Patatitta wrote:

I mean, let's say, you have a murderer, a very bad person, you have a couple options, you could just put it in a prision, maybe maximum security, nothing bad will ever happen with this, they will be an indifinite ammount of years in there, it's a fair response

or, you could apply a death sentence, and in the way you're saying, so, the most painful one you can get

if you have an option where you can basically punish a murderer, with a slightly more human solution, that doesn't really cost you anything as a person, why would you go the other route?, why would you repeat the same crime that the criminal is being punished for, when you have the option not to?, isn't having an alternative to not murder someone, and to do it anyway as bad as the crime that person commited?

I dont think there is any situation where 1 would be ever justifiable

Arctos Sagittario wrote:

still, potential criminals would think twice with extreme consequence, worse than death alone, worse than losing nothing but freedom. thing is, hell won't even strike fear anymore if all they have is lifelong inprisonment or painless death

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

I mean, let's say, you have a murderer, a very bad person, you have a couple options, you could just put it in a prision, maybe maximum security, nothing bad will ever happen with this, they will be an indifinite ammount of years in there, it's a fair response

or, you could apply a death sentence, and in the way you're saying, so, the most painful one you can get

if you have an option where you can basically punish a murderer, with a slightly more human solution, that doesn't really cost you anything as a person, why would you go the other route?, why would you repeat the same crime that the criminal is being punished for, when you have the option not to?, isn't having an alternative to not murder someone, and to do it anyway as bad as the crime that person commited?

I dont think there is any situation where 1 would be ever justifiable

1. Criminals don’t produce GDP
2. Criminals are fed with citizens’ taxes

Which means that: The criminal has committed something really bad, and after being caught, lives a good rest of their life (because humanitarianism), and eats up public money that could’ve been put into more productive things.

Besides, it also means that capitalists and potentially gang leaders can get themselves out of prison even if they commit the worst crimes. They can also just put bars around their bedroom and declare it a private prison and basically live a normal life (if they’re in the US).

Patatitta wrote:

Arctos Sagittario wrote:

still, potential criminals would think twice with extreme consequence, worse than death alone, worse than losing nothing but freedom. thing is, hell won't even strike fear anymore if all they have is lifelong inprisonment or painless death

no one wants to be in live sentence as much as they dont want to die, I dont think it would matter much

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

I mean, let's say, you have a murderer, a very bad person, you have a couple options, you could just put it in a prision, maybe maximum security, nothing bad will ever happen with this, they will be an indifinite ammount of years in there, it's a fair response

or, you could apply a death sentence, and in the way you're saying, so, the most painful one you can get

if you have an option where you can basically punish a murderer, with a slightly more human solution, that doesn't really cost you anything as a person, why would you go the other route?, why would you repeat the same crime that the criminal is being punished for, when you have the option not to?, isn't having an alternative to not murder someone, and to do it anyway as bad as the crime that person commited?

I dont think there is any situation where 1 would be ever justifiable

1. Criminals don’t produce GDP
2. Criminals are fed with citizens’ taxes

Which means that: The criminal has committed something really bad, and after being caught, lives a good rest of their life (because humanitarianism), and eats up public money that could’ve been put into more productive things.

Besides, it also means that capitalists and potentially gang leaders can get themselves out of prison even if they commit the worst crimes. They can also just put bars around their bedroom and declare it a private prison and basically live a normal life (if they’re in the US).

criminals actually do produce a lot of the united states economy thanks to a thing known as slavery, the no slavery thing applies to everyone BUT criminals, so they kinda just force them to do inhuman work and produce lots of money, slavery is also bad, but even in more human conditions, they DO produce GDP

the last thing is just a problem with the prision system, which camn be fixed without urdering more people, just, increase sentnce until old age where they dont have the physical strength to commit the crimes again, and remove house arrest, as I said, there are simpler alternatives that dont require literal murder

