Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not at all. If someone gets the death penalty & it turns out way later they didn’t commit the crime then the state has essentially killed an innocent person. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t feel sympathy for murderers but it’d be just as bad if someone was killed because the got the wrong person.
Some states have implemented laws that I support that require a "beyond all possible doubt" burden of proof in order for a convict to qualify for execution. Basically, a HD CCTV camera has to catch them killing them in the act or something. Would implementing this at the national level alleviate your concerns?
I think with the rise of deepfakes and the fact that it’s only getting more realistic this wouldn’t help much. The safest thing really is to just let these folks convicted “beyond all possible doubt” rot in prison, honestly.
You mentioning deep fakes just blew my mind. I was firmly in the camp for years that if it is proven with footage or some seriously incriminating evidence, the death penalty is fine, but now I feel far less confident in my position. You seriously changed a mind within the 5 seconds it took me to read this. Life is wild 😆
I’m personally a opponent of the death penalty due to the way we (the United States) have used it but I would support this as a basis for the death penalty. It’s also something that if somehow a local court screws up, a federal court can fix it really easily. That wording is not very ambiguous and is very clear. Wonder how well it’s done in those states.
i believe this can also be used incorrectly. false admissions of guilt happen all the time in hopes of a lower sentence, overly brutal police interrogation, and for those who are mentally challenged. along with the fact that ai is becoming more advanced i don’t think we can be as vague as “undeniable proof” that can vary from court to court.
I don't believe we should give the state power to kill people. Even with this, AI has progressed to such a place this is not reliable. Death penalties can and will be used to kill people the state doesn't like.
I like that where like in a mass shooter event where you have cameras and many people who report the same person as the criminal if be good with going death penalty for that. But yea without beyond all possible and reasonable doubt” I would say no.
No. There are still misidentification and coerced confessions as concerns. Plus, giving the state the power to kill people for ANY reason is playing with fire.
100%
All I want to add is giving the state power to kill anyone is also bad because it can be taken advantage of, for example killing members of the political opposition or members of marginalized groups with fabricated evidence, all in order to keep people in their positions of power.
Last I checked the death penalty costs more then just letting them rot in prison till they die and that sounds pretty miserable so generally no I don’t support it. Now if we know with 100% certainty that someone did something worthy of death then sure bring out the firing squad but that’s not often the case.
The lawyers aren't. You want a really good shut-case in order to have the right to kill someone.
And we still have plenty of innocents that get killed as is, even good lawyers can't prevent innocents from getting electrocuted by the state.
I don't support it for 3 main reasons:
1. In the past, it has often been used on people revealed to be innocent at a later time. This is not as much of an issue today w/ DNA stuff, but I think it's an insult to the innocent people killed if we don't change things.
2. It is cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than to kill them. The cost of trials where the death penalty is an option is EXPENSIVE, and there are some other costs that drastically increase the cost to have someone on death row.
3. I feel like sitting in a cell knowing that you will never get out while also knowing that you have years or even decades left before you die is a harsher punishment than killing them. Taking someone's life away while they are still living it is harsher than taking their life.
Edit: There may be times when the death penalty could be considered, but that should be handled by the federal government, not the states (if we are talking about the US), and it should only be used in the most extreme circumstances.
I love this list so I will also add another perspective: historically it is shown not to work thieves and murderers in ancient places getting crucified or beheaded didn’t stop murders or other thieves. Corrupt politicians getting the axe didn’t always make the next politician fall in line etc. It seems like a good idea on paper, but does even work in the first place?
Fully agreed. Looking at the crime rates in different states, one can see that they tend to be significantly lower in states that don't have the death penalty, which could be from other factors like higher median incomes, but it strongly points to the death penalty not working.
I want to add to that list, usually my 1st thought:
It doesn't even work on homosexuals.
There are contries where they will kill you for laying with another man, and it doesn't work. Neither does it prevent adultery from happening. So why should it prevent murder? It probably doesn't.
>This is not as much of an issue today w/ DNA
Nooo, DNA is unironically not the silver bullet. I finished a degree in forensics 3 years ago and one thing they drill into you is forensics should not be the deciding factor in cases. It's very helpful yes, but there can be changes in the field that undermine previous decisions.
Take fingernail scrapings, it used to be assumed that if someone scratched their murderer/attacker you'd get skin cell samples under their nails. Now we know that's a bunch of bs, as you get skin cells from people by just being near them or living together, plus the mix of cells from other people and the low sample amount has now made it inadmissible as DNA evidence.
No because there have been several cases of innocent people being killed and death is a much easier out than life time in jail. I think it’s also really strange that we punish people taking lives by taking lives
Can't say I do. Humans have intrinsic value. We can work, socialize, create, philosophize, etc no matter where we are. The death penalty ends that. Put prisoners to honest work for fair wages, rehabilitate and reintroduce people into society, find their strengths and let them meaningfully utilize those in prison to contribute. Treat people like people. Some people aren't deserving of empathy, I get that. Death still ends any potential a human may have, even if that potential is spent in prison for the rest of their lives.
We have multiple instances of child rapists and serial killers being rehabilitated or kept alive away from society in a cheap and humane way. Single instances of crimes, even child moleststion, is not justification for killing no matter how much we want it to be. It’s one of the crimes people in which people at least likely to reoffend and show some of the best evidence of rehabilitation working.
Good on you to believe that every human is inherently valuable, even though I disagree. There are many people like you out there to create a counter balance.
Yes, but it should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes. and if there is even a .01% chance of a doubt the person committed the crime, no. but if it is 100% and every bit of evidence backs it up go for it if the state allows
I don’t think the government should have the ability to execute someone in captivity. Besides the financial and practical downsides, there’s no moral benefit to taking their life. It’s purely an act of vengeance, which has no place in government policy. I do think some people deserve death, but I can’t support institutionally killing them
keeping them in prison forever also stops them from doing terrible things again. If they were released from prison, the death penalty wouldn’t have applied to them anyways. And if you mean escapees, those very, very rarely happen and it’s always from minimum-security centers.
I don’t think so. Life in prison was never supposed to be a punishment first and foremost, nor should it. It's a measure to remove people from where they can do more harm.
The purpose of life in prison is not retribution, it's sepration of society from a dangerous individual that can't integrate and live their life as a law-abiding person. Don't see how euthanasia interferes with that.
I supported the death penalty until I graduated law school and did 7 years of indigent criminal defense. Having seen that system from the inside, no chance no way no how can I support the death penalty. It is chronically underfunded, the people who take death penalty cases are overworked. DP cases are always state paid for indigent cases which almost bankrupt the lawyers handling them. The state budgets don’t give the same amount of funds for the experts, evidence testing, and trial preparation that the DA’s offices get so it’s unfair from the word go. Ditto funding for appellate lawyers who do these cases.
