Abid Malhi and Shafqat Ali were convicted of gang rape, kidnapping, robbery and terrorism offences back in March 2021 over the attack on the Sialkot-Lahore Motorway.
No place for them in society as they were, but rehabilitation is always possible, always desired. There will be a place for them after rehabilitation.
We have to trust that system. If we don’t, then what’s the point of prisons in the first place? If nobody can ever change, then they’ll always just remain a threat and there’s no sense keeping everyone in prisons indefinitely. Either we believe they can rehabilitate or we should just kill everyone who’s ever unfit for society, I suppose, no?
Ceremonial killing, executions, are an antithesis to the concept of prisons, rehabilitation. It’s never just, if we have a belief that people can and will change.
Its only use would be to act as a scare of some sort, but a lifetime of forced life, contained in cells, always watched, always mistreated, never a chance for a dignified life, is way more of a scare than death. Death is easy. Death is quick. It’s merciful in comparison.
A temporary stay at a prison without the belief of anyone being able to rehabilitate, is just deferring and allowing further crimes and violence in future.
So we have to believe people can change. Because they can, and they do.
And if we hold that belief, killing is not only killing the misfit in question, today, but also any potential good deeds and meaningful life they might’ve lead after rehabilitation. It’s killing someone, in future, who deserves not to die.
I never understand people who advocate for temporary jail stints and death sentences at the same time. It never makes sense, it’s irrational.
Depends on who you ask. But, there’s plenty of people that believe strongly in a punitive system. Prison is primarily for punishment and retribution–the state empowering the (assumed) revenge desires of the victims. If there was a painless way to execute someone they wouldn’t want to use it; the suffering of the convicted is a feature, not a bug.
I agree with you that we should focus and rehabilitation and restoration, but the U.S. prison-industrial complex is not actually currently oriented with that being the primary purposes.
No it s not and even some ppl don’t deserve it simply.
When u do some heinous shit you pay the conséquence for it and your wellbeing and repentance isn’t my concern.
Right, so you say some deserve the chance and some don’t. Who or what makes the call? I bet the Arab countries that lynch homosexuals for example, they think and reason the same as you. So their well-being isn’t your concern? Or do you consider yourself the better moral compass? Should you make all the calls then? Or do you simultaneously judge others making the same rationale, but with different principles/rules, and advocate for the very same thing but with yours? You are fine with the dissonance, then?
You think pedophile shouylkd be shot omg what horrible person you are im sure you think the same about homosexual.
Basically your argument.
Some crime are so horrible and against any possible once of humanity that yes they should deserve death.
I dont see any dissonance and u trying to make one by comparing me with some third world country is dishonest.
I mean, if I asked them about it, their answer would likely be the very same as yours. They just have different view on what crimes are so horrible as to deserve death, otherwise it’s the same argument.
I’m not trying to dishonestly compare or liken you to them or anyone for that matter. Just trying to make you aware that their reasoning is the same, so the question I have is, which one of you is right, or are both right? And if not both, who makes the objective call on all these thresholds of horribleness that demand executions.
Which is to say, we can’t eat our cake and have it too. You can’t just say death is fine for my reasons, but not for someone else’s reasons, because that is dishonest. Either executions are fine, or they aren’t, but anything in between is just trying to have it both ways and assuming that your point of view is the better one than the others’ who do this same argument and ideology. Which is fair and all, you are you, these are subjective things. But the subjectivity is precisely what makes it such a disingenuous argument in the first place. Everybody defines those lines that get crossed, differently. Then based on whose point of view do we make the calls? It’s not obvious, it’s never going to be unanimous, and it will lead to further conflict and disdain in the long run, as we very well know and see ourselves, today.
But it’s a valid stance, it’s very human, I’m not saying you are wrong to think so. It’s just not very rational, is what I’m saying, which makes it, in my opinion, not a good argument for things that lead to deaths of people…
I understand the point you making.
But I think we fan clearly and with a large majority agree on some case that deserve death sentence. Like for terrorism, répéter offense of murder rape and pedophilia. I dont think saying thoses are subjective but rather objective.
I think the stance of we shouldn’t kill anyone cause somme could disagree is a weak argument. Some ppl think rape is ok, that doesn’t mean it should be ok or we shouldn’t punish it.
Many who are against the death penalty have issues on several fronts. If its found the conviction was in error then there is not reversing it. The response that well only for cases we are sure but its impossible to have that as we run into the lack of perfecttion both in our legal system and the people agreeing on when we are sure. After that there is if rehabilitation is possible and some believe its always possible. Then also you simply have the acceptance of group murder or institutional murder. The state as a collective is doing a thing that would be a crime from an individual but its fine because its the group or state (generally the state would not allow it from a group as well). With that its the hypocrisy of it. Now of course the state is allowed to go to war but usually that is predicated on a right to defend onesself.
