamestown, as many as a quarter of immigrants to the colony did not survive the first year, and only half of all children born survived to reach the age of 20.

The impact of disease upon Indigenous Americans was far greater, of course, but that was not only due to deliberate attempts to spread disease, but also due to the nature of disease itself. Epidemics affecting significant portions of populations have other effects than simply killing those affected. Epidemics also result in cultural and economic breakdown, by way of example, as "ripple effects" in manner of speaking.

The spread of disease to which the inhabitants of one particular region had never been exposed to, nor built up any natural immunity to, is a common feature of historical contact between different peoples. Or particular importance in the case of the Americas (and of course in Australia) is the level of isolation those peoples had prior to contact. That it was spread deliberately in some instances is certainly a factor; it was not, however, the primary consideration in the spread of disease in general. Smallpox, the major contributor to death by disease among Indigenous Americans, was the major cause of death in Europe throughout the 17th century. Almost nobody died of old age, as we know it.
It's not like Europeans were immune to it - they'd simply built up more resistance to it, and were actually in some cases practicing an early form of inoculation - a tiny injection of enough to make someone sick, but not enough to kill them. In the Americas, this wasn't yet common. It wasn't even really common in Europe, particularly not among the lower echelons of society.
During the American Revolution, American soldiers were decimated by an outbreak of smallpox bought over by the British soldiers sent to quell it. It nearly cost them the war.

Point being that much of the disaster that befell the Indigenous populations of the Americas was not only the result of deliberate genocide, but rather the combination of several factors of which intentional genocide was only one.
When we're speaking of the estimated loss of an estimated 80%+ of the population of an entire people (or, rather, hundreds of different peoples), it's tragedy enough without any need to inflate the numbers to make it seem worse, particularly not in order to further whatever agenda you have as a reason for doing so.
It's unnecessary.

 

[Episode IV]

Is it possible to make that distinction at all?

I think it is, yes. Unfortunately, though, it would require a high level of... wisdom?... among the judiciary which is unfortunately, not as common as I'd like.

... as in, whether we simply have too many people and some need be removed? Or is that putting words in your mouth here?

Yes, it is.
Generally speaking, people are far more concerned about the death of someone perceived as "kin" in some manner, than they are for those who are not. I was thinking of the current protest movements in Australia at that point, and how they are impacted by the multiethnic and multicultural nature of Australia's populace, how that affects the things we get riled up about, what is deemed to be acceptable and what is not. Aboriginal deaths in custody, and how they are publicized and reacted to as opposed to non-Aboriginal.
It's a bit of a tangent, I know, But I think it factors in when we're speaking of the ability of the judiciary to remain completely objective and impartial, particularly when public opinion and the effect of media coverage are taken into account.
I also think that it would require a subjective point of view to be able to sentence someone to death anyway. As in, there wouldn't appear to be a list of determinant factors by which a judge could refer to other than in a vague form, and there might be disparate allegiances and opinions or ideals.

It was a comment directed to the degree to which most are going to care, particularly in the case of offenders who "deserve it".
There is a difference between asking if it is ever "right" (in my opinion, yes - definitely), and asking if it is ever "just". To which I would say probably not. But I'm not entirely sure, either, as might be evident. If I am unsure, then the answer to any question as to whether or not capital punishment should become enshrined in law would have to be no.
In addition, the definition or concept of what constitutes justice is historically fluid. That also needs to be taken into account.

In quite a few cases, I think the individuals responsible, in all those cases pretty much beyond doubt, have given up all rights to live within society, even as prisoners. Some of the more notable serial killers being obvious examples, but other examples might include cases such as those of Sylvia Likens, Junko Furuta, Kelly Anne Bates.

I'd have absolutely no problems at all with execution in those cases, personally. This goes back to where I mentioned confidence in the ability of the state to deliver justice. We're not only talking about the lack of enforcement here, but also those instances in which the sentences metered out might be seen as inadequate.

