(untitled)

What do you think of the death penalty? The government is very incompetant and can't be trusted, but there are some kinds of criminals who can't be rehabilitaed and should be put to death at least in theory. Some people deserve death as compensation for what they've done e.g. murderers, mass shooters, and rapists. Is it really right to lock these people up for their entire lives? It would be more merciful to hang them. But what about innocent people? In America, there have been many cases of people who were almost executed and then found to be completely innocent. So I'm not sure what to think. Is there a way to prevent innocent and wrongfully convicted people from being sentenced to die? Should we just accept the reality that executing henious killers generates a risk that an innocent person could be killed? So there are four sides to this. 1. Should there be a death penalty or not? 2. If there is a death penalty, which crimes deserve death as a punishment? In Kuwait, they hang people for selling drugs. 3. How do you prevent wrongful convictions 4. How should we execute condemend inmates? The last one is important because somebody has to do the job and that be easy to do. America uses lethal injection. There are problems with the drugs and killing people painfully. Here, they use hanging to execute inmates which kills by breaking the neck. Or maybe method doesn't matter? If you're taking a guy's life what difference does it make if you cut his head off or burn him at the stake? Personally, I think they should execute people for murder, corruption, and sex crimes like rape and adultery. Hanging is a good method. Better than gas or injections. At least on paper because I can't think of how you'd make sure innocent people don't get sentenced to die by accident or because of a corrupt politicians.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

there shouldn't be a death penalty. you said it yourself: >at least in theory > In America, there have been many cases of people who were almost executed and then found to be completely innocent >At least on paper because I can't think of how you'd make sure innocent people don't get sentenced to die by accident or because of a corrupt politicians. what you seem to be struggling with is the idea that justice is a sort of transactional measure by which artificial costs (punishment) is levied by state for the appearance of crime - something they can manufacture. however this way of thinking plays into the hands of the state itself and is one of the ways in which you are trained to serve the government. as an example, when you were a kid you may have broken rules and gotten caught for it and punished such as being beaten, grounded, or having your toys taken away. While your experience was likely unpleasant and discouraging, chances are that you did not immediately do exactly what was told. it is more likely that you just got smarter and proceeded to break rules in a more discreet fashion, i.e. not getting caught for it. there's a reason why parents don't hit their children, its because this kind of punishment doesn't work and builds resentment. what's more, it is rightfully considered heinous for a parent to kill their child. the death penalty operates on similar principles, likewise for any crime meant to make an example of criminals: it comes with the absurdity that the person being punished is now dead and incapable of learning from their actions at all. instead, the assumption is made that killing one person in society or a social group is a form of punishment for all of that social group - essentially treating all of us as one interconnected organism. it would be barbaric to kill your family members for crimes you committed, but that's basically how we're being treated under the death penalty. since I'm directly advocating against the death penalty, the other questions you asked can't really be answered with the expectation that my arguments will be treated in good faith - for instance, I could point out the absurdity of adultery being considered a death penalty when adultery isn't even a crime in most US states (and many of those its on paper a crime but not enforced or enforceable), or the nebulous nature of "sex crimes" which under an authoritarian system will automatically become the government's means of killing people - for instance, a far-right authoritarian government will classify drag queens or sex toy manufacturers as sex criminals whereas a far left one would classify pronoun disrespect as a sex crime too. you're asking a number of loaded questions and it gives the impression that you're trying to push a wildly authoritarian argument without basis - imagine the amount of surveillance that would be necessary to enforce a supposed adultery law, for instance. that being said, there are some other misconceptions from your post I wanted to clear up too. >America uses lethal injection The United States of America doesn't always use lethal injection - death penalty is on a state-by-state basis, and a surprising fact about execution is that it's actually more expensive than other forms of punishment, the cheapest on paper being reform / reintegration but unfortunately in all states it will be serious initial investment to overhaul the justice system to modern standards. Especially when the current prison system is making money for a lot of stakeholders and providing state governments with a source of cheap labor as well. The reason for the death penalty's high expenses is that legal proceedings and logistics around the trial, in addition to death row needing to be housed in specialized facilities separate from other inmates, juries must be financially incentivized to serve, attorneys know they can charge more, even the methods being used can become pricey. while it has been cheaper in the past, incidents such as death row inmates with no hope for freedom can cause serious problems in general population. so, the total cost is between half and 1 million dollars plus an additional $70,000 for every additional year on death row alone for the prisoner to be held beyond the mean which due to the nature of the justice system is always going to be several. this is 3 times the average cost of all other types of inmate. >hanging is a good method hanging doesn't kill people a significant enough amount of the time and now you have to deal with whatever damages or lawsuits from the victims family. the current methods are the most humane and efficient, but they really can't be humane or efficient enough.

>>44623 >in america you have a lot of cases of innocents getting executed ? oh really?

>>44623 I don't believe in the death penalty, I think that it does no good to anyone whatsoever and is ultimately harmful. I've thought about it a bit, particularly recently for some reason. I'll give some of my thoughts. Consider the question, "How do you know someone is guilty of a crime?" You know this by reasonable certainty, as you know all things. You do not know by absolute certainty. The one main thing you can probably be absolutely sure of is that you exist, on some level, for some period of time, even if you only began to exist a second ago and have false memories and live in a simulated reality. But, most people are quite rational and accept external reality as being authentic and implement their observations of it into their lives. Still, this does not mean that what is observed is absolutely true. You have to make your decision according to the information immediately available to you. You are essentially making a decision with eternal consequences in what is by comparison a very short period of time. By executing someone you believe is guilty, you are writing that person off forever. It may be revealed sometime after their execution that they were innocent, but it won't matter, because they will be dead. This has happened before. It will always be possible that an innocent person will get sentenced to death. This is probably an existential, timeless issue, even 1000 years from now the threat could still exist. It's because the death penalty is predicated upon the criminal accusation, not the evidence. Not all cases come down to hard evidence like DNA or CCTV footage. A lot of times it is pieces of evidence that do not certainly deem a person to be guilty. Eyewitness testimony, a written confession, things of this sort which can be made up or mistakenly created. An eyewitness could be mistaken, misremembering details, a suspect could be intimidated or tricked into confessing with no record of this available. The piece of evidence the most challenging to refute is probably DNA. It still does not absolutely prove someone is guilty, but merely suggests their guilt to an astronomically high probability, leading back to reasonable certainty. However, the solidity of DNA evidence does not speak to the context of its usage in a criminal trial. DNA could be planted to incriminate someone, and it could also wind up at a crime scene through some crazy circumstances. DNA from a factory-worker whose DNA is in a criminal database gets transferred to an item during manufacturing at a factory and is later found on an item at a crime scene. So we can go to video footage or photographs. Video footage can be faked, it could be staged, or computer generated, or a combination of both. As can photographs. Everything else can be retrieved through corruption: confessions, testimony, the procurement of physical evidence itself. Advancements in technology cannot stop a corrupt prosecution from incriminating an innocent person with false or shaky evidence. You can say that such cases are rare. Sure, they probably are. But they can and do happen. Inevitably, an innocent person will get put up for execution, and possibly get killed. Is this person's life worth the satisfaction of killing however many guilty people? Do you believe that killing an innocent person is an acceptable risk of putting guilty people to death. Why? That's bizarre to me. What is gained by killing the guilty but mere satisfaction? Just going to throw this out there ahead of time before anyone says it. It is not more cost effective to kill a prisoner, at least in America, because we try to be sure that the prisoner is really guilty. This still fails. The average death sentence costs millions, even tens of millions, all in. It consists of years to decades of arguing in court and analyzing evidence, which adds up over time. It costs far more to kill a prisoner while trying to ensure that they're not innocent than it does to house them for the rest of their life. And, if you consider having the prisoner work while being in prison, then they could actually lower the cost of their imprisonment. The only way to lower the cost of the death penalty is to put more innocent lives at risk. The fact that in America we spend a fortune on killing people and still wind up killing innocents is to me a testament to the inherent, seemingly irreducible dangerousness of the death penalty. Reasonable certainty in the context of a courtroom is not enough to save innocent lives. Judges and jurors with no direct experience of the crime that has taken place, accepting what they are being told by people, without necessarily knowing the full picture of what has actually happened. It's not like killing a person after witnessing said person murdering someone with your own eyes. The death penalty also does not deter crime, at least in America. It's because crimes are either premeditated or they aren't. If they are premeditated, the person has accounted for the consequences of their crime. If not, the person wasn't thinking of the consequences. You mentioned draconian punishments like being hung for selling drugs. Crimes like this could be even more likely to result in the death of innocents, as there will probably tend to be less hard evidence inculpating an individual. And even still, simply killing drug dealers does nothing to address the issue of why people are selling and using drugs in the first place. Assuming this is being done beyond recreation, where you have people selling drugs in order to live, and people addicted to drugs, your issues are far greater. I think it is insane to murder people for using or selling drugs for recreational use, the vast majority of reasoning for this would be theological. >but there are some kinds of criminals who can't be rehabilitated and should be put to death at least in theory I disagree. Though some criminals likely can't be rehabilitated, this does not mean we should then risk the lives of innocents just so that we can kill them. We can keep them in prisons for the rest of their lives. You questioned the morality of this, how awful it might be to spend your life in prison. It does not have to be awful, prisons can be made better. Look at Norway's prisons. They have some brutal, heinous killers locked up in their prisons, and they let them do regular activities without issues. They'll never get out, but so what, that's their punishment for doing evil things. I also don't think that killing a prisoner does much in terms of giving the victim's family a sense of relief. For one, there are families who oppose the death penalty, but the prosecution ignores their wishes, so sometimes the government doesn't even kill a criminal for the sake of a family. I can't make any broad-sweeping claims with this objection of mine, but I feel that largely the death penalty does nothing but prolong the grieving process for the associates of the victim. They do not fully come to terms with the death of their loved one until the execution is over with. The criminal may or may not be killed. There will be years of court proceedings, some of which the associates of the victim will have to appear in court, and relive their trauma over and over. There's this constant uncertainty where a criminal can literally be brought up for execution, strapped to a gurney, and then at the last minute their execution is called off. It's traumatic to the prisoner but also leaves everyone else in this state of perpetual uncertainty, not knowing when their grief is going to end. I've seen documentaries about the death penalty, and the impression I usually got the the victim's family members was not one of much relief. They got to say that they could move on with their life after spending ten years living in misery, but that was it. It would have been better for the prisoner to get tossed in a cell forever, and for the victim's family to move on with their lives right then and there, instead of avoiding having to come to terms completely with the fact that their loved one is dead for years on end, just to ultimately face that fact afterwards. Just an opinion of mine though.

>>44625 >a surprising fact about execution is that it's actually more expensive than other forms of punishment, the cheapest on paper being reform / reintegration Don't neglect the botched reforms which are sometimes very expensive and measured in innocent lives obviously executions should be cheaper >hanging doesn't kill people a significant enough amount of the time I hear all these stories of botched injection deaths though. Can't find a vein, people possibly still being conscious. Frankly I don't find it very humane either and I doubt its efficiency because of all the drug acquisition problems especially. I've been under anesthesia and I don't want to die like that. Hanging seems OK if done right, I'd also advocate firing squad. Firearms companies are always going to sell to police and state government, shooting isn't hard and there can be an executioner pool made of idk all l.e. officers and national guard. Yeah maybe some people won't die instantly but I think getting hit by 5+ bullets is going to give a pretty good shot at a quick death >death is to make an example what about just to remove people who are bad prison can also remove them but lots of folks get released so killing is the only way to be sure they don't get out again >>44627 >how can you kill people when you can't even be sure those people are real give me a break

