Rabies and psychopathy are diseases. The prognosis is terminal in both cases, and death would be a mercy. Rabies is also far less harmful than psychopathy, because it results in less collateral damage. After all, psychopathy is responsible for almost every evil you can see in the world today from famine to poverty and war.

Again, there is an argument against the death penalty but protecting psychopaths ain’t it.

HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com · 4 pts · 2y

No they are not both diseases. psychopathy is not caused by infection or is it communicable. They have no basis for comparison. Also do you know anything at all about rabies progression? Its about the worst disease you can have if you have gone passed the point of no return to treat it.

aidan@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y

After all, psychopathy is responsible for almost every evil you can see in the world today from famine to poverty and war.

I don't know, I think presuming you know the reasons and effects of things has led to some pretty harmful outcomes over the years.

proudblond@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 2y (19 replies)

I would not say there is specifically an upside to keeping a serial killer alive, but there are many downsides to the death penalty both ethically and in practice, not the least of which is the chance that you would execute an innocent person. For those of us who are anti-death penalty, that is usually where we’re coming from.

yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -9 pts · 2y (18 replies)

I’m against the death penalty, and I know the best argument against it, something nobody in this thread has even approximately articulated.

Currently, as far as I know, there is only one strong argument against the death penalty, and it has to do with moral proscriptions against treating the death of a person as a spectacle, which I notice nobody mentioned.

proudblond@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y (1 reply)

I don’t want someone to kill me; therefore I believe it is also not okay for me to kill someone else. It’s just the golden rule. I am not a student of ethics or philosophy but it seems pretty straightforward to me.

yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -5 pts · 2y

In the event that I were guilty of causing great harm to innocent people, then I should be killed. Not in revenge, but as a matter of course, given that my life would no longer be worth living.

This is the golden rule in action, which is about how you would want to be treated in similar circumstances.

Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 2y (6 replies)

it isn't a deterrent,

It is cheaper to let them rot in prison for life,

nobody wants to make the drugs involved for the 'humane way' so it is really difficult to obtain enough where it is used,

it is fundamentally inhumane to kill someone that knows it's coming (mental torture),

risk of executing an innocent, and as already stated

it is hypocritical to kill someone for killing.

yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -5 pts · 2y (5 replies)

it is fundamentally inhumane to kill someone that knows it's coming (mental torture)

That killing serial killers causes them harm isn’t a particularly compelling point, since we disagree over whether harming them is, in fact, good.

risk of executing an innocent

This is a good point and one I would explore further. However, it leaves open exceptions where the evidence is overwhelming.

it is hypocritical to kill someone for killing

Killing isn’t always bad. Killing innocent creatures is bad. Killing serial killers is tantamount to putting down rabid animals.

aidan@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y

This is a good point and one I would explore further. However, it leaves open exceptions where the evidence is overwhelming.

And you trust the state to make that decision? Or a jury?

Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 2y

I’m against the death penalty,

So you're dishonest. Got it.

AA5B@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y

Killing serial killers is tantamount to putting down rabid animals.

A serial killer can be removed from society and prevented from having an opportunity to kill. “Putting him down” is just you stooping to his level out of misguided self-righteousness

A rabid animal is suffering from the final hours of a horrible communicable disease that is 100% fatal. It’s in horrible pain, out of its mind, and you are doing a mercy to end its misery

aidan@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y (8 replies)

Currently, as far as I know, there is only one strong argument against the death penalty, and it has to do with moral proscriptions against treating the death of a person as a spectacle, which I notice nobody mentioned.

Nah I think not killing innocent people is a pretty strong argument, death being a spectacle doesn't really matter to me- someone killing someone is much worse than the part where they post it on LiveLeak

yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 2y (7 replies)

If you’re so against killing innocents, I assume you’re vegan. Or… is your morality as twisted and inconsistent as I suspect?

aidan@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 2y

Or I care about human life and not chicken life?

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 2y (1 reply)

Because that makes the state a serial killer. In fact, the state has murdered far more people than even the most prolific serial killer.

Whether or not they are innocent is often an afterthought. A way too late afterthought.

aidan@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y

Yet being suspicious of the state makes you a radical or a narcissist

idiomaddict@feddit.de · 8 pts · 2y

It’s cheaper

commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 2y (5 replies)