Are you for or against the death sentence?

@MethDozer

I think that's a dangerous idea which would result in revenge killing whether it's justice or not.

@Pikachu Nah, if the conviction results in a death penalty, the victim or a close relative should pull the trigger. If they can't go through with it then no death sentence. No one else doing your dirty work.

@MethDozer

I think that would open the door too wide to revenge rather than justice.
It could take the question from "should this person die for their crimes" to "should this family get the satisfaction of revenge".

Too dangerous.

@Pikachu It wouldn't change anything. Except probably resulting in fewer victims and families seeking the death penalty because they would be responsible for the gory part instead of a professional executioner.

[quote] "should this person die for their crimes" to "should this family get the satisfaction of revenge". [/quote]
both.... It's about both.


Revenge isn't that bad of thing in reality.

@MethDozer

[quote]It wouldn't change anything. [/quote]

I think that's a little naive. Revenge and bloodlust are powerful motivators and ones which we're all too happy to rationalize.

[quote]Revenge isn't that bad of thing in reality.[/quote]

It is when it perverts justice. I think such a rule would make that all to likely.

@Pikachu You're assuming that under said idea that crimes punishable by death penalty would be expanded. Fact is, when most victims and families of them request and seek the death penalty, revenge is part of the motivation many times. Whether a state wet worker pulls the switch or not doesn't change that. It probably increases it since someone else is doing the dirty work for them.

@Pikachu When people are asking for justice, it most often is a soft word for revenge. Kinda the same thing really.

@MethDozer

[quote]You're assuming that under said idea that crimes punishable by death penalty would be expanded[/quote]


Nope.
I'm just saying that it would be too easy for bloodlust to pervert justice.

@Pikachu You really think having an executioner do it prevents any of that? That's an absurd idea that someone would forgo seeking the death penalty because they have to let someone else do the executing. The mind boggles.

@MethDozer

Yeah i do think that. I think making it a third party rather than the grieving family removes a level of emotional entanglement which could compromise the service of justice.
You don't have to agree.

@Pikachu That's ignoring the fact that there is a court and trial first. The emotional entanglement takes place there before any of that. Few peep can do that kind of dirty work. The grieving family and victims is already the ones who typically press the prosecution to seek death penelty. I doubt many that do could actually look one and pull the trigger. Yet would be happy to have someone else do it for them. Much the same many meat eaters couldn't kill an animal themselves but will chow down the burger that someone else killed and butchered.

@MethDozer

[quote] That's ignoring the fact that there is a court and trial first.[/quote]

No, in fact i'm not. I'm actually saying that, that emotional predisposition towards revenge could result in a miscarriage of justice.

@PikachuYea you are. Absolutely you are. Nothing is heading freed up to include more chances of executions. The laws would remain the same. The parameters are still the same.

How does the lone fact of an executioner change that?

Again, the victims and their family are already seeking revenge. Regardless of who pulls the switch or trigger. Their emotional predisposition already came into play when they seeks the death penalty at the court room Regardless of who is going to do the executing. You aren't giving any reasoning behind your assumption.

@MethDozer

My reasoning is that making the victims in charge of pulling the trigger will add an extra layer of emotional entanglement to the execution of justice because it appeals too much to our native urge for blood and revenge.
You don't have to agree.

@Pikachu Yeah, but why and how?

How does having a hit man do it diminish any of that? Justice for a victim IS revenge. Be it death or imprisonment. By the victim or another.

@MethDozer

Because it's more personal. Having that personal connection removed by a step makes it easier for judgement to be passed logically rather than emotionally.

@Pikachu I still say you are ignoring the fact the decision was made long ago in a court of law. The victim nor the family is involved in the judgement either way.

I completely disagree also on the basis that most people aren't able to get blood on their hands but can let someone else do it for them. We see that fact demonstrated often.
The idea someone e would forgo a death sentence plea because someone else is going to do the executing is naive at best IMHO.

Totally ignoring the basis of law, court, and trial still being involved.


If one is seeking a death penalty, then said person should be able to pull the trigger themselves or the sentence is wrong. Do your own dirty work.

@MethDozer

You're certainly welcome to disagree🙂

@Pikachu That goes without saying.