Topic: To what extent would death penalty quell corruption (Read 134 times)

it still sets a dangerous precedent IMO

when you sanction killing "for the right reasons", you end up opening the flood gates to "fuck it, let's just kill each other" sooner or later. the friends and relatives of people executed for ethical or just reasoning can come up with equally just reasoning to retaliate. killing humans should simply be avoided at nearly all costs, it's been a magnet for messy tragedies throughout human history, there's no reason to assume it will ever be any different

better to just undermine the authority of these assholes instead, they're too powerful as it is without giving them the ability to give the legitimized death nod

Wouldn't it be better a country be run by a few honest people, than multitudes of criminals.
I'm aware of this, our world today has to a large extent legalized corruption, and those at the helm of affairs tilt the law in their favor.
But if somehow it was possible to usurp power from this individuals, would instilling death penalty on corruption help to make things better?

disagree

the corrupt would simply frame honest politicians and officials for corruption crimes when they refuse to participate in or ignore ongoing corruption. the honest would be executed, the corrupt would continue unabated


or at least, the risk of the above is too great. so many of the most powerful politicians are already so corrupt, that finding the right circumstances into which to introduce capital punishment for state corruption would be unlikely to ever occur.


tl;dr sounds right, but it wouldn't work in the world we have

The western countries are the most corrupted countries in the world. 3rd world countries are corrupted too but not to the extend of the Western world... Lobbyism is institutionalized corruption. So if you had to put in jail corrupted people in the West, you would have to throw all the elite, politicians, press, and banks. There would be no one left to run the country.

Capital punishments are meted out on crimes such as murder, insurrection, drug trafficking etc, and this depends on what the constitution of a country delimit.
Corruption is one standing menace that has eaten deep into the wheels of progress, good life, development in our economy and nations today, while capital punishments are mapped out for crimes that look worse than corruption superficially, it (capital punishment)is not implemented against officials who embezzle funds that could create more employments(ending/reducing unemployment), public figures who swindle funds meant to equip the military against external aggression, funds means to develop hospitals to save lives, funds meant to build new roads and infrastructures meant to make life easier for the common man.

Using Third World countries as base point, most of all this countries are rich enough to make life better for their citizens, but those at the helm of affairs make everything theirs.
If you ask me corruption is a bad as murder, drug trafficking and whatever crime attracts capital punishments, it indirectly leads to all that.

If death penalty is mapped out as punishment for corruption, it'll to a large extent act as a deterrent and reduce its presence in our midst, public officials and those who handle public funds would think twice before trying to embezzle public funds, it may not eliminate it(which is impossible)but it'll reduce it significantly.