>>44625 Its morally right to take a life for a life or for a heinous crime. I don't think a death penalty deters crime and I don't think that should be its purpose. Its just that certain crimes are so severe that only death can be a proportional response. If we should let the punishment fit the crime, then murderers, rapists, and war criminals should be put to death. What I'm struggling with is how you would have guardrails to make sure people who are sentenced to death aren't innocent. The anti-death penalty people have a good argument here, what if we accidentally execute an innocent person? But the alternative (life imprisonment) doesn't feel any better. Sure, that person is still alive, but you can't bring back the decades they lost when they were in prison. And its probably more merciful to execute a convicted killer than keep them in supermax for the rest of their life. >a far-right authoritarian government will classify drag queens or sex toy manufacturers as sex criminals whereas a far left one would classify pronoun disrespect as a sex crime too By sex crimes I was being vague since some people believe in a death penalty for rape, child rape, adultery etc and some disagree on that. You're right that an authoritarian state could hand out death sentences to drag queens, but even if cross dressing was a crime it wouldn't be a severe enough crime to warrant death as a proportional response. You could argue that the rape of a child or adultery are severe enough depending on your perspective. Anyway, you are right than an authoritarian state can use any excuse to mass execute its enemies but they will do that anyway, with or without a death penalty. >hanging doesn't kill people a significant enough amount of the time Hanging kills by breaking the neck. Its almost instant and reliable. Lethal injections are bad because of the lack of moral clarity. If the state is going to take life, it should take life and not try and dress up an execution as a painless medical procedure. Electric chair, firing squad, beheading etc. are more humane because they don't hide the violence of what's happening. If a judge or a jury can't stomach an execution, they shouldn't sentence someone to capital punishment. Executions shouldn't be secretive either. >>44628 I'd still prefer hanging or the electric chair over a firing squad. This is because shooting is traditionally reserved for soldiers and not civilians. Its a very painful way to die and can cause psychological damage to the marksmen or the soldiers who are ordered to do it. >>44627 In a death penalty case, at least here, you only have to prove the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. All sentencing is made on subjective assessments. You can never be 100% absolutely sure of anything. I can't be 100% objectively sure I won't be killed by an aircraft falling out of the sky and killing me, but I still go outside. We can however know things with a high degree of certainty and probability, we can know who killed who if there is substantial physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, motive, circumstantial evidence taken as a whole. A death sentence shouldn't be mandatory but only one option and it should come with higher standards of evidence. >It does not have to be awful, prisons can be made better. Look at Norway's prisons. They have some brutal, heinous killers locked up in their prisons, and they let them do regular activities without issues. Is that really fair? Anders Brevik massacred people in a false flag attack. He killed 69 people, most of them kids, and tried to incite a race riot and spread his white supremacist beliefs. Is it really fair that he should live in a comfy cell with a TV and recreational activities whilst homeless people, who have done nothing, are allowed to starve and freeze on the streets? Is it really fair to let him live his life like that when he deprived so many kids of their lives and so many family members of theirs? Someone might say, fine let's stick him in a concrete cell and force him to eat soykafty prison food, but at that point it would just be a slow death penalty and it would be more humane to take him outside and shoot him. If anyone deserves the death penalty, its someone like Brevik and its not exactly hard to prove that a killer like him as done the crime. We could execute Brevik without worrying about innocence. >I also don't think that killing a prisoner does much in terms of giving the victim's family a sense of relief. That depends on the family. I don't think we can put words in their mouth. People are different and react differently. Circumstances are different too and sometimes killers aren't evil terrible people, they just did something evil and have to pay the price. Iran is an authoritarian country and mass executes people for political crimes. But for crimes like murder they give the victim's family a right to reprieve the prisoner. At the end of the day, it was they who were injured and their loved one who was taken away and they should have some say in it. I've heard in the US that some prosecutors won't demand the death penalty if the victim's family wants life in prison instead.

>>44629 https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/ I found these cases on this website, forgot the exact directory it was under. Some cas­es with strong evi­dence of innocence: Carlos DeLuna (Texas, con­vict­ed 1983, executed 1989) Ruben Cantu (Texas, con­vict­ed 1985, executed 1993) Larry Griffin (Missouri, con­vict­ed 1981, executed 1995) Joseph O’Dell (Virginia, con­vict­ed 1986, executed 1997) David Spence (Texas, con­vict­ed 1984, executed 1997) Leo Jones (Florida, con­vict­ed 1981, executed 1998) Gary Graham (Texas, con­vict­ed 1981, executed 2000) Claude Jones (Texas, con­vict­ed 1989, executed 2000) Cameron Todd Willingham (Texas, con­vict­ed 1992, executed 2004) Sedley Alley (Tennessee, con­vict­ed 1987, executed 2006) Troy Davis (Georgia, con­vict­ed 1991, executed 2011) Lester Bower (Texas, con­vict­ed 1984, executed 2015) Brian Terrell (Georgia, con­vict­ed 1995, executed 2015) Richard Masterson (Texas, con­vict­ed 2002, executed 2016) Robert Pruett (Texas, con­vict­ed 2002, executed 2017) Carlton Michael Gary (Georgia, con­vict­ed 1986, executed 2018) Domineque Ray (Alabama, con­vict­ed 1999; executed 2019) Larry Swearingen (Texas, con­vict­ed 2000, executed 2019) Walter Barton (Missouri, con­vict­ed 1993, executed 2020) Nathaniel Woods (Alabama, con­vict­ed 2005, executed 2020) Marcellus Williams (Missouri, con­vict­ed in 2001, executed 2024) Here's an innocent guy on death row right now: Robert Robberson. Heard about him recently. Arrested for inducing "shaken baby syndrome" in his child, even though his kid was prescribed (by a doctor) codeine and another drug that was later derezzed for use in kids by the FDA because it's dangerous for them, and the kid definitely died of some sort of overdose / lethal drug combination, by accident. The child had two of three signs of "shaken baby syndrome" so some genius at the hospital reported the father and he was charged even though the toxicology undermined the shaken baby syndrome narrative. We have to assume that the executed whom we do not know to be innocent or guilty are in fact guilty. We can never know with absolute certainty that the guilty are guilty, or that the innocent are innocent. We can only measure what is most harmful (or beneficial) to society. I believe it is more harmful to society to kill people, because you will inevitably kill innocent people, and the killing of the guilty brings no benefit. Also, it is very costly, which is harmful as well, though this is less of a concern to me. Imprisoning innocent people is harmful, but they retain the chance of freedom. Prisons are I feel necessary. The downside of having them is locking up innocent people, but you keep society safer, and as I said, there's the chance for exoneration. If prisons are well managed, they can even reform people. But the imprisonment of innocents becomes an inevitable cost. The death penalty is completely avoidable, and reasonably so. >But the alternative (life imprisonment) doesn't feel any better. Sure, that person is still alive, but you can't bring back the decades they lost when they were in prison. It's better than putting them to death in a brutal manner after having them stuck in a cell for years. >Is that really fair? Where are the people dying on the streets in Norway? That's more of an American thing. He'll rot in prison, that's his punishment. You can say that you can kill him and be sure of his guilt, but by doing so as a government a precedent is set for the killing of others which brings up the potential for innocents to be killed, and that is not fair. You would rather kill innocent people just for the satisfaction of punishing guilty people, because for some reason you have some desire to punish certain people in a specific way who you feel should be punished in this way, and not having this desire fulfilled upsets you.

>>44629 >shooting is traditionally reserved for soldiers and not civilians you sound lamentably eurotarded. Get well soon! >it is a painful way to die this is speculation and subjective. Personally I expect in all these cases the worst part is the anticipation and the best you can go for in the execution is to let it be over quickly. I've suffered violent wounds (not been shot but I've bled a lot) and ime it takes a bit for pain to even register. If death is achieved in 30 seconds I would believe it might be painless, but we're talking about nasty criminals here I think there are worse things than letting their deaths be a little painful. >can cause psych damage to the marksmen hence why I suggest doing an executioner pool of law enforcement officers and national guardsmen. If you're not cool with shooting a criminal once in a while you shouldn't be in either of those fields. Also the same argument could be made for literally any execution method whether you're shooting a guy or beheading him or hanging him or sticking a needle in him so you can `put him to sleep'.

>>44630 you should look into more of these cases you are posting about >robert robertson >kid definitely died of some sort of overdose >two or three signs of 'shaken baby syndrome' this is what we say when a baby has "a bruise on the back of her shoulder, a scraped elbow, a bruise over her right eyebrow, bruises on her chin, a bruise on her left cheek, an abrasion next to her left eye, multiple bruises on the back of her head, a torn frenulum in her mouth, bruising on the inner surface of the lower lip, subscapular and subgaleal hemorrhaging between her skin and her skull, subarachnoid bleeding, subdural hematoma, both pre-retinal and retinal hemorrhages and brain edema." signs of like four different head wounds and the guy says she got this by falling off a bed. Three year olds are light they don't generally get that injured by falling a little bit. The defense lawyers' job is to come up with some story to make their guy look innocent or at least less guilty, they'll always come up with some story. That doesn't mean they're right.

>>44633 You told me to look into it more as you copy pasted from fuarrrking wikipedia, taking the prosecution's assertions at face value. Alright. That's it. This site has been going to soykaf for years now. It's not fun for me anymore. This is my last post, this thread is a perfect example of the lack of redeeming qualities of this place.

>>44634 actually its a quote from a court document that wikipedia reasonably cites. Its a good passage from a paper thats only three pages long so maybe you should give it a read, in a response to a request for an appeal. I don't think non FDA approved drugs do this to babies maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like the kid was subject to some sort of violent attack. dont let the door hit you on the way out little man

>>44634 do you have pictures of the baby ? I presume the jury did when they decided that she hadn't died of codeine. She had injuries inside her mouth and multiple head wounds, covered in bruises and scrapes! The way you made it sound like in >>44630 its just some innocent father who comes in with a baby with some sort of problem and some nurse who just received the shaken baby syndrome checklist decided to try it out and discovered some imaginary injuries and when the kid dies shortly after they blame that rather than malpractice. The kid was covered in bruises! The father, it sounds like brought the kid in because of these significant and obvious injuries for which he furnished some highly improbable explanation. If you want to say he's possibly innocent of his daughters' death then you still have to admit that he's almost certainly a violent child abuser. Cause of death is rather difficult to work out, maybe the hospital screwed up, maybe the doctor screwed up, but this guy is definitely not definitely innocent as you seem to be suggesting.

>>44630 Those are some serious cases, especially the Marcellus Williams case where even the prosecutor and the victims family wanted to halt the execution. But innocent deaths are preventable. The best way is to limit the application of the death penalty to only the most severe cases and place a high burden of proof on the prosecution. If you have someone who committed a mass shooting in open daylight, there's multiple eyewitnesses, multiple pieces of forensic evidence etc and the crime is vicious and sickening, then that would be the kind of case to apply a death penalty as a sentencing option. If a person shot someone by accident while committing a robbery, there shouldn't necessarily get the death penalty but its this second type of perpetrator that usually get sentenced to death in the US. The death penalty works best when its limited and rare. >>44630 >It's better than putting them to death in a brutal manner after having them stuck in a cell for years. Its a subjective thing but I've seen many interviews with people serving life in prison who often say they prefer to be executed. In America, they keep these kinds of criminals in extreme conditions like at ADX Florence where they spend 23 hours in a cell and have limited contact with other humans. This is just a slow torturous death but we can stomach it because it doesn't involve physical violence but mental torture. >Where are the people dying on the streets in Norway? That's more of an American thing I mean homelessness exists in Norway but that's beside the point. To a lot of people, Brevik's treatment in prison looks more like a cushy life of state supported NEETdom. This punishment doesn't fit the crime at all. A severe crime justifies a severe but proportional response. Just as bombing a hospital because you suspect terrorists of having gone there for treatment once is disproportionate, giving someone a relatively comfortable prison life for mass murder of teenagers is also disproportionate. "Rotting in prison" isn't sufficient punishment for slaughtering 69 teenagers, bombing a government building, and using every other court hearing to preach your extreme /p*l/tard beliefs. If Brevik were put to death, we would have forgotten him by now. >>44636 He might be guilty of a lesser crime (child neglect or abuse) but innocent of murder.

I think locking someone up for life is better than death penalty. When you die you'll feel nothing, but being stuck in prison 24/7 and barely leaving your cell makes your life miserable which in my opinion is much better penalty for toughest of crimes than death itself.

Did we already have this conversation? I'm sure I've seen this OP before

>>44638 cant you at least cut off their hands before locking them up then, or something so they can't just be released by someone else later on ?

I like the idea of punitive justice because it is aesthetically pleasing and gratifying. Make the punishment fit the crime with brutal irony. It's very biblical.

>>44638 You are telling me being a hikineet for the rest of your life is worse than having your balls cut off and burned alive?

