this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
667 points (97.3% liked)

News

23267 readers
2984 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] walnutwalrus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm not particularly "vindictive" but these are the kinds of cases where capital punishment / death penalty seem justified

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's never justified.

It won't bring the babies back. It won't stop her killing more babies any better than prison will. It won't discourage other people from killing babies.

All it does is turn "murder is wrong" into "murder is wrong (unless I think you deserve it)"... and guess which of those most murderers believe?

[–] fabulousflamingos@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A large number of people would disagree with you and they would be right to do so. Your opinion does not mean fact.

Nothing anyone does will bring those poor children back from the dead. That's not the point of justice. The point of it is to fulfill what the people think qualifies as moral righteousness. It's what the word actually means if you look it up in a dictionary, and for the majority of people, they believe the death penalty in cases like this is right and I for one can't fault them.

The point of wanting her dead isn't to bring the babies back. It's to get rid of her, permanently, as they rightfully should. We know prison isn't enough because others have cited the case of another baby murderer who is now up for parole and may be released, completely defeating the point of life sentences in jail.

murder is wrong (unless I think you deserve it)

And that's how many philosophical schools of thought work, and they are quite honestly more valid than yours. Deontology is a terrible moral outlook and cases like this is why. We can't have a moral and just society if we only judge morality by action and not by the circumstances of that action, who is affected, who commits it and why, etc.

What you're asking for is actually unempathetic, cruel, and quite honestly really dangerous for the community.

[–] InfiniteStruggle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The other case of a baby killer being eligible for parole is not the same as this one - she didn't get a sentence till death, this one is.

[–] fabulousflamingos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That fact makes it all the worse.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't hurt yourself explaining why.

[–] fabulousflamingos@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't have to. It's obvious to anyone who actually cares about their community and not defending baby murderers for their political agendas.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] fabulousflamingos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If you need to have someone explain to you why allowing a baby killer to go on parole -- and allowed back into society -- is bad, then the problem is not me, the problem is you. You have to put in the effort and think for yourself... though clearly you're not very good at it.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A large number of people would disagree with you and they would be right to do so. Your opinion does not mean fact.

What a hilariously self-absorbed comment. I never claimed my opinion was fact, but you tried to shame me for it anyway, while one sentence earlier acting like disagreeing with me is objectively correct.

Then you move on to presenting "eligible for parole" as "about to be released", then stating your opinion about what a life sentence means as fact.

And as the cherry atop a dogshit comment, you throw a fistful of character flaws at me, none of which you've even attempted to justify, let alone succeeded in justifying.

Hop back in your clown car and fuck off.

[–] fabulousflamingos@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then you move on to presenting “eligible for parole” as “about to be released”, then stating your opinion about what a life sentence means as fact.

Baby murderers should never be eligible for parole under any circumstances and the fact that she is is the problem. It proves that imprisonment isn't a guarantee she'll be permanently separated from society, taking away any credibility toward the claim that it's a satisfactory means to protect the community.

You just don't want to see a baby murderer be punished. That's what the real issue is. And you're vile and morally repugnant for holding that view.

And as the cherry atop a dogshit comment, you throw a fistful of character flaws at me, none of which you’ve even attempted to justify, let alone succeeded in justifying.

Your viewpoint speaks for itself. You want me to hold you in high esteem? Stop trying to manipulate other people into thinking a baby murderer shouldn't be held accountable for her actions or punished.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Baby murderers should never be eligible for parole under any circumstances and the fact that she is is the problem

Your opinion isn't fact and it definitely isn't law. But by all means, keep demeaning yourself by making it clear you don't know the difference between "life sentence" and "life imprisonment", even after someone links it to you.

You just don't want to see a baby murderer be punished. That's what the real issue is.

Nope, that's the issue you just made up because apparently you've decided to make amphetamines and BPD your entire personality.

And you're vile and morally repugnant for holding that view.

Having imaginary enemies isn't any less childish than having imaginary friends. Nobody is going to believe the fictional character you're openly building inside your head is actually me.

You want me to hold you in high esteem?

I couldn't care less and I've got no idea what gave you that impression. I'm just going to assume it's something you want me to feel, like all the other thoughts and opinions you're projecting onto me in a way that's clearly unbalanced.

Stop trying to manipulate other people into thinking a baby murderer shouldn't be held accountable for her actions or punished.

It really upset you to have your little murder fantasy criticised didn't it?

[–] SloppyPuppy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

so real question what the hell would stop people from doing that??