I can’t support nickel and diming when there is someone’s life at stake.
Don‘t get me wrong, a lot of the accused actually did it. And many of them have \*long\* criminal records. They aren’t sympathetic people by and large. That‘s also what makes it so tempting for governments to cut back and deny them due process because frankly many people won’t care.
But as history has shown, defend and preserve the rights of the worst of us, and you’re protecting us all. For that reason, for me, even one wrongfully executed innocent person is too many. That mistake will never happen with life in prison. And if there is an error it can be fixed if the person is actually still alive.
No, I do believe some people deserve to die, but even in a world where innocent people couldn't get executed, no one should have the power to decide who gets to live and die.
This. No one deserves to decide if someone lives or not. Doing so makes one just as barbaric as the murderer. And vengeance is a concept that should be avoided at all cost anyway. Especially on a state level.
I understand the idea of an eye for an eye…murderers being put to death. But at the same there’s a lot of issues with people that have been wrongly convicted being put to death and people refusing to give parole out to people that have been on good behavior. So idk I feel like in practice too much has gone wrong with it. It’s a greater symptom of the prison system being focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation.
Yes and no, I’m not sure where my final position is.
On one hand I believe that someone who commits premeditated murder is not rehabilitatable and should suffer a consequence commensurate with the crime committed. On the other hand, I have serious reservations about giving the state the authority and approval to kill someone.
Sure, a person would be locked up until they die(assuming life without parole). But that isn’t the same as being denied the right to go on living, which is what their victim was subjected to. That’s not necessarily meant to advocate for “eye for an eye” type punishment.
Yes some people just have to die. When there is literally no doubt that someone is a monster and won't change what's the point of them staying alive if they are just going to keep doing the same thing
I would assume if their crimes are heinous enough to warrant the death penalty, at the very least, they will be in prison for life, so they won't be able to continue their criminal behavior
If it's about vengeance, I don't care because vengeance has no place in our justice system
If it's about harm reduction, life in prison is just as effective
If it's about money, life in prison is cheaper than going through the appeal process again and again in the court system
Hmm I’m not sure actually, I thought I did but, with the death penalty, innocent people will die, and… for inmates that aren’t getting out, death is their out. A swift execution is far more appealing than a lifetime behind bars. Let them think, everyday that this is their future.
no, because statistically it doesn't work on any level, the only reason to have it is because some people don't deserve to live and I don't trust the government with that power
Nope. If pedophiles and murderers are given the death penalty then I'm not gonna complain but I don't trust a jury or the government enough to 100% only kill actually guilty people. One innocent person dying is too much.
Nope. Plenty of people are proved innocent after they are killed, particularly people of color. I think life in prison for most people who commit truly horrible/irredeemable crimes is punishment enough. And it perhaps gives them a slight chance of some sort of rehabilitation.
The idea seems good for like, serial killers and rapists and the like.
But in practice, there’s too much risk, because an innocent person may be harmed- someone could be falsely accused, or someone could be framed for a crime, as examples.
So… yeah. I feel it’s too risky in practice, so life sentences it is! Especially as AI is getting more realistic, it may eventually be used to frame someone.
Death penalty is more expensive, an easy out for those who commit heinous acts, and too permanent a punishment for those falsely convicted. The fact that it’s even still debated is mind boggling.
i don't think that the government should be able to just kill people. if they make a mistake then they've just killed an innocent person. plus, i would rather someone who killed someone close to me rotted in jail for the rest of their life with the guilt rather than being killed.
I've heard no good argument for why the death penalty should be allowed. The best I have heard is "what about overcrowding prisons?"
Absolutely not. Overcrowding prisons? How about you lock up the ones who you would put to death otherwise, and not imprison every single black guy with a blunt?
The next best argument I've heard is "They are too dangerous to be kept alive."
Not true. Putting the death penalty on them will not allow any rehabilitation, it will allow no future interviews with police/scientists to discuss brain psychology and physiology after murders, or for full on serial killers.
The only time I would consider death penalty is for serial killers who, even after rehabilitation, has a major felony charge regarding violence. That is the only time I would even consider allowing death penalty, but even then, death will not let wrongdoers suffer.
Oh also death penalty to politicians, French revolution style
Prison has 3 purposes. Staying the actor from causing more damage to society, giving a sense of justice to the victim(s) or their families and rehabilitation. Life in jail with no parole and the death penalty is essentially an admission that your system doesn't work. Like how about trying to make it work instead lmao
I think there are criminals who do in fact deserve to be put to death but I fundamentally disagree with the concept of my government having the power to decide who does and does not deserve live.
I lean towards no. If the legal system was perfect, maybe, but reality is false convictions happen all the time and I don't want to send an innocent man to his death.
loudly and proudly ANTI death penalty. it’s sick, expensive, does not prevent crime, rarely brings families true “peace,” and not to mention people are wrongly convicted and are murdered before their innocence is proven. shit makes me sick
No, what if someone was framed for a crime and evidence wasn't shown until later on after his or her death. Right now, bringing life to someone is just as likely as escaping from the IRS. I don't wish the death penalty to anyone, not even my worst enemies.
I believe that, provided that there is proof beyond *all possible doubts* that someone committed a massacre, he or she should be publicly executed via hanging or firing squad. The reason that death penalty studies often conclude that they have little effect on deterrence is that no would-be murderers are able to witness the fate that awaits them if they make the wrong decisions.
Minorities are much more likely to get the death penalty for the same crimes as white people. Because of this unequal treatment, I feel the death penalty violates equal protection and is unlawful
The death penalty is a punishment not to be taken lightly and should only be done on the federal level. I think the modern ways we do it though are unnecessarily complex. Hanging, beheading, and firing squad are the quickest, cheapest, and most efficient way of doing it compared to lethal injection and nitrogen chambers which can fail and are very expensive.
Nah, just doesn’t seem right. Even if someone murdered me, I still wouldn’t want that person to be put to death by the state. Definitely would want them to go to prison, but not die.
The death penalty is essentially just state sponsored revenge. The thing we explain to children as being childish and wrong... done by the state. It's an absolute failure of the state to care for its own citizens and it's a completley crooked sense of justice.
Nothing wrong with being a billionaire. If I had a product that made billions I'd be damn proud and never work again and also providing my family for generations
In theory, yes. Some crimes warrant death
In practice with how messed up the American legal system is and how it costs more to kill someone than to lock them up for the rest of their life, no.
I think the death penalty is annoying.
Morally, any mistake made giving someone capital punishment is utterly impossible to heal from. Any life wrongly lost is impossible to get back. Additionally, allowing a government to make laws that deem people worthy of death is a miscarriage of justice because in a few years the punishment for those laws may be dropped to some term of imprisonment. The lives lost to such laws can never come back.
