zurew

Do you prefer authorianism, if your answer is yes, why?

Imo most imprisoned people are already jacked when they go there, and also most people there, are bored and they don't have much things to do , so they start to train, because it can build their survival rate there.

Thats not the case imo, the current point is to try to serve justice, but the current system has some holes in it , so the justice service is not perfect at all. If what you say would be the reason why we imprison people, then prisons would be vastly different, they would be similar to a Scandinavian prison, because statistically people there coming out as a better person and as a more well person who can function in society better. - So one could argue that they learn their lesson there better.

Do you have the exact same take as Leo or your view a little bit differ from it?

Now thats a completely different viewpoint, and I think thats a more reasonable principle to build from.

Yeah but that position's logical extension, is that we need to kill everyone, because then no one will be capable to suffer anymore. Optimizing everything and using the prevention of suffering as a main rule could lead to absurd conclusions. There needs to be other principles that can overwrite the 'ending of a living creatures suffering'.

Okay I Will clarify my position. I don't agree with Nick's values and takes.

Thats exactly why we shouldn't sentence in an easy going way without doing the necessary investigation(s) first.

I was being sarcastic.

Its not about not being able to stomach these things, its more about thinking this issue through multiple perspectives and seeing all the problems and ramifications in each and every argument. If you do that, then I think you would agree, that in current times (not in an utopistic world) death penalty is worse than life imprisonment. Just because something is edgy and hard to stomach doesn't necessarily indicates, that thats the right thing from all the alternative choices. I agree that even the most ridiculous option should be ideally thought through to get a more holistic view on things, but I think if the edgy option is worse than a different alternative one, then we need to be honest and choose the best from all the alternatives.

So basically if someone has a different ideology, or different views than them, then that person must be the devil, right?

Basically yes, if that was your argument in the firstplace, then im sorry i misundertood your position, I assumed that you were talking about the current times.

The killing part is the least expensive part. Here is a list of things that makes it very expensive: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs

If we would live in a society, where corruption would be almost at 0% and we would have a perfect or at least necessarily tech to convict someone , then I would go with death penalty, because in a society where the corruption level is really low and other pieces are relatively in place, it would be really really hard to argue how could we heal or repair those people, when they were born in almost perfect society. Being aware that there is room for error and there is room for corruption, we shouldn't go with Leo's system where there is less investigation and evidence needed to convinct someone.

But thats the point, that you don't save anything, because death penalty is more expensive, or if you want to go with Leo's system, then you have to face with the reality of killing a lot of innocent people. You wouldn't let them lose, you would imprison them. Second if we are talking about people are mass murderers, as ive said before, most of them will be killed by police or the military, because there are laws already that let them kill a person if they violate those laws.

This is not realistic imo. Proving bad intent is like the most difficult thing to do in a court setting. There is no clear cut evidence that could be just used to immediately sentence anyone. Long investigation is needed no matter what to examine what happened, when it happened and how it happened, you need to listen to eye witnesses if there are some, you probably need dna evidence, or at the very least video evidence, but as time goes by video evidence will be less and less reliable because with deepfake you can create very fucking convincing stuff. In most cases there are long ass investigations needed to prove someone guilty, thats just how the justice system works, if it would be easy to prove someone guilty, there would be even more corruption and error in the system. Also if I go back to Leo's example with osama and Hitler, you wouldn't necessarily be able to point to clear cut cases where they directly did the killing. In most of the cases they planned murder indirectly, by using other people. In such complex cases, the proving trial will be incredibly complex.

Yeah this is probably true, I think its safe to say that parenting is in the top 3 for sure [maybe number 1]. Statistics support this as well. But how can you guys point to the finance / resource issue when all statistics are saying that death penalty is more expensive, only Leo's system would be more financially efficient, but there are other problems with his system, especially the corruption part.

