Ask Lemmygrad

I'd say this, from the thread the comrade linked here. Also, there is not a "Marxist-Leninist take" on everything, it's not the scope of Marxism-Leninism to "have an opinion" on everything, Marxism-Leninism is a theoretical framework which guides revolutionary praxis

My personal take on this is that death penalties should have a democratic process behind it, it's the safest path. No one is irredeemable, but some deaths are warranted, for symbolic, political, social reasons. Once the facts have been established and their crimes fully investigated, the death of a serial killer may bring comfort to several families affected, for instance. Or the leader of a genocidal fascist movement may be politically and/or symbolically warranted

Chop up the worst offending fascists and capitalists and turn them into dog food. Otherwise I think rehabilitation is always preferable, but in tough times I understand we don't always have the resources to rehabilitate everyone.

There's an angle that is rarely mentionned is how popular death penalty can genuinely be in a lot of societies. In my experience, I heard a lot of euro liberals saying "democracy is fine but too much democracy and we're back to having death penalty" the irony being that it's actually the case for China, it's only because people want it that it hasn't been fully abolished.

I have a strong conviction that death penalty abolition is the way forward in human History, just like prison and police abolition and even schools as we know them (being replaced by better communal education of course). But it's gonna take time, a lot of, so we definitely shouldn't demonize countries that still have it just because they have it, it's more compelling to analyse how it is used (for example, punishing extremely harmful crimes of people who have public responsibility and power VS using it as an ultimate threat to keep black people working in the prison Industrial complex)

You might find this thread interesting: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/386621

I believe it should be enforced only in certain specific cases that pose large scale societal harm. One thing reactionaries always jump to when talking about the death penalty is murderers and rapists, and one can argue how much the harm of those crimes is large-scale or societal, but I think they pose way less threat in the abstract to society than, for example, a pogrom inciter. Specially since those usually get barely any punishment because they "personally didn't kill anybody."

I also see the "punishment" aspect of the death penalty to be completely moot. Even just a life sentence in solitary can be a way more harrowing and punishing experience than however long the death can be extended to, so focusing on the broader social impact of either a deterrent or a "permanent removal from society" is the way to go. This is not a moral stance, though, and different societies with different moral and cultural values will have to take those into account too.

Executing anti-semites is probably a good and cool thing to do

No kill because mistakes. Shawshank redemption. No system perfect.

No kill no reason. In communism material conditions satisfied. Star trek. Murder goes waaaaaay down. If it happens help the poor fool that did it. Fix the tragedy don't compound it

No murder

Another thread in addition to the one posted: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/506123

I think that if you can justify deaths by war, then you can justify the death penalty for heinous crimes. If in future wars are won without any deaths or even injuries, then maybe abolishing the death penalty can be reconsidered.

This line of reasoning is very straightforward: if you find it necessary to send soldiers to possibly die in battle, why should people who commit heinous crimes be free from the possibility (not guaranteed) of the death penalty?

My take is no death penalty under capitalism, since the capitalist justice system isn't about justice. But I'm in favour of a death penalty under socialism since a socialist justice system is actually just.