News
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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
view the rest of the comments
Ok, if that is the direction you would like to take this discussion, then we can go that route. I have no issues with looking at the extremes.
So, we'll say that there is the defendant, and they have been accused of murder so foul by the witness that in their jurisdiction the death penalty is sought.
There are many outcomes to this, but for the sake of the discussion you want to engage in, we'll look at three of them, and for each, we will assume that the witness has maliciously, and falsely accused the defendant of this crime.
In the first outcome, the defendant is found guilty of the crime and put to death. The witness is not discovered, and goes on living their life.
The second outcome is that the defendant is found guilty and put to death, but after they have been put to death, the witnessn is discovered to have falsified their testimony.
The third outcome is that the defendant is not found guilty because during the trial the witness was found to have lied.
Now, we have three ends to the scenario, each very different. Do you believe that in each scenario, the witness, who has maliciously falsified their testimony each time, should be punished differently depending on the outcome of the scenario? If so, what should their punishment be after each outcome?
Yes, the punishment should escalate in accordance with the harm caused by the crime to the victims of that crime. That was never the part I was arguing against.
Imprisonment for people who are a danger to others and some form of restitution to the falsely accused would be fitting in every case, other than the one where someone was killed by the state. At that point it’s too late to do anything for the victim, and killing them isn’t going to save any money or help anyone.
It’s also a scenario that wouldn’t be possible to begin with if the government wasn’t able to execute people. It’s like trying to solve swatting by swatting swatters instead of saying hey, maybe it shouldn’t be possible to aim lethal government violence at someone to begin with and just hope it’s a gun that never misfires.
Ok, so you are anti-death penalty. So are a lot of people. You seem to be trying to make an argument by preaching the to choir. No one here is saying that the death penalty is a good idea. No one is arguing that with you, at all. I'm really not sure what you are getting at.
I guess if you want some dark humor about it, you could twist around the old idiom: The best time to abolish the death penalty is before we kill an innocent person, the second best time is after.
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/13776652
If a person murders another person, what should their punishment be? What if they murder 2? 3? 10? 20?