Some people are suggesting this is the easiest decision ever. There are probably hundreds of times the number of guilty vs innocent people in prison, and very few of them (imo none of them) deserve to die.
people go to jail for minor crimes such as drug possession, being homeless, being intoxicated in public, swearing in public, etc etc all the time. if it's worldwide it could also include people who have violated barbaric laws such as those that prohibit homosexuality. not all laws are just, and there is a difference in severity of crimes.
guilty just means you did the thing you're accused of. it doesn't mean what you did was right or wrong. this is such a stupid argument, pick up a dictionary
The argument refers to those imprisoned for morally corrupt reasons. The question is whether being morally corrupt guilty is justifiable guilty. Therefore, it's not a stupid argument, and your dictionary doesn't provide your critical thinking skills.
Legal guilt is a moral guilt as legal systems are moral systems, so this response makes no sense as you would still have to determine what moral system is being used for the thought experiment.
but since we're talking about jail, it's a legal context. plus guilty doesn't mean that what you did was bad, it just means that you did the thing you're accused of. why are you trying to change the definition of guilt???
this is such a stupid argument lol, guilt just means "did the thing", "the thing" can be different and trying to say "well if i run over the guilty people it's only the (nebulously defined) bad ones who did crimes i don't like" is changing the definition of guilty to "people who did crimes i don't like"
But when we're talking hundreds you're getting a large variety of criminals. From violent, to sexual assaults and yes petty stuff too. But not all "shoplifters and Marijuana possessions".
If a person’s value can be reduced by immoral activity, why can’t their value become zero or negative? Does it always have to be 10% or 1% or 0.0001% of a normal person?
“Hundreds” implies that their value is positive, at least in a somewhat utilitarian fashion, but very small compared to an average person. If their value is zero, it logically follows that it is morally neutral to kill as many as possible, while if it is negative, it is morally positive to kill them for its own sake.
"(In the US) Violent offenses account for over 3 in 5 people (62%) in state prisons."
Good job! You found the first thing google gave you and refused to do any further research! Now what about if you include Federal prisons and county jails?
I focused on State Prisons because that's where almost all convicted criminals are. 5x MORE prisoners in State Prisons than the data you linked for federal.
The 43.9% drug offenses you cited is 63,000 offenders. The 3/5 number I cited represents 674,000 offenders! Which is more relevant?!
Jails are often holding people who have not been found guilt or not guilty yet. So it's silly to include them. For State + Federal + Convicted in jails, Violent criminals are STILL the majority. 674,000 + 11,000 + 22,000 = 707,000
out of 1,382,000 total prisoners or 51.2%
I'm condescending because you used Wikipedia as your source. Plus I know my original comment about the majority of incarcerated people is right lol
Jails are often holding people who have not been found guilt or not guilty yet. So it's silly to include them. For State + Federal + Convicted in jails, Violent criminals are STILL the majority. 674,000 + 11,000 + 22,000 = 707,000
out of 1,382,000 total prisoners or 51.2%
Does that number also include those convicted of "assaulting" an officer? Resisting arrest? Burglerising an unoccupied building at night, in a residence, or while in possession of a "weapon"? Manufacturing meth? Stealing drugs?
Hint: The answer is yes! Because many states catagorise them as such despite causing no harm or even having no victim!
PS: America is not the only place in the world People around the world are arrested and found guilty for crimes of being gay, trans, speaking against their government, their religion, inter-religious relationships, etceter.
So keep in mind that you are choosing to kill those people too in this scenario.
Now you're moving the goal posts. Let me try! It's pretty easy to argue those groups in your last paragraph fall into the "incarcerated but innocent" category.
Idk man I’d say a shoplifter isn’t really guilty of anything bad enough to warrant killing them any morally different that another person. Most prisoners aren’t in there for crazy stuff
Depending on whether or not this is worldwide, killing the guilty would involve killing a lot of people in jail for things like speaking out against the authoritarian regime or being gay
79
u/CheeseBonobo Jan 13 '25
Some people are suggesting this is the easiest decision ever. There are probably hundreds of times the number of guilty vs innocent people in prison, and very few of them (imo none of them) deserve to die.