The Law The Death Penalty

[Malifice]

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

Nonsense!

They'd be the same tyrannical shitholes as the Soviet Union, North Korea, and literally every other unitary party socialist State.

The State control every aspect of your life. There is no freedom of expression, no freedom of the press, no freedom of association, no private property and worse.

And dont try and say 'the socialist global State is stateless'. That's utter nonsense. Someone has to be running the socialist economy, infrastructure etc and holding guns to peoples heads who want liberal capitalism, or to start a new political party that is anti-Socialist.

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

Nonsense. Their entire dogma was based on the working class (and in the Khmer Rogue, the agrarian class).

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

Derp.

Hitler (and the Nazis) were also (partly) socialist. They never went all the way with State ownership of the means of production because they didnt want to piss of German industrialists and the Junkers.

Rhom wanted to go full socialism. So Hitler offed him.

Hitler needed the German bourgeoise on board.

This is not to say 'the Nazis were Left wing'. They were most definately not. Quite the opposite.

Of course, that's because 'socialism' is not the same thing as 'left wing'.

 

[tandino]

Beyond reasonable doubt is not a strong enough standard of proof to kill someone, so the case for the death penalty fails on that alone I feel.

 

[barreness]

Socialist states have existed, and they were more than happy to murder millions.

Ditto the fascists on the other side of the political spectrum.

On topic, under no circumstance should we have the death penalty.

I suppose the liberal ones felt really bad after they murdered millions, which is the main point after all

 

[Malifice]

I suppose the liberal ones felt really bad after they murdered millions, which is the main point after all

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).

 

[Lsta062]

Generally speaking, I’m for the death penalty if it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the person murdered another with actual intent to kill and the family of the victim do not relieve the murderer from the death penalty.

It means that this might happen very rarely without a confession. I’m not comfortable for the death penalty to happen on hearsay (or flimsy evidence) or times when an action resulted in the death of another but wasn’t done to kill (e.g., punching another person or inattentive driving). Although we know that a single punch to the head can kill for example, it’s reasonable to assume that it usually isn’t done to kill.

I don’t know much about the recent case, but it seems like people had an issue with the death penalty being enforced despite the evidence not being beyond a reasonable doubt. If that’s the case, then I’d be concerned.

 

[Gethelred]

You know, I sometimes get the feeling you're asking questions in order to get ideas for a framework for a university essay.

Nope. My time studying criminology is loooooong gone.

I saw that particular case, researched it some and found we didn't have a dedicated capital punishment thread.

Personally, I always find it easier to answer questions (to one extent or another) rather than to pose those questions myself. Your OP in itself is not something I'd disagree with, inherently, keeping in mind the expectation of a quid pro quo, but then we get to the old "'good faith" thing; and without that, there is the danger of the questioner simply looking for grounds upon which they might become... militant.
That last is, incidentally, pertinent to the topic at hand.

That being said, this is an extremely difficult question to answer. There are many factors in play - practical, moral, philosophical.
Those three (at least) are important. Are we really talking about crimes against the state, or those against "humanity"? Are we willing to make that distinction, separate from moral considerations? Are we ready for that moral quagmire?

Is it possible to make that distinction at all?

Particularly, and this is where things get difficult: as a multicultural state?

You've asked three questions.
The first relies upon a distinction between "right", and "just". One you haven't asked for, but is is absolutely at the heart of the question.

Indeed.

The second relies upon a general overview of the social and political situation, and how many people there are in the world - to whit, is the removal of one, just or otherwise, of any great significance other to those who might individually value that person, when balanced against the removal of a person in the service of the greater good - or in service to the innocent or aggrieved?

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

Perhaps not really "one", but rather "one" as an expression of a margin for error. What fraction of unjust executions are we considering, are we willing to examine the accuser as well as the accused, and to whom is compensation rendered to under those circumstances?

And the third... my answer is yes. My grounds for saying so and the circumstances under which I might say so, however, might not align with yours. Thus, in the eyes of society, it must be no. Of course, it is No.

A tangent:
Perhaps we're speaking about the State as an agent of vigilante justice. Vigilante justice has only ever really occurred when the people do not trust the state to deliver justice.
I wonder. Has anyone ever referred to vigilante justice as vigilante law? To what extent does the acceptance of vigilante justice rely upon the ability of the state to administer law?

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.

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.

