• selokichtli@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      2 days ago

      There are a lot of governments in the world that agree with you. Not the US government, not at all.

      • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        doubt show me a state in the entire world that doesn’t exist because it has captured a monopoly over legitimate violence. The best the subjects of a state can hope for is that state violence is only ever implicit, but if there was no threat of being put to death or seriously harmed for individuals that threaten the continued existence of a state, that state would cease to be.

        However, it is true that America is particularly brutal with regards to executing civilians. Something that stands out is that, compared to other countries that regularly execute their citizens, there’s a pretty obvious skew in terms of who’s getting the death penalty. Compared to China, for example, the US hasn’t executed anyone for white collar crime in a long time (hopefully someone can find a reference to the last time it happened, I’m not sure where to check) but appears to be killing Black and Muslim folks awfully often. Really makes you think, right?

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          well yeah, war is a human constant, there is no fixed way to dispute arbitrary claims such as “land rights” and “dibs” on ownership of things outside of war. I mean sure there’s legal agreements, but if you don’t agree, it’s null and void, now nothing matters anymore. I guess you could simply play rock paper scissors for dibs but i don’t imagine that’s going to be very popular.

          This is even a constant within evolutionary biology and the animal kingdom at large. Modern predators are only so deadly because it was advantageous to reproduction.

        • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          You are deflecting from the issue here. Legitimate violence, whatever you and I understand for “legitimate” is not the issue, since I guess we can recognize that violence is gradual. We are talking death penalty and it’s derivations in the US judicial system. There are a lot of states that won’t just systematically kill their citizens and citizens from other countries. A type of zealot entitlement is needed by their governments to keep doing it in cases like this.

          • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            I’m mostly just going to disengage because I think we’re really on the same side here and I’m just being a pedant on a thread about an innocent man being murdered, but I think you’re kinda missing the point too. Social murder happens literally everywhere constantly, even socialist countries.

      • Gorillazrule@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        If the prisons are focused on rehabilitation and reintegration instead of just keeping people locked up and treating them like they’re not human? Yes. Do I believe prisons in the US are like that? No.

          • Gorillazrule@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Genuine question. What do you think should happen with people that have committed violent crimes? If they have no interest in voluntary rehabilitation, imprisonment with the goal of rehabilitation seems to be a better alternative to just letting them roam freely and do as they please. And it seems a lot better than the death penalty. Specifically for reasons like what we’re seeing here. You can release someone from prison if evidence comes later that casts doubt on their guilt. It doesn’t prevent the harm that has already been caused, but it gives them an opportunity to take back their life. You can’t un-execute somebody.