Anonymous #1 1w

The situation doesn’t call for delicacy

0

Anonymous OP 1w

The murder of an innocent woman in cold blood doesn’t call for delicacy? What does?

7

Anonymous #1 1w

It calls for vengeance

10

Anonymous OP 1w

Vengeance on who? The killer is behind bars and facing life in prison. Maybe you could argue that the people who made the laws and or refused to enforce existing laws and caused this guy to be let out ought to be at least voted out, and probably investigated. But putting the terrified face of an innocent woman as she’s being murdered on an anonymous chat app won’t help that.

2

Anonymous #1 1w

He should be executed.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

She had her neck slashed from behind by a black guy while she was just sitting there riding public transit. There were 5 all black witnesses that did not help her and watched her bleed out. One stood there just recording while another white girl and a black guy from the front of the train tried to help her.

0

Anonymous #4 1w

Not an overly contentious position, although I personally don’t support the death penalty I can see the logic behind that argument.

2

Anonymous #1 1w

I think that is someone is beyond rehabilitation or are too mentally 'unfit' to stand trial, it is the fiscally responsible and morally responsible solution. Back before the entire world was populated you could just banish someone which I think would've been better but this is next best thing

0

Anonymous #4 1w

Execution can be argued for, Execution without trial cannot. It is certainly not the morally responsible thing to do. And the reason I don’t believe in the death penalty is because I personally know of two major political prosecutions in the last decade where an innocent man was found guilty of a major crime simply out of mob pressure. I don’t think we should give the mob jurisdiction over life and death, even when someone is “obviously guilty.”

2

Anonymous #1 1w

I do not think execution without trial is valid. There should always be a trial for domestic crimes even in an offense as blatant as this. I think extradited execution should be reserved for things like this not when there is room for error like the cases you are talking about. (Yes I know that is extremely selective and there’s no way to determine a threshold for room of error etc.)

1

Anonymous #1 1w

When someone is obviously unable to be rehabilitated, it is the responsible thing for personal and societal safety, to remove them from the equation. Especially a repeat offender such as this. Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

1

Anonymous #4 1w

weird to mention their race

1

Anonymous #2 1w

If you want to get filled in on the situation that is the information you’re going to need for the discourse. It is racially charged and that is the topic of most of the conversation.

0

Anonymous #4 1w

You’re not wrong, but even in cases like this there is a certain reservation that should be made against the power of the state over life and death. However you mentioned something earlier that I want to touch on, that being that exile was a solution to this kind of thing. What I propose is that exile is simply a fancy word for social exclusion, and that same exclusion can be accomplished by banishing people outside of society, or confining them within it.

1

Anonymous #4 1w

Someone forever locked in a 12X14 cell and permitted no contact with the external world is just as banished as someone cast out into the wilderness. With the added benefit that the person poses no risk of becoming a bandit for example. The only issue is the drain they present on resources, to which I propose that they should be compelled to work while incarcerated. It’s not very expensive to keep someone fed on rice and beans while they assemble widgets in their cell.

1

Anonymous #4 1w

(BTW I’m not the person downvoting your comments, while I don’t agree with you on some things I don’t support the “say popular opinion or be deleted” Reddit theory of online discussion.)

11