What does Holla Forums think of the death penalty?

What does Holla Forums think of the death penalty?

Is it a necessity for a revolution?

I think it is.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shootdown_of_Brothers_to_the_Rescue_aircraft
ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/violent-crime
prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2017.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Considering the screeching idpolers that might take place, during the revolution, yes.

it is necessary were would you keep thousands of enemies and traitors? they all have to go and in some time they will turn into fertilizer.

...

Most should go to re-education camps. Only the worst ones should be killed.

we would only be wasting valuable resources.

I've never understood why people get so triggered by the death penalty. Like obviously the way it is used in the US and other countries is fucked, but imho a democratically elected government has the moral authority to put people to death.

The what?

no.
no that way.

I'm a firm advocate of the death penalty for criminals and counter revolutionaries. I think the current 'legal system' practiced in most countries whether it be adversarial or inquisitorial is highly corrupt and systematically flawed therfore systems of summary justice and mob rule practiced in the Shanghai People's Commune and Democratic Kampuchea will always be superior.

It should stay as long as Sam Harris is still alive.

...

One thing's for sure, we're definitely putting all porkies- and I mean

ALL FUCKING PORKIES

- on the chopping block following the revolution.

No, just confiscate everything and offer them exile or citizenship. Why give the international bourg ammunition to use against us.

For the revolution, we must be absolutely ruthless. Otherwise you end up with Ayn Rand and a bunch of piglets in Miami bitching about not inheriting a silver mine.

After the revolution though, evidence has shown that rehabilitation works much better than intimidation. Plus, without the economic incentive and alienation of capitalism there would be very little crime in the first place.

flag checks out

...

Confiscating their shit is too generous and never works. That's pretty much exactly the reason Ayn Rand and her shitty pseudo-philosophy exists, because she got salty about the Bolsheviks confiscating private property from her bourgie daddy. had the same idea I did, basically.

No, the porkies need DIE. No sanction, no imprisonment…

Death is the only option for the bourgeoisie.

What is too generous about it? The Cuban exiles couldn't do shit to Cuba even with the help of the US government.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shootdown_of_Brothers_to_the_Rescue_aircraft

never4get :'(

Oh boy user you got your dialectical organ ALL corrupted with ideology.
Granted you kinda got set up by the premise.I reject this question as requiring a context. It might make sense to have the death penalty, it might not. Who knows what the realpolitik will be? Are the pigs dead from the revolution? What's the status of the international revolution? The perception of it?

Based

Death penalty is inefficient when gulags exist.

...

Killing is bourgeois

So, people should be murdered because they might later gone on to write shitty fiction espousing an ideology practically no one believes?

Boy, you have NO idea how influential Rand's objectivist theory has been in the foundations of the alt-right.

Hate to sound like an edgy retard but Stalin was absolutely right when he said "Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem."

shiggy my diggy

Ayn Rand didn't create Objectivists, they were created by the material conditions they lived/live in and just realized that their opinions and beliefs already had a name and a source of literature to back it up; same as any other follower of any other ideology.

You do realize it's the alt-right's fault Trump is president, don't you??

Given that it's basically impossible to get 100% accuracy when determining guilt, to have the death sentence at all is a tacit acceptance of having the government murder innocent people

...

It is the material condition that made him president. He lied through his ass that he could help them and they accepted that lie even if he was some New York reality show host, because they're desperate.


You mean that basis of neoliberalism?

The big-ass non-nuke that was dropped on ISIS, nigga.

You're saying that wasn't him?

...

Man, she'd be flattered if she was alive.

No, not really. One man isn't capable of influencing the MIC/deep state. There's a reason all presidents break their campaign promises, it's partly because they're manipulating liars, but it mostly because they don't actually have the power to do everything they've promised, and the system eventually finds a way to bend them to its will.

Her whole philosophy was that greed is good and that once the rich had enough, some of it would trickle down. The greedy can never have enough and her philosophy was eventually turned into tax cuts and Reaganomics.

