If some crimes are punished more severely than others, then the government could accuse its critics of committing these crimes.
Therefore, no crimes should be punished more severely than others.
But this conclusion is ridiculous. Some crimes should be punished more severely, possibly up to and including the death penalty.
My point is that if you do want to argue against the death penalty, this argument is not it.
EDIT: The only good arguments against the death penalty focus on the the kind of civil society you would rather live in — one that has a bureaucratic apparatus for killing people, or one that does not.
Arguments against the death penalty based on specific crimes are unpersuasive, since some crimes really do deserve death, morally speaking — the problem has always been an administrative one. Even if some violent (or even white collar) criminals deserve to die, building a bureaucratic apparatus to administer their deaths would make for an evil sort of society.
Most crimes have a clear victim that is hurt directly by the crime. Battery, murder, theft, vandalism, fraud.
The problem with laws about penalties for “being” something is that it’s an identity statement. There is no “victim” to someone “being a pedophile” unless a child is sexually abused, just as there’s no victim to someone “being a terrorist”. So, the fascist state works to subvert and divide by othering their political opponents with taboo labels of being “pedophiles” (trans people) or “terrorists” (“Antifa”… i.e. anyone who denounces fascism).
There is a categorical difference between those that is completely unrelated to your main argument. One could be in favour of severe punishment for first degree murder and be opposed to any punishment for “thought crime” without any contradiction.
That said, most progressive people who support LGBTQ+ rights (and, apparently, rule of law) also tend to be opposed to capital/severe punishment of criminals.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Or, I dunno, maybe don’t have a sweeping death penalty? Just the fact that it’s prohibitively more expensive, and that far more often than is comfortable people who have been executed are later exonerated for their crimes. Can’t exactly “oopsie sorry” an execution. But that’s a whole different argument, granted.
This is more of a counter-argument. I’ve frequently seen supporters of the death penalty claim it is cheaper than housing the person in prison for life. But this is false.
The argument is flawed in the following way.
But this conclusion is ridiculous. Some crimes should be punished more severely, possibly up to and including the death penalty.
My point is that if you do want to argue against the death penalty, this argument is not it.
EDIT: The only good arguments against the death penalty focus on the the kind of civil society you would rather live in — one that has a bureaucratic apparatus for killing people, or one that does not.
Arguments against the death penalty based on specific crimes are unpersuasive, since some crimes really do deserve death, morally speaking — the problem has always been an administrative one. Even if some violent (or even white collar) criminals deserve to die, building a bureaucratic apparatus to administer their deaths would make for an evil sort of society.
Most crimes have a clear victim that is hurt directly by the crime. Battery, murder, theft, vandalism, fraud.
The problem with laws about penalties for “being” something is that it’s an identity statement. There is no “victim” to someone “being a pedophile” unless a child is sexually abused, just as there’s no victim to someone “being a terrorist”. So, the fascist state works to subvert and divide by othering their political opponents with taboo labels of being “pedophiles” (trans people) or “terrorists” (“Antifa”… i.e. anyone who denounces fascism).
There is a categorical difference between those that is completely unrelated to your main argument. One could be in favour of severe punishment for first degree murder and be opposed to any punishment for “thought crime” without any contradiction.
That said, most progressive people who support LGBTQ+ rights (and, apparently, rule of law) also tend to be opposed to capital/severe punishment of criminals.
deleted by creator
Or, I dunno, maybe don’t have a sweeping death penalty? Just the fact that it’s prohibitively more expensive, and that far more often than is comfortable people who have been executed are later exonerated for their crimes. Can’t exactly “oopsie sorry” an execution. But that’s a whole different argument, granted.
deleted by creator
Bruh. I’m not even the guy you responded to but speaking of bad fucking arguments against the death penalty, that one is close to the top.
The state shouldn’t kill people because it is fucking immoral, not because it’s too expensive. Jesus christ.
This is more of a counter-argument. I’ve frequently seen supporters of the death penalty claim it is cheaper than housing the person in prison for life. But this is false.
Fair enough. Sorry for being a belligerent asshole.