Why do or don’t you support it?
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
If you haven’t already found it, this GitHub page is an excellent collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics, made by @dessalines and others.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a private Matrix room. See this thread for more information.
I think the death penalty is justified after a revolution when purging dangerous reactionary elements from society. Using the death penalty against generals, coronels, chiefs of police, landlords, capitalists, is all fine. Provided there are proper trials of course. After the purging is done I don’t think it should be used. An exception could be like the POWs of an invasion, like Nazi prisoners after WW2. But I still think you’re better off sentencing them to forced work to rebuild your country.
I was thinking about this just today. The state shouldn’t have the power to kill. The state can judicially do whatever it wants and it bleeds over into what it does extra judicially. If a cop preforms an extra judicial execution it is seen much much differently if the state never had the right to execute under any circumstance.
Like many others, I don’t support it under a capitalist structure that will likely use it to kill those that push against Capital being ingrained into everyday society(That being said many of the murders of Black Panthers and Revolutionaries don’t need a death sentence, the government killed these innocent people without a court.) And I’m sorry but there are some instances where even capitalist nations SHOULD put a death sentence in place. That case would be Sexual Abuse. In some states in USA, they kill child abusers for this and I can’t find a way to say that’s bad. The US doesn’t care after a certain age tho, so I feel it’s important to add more protection to more people that are vulnerable to abuse. This is the current state of the law: In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, held that the death penalty for the rape of an adult was “grossly disproportionate” and an “excessive punishment,” and hence was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The ONLY caveat I can think of is that Gary Webb was falsely accused of sexual abuse of a minor because he spilled US secrets. That’s a case where I can sorta understand people saying Capitalist nations shouldn’t have death penalty, but I don’t know, what do you think?
I’m not really sure, that’s why I asked you guys to hear different arguments for and against it. I agree with you, but at the same time it really rubs me the wrong way having the state wielding that kind of power. I’m still making my mind up, I need to do more looking into it.
Yea definitely, I mean what’s stopping them from ‘Gary Webb’ing many more people and tainting the very real claims of abuse that exist out there? I can see both sides and can’t really pick fully one way, but I lean on the side of having one in place for heinous crimes like Rape
As much as it pains my heart, I’m against it. I just can’t justify premeditated murder. I strongly believe in rehabilitation.
Capitalism corrupts everything and every death penalty sentence carried out likely carries the stains of greed, imperialism, and corporate interests. False convictions are rampant and always target minorities. Under Capitalism it can only act as a tool for genocide.
During a Revolution, yes.
Revolutionaries rarely have the resources to hold large numbers of POWs in prisons, so the worst of them should be executed (neo-nazis/nazis, high level war criminals, etc). Those are completely irredeemable in those circumstances anyway.
For other “normal” POWs I support a strategy used by Mao against the Nationalists. He had POWs go through a course, like a school course, about Marxism, with assignments, quizzes and tests, etc., and afterwards the graduates would receive an actual diploma stating they have successfully completed the course and were allowed to either join the revolutionaries, go home peacefully, or even go back to the Nationalist armies.
Those that went back to the Nationalist armies were seen as too compromised by the Nationalist armies and either sent home anyway, or in most cases outright imprisoned and sometimes executed. So many did not rejoin their previous commands for obvious reasons.
So under such a strategy, you can’t lose.
After a Revolution, no.
No need. Not even for those who are irredeemable, such as someone who performs heinous crimes or what not. Life sentences should suffice for those who shouldn’t return to society at large. Those in prison should have access to education, personal fulfillment, and work for fair pay which they can send to their families, have personalized experiences in prison (within reason, obviously everything should comply with safety standards of the convict, but what is the harm in allowing a convict to have a potted tomato plant or whatever if they aren’t going to misuse it?), etc. Solitary confinement and other methods of prison torture should go away completely, with other safety methods researched and utilized to ensure safety regarding the very very very very rare individual who is unsafe to interact with anyone and everyone (after all, even some 35 year old who spent the last 5 years murdering 20 children managed to go the first 30 years without doing so, right?).
Most of those who have committed the most heinous of crimes will likely have some form of mental illness at the root of it. Trauma could be likely, or forms of delusion or other mechanisms. Therapy and thorough documenting of their cases could not only help the individual recover, but may lead to new therapeutic techniques or lead to better establishing the root causes of such issues which may in turn assist therapists in wider society treat those who are at risk of this type of behavior before they start such behavior, or otherwise help policymakers establish policies which are more inclusive to prevent others from acquiring the traumas which may have triggered the thoughts in the inmate which led to their conviction.
Not to mention that even under ideal communism, the criminal justice system will still be limited by human capacity. Even if the process is somehow 100% automated or performed by AI, that too will be limited by the biases and other human limitations of the automation engineer or Machine Learning/AI programmer and the likely human created/gathered data it is fed. There is a non-zero percent chance of a false conviction, so that means there would be a non-zero percent chance of a wrongful murder at the hands of the state during the execution of a death penalty.