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

Arctos Sagittario wrote:

still, potential criminals would think twice with extreme consequence, worse than death alone, worse than losing nothing but freedom. thing is, hell won't even strike fear anymore if all they have is lifelong inprisonment or painless death

no one wants to be in live sentence as much as they dont want to die, I dont think it would matter much

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

I mean, let's say, you have a murderer, a very bad person, you have a couple options, you could just put it in a prision, maybe maximum security, nothing bad will ever happen with this, they will be an indifinite ammount of years in there, it's a fair response

or, you could apply a death sentence, and in the way you're saying, so, the most painful one you can get

if you have an option where you can basically punish a murderer, with a slightly more human solution, that doesn't really cost you anything as a person, why would you go the other route?, why would you repeat the same crime that the criminal is being punished for, when you have the option not to?, isn't having an alternative to not murder someone, and to do it anyway as bad as the crime that person commited?

I dont think there is any situation where 1 would be ever justifiable

1. Criminals don’t produce GDP
2. Criminals are fed with citizens’ taxes

Which means that: The criminal has committed something really bad, and after being caught, lives a good rest of their life (because humanitarianism), and eats up public money that could’ve been put into more productive things.

Besides, it also means that capitalists and potentially gang leaders can get themselves out of prison even if they commit the worst crimes. They can also just put bars around their bedroom and declare it a private prison and basically live a normal life (if they’re in the US).

criminals actually do produce a lot of the united states economy thanks to a thing known as slavery, the no slavery thing applies to everyone BUT criminals, so they kinda just force them to do inhuman work and produce lots of money, slavery is also bad, but even in more human conditions, they DO produce GDP

the last thing is just a problem with the prision system, which camn be fixed without urdering more people, just, increase sentnce until old age where they dont have the physical strength to commit the crimes again, and remove house arrest, as I said, there are simpler alternatives that dont require literal murder

I think you’re missing an important point here since I added to my post. Also US isn’t the world.

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

2 and 3 is stuff almost everyone agrees with.

As for 1, if you mean criminals who did horrendous stuff like child grooming, then I would personally agree.

Patatitta wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

Arctos Sagittario wrote:

still, potential criminals would think twice with extreme consequence, worse than death alone, worse than losing nothing but freedom. thing is, hell won't even strike fear anymore if all they have is lifelong inprisonment or painless death

no one wants to be in live sentence as much as they dont want to die, I dont think it would matter much

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

I mean, let's say, you have a murderer, a very bad person, you have a couple options, you could just put it in a prision, maybe maximum security, nothing bad will ever happen with this, they will be an indifinite ammount of years in there, it's a fair response

or, you could apply a death sentence, and in the way you're saying, so, the most painful one you can get

if you have an option where you can basically punish a murderer, with a slightly more human solution, that doesn't really cost you anything as a person, why would you go the other route?, why would you repeat the same crime that the criminal is being punished for, when you have the option not to?, isn't having an alternative to not murder someone, and to do it anyway as bad as the crime that person commited?

I dont think there is any situation where 1 would be ever justifiable

1. Criminals don’t produce GDP
2. Criminals are fed with citizens’ taxes

Which means that: The criminal has committed something really bad, and after being caught, lives a good rest of their life (because humanitarianism), and eats up public money that could’ve been put into more productive things.

Besides, it also means that capitalists and potentially gang leaders can get themselves out of prison even if they commit the worst crimes. They can also just put bars around their bedroom and declare it a private prison and basically live a normal life (if they’re in the US).

criminals actually do produce a lot of the united states economy thanks to a thing known as slavery, the no slavery thing applies to everyone BUT criminals, so they kinda just force them to do inhuman work and produce lots of money, slavery is also bad, but even in more human conditions, they DO produce GDP

the last thing is just a problem with the prision system, which camn be fixed without urdering more people, just, increase sentnce until old age where they dont have the physical strength to commit the crimes again, and remove house arrest, as I said, there are simpler alternatives that dont require literal murder

I think you’re missing an important point here since I added to my post. Also US isn’t the world.

