The way I see it, treason DESERVES the death penalty, but it shouldn’t ever be levied unless there is no other choice (ie a strong possibility of them being sprung, pardoned, or otherwise escape a life sentence by help of their fellow traitors).
Sometimes you don’t give people what they deserve because of what it does to you, not because of what it does to them.
The death penalty (which I abhor) ideally would only be used for those who are too dangerous to be kept alive.
I think Napoleon’s return is the best example of the consequences of not executing someone. He escaped from Elba and the wars started right back up, resulting in hundreds of thousands of military and civilian deaths in less than 4 months, only for him to be exiled again. If they’d executed him instead of sending him to Elba, the “hundred days” and the Waterloo campaign would never have happened.
Yeah, I think with dictators, cartel heads, and similarly “well connected” murderous figureheads the death penalty makes more sense. The line gets fuzzier when you get down to the level of like a cult leader - someone who maybe has connections but their power is probably insufficient to make escape likely.
That’s the conflicted part. My brain said ’ what do you do?’ Kill them? Incarcerate for life? Neither are good options to me, I would hope for rehabilitation. At the same time I know that is not realistic in some cases.
At the time of this photo, I don’t know if an alternative would have been remotely feasible. It’s impossible to place judgement on historical actions with a modern moral lens. The idea of letting treasonous individuals live would have been untenable.
But as other posters have shown here in response to my comment, lifelong incarceration does seem to be the better option even if you’re looking at it purely from a policy and cost perspective. And rehabilitate is only possible if they’re not dead.
Good point! I think my biggest issue with this particular death penalty conviction was that it was through a military tribunal instead of civilian criminal court, and the defendants had inadequate legal representation. Even by the standards of the time period it was unjust.
Yes, lifelong incarceration is better. I’m sure there are cases where incarceration is less humane, but I’d argue that’s an issue with how we do incarceration and the death penalty isn’t the solution. Incarceration is certainly better for the moral and psychological well-being of the people carrying out the sentence. It’s better financially. It leaves open the possibility of correcting erroneous convictions. It leaves open the possibility of change, learning, redemption, and healing.
Not the death penalty’s biggest fan, but I’ll admit to a little bit of nostalgia on that particular point.
It gets tricky there doesn’t it?
I am against the death penalty.
This person commited treason against a just government.
I agree with your reply, it still leaves me conflicted though.
The way I see it, treason DESERVES the death penalty, but it shouldn’t ever be levied unless there is no other choice (ie a strong possibility of them being sprung, pardoned, or otherwise escape a life sentence by help of their fellow traitors).
Sometimes you don’t give people what they deserve because of what it does to you, not because of what it does to them.
The death penalty (which I abhor) ideally would only be used for those who are too dangerous to be kept alive.
I think Napoleon’s return is the best example of the consequences of not executing someone. He escaped from Elba and the wars started right back up, resulting in hundreds of thousands of military and civilian deaths in less than 4 months, only for him to be exiled again. If they’d executed him instead of sending him to Elba, the “hundred days” and the Waterloo campaign would never have happened.
Yeah, I think with dictators, cartel heads, and similarly “well connected” murderous figureheads the death penalty makes more sense. The line gets fuzzier when you get down to the level of like a cult leader - someone who maybe has connections but their power is probably insufficient to make escape likely.
Well said!
(I’d modify “deserves” somehow but agree killing should be reserved for when there is some imminent risk.)
Well, the next question would be, “what’s the alternative?” Is lifelong incarceration better?
That’s the conflicted part. My brain said ’ what do you do?’ Kill them? Incarcerate for life? Neither are good options to me, I would hope for rehabilitation. At the same time I know that is not realistic in some cases.
There is this case in Japan currently. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/07/japan-death-row-iwao-hakamada-murder-retrial-verdict
At the time of this photo, I don’t know if an alternative would have been remotely feasible. It’s impossible to place judgement on historical actions with a modern moral lens. The idea of letting treasonous individuals live would have been untenable.
But as other posters have shown here in response to my comment, lifelong incarceration does seem to be the better option even if you’re looking at it purely from a policy and cost perspective. And rehabilitate is only possible if they’re not dead.
Good point! I think my biggest issue with this particular death penalty conviction was that it was through a military tribunal instead of civilian criminal court, and the defendants had inadequate legal representation. Even by the standards of the time period it was unjust.
Yes, lifelong incarceration is better. I’m sure there are cases where incarceration is less humane, but I’d argue that’s an issue with how we do incarceration and the death penalty isn’t the solution. Incarceration is certainly better for the moral and psychological well-being of the people carrying out the sentence. It’s better financially. It leaves open the possibility of correcting erroneous convictions. It leaves open the possibility of change, learning, redemption, and healing.
how is it better financially to keep someone incarcerated?
Costs info.