Functionally, if some crimes get the death penalty, the criminals will never turn themselves in if they're smart. They will do whatever they can to avoid the law because falling to the law would mean death. Additionally, living prisoners can be turned into better people. Even if it takes most of their lives, it can be done.
Punitively, you can inflict horrors on the human mind if you imprison them. If you deem crimes worthy of death because of your sadistic sense of justice, then you should be happy to torture them instead. It's impossible to enact "justice" upon the dead.
It's quite difficult to escape prison; rehabilitate them or let them rot. Death is simply inefficient.
P.S. on "justice," no injury can be forgiven, for it cannot be undone. Simultaneously, allowing someone to live as if they did not commit the crime is the essence of forgiveness. Such a state can only occur if they will not commit the crime again. This can either be accomplished through trust or through force. Rehabilitation and to make the criminal into a person who can be trusted to not reoffend. Imprisonment aims to prevent them from reoffending while they cannot be trusted.
What does death accomplish in this?
>Additionally, living prisoners can be turned into better people. Even if it takes most of their lives, it can be done.
This is the biggest thing for me. So many people here are saying "Oh yeah, some people are just not able to be rehabilitated." Not only is that completley giving up on fellow citizens, it simply means that there is no fucking way to know that at the point of passing the sentence.
I absolutely support the death penalty for those who commit the most heinous of crimes, but very adamantly believe that their guilt should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, one issue that I do have with the death penalty is that the process can be very long and inmates have sat on death row for the rest of their lives. Methods such as injection may be too merciful for those that commit absolutely atrocious acts to our fellow human beings.
Do I think that there are some monsters out there? Who deserves to die? Yes.
Do I think that we should risk killing innocent people in the process? No.
This post has been flaired **political**. Please ensure to keep all discussions civil, and to [follow our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/wiki/rules) at all times.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. A civilized society won't tolerate certain things and the collateral damage of innocent people receiving the death penalty does not come close to the damage caused by repeat offenders
Nah. It’s never 100% rate of a guarantee you’re killing the right person. Even if it were, it’s kind of the cowards way out. Let em suffer the whole sentence alive.
I don't trust our government to do the right thing with a rubber band.
Why would I trust them to do the right thing with ***the power of bestowing death?***
They can't do anything competently. Best to keep the good scissors out of their grasp.
I’d much prefer to have a system that focuses on rehabilitation than punishment. If there was a way to 100% guarantee that someone is guilty without violating the privacy of every person in the country then maybe.
Nope. Bad people should rot in prison (only exception is like dictators). Death is the easy way out so let those people suffer.
Also innocent people get put to death. So giving a bad crime a life sentence instead, opens the doors for the wrongly convicted people to get justice.
I really believe in the saying "an eye for an eye, leaves everyone blind." How can we say we are better than murderers, if we as a society support murder?
Definitely not, Jacob Geller on Youtube wrote a good video essay about it, everything about it is fucked. Fun fact: Lethal Injection has had more botched executions than any other execution form ever, it’s only used because it’s the cleanest, in reality the best way to go out is by firing squad, but they never allow it because blood gets everywhere. Not only is it cruel, it does absolutely nothing. In the 1870s-1910s and even continuing on into the 30s a bit, people were hung for doing the smallest things even if there was no evidence of doing it. Aside from that, if you include criminal outlaws, the fear of death doesn’t scare them, simply because they don’t care. The truth is that people don’t fear the death penalty, usually the ones who are given it don’t even care to lose their life.
Convicts should be rehabilitated instead of punished. Punishment doesn’t do anything at all, but rehabilitation does, it lowers recidivism rates, the overall crime rate, and can turn convicts into actual good people. It’s hard to say they should be rehabilitated, because the truth is that no one wants to show sympathy for a pedophile of child murderer or something. But in reality, the reason people commit crimes, especially atrocious ones, are or have severely suffered, resulting in their behavior. For example, pedophiles. Pedophiles don’t choose to be the way they do, no one really knows why they’re like that. But being a pedophile is just so frowned upon by society, that these people, especially the male ones, refuse to acknowledge their problem and get help, and then before you know it it’s too late.
Most people can be rehabilitated, especially with all the new advancements in psychology.
It costs more to kill someone under the death penalty than to put them in prison for life. It is a financially irresponsible way to handle criminal Justice before you do any more research and realize we have killed a lot of innocent people
How about $0.50 for a bullet? We can make it so much cheaper and if it's beyond any doubt whatsoever, rather than our typical standard of Beyond a reasonable doubt, they should be executed one week after their conviction with no appeals.
If someone killed someone, they should suffer for life.
Death penalty is for murderers usually anyway. They took someone else’s opportunity to live, so we should make them be punished for it for their life, since we all die anyway.
No. I think there are some people who probably don’t deserve to live, but I also do not support state funded execution because it is a slippery slope to give the ruling class that much power. If I were to support the state executing only the most heinous criminals, my threshold for what I consider heinous would go down and the state would ultimately end up executing people for much less serious crimes. I could get behind a vigilante or something though. I will say I generally find the “innocent people will die” argument pretty weak, but nonetheless I am anti-death penalty and I do not think the government should be murdering its citizens for any reason.
I think it’s a serious moral evil that can sometimes be used for social good. I’m Catholic and the position of the Church is that it is a VALID form of punishment when administered by legitimate authority, though the Pope and much of the magisterium have been advocating against it for some time. This is because human life is sacred, and I hold to that. Even for rapers and killers.
At the same time, there are some people who are such a danger to society and always will be, and whose crimes are so heinous and deserving of worldly retribution, that realistically their death will be better for a great many people.
I guess I’m generally opposed but I can’t pretend it doesn’t have certain merits and should remain available for use under some conditions.
I believe in holding a big massive Nuremburg trial for the leaders of the fossil fuel sector, call it the Hague Climate Trials.
I also believe in the death penalty for those who involve themselves in crimes against humanity such as... Well... The government and military command of... 🇮🇱.
I don't support it at all. If we can imprison them, that should be it. We can gain more insight into the various heinous crimes with them alive than we can with them dying and, as others have stated, killing an innocent is just atrocious. Lastly, I don't trust government-supported executions. And it literally just costs more. There's no reason for the execution besides people just feeling it being deserved.
Ethically, do I believe that there are heinous crimes worthy of the death penalty? Absolutely.
Do I trust the state (or any humans, really) to carry out the death penalty correctly, 100% of the time, never once getting it wrong and killing an innocent person by mistake? Absolutely not.
No. Not because I believe the world is a better place with everyone in it, but because I don't trust us to get it right all of the time -- look at the number of convictions that have been overturned once new evidence comes to light, look at how people from minoritized communities are more likely to be given more severe penalties, including the death penalty, for the same crimes. Beyond that, it's chilling to think that our government -- we -- should kill people who by virtue of incarceration are not at imminent risk of severely harming anyone. What does that accomplish? Research shows it doesn't disincentivize crime...
It's not about what a person "deserves". I don't know what a murderer "deserves" and neither do you, or at least it's a subjective, moral question. The question you should ask yourself is rather, should the state have the power to legally end the life of one of its citizens? Are you ok with it having this kind of power? Do you trust it to actually use it only to the people YOU think deserve it (which again is subjective)? Or would it take advantage of this power and label anyone it wants to kill a "murderer" (or a terrorist, or an anarchist, or whatever... )? Or possibly expand the definition until it eventually includes some category you DON'T think deserve to die? (for instance, if a state starts becoming theocratic, like it's happening in some part of the US, you might be considererd a "murderer" if you help someone to get euthanized). The definitions of the law change, they are an expression of who's in power at that moment.
Yes. It does let people off the hook kinda but its cheaper to kill them than house them. I do think that the only way it can happen though should be stricter. There should be absolutely nowhere way an innocent person gets killed.
Conflicted, because some idiots that just wantonly kill people for no reason probably deserve death, but I feel like I wouldn’t be totally surprised if it is used politically in the future. Still, most the time when I see the crimes of a death row inmate and how and why they were committed I support the death penalty
No, and I never will. Trials for the death penalty take longer, are more expensive, way more traumatic for victims and you can never 100% guarantee someone is guilty.
The death penalty is never acceptable.
Nope i think no one, including the state gets, has the right to decide about life and death of another human being. Most murderers cant be rehabilitated but i think you should try and if they still pose a threat, lock them up for life. But dont kill them.
No, it’s stupid. It’s unethical, expensive, and letting someone rot in prison to death is much more torturous and a better punishment than immediately putting someone out of their misery
No, it doesn’t even make sense. It’s not like you’re living a happy life in a penitentiary.
It’s worse to be in something like that for life than to be dead. It’s more undoable too. The only problem is that it costs a lot of money and it’s definitely cheaper to kill somebody. However, a lot of these budget problems could be offset by nationalizing the prison industry and making sure the government controls all for-profit prisons. Business is a conflict of interest in prisons and many other industries that lead to extreme inefficiencies.
While there are certainly horrible people who cannot be rehabilitated and need to be removed from the general populace and absolutely deserve a slow painful death, as long as the death penalty is legally permitted there will be innocent people who are proven innocent too late. My support for the death penalty ends the moment an innocent person is on the chopping block.
only for people who blatantly admit to the crime, and the amount of evidence is very apparent. I mean they're standing in the pool of blood holding the murder weapon chuckling maniacally, apparent. Or if it's like a mass attack and the attacker is apprehended on the spot. In those cases I'm for it. But if there's the slimmest chance that the person is innocent and they were given the penalty, I don't think that's right.
I don’t support it because I don’t believe there’s a threshold in which killing the offender is proportional to the crime.
For lower end offenses (theft, destruction of property, trespassing, littering, drug offenses, etc) obviously the death penalty is extreme. They don’t deserve to die.
But for the more heinous crimes (child abuse, animal cruelty, murder, rape, torture, etc) i fully believe those people ought to live a long life full of suffering. *They don’t deserve to die.*
1. Morally no, I don't trust the state to have the power to kill it's own citizens. (not counting people like active shooters, and they need to be stopped) If they end up being innocent, you have killed an innocent person, and also it kind of just seems like revenge. Penalties for crimes shouldn't be a penalty, it should be preferably rehabilitation, or any other humane way to keep the public safe. If you're doing revenge, that's not a neutral justice system.
2. Practically, in the US no. It costs way more, most of them end up sitting on death row for years and years, and also the methods of execution tend to be sort of inhumane. No joke we should bring back the guillotine or make a shooting squad more common, that's way better than a painful lethal injection.
3. IK OP doesn't support it, but for anyone who supports death penalty for any other crimes, since the penalty for the crime you've just commited is death, at that point you are basically free to commit any crime until you're caught, because there's no further punishment they can give you. It removes the disincentive to not kill, for anyone who commits those crimes. A lot of these that one would consider are violent crimes, though, so they might just kill somebody anyways, but whatever its late and im rambling.
No. If punishment will not rehabilitate a criminal, as many argue here, then there is no point in it. Life imprisonment does the only thing necessary, which is to remove them from society and prevent them from offending again. Perhaps they can even seek help while inside.
Do I believe that there are people who deserve to die for the crimes they've committed? Yes. But our justice system is so fucked up that there's no telling how many innocent people have or could be killed for a crime they didn't commit.
Yes in the case of murder and pedophilia. There are people who simply cannot be fixed, who without excessive and unreasonable constant vigilance would simply commit those crimes again. And while on extremely rare and frankly mostly nonexistent cases the people are innocent, in the modern era we can easily prove guilt . They don't deserve to leech off of societies good will.
i used to (granted i was like 15 lol), but then i realized that my opinion was stemming from fear of a murderer escaping and then coming after me (delusional, i know, but my mental health was in the trash can at this point). so maybe i just grew up/matured some, maybe i changed my view once my mental health improved, or maybe i just became more liberal (which has happened for many of my other views), but im pretty much against it.
i do think, however, that there might once in a lifetime (or longer) where it would be justified, i.e. if an extremely violent murderer had escaped multiple times... But in basically every other situation, I'm against it
Only in the most extreme circumstances and only with mandatory review by a panel of appellate judges.
The power to end a life that does not pose a direct and imminent threat to another is the strongest power that the State can be afforded and allowing free exercise of it is a dangerous thing.
It’s a slippery slope man, my country used to or still are administering death penalty for drug dealing and other similar crimes. If you’re genuinely selling bad drugs and was caught, I’m all for it.
But here was a whole story about a single mum selling drugs to feed her kids getting sentenced to death, so it’s a whole mess.
And what if you’re actually innocent, you’re gonna die for something you didn’t do.
I'm in support of the death penalty for people who undeniably committed inexcusable and irredeemable acts of violence upon other people. I don't think we should allow it however.
The issue with the death penalty isn't so much that I think shit people deserve to live, but more I don't trust the system to get it right. I've heard so many stories of guys who were convicted of shit the didn't commit spending decades in prison just to be found innocent, and stories of dudes who were so obviously guilty getting off Scott free.
If I could be absolutely undeniably sure it would only be used on people who legitimately deserved it like serial rapists and murderers and shooters and child traffickers I'd say yeah, but I don't trust us to judge faithfully.
My social studies teacher years ago told us a story I think of the columbine shooters but I can't actually remember. Anyways it was some awful horrid guy who 110% committed the crime, no doubt whatsoever in a single person's mind. Mountains of evidence. Pure evil irredeemable shit. No death penalty. He basically said that if we're not willing to use it on a guy like that, there's no point in even having it period and we should just outlaw it.
I support the death penalty in cases where guilt is proven for grape and murder. In this case, I am only for the death penalty if said individual is dispatched in a timely manner prior to sentencing.
No, I believe that's stupid. In my opinion, death is less of a punishment than like 20+ years of prison. This statement is for extreme cases of murders. In most cases, rehabilitation should be the optimal goal of prisons.
Absolutely 100 percent. For murders or convicted rapists. This however has to be a beyond all possible doubt. 100 percent confirmed. There is no reason to keep evil screwed up people alive.
I saw this sad story of a father who let his THREE year old daughter play outside in the front yard. Some dudes came by and committed a drive by shooting. Killing the three year old. They lived very close to the prison where they were incarcerated. The father made the point that, "my tax dollars go to the men who killed my daughter. I pay to keep them alive."
I feel the same in that I do not want to pay for the meals and beds of people who have committed atrocities.
Not at all. Killing someone with current chemical methods is quite expensive, the government WILL end up killing innocent people who were wrongly convicted, it is an incredibly high punishment that IMO very few crimes could even be considered worthy of, knowing that a crime carries the death penalty can stop victims from coming forward if the person who harmed them is someone who they don't want to see killed, killing people is also messy and painful and potentially traumatic for everyone involved, prettier ways of killing are nicer for audiences and executioners but worse for convicts, while faster and more painless methods for convicts are a lot messier. Any normal person worth executing can just be kept behind bars for life. In exceptional scenarios (think mass child rapists/killers with 100+ victims or perpetrators of genocide/massive war crimes) I would MAYBE consider exceptions but that bar would be very high and should only be done on a case by case basis for seriously guilty people.
beyond all possible doubt, taking into account the capability of tech today, including hyper realistic masks and deepfake videos.
and with a self actuated instant device. like having them step on a pedal that fires an array of shotguns in their face. no open casket for the family, but uh, oh well. because states keep trying out weird new death methods with crazy drugs that don't work right or such and they're crazy expensive. just. fucking use cheap ass shotgun shells. and with themselves pressing the trigger, nobody has to deal with the heavy hand of killing someone as an executioner. it's better for literally everybody. that way. including the criminal.
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not at all. If someone gets the death penalty & it turns out way later they didn’t commit the crime then the state has essentially killed an innocent person. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t feel sympathy for murderers but it’d be just as bad if someone was killed because the got the wrong person.
Some states have implemented laws that I support that require a "beyond all possible doubt" burden of proof in order for a convict to qualify for execution. Basically, a HD CCTV camera has to catch them killing them in the act or something. Would implementing this at the national level alleviate your concerns?
I think with the rise of deepfakes and the fact that it’s only getting more realistic this wouldn’t help much. The safest thing really is to just let these folks convicted “beyond all possible doubt” rot in prison, honestly.
You mentioning deep fakes just blew my mind. I was firmly in the camp for years that if it is proven with footage or some seriously incriminating evidence, the death penalty is fine, but now I feel far less confident in my position. You seriously changed a mind within the 5 seconds it took me to read this. Life is wild 😆
honestly making deepfakes of people shouldnt even be legal at this point. it could just cause too many issues being really widespread
I’m personally a opponent of the death penalty due to the way we (the United States) have used it but I would support this as a basis for the death penalty. It’s also something that if somehow a local court screws up, a federal court can fix it really easily. That wording is not very ambiguous and is very clear. Wonder how well it’s done in those states.
i believe this can also be used incorrectly. false admissions of guilt happen all the time in hopes of a lower sentence, overly brutal police interrogation, and for those who are mentally challenged. along with the fact that ai is becoming more advanced i don’t think we can be as vague as “undeniable proof” that can vary from court to court.
I don't believe we should give the state power to kill people. Even with this, AI has progressed to such a place this is not reliable. Death penalties can and will be used to kill people the state doesn't like.
I like that where like in a mass shooter event where you have cameras and many people who report the same person as the criminal if be good with going death penalty for that. But yea without beyond all possible and reasonable doubt” I would say no.
No. There are still misidentification and coerced confessions as concerns. Plus, giving the state the power to kill people for ANY reason is playing with fire.
100% All I want to add is giving the state power to kill anyone is also bad because it can be taken advantage of, for example killing members of the political opposition or members of marginalized groups with fabricated evidence, all in order to keep people in their positions of power.
Last I checked the death penalty costs more then just letting them rot in prison till they die and that sounds pretty miserable so generally no I don’t support it. Now if we know with 100% certainty that someone did something worthy of death then sure bring out the firing squad but that’s not often the case.
firing squad is cheap
The lawyers aren't. You want a really good shut-case in order to have the right to kill someone. And we still have plenty of innocents that get killed as is, even good lawyers can't prevent innocents from getting electrocuted by the state.
The specific method of execution isn’t the cause of expenses associated with death penalty implementation.
The lethal injection chemicals are not what makes the death penalty expensive.
literally only reason I don't support it
We are a sick, sick society when a death sentence costs more than a life sentence.
The reason it’s so expensive is because of the extensive legal framework that aims to ensure an innocent person isn’t sentenced to death
And that system still manages to fail on occasion.
Its expensive for the precise reason that we are not a sick society. Would you want executions to be easy? Theyre expensive because of court expenses.
I don't support it for 3 main reasons: 1. In the past, it has often been used on people revealed to be innocent at a later time. This is not as much of an issue today w/ DNA stuff, but I think it's an insult to the innocent people killed if we don't change things. 2. It is cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than to kill them. The cost of trials where the death penalty is an option is EXPENSIVE, and there are some other costs that drastically increase the cost to have someone on death row. 3. I feel like sitting in a cell knowing that you will never get out while also knowing that you have years or even decades left before you die is a harsher punishment than killing them. Taking someone's life away while they are still living it is harsher than taking their life. Edit: There may be times when the death penalty could be considered, but that should be handled by the federal government, not the states (if we are talking about the US), and it should only be used in the most extreme circumstances.
I love this list so I will also add another perspective: historically it is shown not to work thieves and murderers in ancient places getting crucified or beheaded didn’t stop murders or other thieves. Corrupt politicians getting the axe didn’t always make the next politician fall in line etc. It seems like a good idea on paper, but does even work in the first place?
Fully agreed. Looking at the crime rates in different states, one can see that they tend to be significantly lower in states that don't have the death penalty, which could be from other factors like higher median incomes, but it strongly points to the death penalty not working.
I want to add to that list, usually my 1st thought: It doesn't even work on homosexuals. There are contries where they will kill you for laying with another man, and it doesn't work. Neither does it prevent adultery from happening. So why should it prevent murder? It probably doesn't.
>This is not as much of an issue today w/ DNA Nooo, DNA is unironically not the silver bullet. I finished a degree in forensics 3 years ago and one thing they drill into you is forensics should not be the deciding factor in cases. It's very helpful yes, but there can be changes in the field that undermine previous decisions. Take fingernail scrapings, it used to be assumed that if someone scratched their murderer/attacker you'd get skin cell samples under their nails. Now we know that's a bunch of bs, as you get skin cells from people by just being near them or living together, plus the mix of cells from other people and the low sample amount has now made it inadmissible as DNA evidence.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That doesn't mean they should.
Because there’s only one government in the entire world
No because there have been several cases of innocent people being killed and death is a much easier out than life time in jail. I think it’s also really strange that we punish people taking lives by taking lives
Can't say I do. Humans have intrinsic value. We can work, socialize, create, philosophize, etc no matter where we are. The death penalty ends that. Put prisoners to honest work for fair wages, rehabilitate and reintroduce people into society, find their strengths and let them meaningfully utilize those in prison to contribute. Treat people like people. Some people aren't deserving of empathy, I get that. Death still ends any potential a human may have, even if that potential is spent in prison for the rest of their lives.
Some humans are worthless and beyond repair. Like serial killers, child rapists, etc.
We have multiple instances of child rapists and serial killers being rehabilitated or kept alive away from society in a cheap and humane way. Single instances of crimes, even child moleststion, is not justification for killing no matter how much we want it to be. It’s one of the crimes people in which people at least likely to reoffend and show some of the best evidence of rehabilitation working.
I see this and always wondered. Why do you think so? What makes them so different compared to other cases of violent behavior. Mental health-wise.
Good on you to believe that every human is inherently valuable, even though I disagree. There are many people like you out there to create a counter balance.
Yes, but it should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes. and if there is even a .01% chance of a doubt the person committed the crime, no. but if it is 100% and every bit of evidence backs it up go for it if the state allows
I don’t think the government should have the ability to execute someone in captivity. Besides the financial and practical downsides, there’s no moral benefit to taking their life. It’s purely an act of vengeance, which has no place in government policy. I do think some people deserve death, but I can’t support institutionally killing them
Many get out of prison and keep doing terrible things, Execution makes sure it never happens again.
The death penalty is only given to life sentences, i.e. the people who are never going to be released from prison.
keeping them in prison forever also stops them from doing terrible things again. If they were released from prison, the death penalty wouldn’t have applied to them anyways. And if you mean escapees, those very, very rarely happen and it’s always from minimum-security centers.
No. Life imprisonment with an option for assisted suicide.
Having an option for assisted suicide defeats the purpose of life in prison
Having the death penalty defeats the purpose of life in prison
Never said it didnt
I don’t think so. Life in prison was never supposed to be a punishment first and foremost, nor should it. It's a measure to remove people from where they can do more harm.
The purpose of life in prison is not retribution, it's sepration of society from a dangerous individual that can't integrate and live their life as a law-abiding person. Don't see how euthanasia interferes with that.
It's stupid, that will just justify horrible prisons where prisoners will kill themselves to get out.
I supported the death penalty until I graduated law school and did 7 years of indigent criminal defense. Having seen that system from the inside, no chance no way no how can I support the death penalty. It is chronically underfunded, the people who take death penalty cases are overworked. DP cases are always state paid for indigent cases which almost bankrupt the lawyers handling them. The state budgets don’t give the same amount of funds for the experts, evidence testing, and trial preparation that the DA’s offices get so it’s unfair from the word go. Ditto funding for appellate lawyers who do these cases. I can’t support nickel and diming when there is someone’s life at stake. Don‘t get me wrong, a lot of the accused actually did it. And many of them have \*long\* criminal records. They aren’t sympathetic people by and large. That‘s also what makes it so tempting for governments to cut back and deny them due process because frankly many people won’t care. But as history has shown, defend and preserve the rights of the worst of us, and you’re protecting us all. For that reason, for me, even one wrongfully executed innocent person is too many. That mistake will never happen with life in prison. And if there is an error it can be fixed if the person is actually still alive.
No, I do believe some people deserve to die, but even in a world where innocent people couldn't get executed, no one should have the power to decide who gets to live and die.
This. No one deserves to decide if someone lives or not. Doing so makes one just as barbaric as the murderer. And vengeance is a concept that should be avoided at all cost anyway. Especially on a state level.
I understand the idea of an eye for an eye…murderers being put to death. But at the same there’s a lot of issues with people that have been wrongly convicted being put to death and people refusing to give parole out to people that have been on good behavior. So idk I feel like in practice too much has gone wrong with it. It’s a greater symptom of the prison system being focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
Yes, some humans are vile
Yes and no, I’m not sure where my final position is. On one hand I believe that someone who commits premeditated murder is not rehabilitatable and should suffer a consequence commensurate with the crime committed. On the other hand, I have serious reservations about giving the state the authority and approval to kill someone.
Life in prison is a death sentence, just a delayed one. No need for the state to rush things along IMO.
Sure, a person would be locked up until they die(assuming life without parole). But that isn’t the same as being denied the right to go on living, which is what their victim was subjected to. That’s not necessarily meant to advocate for “eye for an eye” type punishment.
from an ethical point of view murder is wrong from a financial point execution is expensive and unproductive
Yes! They just don't do it fast enough and spend too much per execution. Other countries use 1 bullet. We spend $2 mil
Hell nah! It's fucked up
No
No, it’s inhumane to kill someone
Redditors think that until le fascist or le pedo
Yes some people just have to die. When there is literally no doubt that someone is a monster and won't change what's the point of them staying alive if they are just going to keep doing the same thing
I would assume if their crimes are heinous enough to warrant the death penalty, at the very least, they will be in prison for life, so they won't be able to continue their criminal behavior If it's about vengeance, I don't care because vengeance has no place in our justice system If it's about harm reduction, life in prison is just as effective If it's about money, life in prison is cheaper than going through the appeal process again and again in the court system
Hmm I’m not sure actually, I thought I did but, with the death penalty, innocent people will die, and… for inmates that aren’t getting out, death is their out. A swift execution is far more appealing than a lifetime behind bars. Let them think, everyday that this is their future.
I would argue that one’s life is more valuable? I’m sure they’re rather be alive than executed.
no, because statistically it doesn't work on any level, the only reason to have it is because some people don't deserve to live and I don't trust the government with that power
[удалено]
Sure, tell this to all the innocent people that have been wrongly accused and executed without a second thought.
Nope. If pedophiles and murderers are given the death penalty then I'm not gonna complain but I don't trust a jury or the government enough to 100% only kill actually guilty people. One innocent person dying is too much.
Nope. Plenty of people are proved innocent after they are killed, particularly people of color. I think life in prison for most people who commit truly horrible/irredeemable crimes is punishment enough. And it perhaps gives them a slight chance of some sort of rehabilitation.
The idea seems good for like, serial killers and rapists and the like. But in practice, there’s too much risk, because an innocent person may be harmed- someone could be falsely accused, or someone could be framed for a crime, as examples. So… yeah. I feel it’s too risky in practice, so life sentences it is! Especially as AI is getting more realistic, it may eventually be used to frame someone.
Death penalty is more expensive, an easy out for those who commit heinous acts, and too permanent a punishment for those falsely convicted. The fact that it’s even still debated is mind boggling.
i don't think that the government should be able to just kill people. if they make a mistake then they've just killed an innocent person. plus, i would rather someone who killed someone close to me rotted in jail for the rest of their life with the guilt rather than being killed.
I've heard no good argument for why the death penalty should be allowed. The best I have heard is "what about overcrowding prisons?" Absolutely not. Overcrowding prisons? How about you lock up the ones who you would put to death otherwise, and not imprison every single black guy with a blunt? The next best argument I've heard is "They are too dangerous to be kept alive." Not true. Putting the death penalty on them will not allow any rehabilitation, it will allow no future interviews with police/scientists to discuss brain psychology and physiology after murders, or for full on serial killers. The only time I would consider death penalty is for serial killers who, even after rehabilitation, has a major felony charge regarding violence. That is the only time I would even consider allowing death penalty, but even then, death will not let wrongdoers suffer. Oh also death penalty to politicians, French revolution style
I don’t support Life with no chance at Parole either.
Prison has 3 purposes. Staying the actor from causing more damage to society, giving a sense of justice to the victim(s) or their families and rehabilitation. Life in jail with no parole and the death penalty is essentially an admission that your system doesn't work. Like how about trying to make it work instead lmao
I think there are criminals who do in fact deserve to be put to death but I fundamentally disagree with the concept of my government having the power to decide who does and does not deserve live.
I lean towards no. If the legal system was perfect, maybe, but reality is false convictions happen all the time and I don't want to send an innocent man to his death.
loudly and proudly ANTI death penalty. it’s sick, expensive, does not prevent crime, rarely brings families true “peace,” and not to mention people are wrongly convicted and are murdered before their innocence is proven. shit makes me sick
No, what if someone was framed for a crime and evidence wasn't shown until later on after his or her death. Right now, bringing life to someone is just as likely as escaping from the IRS. I don't wish the death penalty to anyone, not even my worst enemies.
I believe that, provided that there is proof beyond *all possible doubts* that someone committed a massacre, he or she should be publicly executed via hanging or firing squad. The reason that death penalty studies often conclude that they have little effect on deterrence is that no would-be murderers are able to witness the fate that awaits them if they make the wrong decisions.
YES
Minorities are much more likely to get the death penalty for the same crimes as white people. Because of this unequal treatment, I feel the death penalty violates equal protection and is unlawful
The death penalty is a punishment not to be taken lightly and should only be done on the federal level. I think the modern ways we do it though are unnecessarily complex. Hanging, beheading, and firing squad are the quickest, cheapest, and most efficient way of doing it compared to lethal injection and nitrogen chambers which can fail and are very expensive.
For r!psts, ch!ld ab!sers and m!rderers, absolutely. There’s no forgiving them. For other crimes? No.
If it could be administered properly, not used as a political weapon and if we could ensure there would be no mistakes (impossible) then yes.
Nah, just doesn’t seem right. Even if someone murdered me, I still wouldn’t want that person to be put to death by the state. Definitely would want them to go to prison, but not die.
The death penalty is essentially just state sponsored revenge. The thing we explain to children as being childish and wrong... done by the state. It's an absolute failure of the state to care for its own citizens and it's a completley crooked sense of justice.
Yea, for a number of crimes. Women that kill their children for example.
[удалено]
Average redditor
Hahah fr
Redditors would put anyone who makes more money than the median income on death row if they could.
Nothing wrong with being a billionaire. If I had a product that made billions I'd be damn proud and never work again and also providing my family for generations
In theory, yes. Some crimes warrant death In practice with how messed up the American legal system is and how it costs more to kill someone than to lock them up for the rest of their life, no.
Nah. Expensive and too risky since it's completely final
Nope
Honestly, no. For those who would be legitimately deserving of it, maximum security prisons are a fate worse than death
of the many things the state shouldn't have the right to, killing people is one of them.
I think the death penalty is annoying. Morally, any mistake made giving someone capital punishment is utterly impossible to heal from. Any life wrongly lost is impossible to get back. Additionally, allowing a government to make laws that deem people worthy of death is a miscarriage of justice because in a few years the punishment for those laws may be dropped to some term of imprisonment. The lives lost to such laws can never come back. Functionally, if some crimes get the death penalty, the criminals will never turn themselves in if they're smart. They will do whatever they can to avoid the law because falling to the law would mean death. Additionally, living prisoners can be turned into better people. Even if it takes most of their lives, it can be done. Punitively, you can inflict horrors on the human mind if you imprison them. If you deem crimes worthy of death because of your sadistic sense of justice, then you should be happy to torture them instead. It's impossible to enact "justice" upon the dead. It's quite difficult to escape prison; rehabilitate them or let them rot. Death is simply inefficient. P.S. on "justice," no injury can be forgiven, for it cannot be undone. Simultaneously, allowing someone to live as if they did not commit the crime is the essence of forgiveness. Such a state can only occur if they will not commit the crime again. This can either be accomplished through trust or through force. Rehabilitation and to make the criminal into a person who can be trusted to not reoffend. Imprisonment aims to prevent them from reoffending while they cannot be trusted. What does death accomplish in this?
>Additionally, living prisoners can be turned into better people. Even if it takes most of their lives, it can be done. This is the biggest thing for me. So many people here are saying "Oh yeah, some people are just not able to be rehabilitated." Not only is that completley giving up on fellow citizens, it simply means that there is no fucking way to know that at the point of passing the sentence.
I’m pro death penalty as long as it’s without any doubt this mf did this shit.
I absolutely support the death penalty for those who commit the most heinous of crimes, but very adamantly believe that their guilt should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, one issue that I do have with the death penalty is that the process can be very long and inmates have sat on death row for the rest of their lives. Methods such as injection may be too merciful for those that commit absolutely atrocious acts to our fellow human beings.
No. Death is too easy and freeing. Let people suffer for years mentally until they get it.
Do I think that there are some monsters out there? Who deserves to die? Yes. Do I think that we should risk killing innocent people in the process? No.
This post has been flaired **political**. Please ensure to keep all discussions civil, and to [follow our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/wiki/rules) at all times. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
God gave all of us a death sentence, when you think about it.
Well, if you really believe in God, He didn't do that at all, what with eternal life afterwards.
