• PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • atomicorange@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well said!

      (I’d modify “deserves” somehow but agree killing should be reserved for when there is some imminent risk.)