I think our lack of engagement or identification with the victim (as previously mentioned, that may include ethnic or cultural identification, and it might also include a form of detachment as a result of population and a sense of community) may be a factor in some cases.

Significantly, but that is almost entirely based on the state's ability to control violence within it. If the state cannot 'stop' the heavily armed mob seeking to engage in some extra-judicial justice, that mob is free to dish out violence as they will. It's also broadly not accepted that this specific kind of violence is justice because it's frequently indiscriminate; a mob is as intelligent as its stupidest participant, and all that's required for violence to ensue is one person kicking things off.

I'd disagree on one small point there - the mob is controlled by the one manipulating it, not the stupidest. The mob generally consists of people of average intelligence, and the "stupidest" do not control a mob at all. In most cases, vigilantes tend to be "ordinary people", who are kicked off by, as you say, one voice. That voice may or may not be stupid, according to our understanding of what stupid actually is, but it does have a common thread - grievance, or the perception of such.

I tend to correlate protest actions, for example, with vigilante justice in the sense that both are the result of mob action, both of which are in my view narcissistic in nature. Again, a little OT but some of the broader concepts still apply.

If a modern liberal idea of justice is that it is specific, relabelling that kind of mob violence as recompense for alleged crimes as 'justice' would be a struggle for acceptance, one would think. I'd be interested to see you explore it.

Hmm.
As it happens, I was looking into vigilantism recently. There are some truly horrific examples out there, and of course those are mostly centered around the American experience, as a result of the level of documentation. Most of the discourse centres around the racial aspect in those cases, as one might expect when speaking of America.

I don't think, however, that there would be many who would relabel vigilantism as justice (other than those swept up in it, often in an attempt at self justification afterward).
One of the problems with law is that strict adherence to it can sometimes result in what might be seen as an injustice, in particular in modern times to the victim. In that sense, law might be seen as being inadequate, as an adjunct to a lack of enforcement as evidenced particularly in early cases of vigilantism.



Going to leave it there for now.

​

 

[Seeds]

You don’t lower crime through deterrence. It’s done by achieving a stable society through lower rates of poverty and strong social welfare.

The problem is that costs money and attracts negative media attention so politicians use the old “tough on crime” policies to win votes.

The truth is “soft on crime” actually reduces crime.

Both is required. Along with high standards of living.

Humans will free ride if we dont provide deterrents to prevent free riding. Pretty much everyone used to pirate movies and music ten years ago even though it was theft. But the lack of deterrent meant everyone did it.

 

[Gethelred]

Both is required. Along with high standards of living.

Humans will free ride if we dont provide deterrents to prevent free riding. Pretty much everyone used to pirate movies and music ten years ago even though it was theft. But the lack of deterrent meant everyone did it.

... is that not half the story, Seeds?

The thing that killed copyright piracy on the arse wasn't law enforcement but streaming: easier access to content. There's a lesson in there that the powers that be are deliberately trying to circumvent: people will willingly break the law en masse if there's a monopoly hoarding things at high prices - see the black market on foreign cigarettes for another example - and they will willingly pay for the content they want provided they're offered it cheaply without fuss.

So too, if you bring back harsher sentencing for minor crimes - aka, 'Broken Windows' policing - what you find is not less crime but more, and much fuller prisons. You get better bang for your buck providing people what they need to live than pouring that money into law and order projects.

This plays into the Death Penalty as it frequently incentivises people not to report crimes for the very things the state would want to kill you for. It breeds codes of silence, and it means that crimes go unreported if the perpetrator is a loved one.

Let me ask you a question, Seeds, based on something my mother has always said. My mum has always told me pretty honestly that if she caught me doing drugs, she'd call the police and call it in.

Do you think - were your mother like mine - she'd be as likely to do so in Singapore?

 

[Rotayjay]

I support the death penalty in principle, but not in practice. I support it in principle because if you took away someone's life, a just punishment is losing your own. The same goes for things like taking a child's innocence.