Just because her ideology agrees with neoliberalism does not mean that neoliberalism actually exists because of it. Reagon didn't make his decisions because he read the Fountainhead.

No its fucking not you stupid idiot

You know, the thing I hate about ideologies both from Holla Forums and Holla Forums is how polarized they are. The (spooky man) must be rounded up and shot, be it "subhuman shitskins and kikes" or "liberal porky and the fash".

It all seems like a bunch of authoritarian bullshit. Sometimes I feel ancaps and lolberts have a point.

I am now also for the death penalty.

Okay then how the fuck do you do it

By reviewing the evidence and making a fact based determination.
Obviously if you have video footage, DNA evidence or the testimony of many upstanding people the job becomes very easy.
And with crime scene investigation getting better year by year wrongful convictions are gong to keep declining like they have been since we started caring.

Because forging evidence never happens right?

Yeah none of these things are perfect. Especially testimony which is NOTORIOUSLY unreliable no matter how upstanding the witness is because human memory is unreliable as fuck.
You can get a REALLY GOOD accuracy when determining guilt! I'm not denying that. But you CANNOT get 100% because that's just not how the world works.
Even a 99.9% accuracy rating is accepting that out of every 1000 people executed 1 of them will be innocent.

Now, as OP asks, during the revolution itself I'm not so stubborn about this. There's gonna be collateral damage in revolution anyway but after society is stabilized there's no need to do anything permanent, always better to be able to let someone free if it turns out they did not in fact do it.

Inevitable errors aside, should the death penalty be allowed for those being found to be guilty "beyond the shadow of a doubt" for example on camera and leaving undeniable evidence behind.

iktf. I try to console myself by telling myself that it's edgy teenagers posting this shit and they'll grow out of it eventually.

"Collateral damage" is newspeak for "deliberately murdering people that I was too lazy to save"

The death penalty makes sense when it used against powerful figures with developed cadres. It has no purpose on common criminals.

It made sense to hang Saddam Hussein for instance, regardless of whether or not invading Iraq in the first place was a good idea. You can't overthrow a government and keep somebody like that alive.

Undeniable evidence will pretty quickly turn into "undeniable" evidence.

then don't use it on "common criminals." use it on psychopathic torture-murderers and violent rapists

What about the worst of common criminals? Serial rapists, murderers and the like?
Why does someone having wealth automatically make them more evil? Isn't it the destruction they use that wealth to fund their real crime?

What it comes down to, and this argument may be lost on you, is whether or not you believe an individual has the right to take physical retribution against someone who has wronged them to a degree that warrants it.

I don't think the slippery slope can be applied here, we have to discuss the legal system under the pretext of it working properly for it to be a meaningful discussion.
How to keep it working properly or correct it is a separate issue entirely.

Since most of those people are legitimately insane in some way, I'm not sure what kind of message you're hoping to promote with a policy like that.

Don't be mentally ill?

Not to mention if you're to guarantee any semblance of a just judicial process with proper appeals, it winds up being far more of a hassle to execute somebody.

We have to discuss the legal system under terms of how it will actually work out for it to be a USEFUL discussion.

I'm not concerned with "evil." It's about how much power is concentrated where, and who it is projected against.

Heinous individual crimes are difficult to read about, but they don't really degrade the quality of life for the population as a whole.

are you suggesting that all violent sexual offenders are just 'mentally ill'? and how does being 'mentally ill' make their crimes any less heinous?

For anything legal system related, there are two fundamental questions, imo, that have to be solved.
What should be avoided at all cost, an innocent punished or culprit roaming free?
What is the priority of justice? Regulating revenge against wrong doers or or solving wrong doing?

Some are.

In any case, putting them behind bars stops the sexual offenses from taking place. The problem is already solved.

who is going to pay for their imprisonment?

Society.

I don't get it; do you not want criminals locked away?

Or maybe officers should just have the discretion to execute people on the spot? Because that's the only way your red meat "bullets are cheaper" argument is going to work.

