• Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    But are you sure they committed those despicable heinous crimes?

    Like 100% sure?

    Or will you be killing an innocent?

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think this is an unnecessary complication. Let’s assume we do know 100% they actually did. I believe the other commenter would still believe it is wrong for the government to kill them.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        On the one hand, many people who oppose the death penalty, myself included, agree that even in a situation where we know that a person committed a crime with the kind of absolute certainty that’s only possible in thought experiments, we would still oppose the death penalty.

        On the other hand, it’s not an unnecessary complication, because that’s one thing that sways some people to this side of the debate–we don’t live in a thought experiment, so we can never be absolutely certain that the person being killed actually committed the crime they’re accused of. We can come pretty damn close–I challenge you to find someone who believe Dennis Rader or Darrell Brooks is innocent–but as long as we’re executing them, we’ll be executing Cameron Todd Willinghams and Walter Bartons and Carlton Micheal Garys. It just isn’t worth it. Let them rot in prison, and if evidence comes out that they didn’t actually commit the crime, release them.