>>44623 >1. Should there be a death penalty or not? Yes. >2. If there is a death penalty, which crimes deserve death as a punishment? Murder, certain forms of rape. >3. How do you prevent wrongful convictions If in doubt, employ non-death penalty punishment. >4. How should we execute condemend inmates? Shooting or hanging. >Or maybe method doesn't matter? Method should be quick and personal, not right to kill someone with a machine. >Personally, I think they should execute people for murder, corruption, and sex crimes like rape and adultery >corruption Other punishments are preferable, like crippling. >adultery Again, I'd prefer corporeal punishment. >>44625 >there's a reason why parents don't hit their children, its because this kind of punishment doesn't work and builds resentment. Source: someone who wasn't hit hard enough as a child >the death penalty operates on similar principles, likewise for any crime meant to make an example of criminals: it comes with the absurdity that the person being punished is now dead and incapable of learning from their actions at all The purpose of justice isn't to educate criminals, the purpose is to achieve justice. (Analogous statement: The goal of painting isn't to "enlighten the masses", the goal is to make art.) This MAY educate criminals, or it may not, but that isn't the goal. >instead, the assumption is made that killing one person in society or a social group is a form of punishment for all of that social group - essentially treating all of us as one interconnected organism IIRC family members of death-penalty'd people are not uniformly for/against it; I seem to recall plenty of cases where they support it. I don't think anyone intends for the death penalty to punish a given social group... >I could point out the absurdity of adultery being considered a death penalty when adultery isn't even a crime in most US states I mean, I think we would BOTH agree the current definition of "crime" is far from ideal. In which case, it is by no means absurd to state what we think is ideal. (Case in point, you think the death penalty should be criminal, which I could say is "absurd" since it isn't currently a crime, etc. etc...) >which under an authoritarian system will automatically become the government's means of killing people I mean. it is a tool for killing people guilty of the crime. I thought you were going to argue that sex crimes are easier to lie about and get people falsely killed for, but then you gave examples of "honest" killings... not sure where you are going there... >imagine the amount of surveillance that would be necessary to enforce a supposed adultery law, for instance. The same amount that was present in 1600s europe? Three witnesses without bias testify that John slept with the mailwoman. On further investigation, John's semen was found on her pants. Case closed... I agree there can be more ambiguous cases, but those can be resolved by simply defaulting to an assumption of innocence. >is that it's actually more expensive than other forms of punishment This is solved by not holding prisoners for 20 years prior to execution. We can afford to play fast and loose, god will sort them out. >hanging doesn't kill people a significant enough amount of the time Do we have stats on this? I was not aware that this occurred. >>44627 skipping to what i think is the important part: >Is this person's life worth the satisfaction of killing however many guilty people? This is where we disagree. I view justice as a thing that should be pursued for it's own sake. You likely view it as a seven-letter word. Ergo: I see the death penalty as a matter of justice, you view it as a matter of preference/satisfaction. >>44638 I disagree with life imprisonment. I view it as the epitome of cruel and unusual punishment. Especially when you consider how much an individual can change with time, past a certain point you are 100% punishing someone who is a stranger to the man that actually committed the crime in question (e.g: 18 year old murderer vs same person at 90 still serving a life sentence). >>44640 >>44641 These guys get it. Corporeal punishment is the way to roll. -> Guy beats up and old man? -> Strap him to a post in the town square and flog him 30 times. -> He does it again two years later, and even worse? -> Cut his ankle tendons. See if he can commit crime while walking the floppy-jallopy. -> The town rapist tries to rape another teenager but fails? -> Castrate him. you get the idea. pros: 1. Cheap (no prisons) 2. Effective

>>44623 >1. Should there be a death penalty? Yes. >2. which crimes? Murder, rape, beastiality, certain types of sodomy, certain types of white collar crime, political corruption, prosecutorial misconduct. >4. How should we execute? Electric chair. 2400 volts will kill you instantly. All they have to do is flip a switch. It’s not hard to fuarrrk up. A method shouldn’t be painful and it shouldn’t be 100% painless. That defeats the whole point of punishment. >>44644 Agree. Life imprisonment is cruel. Prison sentences should be no longer than 25 years max. Petty crimes should be punished by whipping or hard labor. A petty drug peddler shouldn’t be thrown in prison for years where he’ll pick up worse habits and wind up branded and unable to get a job when he leaves. Just give him 15 lashes and send him home. There are too many prisons. Sentencing is too harsh. I’m all for slowly reducing the prison system but that means bringing back corporeal punishment and executing the worst offenders.

>>44625 Adulterers should be put to death because adultery is betrayal. If someone cheats on their partner, they are morally hurting that person and violating a sacred contract. If they get away with it then soon everybody will start breaking the rules. Nobody will be honest or faithful to anybody. A soykaf ton of murders are revenge murders against a partner for cheating or someone trying to kill off their partner so they can start a new life with someone else. Its better if the state handles it. >imagine the amount of surveillance that would be necessary to enforce a supposed adultery law Why would it need surveillance? Its not like we have to install cameras in everybody's bedrooms to make sure they are fuarrrking who their supposed to.

>>44657 Im not against execution for adultery but I think that present legal marriage is a sham and it doesn't make sense to punish violation of sham marriages fix marriage, restrict divorce, respect husbands' authority, and then sure ok make adultery an execution worthy offence

I love it when questions about the death penalty are asked because most people don't hesitate to reveal the sadistic, authoritarian thoughts they have regarding it and other forms of punishment. And when they do that, I know to stay far away from them.

>>44659 and yet here you are and here you remain, surrounded by sadistic authoritarian would be killers.

One thing I think people think about too little in the context of this is what to do about recidivism. Its easy to say just kill murderers or whatever and let robbers off with a beating but I do think you need to escalate at some point on these minor crimes. Public humiliation is a powerful deterrent to people who care about this kind of thing, which is most people, but punishments that don't work need to be changed even if its on a case by case basis

I like what a lot of the prison abolitionists say. I like a lot of their suggestions for community based alternatives to prison. But for some crimes we need corporal punishment and the death penalty. If giving someone a few lashes will reduce the number of prison sentences, I am all for it, >>44659 Because giving people lengthy prison sentences for petty crimes or solitary confinement for life with no human contact (outside a lawyer) is somehow not sadistic. Ironically, our society’s dislike of physical punishments has led to even more severe sentences and even more severe and cruel punishments like supermax prisons. It’s better to slap a guy than throw him in prison and ruin his life. >>44661 In the age of social media, public humiliation would be permanent and a person would have no chance of rebuilding their life. I guess it could work for corrupt bankers and politicians.

>>44662 >In the age of social media, public humiliation would be permanent and a person would have no chance of rebuilding their life. I guess it could work for corrupt bankers and politicians. if thats the case, then once you get it as a punishment then its usefulness drops to zero as you have nothing left to loose that way. Have to raise the stakes for repeat offenders.

kiddie diddlers should be burned at the stake

>>44662 >>44664 Lets be real everyone knows politicians with confirmed fraud cases and 0 consequences. The list of people visiting epstein island also faced 0 consequences. normal people pretend to be moral and caring but they don't do soykaf about high rank criminals as they happily vote & support them again and again. The only reason they screech about small gangsters is cause they consider them below their own social standing and thus save targets to bully. Its just herd animals acting out a performance for their own social benefit.

Watch this next https://youtu.be/znPJZK1lwaY Here

>>44667 if my house or the house of someone I care for is broken into, if I or one of my friends is killed or beaten or whatever, it is more likely to be by some small time thug. I care more about stopping this from happening than anything that may have happened on Epsteen Island.

>>44672 >i care about local crime that could happen to me lmao if that were societies greatest concern you would vote anti-immigration. Actions show you dont care about that soykaf either. Uk's disclose of pedo gangs protected by politics also didnt cause a massive shift in voters. Its just empty talk. In reality you think nothing will happen to you and you ignore it until you actually get your soykaf kicked in. Thats how most really live.

>>44677 fwiw I am >>44672 and I am the most anti immigrant person in the world

>>44678 was either way a take on society not specific to you. Its clear how the majority still doesn't vote against it as politics has been protective of it and they keep voting for them. The evidence in their action shows nobody really cares.

>>44679 this is getting off topic but I think there is considerable evidence that immigration as it presently is done at any rate is hugely unpopular in many countries and has been for the last ten years, but elections don't especially matter for the most part. There's been no recent disclosure of rape gangs and ten years ago they voted for the very anti immigrant brexit campaign. They just got brexit and also more immigrants. This is a problem of democracy failing to deliver and maybe of normal people just shrugging and getting on with it, but the point is this is not a problem you can merely vote your way out of and hasn't been for 10+ years.

>degenerate Euro-Americans derailing the death penalty thread so they can get into a discussion about their autistic obsession with immigrants Thread derailers should be mass executed by firing squad

>>44681 the point of the voting+immigration argument was public morality outrage is fake and most dont really care about rape & murder as long as its not them. Now use your 2 brain cells and figure out the connection to thread topic.

>>44687 They apparently care less about a death sentence than about banging strangers without a condom. To get back to the topic, explain what sort or mental gymnastic you do to rationalize keeping Marc Dutroux alive.

>>44688 I don't get this. Its not possible for AIDS to be a gay cancer. It spreads to anyone. So why did gays have such a high infection rate? Did this people take zero precautions? Then you hear about bug chasers and gift givers and these stupid fuarrrks getting all the anti-HIV meds when the world supply is short. >rationalize keeping Marc Dutroux alive Dutrox should be guillotined.

>>44688 well obviously if eventually the quota for rapes gets too low you need some strategic rapist reserve, so its useful for government to keep him and similar individuals on hand in case they need to release him once again.

>1. Should there be a death penalty or not? There should not be a death penalty because it's not the government's place to decide whether you live or die. That gives the government too much power. >>44659 >And when they do that, I know to stay far away from them. but this is an anonymous imageboard. you have no idea who to stay away from

>>44689 The rectum is thin and full of a lot of veins so anal sex is riskier than coitus regardless of if it is a man or woman on receiving end. It also is more likely to be done without a condom for a few reasons, one is lack of pregnancy risk, the other being condoms aren't really made for anal, only recently have condoms specifically for anal were created. Take a wild guess what demographics did anal sex more homosexual men and African Americans. Lesbians had and still have lowest rates of HIV infection. Bug chaser is an extremely recent and rare phenomena not something that existed during the AIDS epidemic of the 90s and even at it's height it's tiny and only exists because of more effective HIV medication yet the stigma against having AIDS status and being a homosexual and AIDS being seen as a gay disease when it isn't. That is what leads to fetishization.

>>44692 If this is true then maybe that retard spammer has a point and anal sex should be illegal, or at least discouraged. Virtually every human society before us has looked down on it or reserved it for slaves.

>>44694 Every single culture that has become the tradition of its future share some ethics. The corolar is that a society never become the tradition of its future if it don't have them.

>What do you think of the death penalty? >The government is very incompetant and can't be trusted Therefore giving a corrupt and incompetent entity the right to legally kill you is retarded, naive, or both. >Oh but I'm not the criminal! What part of "incompetent" or "corrupt" did you not get?

The electric chair is the best method. There’s so much electricity flowing through your body you wouldn’t feel a thing. It’s like turning off a switch. Kills instantly. Causes massive depolarization of the brain.

>>44697 I assume that you're also against basically all imprisonment though and pretty much police and probably practically a state abolitionist though so its not just the death penalty but really the idea of penalties by the government, if not just the government in general >>44699 >kills instantly theres a whole litany of relatively botched electrocution executions (so accused sometimes by the lawyers of the executed so idk). Not too few where it appears to take several tries over 20 minutes or so, for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Louis_Evans (witnessed by lawyers and journalists, the two least trustworthy professions known to man). I'd dismiss it all if it was the 1890s or whatever but these happen in the 1990s too.