They will either have to spend their lives under intense psychiatric care, in general population with mentally stable criminals or be executed.
Mixing them with society at large is totally inexcusable.


I don't think your hyperbolized analysis is exactly how it works.


The masses are the ONLY ones who feel the effects of day to day crime.


You are correct, but wrong to assume that anything can be black and white like that. We have to minimize and maximize all of those things at once to the best of our current ability.
Which is what makes it such a difficult question, and in fact one that people have been asking since the first concepts of a court system or justice.


Should an individual have the ability or right to kill another who is harming or attempting to harm them?

why do violent murderers and rapists deserve to be subsidised for life by 'society'?
not all criminals are the same
who said anything about officers executing people? we're talking about the death sentence

For the masses to be affected it'd have to be a mass experience.

I don't know about where you live, but boys aren't getting John Wayne Gacy'd left and right here.

Sure.
When you are violently assaulted, all pretenses of civility go out the window and we enter survival mode. But once civility is restored by bodies who are chartered to do just that, the matter should be handled in a civil manner.

Because they are still people. We don't shoot the handicapped either for being a "drain" in society. Appealing to "humanity" might be a bit spooky, but it's a sure check against the barbarism of T4.

Life isn't a muh privilege. To suggest that having one's liberty stripped away and being confined in the interests of public safety is some kind of handout is absurd.

That's fair, but not the argument you made previously. The entire "better that X guilty men go free than one innocent be imprisoned" is an admission that the justice system will not always worked properly: it's straight up baked into most modern justice systems.

That goes without saying, but at some point, there are always conflicts between thoses imperatives. And choicesl have to be made.

look up lake & ng, and bittaker & norris. these 'people' aren't normal people, and don't warrant normal treatment
false equivalence. the handicapped don't rape and murder and destroy others' lives

Neither do people who are locked up.

to suggest that those who mercilessly destroy the lives of others for their own gratification should be treated to free room and board, medical treatment, leisure and entertainment for the rest of their lives, is also absurd

is this your argument?

My argument is that society has an interest in protecting itself against dangerous individuals. Locking them up serves well enough in that regard, and the idea that we might as well kill them because locking them up costs money is not convincing.

ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/violent-crime

Sorry to just drop a link and paragraph on you, but my point is that "mass experience" is a pretty relative term.

Putting the rights of violent criminals above their victims and would be victimvictims is absurd.


I don't know if you haven't realized this but life isn't perfect, and while it is noble to always strive for perfection and unacceptable to accept the mistakes and 🍀🍀🍀collateral damage🍀🍀🍀 it does not hurt to have a dose of realism in your philosophy.
But like I said, discussing the politics and philosophy of the legal system is one thing, the logistics are entirely separate.
Once you have the absolute perfect scripture of justice in place, man will still find a way to corrupt it with his everlasting greed.


So you would deprive the proletariat of innumerable goods and services in order to ensure the safety of those who would actively look to harm them?

they should be killed because their behaviour and its effect on others warrants retribution

Uh, yeah which is why i'm the one arguing to recognize this fact, whereas you're the one saying we need to ignore it?

You mean marginal amounts.

Spooky thinking, did you get that from your Holy Book?

no i got it from listening to the families of victims of violent crimes

No I'm not. I'm arguing for the acceptance of the death penalty in cases where it has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be guilty.
You've been fairly reasonable but haven't provided any real ideas for reforms that would ensure either:
The accused are in fact PROVEN to be guilty
The guilty's rights are respected to the degree society has deemed appropriate
Or
Individual bias or action does not get innocent people rushed through the conviction process only to have their lives destroyed or stolen from them.
One idea off the top of my head is not appropriating funds based on conviction rate or prisoner capacity.

