Call me crazy but the state having a legal method to execute it's own citizens should never stand under any circumstances.

That's why the death penalty should be abolished in any civilized society.

And miss me with the "but what if you know for sure he's guilty..." - they always think they know for sure but hundreds of innocent people have wrongfully been put to death.


🦊 ungovernable

🦊 ungovernable


Agreed. The death penalty should exist for politicians though.


Onward 🫡

Onward 🫡


your heart's in the right place...I'd settle for public humiliation though


this is a problem for nostr in certain kinds of processes too, there is an active issue on the nips repo right now for locking a key... but you really can't lock, first of all, many relays don't even delete, as if they are going to do anything about keys that have been canceled

shoot in the heat of the moment but otherwise if you are sure make sure that they are locked away for multiple "life sentences" (life=25y btw, standard penalty for murder in most countries, even bulgaria)


Nice

Nice


Normalize the tarring and feathering of politicians, again.


I'm cool with no death penalty..in exchange do not use my money stolen through taxes to house or feed them. Deal?


Have heard an interesting, albeit harsh, take on this topic.
Violent criminals tend to be of lower intelligence and death sentence for violent crime (whether imposed by large or small govt) was a form of herd culling that raised IQ


Its pointless. Politicians are shameless. They'll go to shows like "I'm a celebrity get me out of here" to eat kangaroo dick and win the favour of the sheep.

And I'm pretty sure it works.


In my heart of hearts I feel that pedophiles and malicious rapists / murderers should be eradicated from society. But the error factor in finding guilt and the government control of the system make it a no from me (dawg)


Shame! Shame…A la Cersei Lannister


I’d like to see them eradicated by reformation rather than obliteration. Not sure the current level of human consciousness is ready to allow that as a possibility.


It’s been well documented that reformation is largely ineffective.

There are evil people. It’s pathological in that .01% and I think those that kill and rape for fun children can rarely (if ever) really be reformed. And I believe that those people deserve to be killed for their actions.


A logical position that many hold. I think we can do better, even if we haven’t been successful at it yet.


I admire the willingness to try. Personally I feel the sociopaths / psychopaths only take advantage of people and programs with your ethos but it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Working towards civilized resolutions is a good goal.

I do think that a sound money standard would reduce many types of petty crime and the criminal culture would be greatly disincentivized. But I do not think sound money would get rid of the rare but hyper-destructive psychopaths and sociopaths who do get pleasure from the pain and suffering of others.


To be clear, I believe justice is necessary. It clearly doesn’t work to roll over and let abusive humans perpetuate violence on defenseless humans.

I think our current systems equate justice with violence. I don’t think they are the same.

So we need a new paradigm for dispensing justice without perpetuating violence. Systems that more accurately reflect value (BTC) seem like a good place to start.

I’ve got lots of questions and very few answers. Thanks for being willing to thoughtfully engage.


Violence isn’t necessarily bad. All violence is is the enforcement of your will over another’s, commonly requiring force or threat thereof.


I tend to lean toward individual sovereignty as the ideal. In my view, evil occurs when I force another to comply to my will, as I have set myself up as their god, judging that they should live by my ideals.

Two areas I can think of where this gets tricky are with young children who depend on others to keep them safe, and in matters of self defense. In matters between adults who are respectful of each others’ bodily autonomy I struggle to find a case where violence is justified.

I welcome your thoughts on the matter.


Violence is one of the langue’s of nature…


2 wrongs DO NOT make a right... Also, the second wasted life could have been used to attempt to repay the family of the first... Certainly not gulag, work till you drop kind of labor, but this hotel 3 squares a day is a bit much... Plus they learn nothing to reform their poor decisions that led to someone's death... Also it sets the precedent, that it's OK for some people to kill other people, if they're in the right class of society... No matter how complicated the rube goldberg execution machine is...  Also, abolishing the death penalty is probably not the answer either.  I say restructure it. Make it functional... Let the "utopians" who love to do centralized planning, experiment here instead of on the general populace.  Test the next "vaccine" on death row, instead of every newborn baby.  Of course it needs to be "voluntary-ish" without any Mengele type experiments... Maybe this is too far, but the current "early-retirement", corporate run, gang incubators have got to stop.  We've got enough movie material now...


I find being locked for the rest of your life and ending up wasted far worse than just ending it immediately


Defense can be violence. If one attempts to kill me, I will enforce my desire to remain alive through lawful application of force. My violence is justifiable…even if it results in death. But even the law recognizes such defense as violence. One must provide an affirmative defense as to why taking a life was lawful.


Putting the death penalty in the frame that it's a legal way for a state to execute its citizens really puts things into perspective...


This one is tricky for me. I feel the tension between the physical impulse to preserve my own life with the desire to be the one that violence ends with. Not that I will end all violence, but that I will not respond to violence with violence, even if it costs me my life.


This is a complex issue: whether one has a duty to preserve life in the face of a lethal aggressor or is there something good about refraining from enforcing one’s desire to live.

I see aggression as something to be resisted by all those capable. I feel defending self and others against aggression is a duty, both a moral duty and  a civic duty. Our bill of rights agrees it’s a civic duty almost explicitly and implies it’s a moral one as well.