US is not the world, but it's an example on how you can make it work without murdering people, you can get a criminal to live a not good life and produce tons of money, which I think we can agree it's ideal. And if you have an opportunity to not kill someone, and you decide to kill anyways, that's as bad as killing for no real reason at all

also, what point am I missing, i've reread your post and I dont see anything

Patatitta wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

Arctos Sagittario wrote:

still, potential criminals would think twice with extreme consequence, worse than death alone, worse than losing nothing but freedom. thing is, hell won't even strike fear anymore if all they have is lifelong inprisonment or painless death

no one wants to be in live sentence as much as they dont want to die, I dont think it would matter much

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

I mean, let's say, you have a murderer, a very bad person, you have a couple options, you could just put it in a prision, maybe maximum security, nothing bad will ever happen with this, they will be an indifinite ammount of years in there, it's a fair response

or, you could apply a death sentence, and in the way you're saying, so, the most painful one you can get

if you have an option where you can basically punish a murderer, with a slightly more human solution, that doesn't really cost you anything as a person, why would you go the other route?, why would you repeat the same crime that the criminal is being punished for, when you have the option not to?, isn't having an alternative to not murder someone, and to do it anyway as bad as the crime that person commited?

I dont think there is any situation where 1 would be ever justifiable

1. Criminals don’t produce GDP
2. Criminals are fed with citizens’ taxes

Which means that: The criminal has committed something really bad, and after being caught, lives a good rest of their life (because humanitarianism), and eats up public money that could’ve been put into more productive things.

Besides, it also means that capitalists and potentially gang leaders can get themselves out of prison even if they commit the worst crimes. They can also just put bars around their bedroom and declare it a private prison and basically live a normal life (if they’re in the US).

criminals actually do produce a lot of the united states economy thanks to a thing known as slavery, the no slavery thing applies to everyone BUT criminals, so they kinda just force them to do inhuman work and produce lots of money, slavery is also bad, but even in more human conditions, they DO produce GDP

the last thing is just a problem with the prision system, which camn be fixed without urdering more people, just, increase sentnce until old age where they dont have the physical strength to commit the crimes again, and remove house arrest, as I said, there are simpler alternatives that dont require literal murder

I think you’re missing an important point here since I added to my post. Also US isn’t the world.

US is not the world, but it's an example on how you can make it work without murdering people, you can get a criminal to live a not good life and produce tons of money, which I think we can agree it's ideal. And if you have an opportunity to not kill someone, and you decide to kill anyways, that's as bad as killing for no real reason at all

also, what point am I missing, i've reread your post and I dont see anything

Ok my point is: Live sentences are way less effective than death sentences at reducing crime and punishing criminals. People with enough influence and/or money can get themselves out and keep harming society.

I just think that is a institutional problem as a whole, fixing only 1 consequence of that is missing the point, no one should have that much power to begin with where they can just avoid laws and punishments, you can maybe make sure they never go outside again sure, but still, we're talking that if not for literal killing, those people have the power to do whatever they please, isn't that the problem we should strive to fix instead?

WitherMite wrote:

my problem with one is that the burden of proof would need to be unreasonably high to make absolutely sure we don't horribly punish innocent people, meaning that either less guilty people would be caught, or we'd have to accept that sometimes we will put an innocent to torture/death. Its also impossible to never have any false convictions.

I value protecting innocent people higher than punishing the evil, by lowering the punishment (especially no death penalty) there's a chance for innocents to be exonerated in the future.

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

Arctos Sagittario wrote:

still, potential criminals would think twice with extreme consequence, worse than death alone, worse than losing nothing but freedom. thing is, hell won't even strike fear anymore if all they have is lifelong inprisonment or painless death

no one wants to be in live sentence as much as they dont want to die, I dont think it would matter much

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

I mean, let's say, you have a murderer, a very bad person, you have a couple options, you could just put it in a prision, maybe maximum security, nothing bad will ever happen with this, they will be an indifinite ammount of years in there, it's a fair response

or, you could apply a death sentence, and in the way you're saying, so, the most painful one you can get

if you have an option where you can basically punish a murderer, with a slightly more human solution, that doesn't really cost you anything as a person, why would you go the other route?, why would you repeat the same crime that the criminal is being punished for, when you have the option not to?, isn't having an alternative to not murder someone, and to do it anyway as bad as the crime that person commited?

