“Kenny just began to gasp for air repeatedly and the execution took about 25 minutes total.”

Pretty compassionate way to kill a person.

Once again, the Law in the south is brutal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 82 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (7 children)

The state tells you murder is illegal. Except when the state does it. You can't expect people to follow, "do what I say, not what I do."

It's cruel, it's a reflection of our morals. The death penalty is not a deterrent for murder. The death penalty is hypocrisy. The death penalty is for an unserious society.

But the death penalty is just a symptom of a greater chronic illness we suffer from. We'll just continue to kill ourselves until we find a cure for the disease.

Edit: I see many do not like my wording for state sanctioned murder. If you are reading this and don't understand, imagine if listening to George Bush (can't remember which) tell the tv America doesn't negotiate with terrorists. He's drawing a moral line in the sand with terrorism. That's my point. We need to figure out where our moral line in the sand is with the death penalty, because right now it's all over the place. Do I think outlawing the death penalty will solve our societal woes? No, I do not. The people will demand it until it is reinstated. For me I ask what is the purpose of the death penalty? Does it serve a greater good for a society? Obviously it does not. Americans are murdered all the time, so it serves no purpose.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I want to preface this by saying I am against the death penalty.

    The argument

    The state tells you murder is illegal. Except when the state does it.

    really falls apart when you consider all the other things the state is allowed to do that would be otherwise illegal. The simplest comparison is imprisonment but there are dozens of others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Exactly, the government has a monopoly on a lot of things, among them violence and as an extent of that monopoly also incarceration.

    I can see how some people have a hard time grasping that. I mean most of us would like to have no violence at all, so allowing some that power can seem strange. But how about traffic laws?

    You can't get in your car and go 200km/h down the road, which I sometimes would like to, but I hope we all can see how everyone doing 200, where 80 is more appropriate, would be a problem. So we're ok with police/fire/rescue being the only ones allowed to break the speed limits and running red lights, right? It's the same thing.

    We've got specially trained people, who have been given strict guidelines for doing stuff ordinary citizens can't do, because the society need something done that can't be done without these powers ... and who have oversight (hopefully), so these powers aren't abused.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    How'd you make your comment in bold font?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I will also preface this by saying I am 100% against the death penalty. The fact that we could put an innocent person to death for what I see as zero gain makes it very hard to convince me otherwise.

    However:

    The state tells you murder is illegal. Except when the state does it.

    Murder is by definition the illegal killing of someone. Unless I'm mistaken, every state has some law on the book that allows you to kill someone, at least in the case of self defense or the defense of another when it's reasonable to believe there is imminent danger to one's life. And the defense of the DP is that it's "defending" society against these criminals. It's BS, but your point is also incorrect.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -48 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

    The state doesn’t intentionally murder innocent people. Your argument is invalid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The state does not care whether they are innocent as well, and that callousness is just as bad from the eyes of people living in a civilized society...

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

    I'm pretty sure this guys's guilt was beyond dispute. States have so many appeals and checks on capital punishment that it is much, much cheaper to default to life in prison. The economic argument isn't noble but should be included in the debate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's estimated that 4% of prisoners on death row are innocent. Sure, we're certain about this guy, but that's the case for those 4%, as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's a good argument for increasing the threshold of guilt for capital crimes. But of those legitimately and obviously guilty, do they owe a debt equal to their own life for murdering someone else?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    How does their death pay for that debt? There is no compensation, no restitution has been made, nothing else is corrected. So, why?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It would be restoration by proxy. I once had a friend who stole money. He did not know the person and could never find him again. To make restoration he gave an equal amount plus reasonable interest to a charity, anonymously. The charity was a proxy for the man from whom he stole.

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

    Can you proved evidence to this opinion of yours?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Which opinion? That the state doesn't care about whether a victim of a murderer is innocent or also a criminal? You can look up just about any criminal case and see that criminals are just as often victims of crime as any 'innocent' person. Literally, a compatriot dying while committing a crime with you will get you charged with Felony Murder.

    If you mean that the state doesn't care if it executes innocent people, well: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Woah there, kiddo. It appears you haven’t learned how crime and punishment works. You see, there are varying degrees of crimes, and thus- varying degrees of punishment.

    This is why shoplifters aren’t executed.

    Hopefully this simple reference will keep you from embarrassing yourself in the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This place is so stupid sometimes they'd fight for the rights of their own families murderer's. No point in trying to put facts in front of people like that. They've made their decision.

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

    Oh I know. I’d be surprised none of them reported my comment simply because they disagree with it. Lemmy LOVES being outraged.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Lemmy LOVES being outraged.

    Sorry, who's being outraged here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Seems Lemmy also loves coming to conclusions on people they know nothing about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Seems Lemmy also loves coming to conclusions on people they know nothing about.

    So how is what I said about you being outraged different from what you said about "Lemmy" being outraged?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Because I’m showing no indications of actually being outraged, and Lemmy does tens of thousands of times daily.

    That’s how.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I’d be surprised none of them reported my comment simply because they disagree with it

    You sound pretty outraged.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    I can assure you, you’re reading into it wrong. Reread it again- and imagine it coming from someone that doesn’t give a shit whether or not it happens- but that they meant what they said about not being surprised- because I guarantee that it’s been reported.

    Now I’m going to add some smiley emojis to emphasize the point as that’s apparently how people understand things now.

    😆😆😆😆😂😂😂😂😂😂😁😆😆😀

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    😆😆😆😆😂😂😂😂😂😂😁😆😆😀

    How can you tell someone doesn't give a shit?

    They write two paragraphs and conclude with an excessively long string of emojis, apparently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    lol! Let me get this straight here:

    So, if I say I don’t give a shit about something, and some random troll says I do- they’re right about it simply because I offered an explanation?

    I think psychotherapy found its next shooting star! I mean… wow… You get to tell people what they’re thinking regardless of what they’re actually thinking! You should write a book:

    Mind Reading For Idiots: How To Convince Yourself You Won An Argument Using Playground Rules’

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You get to tell people what they’re thinking regardless of what they’re actually thinking!

    And how is that different from your original comment?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Look, I get what you’re trying to do, so I’ll pretend there’s a small about of genuineness to what you’re saying- and respond accordingly:

    Actual REAL outrage is very easy to tell. You can’t tell me that you haven’t seen people up in arms over their “gEnOciDe jOe” nonsense. And not even just that, but even the smallest of things will set them off.

    Seriously, I got yelled at and pointlessly downvoted for stating that I didn’t like anime- In a post that questioned popular things others enjoy that you don’t like.

    Go to any news article, or political community and look at how many people bypass the all the voices of reason to carry on with their nonsense. Or go to any opinion based post and look at how many arguments erupt into name calling and mid removed posts because people can’t handle others disagreeing with them.

    You can keep trying to equate what I’m doing as being similar though. I’ve explained my point beyond what I feel you’re owed, and at this point, I’m done discussing this with you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    You can’t tell me that you haven’t seen people up in arms over their “gEnOciDe jOe” nonsense.

    I have, but just because ridiculous people exist doesn't mean it's not absurd to accuse all of Lemmy of being ridiculous.

    Seriously, I got yelled at and pointlessly downvoted for stating that I didn’t like anime- In a post that questioned popular things others enjoy that you don’t like.

    Like, for example, if some ridiculous person went into a post about an arson that killed dozens of people, and used that as an excuse to say they don't like anime, then later pretended their post was entirely on topic and the people down voting them for making light of a terrible situation are wrong... That person is at best an idiot, but I wouldn't equate it to "Lemmy is crass, juvenile, and can't read the room." That's true of the individual, not all of Lemmy.

  • source
  • parent