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

She is not being rehabilitated and will never contribute to society in any way again. She is just costing people money for no reason. I am normally against the death penalty, but there are some cases, like this one, that make me think twice.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Idk if they even have the death penalty in the UK but in the US it's significantly more expensive to put someone to death than it is to imprison them for life. Also about a third of death penalty cases end up overturned on appeal. Which is a pleasant way of saying we get it wrong a lot. I feel like that's important to remember, because you're not just deciding what to do in this specific case. You're designing rules, not exceptions.

[–] Nefrayu@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Capital punishment is prohibited in all circumstances in the UK, that includes times of war. It’s the same across almost all of Europe.

I totally agree for the US. I guess since I don't live there I trust the UK judicial system to be more sorted, but that is probably naive.

Even though I am against it where I live, there are still those cases where there is undeniable proof and the crimes are heinous enough to invoke the primal side of the brain. The logical side of my brain knows that it is a bad idea to give power to the state to kill people.

I just can't imagine how the family would feel in these kind of situations, and sometimes I think the justice given to them can be underwhelming. It's complicated and I find it hard to make a concrete decision to say that the death penalty is absolutely never warranted.

[–] jcit878@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

US it’s significantly more expensive to put someone to death than it is to imprison them for life

because of the appeals process. maybe if you guys had an actual functioning justice system over there that didnt convict and sentence people to death because of their skin colour things would be different, but as it stands, THAT is why its more expensive.

No-one hear is arguing over the actual guilt of this lady. A death sentence isnt going to be accidently put on the wrong person. Will she appeal? probably. She can do the same for life in prison too. Its gonna cost a lot no matter what.

In the end she is a worthless, valueless monster the world would be better for if she wasnt consuming oxygen and resources, although pretty sure the death penalty isnt a thing in the UK anyway so the point is moot

[–] soursugar@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What are you getting mad at him for? He's agreeing with you

[–] jcit878@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

wasn't getting mad at him mate, not sure what gave you that idea

[–] soursugar@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

maybe if you guys had an actual functioning justice system over there that didnt convict and sentence people to death because of their skin colour things would be different,

Sounds big mad to me

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eg, he's right about it being racist AF over here. Shit, we onced sentenced 3 kids to death because a child had been murdered and those 3 kids lived near the place where it happened, listened to dark music and made everyone feel uncomfortable. Google "west Memphis 3", we didn't actually end up murdering any of them but it wasn't for lack of trying.

[–] soursugar@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

It's his overall objective in the thread that's the problem. His problem is also not my problem. I'm perfectly content to laugh while he seethes.

[–] jcit878@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

not mad, pointing out facts champ. sorry, American justice system is 3rd level inconpetant, if that fact makes you mad, think about why

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why is contributing to society a prereq for living? People aren't just a means to your ends. Even terrible ones.

[–] Anduin1357@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I would argue that contributing to society can at minimum mean to be a person of good standing who participates without causing trouble. You could be as useless as a retiree since your 20s and still have contributed to society.

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You are right. Contributing is not a requirement. I never said that it was, but I could have worded it better. It's more the fact that she did completely unforgivable things and will obviously never be rehabbed. I'm torn on the idea, but people like her just seem like a waste of air.

Also, how does me implying that most people contribute to society make people a means to my ends? That part of your comment makes no sense. I don't give a fuck what people do as long as they don't mess with other people.

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

I don't know if she can be rehabilitated, but one of my catch phrases is nobody is beyond redemption. I don't know if it's true, but I think it is an important belief. Practically, I'd rather keep a monster alive if it saves a few damaged people with some hope of reforming. I also think that cultivating a mindset of compassion does good things for me as far as how I view and treat other people.

I recognize there's more nuance to your views, but statements like that are made all the same by people who don't have very complicated views of things. I debated four peeps at once at work today that were in support of the death penalty, so I might be a bit biased due to that.

[–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The death penalty is generally MORE expensive than prison for life, and if you don't want it that way your giving the government monetary incentive to give out more death penalties. Which is obviously a HORRIBLE IDEA

I agree generally don't really support the idea except in a few extreme cases where it is a solid case against a monster like this.

[–] x4740N@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Life scentences are not the only reason I'm against death scentences

There's also the off chance that someone is innocent, look at the innocent people jailed in america because of racism for example

This bitch deserves to rot in jail

When you use the death penalty on domeone who turns out to be found innocent you can't get them back, their body is gone

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't have any money, personally. I said she was costing other people money, not me. Oh no! Your reading comprehension!

[–] notatoad@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i am pretty vindictive, and i think sending a 33 year old to prison for the rest of her natural life seems like a much worse punishment than a quick death.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

This is one reason why I generally don't support the death penalty. Life in prison is a bigger punishment.

[–] Cryan24@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

In this case it would almost be letting her off the hook, rotting in prison seems a better punishment.