>>44628 >obviously executions should be cheaper the issue with this kind of argument is that while it makes a moral claim, that hanging *should be* cheaper, it doesn't actually explain why or how it can be cheaper. there's a reason why I described the price as counterintuitive, dismissively saying it *should be* a particular way unfortunately makes no case. >botched injections there's plenty of stories of botched hangings, too. such as the hanging epidemic in which people thought the 20% or what have you survival rate of messy hanging led people to hang themselves as a grislier form of russian roulette. "professional" hanging with standardized rope, technique, etc obviously has a higher lethality rate but variance still exists in time to death for instance - if you've seen any videos of suicide in the traditional method you'll notice a number of them will kick their feet after they die or struggle. this to me suggests its not humane in the least. >getting hit by 5+ bullets you can still live from this, unfortunately. 3-5 bullets to the head or heart with a fixed angle, caliber, distance would provide a degree of standard to the affair but afaik there's no firing squad executions that do this, and i doubt its what most firing squad people have in mind anyway. it certainly isn't brought to mind by the phrase "firing squad". though an idea ive been personally amended to is the case of life without parole, giving them the option of a gun with 1 bullet seems humane enough. suicide shouldn't be a crime anyways. >what about just to remove people who are bad this reasoning would be almost plausible if you didn't go on to say "to be sure they don't get out again" - if the goal is to keep them from the population I don't really see how the logic is different from killing them as an example, in both cases you're trying to affect the general population in a systematic manner by the treatment of one body removed from it. but there's also the matter that this creates a situation wherein they "ought to" be in prison, you've gone back to the same moralism of execution-by-example. >>44629 >Its morally right to take a life for a life or for a heinous crime i would disagree. even if it was the case, I think there's a difference between the morality of an anonymous agent of the state taking someone in and then having them executed as part of a process, them being killed situationally (such as resistance to arrest), or you personally killing someone after they've killed a member of your family. I would query a guess that you would derive the most moral satisfaction out of the latter. Personally, I think this sort of response - death - can be justified in some situations, such as that I think it's morally right for a woman to kill her rapist. of course, there are some other issues - if your brother is killed, and the killer himself had a family with reliance on him, and you revenge-murdered the killer, and then the killer's brother sought justice - what then? my goal is not to give you whataboutist edge cases but rather to demonstrate how, in principle, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". >they can't get back those lost years indeed they can't, and for this reason I would reject the false premise of life imprisonment vs murder-for-murder. there are many other solutions, my preferences are relatively abolitionist. >its probably more merciful to execute a convicted killer than keep them in supermax for the rest of their life even though they have murdered, that seems like its only a really a question that the killer can really answer rather than ourselves. this is why I believe in the option of assisted suicide for prisoners, even though i am long-term opposed to prisons as they are understood in the united states. >By sex crimes I was being vague since some people believe in a death penalty for rape, child rape, adultery etc and some disagree on that. don't weasel around this. you yourself stated that in OP that you want the death penalty for adultery. there is no use having a discussion if you can't even stand by your own words. the rest of your reply almost doesn't make grammatical sense anyway, since "even if cross dressing was a crime it wouldn't be a severe enough crime to warrant death as a proportional response" makes no sense besides your reassurance that, if you were in charge somehow and you criminalized cross dressing, you wouldn't make it a severe enough crime to warrant death sentence. this only really sounds like a clumsy revelation of intent which is honestly pretty hard to believe considering you want the death penalty for adultery anyhow. >not try to dress up execution as a painless medical procedure many people do not think this way, myself for starters. death is a tragedy whether its accompanied by a bloody spectacle or not. anyways, if you really believe in a punishment matching the crime, shouldn't you be advocating for the conditions of death suited to the conditions of the murder? why not get creative with it? >>44644 >you should have been hit more I was hit as a child. that's why I don't support it. if your takeaway from corporal punishment is to follow the rules of the person who arbitrarily decides when its okay to hit you and finds excuses for being violent then you're retarded. >justice as an end to itself >you view it as a matter of preference satisfaction >immediately quotes anon saying it was aesthetically pleasing and gratifying saying "this is the way to roll" at least try and hide how conceited you are next time. > I don't think anyone intends for the death penalty to punish a given social group... there are people in this very thread advocating for it, in fact you agree with them. >you think the death penalty should be criminal I don't, because I don't believe in criminality under the same framework you do. I believe in criminality descriptively, such as "those who break the law are criminals" but not an ideal wherein there *should* be criminals. if we're truly discussing ideal scenarios, that is. more realistically speaking, I think that we should have a transitory period for society composed of the series of best possibilities we can consensually (as a consensus) imagine, but also materially create, each of which granted self-determination in the ability to transition to the next. how's that for idealism. >I thought you were going to argue that sex crimes are easier to lie about and get people falsely killed for, but then you gave examples of "honest" killings... not sure where you are going there... no, I'd prefer to focus on how the discussion is being framed around certain premises (such as the OPs begging the question) than get mired in historical technicality or the hypotheticals of a nonexistent ideal i don't believe in. you're right, though - sex crimes are very easy to fake, I don't think I need to bring up examples of framing people for sex crimes as we both seem to agree on its possibility existence, regardless I don't think people *should be* killed for "sex crimes", i merely think that if a woman kills her rapist it's understandable. > then you gave examples of "honest" killings... not sure where you are going there... don't use this tone with somebody you've just told deserved to be beaten more as a child. i gave those examples as criticisms of the system that currently exists. and to preempt those like >>44700 who attempt to dismiss those who disagree with them for being "too extreme" when the facts of the matter are that the United States punitive agenda is far outside the mean of how justice systems play out in the world. Anyways, you're starting to sound like you want your bitch ex who cheated on you to die. which doesn't really surprise me. >on further investigation, john's semen was found on her pants naturally, I'm sure you'd love to be the court semen inspector. or maybe you would prefer the government harvest your sperm as a form of biometric identification? ancient problems, modern solutions. >this is solved by not holding prisoners 20 years prior to execution the price to imprison death-row inmates isn't a raw multiplier of years imprisoned. holding death row inmates for any length of time requires a significant infrastructural investment as they can't be held in the general population. something ive gone over but you seem to hand-wavingly ignore. >do we have stats on this we do, 85% of hanging suicide attempts result in death *or* hospitalization according to one statistic - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032721013732 which is actually surprising to me as I thought it might be a higher number for lethality. I'm sure executions have a higher rate, but the numbers I've seen so far aren't promising. refer also to my earlier point about the humanity of time spent hanging.

>>44701 >that hanging *should be* cheaper, it doesn't actually explain why or how it can be cheaper I spend a lot of money to keep myself alive and well. Extrapolated over a life time this is certainly a small fortune. Even if I were cheaper about it its not a small bit of money. Meanwhile I could kill myself with a high degree of confidence in the next twelve hours without spending a penny. Why not the same in prison? >hangings, kicks and twitches There's certainly some where its quite bungled but, as far as the odd kick goes, I recall that this sort of thing can happen when people snap their necks or similar things, in other circumstances. It may be just a nervous reaction, muscles can be activated without the input of the owner. Trying to evaluate the painlessness of an execution method has always struck me as an exercise in speculative fiction. At least in the US it seems we are principally trying to avoid methods that are both cruel and unusual, and I don't think that is too hard. This doesn't mean painless but good to avoid adding pain where it isn't expedient to the process. >you can still live from this, unfortunately. 3-5 bullets to the head or heart ... While I admit we don't have too many cases it appears in the US no execution by firing squad, at least judicial executions, in the last century and more, has really been a botch. The process appears to typically be that the subject is placed in a chair with a target about his heart, and five riflemen (volunteers from law enforcement) fire 4-5 bullets at him from about 30 yards after a count. So long as he doesn't much move it seems like this is going to be pretty reliable, but maybe if you do a thousand you'll have the odd situation where all of the five are having a bad day. >if the goal is to keep them from the population I don't really see how the logic is different from killing them as an example A criminal once is more likely than the average person to commit a crime again. I live in a place with short governmental terms, which means government policy is unpredictable over the course of just a few years. If you actually want to be sure someone doesn't get out again the surest way is to see them dead. This has no effect on the wider population compared to keeping them locked up for life, it resolves uncertainty.

>>44700 Well duh there are screw ups. Virtually all those execution fuarrrk ups were caused by human error. In the Evans execution, prison guards didn’t make sure the leather strap was clear from the leg electrode so it caught fire and blew off. In Florida (where most of the fuarrrk ups happened), they used the wrong kind of sponge and obsolete breakers causing fires. Even in the Pedro Medina botch, an autopsy confirmed he died instantly when the current was turned on. Hangings and firing squads have been botched too. If the electric chair is well maintained, delivers the right voltage and amps, and prison staff are trained to use it, the thing will cause instant brain death faster than you can feel pain. Also more lethal injections have been botched than electric chair executions. The chair isn’t pretty but it is instantaneous.

>>44710 maybe we need more executions to the executioners are better, more experienced, and the equipment better tested.

>>44701 Its wrong to evaluate hangings by looking at suicides. There are different techniques for carrying out a hanging (short, standard, and long drop) and a prison execution chamber is a very different context to a suicide. Suicidal hangings fail because of improperly tied noses, inappropriate ropes, and fixtures that can't take the victim's weight. In prison, all of these problems are eliminated. In short drop and suspension hangings, the noose kills by strangling the inmate. This can take a long time and is extremely painful. He is simply left on the rope until he chokes out no matter how long it takes. Virtually nobody survives this unless they are cut down mid hanging, which happens sometimes in countries like Iran where a reprieve can still be granted. The long drop method kills by breaking the neck and severing the spinal column leading to instant unconsciousness followed by strangulation. This is 100% fatal and nobody survives. Even if the inmate were cut down after the drop, he'd be brain dead. Few countries use the long drop method because they lack the skilled hangmen needed to perform them. This is why medical studies find the hangman's fracture is recorded in only a small number of hangings, the vast majority are short drops. >>44702 >I recall that this sort of thing can happen when people snap their necks or similar things, in other circumstances. It may be just a nervous reaction, muscles can be activated without the input of the owner. The heart and body will continue to function independently of the brain for sometime. That's what causes the twitching and the breathing. If the body is taken off the rope too soon, the heart will continue to beat. The British tied EEG machines to prisoners to see if long drop hangings were painful. They recorded a surge of brain activity when the trapdoor is released before a sudden ceasing of electrical activity when the inmate's body reaches the end of the rope. This means hanging (via the long drop) is the only execution method confirmed to be physically painless to the inmate or at least induce deep unconsciousness making it more or less painless. Its still psychologically excruciating.

>>44665 agreed, with some bumper-rails on the definitions ~ 40 year old raping a six year old = death ~ 19 year old sleeping with 17 year old = not crime >>44689 >So why did gays have such a high infection rate? Did this people take zero precautions? Someone clearly never read about gay culture pre-aids. I'll give you a start, look into "california bath house". Fun fact, pre-aids it was not uncommon to have a 100+ body-count as a gay man under 30 >>44691 >>44697 >Death penalty is bad because <too much power in govt/govt can be corrupt> Ideal Case: You live in a deindustrialized pastoral society where the largest community unit is ~50 people, so death sentences are kept highly accountable and corruption is much less of an issue. Modern Case: At one point I agreed with the idea that gov't cannot be trusted/lacks the right to take life. but ultimately I decided it is much more humane to send someone to god then to keep them locked in a cage for 30+ years. As in, the gov't must have the authority to hand out SOME form of punishment, and the only forms that match certain crimes are life imprisonment / death penalty, and I find life imprisonment far more cruel and unusual than the death penalty. >>44694 anal-sama is based and speaks the truth if you take the time to read... >>44701 in order from minor to major: > 3-5 bullets to the head or heart with a fixed angle, caliber, distance would provide a degree of standard to the affair but afaik there's no firing squad executions that do this, and i doubt its what most firing squad people have in mind anyway I'm think we are seriously misunderstanding each other... see the attached image. A firing squad literally consists of: 3-5 men (traditionally five in the USA) firing the same style rifle (same caliber) at a restrained human a fixed distance away with some sort of target-indicator on the heart (traditionally a small sheet of paper) the only thing you missed is the sometimes-traditional inclusion of a single blank cartridge to assuage any guilt-issues the shooters may have (as in, one of the five rounds is a blank) >((feet kicking and other signs of struggling)) to me suggests ((hanging)) is not humane in the least. I define a humane execution as: "one that is not intentionally cruel" Inhumane killing: Death by pirahna's slowly biting pieces out of you for 3 hours straight Humane killing: Properly executed hanging, with 95% odds of death within 60 seconds Ideal killing: Death by 5 man firing squad using cartridge >=.308 from <20 meter, rested shot, heart marked. >if your takeaway from corporal punishment is to follow the rules of the person who arbitrarily decides when its okay to hit you and finds excuses for being violent then you're retarded. The key here is how the punishment is used, not in the punishment itself. Obviously randomly beating a child is wrong. Randomly punishing a child in *any way* is wrong. Just because you were beaten randomly doesn't making all beatings wrong. The question is whether properly applied corporal punishment can be a useful tool, to which I would say "yes". >>preference satisfaction >>immediately quotes anon saying it was aesthetically >at least try and hide how conceited you are next time. Here we go again... In the same way that I view justice as Justice I view aesthetics as Aesthetics, a set thing, or universal standard Something being aesthetically pleasing / beautiful is not a preference-satisfaction, but a fulfillment of what the thing should be (in the same way that a just act is self-satisfying) Please quit projecting your subjectivism onto everything you read... >there are people in this very thread advocating for it, in fact you agree with them. quote it. quote someone in this thread saying, "poor people/gypsies/the rich/etc. should be put to death" Unless by social group you mean "child rapists / corrupt politicians / murder-rapists", which is a hilarious use of the word that I'll accept if you insist on it. >I don't, because I don't believe in criminality under the same framework you do. I believe in criminality descriptively, such as "those who break the law are criminals" but not an ideal wherein there *should* be criminals. why are you weaseling like this if you are against the death penalty, you would presumably support making it against the law for the government to enforce the death penalty. by your own reasoning, it is absurd to want something to be worthy of illegality when it is not currently a crime "I could point out the absurdity of adultery being considered a death penalty when adultery isn't even a crime in most US states", ergo, it is absurd for you to support criminalizing the death penalty. this whole line of reasoning is stupid, and that is the only point i wanted to make, that it was stupid and a waste of time to say "X shouldn't be punished because under the current laws X is not a crime". >>I thought you were going to argue that sex crimes are easier to lie about and get people falsely killed for, but then you gave examples of "honest" killings... not sure where you are going there... I'll be honest, I am still having trouble understanding your explanation of this part. You gave examples of crimes that would be punished under certain laws to criticize the possibility of those laws? >or maybe you would prefer the government harvest your sperm as a form of biometric identification? If you are convincingly suspected of a crime, forced DNA sampling seems perfectly reasonable. (which can be done from hair, but I wouldn't mind getting jerked off for a semen sample let me know if you wanna give me a "hand") Similarly, if you have been convicted of a major violent felony, I could support mandatory DNA collection/fingerprinting. Ideally the records would be deleted once you died, so that they are not abused to identify close relatives ad infinitum. >something ive gone over but you seem to hand-wavingly ignore. Note that I am also opposed to any form of lengthy confinement for non-death-penaltied prisoners, so the "infrastructural investment" would be fairly limited in my ideal setup. But even assuming our current setup, if we turn over death penalty prisoners quickly enough we would greatly reduce the holding capacity required, such that each major-region would probably only need ~1 holding pen with say... 20-100 cells total? How expensive is it to maintain a wing of a prison with 20-100 cells, a couple toilets/showers, food delivery from main prison, and a 20x20 foot exercise yard...? Sounds a hell of a lot cheaper than the current setup. I feel like this is line of discussion getting to be hair-splitting though, and should probably be dropped... > 85% of hanging suicide attempts result in death *or* hospitalization countersource: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15659471/ >Case fatality following attempted suicide by hanging is around 70% > Around 50% of hanging suicides are not fully suspended--ligature points below head level are commonly used. If you hang yourself improperly, you will probably survive. Thankfully, execution by hanging doesn't have to be done from a fuarking doorknob. I cannot quickly find professional rates, but let's consider the possible outcomes: 1) neck snap hanging, ideal 2) asphyxiation hanging, not ideal, but perfectly workable 3) decaptitation, messy but fine (highly unlikely, you just have to weigh them immediately prior to hanging) 4) rope breaks (non-issue with modern standardization) >refer also to my earlier point about the humanity of time spent hanging. yeah see above. >you're retarded. >Anyways, you're starting to sound like you want your bitch ex who cheated on you to die. which doesn't really surprise me. >naturally, I'm sure you'd love to be the court semen inspector. ill inspect ur semen any day bby just gimme ur # *uwu*

