I'd say this, from the thread the comrade linked here. Also, there is not a "Marxist-Leninist take" on everything, it's not the scope of Marxism-Leninism to "have an opinion" on everything, Marxism-Leninism is a theoretical framework which guides revolutionary praxis
My personal take on this is that death penalties should have a democratic process behind it, it's the safest path. No one is irredeemable, but some deaths are warranted, for symbolic, political, social reasons. Once the facts have been established and their crimes fully investigated, the death of a serial killer may bring comfort to several families affected, for instance. Or the leader of a genocidal fascist movement may be politically and/or symbolically warranted
That is actually an equisitely balanced and nuanced take on this very provocative line of inquiry. Excellent find!
Imma copy paste this the next time someone asks something like what’s the ML take on cat breeds.
Chop up the worst offending fascists and capitalists and turn them into dog food. Otherwise I think rehabilitation is always preferable, but in tough times I understand we don't always have the resources to rehabilitate everyone.
Lobotomies in tough times?
You might find this thread interesting: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/386621
There's an angle that is rarely mentionned is how popular death penalty can genuinely be in a lot of societies. In my experience, I heard a lot of euro liberals saying "democracy is fine but too much democracy and we're back to having death penalty" the irony being that it's actually the case for China, it's only because people want it that it hasn't been fully abolished.
I have a strong conviction that death penalty abolition is the way forward in human History, just like prison and police abolition and even schools as we know them (being replaced by better communal education of course). But it's gonna take time, a lot of, so we definitely shouldn't demonize countries that still have it just because they have it, it's more compelling to analyse how it is used (for example, punishing extremely harmful crimes of people who have public responsibility and power VS using it as an ultimate threat to keep black people working in the prison Industrial complex)
I believe it should be enforced only in certain specific cases that pose large scale societal harm. One thing reactionaries always jump to when talking about the death penalty is murderers and rapists, and one can argue how much the harm of those crimes is large-scale or societal, but I think they pose way less threat in the abstract to society than, for example, a pogrom inciter. Specially since those usually get barely any punishment because they "personally didn't kill anybody."
I also see the "punishment" aspect of the death penalty to be completely moot. Even just a life sentence in solitary can be a way more harrowing and punishing experience than however long the death can be extended to, so focusing on the broader social impact of either a deterrent or a "permanent removal from society" is the way to go. This is not a moral stance, though, and different societies with different moral and cultural values will have to take those into account too.
No kill because mistakes. Shawshank redemption. No system perfect.
No kill no reason. In communism material conditions satisfied. Star trek. Murder goes waaaaaay down. If it happens help the poor fool that did it. Fix the tragedy don't compound it
No murder
Another thread in addition to the one posted: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/506123
I think that if you can justify deaths by war, then you can justify the death penalty for heinous crimes. If in future wars are won without any deaths or even injuries, then maybe abolishing the death penalty can be reconsidered.
This line of reasoning is very straightforward: if you find it necessary to send soldiers to possibly die in battle, why should people who commit heinous crimes be free from the possibility (not guaranteed) of the death penalty?
I think war is pretty clearly a different situation from punishment of crimes committed during peacetime. In war there is no monopoly on violence and it's important to kill the right enemies in the right place and at the right time. When the state imprisons people in peacetime, why rush to kill people who could have been wrongly convicted? There is a cost to the state to keep people locked up but there is also a very high cost to executing people humanely, and it may not even be possible to do so. Is there anything to be gained really, besides some misguided, disembodied sense of "justice"?
There's also the question of deterrence, but I believe punishment doesn't meaningfully deter criminals. To me the purpose of life imprisonment and the death penalty is keeping dangerous people out of society, and neither one does that better than the other. It then becomes a matter of finality and ongoing costs when considering the difference, and considering the possibility of wrongful conviction, I don't believe it is ever justified.
We need to move on from punitive justice to a restorative justice model.
I've said this before in that thread:
In practice, the number of people dying under the death penalty is nothing compared to the number of people killed in acts of crime, so this unhealthy obsession with “avoid killing innocent people under the state” and finding justification for the death penalty is unnecessary and missing the point.
I find this idealist notion of worrying about "wrongful convictions" to be very reactionary. Yes any wrongful convictions should be avoided, but no the death penalty shouldn't be abolished just because there's a nonzero chance of "wrongful convictions" occurring.
My take is no death penalty under capitalism, since the capitalist justice system isn't about justice. But I'm in favour of a death penalty under socialism since a socialist justice system is actually just.
How is any non-captitalist form of death penalty any more inheriantly just than those under capitalism? The state still has the ability to impose death as a permanent form of punishment to people that threaten its authority. Wouldn't it be in the best interest for a socialist society avoid the death penalty wherever possible and instead facilitate incarcerated people to reform and contribute to society? That's not even mentioning the inevitable circumstance of innocent people eventually being killed, by accident or otherwise, and the societal burden of housing and processing these soon-to-be-dead individuals. Of course there are exceptional circumstances, I don't think anyone would have a issue with Hitler hitting the razor, but as a general rule for society? Why?