However, no human-made judicial system is perfect. If you get on with executions quickly, you increase the risk of killing an innocent person. If you allow endless appeals, you get those ridiculous situations where people are on death row for decades. And then there is the question of how much pain is appropriate to inflict during execution. How do you make ending someone's life humane? (Nitrogen asphyxiation looks like it would solve that issue).

If there was a way of being 100% sure you're executing the right person, I'd be all for it. Because there isn't, I'm against it.

 

[barreness]

Maoist china had a death toll of over 50 million within a decade.

Stalins russia was nearly as much.

Thats your boundaries.

Ok so we're including famines, gotcha

Liberal democratic Britain
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/12/12/britain-100-million-india-deaths-colonialism/
British colonialism caused approximately 165 million deaths in India from 1880 to 1920

I can through it more after 1920, but you get the point. We can go more if you want to include Churchill's decisions after 1920 or perhaps the 'race for africa' for all the European powers

Liberalism is a death cult

 

[barreness]

Not even close to fair.
I'm going to guess that that "top estimate" came from a very early google hit - Wikipedia.
From here, right?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#:~:text=Population figures for the Indigenous,end of the 20th century.
There are a few other sources easily found which list Dobyns estimate as a high water mark, so to speak, and one reason for the discrepancy between his and others is the methods by which the estimates are calculated. Dobyns has come in for some criticism in that regard, but I'll leave you to research that for yourself.

There are a few other a few other issues I have with your post.

Firstly, you've used just one researcher's numbers rather than looking into others, which are detailed further down the page on a table. I don't know how many other studies have been done other than those listed, probably more than a few, and I'd imagine their estimates vary quite widely for several reasons, one of the most obvious (as noted) being methodology. However, of the twelve listed on that table alone, none of the others even came close to one hundred million. The majority, as noted in the opening paragraph, came up with a number somewhere around half that, with more coming to the conclusion that it was considerably less.

Secondly, you've used an extreme high estimate, that being the 100 million, as a population figure for "native North Americans". The low figure, by way of comparison, is around 8 million.
Now, if you'd bothered to read a little further, you'd find that that figure (and most of the other estimates) combines the populations of both American continents, split into several regions. Of those regions, the populations of the southern areas were considerably higher than those of the North.
Population figures given by the researchers listed barely broke into double figures (in millions) for North America and Canada.
Dobyns, the researcher you've used in your post, came up with less than 13 million for the North American continent (inc. Canada), plus another 35 odd million for Mexico. The figure of 100 million, even as a high estimate, for the North America region is, quite frankly, laughable - even if one considers only the most sympathetic estimates.

Thirdly, I dislike the overuse of the term genocide in popular discourse to describe events (of the past in particular). It represents an oversimplification of the true nature of the tragedy, that oversimplification being that it all happened as a result of "White" colonisation. Malice aforethought, as it were. It just isn't that simple.

When one is discussing genocide, the question of intent becomes one of importance. There is no question that in many instances it certainly was the result of deliberate action, but that forms only a part of the picture with regard to the true extent of the population reduction (and the subsequent eradiation of many cultures). One factor of paramount importance is that of disease, for example. We have access to documented, historical records showing that there were many cases of deliberate attempts to spread disease among native populations in the Americas - but in order for that to occur, there had to be a natural spread and subsequent result, demonstrating the effectiveness such a tactic might have.

Not only that, but it worked both ways. Many early attempts at settlement in the Americas failed, and one of the reasons for failure was disease. Jamestown, one of the more (eventually) successful early colonies, was located in Virginia, and in its early history plagued by diseases Europeans didn't have much resistance to - such as Malaria. I'd suggest you read up on the history of the early settlements, and decide for yourself just how much disease factored in to the success and failure rate of those colonies. As late as the 18th century, potential colonists to Northern America, particularly in the southern colonies, were warned to prepare for "the seasoning" - the amount of time it took for a colonist to build up a tolerance for the local diseases, mostly described simply as "fevers".
Many never did. There are quite a few "failed" colonies in America's history, and while disease was not the only factor in their demise, it certainly was one of the more influential ones. Europeans were susceptible to diseases spread via different methods (e.g. Mosquitos, particularly in Virginia) than they had built up resistance to in Europe. Estimates and historical records indicate that, in the case of Jamestown, as many as a quarter of immigrants to the colony did not survive the first year, and only half of all children born survived to reach the age of 20.

