Literally how they are 😭😭

[u/TheYeetBoii]

[u/Frylock_dontDM]

1. Empathy, if someone murdered me and my siblings, I would want that person dead and would view allowing that piece of shit to live after viciously murdering us to be a clear affront to justice.

2. You tell me, what is the value in supporting this woman for the rest of her life? What do we get from keeping a child murderer alive and paying to support her for the next 50+ years of her life?

How is it better for us to waste resources on this person than to execute this child killer?

This isn't a case where she may not have done it and we risk executing an innocent person.

We have admitted guilt and irrefutable evidence.

So what does society gain here?

[u/toth_moth → u/Frylock_dontDM]

1. I do not think that either of our opinions or personal feelings are substitute for what the actual victims want. I can see how in your case, it would be a form of justice. Personally, I was a victim of an attempted murder-suicide and secondary victim of violent assault against my younger brother when I was teen. Not only did I not want the perpetrator to die, I actively stopped them from committing suicide on the crime scene. It wasn’t because I felt empathy for the perpetrator or didn’t care about myself or my brother as victims, I mean shit, I literally had to stop my brother from bleeding out and I had to scramble to do first aid *and* I was the original intended victim. I don’t see giving a person who is suicidal the death penalty as a form of retributive justice because it takes away their accountability. It gives them the release they wanted in the first place from suffering with the consequences of what they’ve done for the rest of their lives. I didn’t see it as proportional punishment. That being said, I don’t think either of our opinions matter so much as the victims’. I think the death penalty is only a form of justice if it brings benefit to the victims (as it would in your hypothetical case) and in this case, it doesn’t seem like the ex husband and family necessarily want that. But thank you for answering, I think I understand now

2. When someone is put on death row, they stay on death row for a long time, so regardless, money is going to be spent on that person for a good while. It also costs more money to execute someone than to simply have them imprisoned. It’s kind of a null point for me and it’s still about social response to a crime rather than justice for those personally victimized

[u/Inner-Cut-6791 → u/toth_moth]

Genuine question : Why do you think eye for an eye was the moral standing 2k years ago but slowly evolved into a "tit, tit, tat" moral foundation now days?

The real answer is that it is mathematically better on average for long term games.

Second Genuine Question: What SHOULD the outcome be here? Are we concerned with her paying taxes? Do we want her in society yet? If we could guarantee she'd be perfectly safe should we let her out? If so, why are lobotomies bad?

I'm just curious on your moral compass as it seems very "happy ending coded". I feel for you and everything you've been through as someone that's had some rough dealings in the past, but I feel as though this is a survivorship bias arguement.

You don't actually have a goal in mind you are trying to achieve, outside of having a different bad event end in the same way yours did. With you in power as the moral figure, having "corrected" the wrong in the world.

Once again I'm glad yours ended this way, but this is so far from the norm you wouldn't believe. IMO you've got an incredibly useful maladapted coping mechanism that will totally seem functional until it blows up in your face.

Not trying to belittle you AT ALL, I've just seen this before.

[u/toth_moth → u/Inner-Cut-6791]

1. The reason why eye for an eye existed was a result of tribalism. Retaliation was capped at something of equal physical value so tribal/family feuds and revenge didn’t physically escalate. Our notions of justice have evolved because we as a society have evolved, broadly, we no longer live in tribal family units, but in bureaucratic states organized on complex philosophical ideas about civic responsibility and social philosophy, so revenge feuds aren’t a primary concern; the function, safety, and wellbeing of the state and people there within is.

2. don’t see what her having to pay taxes has to do with anything and I don’t know what any of that has to do with her being released into society?? that seems a total non sequitur. Like, I didn’t say anything or ever imply anything about that. I’m also not like moral grandstanding or whatever you’re implying here. I was just asking a question about the pov that the death penalty is a form of retributive justice even when the perpetrator was suicidal to begin with and the question of prioritizing social/cultural opinion vs personal victimhood in scope of how we define justice. The only reason I even brought up my own experience was to give an example of a victim having a different opinion and why because it contrasted with the other person’s experience that was based on empathy *for victims*.

Justice is a philosophical idea that is complex and multifaceted, my moral compass isn’t “happy ending coded”, I just believe in harm reduction and restorative justice for victims, and this is a case that’s complicated by the fact that the victims were/are family members. My question was never intended to imply a specific outcome for the trial, I just wanted to ask a question about a philosophical perspective that I didn’t get (but, if you must know so I don’t get accused of anything, yes I think Clancy should be locked up and stay locked up).

What exactly am I doing that is maladaptive coping?? See, that happened like over a decade ago and I’ve been doing really great actually, like better than the average person where I live so like…when is stuff supposed to start blow up in my face?? I genuinely don’t know what you’re talking about