You are making a false assumption: Not everybody on Lemmy is on board with vigilante shit. It was also cheered for by plenty of people in plenty of places - to answer the question of why they were celebrating it, I would speculate that it felt to them like there is no other recourse. No matter what they did, they couldn't afford medical care even when they had paid vast sums of money already, that's a lot of pain and frustration. I can't say I am surprised by the reactions by people all over the Internet.

The death penalty is an ineffective deterrent used by a facist state.

Luigi is a messsage sent by a fed up populace.

There is a difference between practical statements and moral statements. You can simultaneously believe that nobody should die (moral belief), while also believing that assassinations are the natural consequence of unchecked capitalism (practical belief).

This is made particularly confusing in English, since the word "should" can use both definitions. eg, you should apologize (moral), vs you should protect yourself (practical)

I am of the belief that Brian Thompson should (moral) have been locked up for his actions. Having failed that, I predict that Brian should (practical) have been assassinated. And he was.

Punch up, not down. Violence used to fight for freedom and against an oppressor: good. Violence by the state: bad. This is not an inconsistent position.

I don't see any inherent contention between the two examples you've given. Someone that is justice minded is looking for two things: 1) a system that punishes those who commit wrongs, and 2) a system that only punishes those that meet the criminal criteria.

It is a colorable argument that health insurance executives ought to have culpability for their decisions, yet the legal system allows them to skate. It is also a colorable argument that some/many/most prisoners sentenced to death in California were wrongfully convicted, or their trial/punishment was swayed by improper bias (ie racism), and thus such an imperfect system ought to not result in irreversible error (ie execution of someone who didn't meet the criteria).

So killing is not okay except when its internet-approved vigilantism?

Please do not reduce nuance into nullity. There are vanishingly few people that will assert that killing (even self defense) should always be prohibited; this is a strawman. And "internet vigilantism" is more than just words on a screen, but actions undertaken that happen to be online. Take, for example, the good work of DDoSecrets, which is unquestionably a form of vigilantism, yet daylight is the best antiseptic for corruption. The world is not black and white; rather, it is complicated.

Its actually very easy.

Nazi/ Corporate fuck = 🔪 Normal People = jail

The average murderer awaiting a death sentence was a threat to one or a few people. We as a society understand that a human can be emotional or impaired and as a result commit the crime. As a society we believe in punishment…but for some they debate if death makes us the same as them.

They are a singular.

For CEOs and corps, they are multiple and harm many. They have built a system to allow this, they are not a danger to a few, they are a danger to us all. They can bypass law and have overreach in pretty much all locations. Not only are they not willing to change, they will happily watch us all die.

It’s the few VRs the many. This is not a single murder it’s a war.

When it's the only realistic solution, it becomes the best one.

One of the reasons a justice system exists is to keep people from taking it into their own hands which leads to endless revenge/honor killings and feuds that last forever. It can also be less harsh, at least in some ways, than what the aggrieved may do on their own. However, when the justice system refuses to apply justice, expect people to start taking things into their own hands. This can manifest in plenty of ways (jury nullification, no witnesses seeing anything somehow, etc.) and has happened many times over the years.

If people see great harm being done with no justice, they may take things into their own hands. There aren't a lot of ways that are actually going to make a difference that an individual can do (a sociopath isn't going to give a shit about a letter or petition). If the justice system will not do good by the people, their means are limited as they cannot inflict the type of legal and financial pain a justice system can. As such, they turn to the only thing they know might work.

I believe we should abolish the death penalty. Half of me would really like to keep it for those in positions of power over others who abuse that (police, politicians, abusive caregivers, etc.), especially if there's a chance they could get back out, but it's better to be rid of it entirely. That doesn't mean I'm not going to cheer if an arms dealer is fed to a woodchipper or those responsible for immense pain and suffering and death of others are no more when the justice system does not deliver justice.

edit: pre-coffee spelling > me

I would hardly say there is consensus on topics like this, but people that see violence as a means to an end may be more likely to voice exactly that sentiment more vocally and more often.

I personally oppose all forms of violence, but I do think leaders need to be held accountable for their actions. I’m more in favor of punishments in the form of stripping wealth and/or long/lifetime prison sentences depending on crimes levied.

A more tame view isn’t that attention grabby either though. Nor do I personally feel the need to say it either since I’d just wait for prosecutors to actually prosecute the crimes.

death penalty is the state. green mario is against the state. if we stop being a global oligarchy then opinions will change a bit.

System bad, people good

I think "how come group who believes X also believes Y" type questions often fail to account for the fact that there is always more variation within a group than between groups - the people saying X and the people saying Y are often different.

That said, i personally support killing the rich and oppose the death penalty because both decentralize power, which reduces inequality and thus improves society.

But i really don't think that many people here share those views.

Because there's a huge difference between killing a convicted criminal as a "deterence" to other criminals, and killing a tyrant to make them stop hurting people en masse.

The government is untrustworthy for making such decisions, has corrupt motivations and is very frequently completely wrong, and typically implements such penalties with unnecessarily cruel, ineffective and sadistic methods.

On the other hand, becoming so homicidally angry at capitalist robber-barons that you feel compelled to take lethal action against them is a perfectly justified and almost universally understandable situation that anyone who lives in said capitalist system has probably already fantasized about on occasion.

It took me way too long to figure out what "green Mario" meant.

People condemned to the death penalty are generally not existential threats to humanity. It's safe to simply keep them where they can do no harm.

Financially obese parasites, on the other hand, are existential threats to humanity, so, while the death penalty is morally abhorrent, they must be put down to ensure the survival of civilization and the human race as a whole.

