Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dunamisdeos]

If it were possible to reverse death, would execution be justified?

And now, we sentence you to minor inconvenience.

Or maybe we could just cryo-freeze people like in demolition man.

[ggamer]

I imagine it'd be pretty hard to even argue whether the anywhere-from-<1-to-slightly-higher percent chance of a false positive is worth the net cost of interring death row inmates in life confinement in any sort of polite conversation. Personally? We have the fucking government for a reason, and it's not so they can blow three people's lifetime tax income on fixing a fucking f-15 engine, it's so that they can eat said internment cost so that innocent people aren't put to death.

Although, there's an argument to be made in that anyone innocent who made it to death row probably has people who want them there, and the chance of them being released is already depressingly low.

If it were possible to reverse death, would execution be justified?

And now, we sentence you to minor inconvenience.

Or maybe we could just cryo-freeze people like in demolition man.

Oubliette style hellish murder imprisonment for shitty places, life internment for the rest probably.

[Criptfeind]

If it were possible to reverse death, would execution be justified?

Fascinating question, taking in a complete vacuum, I think I'd say yes. But ability to reverse death implies immortality, and if that exists I think the answer is no. Right now the death penalty is spending up to decades in prison followed by being put to death as the replacement for decades in prison followed by death of natural causes. There's kinda a level of parity there. If the other option is immortality then the death penalty goes from some sorta parity to taking away a potentially infinite amount of time from someone, even if their sentence would be hundreds of years, that's a drop in the bucket next too forever.

[Dunamisdeos]

So it depends on the detail, to give a real answer.

If the intent is to reverse the death after a certain period of time, it's basically just a prison sentence. You wake up in 50 years having served your time. Donezo.

If the premise is that it is possible to fully reanimate a corpse to the point where it is like they never died with no effective time limit as to how long one has been deceased, then yes, I would find it fully justified. Risks have been removed. If there is a time limit, nothing has really changed. You've just gone from "Death Row until they end you" to "being dead until you can no longer be resurrected". Same practical effect.

If we are all immortal, the death penalty skyrockets in terms of severity, since you are effective taking away eternity from a person and an eternity spent with that person from their loved ones.

[JoshuaFH]

I'm sure as technology advances we'll just invent more quote unquote "humane" ways of removing unwanted malefactors from society that would ordinarily be executed, like doing some kind of brain surgery on them to transform them into model citizens. Destroying someone's personality and identity is about the same as killing them, so why not get something useful out of it?

[Kagus]

"Attempts to clone the captain in order to execute them for incompetence are underway"


Anyways, it's the well-beaten flamebait horse of Millenial Economics, but I saw a little internet exchange recently that made me giggle a little bit...

Player 1: "I look at my generation and a lot of their problems are self inflicted. They want too much and save too little. I have worked minimum wage jobs since I was 15, paid rent since I was 17 and paid for my tuition with said money. I failed university and continued to make minimum wage until recently, I now make slightly more. I worked hard and built up references to get me better jobs. I live alone, but I can afford my own place, to feed myself, and also have money left over for fun. It takes sacrifice and delaying gratification."

Player 2: "Where do you live?"

Player 1: "Alberta, Canada"

[hector13]

I have no words

Separation of church and state at work?

[smjjames]

More like using authoritarian FUD tactics since he apparently can't rely on his own record to rally the base.

He knows full well that the Midterms are a referendum on himself.

[Doomblade187]

I have no words

Separation of church and state at work?

Haven't you heard? He's the new pope.

[Kagus]

Well huh. That's... I mean, that's pretty terrible. On many levels.

But, see, this is kinda what I was touching on earlier... Had it been anyone else standing there, begging religious leaders to use their sway and bring politics into church for more votes by using batshit accusations and ominous threats predictions, people might have been really disturbed.

Since it's Trump? I dunno. I mean, it's a headline, but it's also well within established norms.

[Dunamisdeos]

I have no words

Separation of church and state at work?

Haven't you heard? He's the new pope.

The Pope is my personal nemesis. Every so often he resurfaces in my life when least expected, at the black heart of some new and sinister plot.

Also, yeah no that's just Trump being his usual demagogue self. I found the reply from the people in the room heartening, where they basically said nobody took him seriously. And I don't think it's an issue with separation of church and state. He's just going to people of influence and trying to cajole them into using it for his gain. Same thing every other politician does.

[ChairmanPoo]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I´m actually Jorge Mario Bergoglio

[smjjames]

Well huh. That's... I mean, that's pretty terrible. On many levels.

But, see, this is kinda what I was touching on earlier... Had it been anyone else standing there, begging religious leaders to use their sway and bring politics into church for more votes by using batshit accusations and ominous threats predictions, people might have been really disturbed.

Since it's Trump? I dunno. I mean, it's a headline, but it's also well within established norms.

Well within established Trump norms anyway, not normal norms since it’s not normal for US Presidents to act like that.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

If we lose the vote, then antifa will violently change the law. Because we'll be electing antifa, and they change laws BY SHOOTING PEOPLE.

Or, if we're not electing antifa, then the antifa will simply notice that the left is rising, and take advantage of their newfound legislative power TO SHOOT PEOPLE. Because you shoot people when you're winning, not when you're losing.

Even if antifa are really this great boogeyman, this doesn't make any sense.

[Egan_BW]

Looks like he's just abusing the word "violent". And also calling all leftists antifa. And also calling democrats leftists.