566
gotta step up our game fr (thelemmy.club)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.ca
117 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 4 months ago (5 children)

No, that's not my argument at all. I agree with the utilitarian argument that imprisonment is better than the death penalty.

What I'm saying is that every moral argument against the death penalty can also be applied to life imprisonment. If you justify your anti-death penalty stance on the moral argument ("innocent people will die", as the first person I replied to said), then it is a slippery slope to a prison abolitionist position.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    What I’m saying is that every moral argument against the death penalty can also be applied to life imprisonment.

    So you ARE equating living life in confinement with literal death. This is where we disagree. Death and imprisonment are not at all the same or equal.

    Imprisonment sucks, yes, but thats part of a crime and punishment system. Death does not need to be part of that system. How hard is that to accept?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    It's not about acceptance, it's about the underlying logic. You can assert your position all day, I'm asking why.

    Why don't you say "Punishment sucks, yes, but that's part of a crime prevention system. Imprisonment does not need to be a part of that system. How hard is that to accept"?

    Or why don't you say "death sucks, yes, but that's part of a crime and punishment system. How hard is that to accept"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Because we do not need to execute people, but we do need to imprison some.

    Why is it that when I say 'we shouldnt kill people' you say 'then why even lock them up?'

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Because every moral argument that can be applied to the death penalty can also be applied to imprisonment. I think we're going in a circle here.

    The system you support imprisons thousands of innocent people, many of them for life. How do you morally justify this? Is it just a trolley problem for you, and the innocent people rotting to death in prison are just the unfortunate ones tied to the tracks, and they must die for the good of the system?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago

    Because every moral argument that can be applied to the death penalty can also be applied to imprisonment.

    No I disagree. The goal is simple and specific: stop wrongful executions.

    You can say "well also other stuff is bad" sure, thats not the point here. the point is that we make ONE change and save lives. Stop executions. No other changes are required. The system, the facilities, the employees, everything else already exists to facilitate this.

    So while there are MANY other improvements that can be made to the justice system this is ONE SINGLE SIMPLE change that WOULD ABSOLUTELY save lives.

    Why havent we done it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent