You know something, you need to rethink western criminal justice. Think about this, every time someone is locked up for a year, it’s costing you the tax payer 40k plus. In the states, you still do executions. There’s no moral superiority in that regard. Publicly punishing people does the following… Say a thief/robber etc has a hand chopped, how much does that cost? Not much. It also sends a clear message. That’s why you can drop your wallet in Dubai and no one will touch it. You have millions of people locked up in the states…there’s no morality in wasting so much in resources that could be better used to end homelessness, poverty etc on this. All you’re doing is enriching some corporations.
“look at all the benefits you get from being in a fascist state that doesn’t have laws respecting rights to a fair trial and sufficient burden of proof!”
Like there’s a reason we only see the taliban + authoritarian regimes do this, lmao.
The link to an article from 1999 refers to an entirely different case where a woman was executed during the previous rule of Afganistan by the Taliban. It isnt being used as evidence for this event.
I have severely started doubting western media’s claims lately so whenever I read an article making bold claims I like clicking on their sources.
The fact that the video from Independent is just irrelevant B roll, and several of the claims they make are backed by irrelevant 25 year old articles does not inspire confidence.
If there is evidence or sourcing for those claims it should not be difficult to provide a link to a ruling to back it up.
The allegations sound plausible, but I expect a newspaper to provide real sources in their links. I’m not supposed to have to Google to fact check everything they say.
I am not here to debate whether public executions are right or wrong but
“Carrying out executions in public adds to the inherent cruelty of the death penalty and can only have a dehumanising effect on the victim and a brutalising effect on those who witness the executions,”
If brutalizing here means people are gonna be shit scared after watching this when even thinking about killing someone, then this is a very bad argument
I will admit that part of my mind would support making a public example of any fascist leader, but any public execution or punishment serves only to normalize that violence.
Would I condemn anyone involved with the death of Mussolini? Absolutely not. Best of luck to any Israeli anti fascists in the right time and place.
you instill a feeling of fear in the public about what would happen if you do such a serious crime
Do you think the members of the general public are often considering committing those kinds of crimes?
“Gee whiz, I sure wish I could be a serial killer. Too bad they publicly executed that last serial killer, though! I’d better move to the US, where executions are done in private!”
Do you think a death penalty for netanyahu unfair, in fact not giving a death penalty is unfair to all the children and women and everyone else he has killed
Fair? What does fair mean? Does an execution un-kill the victims? What a ridiculous notion that any sort of punishment for a perpetrator could be “fair” for the victims.
The death penalty is an abject failure. It has no benefits and numerous issues. Practicing barbarism can never be justice.
it definitely will make other people think twice before they do the same thing
There is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion.
There is no proof that the death penalty deters criminals. According to the National Academy of Sciences, “Research on the deterrent effect of capital punishment is uninformative about whether capital punishment increases, decreases, or has no effect on homicide rates.”
I believe that most developed countries have gotten rid of the death penalty, and a big part of that is because it doesn’t work as a deterrent.
Very few people decide whether or not to commit a crime based on the punishment. Most criminals think they won’t get caught at all, or if they do, they think they’ll get away with it in court.
And what level of certainty do you need? Keep in mind uncertainty means innocents are murdered by the state and 100% certainty is difficult enough that it will generally put you into the anti capital punishment camp.
Also it sounds like you have a failure of understanding how the rich get out of punishment. Yes sometimes it’s like Brock Turner where it’s blatant. But other times it’s because they can afford the means to hide evidence and sow doubts. And when all else fails they’re more likely to have ins with judges or the ability to flee preemptively.
This slightly misses the mark. The majority of crimes, including violent ones, are not committed by people performing a risk calculus. They’re done with minimal thought and more often than not in the heat of the moment. Effectively, they are not crimes that you can deter because for a crime to be deterred, the potential criminal has to assess whether it makes sense to commit the crime. This works in cases of like financial fraud and white collar crime. Someone shooting another person during an altercation, not so much.
Yeah there’s a way to deter crimes and it’s increasing the certainty of punishment. Overly severe punishment actually has an unwanted effect of increasing the severity of crimes. If a rapist is going to die if caught that incentivizes murdering the victim who is inherently a witness.
No, they convince themselves it isn’t rape. Rape is a lot less dark alley and a lot more sober person and person too drunk to say no or pressuring or some other means of soft power. Look at studies which showed that if you don’t say the word rape a lot of admit they’re willing to do it.
So what you get from executing rapists is someone who raped their partner either in an emotional frenzy or a coercive stage gets accused or has a flash of realization and promptly gets violent lest they die.
Also, as a woman I’m a lot less likely to accuse someone of rape they actually did to me if I know it could lead to them hanging in the public square. Suddenly the weight of their life feels like it’s on my hands and I don’t want them dead.
