The suffering should never be the point. It never gives meaningful satisfaction to the bereaved and affected and studies support this.
It is only human and normal to burn with anger and a desire to see monsters such as this torn apart and made to suffer.
This is part of our animal mind that views tribal justice and the dubious ‘wisdom of the crowds’ as absolute, and most of the fuckdamn reason we’ve spent so long learning how to live around millions of each other is in part giving up these outdated and unhelpful social traits.
In the long run, from the cultural perspective, no amount of his suffering will bring his victims back, and no amount of suffering will convince him that he was morally wrong.
So execute him, and quickly, and spend the money otherwise that would have covered his upkeep on free food for single parents.
If you kill the man, his suffering is limited. If you lock him away in a supermax for the rest of his long days, his suffering is a thousandfold.
Sure, but there’s also cost to the state to be considered.
That said, the common methods for execution used today are surprisingly expensive.
Isn’t it more expensive to execute someone vs a life sentence?
We should do another penal colony. Like Venus or something.
On a tangential note: I propose we ship the top 1% wealthiest people to Mars and make them colonize it.
We can send all the life sentence and death row convicts with them.
Riddick looks smug with his weird sunglasses.
The suffering should never be the point. It never gives meaningful satisfaction to the bereaved and affected and studies support this.
It is only human and normal to burn with anger and a desire to see monsters such as this torn apart and made to suffer.
This is part of our animal mind that views tribal justice and the dubious ‘wisdom of the crowds’ as absolute, and most of the fuckdamn reason we’ve spent so long learning how to live around millions of each other is in part giving up these outdated and unhelpful social traits.
In the long run, from the cultural perspective, no amount of his suffering will bring his victims back, and no amount of suffering will convince him that he was morally wrong.
So execute him, and quickly, and spend the money otherwise that would have covered his upkeep on free food for single parents.
The death penalty isn’t more cost-effective than life imprisonment. So your last argument ($) is actually against the death penalty.
https://ejusa.org/resource/wasteful-inefficient/
I’m pretty sure they were suggesting that we get rid of the appeals process to make it quicker and cheaper
Dammit, you were so close. Quick executions are how you turn the 1-5% innocent kill rate up to a 10-50%.
Why is there any value in making someone suffer for the sake of suffering?
If he’s dead he’s dead. There are plenty of evil people that are dead and I don’t wish them to be alive just so they can suffer.
That’s seems worse than killing them.