Normally I support the death penalty, but the judicial branch of my country's government is completely corrupt and giving them the authority to kill people would probably be a very, very bad idea. Perhaps better to leave it abolished as it currently is.

Even in countries with supposedly "fair" justice systems mistakes are always made. Also people can and do change someone should not be punished for something they did many years or decades ago as if it is who they currently are. Executions also send the wrong message that the best way to solve problems is through intolerance and violating people's bodies and will leads to more crime by spreading such thoughts. Only thing worse than supporting death penalty is supporting it for people who did not intentionally cause anyone's death which is an even worse slippery slope where everyone is fair game. You may try to support death penalty until you're the one put on death row.

>>44723 the problem with your system is that its really easy for a malicious actor to game it because there are no practical consequences. If I'm a murderer, I won't get executed, judging by your expressed sentiments I probably won't even get locked up, or seriously injured. I'll be comfortingly chided and shown better examples, patted on the back sent on my way, back into society where I can go murder and steal to my hearts content once again, and again and again and again and again. Some people are irreformable. Some people are psychopaths. Some people just are your enemy and would like to see your country destroyed, your people raped, your cities burned and your wealth pillaged. One must be willing to fight and kill for what he cares about, otherwise I don't think he really cares much about it at all.

>>44731 >There are no practical consequences This is at best ignorant and at worst maliciously disingenuous. First off being isolated from the rest of society itself and having freedom reduced is a consequence. Your same argument could be used to argue why slavery should have never been abolished because they give the slaves food and shelter. Second you're under the false assumption consequences even come into play. Take the US which has the death penalty and a high number of serial, spree, and mass killers. Many of the countries with high murder rates in general have the death penalty. It does nothing to curb violent crime. People who commit particularly violent crimes it doesn't even cross their mind any consequence for them and if it does they quickly shake it away as them being smarter than that no matter how dumb they are.

>>44723 >Also people can and do change someone should not be punished for something they did many years or decades ago as if it is who they currently are ironically, this is the exact argument that made me favor corporeal punish + death penalty over extended confinement Both immediately punish the transgressor for their actions. Life imprisonment or similar sentences forces someone to be punished for 5, 10, 20, 30+ years for things they may have done as a borderline child (e.g: 19 year old double murderer). Obviously by 85 years old they are a different person and should not still be in prison. >Executions also send the wrong message that the best way to solve problems is through intolerance and violating people's bodies and will leads to more crime by spreading such thoughts. I mean this as politely as possible, but I can only interpret this as: 1) Filler 2) An argument against any form of criminal justice trivial to stick in "imprisonments", "parole with limited rights", "etc" instead of execution and make the same argument, since all of these come from an intolerance for crime and involve violating someone's bodily autonomy. If you think this argument CANNOT be wielded against imprisonment, please explain and I will be happy to discuss! >Only thing worse than supporting death penalty is supporting it for people who did not intentionally cause anyone's death I am assuming you would be willing to amend your statement to "did not intentionally cause anyone grave harm" (e.g: someone who rapes 30 kids is also eligible for death penalty) In that case, I'm not sure anyone takes the stance that accidental harm should be punished by death. >You may try to support death penalty until you're the one put on death row. Death row is inhumane because (in the USA, at least), it takes fuarrrking FOREVER. The whole point is to get it over with quickly. I would strongly prefer 30 day imprisonment to sort out my affairs followed by death by firing squad over a life in prison. >Even in countries with supposedly "fair" justice systems mistakes are always made Let God sort them out. >>44735 >death penalty doesn't curb crime etc I think the best argument for the death penalty is that it fits the crime, that is, it is Just in certain cases. Not utilitarian, but aesthetic. >countries with high murder rates in general have the death penalty. Correlation ~= causation Even studies attempting to show impact of adding/removing death penalty on crime are suspect, since these additions/removals are usually in response to preexisting societal patterns

>>44735 >This is at best ignorant and at worst maliciously disingenuous I'm sorry evidently I misinterpreted your post. I took this line to not only exclude executions but also maimings, disfigurements, markings, corporal punishment and imprisonments, all as being violations of the subject's body: >Executions also send the wrong message that the best way to solve problems is through intolerance and violating people's bodies and will leads to more crime by spreading such thoughts. I think there's precious few alternative punishments that are effective against someone willing to kill and steal. You can shun him, refuse to do business with him (at your peril), fine him and revoke his privileges (the revocation of which he may well ignore), and call him mean names. Maybe I'm missing something. And even if you can lock him up, because 'someone should not be punished for something they did many years or decades ago', you'll probably throw a cap onto imprisonment times so no one is in the lockup more than lets say five years after the commission of the crime. To the rest of your new post: I think you are thinking on too short of a timescale. To clarify my position, frankly I think that the discouragement effects of any punishment system, while real, are fairly marginal, and the much more significant effect is removal and breeding. As such all these euro countries which have recently abolished the death penalty are really showing the effects of the centuries of death penalty, often enforced over what we would nowadays consider relatively minor crimes. America, while primarily a european nation has various other factors going on which effect it. And in any case, the rarity of executions and the long time between conviction and execution (many people on death row for decades) must diminish the discouraging effect that fear of death would have, if any. Even if I wanted to get executed in the US I think I would have a hard time making it happen inside of ten years.

>>44701 >the price to imprison death-row inmates isn't a raw multiplier of years imprisoned. holding death row inmates for any length of time requires a significant infrastructural investment as they can't be held in the general population. something ive gone over but you seem to hand-wavingly ignore. it is also significantly increased by court proceedings that happen and then happen again

I don't support it because I don't think the government should have the authority, and because governments in general act hypocritically to the death penalty. Imo it opens the ideological pathway that the government can kill any of its citizens and I don't like that as it also implies government has near complete control over its population with the right paperwork.

My reasoning is simple: if you kill an innocent dude you won't find a necromancer to bring him back, therefore it's better to keep them locked.

>>44774 >>44776 dang it ok we're now 100% going in circles.

>>44774 Where does the government derive its power, and how do you define the limits of that power? Does the government have the right to send citizens to engage in dangerous acts (e.g: war)? If that is the case, how is that control of life/death any different? Both (ostensibly) involve the defense of the state/citizenry. >>44776 You cannot give him back 45 years of his life in prison either. The question: "Would you rather spend 45 years dead and chilling with God or in prison?" is probably non-trivial to decide either way within the confines of this thread, so I consider this a non-argument against the death penalty.

>>44803 people can choose between suicide or rot in prison and most dont kill themself. Its pretty self evident. Not to mention nobody gonna continue seeking justice for a corpse. People get out of false charges after 20y. Pure braindead to off yourself early.

>>44805 fuarrrk sakes i lost the original reply so now you get the soykaf version, sorry for any rudeness i'm typing fast 1) suicide != mistaken execution one is morally shameful the other is akin to matyrdom 2) appeals to masses do not decide questions of right and wrong if 80% of ugandans think a square has 3 sides, that just means 80% of ugandans are retarded 3) what-if error edge-cases fail to address the central moral question the question at-stake is: "Is it right for the state to kill someone who has committed certain crimes?" Nobody thinks it is right to kill people who have not committed those crimes. What-if scenarios devolve into balancing acts and are highly dependent on place/time (=>a soykafshow to resolve), whereas the moral question is independent of X technology or Y social trend and can be handled much more cleanly. e.g: Pre-1960 someone would say with a soykaffaced grin, "but how can you knoooooow that john raped stacy?" and now we can say "DNA testing of semen" but that doesn't change the question of "Should rapists be executed?"

>>44803 >You cannot give him back 45 years of his life in prison either. So you would have him dead instead? What kind of fatalistic soykaf is that? With him alive you get to look back and do better. The system would get a chance of adjust itself and not commit such atrocity again. I genuinely think you are not thinking this thing through. And who said it would have to be 45 years? What about 20? Or 10?

>>44808 its not martyrdom when nobody even knows you exist... most people get a small local newspaper article at best when they get live sentenced that also reports their case falsely and blames them as the villain. And its more shameful to get caught and executed than die in a shootout in style. Part of the reason to stop executions was cops don't like risking their own ass for it. Lastly morality is fake, people decide based on benefits and then fabricate moral justification to sell it to the crowd. Its a inconsequential question whether its moral and thats why nobody wanna play along with it.

>>44623 In theory, the death penalty should be an option for criminals that absolutely cannot be rehabilitated or contained in a humane and safe manner. In practice there's no way to surely differentiate them, and no institution should have the power to decide if someone is good enough to live; it's dystopian.

One other point not getting enough attention here is that there is not only a rate of wrongful convictions, innocents who should not have been convicted, but there's a rate of wrongful nonconvictions, criminals who are spared whether because of evidence not meeting the stringent standards of the courts or who are wrongly freed or otherwise let out. If you let such a person out and then he goes and commits a murder or other crime, that crime is the fault of the state as much as if the state executed an innocent directly.

>>44821 What's your point? Because that's evidence for the state not to execute criminals because it possess an imperfect system of conviction in the first place.

>>44824 assume utilitarian morality. 1 wrongful death = 1 wrongful death. For simplicity lets just talk about deaths and not robbery/confinement/etc. Case 0: a murder has occurred, state picks up the right guy, convicts him, executed him. Problem solved Net result: 1 wrongful death Case 1: Same situation, but state picks up the wrong guy, convicts him, executed him. He was innocent. Actual criminal lives his life and does nothing criminal again. Net result: 2 wrongful deaths Case 2: Same thing, but state picks up the right guy. Unfortunately evidence isn't perfect, they release him. He kills again and then gets arrested and executed for real. Net result: 2 wrongful deaths These are just illustrative examples I'm keeping them very similar because obviously you can come up with any scenario that makes some argument look right. My point is just that sometimes letting someone out because you're not sure leads to more wrongful deaths. Obviously you want some sort of balance, but from an utilitarian perspective the optimal number of wrongful executions is not zero, and if you have a guy who might go on to be a mass murderer or a serial killer or something the state is behooved to err on the side of caution, which is not mercy to the killer but mercy to his potential victims. By killing murderers you can save innocents on net, even if you kill a few innocents in the process.

