I agree with the death penalty in principle. In practice, I would only agree with it under the dictatorship of the proletariat because a bourgeois state should not have that amount of power.

I’m all for rehabilitative justice, but if it can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you:

  1. intentionally murdered an innocent person
  2. raped someone
  3. molested a child
  4. are a nazi
  5. committed war crimes

then you have forfeited your right to be a part of society and should be removed from it. Imo there is no amount of re-education or rehabilitation that can fix a person who has done any of the aforementioned things.

Thoughts?

  • @lil_tank
    7•1 year ago

    In a utopian manner we can all agree that ending one’s life is not a desirable option to have in a justice system, for all the classical arguments against death penalty

    But we’re not utopians

    We understand how struggle can sometimes lead to death, we understand that keeping an enemy of the proletariat in detention has a cost and a risk. The question we need to ask ourselves is what is the amount of those costs and risks? If refusing to execute counter revolutionaries and criminals during a period of heightened class struggle lead to escapes, massive logistical problems and draining of resources, then it means we can’t afford to take prisoners.

    If spies working for a powerful imperialist nation are found in the new government, their knowledge and influence might pose massive problems if you keep them in a prison.

    So yes we’re against death penalty as much as we are against the state … eventually, when sufficient progress have been made