help me understand

capital punishment doesnt curtail vengeance killing, it is vengeance killing, just legitimized by the state.

i didnt find anything about italy 1450-1550, but i did see that capital punishment was exercised in almost all pre-unitarian states until the 1800s so it seems theres a leak in your example boat on the argument sea...

no person can lose their right to life unless it's a situation of self-defense. it is abhorrent for a state to decide who gets to live and who gets to die, they dont have the right.

let me explain what i mean when the state is vengeance killing. capital punishment is supposed to satisfy the family/friends etc of the victim by killing the convict. that in itself is vengeance killing, just the state is imposing its 'monopoly over justice' and doing the deed *for* the victim's affiliates. this also satisfies members of the general public who might also be invested in their ultimately temporary anger at the convict for whatever wrong they did.

the distinction youve drawn is that the state is somehow correct in its execution while vengeance killing would be incorrect. i dont think either are correct, and having the state do it first didnt make it better somehow.

in my view literally any time the state kills anyone it is in its own interest. they use the fear of death to maintain their power, and keep people who get emotional over cases compliant because theyre high off that satisfaction of one less perceived evil in the world.

your cheek isnt clever, either. no need to get so emotional over some smartass who didnt deserve your time.

bunga bunga i like big gov cock in my ass i will vomit on my keyboard and post

britbonger britbonger britbon-

well your idea of decentralization is evidently warped considering you support the death penalty

lmao your first point is brain meltingly bad have fun killing people for bad reasons and sucking big government toes

continue to mald

How about N O

Think about the ppl that want the CCP style government that are against the death penalty.. I wonder what Chinas rank is on capital punishment is?

people who like auth left governments probably support the death penalty lets be real

i guess, but tankies are hypocrites who dont believe in the proletariat and think they need a dictator to keep order, which will eventually lead to capital punishment

Small government usually means government only stepping in when somebody tramples on the rights of others so the death penalty still counts for it.

absolutely not. giving the state control over when rights apply to you and when they dont is overtly authoritarian. even if a person has trampled on someone elses rights, they didnt suddenly cease to be a person, forfeit of their rights. though, just to be clear a state can step in to deal with its laws being broken, but i would further argue the way in which a state should penalize someone. even if they somehow did lose their rights, it makes zero sense to give a state that doesnt really know you at all the authority to decide the distinction, and for them to be able to know you well enough to make that call....

quit guzzling that soylent youll spill some

The people punished should be punished at the most local level through the courts involving the victim in the crime. Anyways, if you hurt others you need to be stopped in your tracks. If you don't respect other people's rights then you shouldn't be able to keep the rights you have. The state would be acting on behalf of the power of the in this case so they wouldn't be taking any power but instead acting on the power of the people.

i dont see why stopping someone in their tracks cant involve rehabilitation. it must take a lot of emotional immaturity to think the only way to deal with criminals is to put them down. how would a state be acting on the power of the people? is there an election for whether someone should be put to death? i dont think there is.
and this is all assuming the person they tried was actually guilty. the state shouldnt be given the power to take peoples lives on that premise alone. even if it's [not significant enough for me to morally question] thats an innocent person killed for no reason but for the states lack of compassion towards its convicts. it's an undeniable overreach for a state to be free to execute innocent people an imperfect system has determined are criminals

I never said we shouldn't try to help some through therapy. You just twist what I mean to push a point you don't understand. The state protects the people by not allowing people to hurt other people so the very existence of the state is that election you never have thought about. The last part of your comment could apply to anything if you tried to apply it to that. Why accuse people of anything if you could be wrong? It's because if you didn't do anything about a problem then you wouldn't be able to do something about it later if you kept ignoring it.

i dont think death should ever be a option that the state can make for someone. eveyrone should get therapy, not just some. you dont need a state to protect you or have elections. im not saying dont accuse people, im saying dont kill people youve pronounced guilty. of course accusations can be wrong, but my point is that convictions can be wrong as well.