>>44830 >murderer does not kill again if not convicted >released murderer kills again makes 0 sense

In theory I think it's often justified, but it opens a can of worms in which you are comparing the value of human life. Who deserves to die? Who carries this out? I really just don't trust the powers at be to do this because the definition of criminal is always in flux. Imagine being tried for treason because of some political view and given the death penalty for example.

>>44835 ok so imagine it with case 2 leading to 3 wrongful deaths. whatever. the basic point is the same

>>44803 >where does the government derive its power From what people will tolerate. That includes tolerating what is to do them and by them. >Does the government have the right to send citizens to engage in dangerous acts No, and particularly not involuntarily participants. With willing voluntary participants (i.e. armed forces members) I can see a right because there's an assumption the individual agreed to it. If you continue this line of questioning, does the government have the right to send children to engage in dangerous acts? Or non citizens? And of course I want to make a distinction between right and power or ability- governments certainly can do all this and it goes back to what is tolerable.

>>44844 missing the point, a guy not caught has not a lower rate to kill again and if you hang the wrong guy and the serial killer continues you have now a higher count.

>>44819 >Lastly morality is fake, people decide based on benefits and then fabricate moral justification to sell it to the crowd. This is the only thing you needed to say. All of our other disagreements stem from this point. If we cannot agree on a basic moral framework, then we will not be able to agree on whether the death penalty should exist or not. We can continue discussing within a moral relativist framework, but then all of the arguments will change. Instead we will have to juggle things like "which is cheaper, killing prisoners or keeping them alive". Also, we will have to "trim the fat", and point out that values like "having someone fight for your justice" are meaningless fabrications used to justify post-hoc the things we like (e.g: being alive). Starting question: If you are a moral relativist, how do you justify NOT killing criminals, assuming it makes justice cheaper and reduces rate of recidivism? We cannot rely on the collateral damage (killing innocents by mistake) argument, since that is a moral argument, which we are rejecting out of hand. >>44811 I should have phrased the question much better than I did. The question I was actually interested in was not "which do you prefer" but "which is less immoral", but then I realized that if you are debating less-immorals within what-ifs you are already so far off the track that you are better off starting from the main point-> "Is it moral for the government to kill people that have committed certain crimes" Once we agree/disagree on that, it is much easier to handle the whatifisms. (Note the above case, where lain argued against real morality: this makes what-about-ism discussion pointless, since we have bigger problems to tackle) One of the big problems with this thread is that we are having two arguments at once without clearly distinguishing them: Argument Number 1: Accepting that moral truth exists, is is morally permissible for the state to kill people who have committed certain crimes? Argument Number 2: Accepting moral relativism, is it utilitarian/efficient for the state to kill people who have been judged guilty of certain crimes? >>44847 >From what people will tolerate. That includes tolerating what is to do them and by them. >No, and particularly not involuntarily participants. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify this! This is a somewhat unusual theory of governance (the first part is fairly standard, reminds me of hobbes argument in leviathan), but the second part is a bit jarring*** (assuming by "the people" you meant as a group, not each taken as an individual). If government is based on the toleration of the governed, why should the government lack the right to impose things on the governed that they will tolerate? To give an example: 1) "The people" agree to institute a government based on their willingness to tolerate it's actions 2) the government declares a yearly ritual sacrifice of 5 virgins to ensure the harvest goes smoothly, 3) "The people" agree that this is a great idea and go along with it Why should the government lack the right to sacrifice those five people? (Same goes for children- if the will of the people is moral, then the government's actions towards those people are right/moral so long as they reflect that will) (Non-citizen's are tricky- they are not part of the people that will the government, so they must engage with it as distinct actors and would inherit something closer to whatever rights you ascribe to two strangers in the woods) To clarify, I am interpreting your statement of >"From what people will tolerate." to be a *moral* statement, not a *practical* statement. As in, the government gains a moral right to govern by the acquiescence of the governed, not just a capability to perform certain acts.

>>44859 if you have a serial killer who is going to kill 30 before he gets bored though, its fine to kill quite a few people by accident if you can stop him quickly

>>44862 >Starting question: If you are a moral relativist, how do you justify NOT killing criminals, assuming it makes justice cheaper and reduces rate of recidivism? >We cannot rely on the collateral damage (killing innocents by mistake) argument, since that is a moral argument, which we are rejecting out of hand. Killing innocent is not a moral argument. Its "we agree that we value living more than killing a potential attacker" Random people getting killed isn't your problem but it might be people you care about and that puts a cost to it. Secondary it could also be used to dispose of political dissidents which can be people that benefit you so that costs you too. Having the state pay for housing some inmates is not a real cost in contrast because they gonna waste taxes either way and the sum is trivial compared to all the other nonsense. Its not even worth considering in the evaluation.

>>44868 Even though I think we disagree, I'm really happy to read this post because it makes the arguments way more approachable. Just to clarify some assumptions: 1) We assume that we like living and would like to continue to do so 2) We assume that we like certain other people living Now based on these, we reduce the question of the death penalty to one of: "Would I prefer life imprisonment, or death, if I get caught up by the government some how? Obviously I would prefer to live, so the death penalty is undesirable." (Attempting to rephrase this: Its "we agree that we value living more than killing a potential attacker", since obviously if only the guilty are killed and we have no intent of being guilty and the govt is infallible, we have nothing to fear from the death penalty. If my rephrasing is disagreeable, please let me know.) Or, to rephrase again- If our only goal is to maximize our lifespan / the lifespans of those we care about, then I think the question reduces to a choice between- Is the death penalty more likely to: a) stop me from being killed by a potential criminal b) kill me because I am a criminal (/wrongfully convicted/etc) Once we can decide that, it might be worthwhile to discuss quality of life (does the presence of the death penalty improve the quality of life for me by reducing criminality in others? reduce societal / real costs / etc.)

>>44883 >Would I prefer life imprisonment, or death, if I get caught up by the government some how? It's not the place of the criminal to choose how the community will punish him. The community choose what is the appropriate punishment. I personally don't like the court system which is more another layer of the administrative nightmare that deprive the common folk of any form of power, but that's not the point. No matter how the punishment is chosen, it would be unjust and cruelty toward the victims that the criminal get what he prefer. It would be contrary to the concept of punishment, and without punishment, crime would become omnipresent and better than the alternative. If our only goal is to increase our lifespan, we must send the entire population in jail, in solitary confinement, eating a gruel designed by a nutritionist. This is not my ideal world and I hope it isn't yours as well. It would be better to look for the best possible quality of life for the time that is lived. This, obviously mean that we should not be shy to take lives. >>44868 Consider this: instead of locking prisoners in a cage pointlessly, we make them do a productive activity. This way, their crime become an asset to society instead of being a burden. On top of that, they leave jail with a skill that they can use to reintegrate society.

>>44623 If death is mercy, then living is used only to prolong the suffering of those who caused suffering. Some would argue that the death penalty is not enough and would actually just release people from their punishment. If you consider the idea, as the Japanese that suicide/execution allows one to atone for ones sins, then the death penalty may be valid. >>44626 In 20th century, many blacks were arrested based on dubious evidence, and then executed for crimes they didn't commit. Until DNA became widely used in forensics, it was hard to get your name cleared. Many of these people are/were still waiting decades to be executed, because it isn't a short process thanks to people trying to argue that one way of killing someone is "more humane" than another. >>44631 Firing squad has a plausible deniability mechanism built into it: >All but one of the rifles has a bullet, with one loaded with a blank >All but one of the rifles has a blank, with one loaded with a bullet Nobody knows who actually fired the kill shot. >>44638 To me, this really gets at the heart of the whole argument. In the case where the prison system itself is broken in the name of humanity, you end up with people who are either locked up for political reasons, or people who cannot be rehabilitated, which goes against the modern concept of prisons; an effective means to re-integrate poor performers back into society, which has been turned into a for-profit system in many parts of the west (especially USA) >>44640 >>44641 Corporal punishment has fallen out of style, cutting the hands of thieves, executing traitors to society, and burning heretics were all meant to send a brutal message and keep people in line. Once those punishments were initiated, there was no going back. Unfortunately in an effort to say that "you can fix people," the criminal justice system became pay-to-win. If the cost of a crime is a fine, crime only exists for the poor. By locking someone up indefinitely, you take away the only thing that the rich and poor have in common, and some might see death as better than suffering for the remainder of their long, comfortable lives. There does not seem to be an equal application of the death penalty, and having a good lawyer and agreeing to a plea deal where you can effectively make up the terms of your punishment is actually pretty common. >>44639 You tend to see the same conversations repeat on IBs every few years.

>>44866 you do realize that people wait on death row for around 25 years? So what you said is retarded.

>>46358 >Consider this: instead of locking prisoners in a cage pointlessly, we make them do a productive activity. This way, their crime become an asset to society instead of being a burden. On top of that, they leave jail with a skill that they can use to reintegrate society. Turns out commies were onto something! In all honesty though, US/PRC already does that.

>>46358 >instead of locking prisoners in a cage pointlessly, we make them do a productive activity this is obviously reasonable if it is possible, but I think there is a fraction of criminals who are not liable to make a productive slave, and it is silly to make him work who will not at least cover his own life expenses.

>>46362 >>46360 The French revolution was a pant on head moment but at least they got that part right. Why? Just take them to a field ans shoot them. >>46361 Russian had that racket going back in the days of the Tsar, commies have just switched one slave based economy to another one. If the US was doing it, the private prisons would pay to get prisoners to keep. Do they? >>46362 They would be paid in prison money which will only be usable in prison shop. Working would increase their station in life.

>>46363 >If the US was doing it, the private prisons would pay to get prisoners to keep. Do they? Why would they do that if wage of prisoners is below minimum wage [1], don't have safety policies in place [2] and those prisoners can be outsourced to private companies? Did I mention that you have to pay the bill after incarceration [3]? [1] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/ [2] https://apnews.com/article/prison-to-plate-inmate-labor-investigation-c6f0eb4747963283316e494eadf08c4e [3] https://money.cnn.com/2015/09/18/news/economy/prison-fees-inmates-debt/index.html

>>46363 >They would be paid in prison money which will only be usable in prison shop. Working would increase their station in life. I forgot to mention, USA kinda does that already. You are technically entitled to 3 meals a day, but the food is so soykaf, that there is a strong incentive to work (0.1$/h) for food, clothes, soap, etc [1]. [1] https://www.themarshallproject.org/2023/05/02/why-inflation-price-hikes-are-even-worse-behind-bars Flood, soykaf

if youre killing murderers i feel like youre justifying murder in some way and in this case i dont see why your murder is nececarilly any more justified than somebody elses it seems arbitrary especially people who think 'all people deemed guilty of x crime or who have killed before should be punished by death' i think in some cases like if you risk deadly assault or somebody has forced entry into your home for some kind of malicious reason it can be / is justified using physical force or ultimately killing them but not corporal punishment. such a thing goes misused and sentencing comes again something arbitrary and often people guilty of much more serious crimes are given much less punishments anyway. it comes down to external factors and unless the rule was 'you die for this' which itself i find wrong for the same reasons, it couldnt be fairly issued anyway.

>>46367 Killing people who have chosen the path of lethal violence to free everyone from their presence can not be compared to killing random people for fun. >>46365 American prisons are weird. Just make them do carpentry or whatever, sell their labor for a price and pay them half. Not only it's a more effective punishment than waiting in a cage, it's also a tool of reintegration, education and instead of being a burden for society, its an asset. American jails are cash machine that lobby for more people to be send in jail for no reason, it's a poor point of comparison.

>>46367 I had watched a documentary called Crazy, Not Insane. Unfortunately cant find a clip of it but there is an interview with an executioner in it and the guy was more deranged than the murderers that were talked about in it. The documentary isnt without critique of the psychiatrist behind it but that interview stuck with me. I dont think all executioners are psychopaths like that but it must really take a toll on them mentally.

>>46368 >killing random people for fun But it's never this. They kill people because they see people as bad or that they are doing a favor for them by killing them. Even if they say it is for "fun" just look at their history of their lives often they had first or second hand experienced abuse of some kind that shaped their views. There really is not a huge difference.

