Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Asking in good faith: what happens when the wrong person is sentenced to death? It's happened many, many times before.
I think we should be very careful not to sentence people when there is doubt over if they did it - we would still have plenty of people to execute. Also said this in my reply to Bytemeister.
Thanks for your reply.
We agree on the core principle: we shouldn't execute people when there's doubt. The disagreement I have is about whether the system can ever be certain enough.
I'd argue that even cases that seem airtight at trial have fallen apart later (new evidence, recanted testimony, exposed misconduct etc etc...) If we acknowledge that human judgment is fallible, then a system with no "undo" means we're gambling with lives we can never give back.
Maybe the real question isn't whether we could find enough people we're sure about but whether any government should have the power to make that kind of irreversible mistake.
To be clear: I understand we're fundamentally on different ends of the table on this topic (and that's okay). I wanted to share my thoughts on it with you, not tell you you're wrong.
I appreciate you hearing me out!