But also, apparently all of the available methods of execution barely work at all because of gross incompetence of the people who create the systems. That’s the more important issue, here, imo. The state clearly isn’t capable of serving a death sentence, nor do I expect they ever will be, so they shouldn’t even have the right.
I’m a consequentialist with aversion to suffering, so I think there are some very rare cases where it would be warranted if reform were considered truly impossible or would cause more suffering than it is worth, such as older or insane accused with very solid evidence convictions by a jury of peers.
Hard choices exist in this world, people sometimes have to choose what they can protect.
I’m really not understanding your argument. What does this ‘suffering’ have to be worth? And if an elderly or mentally ill person suffers in prison, that sounds like we should make prison a less horrible place, not euthanize people we feel deserve it.
I’m operating in the very real world assumptions that the restrictions of freedom of a large class of people will never so easily be made “a less horrible place.” This is far moreso true for chronic mental illness care. I don’t have a plan for any of that, and it doesn’t appear as though you do, either, so instead a simple solution is to only give a death sentence under very specific and hard to establish conditions agreed upon by a majority of people.
The plan is caring for mentally ill people with psychiatric supervision, possibly medication and/or therapy, something our prison system doesn’t offer, not killing them. You’re doing the “I shot the dog because he was untrainable and killed chickens” Kristi Noem defense, except for killing people.
Psychiatric Supervision, Medication, and Therapy don’t necessarily eliminate all suffering, and certainly have no guarantee of reform or a cure. Kristi Noem had a perfectly fine young animal capable of training by qualified owners of which many were likely available in her area, she instead chose to kill her dog. This is a great example of how outcomes with excess suffering are always worse and that many people are too mentally incompetent to weigh their options. If her dog were judged by a jury, it would have been acquitted.
A judge and jury of peers adhering to very strict legal definitions and sentencing guidelines written by a democratically elected congress, because after thousands of years that’s the best system we’ve ever developed to reduce harm and promote equality and wellbeing for the majority of people. It’s not one person deciding the fate of another, it’s all of us deciding the fate of individuals for the benefit of us all.
But also, apparently all of the available methods of execution barely work at all because of gross incompetence of the people who create the systems. That’s the more important issue, here, imo. The state clearly isn’t capable of serving a death sentence, nor do I expect they ever will be, so they shouldn’t even have the right.
I don’t think they should have the right if they are capable. The power of life and death over its citizenry is not a power a state should ever have.
I’m a consequentialist with aversion to suffering, so I think there are some very rare cases where it would be warranted if reform were considered truly impossible or would cause more suffering than it is worth, such as older or insane accused with very solid evidence convictions by a jury of peers.
Hard choices exist in this world, people sometimes have to choose what they can protect.
I’m really not understanding your argument. What does this ‘suffering’ have to be worth? And if an elderly or mentally ill person suffers in prison, that sounds like we should make prison a less horrible place, not euthanize people we feel deserve it.
I’m operating in the very real world assumptions that the restrictions of freedom of a large class of people will never so easily be made “a less horrible place.” This is far moreso true for chronic mental illness care. I don’t have a plan for any of that, and it doesn’t appear as though you do, either, so instead a simple solution is to only give a death sentence under very specific and hard to establish conditions agreed upon by a majority of people.
The plan is caring for mentally ill people with psychiatric supervision, possibly medication and/or therapy, something our prison system doesn’t offer, not killing them. You’re doing the “I shot the dog because he was untrainable and killed chickens” Kristi Noem defense, except for killing people.
Psychiatric Supervision, Medication, and Therapy don’t necessarily eliminate all suffering, and certainly have no guarantee of reform or a cure. Kristi Noem had a perfectly fine young animal capable of training by qualified owners of which many were likely available in her area, she instead chose to kill her dog. This is a great example of how outcomes with excess suffering are always worse and that many people are too mentally incompetent to weigh their options. If her dog were judged by a jury, it would have been acquitted.
Who gets to decide that people are too mentally ill to be kept alive and why is it up to them?
A judge and jury of peers adhering to very strict legal definitions and sentencing guidelines written by a democratically elected congress, because after thousands of years that’s the best system we’ve ever developed to reduce harm and promote equality and wellbeing for the majority of people. It’s not one person deciding the fate of another, it’s all of us deciding the fate of individuals for the benefit of us all.