The impact of disease upon Indigenous Americans was far greater, of course, but that was not only due to deliberate attempts to spread disease, but also due to the nature of disease itself. Epidemics affecting significant portions of populations have other effects than simply killing those affected. Epidemics also result in cultural and economic breakdown, by way of example, as "ripple effects" in manner of speaking.

The spread of disease to which the inhabitants of one particular region had never been exposed to, nor built up any natural immunity to, is a common feature of historical contact between different peoples. Or particular importance in the case of the Americas (and of course in Australia) is the level of isolation those peoples had prior to contact. That it was spread deliberately in some instances is certainly a factor; it was not, however, the primary consideration in the spread of disease in general. Smallpox, the major contributor to death by disease among Indigenous Americans, was the major cause of death in Europe throughout the 17th century. Almost nobody died of old age, as we know it.
It's not like Europeans were immune to it - they'd simply built up more resistance to it, and were actually in some cases practicing an early form of inoculation - a tiny injection of enough to make someone sick, but not enough to kill them. In the Americas, this wasn't yet common. It wasn't even really common in Europe, particularly not among the lower echelons of society.
During the American Revolution, American soldiers were decimated by an outbreak of smallpox bought over by the British soldiers sent to quell it. It nearly cost them the war.

Point being that much of the disaster that befell the Indigenous populations of the Americas was not only the result of deliberate genocide, but rather the combination of several factors of which intentional genocide was only one.
When we're speaking of the estimated loss of an estimated 80%+ of the population of an entire people (or, rather, hundreds of different peoples), it's tragedy enough without any need to inflate the numbers to make it seem worse, particularly not in order to further whatever agenda you have as a reason for doing so.
It's unnecessary.

I hope the zionists pay you by the letter

 

[barreness]

Well no because the death tolls i listed were all within a decade or so and carried out by the state against its own people. Not spread over centuries. Plus many of those native american deaths were also before american democracy even existed and were when native americans were considered seperate from the state. Many of those carried out in the past century were not carried out or supported by the state and were considered illegal and punished when offenders were caught (admittedly this was rare - but not because liberal rule of law fails but rather because it simply wasnt strong enough).

It's kinda all excuses though right? oh they weren't included in the state, oh the laws weren't enforced enough etc. It happened

Anyway this is going a bit off track (didnt realise you bought this up in the death penalty thread and thought we were in a different thread). Are you against the death pemalty? I cant see how anyone would support it in a wealthy state with the resources to imprison everyone for life who commits henious crimes.

Yes it is, Malfice brought it up to shit on socialists, hence my counter example

I'm against the death penalty

 

[Seeds]

It's kinda all excuses though right? oh they weren't included in the state, oh the laws weren't enforced enough etc. It happened

Yes it is, Malfice brought it up to shit on socialists, hence my counter example

I'm against the death penalty

Its not an excuse. This thread is about the death penalty. State sanctioned murders against its own people. A lot of the murders you were talking about werent state sanctioned murders against their own people and in some cases those murders were against the very laws of the state. That doesnt make those murders any less wrong and any less a travesty. But not really relevant to a discussion about which states carry out the death penalty more.

The murders I was referencing in the time of Mao amd Stalin were very much carried out by agents of the state for often minor or ridiculous violations of state law. The qualify as being part of a death penalty discussion.

 

[Lsta062]

... this is rather absolutist, Lsta. I don't know about you, but I'd struggle if placed in Person B's circumstance not to do it.

I supposed I have another question, then. Do you trust the government to always use the power to kill its own citizens responsibly?

To answer your second question, I can’t think of a single government in the world that I’d fully trust right now with many things including death penalties. This is regardless of whether we’re talking about a Western country (e.g., the US) or a non-Western country (e.g., Saudi Arabia). We’ve seen too many cases of emotions and biases clouding people’s decisions.