To be honest, your "I am preteneding to be tier 2" posts are hilarious. Most of your posts are not saying anything tier 2 at all, and just repeating the same points over an over again like: and at the end of the day you don't address any of the underlying issues or arguments. Takes like this shows, that you haven't thought this topic through.

This is where your argument about valueing finance automatically fails. Collecting "enough evidence" is much much more expensive than life time prison. This argument just doesn't work. If you would value human life and human beings getting harmed, then you wouldn't be okay with innocent people being killed. The trade there is just bad if you want to value human life. Why would you risk making a system where a lot of innocent people will be harmed and will be killed, when most of the people who you would want to sentence to death, would be killed by military or police otherwise anyway, because those poeple are more than likely to run into situations where killing them would be justified under the current laws. You are trying to optimize death penalty for a very very niche set of people, and at the same time by doing that you automatically open up the door to harm a lot of innocent people. Do you really think, that most people who are in prison are people who you want to sentence to death? The answer is an obvious no, so this argument doesn't work either, because its not the case that by you start doing death penalty all or most prison facility construction will sees to exist, and again its more expensive to kill those people.

If thats the case, then this point weakens the justice part of the death penalty side.

I still don't see how you see your system more reasonable, where you allow the government to kill people based on just a quick fabricated evidence, with no further investigation. But to answer your question, in those extremely special and extremely rare cases the answer would be to kill those people, because it would be proven ,that they have a repeating history of killing way too many people without no change. But how many Osamas and Hitlers are out there? You don't need a whole justice system change or death penalty to be able to kill extremely outrageous people the military takes care of it anyway , because imo its okay to kill people, when it comes to self protection or to save people from being killed - for instance if a person with bombs attached on him starts running into a building full of people, its justified to kill that person because its almost compeletely obvious that he has harmful intentions and will kill a lot of people. Again, you would trade a aton of innocent human life unnecessarily to be able to kill murderers based on littile to no evidence. Your threshold wouldn't be Hitler or Osama, your threshold to kill a person would be much much lower , I suspect. I also think its short sited and lazy to try to use "you greenies" and equating caring about human life with just only green. You system would hand out kills way too easily, and if its taken at its face value, at best it would be considered as orange. The values you are building from are stage blue and orange -trading human lifes for finance and talking about justice (while completely ignoring all the circumstances what brought that person there, why he/she did the murder, How do we create these criminals ,not caring about investigating murder cases deeply, completely ignoring the fact that a lot of innocent people will be killed unnecessarily by the result of your "justice" system, etc) @Leo Gura Your system is not yellow at all, because it compeletely lacks stage green values, and you trying to handwave away the proctection of innocent lives just as green, when literally in almost all justice system the most serious and worst thing you can do is to take a human's life. The point here is not to protect all human lives at all cost, the point is to make a solid case and being able to justify if its necessary - why to take that humans life. Imo your justification is weak and it creates more harm than good. @Leo GuraHere is a question for you: Would you be okay with the governemnt killing your daugther and or killing your whole family just by them being wrongly accused of doing something?

@Leo Gura if you really, purely only want to focus on the finance part, then why kill that person at all? That person can work , make more money, can create greater economic value.

If its voluntary, then I agree with you. Yeah, right that argument wouldn't work alone. Okay if I ignore the finance part , and if I ignore the innocence part and i just purely focus on the morals here is my take: I think taking a human life is morally the most serious or worst action someone could ever do, thats why it needs very strong justification, but I don't see a strong justification when it comes to death penalty. I just see killing a person, when it is not neccessary.

You wanted to make an argument about it being cheaper, and when you are being confronted that its not, you reverted back to a point, that is ignoring everything about economics and finance. You need to decide ,whether you care about the financial part or not.

You can't in one breath say that its cheaper and in other breath say this: "Just lawyers and whatever other Americans getting the money anyway" . I mean yeah fuck it who cares about any cost or spending, money will circle around anyway between people and the government , right? - This take literally means nothing, and no one would use this when it comes to financial questions.