Also, after the revolution, as poverty decreases so will crime. A prison system which is not privatized and which operates under a government driven to eradicating poverty and establishing a society built on true egalitarian principles will have far far fewer prisoners and fewer crimes. Why risk altercations with individuals and law enforcement by spending hours pickpocketing in subways for such few gains when you can spend that same amount of time pursuing free education or a job doing something fulfilling which will pay much more and provide much more satisfaction? Need a rush of adrenaline? Become a skydiving instructor or rock climbing guide. Prison space will invariably open up and the resources necessary to support the few left over whose crimes are not related to poverty will certainly be there.
Should only be used in particularly hanous crimes that are proved in court beyond merely “beyond a reasonable doubt”. IMO the biggest issue with the death penalty is wrongful executions so preventing that should be the first priority. I’m fine with it almost never being used and requiring the prosecution to go through additional hoops with the justice ministry before it can even be on the table, but I think taking off the table completely only help the true monsters in our midst. Murdering someone in a drug induced street fight shouldn’t result in the death penalty, murdering someone slowly and meticulously in your basement because that’s your fetish probably should.
In capitalism - absolutely not
In socialism - with the disclaimer of penal system being socialist one, that is focused on rehabilitation, yes for the worst cases of crime and corruption.
It is the opposite of rehabilitative justice and only barbarian countries like the US have it, but I’m fine with it during war or revolution
In a socialist society, I think it would be nice to see prison become truly rehabilitative. I’ve much to read, but I remember reading about the experiences of prisoners in gulags! They had workers committees within the prisons and engaged with the public even! (Don’t quote me on that last part, don’t quite remember).
That being said, I think it should be reserved for the most reprehensible crimes. This is assuming we live in a socialist society, which we don’t quite do. I don’t trust whims of bourgeoisie justice.
Don’t see the point of having it outside of extraordinary circumstances like war or revolution. Only has downsides as far as I can see.
No due to the fact that mistrials can occur. Once you’ve killed someone who was actually not guilty it’s pretty hard to make that up afterwards.
What about atrocities that were so well documented so as to be certain it happened and who did it? Don’t get me wrong, wrongful execution is the biggest problem with the death penalty, but if your defendant was someone like Josef Mangele or Heinrich Himmler, I don’t think you need to worry about that.
deleted by creator
Yes for pedophiles, bourgeoisie, monarchists, capitalists and nazis
This I disagree with. I don’t think mental states should be punished with death. Child molesters, or people who actively fight for fascism or whatever, maybe, but merely thinking the wrong way should not be punishable by death, instead, re-education for fascists and monarchists or psychiatric treatment in the cases of mental disorders like pedophilia (which, again, is a distinct concept from acting on it and actually victimizing a child) are necessary.
If fascist or monarchists didn’t commit acts, then re-education yes, just don’t expect mercy on nazis who slaughtered people and pedophiles.
Life in prison is enough
life in prison means something different everywhere in the world. that is, referring to prison conditions. death is death.
deleted by creator
Most people think life in prison means life in solitary confinement, like you go in a cell once and only come out once you’re dead. Which isn’t true. You still interact with other people and form social structures in prison. You still get to exercise, read, even watch TV depending on the prison. You might not get to do whatever you want whenever you want, but you’ll get into the swing of things.
Plenty people throughout history lived similarly without even being in prison. I’m not pretending it’s a fulfilling life, but I absolutely do not consider life in prison more cruel or unethical than death.
I would say this: I think people who are given life in prison without parole should have the option to opt for assisted suicide at any point in their sentence. If they can’t take it anymore, give them a painless way out, should resolve the entire life in prison ethical delima.
Finally, you do have to think, is there even a delima? This isn’t average Joe we’re talking about. If you’re a child diddling druglord serial killer, do we really care how you feel at that point?
Innocent people are taken off of death row all the time.
You can’t free the dead.
deleted by creator
Let’s roll back to your statement
Yes, you may ponder this when you have the choice. The death penalty isn’t a choice between life in prison and death, the state has decided to kill you.
We can ponder the ethics and morality of the situation based on real world conditions, there are many contexts to think about, but those options are closed if the state kills someone without exploring them.
deleted by creator
Combatants aren’t civilians, captured combatants are still combatants and can be tried in a different manner than civilians. But I mean, outside of potentially being freed by sympathizers in the future, what would be the problem with overseeing someone deemed irredeemable to their natural death?
deleted by creator
against the state wielding the death penalty. it’s an extremely racist justification to murder black peoplein the usa. many of the people put on death row have rushed unfair trials. paying attention to these cases is so incredibly demoralizing and heart breaking.
w.e. powers are given to the state give it incentive to use them in anyways it wishes. i.e. in the case of felonies, voters are disenfranchised, and this gives the state incentive to tale away voting rights from any perceived opposition, very common in states like florida. we see the same issue with the death penalty, regardless of moral or legal justification, rational or otherwise, the state gets incentive to murder, far too often innocent people.