187
Woman strangled during overnight visit with her husband at a California prison
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
187 points (100.0% liked)
News
28544 readers
3468 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Which begs the question, at what point is the death penalty a reasonable option?
People here love to talk about killing billionaires, who kill with paper.
Yeah, this is the right answer.
Also, maybe in 30 years we'll find a better way to reach out to people and help them.
If you kill that person, you'll never have a chance.
What about the wife he just killed?
How will killing the husband help the dead wife?
Even among victim families whose perpetrator do receive the death penalty, it doesn’t usually help, and often, it makes it worse for victim families.
But we can trust them to imprison people for life? 🤔
The "logic" among you people is really a sight to behold. I can tell you're just saying what you think will make you look good in front of your peers.
The thing about a life sentence is it can be reversed.
Death can't.
?????????? What the fuck? Where do life sentences come from then? The fairy-godmother?
This is why I don't take you people seriously, lmao.
So it's acceptable to imprison innocent people for life but not kill them? Or, maybe, your "we can't trust them" argument was always stupid and you're just having trouble reconciling that fact.
Did you not read the story? He just killed his own wife, while in prison. It's not like there's a chance he was set up by the police. How do you say never?
We're more than capable of preventing a single individual from causing harm to others without having to kill them. Failing to do so here isn't justification for introducing the idea to kill them instead.
If we actually had a well run justice system, I don't think executions would even seem remotely necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Long_Island_Rail_Road_shooting
Here's a pretty famous case where there were numerous witnesses who survived the attack.
I have to go now.
What's your point?
There are a lot of examples on this planet that say "never" without devolving into a cesspool of violence. Maybe take some inspiration from those places.
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/25211.jpeg
Yeah, obviously the only two options are allowing overnight conjugal visits, or straight up killing them. Nothing in between.
What a fucking ridiculous thing to say.
If you believe the legal system to be 100% effective then a death penalty makes sense
However since in reality no legal system is 100% effective, by allowing death penalty, you are allowing a certain percentage of people to be murdered legally that have not commited the crimes they were convicted of
What about a case like this, where it's incontrovertible?
You can have incontrovertable (facts) in a case
Laws and rulings by themselves are objective, and by definition are contentious
Now you're just arguing the definition of the word I used and ignoring the actual facts.
You have a person who we are completely certain committed the crime.
We may feel certain of things, but we weren't there to witness anything. We didn't see anything happen, and are only learning of the details after they've been filtered through several people. We don't know anything about motive, potential external threats, anything really. All we know is that this woman was strangled, and it is likely he did it.
Now you are doing a what if scenario, we can do "what ifs" all day....
There is no case that exists right now where it is 100% without a doubt certain that a crime has been commited by an individual Again, no legal system is 100% irrefutable
The issue is laws must be written to cover more than just a single case. I may agree it would be fine for this case, but the law must be written to cover other future cases. Then it's up to the discretion of judges to rule on future cases and apply the law as they see fit.
The issue is that we can't write perfect laws that will never produce bad outcomes. We can't trust all judges to be perfectly moral and upstanding and also perfectly accurate in their judgment. In a world with perfections, I could maybe agree with it. That's not the world we live in.
If every case were so cut and dry, it would work.
But invariably there will come a case where it seems so certain but not be true. To accept the death penalty in any case, we must be okay with it being applied at least once to kill an innocent person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
people are getting caught up in semantics instead of answering your question, so ill give an opinion as to why its different.
wealthy people are not subject to the same laws and punishments, based souly on their wealth and power getting in the way of the "normal" judiciary process. compared to similar crimes and punishments done by someone who is not in the same class.
the death penalty is also used as a tool to silence political enemies and dissidents, especially in political systems that align with fascism, authoritarianism, etc. (itll start becoming more common in the states, they will just label political rivals and dissidents as "terrorists" more often) whether they commited the crime or not.
essentially, why we may want to redistribute the wealth or "call for the death" of billionaires, its more so that out of everyone, even lowly murderers, their very existence, at the moment they HOARD 1 billion dollars, kills roughly 13,000 people who could have been lifted out of extreme poverty, by that same amount of money, per year, but instead succumb to poverty related deaths.
someone like elon musk as an example, just holding on to a (volatile) 348 billion, causes ROUGHLY 1,000 deaths per day, of people living in extreme poverty, just by him simply holding on to that money. the top 1% in general contribute to roughly 9,159 deaths per day just by hoarding their wealth.
21,500 people on average die from extreme poverty, per day.
they collectively contribute to killing nearly half of the worlds poorest people each day, so that they can have fancy things, and have fancy friends, and do fancy stuff.
that is colder than anything that even the most mentally deranged "lower class" serial killer has ever done.
at least in my personal opinion.
That’s a very interesting thought, deaths per billion hoarded. I was trying to find more info about that topic but couldn’t find anything
Could you point me in the direction of more info?
Raises the question. Begs the question is a very different thing.
Varlet! Wouldst thou claim our English tongue is immutable! Nay, I say 'tis as changeable as the tides, and as various as the flowers in the feilds.
I agree, but certain changes that confuse the language deserve at least a little pushback, especially when it's due to ignorance that the change occurs.
'begging the question' is a specific type of logical fallacy
"begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petītiō principiī) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion. Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true. In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it. This makes it an example of circular reasoning." -per wikipedia
It's not that he doesn't deserve it or lack of evidence. It's because the state shouldn't have that authority. At all. Ever. Look at the fuckery going on in the Whitehouse. Ten years ago 90% of people would've said this isn't even possible. Close that door, lock it, throw away the key. It's not about justice for in one case, it's more important to prevent greater injustice.
The state has nuclear weapons. The state kills people in shoot outs with the police all the time.
He killed his wife. Where's her justice?
That's exactly what I'm saying. It's not about justice for one person.
Then try this. Call him Joe. Joe has a rare blood type that can cure cancer. Joe doesn't feel like giving his blood away. No amount of persuasion or money will change Joe's mind. If justice for one person doesn't matter, do we have a right to lock Joe up and take his blood?
And if we don't have the right, why are Joe's rights greater than the dead wife's?
Joe is human. He doesn't have more rights than his wife, her right to life was cruelly taken from her in a criminal act. That isn't fixed by taking more life. It just makes the government an even bigger criminal.
Edit: due to the scale of them taking far more lives.
He's gonna die in a cage.
You're discussing revenge, not justice.
I don't have an issue with the death penalty.
The pushback against the death penalty and the idea that prisons are for "rehabilitation" instead of punishment is really just new-age nonsense by people who are afraid of the real world.
It's why we pretty much only see them making these arguments on the internet; it's the only place they can survive.
Locking folks up for life is cheaper. I'd be fine leaving Elon on a deserted island somewhere around Point Nemo and occasionally airdropping food and the like.