[ozgrakkurt]

Killing people in any context is barbaric because it is not possible to bring someone back from the dead.

I’m not a law expert but it seems pretty basic that there shouldn’t be irreversible punishment.

Also there should be equity which means everyone that does the same crime should face the same consequence, which doesn’t happen anywhere in the world as far as I can understand.

So harsher punishment means people with less power will get shafted harder

[godwinson__4-8]

Just to be clear - you can't really "reverse" most things. The arrow of time only moves in one direction. People who are jailed and then exonerated do not have their lives "reversed". Their future circumstances are changed. Maybe they are compensated. But they still suffered in jail. You cannot erase that part of their reality anymore than you can raise the dead. This is not to discount your point that making amends while someone is still alive is seen as preferable.

Of course, attempts are made to "reverse" even after someone had been put to death. Posthumous pardons are a thing. It may not bring anything to the person who has passed, but it could give somewhat similar benefits to living descendants.

It's just to say we shouldn't undermine how impactful something like incarceration is on the theory that it is "reversible". Evidence suggests such experiences mess people up in pretty severe ways. Lets also remember thinking of death in these distinct terms may be very cultural. Few penal systems escape barbarity. There are worse things than death. There are many instances or societies were it is preferable or expected people kill themselves rather than go through something like the ignominy of incarceration.

As to the last line, I'm also not sure. Brutal societies have a way of turning on themselves. Nations that accord more protections to their people are generally a better place for their rulers, even if the reverse is not always true. Personally I would love a legal system that baked into its norms higher punishments for people with more power. I think these have existed in the past, even if enforced through less modern mechanisms.

It is also the case that people in power do things that people with less power are incapable of. Getting rid of notions of executive privilege or qualified immunity would be a good start. The way the law is written currently, people in power won't simply not be punished - they won't even be charged. Take George Bush. Did he ever even just have to testify under oath about the rationale for the Iraq War once? Would the United States really descend into a banana republic if he had been charged for perjury or war crimes? It seems like the push in that direction can instead trace its genesis to the fact that in America, we evidently make our leaders untouchable.

[sethammons]

> there shouldn’t be irreversible punishment

I am not convinced. "You can no longer hold office" is a permanent punishment. Why should that not be allowed?

> Also there should be equity which means everyone that does the same crime should face the same consequence

I am also unconvinced. I don't think it is fair to treat a child like an adult and I think those in power should have more stringent standards and larger consequences for violating them.

[bandofthehawk]

> I am not convinced. "You can no longer hold office" is a permanent punishment. Why should that not be allowed?

Let's say that some new evidence comes out that exonerates the person. You can indeed reverse the "no longer hold office" punishment. You can't bring someone back from the dead.

[sethammons]

Le sigh. Fine, the punishment was you forfeit your chickens to your neighbor. Should those chickens be inedible by the new legal owner? What if they have to return them later if new evidence comes to light?

[cess11]

Chickens are basically fungible and interchangeable with money.

You can't select some random person and do a bit of bureaucracy and then tell a family whose member you killed that this rando is now part of their family as restitution for your mistake. You can give them money but in general it is considered somewhat distasteful to put an immediate pecuniary value on human life.

[luqtas]

barbaric is society which has half of the worlwide population living with less than 6 USD per day in borderline slavery

[fragmede]

The problem with putting a dollar number on it is it's devoid of context. Lunch from McDonald's is going to cost me $15 in the US, so $6 is not enough to live off of here. But the actual number is irrelevant. Is it enough to get food for the day or the week. How about housing? $6 doesn't sound like a lot, but if lunch is $0.50 and a roof over your head is $1.00 for the night, $6 goes a lot further!

[klaff]

barbaric is society which has 1% of its adult population living behind bars

[ImJamal]

If 1% of its adult population have committed crimes then it would not be barbaric if they were in jail?

[khazhoux]

Objection: relevance

[anepoitilivam]

The funny thing you really believe that, american m..n

[lenkite]

So what is the alternative punishment for folks like this who have destroyed the lives of countless people ? Hard labour for life in a mine until death ?

[cavoirom]

> I’m not a law expert but it seems pretty basic that there shouldn’t be irreversible punishment.

I agree with you, but we also can't reverse entropy.

[afroboy]

Does that killing is bad apply to other nations with different beliefs than you?