Well, a penalty is a punishment, a consequence for one's actions, which means it should teach the person that what they did was wrong and they shouldn't do it again.
Even in a vengeance oriented system, where there's no reintroduction to society, killing a person doesn't teach them anything because they won't be able to apply that lesson in their life.
I suppose this one is more of a semantic argument because under such framework it can be called "justice", but I'll stand by my phrasing that it isn't a penalty.
It is argued that killing a person teaches society a lesson, but history shows it doesn't. Because if death is dealt for offenses so heinously anti-social, the person committing them either, for whatever reason doesn't incorporate that understanding into their thinking, or desperate enough to try to get away with the crime despite the risk of death if caught, so even if it does work as a deterrent, it doesn't work for all people and only up to a point. And that point could be shifting because killing its own people also highly correlates with not aiding the less fortunate in a society, so such a society would be producing the desperation that would drive some to commit death worthy offenses.
A society where more trivial offenses are death worthy did not survive to modern times, and I assume it's because those (if existed) either died out or reformed their justice system.
The theological argument for killing people, I'm sure you'll agree, is dead on arrival: people aren't being hastened to be judged by whatever deity.
If people really believed that, they wouldn't be having trials but kill without investigation, believing the righteous would get their eternal reward. Which would make such a society the kind that would reform this practice or die out.
The only argument I consider to have some merit is the economic one, where killing a person is cheaper than imprisoning them for decades.
But in order to not become the kind of society that kills its own on a whim, determining who can be killed can end up costing more than decades of imprisonment, so... not much of a merit.
From the bowels of Wonkette, I greet thee. Thanks for the amazing reporting, it's always nice to find someone both knowledgeable and snarky. (Snark is the only way I can stomach the news these days.)
I'm very late but I have to add, every time I can: Death is not a penalty.
Can you elaborate?
Well, a penalty is a punishment, a consequence for one's actions, which means it should teach the person that what they did was wrong and they shouldn't do it again.
Even in a vengeance oriented system, where there's no reintroduction to society, killing a person doesn't teach them anything because they won't be able to apply that lesson in their life.
I suppose this one is more of a semantic argument because under such framework it can be called "justice", but I'll stand by my phrasing that it isn't a penalty.
It is argued that killing a person teaches society a lesson, but history shows it doesn't. Because if death is dealt for offenses so heinously anti-social, the person committing them either, for whatever reason doesn't incorporate that understanding into their thinking, or desperate enough to try to get away with the crime despite the risk of death if caught, so even if it does work as a deterrent, it doesn't work for all people and only up to a point. And that point could be shifting because killing its own people also highly correlates with not aiding the less fortunate in a society, so such a society would be producing the desperation that would drive some to commit death worthy offenses.
A society where more trivial offenses are death worthy did not survive to modern times, and I assume it's because those (if existed) either died out or reformed their justice system.
The theological argument for killing people, I'm sure you'll agree, is dead on arrival: people aren't being hastened to be judged by whatever deity.
If people really believed that, they wouldn't be having trials but kill without investigation, believing the righteous would get their eternal reward. Which would make such a society the kind that would reform this practice or die out.
The only argument I consider to have some merit is the economic one, where killing a person is cheaper than imprisoning them for decades.
But in order to not become the kind of society that kills its own on a whim, determining who can be killed can end up costing more than decades of imprisonment, so... not much of a merit.
From the bowels of Wonkette, I greet thee. Thanks for the amazing reporting, it's always nice to find someone both knowledgeable and snarky. (Snark is the only way I can stomach the news these days.)
Wonkette has bowels?!? I KNEW IT! Thanks so much for the kind words... it's lovely to have been found!
About time that loop hole was closed🥳 Fuck the Arizona supreme, not, court🖕 Thanks for another great read☺
Thank you!
You're welcome😊