The state makes it on the behalf of the victim. If it's a honest crime involving something that can clearly hurt somebody to such an extent they can never fully recover then I think the death penalty should be on the table. It takes lots of time and effort to gather proof somebody did a crime but if you make an exception for some than everybody could easily get away with crime and the state then wouldn't even act like it was enforcing laws. I only suggest the death penalty as a final option but I still think it is necessary if the person who did the crime is clearly to much of a threat to the people in the immediate legal process at the moment.

i see so if the death penalty is removed all crime shall be legalized according to facts mcgee. what an obvious slippery slope, dude. why would crime not be enforced without the death penalty? and appealing to my emotions wont work either. i can sympathize with victims of crimes and also not want to murder people who i see as mentally unfit to be allowed to live, which kinda reminds me of something...

why did you deny that 'just kill em' was never said and that im being intellectually dishonest if thats what you mean?
i think someone has the right to defend themselves, and if that means they end up killing their attacker, thats how it is. but the states relationship with a case does not give them that authority in my view. can you explain what you mean by an authority derived from the people?

sorry im not as emotionally weak as yall that i can be manipulated by the state to this extent :/

semantics. if you think theres a situation where the state can assign death, thats basically what youre saying

lol talk about not understanding the complexities of a situation and saying 'just kill em'

You didn't even read what I said. I'll repeat again so you'll have a chance to understand with your thing you call a brain. IF a person is hurt the state protects them on their behalf through a legal process. If you make exceptions for some you would need to do it for all. If you'll read than actually address that and not the strawnman you made.

no you didnt, unless your entire argument is that im stupid, in which case ill take your concession on the death penalty

Yes. I. Did.

how would someone spending life in prison perpetuate a cycle of crime?

how does the state killing people being approved by people make it moral, assuming the death penalty even has majority approval? what's the trend for having the death penalty vs not having it? from what i found, the crime rate is a little lower on average in states without the death penalty than states with the death penalty. i assume that wasnt the trend you were thinking of

The state represents the victim in a case of crime. What is the direct and clear link between those lower crime rates and the laws with the death penalty? If a clear connection between those two can't be found then this is just a non sequitur.

and just because the victim feels that it is good for the state to kill their offender, how does that make it any more moral?

the stats are correlated by not necessarily causing one another, yes. there is as much support to the claim that not having the death penalty causes lower crime rates as there is to say that the lower crime rates are causing the death penalty to remain illegal. what was the trend you were thinking of that supported your argument?

The victim has rights to be protected. Others also need law and order to be enforced to protect them. I was asking for your stats to show a link between your claims. Don't try and ignore what I was asking you in my last comment by switching your narrative.

what does that even mean 'the death penalty does count for punishment in general'? are you trying to argue that the death penalty is, in fact, a punishment?

It is a punishment. I don't see why that is something shocking.

did you look at the percent difference over time in the table at the top tho?
assuming that your 'extremely close' argument is correct (which i dont think it is because when the percentages are in that <10% range individual percentage point changes count for more people, as that table shows) how does that even support your position? just by getting rid of the death penalty, you could have a less expensive justice system (i havent mentioned this before but it is cheaper for the state to do life imprisonment than to use the death penalty) that kills less people and theres the added bonus that the murder rate (*)might drop by a couple percentage points.

The top graph had the rates shown so you can see those for yourself. As for your second part, I don't want to trade money for allowing what I see as a bad cycle of crime.

thats not an argument for the death penalty...
and i dont know what i was supposed to get from "if you make an exception for some than everybody could easily get away with crime and the state then wouldn't even act like it was enforcing law" that wasnt 'if the death penalty is removed crime will no longer enforce its laws'. if you werent talking about the death penalty then yes, the state would have stopped enforcing laws, but we're not talking about punishment in general, we're talking about the death penalty. im sorry i didnt notice you switched topics midway through your argument

THE death penalty does count for punishment in general. If you can't understand this then it goes to show that you don't understand how any form of legal action works in the world.

>you could have continued with an actual point after saying it was a punishment, but you didnt; you just pretended that im arguing that it's not a punishment and called me stupid

I continued with my point by responding to your own comment.

im not arguing that though. youre position is so wrong, you had to fall back to what the death penalty is. im crying.

You clearly can't even read your own idiotic comments. I simply replied to the exact point you made.

oh i didnt see you ask for the source here (https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states)

this may sound crazy but you can protect people's rights without the death penalty. the death penalty just infringes on the right to life, there isnt anything that be changed about that fact.

The sources you showed have stats that are extremely close. I was asking for a direct link between each lack of a death penalty and a lack of murder.

then whats your point? and remember that the argument isnt on whether the death penalty is a punishment or not, it's whether the death penalty should be allowed, whether it's moral for a state to use it

I was talking about how the morality question of the discussion involves the states representation of people along with the trends set by having or not having a death penalty.