I’m not accusing you of anything, but can I ask you to reconsider some of your reasoning? The resource expenditure savings argument is also used by eugenicists when they advocate for the killing of the disabled or “undesirable”. Therefore, I would like to suggest that is wrongheaded to lend credence to this idea.
The basis of the argument isn’t very sound since it doesn’t actually take that much to provide for an individuals basicmost needs, especially if they are an inmate within a preexisting prison infrastructure. Only in the most extreme of circumstances, such as in the event of a major disaster, could the provision of that person’s needs require depriving someone else of theirs.
Using lethal force against reactionaries has its merits, and you have pointed some of them out earlier. Saving resources, however, is not a particularly valid one and I would like to gently suggest that you reconsider that point.
Dit also isnt really true I the American system, in most cases the cost of executing the death penalty is higher than life imprisonment because the legal process is so drawn out. I guess the further argument is that you could expedite the process and risk false convictions, but isnt that already happening too much anyway?
Yes, and according to the Death Penalty Project roughly 1/8th of executed persons are wrongly convicted. Expediting the process would only increase this number. However this is also a side effect of the way the criminal trials in US penal system work. Postrevolutionary purging of reactionary elements would likely be different. The question of “should we kill the guy who ran a death camp?” Is not the same as “Should we kill or imprison an 18 year old for shooting someone in a robbery gone wrong?”
(The answer to the second one is imprisonment but under a more rehabilitative, restorative justice model btw)
I’m not accusing you of anything, but can I ask you to reconsider some of your reasoning? The resource expenditure savings argument is also used by eugenicists when they advocate for the killing of the disabled or “undesirable”. Therefore, I would like to suggest that is wrongheaded to lend credence to this idea.
The basis of the argument isn’t very sound since it doesn’t actually take that much to provide for an individuals basicmost needs, especially if they are an inmate within a preexisting prison infrastructure. Only in the most extreme of circumstances, such as in the event of a major disaster, could the provision of that person’s needs require depriving someone else of theirs.
Using lethal force against reactionaries has its merits, and you have pointed some of them out earlier. Saving resources, however, is not a particularly valid one and I would like to gently suggest that you reconsider that point.
Dit also isnt really true I the American system, in most cases the cost of executing the death penalty is higher than life imprisonment because the legal process is so drawn out. I guess the further argument is that you could expedite the process and risk false convictions, but isnt that already happening too much anyway?
Yes, and according to the Death Penalty Project roughly 1/8th of executed persons are wrongly convicted. Expediting the process would only increase this number. However this is also a side effect of the way the criminal trials in US penal system work. Postrevolutionary purging of reactionary elements would likely be different. The question of “should we kill the guy who ran a death camp?” Is not the same as “Should we kill or imprison an 18 year old for shooting someone in a robbery gone wrong?”
(The answer to the second one is imprisonment but under a more rehabilitative, restorative justice model btw)