 

[schneebly111]

Generally speaking, I’m for the death penalty if it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the person murdered another with actual intent to kill and the family of the victim do not relieve the murderer from the death penalty.

Every single person here was found guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”:

Wrongful execution - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It means that this might happen very rarely without a confession.

Confessions can be forced, coerced or made with the suspect not in a sound mental state.

 

[schneebly111]

The Death Penalty is beyond useless.

It doesn’t stop crime (US states with death penalty have higher murder rates than ones without)

It doesn’t save costs (the endless appeals and special incarceration cost more than life imprisonment)

It doesn’t provide quick resolutions for victims (20-30 years on average on death row).

The last US executions were only carried out in the MAGA sh*tholes like Alabama, Oklahoma and Missouri. What civilised person wants to follow in the footsteps of those f**kwits?

 

[Lsta062]

Every single person here was found guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”:

Wrongful execution - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Confessions can be forced, coerced or made with the suspect not in a sound mental state.

Maybe I should change my terminology and say “without any doubt”. There are cases where there is no doubt about the perpetrator of the crime. But those cases are not common. Most rely on circumstantial evidence and connecting the dots.

Yes, I agree that there are cases where confessions can be forced and not necessarily true. But that highlights an issue of how confessions are handled. These coercive tactics employed by authority isn’t necessarily effective in getting to the truth. I don’t know why they do it. It doesn’t mean that no confessions should be taken though. If someone who has no history with mental illness and is deemed mentally fit voluntarily confesses, shows where the body was buried, the DNA matches the victim, and shows where the weapons are, then you can reasonably believe their confession. In a situation like this, a confession probably counts.

To reiterate, I’m not against the death penalty in cases where the perpetrator is obvious without a doubt. You kill someone, you pay for it with your life should the family not forgive. If you don’t want that consequence, then don’t kill. That’s how I view it. But as I said before, this doesn’t happen often. In most cases, it’s not obvious without a doubt. There is usually some doubt involved.

 

[Seeds]

No need for a death penalty. Life in high security prison for the most heinous crimes is a big enough deterrent. If that doesnt work then no deterrent will.

 

[schneebly111]

No need for a death penalty. Life in high security prison for the most heinous crimes is a big enough deterrent. If that doesnt work then no deterrent will.

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.

 

[Gethelred]

Maybe I should change my terminology and say “without any doubt”. There are cases where there is no doubt about the perpetrator of the crime. But those cases are not common. Most rely on circumstantial evidence and connecting the dots.

Let me give you a hypothetical.

Person A kidnaps Person B's family, and tells Person A to go into a public place and to - with as many witnesses as possible - kill Person C. Person B has a longstanding dislike of Person C. Person A tells Person B that they will keep Person B's family under surveillance, and tells Person B to submit to questioning and to admit to the crime if they do not want their family to suffer.

From the police and the public's perspective, Person B has gone off the rocker. They had motive, you have their guilt beyond any doubt, you have a spoken and repeated confession before you. In the immediate 5 years, you have nothing to dispute or contend with the facts you know. Only ten years down the road - when Person A dies, and their possessions and journals are found - is the whole plot uncovered.

Under this scenario, Person A is put to death before the truth can come out. Is this an acceptable scenario for you?

 

[Lsta062]

Let me give you a hypothetical.

Person A kidnaps Person B's family, and tells Person A to go into a public place and to - with as many witnesses as possible - kill Person C. Person B has a longstanding dislike of Person C. Person A tells Person B that they will keep Person B's family under surveillance, and tells Person B to submit to questioning and to admit to the crime if they do not want their family to suffer.

From the police and the public's perspective, Person B has gone off the rocker. They had motive, you have their guilt beyond any doubt, you have a spoken and repeated confession before you. In the immediate 5 years, you have nothing to dispute or contend with the facts you know. Only ten years down the road - when Person A dies, and their possessions and journals are found - is the whole plot uncovered.

Under this scenario, Person A is put to death before the truth can come out. Is this an acceptable scenario for you?

Just to try and understand your scenario, did Person A kill Person C and then coerce Person B to confess to it by kidnapping Person B’s family?

 

[Gethelred]

Just to try and understand your scenario, did Person A kill Person C and then coerce Person B to confess to it by kidnapping Person B’s family?

Person A coerced Person B into both publicly killing Person C and confessing in full to that crime.