>>46368 the circumstance of all murders is not fun, the death penalty is an example>>46375 > They kill people because they see people as bad or that they are doing a favor for them by killing them like the death sentence does >>46374 people inside institutions are usually sick, moreso than the people they want to help. especially within correctional and "psychology" institutions, theres endless stories and a long documented history of abuses. its natural the people inside would want to harm others, and would cclearly be affected in some way. anyway the institution boils down halfway to punishing those the randomly allocated staff deem unworthy of life, and the other half to religious conversion.

>>46368 >American prisons are weird. Just make them do carpentry or whatever, sell their labor for a price and pay them half. American prisons already do this. Inmates can get "jobs" making government contract products, including military hardware or construction materials, but they get paid like 70 cents an hour while the company charges the government hundreds of dollars for their services. Instead of allowing phone calls, inmates can call, text, and video call for $5 a minute or $2 a text message. Some inmates figured out hacks like leaving messages in the draft folders and just exchanging login credentials, but if you get caught doing this, you usually get additional charges. This is the prison industrial complex. Inmates are basically government subsidized corpo slaves. >>46374 In small towns, they will often make clerks or low level administrative officials initiate the execution, this is extremely traumatic for someone who normally just works a desk job and happened to have "lever puller" or "button pusher" in their job responsibilities. >>46376 Abuses within institutions often happen for other reasons, and should not be directly compared to those who execute others. In fact, some executioners have to play mental gymnastics like their job is the most noble of causes because they are saving society from savages. Killing is a normal human behavior, it's just that most humans in first world countries are so detached from death, that it has also become trivialized by vidya and TV. Like it's okay to watch gore thriller movies, or action movies like John Wick, but god forbid someone who was deemed to be too dangerous to rehabilitate and is too far gone mentally to be receptive to any kind of contribution to society needs to be executed. Court cases should be taken one at a time, and unfortunately most lawyers try to keep it safe by arguing "well this other time, the judge and jury decided ..." If you take a case by itself and look at the evidence in context of the law and individual you may come to another conclusion as to if that person should live, die, or be imprisoned for the remainder of their lives to suffer.

>>46379 > American prisons already do this. Inmates can get "jobs" making government contract products, including military hardware or construction materials, but they get paid like 70 cents an hour while the company charges the government hundreds of dollars for their services. Instead of allowing phone calls, inmates can call, text, and video call for $5 a minute or $2 a text message. Some inmates figured out hacks like leaving messages in the draft folders and just exchanging login credentials, but if you get caught doing this, you usually get additional charges. This is the prison industrial complex. Inmates are basically government subsidized corpo slaves. Not that I doubt you but do you have sources on this? I know the low pay they get is easy info to find but I haven't heard about them having to pay for phone calls, texts, emails to incentivize them into slave labor. > In small towns, they will often make clerks or low level administrative officials initiate the execution, this is extremely traumatic for someone who normally just works a desk job and happened to have "lever puller" or "button pusher" in their job responsibilities. what do you mean by make? Can they refuse or not?

>>46368 >American prisons are weird. The are Actually Existing Prisons and you reject that on a whim? >Just make them do carpentry or whatever, sell their labor for a price and pay them half. This has to be fought for. Guess what prisoners can't do? Unionise. >American jails are cash machine that lobby for more people to be send in jail for no reason, it's a poor point of comparison. This is precisely why it's great point for comparison. You are describing idealized conditions that don't apply even to free labourers. I don't want to be taken as some random commie, but it seems like there are opposing interests at play between those you work for and those that profit from that work Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA!

>>46380 https://www.wsj.com/business/telecom/13-for-a-video-call-25-for-a-movie-tablets-connect-prisonersat-a-steep-price-53dbf21d >>46379 >In small towns, they will often make clerks or low level administrative officials initiate the execution, this is extremely traumatic for someone who normally just works a desk job and happened to have "lever puller" or "button pusher" in their job responsibilities. This one is really interesting, obviously this is a part of job description, so they can't really refuse. But I'd love to see some resources on that.

>>46379 >In small towns, they will often make clerks or low level administrative officials initiate the execution, this is extremely traumatic for someone who normally just works a desk job and happened to have "lever puller" or "button pusher" in their job responsibilities. I dont know what country you're talking about nor what century but in les United States that's not the case. Executions are done by the governments of the States, not random small towns.

Death is a much more humane thing compare to being stuck in most prisons for years long. If not as a compulsory sentence, people al least should be allowed to volunteer for death instead of spending years in inhumane conditions and then dying there anyway, just later and of "natural" causes.

>>46386 An excerpt from a radio interview https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1137380268 >EISNER: We're in the graveyard of the state penitentiary in Columbia, S.C. The few rusty metal posts that stick out of the grass don't even have names on them, just the five numbers that were assigned to the inmates when they were alive. Baxley used to lead a team that responded to emergencies in the prison that sent its dead here. But to get that role, he says he had to agree to be one of the state's executioners. >BAXLEY: If you don't do this, you won't get the job. So most of us are not making that much money in South Carolina. So most of us are going to say, OK, you know, I'll try it, and then you try it and it's too late. >EISNER: With no medical training and no counseling beforehand, Baxley started executing people, most by lethal injection. BAXLEY: I just basically said a prayer and I went in there. And I had to do a couple of them all by myself and push all seven plungers. >EISNER: That plunger is the tool he used to send the drugs into people's veins. Baxley served in the Marines, but he says the two kinds of jobs weren't the same. >BAXLEY: There's a difference in the killing of a person like this than shooting in a war because they're firing at you and you're firing back. Here, every single one of the death certificates says state-assisted homicide, and the state was me.

>>46388 >make them do it >he literally explicitly signs up and says "sure I'll be an official SC executioner" I think if you sign up to be an executioner you should not be surprised when you are expected to do executions

>>46389 >the cost of the job market It does explain how despite being an unsavory job, some people don't have many options except to society's dirty work.

>>44636 You're all wrong and the original poster is correct, Roberson is innocent. I have to split this post into two sections. >44635 >actually its a quote from a court document that wikipedia reasonably cites. Its a good passage from a paper thats only three pages long so maybe you should give it a read, in a response to a request for an appeal That is the appeal that the court rubber stamped without scrutinizing whatsoever. Texas and the south have a long history of doing this, on numerous occasions innocent people have been executed without the state considering the innocence of the executee e.g Cameron Todd Willingham, Troy Davis, Claude Jones. Reading a 3 page legal document is not a rigorous analysis, you took the court's opinion at face value, without considering the validity of their reasoning. It's laughable. You need to actually read up on a case to know what you're talking about. Roberson's daughter Nikki was born with health issues which ultimately caused her death. Her mother had a history of drug addiction and prostitution. Her mother had two other kids, one had fetal alcohol syndrome, the other had a seizure disorder. Nikki Curtis, from when she was eight days old, until her death when she was two years old, was plagued with recurring infections of her ears, respiratory tract, and sinuses. She had to seek medical aid nearly fifty times over the course of her 27 month life. She was prescribed five different kinds of antibiotics ten different times. She had breathing apnea episodes, in which she would stop breathing and turn blue. She nearly died once because of this and her grandmother had to revive her before taking her to the ER. The week before Nikki's death, she had been suffering severe illness. Vomiting and diarrhea with a fever. She was brought to a hospital on January 28th 2002, where she got prescribed promethazine, which is a respiratory suppressant, and is now barred from being given to young children because it can cause respiratory failure and death especially in the context of a respiratory illness, which the doctors believed Nikki to have had. The doctors said to bring her to a doctor's office or hospital in two days if she didn't improve. The following morning, Nikki had a fever of 103.1°F. Her father, being concerned, brought her to the doctor. There, her tmperature measured at 104.5°F. The doctor assessed her to have a “fever, possible viral etiology or unresolved upper respiratory tract infection” and sent her home with a prescriptions for Omnicef and Phenergan cough syrup with Codeine. Bear in mind that phenergan is promethazine, just under a different name. So, now, she's had two prescriptions of promethazine. After this, Nikki went home with her mom's grandparents, because Roberson couldn't have her at home. But a day later, her grandparents said they couldn't keep her, so she went back with her father, Robert. While with Robert, he reported that she fell around 5am and hit her head and had some blood on her mouth. He wiped off the blood. She seemed fine otherwise, so he didn't seek medical aid. He talked to her until they both fell asleep. He awoke in the morning hours later to find that Nikki was unresponsive with blue lips. He took her straight to the hospital. Upon arrival, her eyes were fixed and dilated, indicative of severe brain damage or brain death. To not go on too long, I'll summarize the causes of her injuries, which you quoted, thinking you had some kind of gotcha moment. The bruising on her body is due to the fact that she had been suffering from disseminated intravascular coagulation, known as DIC, which is a condition that develops when your body depletes all of its blood clotting factors and your blood can no longer clot. When this happens, you can spontaneously hemorrhage internally, you can bleed just about anywhere in your body. Common symptoms are bruising, particularly easy bruising, and bleeding of the parts of the eyes. Nikki had fairly extensive blood paneling performed during her stay at the Dallas Children's Medical Center which proves conclusively that she was suffering from moderate DIC. The most common cause of DIC among infants are infections, but a hit to the head could also precipitate it. It was likely the infection, worsened by the hit to the head. The hospital staff touching her while trying to resuscitate her caused bruises to form on her body. Notably, some bruises, like the one on her cheek, weren't there upon her initial arrival, and that's because the hospital staff touched her face. The torn frenulum was caused by the efforts made to resuscitate her. She was intubated, but the tube only went into one of her lungs, so it had to be re-inserted. Staining analysis of the tissue of her lip proves that the damage was caused during her hospitalization, and not beforehand. Additionally, bruising around her mouth that would suggest physical trauma from abuse was absent, only further disproving the claim of abuse.

>>47043 The retinal hemorrhages, as I said, are common in DIC. However, they also occur in cases of hypoxia. Brain edema is also caused by hypoxia. The hemorrhaging in her brain couldn't have been caused by abuse. She had CT scans of her brain upon arrival at the hospital. These initial scans showed minimal bleeding, which was consistent (as determined by medical experts) with a short fall from bed, as her father reported. However, as time progressed, more and more blood began to pool up in her skull. The reason why was due in part to the DIC. She was continuously bleeding from her blood vessels. Another reason why blood pooled was because her brain was essentially dead, and so it couldn't absorb any new blood, so the blood pumped by her heart to her brain would flow around the brain and pool around between the brain and skull. There were no skull fractures, nor was there any contusion or tissue damage of her brain, which there would have been had she suffered physical abuse. The bump on the back of her head was caused by a pressure monitor that was screwed into her skull and taken out. The coroner didn't know this, because they weren't properly informed upon when they made the autopsy. Nikki also had severe pneumonia, to the point of sepsis. Nikki had levels of promethazine in her bloodstream far exceeding therapeutic levels when she died. The coroner, Dr. Urban, presumed Roberson's guilt, and never took note of any of the key details of Nikki's case. To quote directly: >Dr. Urban subsequently admitted that she did not consider any of the following before deciding cause and manner of death: >Nikki's medical history, including the records of her recent illness the week of her collapse and the drugs that had been prescribed to her by both a pediatrician and an ER doctor; >The local Palestine Regional ER records related to Nikki's admission and treatment the day of her collapse; >The CT scans taken of Nikki's head when she was admitted to the Palestine Regional ER the morning of her collapse; >The EMS records reflecting Nikki's treatment in transport from Palestine to Dallas; >A medical reference book to determine whether Nikki's organs were of an abnormal weight at autopsy (which both the lungs and the brain were); >The scene where Nikki collapsed, including: the fact that the bed where she had been sleeping was a mattress and box springs propped up on cinder blocks; >The expertise of a biomechanical engineer or biomechanical research regarding the injury-potential of short falls; >Data about the potential height, trajectory, or impact surface associated with the reported fall, trajectory of the fall, or the impact surface; >The relevance of Nikki's height, weight, and age to determine whether it was physically possible to generate sufficient force through shaking her to cause any aspect of the condition observed in autopsy; >The washcloth and bedding obtained from the scene containing very small specks of blood; >Any information regarding "promethazine" a drug found in high quantities in Nikki's system, as identified by a toxicology report that Dr. Urban had requested but did not wait for; >All of the intervening medical treatment, transports, and medications that were applied to Nikki after she arrived at the ER the morning of January 31st until she arrived at SWIFS on February 2nd, including having a pressure monitor surgically implanted in her head, causing bruising, and the blood work that showed Nikki had Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation aka DIC, which makes a person especially prone to bruising and internal bleeding. That is why you, like the idiot you are, are looking at all of these injuries and thinking that they came from abuse, when it was really mostly from her treatment. That being said, Nikki Curtis suffered from chronic illness, likely due to being born from an unhealthy mother, seeing as her siblings also suffer chronic conditions. She sadly fell severely ill and didn't receive proper care. She was prescribed drugs that should never have been given to her, given her age, and her illness, but she was anyway. Her infection caused her to develop DIC, and the drugs she was given compromised her ability to breathe. Sometime during the night, she underwent respiratory failure and effectively died since she suffered brain death from hypoxia. She was brought to the hospital, and the medical staff, in their efforts to revive her, caused subtle injuries to her body that could be misconstrued as abuse. The intracranial hemorrhaging, retinal bleeding, and bruises were at the time regarded as signs of Shaken Baby Syndrome. Other possible explanations weren't considered at the time, as there was a dogmatic focus on child abuse being the origin of these symptoms. Things have since changed, and now medical professionals only diagnose Shaken Baby Syndrome after excluding a myriad of other potential causes for those symptoms, and they do this because dozens of parents, much like Roberson, have been exonerated of murdering their children, because their kids were mistakenly diagnosed with Shaken Baby Syndrome. Nikki never had any telltale signs of physical abuse, like fractures. Her brain tissue didn't have any contusions or swelling in spots where it should have been struck, if there was physical abuse. And it's because there was no abuse. Medical staff presumed Roberson's guilt from the beginning. His flat affect (caused by his autism) made them think he didn't care about Nikki. One nurse took it upon herself to examine Nikki for signs of sexual abuse. This nurse wasn't trained to do this and wrongly deduced signs of sexual abuse around her anus, which were actually due to diarrhea and a suppository medication (loperamide). The nurse didn't know her medical history, and so didn't consider any of this. Anyway, I only mention that to illustrate the psychotic levels of suspicion that they had for Roberson. >The defense lawyers' job is to come up with some story to make their guy look innocent or at least less guilty, they'll always come up with some story. That doesn't mean they're right. You said this because you are low IQ and couldnt be bothered to do some actual reading on the case. Instead, you wrote off a man's life, because you're too lazy. Such is the mentality of people who support the death penalty. There's dozens and dozens of cases much like Roberson, of people wrongfully executed, of people still on death row, and of people exonerated from death row.

