Capital punishment remains controversial in the US, with critics warning of innocent people being put on death row.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has announced plans to expand the use of the federal death penalty, including through the deployment of firing squads.

The announcement on Friday was part of a policy document issued by the Department of Justice, setting out the legal argument for various methods of execution.

It touted steps for “restoring and strengthening” the death penalty as integral to the pursuit of justice.

“The Department of Justice acted to restore its solemn duty to seek, obtain, and implement lawful capital sentences — clearing the way for the Department to carry out executions once death-sentenced inmates have exhausted their appeals,” the Justice Department said in a news release.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    481·
    11 days ago

    I mean…

    There’s completely painless ways to die.

    That’s what the whole assisted suicide thing is in civilized countries.

    The “problem” is, that’s completely painless, you just go to sleep. And the people who want this, want it to be a painful gruesome death.

    It’s not justice or even removing an uncontrollable element, it’s vengeance. And vengeance has to be painful.

    There’s nothing stopping an ethical death penalty except the ethics of the people implementing

    • frongt@lemmy.zip
      381·
      11 days ago

      And the “can’t take it back” aspect. Conviction and execution of innocent people does happen.

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      122·
      11 days ago

      There’s completely painless ways to die.

      …

      There’s nothing stopping an ethical death penalty except the ethics of the people implementing

      This comment implies that the method of killing is the fundamental ethical problem with the death penalty. The killing part is the fundamental problem for me.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        103·
        11 days ago

        …

        Yes…

        Any discussion on an ethical way to do something, is first predicted on the thing happening.

        There’s an ethical way to cut aomeone’s leg off, that doesn’t mean we should cut Bob’s leg off, it doesn’t even mean we should cut anyone’s leg off under any circumstances.

        Just that if we were going to do something, there are ways to do that ethically.

        People really don’t learn this shit anymore?

        • nwtreeoctopus@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          11 days ago

          On the other hand, there’re good, ethical reasons to cut off Bob’s leg sometimes. If you hold the view that there’s never an ethical reason for the state to execute someone, then by that definition all those killings are just some varied degrees of unethical.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            13·
            11 days ago

            A prisoner is suffering and wants to die, their life is a constant pain and keeping them in prison until they die would be torture…

            Youd make them suffer for years to only die in prison later?

            I guess everyone has different ethical lines…

            • nwtreeoctopus@sh.itjust.works
              2·
              11 days ago

              First, I didn’t make the argument.

              Second, I think most people could draw a line between allowing a suffering prisoner to choose death and forcing it on them.

              Third, that assumes that there’s an ethical argument for life imprisonment.

        • sulfidedisburseangledafternoontipper@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          32·
          11 days ago

          This argument is specious. It implies that there’s an ethical way to engage in any imaginable act and ignores the possibility of the existence of acts which may never be ethical under any circumstance. This isn’t a question of whether someone has “learned this shit.” You’ve created a tautology re: the existence of an ethical means to all ends. One doesn’t need to accept Kant’s Categorical Imperative to believe that some acts can never be ethical.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            13·
            11 days ago

            ignores the possibility of the existence of acts which may never be ethical under any circumstance.

            Name 1, and I bet I can justify it ethically.

            Like, “if you don’t do ____, then superman blows up the sun” is the obvious one, but depending on what you say, I can dial back some.

            • nomy@lemmy.zipEnglish
              1·
              11 days ago

              Name 1, and I bet I can justify it ethically.

              Trump fucks kids, go.

    • Enkrod@feddit.org
      21·
      11 days ago

      The people who manufacture the drugs that make you go peacefully have embargoed the USA, because they don’t want their drugs used for state sanctioned murder.

      • Manufacturer Bans: Pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, Baxter International, B. Braun Medical, Fresenius Kabi, and Johnson & Johnson, have established policies to stop their products from being used in capital punishment.

      • EU Export Restrictions: In 2011, the European Union passed anti-torture measures that prohibit the trade of goods used for capital punishment.

    • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
      1·
      11 days ago

      And the people who want this, want it to be a painful gruesome death.

      Yeah. If done correctly, a bullet to the head is quick and painless, as in, you are dead before your body has recognized that you’ve been shot.

      But the people who want this want suffering, so likely firing squads will be ordered to hit body parts that will not result in instant, painless death but rather a gruesome and agonizing death from shock and blood loss.