I dont think there is any situation where 1 would be ever justifiable

1. Criminals don’t produce GDP
2. Criminals are fed with citizens’ taxes

Which means that: The criminal has committed something really bad, and after being caught, lives a good rest of their life (because humanitarianism), and eats up public money that could’ve been put into more productive things.

Besides, it also means that capitalists and potentially gang leaders can get themselves out of prison even if they commit the worst crimes. They can also just put bars around their bedroom and declare it a private prison and basically live a normal life (if they’re in the US).

criminals actually do produce a lot of the united states economy thanks to a thing known as slavery, the no slavery thing applies to everyone BUT criminals, so they kinda just force them to do inhuman work and produce lots of money, slavery is also bad, but even in more human conditions, they DO produce GDP

the last thing is just a problem with the prision system, which camn be fixed without urdering more people, just, increase sentnce until old age where they dont have the physical strength to commit the crimes again, and remove house arrest, as I said, there are simpler alternatives that dont require literal murder

I think you’re missing an important point here since I added to my post. Also US isn’t the world.

US is not the world, but it's an example on how you can make it work without murdering people, you can get a criminal to live a not good life and produce tons of money, which I think we can agree it's ideal. And if you have an opportunity to not kill someone, and you decide to kill anyways, that's as bad as killing for no real reason at all

also, what point am I missing, i've reread your post and I dont see anything

Ok my point is: Live sentences are way less effective than death sentences at reducing crime and punishing criminals. People with enough influence and/or money can get themselves out and keep harming society.

I just think that is a institutional problem as a whole, fixing only 1 consequence of that is missing the point, no one should have that much power to begin with where they can just avoid laws and punishments, you can maybe make sure they never go outside again sure, but still, we're talking that if not for literal killing, those people have the power to do whatever they please, isn't that the problem we should strive to fix instead?

No one should have that much power is a problem. Some people do and mostly the bad ones.

Following your idea, I think changing execution to forced slavery under just livable conditions for the rest of their life would actually be a very good way to solve this. No actually I think it would be one of the best ways. Not only it makes people fear the consequence but that also produces some value in the economy.

WitherMite wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

Arctos Sagittario wrote:

still, potential criminals would think twice with extreme consequence, worse than death alone, worse than losing nothing but freedom. thing is, hell won't even strike fear anymore if all they have is lifelong inprisonment or painless death

no one wants to be in live sentence as much as they dont want to die, I dont think it would matter much

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

I mean, let's say, you have a murderer, a very bad person, you have a couple options, you could just put it in a prision, maybe maximum security, nothing bad will ever happen with this, they will be an indifinite ammount of years in there, it's a fair response

or, you could apply a death sentence, and in the way you're saying, so, the most painful one you can get

if you have an option where you can basically punish a murderer, with a slightly more human solution, that doesn't really cost you anything as a person, why would you go the other route?, why would you repeat the same crime that the criminal is being punished for, when you have the option not to?, isn't having an alternative to not murder someone, and to do it anyway as bad as the crime that person commited?

I dont think there is any situation where 1 would be ever justifiable

1. Criminals don’t produce GDP
2. Criminals are fed with citizens’ taxes

Which means that: The criminal has committed something really bad, and after being caught, lives a good rest of their life (because humanitarianism), and eats up public money that could’ve been put into more productive things.

Besides, it also means that capitalists and potentially gang leaders can get themselves out of prison even if they commit the worst crimes. They can also just put bars around their bedroom and declare it a private prison and basically live a normal life (if they’re in the US).

criminals actually do produce a lot of the united states economy thanks to a thing known as slavery, the no slavery thing applies to everyone BUT criminals, so they kinda just force them to do inhuman work and produce lots of money, slavery is also bad, but even in more human conditions, they DO produce GDP

the last thing is just a problem with the prision system, which camn be fixed without urdering more people, just, increase sentnce until old age where they dont have the physical strength to commit the crimes again, and remove house arrest, as I said, there are simpler alternatives that dont require literal murder

I think you’re missing an important point here since I added to my post. Also US isn’t the world.

