• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

BillBrasky Memorial Political Chat Thread

I just don’t understand who benefits from killing the person nearly 30 years later.

Does that make the victim’s family and friends happy? For the past 30 years have they felt that justice was not being served, and now they do? Do they even know that he was killed?

Even if he hadn’t changed a bit in prison and was still the same man (clearly not true), I don’t think killing him would accomplish anything meaningful. It’s so unnecessary and barbaric.
 
deacon14 said:
I just don’t understand who benefits from killing the person nearly 30 years later.

Does that make the victim’s family and friends happy? For the past 30 years have they felt that justice was not being served, and now they do? Do they even know that he was killed?

Even if he hadn’t changed a bit in prison and was still the same man (clearly not true), I don’t think killing him would accomplish anything meaningful. It’s so unnecessary and barbaric.
Click to expand...
The people who wanted to kill him probably wanted to do it much faster, and they probably oppose all the components of our system that postpone the execution.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
The people who wanted to kill him probably wanted to do it much faster, and they probably oppose all the components of our system that postpone the execution.
Click to expand...
Sure, but I wouldn't change the sentiment in my post at all if you changed out "nearly 30 years later" for "nearly 10 years later".
 
deacon14 said:
Sure, but I wouldn't change the sentiment in my post at all if you changed out "nearly 30 years later" for "nearly 10 years later".
Click to expand...

I think the proponents of it who are not juvenile would say that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to offenders and a way of emotionally and spiritually healing the families of victims. Neither rationalization is compelling to me.
 
deacon14 said:
Sure, but I wouldn't change the sentiment in my post at all if you changed out "nearly 30 years later" for "nearly 10 years later".
Click to expand...
agreed. It’s barbaric. I think it’s worth examining how people believe that judicial retribution is part of the social contract - basically the mutual agreement between citizen and state that the state will seek retribution on your behalf to prevent you seeking it yourself. The notion of rehabilitation doesn’t even factor into that.
 
Strickland33 said:
I think the proponents of it who are not juvenile would say that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to offenders and a way of emotionally and spiritually healing the families of victims. Neither rationalization is compelling to me.
Click to expand...
The former has been soundly disproven and the latter has been significantly disproven.
 
Strickland33 said:
I think the proponents of it who are not juvenile would say that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to offenders and a way of emotionally and spiritually healing the families of victims. Neither rationalization is compelling to me.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I struggle to believe that this sort of retribution heals the victims' families in any meaningful way, even amongst the families that actively want to see the death penalty enforced. And someone so out-of-touch with society that they are about to commit a crime worthy of the death penalty almost certainly is not willing and/or able to logically process the fact that it will later lead to their state-ordered death. So I'd pretty quickly dismiss both of those potential rationalizations as well.

myDeaconmyhand said:
agreed. It’s barbaric. I think it’s worth examining how people believe that judicial retribution is part of the social contract - basically the mutual agreement between citizen and state that the state will seek retribution on your behalf to prevent you seeking it yourself. The notion of rehabilitation doesn’t even factor into that.
Click to expand...
I think this is somewhat interesting, but our society doesn't operate on an eye for an eye justice system in any other area. If someone assaults me and breaks my leg, prison time is the judicial retribution, not a state-mandated beating that results in a broken limb. So I don't see why the judicial retribution for cases of horrible murder needs to be an eye for an eye type of state mandated execution.

I know that neither of you are arguing as death penalty proponents, but I certainly know some in real life and it's a frustrating conversation for me.
 
deacon14 said:
Agreed.

I struggle to believe that this sort of retribution heals the victims' families in any meaningful way, even amongst the families that actively want to see the death penalty enforced. And someone so out-of-touch with society that they are about to commit a crime worthy of the death penalty almost certainly is not willing and/or able to logically process the fact that it will later lead to their state-ordered death. So I'd pretty quickly dismiss both of those potential rationalizations as well.


I think this is somewhat interesting, but our society doesn't operate on an eye for an eye justice system in any other area. If someone assaults me and breaks my leg, prison time is the judicial retribution, not a state-mandated beating that results in a broken limb. So I don't see why the judicial retribution for cases of horrible murder needs to be an eye for an eye type of state mandated execution.

I know that neither of you are arguing as death penalty proponents, but I certainly know some in real life and it's a frustrating conversation for me.
Click to expand...
yeah, it's interesting how the debate kind of breaks apart when you try and synthesize the "criminological" and "philosophical" arguments for the death penalty.

in terms of the abolitionist frame, though, it's basically an open-and-shut case (e.g., maybe you don't believe in abolishing the police, but surely you can get behind getting rid of the death penalty in favor of alternative modes of punishment [that most states rely on anyway]).
 
rawarr said:

Reddit - Dive into anything

reddit.com reddit.com

Wonder how this guy’s landlord is doing this afternoon
Click to expand...
i love it when they actually admit it in writing

they never actually admit it in writing

a local housing authority is gonna get a kick out of this (if they haven't been defunded to the point where they have no enforcement capacity by this point, that is)
 
IamThunderbolt said:
The former has been soundly disproven and the latter has been significantly disproven.
Click to expand...
oh no doubt

to be clear, i'm an abolitionist when it comes to death penalty at any level of govt

but i find that it's useful to argue against a position by actually evaluating the somewhat coherent set of rationalizations that its proponents use rather than pointing out that they are idiots (which tbf they also are)
 
The emotionally and spiritually healing part never added up for me. Admittedly, I've never had a loved one killed in a violent crime, but I would think that spending 30 years hearing about constant appeals, pleas for clemency, and, ultimately, an execution would make it far more difficult to create the space necessary to heal.

And for the true sadists out there who want to maximize the suffering of the convicted, wouldn't locking someone away in an American prison be a far crueler fate? To be clear, I'm not trying to make the argument that executing people is the "humane" choice, but rather that our carceral system inherently inhumane and non-rehabilitative so maximizing one's time in it maximizes the suffering caused.

This is all besides the point that if the state is to have a monopoly on administering violence and the most extreme administration of this is ending life and there is ANY chance of them making a mistake in administering this punishment then they should not be allowed to execute anyone.
 
deacon14 said:
Agreed.

I struggle to believe that this sort of retribution heals the victims' families in any meaningful way, even amongst the families that actively want to see the death penalty enforced. And someone so out-of-touch with society that they are about to commit a crime worthy of the death penalty almost certainly is not willing and/or able to logically process the fact that it will later lead to their state-ordered death. So I'd pretty quickly dismiss both of those potential rationalizations as well.


I think this is somewhat interesting, but our society doesn't operate on an eye for an eye justice system in any other area. If someone assaults me and breaks my leg, prison time is the judicial retribution, not a state-mandated beating that results in a broken limb. So I don't see why the judicial retribution for cases of horrible murder needs to be an eye for an eye type of state mandated execution.

I know that neither of you are arguing as death penalty proponents, but I certainly know some in real life and it's a frustrating conversation for me.
Click to expand...
Hmm. It’s a good question, but I don’t consider the death penalty as an “eye for an eye” equivalent punishment in for most crimes that receive the death penalty. In its own barbaric, unjustifiable way, our modern methods of execution are much more humane than they used to be (not including states fucking up the lethal injection cocktail and literally torturing people to death)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top