• jubejube
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    I would not say executing innocents is a good thing. I understand your compassion though. It speaks well to you. Unfortunately there is usually no being made whole when it comes to tragedy. I believe the bar for proving guilt when the death penalty is involved is quite high. I have seen the cases of the few exonerated from death row and I am thankful for that. There are people out there fighting for those wrongly accused. However, there are many more clear cut open and shut cases of those not deserving to exist among their fellow man who have done things to the innocent that are hard to even read.

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Oh the bar is quite high. No problem then, it will only be a small number of definitely innocent people we murder.

      How about we can execute people, but if they’re later exonerated every single person involved in the execution themselves gets executed automatically. I think that may enforce a high enough standard for me.

      • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Oh the bar is quite high. No problem then, it will only be a small number of definitely innocent people we murder.

        Irrelevant, it is wrong to execute even guilty people.

      • jubejube
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        That made me chuckle. However it seems to go against the premise of your argument. Kill more to prevent the killing of one? I’m afraid there is no good solution. Maybe neuralink will one day allow us to read the memories of those accused for definite convictions.

        • admiralteal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          You have missed my point. If the penalty for an error were death, with no wiggle room whatsoever, there would be no more errors because no one would be willing to risk it. It would end the death penalty.

          And even then I’m not sure “I would literally stake my life on it” is a high enough burden. But it is absolutely insane and unacceptable that anyone is willing to stake someone else’s life on it and not their own.

          • jubejube
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I can understand what you are getting at. Ideally, the burden of proof should be absolute. If not then the death penalty should be off the table.

            • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              If not then the death penalty should be off the table.

              Should be off the table for people we absolutely know did it. It is wrong to kill captive people.

    • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      However, there are many more clear cut open and shut cases of those not deserving to exist

      No one exists who can make that call. Once you have complete control over someone is it immoral to kill them.

            • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              I didn’t say that at all?

              Yes you did.

              The only way you can have complete control over someone is solitary confinement.

              Either you are claiming execution is a form of solitary confinement or Alabama didn’t have complete control over the man they just strapped down and murdered for your statements not to contradict.