243
Taliban execute two men by gunfire in packed Afghanistan stadium
(www.independent.co.uk)
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 24 Feb 2024
243 points (100.0% liked)
World News
46645 readers
2839 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I am not here to debate whether public executions are right or wrong but
If brutalizing here means people are gonna be shit scared after watching this when even thinking about killing someone, then this is a very bad argument
It does not reduce murder or crime in general - but it DOES devalue human life
Any cases.
Fair? What does fair mean? Does an execution un-kill the victims? What a ridiculous notion that any sort of punishment for a perpetrator could be "fair" for the victims.
The death penalty is an abject failure. It has no benefits and numerous issues. Practicing barbarism can never be justice.
There is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion.
US Department of Justice
I believe that most developed countries have gotten rid of the death penalty, and a big part of that is because it doesn't work as a deterrent.
Very few people decide whether or not to commit a crime based on the punishment. Most criminals think they won't get caught at all, or if they do, they think they'll get away with it in court.
This slightly misses the mark. The majority of crimes, including violent ones, are not committed by people performing a risk calculus. They're done with minimal thought and more often than not in the heat of the moment. Effectively, they are not crimes that you can deter because for a crime to be deterred, the potential criminal has to assess whether it makes sense to commit the crime. This works in cases of like financial fraud and white collar crime. Someone shooting another person during an altercation, not so much.
Thanks here for this comment, I feel like I see where my stance might not make sense, ofc death penalty should not be given in cases like this where emotion takes over, I am rather taking about ppl like trump and gates and Netanyahu who are completely sane, they just kill for their own benefit
Ppl here have assumed that just because I said ‘I see reason’ means I feel like you need to kill everyone who commits this, No, I am saying that I don’t know the exact circumstance, it might or might not be justified, I hope we can clear this up moving forward
And what level of certainty do you need? Keep in mind uncertainty means innocents are murdered by the state and 100% certainty is difficult enough that it will generally put you into the anti capital punishment camp.
Also it sounds like you have a failure of understanding how the rich get out of punishment. Yes sometimes it’s like Brock Turner where it’s blatant. But other times it’s because they can afford the means to hide evidence and sow doubts. And when all else fails they’re more likely to have ins with judges or the ability to flee preemptively.
No matter what follows this...yes, we do. You should need evidence to believe anything; understanding of course that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence needed.
Then imprison them for life. Guess what, life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty, and can be overturned if there's an error.
Yes, we should also be addressing the failings of our penal system(s). Unfortunately, many around the world, and clearly yourself included, are more interested in retributive "justice" than habilitative functions.
That is the same thinking that those who own hand guns think. They think they will be safer, yet all the stats indicate other wise including all the children accidentally firing a gun and killing a family member. If risk of death was a deterrent, the USA would be among the safest place in the world.
Can you rephrase as I am not understanding your point I think.
I will admit that part of my mind would support making a public example of any fascist leader, but any public execution or punishment serves only to normalize that violence.
Would I condemn anyone involved with the death of Mussolini? Absolutely not. Best of luck to any Israeli anti fascists in the right time and place.
Do you think the members of the general public are often considering committing those kinds of crimes?
"Gee whiz, I sure wish I could be a serial killer. Too bad they publicly executed that last serial killer, though! I'd better move to the US, where executions are done in private!"
At least they retained the USamerican values after kicking them out
The Taliban were assholes long before 9/11.
The Taliban were US-backed and US-funded long before 9/11.
That's a common assumption that's based in "they're all the same over there" style of racism.
The group the US backed in the 80s was the mujaheddin, which went to form the government which the Taliban (a separate group) all but overthrew. The last remnants of the pre-Taliban Afghanistan government was called the Northern Alliance, which was allied with the US when fighting the Taliban.
It was politically convenient for the left to along with a racist narrative to score cheap political points against Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld etcl. And yeah, fuck those guys for sure, but it was wrong to go along with a racist narrative to do so. Because of the "they're all the same over there" kind of racism in both the left and right of the US, there wasn't much chance for any kind of success in defeating the Taliban.
It's not racist to be aware of the fact that the US supported the Taliban after the fall of the Mujaheddin.
I suppose they think something similar about your govt
Yeah, so? There are many assholes in the world, you know. Pointing at some other group of assholes doesn't make the Taliban not assholes.
Very insightfull. Is that a quote from Nietzsche?
No. What happens is the spectators get severely desensitized to violence. Especially if the spectators are young malleable teenagers. And suddenly sawing someone's head off in front of a live broadcast becomes just another day on the job.
This doesn't make sense. There have been public executions and torture all over the world for centuries, and yet murder and rape were much more frequent than now.
Making an example, as you say, is the opposite of the idea of justice
The brutalizing effect is the opposite: by seeing this kind of violence, people are more likely to normalize it and engage in violence themselves. That's the hypothesis, anyway.
Huh? After seeing this people will want to kill people? I am talking extra-judicial killing here
Suppose the theory would be that a spectator doesn't picture himself in the shoes of the executed. Instead they get used to the idea that killing someone isn't so crazy, if they think they deserve it.
I could believe this, particularly if it's on some subconscious level. The rational mind might say "that could be me, I better be careful", but getting desensitized might get rid of some fundamental revulsion. I'd also think the people at risk of committing murder are not likely to trend toward rational thinking, at least not in the moment of the crime.
I'm sorry to say that you may be seeing it the wrong way.
The experts tend to agree with the previous commenter.
Here's one study that discusses potential avenues for this.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/exposure-to-violence
Public execution seems hardly necessary for people to know the consequences, even if you think the death penalty is required. They know it anyway.
From another perspective, assuming attending a mass execution is not compulsory, what audience will choose to watch? People looking to receive a better understanding of what would await them if they comittied crime, or people excited to see violent death or vengeance? No one is voluntarily choosing to watch an execution while thinking "that could be me", they are thinking "yeah, I'm here to see that evil dude get what he deserves", in the most "favorable" scenario, some people are there just for pure bloodlust. Either way if these people find themselves in a serious chance to commit murder, it's guaranteed that either they just revel in the violent death and don't care about the morality, or they think their victim deserves it (can be as weak as the killer thinks he deserves a relationship, and the victim didn't want one).
If we look at the data, per your belief we should see the handful of public execution countries enjoying a very low murder rate. They actually do not. In fact most countries without a death penalty at all consistently have lower murder rates than the countries with public executions.
It's an interesting take to say if you can't have public executions, you might as well not have any punishment at all.
When it comes to the visceral nature of violent behavior, a would-be murderer is not applying the nuance of "there was a judge involved in all those violent executions I saw in person, but not here", the visceral emotion is "this dude deserves the same death I've personally seen metted out and I'm not repulsed by the concept since it's jsut so normal".
The rational mind, to the extent it is keeping a lid on murderous ambition, is already kept in check by the abstract knowledge of punishment. Seeing it first hand I think does nothing further for the rational mind. In fact, many nations without a death penalty at all enjoy some of the lowest murder rates, so long as everyone believes there is an effective justice system and they will be caught and receive a significant punishment. The less rational mind may succumb to the erosion of directly witnessed violent death. Hell, some might even actually yearn for a moment when a stadium of people is looking at him. There's also something to be said for keeping the names of killers out of the news cycle, as that also seems to be a trigger for killers.
Think of how many abused people grow up both hating the abuse they had growing up but also inflicting it in turn. Our minds aren't wired for the highest rational consideration of nuance and circumstance when it comes to violence.
never mind the fact that the taliban also does this for sexual assault victims and gay people not just murderers.....