No place for them in society as they were, but rehabilitation is always possible, always desired. There will be a place for them after rehabilitation.
We have to trust that system. If we don’t, then what’s the point of prisons in the first place? If nobody can ever change, then they’ll always just remain a threat and there’s no sense keeping everyone in prisons indefinitely. Either we believe they can rehabilitate or we should just kill everyone who’s ever unfit for society, I suppose, no?
Ceremonial killing, executions, are an antithesis to the concept of prisons, rehabilitation. It’s never just, if we have a belief that people can and will change.
Its only use would be to act as a scare of some sort, but a lifetime of forced life, contained in cells, always watched, always mistreated, never a chance for a dignified life, is way more of a scare than death. Death is easy. Death is quick. It’s merciful in comparison.
A temporary stay at a prison without the belief of anyone being able to rehabilitate, is just deferring and allowing further crimes and violence in future.
So we have to believe people can change. Because they can, and they do.
And if we hold that belief, killing is not only killing the misfit in question, today, but also any potential good deeds and meaningful life they might’ve lead after rehabilitation. It’s killing someone, in future, who deserves not to die.
I never understand people who advocate for temporary jail stints and death sentences at the same time. It never makes sense, it’s irrational.
Depends on who you ask. But, there’s plenty of people that believe strongly in a punitive system. Prison is primarily for punishment and retribution–the state empowering the (assumed) revenge desires of the victims. If there was a painless way to execute someone they wouldn’t want to use it; the suffering of the convicted is a feature, not a bug.
I agree with you that we should focus and rehabilitation and restoration, but the U.S. prison-industrial complex is not actually currently oriented with that being the primary purposes.
Oh my god
No it s not and even some ppl don’t deserve it simply. When u do some heinous shit you pay the conséquence for it and your wellbeing and repentance isn’t my concern.
Right, so you say some deserve the chance and some don’t. Who or what makes the call? I bet the Arab countries that lynch homosexuals for example, they think and reason the same as you. So their well-being isn’t your concern? Or do you consider yourself the better moral compass? Should you make all the calls then? Or do you simultaneously judge others making the same rationale, but with different principles/rules, and advocate for the very same thing but with yours? You are fine with the dissonance, then?
You think pedophile shouylkd be shot omg what horrible person you are im sure you think the same about homosexual. Basically your argument. Some crime are so horrible and against any possible once of humanity that yes they should deserve death. I dont see any dissonance and u trying to make one by comparing me with some third world country is dishonest.
I mean, if I asked them about it, their answer would likely be the very same as yours. They just have different view on what crimes are so horrible as to deserve death, otherwise it’s the same argument.
I’m not trying to dishonestly compare or liken you to them or anyone for that matter. Just trying to make you aware that their reasoning is the same, so the question I have is, which one of you is right, or are both right? And if not both, who makes the objective call on all these thresholds of horribleness that demand executions.
Which is to say, we can’t eat our cake and have it too. You can’t just say death is fine for my reasons, but not for someone else’s reasons, because that is dishonest. Either executions are fine, or they aren’t, but anything in between is just trying to have it both ways and assuming that your point of view is the better one than the others’ who do this same argument and ideology. Which is fair and all, you are you, these are subjective things. But the subjectivity is precisely what makes it such a disingenuous argument in the first place. Everybody defines those lines that get crossed, differently. Then based on whose point of view do we make the calls? It’s not obvious, it’s never going to be unanimous, and it will lead to further conflict and disdain in the long run, as we very well know and see ourselves, today.
But it’s a valid stance, it’s very human, I’m not saying you are wrong to think so. It’s just not very rational, is what I’m saying, which makes it, in my opinion, not a good argument for things that lead to deaths of people…
I understand the point you making. But I think we fan clearly and with a large majority agree on some case that deserve death sentence. Like for terrorism, répéter offense of murder rape and pedophilia. I dont think saying thoses are subjective but rather objective. I think the stance of we shouldn’t kill anyone cause somme could disagree is a weak argument. Some ppl think rape is ok, that doesn’t mean it should be ok or we shouldn’t punish it.
Many who are against the death penalty have issues on several fronts. If its found the conviction was in error then there is not reversing it. The response that well only for cases we are sure but its impossible to have that as we run into the lack of perfecttion both in our legal system and the people agreeing on when we are sure. After that there is if rehabilitation is possible and some believe its always possible. Then also you simply have the acceptance of group murder or institutional murder. The state as a collective is doing a thing that would be a crime from an individual but its fine because its the group or state (generally the state would not allow it from a group as well). With that its the hypocrisy of it. Now of course the state is allowed to go to war but usually that is predicated on a right to defend onesself.