>1. Should there be a death penalty or not? While I am not opposed to killing people in & of itself, I think that in affluent societies, execution as a punishment is pointless vindictiveness. Poor agrarian societies would hang people for steeling a pig because a whole pig might make the difference between a families' survival and starvation and the village couldn't afford to feed an unproductive prisoner. It was acceptable if the only evidence was the testimony of a handful of eyewitnesses because the risk involved in letting a swine thief go free justified the possibility of hanging an innocent. Nowadays, where we have horrendously expensive courts, and comparatively endless funding for prisons, locking up someone for life is quite possibly less expensive than execution. In such circumstances, I don't see any case for using execution as a criminal punishment. It may be a luxury belief, but in this day & age, the only time the state should be killing a citizen should be if a cop shoots someone to prevent imminent harm. >2. If there is a death penalty, which crimes deserve death as a punishment? In Kuwait, they hang people for selling drugs. I think it depends on the society, but in general crimes that can ruin someone's life permanently could be candidates for capital punishment. >3. How do you prevent wrongful convictions You can't. If you want to have criminal executions, you have to accept that innocents may die, and consider if executions are still worthwhile in spite of this. >4. How should we execute condemend inmates? Who cares? We're going to kill them anyways. Anything that isn't pointlessly brutal will suffice.

no, the state shouldn't have the right to murder people in cold blood. that's an insane amount of power to allow them to have, to let them choose which of their own citizens are allowed to live, regardless of what they did. i'm also against it for religious reasons but that's a whole other conversation, probably. also you're batshit crazy if you think adultery is a crime that should be punishable by death.

I think it should be public for corrupt politicians and billionaires.

If you are more willing to kill the criminals than to preserve the innocent you are sadistic.

I think that the sole purpose of imprisonment should be to prevent the criminal from further crimes, so a life sentence is understandable, whereas capital punishment is complete nonsense because he could very well be innocent. The only exception would be if you think that penalties should be used as a tool of terror, as in, showing other criminals what will happen to them if they commit crimes.

I personally think it boils down to whether or not you believe that the State should have the authority to kill one of its own citizens. Obviously, in times of war or conflict, the answer is pretty simple, though this is intrinsically tied to the State permitting what is essentially sanctioned murder. I go back and forth on this issue pretty frequently, though I think for severe crimes capital punishment is acceptable ONLY when the evidence of the case provides absolute certainty of guilt which should be a much higher bar for the death penalty. Also, whatever janny warned the OP is a moron. OP did not deserve a warning; there are two paragraphs of explanatory text.

>>47144 Killing criminals is one of the best ways to preserve the innocent you moron

>>47146 >I think that the sole purpose of imprisonment should be to prevent the criminal from further crimes capital punishment meets this perfectly. >inb4 could be innocent i mean, the same could be said for someone sentenced to life in prison. are you going to magically refund them 30 years of their life? >showing other criminals what will happen to them if they commit crimes. this is a useful secondary benefit of execution, especially in countries with cozy/rich prisons (e.g: that norway shooter gets a fuarrrking XBOX in his cell) >>47147 >I personally think it boils down to whether or not you believe that the State should have the authority to kill one of its own citizens. For the longest time, I was against it. Personally, I still prefer a state in which state-directed killing is not necessary, but for *modern* states I think the state-directed execution of criminals is a useful tool for certain flagrant cases (mega evil crime, overwhelming evidence, etc.) >>47132 >no, the state shouldn't have the right to murder people in cold blood we agree on that point. this is all about framing. the state eliminating violent, convicted criminals is a form of self-defense; you can argue that it is analogous to an individual killing an armed home-invader, except the in the case of the state the criminal is not just B&E, but has already broken, entered, raped, murdered, and left- zero ambiguity about "what might happen". >that's an insane amount of power to allow them to have, to let them choose which of their own citizens are allowed to live this part used to bother me, but frankly i don't consider serial rapists / murderers to be: - citizens - neighbors - humans so i am OK with their lives being forfeit. >religious reasons probably on-topic enough if you want to share. i've got nothing against a man on death row finding god and praying for forgiveness. >also you're batshit crazy if you think adultery is a crime that should be punishable by death. devil's advocate: a murderer kills one person, and adulterer ruins 1+ families and degrades the culture at large. death penalty is too harsh for a first offense though, stick to something simple like public lashes or caning....

Here is my take: 1. Horseshoe theory is real. People on both ends of the political spectrum are mentally ill and they want to enforce their mental illness on public at large through institutions. 2. Dehumanization of the political opponents is the most important asset of authoritarians to keep their adherents on a leash. 3. Prison system is a for profit entity designed to destroy your life and make you fall back to crime to sustain any income. Doing your time and then fixing your behavior to reintegrate into society is systematically blocked. 4. Stanford prison experiment shows us that even normal people can quickly turn violent if given power and motivation to torture someone.

>>47151 >Stanford prison experiment was very badly done for a whole slew of reasons and shouldn't be considered science at all >prison industrial complex is what you get when you have to balance squeamishness over corporal punishments, unwillingness to enslave, and massive red tape around execution >dehumanization of political opponents Removal and control of threats to the people is the first responsibility of any government >mental illness is a framing to pathologize disagreement

>>47152 >was very badly done for a whole slew of reasons and shouldn't be considered science at all Proof? >unwillingness to enslave Prison industrial complex is modern slavery. >squeamishness over corporal punishments Afghanistan has corporal punishment and yet it is not the paradise you imagine. >and massive red tape around execution ISIS was pretty laissez faire about executions. Do you sympathize with their methods? >Removal and control of threats to the people is the first responsibility of any government That is reframed so frequently it has lost all its meaning. All it does is manufacturing consent. >is a framing to pathologize disagreement Rather it is an observation any sane person would make.

>>47153 >it is an observation any sane person would make That's an unassailable assertion because you can just define anyone who disagrees as insane. Sure there are crazy people on a lot of fringes, saying this doesn't really help anyone understand anything. There are reasonable people who think the status quo is seriously screwed up and you are likely one of them. Does that make you an insane fringe lunatic? >Manufacture consent I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. What is the process by which consent is manufactured here ? My point is that violence is pretty clearly what governments are meant to do. Naturally it should be violence against the right people at the right time etc etc, but this is more important than for instance legislation (which is really just a public proclamation of whom violence will be used against and the process by which it will be decided and how much violence will be used). >isis and afganistan An internal combustion engine burns fuel inside itself, but there are a lot of things that burn fuel inside themselves and are not internal combustion engines, and not all internal combustion engines are great and useful machines. Basically every remotely successful country throughout history has used executions far more liberally and more physical corporal punishment than the US does today and they have not felt need to have massive prison systems. >PIC is modern slavery Can you find good data on the actual economic productivity of these prisons ? My understanding is that most prison labor is not particularly compelled and mostly serves the prison, there is very little economic productivity by these slaves, and sometimes when there is, they are literally paid for it ! How exactly is this slavery? >Stanford Prison Proof? I recall this being a decent article but its been some years since I read it but Ill reread if you want to discuss https://letexier.org/IMG/pdf/LeTexier_Debunking-the-SPE_American-Psychologist_2019.pdf

>>47151 The horseshoe theory is false, the people in the midle are mentally ill people who want to enforce their desilusion upon the world with 0 care about the consequences. It just happen that they already live in the stupid ideal they wish for. The people who claim to not be authoritarian kill people who disagree with them and they wish another tcheka could be created. 99% of prisons worldwide are not for profit but to be the stick in the carrot and stick trick. It's not society job to brainwash you into being a good citizen, only the most extreme authoritarian people think it should be. The Standford experiment is the proof that power should not be given to the common person. It should only come at the price of obligations toward society. >>47153 If slavery as a punishment mean that criminals become asset to society, then it is morally right and opposing it is evil. Corporal punishment don't drain the limiter resources of a society that had already to endure the crime, and unlike jail in many case, it's a good deterrent. It does not make it harder for a person to reintegrate society, unlike jail. Despite having all the material conditions that should have created a Liberia, the ISIS state had 0 criminality. Just don't kill people for religious reasons nor for questioning you, only for the extreme crimes and you have the same result on public safety without the inconvenience of the ISIS state. Eipstein should have been killed in public. What you call manufacturing consent is really the reason why people should accept authority: because it is good for them, the people close to them and the rest of the people. If the presence of the state ensure that I don't get killed, raped or anything else, I am more than willing to pay my taxes for that. It does not. It is open minded and tolerant.

man it really is a wonderful feeling reading about what soykaflibs think is going on in the minds of "authoritarians" and observing them create fantastic tales about how the world works. i say, after the authoritarian freedom-hating oppressive regime comes, we gather all these people and send them to their freedom island so that they can be free and be their own independent strong persons separate from the rest of normal people in society

>>47219 Sounds good to me. Do we get to inherit some of the nuclear arsenal so you can't change your mind later?

>>47220 well i'm pretty sure they'll be able to get access to those nukes by way of non-agressive, non-authoritarian peaceful protesting and hippie make love not war or something slogans. at any rate, as long as these peace loving numb nuts don't have nukes, the rest of the normal world will feel at peace without nukes as well. it's not the liberal democracies that have been historically pushing to stop using nuclear energy for war, you know

>>47219 btw, historically libs and other kinds of metabolism biproducts had fled the authoritarian regime (see russian revolution) before the regime even had the resources to crack down on them or chase them out of the country, so i think there won't be much to be worried about on that front. just gotta make sure to register their reasons for leaving, you know, to be careful when they come back proclaiming they have magically changed their views on the regime in an environment that only reinforces the freedom-hating mass-murdering haricut-banning image of the regime

I believe in the death penalty, but only for people who jerk each other off about how bloodthirsty they are for The Other Side.

>>47222 You got something right at least. I have been doing paperwork since march and I will be gone forever by december. I reckon I will not have too much issues, being trilingual and having the financial means really helps.

>>47224 ok anon. just please don't be a brave hero on twitter making harry potter references. it's kinda cringe and nobody here uses twitter anyway

>>47225 Huh? You having a stroke, or just being underage?

>>47226 i'm making obscure political references

>>47220 >We do not like authority and we oppose everyone who rule by force >And we will enforce our ideals by any length of violence necessary. Sometime, the mask slip.