US is not the world, but it's an example on how you can make it work without murdering people, you can get a criminal to live a not good life and produce tons of money, which I think we can agree it's ideal. And if you have an opportunity to not kill someone, and you decide to kill anyways, that's as bad as killing for no real reason at all

also, what point am I missing, i've reread your post and I dont see anything

Ok my point is: Live sentences are way less effective than death sentences at reducing crime and punishing criminals. People with enough influence and/or money can get themselves out and keep harming society.

I just think that is a institutional problem as a whole, fixing only 1 consequence of that is missing the point, no one should have that much power to begin with where they can just avoid laws and punishments, you can maybe make sure they never go outside again sure, but still, we're talking that if not for literal killing, those people have the power to do whatever they please, isn't that the problem we should strive to fix instead?

No one should have that much power is a problem. Some people do and mostly the bad ones.

Following your idea, I think changing execution to forced slavery under just livable conditions for the rest of their life would actually be a very good way to solve this. No actually I think it would be one of the best ways. Not only it makes people fear the consequence but that also produces some value in the economy.

This is exactly what the us does, doesn't seem to be working out too well, since the objective becomes to get more people in prison to earn more money, leading to corruption in the system.

fear also doesn't keep people from doing crimes

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

Arctos Sagittario wrote:

still, potential criminals would think twice with extreme consequence, worse than death alone, worse than losing nothing but freedom. thing is, hell won't even strike fear anymore if all they have is lifelong inprisonment or painless death

no one wants to be in live sentence as much as they dont want to die, I dont think it would matter much

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

I mean, let's say, you have a murderer, a very bad person, you have a couple options, you could just put it in a prision, maybe maximum security, nothing bad will ever happen with this, they will be an indifinite ammount of years in there, it's a fair response

or, you could apply a death sentence, and in the way you're saying, so, the most painful one you can get

if you have an option where you can basically punish a murderer, with a slightly more human solution, that doesn't really cost you anything as a person, why would you go the other route?, why would you repeat the same crime that the criminal is being punished for, when you have the option not to?, isn't having an alternative to not murder someone, and to do it anyway as bad as the crime that person commited?

I dont think there is any situation where 1 would be ever justifiable

1. Criminals don’t produce GDP
2. Criminals are fed with citizens’ taxes

Which means that: The criminal has committed something really bad, and after being caught, lives a good rest of their life (because humanitarianism), and eats up public money that could’ve been put into more productive things.

Besides, it also means that capitalists and potentially gang leaders can get themselves out of prison even if they commit the worst crimes. They can also just put bars around their bedroom and declare it a private prison and basically live a normal life (if they’re in the US).

criminals actually do produce a lot of the united states economy thanks to a thing known as slavery, the no slavery thing applies to everyone BUT criminals, so they kinda just force them to do inhuman work and produce lots of money, slavery is also bad, but even in more human conditions, they DO produce GDP

the last thing is just a problem with the prision system, which camn be fixed without urdering more people, just, increase sentnce until old age where they dont have the physical strength to commit the crimes again, and remove house arrest, as I said, there are simpler alternatives that dont require literal murder

I think you’re missing an important point here since I added to my post. Also US isn’t the world.

US is not the world, but it's an example on how you can make it work without murdering people, you can get a criminal to live a not good life and produce tons of money, which I think we can agree it's ideal. And if you have an opportunity to not kill someone, and you decide to kill anyways, that's as bad as killing for no real reason at all

also, what point am I missing, i've reread your post and I dont see anything

Ok my point is: Live sentences are way less effective than death sentences at reducing crime and punishing criminals. People with enough influence and/or money can get themselves out and keep harming society.