Again, Philosophy v. Logistics


You underestimate the cost

That's not a crippling cost to the system. We're not talking about millions of psychopaths here, but rather a few tens of thousand pathological criminals, tops.

prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2017.html

mother: my son/daughter was abducted, tortured, raped and murdered, and had their body dismembered and dumped in a vacant lot, by a remorseless degenerate who still masturbates to the memory of the suffering he inflicted
you: lol nice spooks nerd

you're fucked in head

Well given my thesis is "no amount of reforms will get us to a point where the death penalty is acceptable" offering reforms would be a little counterproductive wouldn't it

Okay, let's break the infographic down. The State stats are divided to crime. Of the 1,330,000, about 350,000 are in for murder and rape and such. A good quarter. Even granting that all of those are pathological and unreformable, that would make for about 600,000 over the entire prison population.

That's a lifetime cost of all of them of about 444 billion. Or, if we go by a sentence of say 40 years, some 11 billion a year. Out of a GDP of about 18 trillion. Marginal.

A society murdering the people it failed yet putting the blame on the murdered individual is the height of hypocrisy. All crime is either a result of the individual not knowing or having any other effective way of making a living, or being so alienated and driven insane by society that their mental illness finally resorts to maliciously harming others. Crime could be eliminated if people actually cared about eliminating the conditions that creates it, yet they'd rather be self-satisfied in their position of moral superiority.

Just because a victim wants retribution doesn't mean it's the right choice; that type of mentality is literally the cause behind the circle of violence.

yes, leonard lake and lawrence bittaker were "failed by society." where the fuck does this nonsense come from

Lake was born in San Francisco, California. His parents separated when he was 6 years old, after which he and his siblings were sent to live with their maternal grandmother.[3]:91 He was reportedly a bright child, but had an obsession with pornography that stemmed from taking nude photos of his sisters, apparently with the encouragement of his grandmother.[4]:134 It was also alleged that Lake extorted sexual favors from his sisters.[4]:159 When he was a child, he enjoyed collecting mice and killing them by dissolving them in chemicals (a technique he would later use to help dispose of his human victims).[3]:91

After attending Balboa High School, in 1964 Lake enlisted in the Marine Corps.[5] He served two tours of duty in the Vietnam War as a radar electronics technician. During this time period, Lake was first diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder.[6] Following a spell in Da Nang, he suffered a delusional breakdown and was sent home.[3]:91 Lake was eventually given a medical discharge in 1971 and underwent psychotherapy.
Lawrence Sigmund Bittaker was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on September 27, 1940, the unwanted child of a couple who had chosen not to have children.[6]:84 Upon his birth, Bittaker was placed in an orphanage by his natural mother, but was adopted by a Mr. and Mrs. George Bittaker as an infant. Bittaker's adoptive father worked in aircraft factories, which required the family to frequently move around the United States throughout his childhood.[7]

At the age of 12, Bittaker first came to the attention of police when he was arrested for shoplifting. Over the following four years, he was arrested on several occasions for shoplifting and petty theft; obtaining a minor criminal record and being brought to the attention of juvenile authorities. (Bittaker would later claim these numerous theft-related offenses committed throughout his adolescence had been attempts to compensate for a lack of love from his parents.)

they're the real victims

nice strawman

...

They're not the real victims, they are also simply just victims. Hurt people hurt people and all that. My point remains society wants to murder them after they fail them and then feel good about it.

you care about remorseless murderers and rapists more than you do about their victims and the families they destroy

seek help

the application of bourgeois justice to the bourgeois has always had its detractors

By 'death penalty' are you talking about a punishment to be carried out as a result of certain predetermined system of law/ethics or a adhoc excuse to kill people who oppose you in a revolutionary situation.

You can be stuck in fruitless moralism and claim that people commiting heinous crimes are un-persons regardless of their shitty lives, or you can use your fucking brain and observe people living shitty lives become disproportinately criminals of the worst kinds. and to reduce the crimes it would be best to reduce the occurence of shitty lives.

...

So me wanting to remove the conditons that creates crime while also rehabilitating the current criminals somehow means I don't care about the victims of crime because I don't want to engage in petty, moralistic retribution that not only doesn't fix anything but actually contributes to the circle of violence? Did I understand you correctly?

...