Do you support the death penalty?

[Tenka]

In theory, I fully support the death penalty for pedophiles, rapists, and mass murderers. Scum like that don't deserve to steal another breath of fresh air; they'd be better off hanged. Justice requires their lives.

However, in practice I oppose the death penalty. This is because judicial bodies are far from perfect, and the probability of making a mistake is high: there have been 140 people exonerated from death row since 1973, not including the ones actually executed and then later found innocent. It's not worth it to have a system that executes innocents, especially when the system is known to be racist and classist. Also, and this may seem sadistic (I apologize), criminals suffer more from life in prison (especially solitary confinement) than execution. I want rapist / pedophile / mass-murderer scum to rot in solitary for the rest of their miserable lives.

How are rapists and paedophiles as odious as mass-murderers? Are they therefore more odious than one-off murderers? That aside, what I'm hearing here is the same stuff I hear on The Young Turks: "DEATH PENALTY IS GOOD IN THEORY BUT WE MIGHT ACCIDENTALLY KILL INNOCENTS SO I DUNNO LOL GUESS I'M AGAINST IT FOR NOW".

I for one am against the state killing anyone till the dictatorship of the proletariat is underway--and then, only necessary political executions and nothing more would avoid the "violence fetishist" label being rightfully applied.

[SuchianFrog735]

This is certainly a rather interesting topic, especially regarding the role of violence. I know a huge chunk of this forum seems to support violent revolution(which would seem to give an obvious enough implication to kill the oppressors). What exactly is different about the death penalty's violence? Is it because it's from the state?

For the record, I voted for "opposed, except in certain cases". The "potential argument" is admittedly kind of weak, but life is something that has value from rehabilitation. The death penalty for the most part eliminates any chance of redemption.

[Kindness]

The "potential argument" is admittedly kind of weak, but life is something that has value from rehabilitation. The death penalty for the most part eliminates any chance of redemption.

Why would you want to rehabilitate murderers, pedophiles, and the like? They don't deserve forgiveness or rehabilitation.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Do you really need to ask?

[Tenka]

Why would you want to rehabilitate murderers, pedophiles, and the like? They don't deserve forgiveness or rehabilitation.

Yeah, if we kill 'em on sight that oughta deter any future murderers and paedophiles. And even if it doesn't, they need to know what they done is wrong and be punished for it to the utmost ability of the bourgeois justice system.

Punishment is reactionary and so are you.

[VDS]

Why would you want to rehabilitate murderers, pedophiles, and the like? They don't deserve forgiveness or rehabilitation.

Because we're not animals. Our need for revenge and blood lust does not supersede the right for anyone to live.

Murder can in many cases be the result of a heated argument, of a mental disease, of the need to live and an armed robbery gone wrong. Too many factors there. As for pedophiles, unless they're out there abusing kids with no chance of stopping them, they have a mental situation that need to be addressed.

If we aim to be progressive then we NEED to be so regardless of how we PERSONALLY feel. Personally, I'd like nothing better than to see too many people receive the death penalty. However, I understand that it does nothing except feed a need for revenge. It doesn't deter crime, it doesn't cost less, quite the opposite actually, it costs MORE, and ending someones life is less punishment than killing someone anyways.

It really comes down to the fact that some people CAN be rehabilitated, and you don't know everyone's situation or life story and ultimately what lead them to finally committing whatever act YOU find is good enough to kill person. If they can be reintroduced as productive members, they deserve that chance. Those who CANNOT be rehabilitated should remain in jail cut off from the society that it poses a danger to. Simple as that.

[CaptainJackJohnson]

I've got pretty strong views on this. But in all cases I always argue that individual anarchist communities in our hypothetical future should have freedom to debate and decide the particulars of nuances of anarchist society not explicitly covered by Marxist-style theories.

This does not, however, prevent me from expressing my opinion.

Firstly, one of cost. Let's assume someone is indisputably found guilty of murder. In this case, keeping them locked up costs money. As an anarchist, I don't agree that you should be able to force anyone else to foot this bill, so it should be a case that anyone who votes to keep them locked up should pay for this to happen, and they have no right to force anyone else to support their choice. As I do not support the prison system, if they can do this without affecting me, I am happy for them to continue, in the same way that I'm happy for people to have as many kids as they like as long as they can support them without stealing resources from others.