I just think that is a institutional problem as a whole, fixing only 1 consequence of that is missing the point, no one should have that much power to begin with where they can just avoid laws and punishments, you can maybe make sure they never go outside again sure, but still, we're talking that if not for literal killing, those people have the power to do whatever they please, isn't that the problem we should strive to fix instead?

No one should have that much power is a problem. Some people do and mostly the bad ones.

Following your idea, I think changing execution to forced slavery under just livable conditions for the rest of their life would actually be a very good way to solve this. No actually I think it would be one of the best ways. Not only it makes people fear the consequence but that also produces some value in the economy.

WitherMite wrote:

my problem with one is that the burden of proof would need to be unreasonably high to make absolutely sure we don't horribly punish innocent people, meaning that either less guilty people would be caught, or we'd have to accept that sometimes we will put an innocent to torture/death. Its also impossible to never have any false convictions.

I value protecting innocent people higher than punishing the evil, by lowering the punishment (especially no death penalty) there's a chance for innocents to be exonerated in the future.

Patatitta wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

Arctos Sagittario wrote:

still, potential criminals would think twice with extreme consequence, worse than death alone, worse than losing nothing but freedom. thing is, hell won't even strike fear anymore if all they have is lifelong inprisonment or painless death

no one wants to be in live sentence as much as they dont want to die, I dont think it would matter much

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

I mean, let's say, you have a murderer, a very bad person, you have a couple options, you could just put it in a prision, maybe maximum security, nothing bad will ever happen with this, they will be an indifinite ammount of years in there, it's a fair response

or, you could apply a death sentence, and in the way you're saying, so, the most painful one you can get

if you have an option where you can basically punish a murderer, with a slightly more human solution, that doesn't really cost you anything as a person, why would you go the other route?, why would you repeat the same crime that the criminal is being punished for, when you have the option not to?, isn't having an alternative to not murder someone, and to do it anyway as bad as the crime that person commited?

I dont think there is any situation where 1 would be ever justifiable

1. Criminals don’t produce GDP
2. Criminals are fed with citizens’ taxes

Which means that: The criminal has committed something really bad, and after being caught, lives a good rest of their life (because humanitarianism), and eats up public money that could’ve been put into more productive things.

Besides, it also means that capitalists and potentially gang leaders can get themselves out of prison even if they commit the worst crimes. They can also just put bars around their bedroom and declare it a private prison and basically live a normal life (if they’re in the US).

criminals actually do produce a lot of the united states economy thanks to a thing known as slavery, the no slavery thing applies to everyone BUT criminals, so they kinda just force them to do inhuman work and produce lots of money, slavery is also bad, but even in more human conditions, they DO produce GDP

the last thing is just a problem with the prision system, which camn be fixed without urdering more people, just, increase sentnce until old age where they dont have the physical strength to commit the crimes again, and remove house arrest, as I said, there are simpler alternatives that dont require literal murder

I think you’re missing an important point here since I added to my post. Also US isn’t the world.

US is not the world, but it's an example on how you can make it work without murdering people, you can get a criminal to live a not good life and produce tons of money, which I think we can agree it's ideal. And if you have an opportunity to not kill someone, and you decide to kill anyways, that's as bad as killing for no real reason at all

also, what point am I missing, i've reread your post and I dont see anything

Ok my point is: Live sentences are way less effective than death sentences at reducing crime and punishing criminals. People with enough influence and/or money can get themselves out and keep harming society.

I just think that is a institutional problem as a whole, fixing only 1 consequence of that is missing the point, no one should have that much power to begin with where they can just avoid laws and punishments, you can maybe make sure they never go outside again sure, but still, we're talking that if not for literal killing, those people have the power to do whatever they please, isn't that the problem we should strive to fix instead?

No one should have that much power is a problem. Some people do and mostly the bad ones.

