this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
133 points (76.7% liked)

politics

19080 readers
3628 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'd argue that waiting 80-100 years is much more humane and just as effective

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Is it humane to spend those resources on a prisoner instead of redirecting the funds to a social program? We've already decided we're going to remove these people from society. The Internet says it costs about $100 a day to house a minimum security prisoner, or around $3k a month. That could feed 20 people for a month.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's a lot more humane than killing them and later finding evidence that the conviction was a mistake. Unless you know a necromancer, keeping the most heinous offenders in prison for life is the most we can do.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

I’m against capital punishment but you’re way off track here, missing the forest for the trees lol

you act like every case could go either way at any time. There are many where their crimes are unquestionable. In that case, is nitrogen more humane than keeping them locked in a box until they die? Sucking up funds that could help actual innocent people in need? That is the point being made here

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Once again: it is cheaper to house a prisoner for life than to execute one.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's only cheaper because of the enormous costs and inefficiencies baked into our justice system. The costs of executing someone come down to court costs, not the tangible resources that the prisoner takes up.

Funny enough, a lot of these appeals and investigations only cost so much and go on for so long because of the initial poor quality of police actions.

It's like being released after 20 years on DNA evidence that was never checked initially, or where someone was convicted of rape but never positively identified by the accuser. A procedural fuckup costs millions blown in court, prison, and settlement costs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

So your argument is that we should make state sanctioned murder faster and have fewer appeals? Perhaps those low quality Police officers should just be empowered to.... oh fuck we already did that

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Yeah... except the mistakes look like slam dunks. The very definition of a false positive.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

It's cheaper to house a prisoner for life than to execute one.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Or you know... both?