There has been a push by Indiana legislators to rework and add alternative methods to the carrying out of executions in Indiana. House Bill 1119, authored by Rep. Jim Lucas,
Hit the nail on the head. I’m not proud to admit that I’m absolutely okay with execution purely for the reason of retribution in the face of truly unforgivable acts (I’m talking the Epsteins of the world; beyond any doubt guilty of years of atrocity). I acknowledge that this isn’t justice, it’s vengeance, but my ape brain admittedly doesn’t really view the two separately - a relic of our evolutionary past, I’m sure.
However, I absolutely don’t trust the state to be the one setting the requirements for what meets the definition of unforgivable, and I certainly don’t trust them to do their due diligence, so the whole thing has to go. As it stands, capital punishment isn’t about what you did, so much as it is the state proving to you and everyone else that only they have a monopoly on violence. That they can, if they so choose, end your life and nobody can do anything about it. It’s about proving that they, at the end of the day, own you.
Not OP but thought I’d chime in. I became convinced in the past few years to never be on board with the death penalty, but the past year has me on the fence about very rarely applying it. I think that a public execution could serve as a deterrent, reserved only for those who are very plainly guilty of the very worst atrocities. I mean worse than mass shooters. I’m talking decades of willful societal damage. Mussolini level of horrible. If we could’ve gotten to Hitler before he could kill himself, imagine the public, tortured, slow execution, and really ask yourself how many people would dare to wave a Nazi flag or sieg heil after that.
Maybe a few of these in the entire world over a century would be enough to prevent every genocide. I’m open to trying. Life in prison allows people to forget, but recorded gruesome executions are seared into memories.
If the death penalty serves as some kind of deterrent, why is murder more prevalent in States where it is performed?
States that execute people for murder and the highest murder rate per capita by State are almost the same list.
I think there are other, more significant factors that should be addressed first before we allow the government to kill people (a very, very good many of whom were actually innocent).
I would argue that there are good reasons though, and there should be something on the books for those (hopefully rare, recently less so) cases.
Who decides those reasons?
Hit the nail on the head. I’m not proud to admit that I’m absolutely okay with execution purely for the reason of retribution in the face of truly unforgivable acts (I’m talking the Epsteins of the world; beyond any doubt guilty of years of atrocity). I acknowledge that this isn’t justice, it’s vengeance, but my ape brain admittedly doesn’t really view the two separately - a relic of our evolutionary past, I’m sure.
However, I absolutely don’t trust the state to be the one setting the requirements for what meets the definition of unforgivable, and I certainly don’t trust them to do their due diligence, so the whole thing has to go. As it stands, capital punishment isn’t about what you did, so much as it is the state proving to you and everyone else that only they have a monopoly on violence. That they can, if they so choose, end your life and nobody can do anything about it. It’s about proving that they, at the end of the day, own you.
What does the death penalty achieve that life in prison does not?
Saving money probably? Depending on the criminals age, health, potential of being shanked, etc?
Not OP but thought I’d chime in. I became convinced in the past few years to never be on board with the death penalty, but the past year has me on the fence about very rarely applying it. I think that a public execution could serve as a deterrent, reserved only for those who are very plainly guilty of the very worst atrocities. I mean worse than mass shooters. I’m talking decades of willful societal damage. Mussolini level of horrible. If we could’ve gotten to Hitler before he could kill himself, imagine the public, tortured, slow execution, and really ask yourself how many people would dare to wave a Nazi flag or sieg heil after that.
Maybe a few of these in the entire world over a century would be enough to prevent every genocide. I’m open to trying. Life in prison allows people to forget, but recorded gruesome executions are seared into memories.
If the death penalty serves as some kind of deterrent, why is murder more prevalent in States where it is performed?
States that execute people for murder and the highest murder rate per capita by State are almost the same list.
I think there are other, more significant factors that should be addressed first before we allow the government to kill people (a very, very good many of whom were actually innocent).