[Dudeman112]

>If the death penalty had been applied, there's no "undo" button.

There's no "undo" button for wasting away for 40 years in prison either

To me it looks like a glitch of the human cognition to think that losing almost/everyone you love, being dropped into a vastly different world than you knew, having your financial and social prospects thrown in the trash, living in shitty conditions for decades, is oh so much better and moral than killing them

[slothtrop]

> There's no "undo" button for wasting away for 40 years in prison either

There's payouts, at least. And it doesn't have to take 40 years.

[bufferoverflow]

There have been many cases with no payouts.

[oldbbsnickname]

That sucks. There is mandatory restitution in some states now. It should be required to come from the budgets of prosecution DA offices in order to prevent the gamification of over-conviction for reelection stats. States in the South, especially Louisiana, are notorious for their punitive criminal justice systems.

[slothtrop]

Yep, and I'd imagine if you give prisoners the choice, they'd rather be alive.

[oldbbsnickname]

Yes, that's also bad, obviously. If there's only a choice between dying and wasting years, wasting years is obviously better to most people.

[lost_tourist]

You're taking a worst case. Also, you are calling something out without providing what -you- would do in the situation? Maybe we could let them choose death if a lifetime sentence is the decision. What you're implying is just letting criminals out as the only alternative and that's never going to fly. If you're going to criticize something, it's good to propose your solution.

[nitwit005]

If you gave people the choice of execution instead of prison, many would be horrified just how many people would prefer death to their prison time.

The conclusion would be that those people are "suicidal", rather than admit death might be preferable for rational reasons.

[Dudeman112]

>Also, you are calling something out without providing what -you- would do in the situation?

If someone uses 1+1=3 as an argument you don't need to figure out an actual answer to point out their argument is bollocks

>What you're implying is just letting criminals out as the only alternative

I'm implying no such thing. I'm saying that specific moral argument is bullshit if they find the current punishment ceiling acceptable

[danaris]

Kinda makes one think that maybe a carceral justice system might not be the most humane and effective way of keeping our society safe and (relatively) orderly...

[bufferoverflow]

Any better ideas on how to deal with dangerous criminals?

There are people who kill for fun, kill for money, people who rape, people who torture for fun.

[danaris]

Well, while I agree that such people exist, their frequency is vastly exaggerated by popular media.

Many if not most of them can be prevented from ever becoming like that in the first place by eliminating poverty, which is a massive and omnipresent source of stress and trauma for people the world over.

There are sadists, psychopaths, and even pedophiles (defined as "those who are sexually attracted to prepubescent bodies", not "those who commit actual acts of child sexual abuse") who live mostly-normal lives and if they ever desire to hurt others, do not act on those desires. This is a pretty clear signal that the existence of these types of people does not inherently lead to them becoming violent, dangerous, or otherwise causing harm.

Is this a short-term project? Hell no. If a majority of the people in all the countries on Earth decided today to commit to a project to abolish the carceral state, I'd be surprised if we'd see it reach a stage where it's fully abolished within our lifetimes. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't set it as an aspirational goal, and start taking steps toward a world that doesn't have to worry about making a decision between executing innocent people and allowing people to walk free who are genuinely likely to harm others.