That’s the conflicted part. My brain said ’ what do you do?’ Kill them? Incarcerate for life? Neither are good options to me, I would hope for rehabilitation. At the same time I know that is not realistic in some cases.
At the time of this photo, I don’t know if an alternative would have been remotely feasible. It’s impossible to place judgement on historical actions with a modern moral lens. The idea of letting treasonous individuals live would have been untenable.
But as other posters have shown here in response to my comment, lifelong incarceration does seem to be the better option even if you’re looking at it purely from a policy and cost perspective. And rehabilitate is only possible if they’re not dead.
Good point! I think my biggest issue with this particular death penalty conviction was that it was through a military tribunal instead of civilian criminal court, and the defendants had inadequate legal representation. Even by the standards of the time period it was unjust.
Yes, lifelong incarceration is better. I’m sure there are cases where incarceration is less humane, but I’d argue that’s an issue with how we do incarceration and the death penalty isn’t the solution. Incarceration is certainly better for the moral and psychological well-being of the people carrying out the sentence. It’s better financially. It leaves open the possibility of correcting erroneous convictions. It leaves open the possibility of change, learning, redemption, and healing.
Well, the next question would be, “what’s the alternative?” Is lifelong incarceration better?
That’s the conflicted part. My brain said ’ what do you do?’ Kill them? Incarcerate for life? Neither are good options to me, I would hope for rehabilitation. At the same time I know that is not realistic in some cases.
There is this case in Japan currently. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/07/japan-death-row-iwao-hakamada-murder-retrial-verdict
At the time of this photo, I don’t know if an alternative would have been remotely feasible. It’s impossible to place judgement on historical actions with a modern moral lens. The idea of letting treasonous individuals live would have been untenable.
But as other posters have shown here in response to my comment, lifelong incarceration does seem to be the better option even if you’re looking at it purely from a policy and cost perspective. And rehabilitate is only possible if they’re not dead.
Good point! I think my biggest issue with this particular death penalty conviction was that it was through a military tribunal instead of civilian criminal court, and the defendants had inadequate legal representation. Even by the standards of the time period it was unjust.
Yes, lifelong incarceration is better. I’m sure there are cases where incarceration is less humane, but I’d argue that’s an issue with how we do incarceration and the death penalty isn’t the solution. Incarceration is certainly better for the moral and psychological well-being of the people carrying out the sentence. It’s better financially. It leaves open the possibility of correcting erroneous convictions. It leaves open the possibility of change, learning, redemption, and healing.
how is it better financially to keep someone incarcerated?
Costs info.
Now that has me feeling more conflicted.