Going back on the previous scenario, I understand that many may find it difficult to be in Person B’s position. I really do. It wouldn’t be easy for me either. But, I’m very strong on not killing an innocent person. Although we don’t know how we’d react in the face of death threats (whether to self or to loved ones), I ideally wouldn’t kill someone to save myself or a family member. If I do and I live in a state that enforces the death penalty in the way that I mentioned before, then I’d accept it.

You know why I’m very hard on people that kill innocent people even when somewhat coerced? It’s because of oppressive military regimes. People tend to defend individual actors by saying “oh but person X had no choice but to kill because the government was going to kill them”. The reason why so many innocent people die is because governments successfully use fear tactics like the threat of death into the hearts of their people, and these people then go on and cause unbelievable devastations to innocent people. I hold each individual accountable for what they’ve done. If 5,000 people killed 20,000 people because of their government, then I hold all 5,000 people accountable for what they’ve done.

If people never caved in, then these government personnel would not have the manpower to do anything other than maybe doing it themselves if they’re capable. I still see this as their choice, and I am still hard on them for it because we’ve seen the ruin it can cause many times over the last century (or even more than that).

There are of course exceptions where I wouldn’t want death penalties applied, but I just want to talk generally only about this

 

[Episode IV]

I hope the zionists pay you by the letter

The zionists? What? Who are they, and what do they have to do with anything?

Why don't you try educating yourself and pointing out where you think I'm wrong?
Is there a single thing in there that you can actually refute, or at least argue about on a factual basis?

Addendum:
I just read the study referenced in your last post, "Capitalism and extreme poverty: A global analysis of real wages, human height, and mortality since the long 16th century". Did you?
Even a casual reading would expose some fairly dodgy thinking in there, not the least of which is matching the data to a conclusion rather than forming a conclusion based upon the data.

I mean, when (in the original article you linked) an introduction comes replete with lines like "The global capitalist system was founded on European imperial genocides, which inspired Adolf Hitler and led to fascism." I'm going to find myself forcing my way through the rest of it only after a deep sigh and a sense of futility.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

Nitrogen hypoxia seems a pretty rough way to go,surprised they don't just give them a good dose of fentanyl.
Shouldn't be to hard to source in Alabama.

West Virginia is your best bet. 67 fentanyl deaths per 100,000 residents

 

[Seeds]

Ok so we're including famines, gotcha

Liberal democratic Britain
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/12/12/britain-100-million-india-deaths-colonialism/
British colonialism caused approximately 165 million deaths in India from 1880 to 1920

I can through it more after 1920, but you get the point. We can go more if you want to include Churchill's decisions after 1920 or perhaps the 'race for africa' for all the European powers

Liberalism is a death cult

The extent of the famine was magnified 100 fold by maos idiotic policies which disincentivised farmers to produce crops. He then stole all the remaining food from the farmers to give to the urban elites which either killed the farmers from starvation or his police murdered the farmers if they tried to eat the crops they planted. Less farmers then led to even less food and more people dying. In fact it was often worse then just murder. Horrific examples of farmers being burned and skinned alive by the state police just for eating food because they were starving because Mao stole their produce. And Im not even sure if they had the worse deaths. Those who starved slowly over weeks while eating dirt, urine and faeces despite literally being surrounded by food must of experienced physical and mental torture that is almost impossible to imagine.

So yes those famine deaths do count. They were caused and carried out by the state and they were utterly horrific.

Liberal democracies also have bad weather. They dont have famines. In modern times famines are caused by war or a negliently incompetent state. Bad weather can be a trigger, but not a sufficient cause.

It also wasnt thousands that died. It must be reiterated it was tens of millions that was kiled by maos famine.

The example you point out is also horrific and probably just as bad. But it wasnt carried out by an elected government against the people that elected them. The british acted like a dictator in india that didnt even view their subjects as people. Just more proof that you need governments of the people and by the people. Dictators either dont care about the people or dont have the ability to care for the people. The results in either case can be devastating leading to mass deaths created and carried out by the state.