Secondly, one of social contract. All rights are dependant on respect for those rights. If you steal from me something that is mine by use or occupation, you have demonstrated a lack of respect for the right of possession and therefore have forfeited this. The extent of forfeiture is a matter for the community to decide but must be at least equal to amount of damage you have caused. In short, if you steal my car, I get yours. In the case of murder, you have demonstrated a lack of respect for the right for life and therefore you have forfeited your right to life. This does not mean that others are mandated to kill you, but that to do so would be morally inconsequential.

Thirdly, I propose an alternative system. The idea that a person can simply be sentenced to death is not appealing to me because there is the possibility that they could be sentenced for a crime that they did not commit. Therefore, imprisonment is the only fair option. Should, however, they demonstrate a violent nature while imprisoned that is compatible with the nature presented in their sentencing -- like the kind of people you hear forming Nazi gangs and shanking people in prisons -- then their sentencing is upgraded to the death penalty. On the other hand, if evidence comes out that reveals their innocence, then those of the community who pledged to pay for their upkeep while imprisoned are now liable to pay damages to the newly released prisoner. The sword of accusation cuts both ways.

[Kindness]

Because we're not animals.

We are animals, that is a scientific fact. We're just primates with big brains, not some kind of higher creature.

Our need for revenge and blood lust does not supersede the right for anyone to live.

I don't support the death penalty (as I said in an above post), but I do support justice. The act of taking another's life or violating another sexually (especially a child) is unforgivable and cries out for society's retribution. It's not about bloodlust, but giving proper recompense to heinous crimes. Punishment is about more than getting back at the perpetrator, it's about honoring the victim.

Murder can in many cases be the result of a heated argument, of a mental disease, of the need to live and an armed robbery gone wrong.

The justice system takes these factors into account, which is why the death penalty -- or even life without parole -- is comparatively rare as a sentence.

As for pedophiles, unless they're out there abusing kids with no chance of stopping them, they have a mental situation that need to be addressed.

I don't care if they have a mental disease, pedophilia is heinous, unbelievably damaging to children, and absolutely unforgivable. People who engage in it choose to commit disgusting acts against children of their own will, and they deserve brutal punishment and retribution. Execution would be appropriate if not for the possibility of judicial mistake; life imprisonment is the only other just option.

If we aim to be progressive then we NEED to be so regardless of how we PERSONALLY feel. Personally, I'd like nothing better than to see too many people receive the death penalty. However, I understand that it does nothing except feed a need for revenge. It doesn't deter crime, it doesn't cost less, quite the opposite actually, it costs MORE, and ending someones life is less punishment than killing someone anyways.

I agree with all of these (except the "only satisfies need for revenge" part), which is why I oppose capital punishment.

If they can be reintroduced as productive members, they deserve that chance.

In the vast majority of cases, yes, however, I don't feel a killer or rapist deserves a second chance. Let them rot in prison.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In theory, I fully support the death penalty for pedophiles, rapists, and mass murderers.

That's an interesting list - I will assume that you had meant to say "child molester" and not "paedophile", since otherwise the list would be more than interesting. Why those specific crimes?

[#FF0000]

Why would you want to rehabilitate murderers, pedophiles, and the like? They don't deserve forgiveness or rehabilitation.

lmao the "pacifist", ladies and gentlemen

[Kindness]

That's an interesting list - I will assume that you had meant to say "child molester" and not "paedophile", since otherwise the list would be more than interesting. Why those specific crimes?

Yes, I did mean pedophiles who actually molest children.

Those crimes deserve brutal punishment because they absolutely destroy innocent human beings: whether by killing them outright or murdering their psyches, stripping them of their bodily integrity, and placing within them an inalienable trauma. No other crimes come close to the horror inflicted by these three.

[Kindness]

lmao the "pacifist", ladies and gentlemen

I'm only a pacifist when it comes to innocent people and animals, not when it comes to monsters.

[VDS]

We are animals, that is a scientific fact. We're just primates with big brains, not some kind of higher creature.

It should have been obvious that it wasn't well..literal. Let me put it this way then. We're not barbaric and feral. Better?

I don't support the death penalty (as I said in an above post), but I do support justice. The act of taking another's life or violating another sexually (especially a child) is unforgivable and cries out for society's retribution. It's not about bloodlust, but giving proper recompense to heinous crimes. Punishment is about more than getting back at the perpetrator, it's about honoring the victim.

