• KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    That is your definition of justice. I personally believe that a murder in response to a murder just makes two murders. I don’t see justice in that.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      No, I’m talking about absolute justice. Your version is just a degree from letting them off Scott free. If the deterrent for death isn’t death then why punish them at all?

      I don’t think people with your reasoning realize that you’re giving the murder what they want. Literally no one wants to die but ppl can do life in prison and laugh about all the people they killed and even profit or be glorified.

      That’s your idea of justice in this case and it’s a slap on the face to families who have lost loved ones.
      As far as I’m concerned you should look at it like every killer that gets out and kills again is on the shoulders of people like you.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        My friend, if death is the punishment for a single murder, what’s stopping them from killing 2 people? 3? 4? 10?

        When you dole out a “this is the worst we can do to you” punishment, there’s no reason to stop. This concept actually increases the chances of crime, because “fuck it, I’m gonna die anyway.”

        It’s also extremely short sighted. For every ~9 inmates found guilty and sentenced to death, 1 is exonerated. And that isn’t even mentioning the number of people who have been executed who were proven innocent after the fact.

        How about we just make the chances of killing an innocent person 0% by no longer executing people?