 

[Fire]

Obviously there's not justification for it.


But I've always thought it a bit odd over here in the US, that its usually the supposed small government, freedom loving conservatives who think its just awesome to give the state the power to kill its own citizens.

Almost like their only consistent philosophy is whatever best allows for the expression of hate.

 

[Fire]

Sorry, but his post is just not true.

No one has any idea what a global socialist state would like, because it has never existed.

The Khmer Rouge, Maoists, Che Guevara etc were anti -Marxist and utterly opposed to any socialist perspective based on the working class.

They were all nationalists...they fought for a "national solution", just like Hitler did.

The Khmer Rouge imposed a fascist regime which murdered the workers in Cambodia, supposedly to create a "socialist peasant econmy".

Anyone even slightly educated in Marxism and socialism understood that this would lead to mass murder.

What needs to be understood is that there are many extreme right wing nationalists who actually claimed the mantle of "Marxism" to carry out mass murder.

Only by clarifying this history can mankind make progress.

To stay on topic 5 executions in America this week:

Week of executions in America ends with a nitrogen gas asphyxiation in Alabama

Five death row inmates were put to death in the US over the past week, a pace unprecedented since July 2003. With the deaths of Freddie Owens, Travis Mullis, Marcellus Williams, Emmanuel Littlejohn and Alan Miller, the US has now executed 1,600 people since the US Supreme Court reinstated the...

www.wsws.org

I've never seen a five story tall spoon before, but that doesn't mean I have no idea what one would look like.

The examples you pointed to are all small windows of what a larger global socialist state would look like.

Because at the end of the day there will always need to be an out group to galvanize any extreme ideology. For nationalists, its usually foreigners. For socialists, its usually people who don't quite agree.

 

[Gethelred]

The extent of the famine was magnified 100 fold by maos idiotic policies which disincentivised farmers to produce crops. He then stole all the remaining food from the farmers to give to the urban elites which either killed the farmers from starvation or his police murdered the farmers if they tried to eat the crops they planted. Less farmers then led to even less food and more people dying. In fact it was often worse then just murder. Horrific examples of farmers being burned and skinned alive by the state police just for eating food because they were starving because Mao stole their produce. And Im not even sure if they had the worse deaths. Those who starved slowly over weeks while eating dirt, urine and faeces despite literally being surrounded by food must of experienced physical and mental torture that is almost impossible to imagine.

So yes those famine deaths do count. They were caused and carried out by the state and they were utterly horrific.

I don't think is justifiable to include famine deaths in that argument Seeds.

These deaths are government inflicted certainly, but there is a definitive question as to whether or not they were an intended consequence of a government action. Capital punishment and state sanctioned murder is distinctly different because death is the intended outcome.

A government can be responsible for a death or a million of them, but there's a marked difference - or if there isn't, I'm marking it - between deaths in which that was the intended outcome versus a state choosing a path and deaths being a consequence.

 

[IlovethePies]

I don't think is justifiable to include famine deaths in that argument Seeds.

These deaths are government inflicted certainly, but there is a definitive question as to whether or not they were an intended consequence of a government action. Capital punishment and state sanctioned murder is distinctly different because death is the intended outcome.

A government can be responsible for a death or a million of them, but there's a marked difference - or if there isn't, I'm marking it - between deaths in which that was the intended outcome versus a state choosing a path and deaths being a consequence.

Exactly. And this precise difference is what all the right wing Ukrainian nationalist propaganda obscures regarding the famine instigated by the Stalinist bureaucracy during the forced collectivisation of the Soviet Union in the early 30's. The famine was the product of the criminally incompetent policies of the Stalinist regime, but it was not an intended outcome.

Right wing anti-Communist propaganda, now utilised to promote anti-Russian xenophobia in Ukraine - and in Europe, Canada and the US - regularly refers to the Holomodor as the genocide of Ukrainians.

