That sounds like you're planning to waste a bunch of people's time. Not sure what your intent is, but if label it correctly (as AI), few people are going to talk to it like a person, and if you don't, that's a dick move and will also get you banned.
Carrying capacity of the earth is something like 15 billion with current technology, our wastefulness and overconsumption (of the rich, globally speaking) is the problem. Which reduction in population can mitigate, but not fix
If they get life without parole they can't, either.
But if in ten years you figure out they were actually innocent, you can release an inmate. You can't unkill an executee
The deterrent argument usually goes "people are more afraid of dying than of getting imprisoned, so they'll not commit that crime". This probably doesn't work. Because even if the basic premise was true (it likely isn't), the consequences are bad anyways. You need to draw the line somewhere. Let's say murder gets you the death penalty, and so does rape. Now a rapist has nothing to lose, might as well kill the victim to hide the evidence.
As you said, the standard for evidence needs to be very high. That means long and protracted trials, multiple rounds of appeals, etc. You're condemning the loved ones to years upon years of proceedings, having to face the perpetrator again and again. This is not a gut feeling, there's empirical studies about this.
Reduce that time and barrier of proof, more innocents die. What percentage is acceptable?
There is no rational reason to use the death penalty over life without parole. The only reason is the base, if very understandable, instinct to have people that did unspeakable things suffer. But if suffering is the point, why stop at executions? Why not first torture them for what they did?
I firmly believe that the carceral system should serve to rehabilitate those that can be rehabilitated, and for the worst offenders, isolate and protect victims, their families and wider society from them. Putting punishment over the well-being of victims and co-victims, and over the risk to innocents, is not something we should want from a civilized society.
The death penalty does not work. Not as a deterrent, not as closure for the families, not even to reduce costs. Even if you think there are acts so vile that someone forfeits their right to life, there are many reasons against the death penalty. For example, what does rock-solid evidence mean? There have been cases with good evidence, multiple witnessed and a full confession, that later turned out to be wrong convictions. What percentage of innocents among the convicted is acceptable?
itslilith @ itslilith @lemmy.blahaj.zone Posts 11Comments 1,645Joined 2 yr. ago
Down to your ankles