Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

marthirial2 t1_j06m3lm wrote

Reply to comment by CE3K in Oregon governor commutes all 17 of state's death sentences by Slavic_Dusa

42,000 people died in car crashes in 2021. One too many, let's ban cars.

−96

CE3K t1_j06nb45 wrote

That logic doesn't work. You're equating accidental deaths to the murder of innocent people and excusing murder, which is ridiculous. You might as well say, "Well, people die of old age so why not murder?" Do you not see the flawed comparison?

43

mauore11 t1_j095zs9 wrote

"How dare you use logic against my point"

0

CE3K t1_j09jbt1 wrote

tbf I don't think my example was the best. I wonder what a better analogy might be? It's such a weird concept, comparing car deaths to the death penalty. Some other users put it more eloquently already I guess.

1

Far_Vegetable7105 t1_j079o2h wrote

If murder is the intention unlawful killing of another, then executing the innocent after they're given due process and erroneously found guilty isn't murder. Unless your suggesting that these people were found guilty on purpose because someone wanted them exacuted.

−8

onioning t1_j07dm7x wrote

You're not wrong, but this is pretty pedantic. The person to replied to just used the wrong word.

7

Far_Vegetable7105 t1_j07ei70 wrote

I disagree that this distinction is just pedantry. Using the wrong word so that anyone who disagrees with your position looks like a monster is a rhetorical trick people use all the time. And it's really good at keeping people from actually talking with each other about their opinions and views.

Edit: not saying that this was the above poster's goal with using that word but the correction is not mere pedantry.

−1

onioning t1_j07f9je wrote

It can be, but in this case replace "murder" with "unjust killing" and that doesn't change anything. The emotional heft comes from what's being described, not how it is being described.

4

Far_Vegetable7105 t1_j07fzr0 wrote

They use murder three times the first two are synonymous with 'unjust killing' the last one stops making sense if you sub in 'unjust killing' which is a really really good illustration of my point.

−4

onioning t1_j07jvxy wrote

"Unjust killing" works fine in all cases.

3

Far_Vegetable7105 t1_j07l3n4 wrote

Lets say it does. Then I can say that unjust killing in this case = a certain kind of accident. So the above poster is just flat out wrong but in a way that is masked by using the word murder.

0

Bear71 t1_j07tcbz wrote

When the cops DA judge cheat to wrongfully convict then yes it is murder!

2

AliasElais t1_j0a4ux3 wrote

>Unless your suggesting that these people were found guilty on purpose because someone wanted them exacuted.

u/onioning does a good job explaining the rest but I just wanted to point out this part and affirm that this has indeed happened. Not the point but if you don't think the death penalty has been used against innocent people on purpose then you really should research more history on the subject.

2

Far_Vegetable7105 t1_j0b4a1t wrote

I'm well aware. But I think that particular miscarriage of justice is a wholly different problem that needs to be solved regardless of what any kind of punishment looks like. It doesn't suddenly become ok just because it was some other punishment. We can't just abolished the death penalty and call it good enough if that is the problem.

1

marthirial2 t1_j06o4w7 wrote

Incorrect and poor reading comprehension. I am equating death by car to death by lethal injection of innocent people. Both victims didn't deserve to died. The lazy argument of just ban death penalty because they may execute an innocent person is my issue.

With cars, they made them safer and smarter. We have to find a better system to dispose of the worst. That is the argument we should have.

−68

CE3K t1_j06rji6 wrote

Right, so just a little heads up but saying someone has poor reading comprehension is an ad hominem and doesn't add anything to your point. Otherwise we might as well just take that final step straight to name calling and well .. while I'm always down for fucking around I don't think this subject is all that complicated so I'll give it the ole college try first.

Since you seem to think that not killing innocent people isn't a valid argument to ban the death penalty we already have an incredibly huge difference in values and morals, so I'll add more reasons. There's a lot but here's a few as to why the death penality is hot garbage.

  • It's ineffective / doesn't work as a deterrent
  • It's inhumane / retribution isn't justice
  • It's exploitative / history of racial and economic biases
  • It's costly / literally costs more than a life sentence

However, I will double back to the number one reason it's bad, which is a simple argument based on morality. And that is that it's irreversible. In other words, killing innocent people is bad mkay? Ask yourself this, assuming the parties involved are of no danger to anyone anymore, if you could kill someone evil but you had to kill an innocent person to do it, would you? It's really simple logic. Vengeance is no excuse to kill innocent people. I don't see how that's debatable but since we disagree on that then there's really nowhere to go further on that note.

31

somepeoplewait t1_j06q8y2 wrote

The death penalty doesn’t deter crime and does cost more than simply keeping someone in prison for life. What purpose does it serve?

22

novium258 t1_j06qjem wrote

"better for 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent suffer" is how Benjamin Franklin put it, feeling the usual ratio of 10:1 didn't seem strong enough to drive home his point.

15

VanillaCookieMonster t1_j06v51n wrote

It is more likely that their reading comprehension is just fine - and your writing skills are flawed.

8

AtsignAmpersat t1_j06w7bf wrote

You have some really false equivalency going on in your logic. Car accidents are not the same as incorrectly sentencing someone to death.

7

DjDrowsy t1_j06zf7w wrote

Cars are useful for numerous reasons and car accidents are a natural result of cars being used. The death penalty is a completely revocable and preventable government policy that ends innocent peoples lives for no positive gain.

There an alternatives to the death penalty that dont end innocent peoples lives (or any lives!) and don't give governments the power to murder its citizens.

I personally dont trust the government to 1. Be competent enough to catch the correct person. 2. To end a person's life.

I'm uncomfortable with your "dispose of the worst" phrasing but I don't disagree that we should reform our prison system. It's just very clear that the death penalty is not the solution.

4

euph_22 t1_j0772ol wrote

>With cars, they made them safer and smarter. We have to find a better system to dispose of the worst. That is the argument we should have.

We have that, it's called "don't execute them". Which incidentally is cheaper and has all the deterrent value.

3

Phobia_Ahri t1_j06zd7c wrote

But cars are dogshit and ruin our cities and ecosystems. So yes actually, let's ban cars plz

−1