Forced to choose between two bad options (murder or extinction), we can only choose the less abhorrent one.

Of course, though, this obligation doesn't justify or absolve the crime, it just makes it necessary, an existential imperative. Whoever commits it should still face justice.

(In Luigi's case specifically, he shouldn't be absolved because his alleged victim was objectively a cancer on society and it's death made the world slightly less worst, but because there's a reasonable doubt that the evidence against him might have been fabricated.)

The context of those two things is vastly different, just like how invading a country and defending a country from invasion are different things. I don't want war but I will certainly say Russia should stop killing peope while being fine Ikraine kills invading soldiers.

The state has all the power and should not use it to kill people it could just keep locked up. Luigi fought back against a rigged system and killed someone who has the power to deny medical care that has certainly caused many unnecessary deaths. The death penalty is an abuse of power. Luigi fought back in self defense for because the legal system is rigged. Completely different context.

You need the death penalty and mob justice for people who are above the law.

Killing an active murderer isn't murder, it's justified self defense.

For a person who commits mass murder the first choice is a trial conviction and life in prison. But since the system instead purposely enables their actions, then the only remaining option is vigilantism.

There is no nonviolence because the world we live in is violence. War, genocide, abuse. They are happening now. To not act to stop them is violence. Luigi's actions saved a lot of lives in exchange for one.

The death penalty punishes lower class people for being moulded exactly the way society wants them to be moulded.

How are you going to compare that to techno-parasites who are actively making the planet uninhabitable?

"How come people who condemn the Nazi death chambers support fighting the Nazis?"

Typing is one thing.

But how many Lemmy users would Green Mario, IRL, if they were put in his shoes?

Statistically, so far, the answer is: very few.

Legal institutions can jail people for life, but vigilantes can't. Kidnapping a CEO and ethically keeping him alive in a private blacksite for life (food, entertainment, medical care (ironically)) is cost prohibitive and also much harder to pull off.

People against death penalty^1^ think the state shouldn't be given the right to murder people. That's it.

These people want the system to work, without the need of murdering anyone, let that be by the state or the people.

The very same people agreeing that a murder was beneficial for the system and the people doesn't contradict that. It's simply a symptom of the system being broken and the state not doing enough to fix it for the people.

The shortest answer is that violence is inherent to every political system, in fact, that is the sole purpose of politics, to determine acceptable violence in a society, and who controls it, and who doles it out.

This includes more extreme violence like killing.

Anyone who has seen the mistakes the state has made and will continue to make will be against the death penalty - not because of the violence, as I can guarantee you they support violence in other ways - but because of the accuracy. In a perfect world wherein we know there is no possible way to redeem someone and we can guarantee a perfect conviction, very, very few people would be against a state-led death penalty.

Now Luigi, and all vigilantism directed towards the top, or mass killers in general, is the same thing. It's unpopular when it's against unjustified targets that have a margin of error. Luigi's target had no margin of error. He was directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. It not only was public knowledge, he received money for this, he received prestige and recognition for his kills. So of course people cheered on the killer of the mass murderer. That's natural.

He is the natural reaction to untenable situations. We don't want to become plumbers, we want material conditions to be improved so that we do not feel the need to follow his example.

His life was fucked before the Healthcare CEO took a long nap. Now thr best he can hope for is an aquittal and a book deal.

We want people to have access to Healthcare so we don't feel the need to put on a plumber hat.

The prosecutors won't enforce the laws against them, and the courts wouldn't accept it if they did.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

This post reads like an llm agent trying to play human. Probably not that idk. But over 50% of engagement is from chatbots now across social media.

there is no such consensus. nice try tho.

goomba/galoomba meme

I believe it's A and B, different groups of people advocate for different opinions on the fediverse (you can also see this in how people see different instances like .ml and .shitjustworks), and there is nuance in the sense that the state should be held to a higher standard in actions upon the people whereas if the people disapprove of an individual who is not bothered by the state due to their influence, drastic actions might be the only justice the people will see.

This is very much a "goomba fallacy" circumstance if you merge all sides into one "fediverse viewpoint"

First, it could be very well be different people. We're at what, 50k monthly active users now? There will be some different opinions even among a small group of people.

Second, the two positions can be compatible. For example, I'm very against the death penalty, but the thought has crossed my mind that when someone is convicted of a brutal murder, for example, and receives the death penalty, the state shouldn't be allowed to kill the convict, but the relatives, friends, or loved ones of the victim should have the option to do so legally if they wish to. I know, it's harsh, but I think that this would be more logical than the current system. The loved ones of the victim would have both a better motive to kill the convict AND also the added burden of considering the negative effects to themselves of following through with that decision.

none of the people killed by green marios (e.g. kirk and the health care ceo) are remotely close to being given death penalty for what they've done. think about that and you'll know why death penalty by the state won't make the society better.

Obviously the death penalty is a cruel, medieval, outdated punishment, which is against humanity, as every halfway intelligent person will agree. At the same time, murdering someone is against the law in any country, and should be punished (jail), whatever the motivation. Those people that support Luigi will probably put forward that his victim was responsible for numerous deaths, but we do not live in societies that condone lynch justice, there are definitely other and better ways to express or push political opinions.

It's a Lemmy thing. Just like how they can laugh uproariously over Charlie Kirk's murder whilst making death threats about not including pronouns in emails.

Murder of a political enemy? HAHAHAHA

You didn't include a pronoun in your own email? YOU MONSTER!!!! How could you oppress me?

A great thing about Lemmy is that you can see what the mods have deleted and why they have banned users; they can make a hug box, but they can't hide that they've made a hug box.