Following your idea, I think changing execution to forced slavery under just livable conditions for the rest of their life would actually be a very good way to solve this. No actually I think it would be one of the best ways. Not only it makes people fear the consequence but that also produces some value in the economy.

this is not an ideal solution, as I said before, slavery is bad, but it's better than killing people I guess

WitherMite wrote:

my problem with one is that the burden of proof would need to be unreasonably high to make absolutely sure we don't horribly punish innocent people, meaning that either less guilty people would be caught, or we'd have to accept that sometimes we will put an innocent to torture/death. Its also impossible to never have any false convictions.

I value protecting innocent people higher than punishing the evil, by lowering the punishment (especially no death penalty) there's a chance for innocents to be exonerated in the future.

this is true, a lot of people sentenced to death currently ends up being innocent, which is absolutely crazy

WitherMite wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

Arctos Sagittario wrote:

still, potential criminals would think twice with extreme consequence, worse than death alone, worse than losing nothing but freedom. thing is, hell won't even strike fear anymore if all they have is lifelong inprisonment or painless death

no one wants to be in live sentence as much as they dont want to die, I dont think it would matter much

YyottaCat wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

I mean, let's say, you have a murderer, a very bad person, you have a couple options, you could just put it in a prision, maybe maximum security, nothing bad will ever happen with this, they will be an indifinite ammount of years in there, it's a fair response

or, you could apply a death sentence, and in the way you're saying, so, the most painful one you can get

if you have an option where you can basically punish a murderer, with a slightly more human solution, that doesn't really cost you anything as a person, why would you go the other route?, why would you repeat the same crime that the criminal is being punished for, when you have the option not to?, isn't having an alternative to not murder someone, and to do it anyway as bad as the crime that person commited?

I dont think there is any situation where 1 would be ever justifiable

1. Criminals don’t produce GDP
2. Criminals are fed with citizens’ taxes

Which means that: The criminal has committed something really bad, and after being caught, lives a good rest of their life (because humanitarianism), and eats up public money that could’ve been put into more productive things.

Besides, it also means that capitalists and potentially gang leaders can get themselves out of prison even if they commit the worst crimes. They can also just put bars around their bedroom and declare it a private prison and basically live a normal life (if they’re in the US).

criminals actually do produce a lot of the united states economy thanks to a thing known as slavery, the no slavery thing applies to everyone BUT criminals, so they kinda just force them to do inhuman work and produce lots of money, slavery is also bad, but even in more human conditions, they DO produce GDP

the last thing is just a problem with the prision system, which camn be fixed without urdering more people, just, increase sentnce until old age where they dont have the physical strength to commit the crimes again, and remove house arrest, as I said, there are simpler alternatives that dont require literal murder

I think you’re missing an important point here since I added to my post. Also US isn’t the world.

US is not the world, but it's an example on how you can make it work without murdering people, you can get a criminal to live a not good life and produce tons of money, which I think we can agree it's ideal. And if you have an opportunity to not kill someone, and you decide to kill anyways, that's as bad as killing for no real reason at all

also, what point am I missing, i've reread your post and I dont see anything

Ok my point is: Live sentences are way less effective than death sentences at reducing crime and punishing criminals. People with enough influence and/or money can get themselves out and keep harming society.

I just think that is a institutional problem as a whole, fixing only 1 consequence of that is missing the point, no one should have that much power to begin with where they can just avoid laws and punishments, you can maybe make sure they never go outside again sure, but still, we're talking that if not for literal killing, those people have the power to do whatever they please, isn't that the problem we should strive to fix instead?

No one should have that much power is a problem. Some people do and mostly the bad ones.

Following your idea, I think changing execution to forced slavery under just livable conditions for the rest of their life would actually be a very good way to solve this. No actually I think it would be one of the best ways. Not only it makes people fear the consequence but that also produces some value in the economy.

This is exactly what the us does, doesn't seem to be working out too well, since the objective becomes to get more people in prison to earn more money, leading to corruption in the system.

fear also doesn't keep people from doing crimes

YyottaCat wrote:

@GMT Lock please.

YyottaCat wrote:

@GMT Lock please.