Again, not justice, revenge and blood lust. What you described is no doubt horrific and no one deserves it. But how is it justice if you take away someones perception, literally? All you've done by killing someone is taken away their ability to perceive. If your aim is to "honor" these victims, why not leave them in prison where they have no freedom? Surely having no freedom and being regulated is far worse than not even being able to tell that you're being punished for something.

The justice system takes these factors into account, which is why the death penalty -- or even life without parole -- is comparatively rare as a sentence.

Rare is not enough. Abolished is what it should be. For the Death Penalty, not life without parole.

I don't care if they have a mental disease, pedophilia is heinous, unbelievably damaging to children, and absolutely unforgivable. People who engage in it choose to commit disgusting acts against children of their own will, and they deserve brutal punishment and retribution. Execution would be appropriate if not for the possibility of judicial mistake; life imprisonment is the only other just option.

Again, your language says it all. Brutal Punishment and Retribution? Revenge and Blood Lust. On top of the fact that you're ignoring that it IS something that has the potential to be cured or the very least contained. For those who CANNOT be treated, life sentence is most definitely just.

In the vast majority of cases, yes, however, I don't feel a killer or rapist deserves a second chance. Let them rot in prison.

I feel the same way. However, the lives of others shouldn't subject to how I FEEL. Some do deserve a second chance, even I don't like it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yes, I did mean pedophiles who actually molest children.

Those crimes deserve brutal punishment because they absolutely destroy innocent human beings: whether by killing them outright or murdering their psyches, stripping them of their bodily integrity, and placing within them an inalienable trauma. No other crimes come close to the horror inflicted by these three.

"Murdering their psyches"? The thing is, I also think rape should be punished swiftly, brutally and with overwhelming force. Yet I do so because I think patriarchy needs to be smashed, and because rape is an aspect of patriarchy. So are attacks on abortion doctors and homosexuals; those crimes need to be punished equally swiftly, brutally and, if I might indulge myself a bit here, their punishment needs to inspire terror in those that support them. But your explanation seems to be inspired by patriarchy, not opposed to it - it's as if you're saying that raped women are somehow "damaged", "sullied" etc.

[Kindness]

"Murdering their psyches"? The thing is, I also think rape should be punished swiftly, brutally and with overwhelming force. Yet I do so because I think patriarchy needs to be smashed, and because rape is an aspect of patriarchy. So are attacks on abortion doctors and homosexuals; those crimes need to be punished equally swiftly, brutally and, if I might indulge myself a bit here, their punishment needs to inspire terror in those that support them. But your explanation seems to be inspired by patriarchy, not opposed to it - it's as if you're saying that raped women are somehow "damaged", "sullied" etc.

Not at all. I don't think raped women are sullied in some patriarchal way, I was simply trying to convey the horror of rape to the victim and point out why it deserves swift, merciless punishment rather than rehabilitation ("terror" is, in my opinion, taking it too far; this isn't Stalinist Russia).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Not at all. I don't think raped women are sullied in some patriarchal way, I was simply trying to convey the horror of rape to the victim and point out why it deserves swift, merciless punishment rather than rehabilitation ("terror" is, in my opinion, taking it too far; this isn't Stalinist Russia).

Does gay-bashing deserve a similar punishment? Do racist physical attacks?

[Kindness]

Does gay-bashing deserve a similar punishment? Do racist physical attacks?

Yes, they also deserve serious punishment -- decades to life in prison -- but the harm caused by those acts, while absolutely horrific, is not as severe as that caused by rape.

[#FF0000]

I'm only a pacifist when it comes to innocent people and animals, not when it comes to monsters.

People who will kill and cause harm to defend systems of power and privilege = innocent.

Meanwhile draconian methods of "punishment" that do nothing to alter behavior or deter violent crime and only serve to sate bloodlust aren't inherently monstrous.

A funny kind of pacifism, dude.

[VDS]

Yes, they also deserve serious punishment -- decades to life in prison -- but the harm caused by those acts, while absolutely horrific, is not as severe as that caused by rape.

For the sake of argument, doesn't gay-bashing lead sometimes to suicide and/or self-destructive behavior? Isn't that horrific as well?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yes, they also deserve serious punishment -- decades to life in prison -- but the harm caused by those acts, while absolutely horrific, is not as severe as that caused by rape.

Why not? As VDS points out, it can lead to major stress, suicide etc. etc.