this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
20 points (88.5% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

670 readers
31 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] qwename@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've said this before in that thread:

In practice, the number of people dying under the death penalty is nothing compared to the number of people killed in acts of crime, so this unhealthy obsession with “avoid killing innocent people under the state” and finding justification for the death penalty is unnecessary and missing the point.

I find this idealist notion of worrying about "wrongful convictions" to be very reactionary. Yes any wrongful convictions should be avoided, but no the death penalty shouldn't be abolished just because there's a nonzero chance of "wrongful convictions" occurring.

[–] relay@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

If you have the resources to keep dangerous people locked up for their lifetime, if they really are that dangerous, then it's not that bad if it is a very small population.

[–] bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Wrongful convictions are actually quite common and if discovered in large numbers or affecting certain ethnic groups disproportionately could lead to resentment towards the police force and social instability. It's just not worth the risk IMO.

Socialism is not poverty and even a socialist state that's heavily affected by climate change should have the resources to lock people up for life, especially if you already have prisons because the people certainly won't support enacting the death penalty for everyone who's convicted. If you can afford to build and maintain a subway you can certainly afford to build and maintain a prison.