This is a historical lie, for the reasons above. The deaths of millions from famine in the Soviet Union at that time was not the outcome of a deliberate policy to exterminate ethnic Ukrainians, but was a criminally catastrophic economic policy attempting to overcome the resistance of the population to economic dictates which has neither been prepared nor explained to the population.

As Gethelred insists, capital punishment, like genocide, is totally different. The immediate aim of the policy is death

 

[Episode IV]

... Let me ask you a question, Seeds, based on something my mother has always said. My mum has always told me pretty honestly that if she caught me doing drugs, she'd call the police and call it in.

Do you think - were your mother like mine - she'd be as likely to do so in Singapore?

Should probably make a quick note here that capital punishment, i.e. the death penalty, is a potential punishment in Singapore for drug trafficking, not use. Your example still stands, but given the penalty for being caught with some pot on you might only result in a year in prison and/or a fine, it's not as extreme as you think.

Having said that, Singapore has shown that they are more likely to sentence someone to death for drug trafficking than murder, which is an interesting development, and is evidential of their attitude as to the seriousness of the crime. Most Singaporeans are supportive of capital punishment, it would appear - Singapore is one of those countries which has both the advantage and disadvantage of being relatively transparent with regard to procedure and statistics, which is again one reason they are often singled out as examples in a discussion such as this, where other countries with more extreme policies and practices are not.

Some of that discussion revolves around the value of capital punishment (or any punishment, really) as a deterrent, as distinct from a punishment.
What value would you assign to either one, and would your thinking have more of a moral or a pragmatic foundation?

 

[Gethelred]

Should probably make a quick note here that capital punishment, i.e. the death penalty, is a potential punishment in Singapore for drug trafficking, not use. Your example still stands, but given the penalty for being caught with some pot on you might only result in a year in prison and/or a fine, it's not as extreme as you think.

Having said that, Singapore has shown that they are more likely to sentence someone to death for drug trafficking than murder, which is an interesting development, and is evidential of their attitude as to the seriousness of the crime. Most Singaporeans are supportive of capital punishment, it would appear - Singapore is one of those countries which has both the advantage and disadvantage of being relatively transparent with regard to procedure and statistics, which is again one reason they are often singled out as examples in a discussion such as this, where other countries with more extreme policies and practices are not.

Some of that discussion revolves around the value of capital punishment (or any punishment, really) as a deterrent, as distinct from a punishment.
What value would you assign to either one, and would your thinking have more of a moral or a pragmatic foundation?

Most of my thinking here is derived from the criminology I studied as an undergrad. I wasted a truly incredible amount of time in my twenties in that I did enough subjects to major in a a number of them; criminology was one of those subjects.

I am willing to declare myself not an expert. I know that I don't really have enough information - and what information I do have is memory based from a good 10+ years ago - but I remember that from a purely statistical standpoint crime as punishment doesn't work to reduce the level of crime; if anything it increases the levels of unreported crime, because people inherently do not want to be punished. Then, you have the sorts of crime in which capital punishment is levied: sex crimes, drugs and murder.

Sex crimes are largely committed by someone familiar or close to the victim. It is hardly in the best interests of a SA victim to have their communities blame them for the death of their attacker, and SA victims frequently are blamed and gaslighted by those around them (and police) anyway. I don't remember enough concerning murder to make a specific argument there (you still have the general potential issue of a more systemic structural discrimination leading to poor people and minorities being subject to the death penalty through institutional biases) but the death penalty for drug trafficking is - IMO, rather than a fact based exercise - a poor choice.

If you drive an industry into a criminal sphere, then you choose to murder those who work in that industry, you make what they're willing to do to hide themselves much worse. There would still be a drug trafficking trade in Singapore, but those engaged in it must be willing to kill themselves to protect their business. Then, you have that those that are caught, tried and killed are never the big fish; you might get an inconvenient street trader or international mule, but you're not going to get to the suits. The war on drugs has created cartels with massive resources; those resources come to bear in protecting their profits, and in a jurisdiction where their trade is criminalised at that level they need be willing to meet the challenges posed to continue to profit.