Thanks here for this comment, I feel like I see where my stance might not make sense, ofc death penalty should not be given in cases like this where emotion takes over, I am rather taking about ppl like trump and gates and Netanyahu who are completely sane, they just kill for their own benefit
Ppl here have assumed that just because I said ‘I see reason’ means I feel like you need to kill everyone who commits this, No, I am saying that I don’t know the exact circumstance, it might or might not be justified, I hope we can clear this up moving forward
No matter what follows this…yes, we do. You should need evidence to believe anything; understanding of course that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence needed.
giving them merely some jailtime is not working either, but whatever
Then imprison them for life. Guess what, life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty, and can be overturned if there’s an error.
Yes, we should also be addressing the failings of our penal system(s). Unfortunately, many around the world, and clearly yourself included, are more interested in retributive “justice” than habilitative functions.
That is the same thinking that those who own hand guns think. They think they will be safer, yet all the stats indicate other wise including all the children accidentally firing a gun and killing a family member. If risk of death was a deterrent, the USA would be among the safest place in the world.
That’s a common assumption that’s based in “they’re all the same over there” style of racism.
The group the US backed in the 80s was the mujaheddin, which went to form the government which the Taliban (a separate group) all but overthrew. The last remnants of the pre-Taliban Afghanistan government was called the Northern Alliance, which was allied with the US when fighting the Taliban.
It was politically convenient for the left to along with a racist narrative to score cheap political points against Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld etcl. And yeah, fuck those guys for sure, but it was wrong to go along with a racist narrative to do so. Because of the “they’re all the same over there” kind of racism in both the left and right of the US, there wasn’t much chance for any kind of success in defeating the Taliban.
The only difference is time IMO. Same people. Same views. Just changed their name and fought against different people for different reasons. They will all still stone you to death for teaching math to women, they just disagree on who should be the caliph.
The brutalizing effect is the opposite: by seeing this kind of violence, people are more likely to normalize it and engage in violence themselves. That’s the hypothesis, anyway.
Suppose the theory would be that a spectator doesn’t picture himself in the shoes of the executed. Instead they get used to the idea that killing someone isn’t so crazy, if they think they deserve it.
I could believe this, particularly if it’s on some subconscious level. The rational mind might say “that could be me, I better be careful”, but getting desensitized might get rid of some fundamental revulsion. I’d also think the people at risk of committing murder are not likely to trend toward rational thinking, at least not in the moment of the crime.
Public execution seems hardly necessary for people to know the consequences, even if you think the death penalty is required. They know it anyway.
From another perspective, assuming attending a mass execution is not compulsory, what audience will choose to watch? People looking to receive a better understanding of what would await them if they comittied crime, or people excited to see violent death or vengeance? No one is voluntarily choosing to watch an execution while thinking “that could be me”, they are thinking “yeah, I’m here to see that evil dude get what he deserves”, in the most “favorable” scenario, some people are there just for pure bloodlust. Either way if these people find themselves in a serious chance to commit murder, it’s guaranteed that either they just revel in the violent death and don’t care about the morality, or they think their victim deserves it (can be as weak as the killer thinks he deserves a relationship, and the victim didn’t want one).
If we look at the data, per your belief we should see the handful of public execution countries enjoying a very low murder rate. They actually do not. In fact most countries without a death penalty at all consistently have lower murder rates than the countries with public executions.
It’s an interesting take to say if you can’t have public executions, you might as well not have any punishment at all.
When it comes to the visceral nature of violent behavior, a would-be murderer is not applying the nuance of “there was a judge involved in all those violent executions I saw in person, but not here”, the visceral emotion is “this dude deserves the same death I’ve personally seen metted out and I’m not repulsed by the concept since it’s jsut so normal”.
The rational mind, to the extent it is keeping a lid on murderous ambition, is already kept in check by the abstract knowledge of punishment. Seeing it first hand I think does nothing further for the rational mind. In fact, many nations without a death penalty at all enjoy some of the lowest murder rates, so long as everyone believes there is an effective justice system and they will be caught and receive a significant punishment. The less rational mind may succumb to the erosion of directly witnessed violent death. Hell, some might even actually yearn for a moment when a stadium of people is looking at him. There’s also something to be said for keeping the names of killers out of the news cycle, as that also seems to be a trigger for killers.
Think of how many abused people grow up both hating the abuse they had growing up but also inflicting it in turn. Our minds aren’t wired for the highest rational consideration of nuance and circumstance when it comes to violence.
No. What happens is the spectators get severely desensitized to violence. Especially if the spectators are young malleable teenagers. And suddenly sawing someone’s head off in front of a live broadcast becomes just another day on the job.
This doesn’t make sense. There have been public executions and torture all over the world for centuries, and yet murder and rape were much more frequent than now.
It depends, I don’t know the exact circumstances, if it was some sort of internal thing where something might have gone wrong, then this is wrong, especially if their own scholars said so, this sort of crime should be hidden from the court itself imho, or atleast not a straight up death penalty, if they were a public school shooter who had killed kids, the issue becomes different
The problem being that it may give them more a tamgible sense of death rather than of consequences.
It seems that murders are committed in scenarios where consideration of the consequences is not even on the radar, instead it’s some sudden rage or psychopathy, and I could believe either to be stoked by witnessing execution desensitizing then to violent death.
Add comment