• Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I generally agree but there are costs to not executing someone clearly guilty as well and it’s about measuring these costs. For a general murderer - sure the costs of keeping them banished forever are quite low but for someone like Musolini or this mayor? There are real costs of keeping them alive in banishment primarily the risk of them coming back or leaking influence back into the real world so imo death sentence here could be justified.

    Though in practice I agree that it’s safer to not give government this power as overall risk of abuse is too high but ethically it’s completely justifiable to kill someone who’s incredibly dangerous even if 100% certainty is not possible.

    • YoFrodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I dont care about costs. This is about preventing wrongful executions. I cannot accept the arguement that say “well, its expensive to prevent the state from accidentally executing the wrong person” Too bad, thats the cost of justice. Prison is a punishment for the guilty, no one should be murdered by the state.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        49 minutes ago

        I did not mean monetary costs but societal costs as well. Having a dangerous person in banishment still leaking danger to society costs more lives than that of one person.

        Let’s say there’s a cartel boss and sure you lock them up but they can still cause enough instability to start a cartel war killing thousands of innocents - wouldn’t killing them (legally) be better for society as it would save thousands of lives? I mean we can probably be quite certain they’re the cartel boss, not 100% but as close as practically possible right?