That is just capitalism at work.

Now, I'd argue that the above is more pragmatic than it is moral. If the Death Penalty worked to disincentivise the crimes mentioned above more than its unintended consequences lead to other issues, then it'd be a good deal more valid a method of societal consequence. I also really don't think overmuch of justice as punishment; that's rather too atavistic for me. If the point of society is that we lose rights in order to gain something, we need to have rules and structures to hold society together; the broader the possible viewpoints pooled to provide solutions, the better off we are. Underground networks have always provided necessary supply chains to those who have been unable to provide for themselves or in situations of crisis; the kind of experiences criminals have as an underclass is useful knowledge.

But, I've also said in the past that logic is the system we use to justify what we were already thinking. To say that there is no moral dimension at play here would be dishonest: I don't like the state's monopoly over violence, and I never have.

 

[Todman]

The Russian Revolution established the first ever workers' state. However that was not socialism. Socialism means a world planned economy where all production processes are integrated internationally on the basis of social need, and not profit.

When the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917, they based their actions on the perspective of world socialist revolution. Any conception that socialism could be built in one country, was anathema to them. Lenin often explained that when the working class overthrew the Kerensky capitalist government, this was the chain of imperialism breaking at the weakest link.

But socialism would only be established when the socialist revolution had spread across the entire globe

Socialism means a higher stage of civilisation than capitalism. Socialism requires the use of the advanced technology and productive capacities of global capitalism, but utilised on the basis of what society needs, not the private profit dictates of a financial oligarchy.

So no, socialism has never existed because to do so it requires the complete abolition of the nation state system by the working class led by an international revolutionary party based on the program of world socialist revolution.

Sounds like a lot of blood will be shed.

 

[Todman]

Liberal capitalist democracies also engage in murder, capital punishment, and war crimes, it's just we tend to do it a lot less than the Socialists and Fascists, and we tend to hold people a lot more accountable for it.

We also gloss over some of the worst stuff (Strategic bombing of Europe and Japan including Hiroshima and Nagasaki spring to mind).

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved so many lives from being lost.

 

[Gethelred]

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved so many lives from being lost.

This is contested.

 

[Todman]

This is contested.

IIRC the US Army predicted 500,000 casualties in a invasion of the Japanese mainland.

 

[Gethelred]

IIRC the US Army predicted 500,000 casualties in a invasion of the Japanese mainland.

There are sources (I'm trying to find them, it's been about 12ish years since I read them) from Japan that have the anti-war parts of the government that were moving for peace and that they were already beaten, wanting to seek and having already contacted American military and government sources to try and begin the treaty process. America instead wanted to test their weapon, and rebuffed those attempts.

The reason why people think what you think is largely due to Karl Taylor Compton's article in The Atlantic after the war, in which he justified why they did it (this is what I originally linked). This alongside a letter in the same bulletin by Harry Truman justifying the attack and agreeing with Compton basically sold the palatable truth to a public willing to believe them big damn heroes: the bombs were justified by equating their influence with the cost of a ground invasion.

Give the link in my post above a bit of a read. It might be wikipedia, but it has both sides of the argument and is pretty well referenced.

 

[Todman]

There are sources (I'm trying to find them, it's been about 12ish years since I read them) from Japan that have the anti-war parts of the government that were moving for peace and that they were already beaten, wanting to seek and having already contacted American military and government sources to try and begin the treaty process. America instead wanted to test their weapon, and rebuffed those attempts.

The reason why people think what you think is largely due to Karl Taylor Compton's article in The Atlantic after the war, in which he justified why they did it (this is what I originally linked). This alongside a letter in the same bulletin by Harry Truman justifying the attack and agreeing with Compton basically sold the palatable truth to a public willing to believe them big damn heroes: the bombs were justified by equating their influence with the cost of a ground invasion.

It stopped Stalin from further movement in Europe. The Japanese still occupied Indo-China and much of China by war end.