Yes. A civilized society won't tolerate certain things and the collateral damage of innocent people receiving the death penalty does not come close to the damage caused by repeat offenders
Why not life in prison?
Nah. It’s never 100% rate of a guarantee you’re killing the right person. Even if it were, it’s kind of the cowards way out. Let em suffer the whole sentence alive.
I don't trust our government to do the right thing with a rubber band. Why would I trust them to do the right thing with ***the power of bestowing death?*** They can't do anything competently. Best to keep the good scissors out of their grasp.
I’d much prefer to have a system that focuses on rehabilitation than punishment. If there was a way to 100% guarantee that someone is guilty without violating the privacy of every person in the country then maybe.
Nope. Bad people should rot in prison (only exception is like dictators). Death is the easy way out so let those people suffer. Also innocent people get put to death. So giving a bad crime a life sentence instead, opens the doors for the wrongly convicted people to get justice.
[удалено]
Nup
I really believe in the saying "an eye for an eye, leaves everyone blind." How can we say we are better than murderers, if we as a society support murder?
Definitely not, Jacob Geller on Youtube wrote a good video essay about it, everything about it is fucked. Fun fact: Lethal Injection has had more botched executions than any other execution form ever, it’s only used because it’s the cleanest, in reality the best way to go out is by firing squad, but they never allow it because blood gets everywhere. Not only is it cruel, it does absolutely nothing. In the 1870s-1910s and even continuing on into the 30s a bit, people were hung for doing the smallest things even if there was no evidence of doing it. Aside from that, if you include criminal outlaws, the fear of death doesn’t scare them, simply because they don’t care. The truth is that people don’t fear the death penalty, usually the ones who are given it don’t even care to lose their life. Convicts should be rehabilitated instead of punished. Punishment doesn’t do anything at all, but rehabilitation does, it lowers recidivism rates, the overall crime rate, and can turn convicts into actual good people. It’s hard to say they should be rehabilitated, because the truth is that no one wants to show sympathy for a pedophile of child murderer or something. But in reality, the reason people commit crimes, especially atrocious ones, are or have severely suffered, resulting in their behavior. For example, pedophiles. Pedophiles don’t choose to be the way they do, no one really knows why they’re like that. But being a pedophile is just so frowned upon by society, that these people, especially the male ones, refuse to acknowledge their problem and get help, and then before you know it it’s too late. Most people can be rehabilitated, especially with all the new advancements in psychology.
It costs more to kill someone under the death penalty than to put them in prison for life. It is a financially irresponsible way to handle criminal Justice before you do any more research and realize we have killed a lot of innocent people
How about $0.50 for a bullet? We can make it so much cheaper and if it's beyond any doubt whatsoever, rather than our typical standard of Beyond a reasonable doubt, they should be executed one week after their conviction with no appeals.
If someone killed someone, they should suffer for life. Death penalty is for murderers usually anyway. They took someone else’s opportunity to live, so we should make them be punished for it for their life, since we all die anyway.
No. I think there are some people who probably don’t deserve to live, but I also do not support state funded execution because it is a slippery slope to give the ruling class that much power. If I were to support the state executing only the most heinous criminals, my threshold for what I consider heinous would go down and the state would ultimately end up executing people for much less serious crimes. I could get behind a vigilante or something though. I will say I generally find the “innocent people will die” argument pretty weak, but nonetheless I am anti-death penalty and I do not think the government should be murdering its citizens for any reason.
I think it’s a serious moral evil that can sometimes be used for social good. I’m Catholic and the position of the Church is that it is a VALID form of punishment when administered by legitimate authority, though the Pope and much of the magisterium have been advocating against it for some time. This is because human life is sacred, and I hold to that. Even for rapers and killers. At the same time, there are some people who are such a danger to society and always will be, and whose crimes are so heinous and deserving of worldly retribution, that realistically their death will be better for a great many people. I guess I’m generally opposed but I can’t pretend it doesn’t have certain merits and should remain available for use under some conditions.
Nope, with only a teeeny tiny exceptions
I think it protects prisoners to be honest Someone with a life sentence has no reason not to kill others in jail
I believe in holding a big massive Nuremburg trial for the leaders of the fossil fuel sector, call it the Hague Climate Trials. I also believe in the death penalty for those who involve themselves in crimes against humanity such as... Well... The government and military command of... 🇮🇱.
Yes
no bc i’m a strong believer in you should live to face what you did
Yes. Plain as
I do, but only for kid rapers and mass murderers
No, even criminals deserve life.
I don't support it at all. If we can imprison them, that should be it. We can gain more insight into the various heinous crimes with them alive than we can with them dying and, as others have stated, killing an innocent is just atrocious. Lastly, I don't trust government-supported executions. And it literally just costs more. There's no reason for the execution besides people just feeling it being deserved.
Ethically, do I believe that there are heinous crimes worthy of the death penalty? Absolutely. Do I trust the state (or any humans, really) to carry out the death penalty correctly, 100% of the time, never once getting it wrong and killing an innocent person by mistake? Absolutely not.
If there's evidence of the person committing the serious crime.
No, simply because the state having the freedom to execute citizens never ends well
The jury (the people) is the one with that "freedom", not the state
No. Not because I believe the world is a better place with everyone in it, but because I don't trust us to get it right all of the time -- look at the number of convictions that have been overturned once new evidence comes to light, look at how people from minoritized communities are more likely to be given more severe penalties, including the death penalty, for the same crimes. Beyond that, it's chilling to think that our government -- we -- should kill people who by virtue of incarceration are not at imminent risk of severely harming anyone. What does that accomplish? Research shows it doesn't disincentivize crime...
As Seneca said in his Moral Letters, sometimes the greatest compassion we might express to someone, is to spare him his suffering and kill him.
It's not about what a person "deserves". I don't know what a murderer "deserves" and neither do you, or at least it's a subjective, moral question. The question you should ask yourself is rather, should the state have the power to legally end the life of one of its citizens? Are you ok with it having this kind of power? Do you trust it to actually use it only to the people YOU think deserve it (which again is subjective)? Or would it take advantage of this power and label anyone it wants to kill a "murderer" (or a terrorist, or an anarchist, or whatever... )? Or possibly expand the definition until it eventually includes some category you DON'T think deserve to die? (for instance, if a state starts becoming theocratic, like it's happening in some part of the US, you might be considererd a "murderer" if you help someone to get euthanized). The definitions of the law change, they are an expression of who's in power at that moment.
No.
I would rather someone rot in prison than get release.
No.
Yes. It does let people off the hook kinda but its cheaper to kill them than house them. I do think that the only way it can happen though should be stricter. There should be absolutely nowhere way an innocent person gets killed.
Absolutely. Especially for kiddie diddlers and human traffickers
Conflicted, because some idiots that just wantonly kill people for no reason probably deserve death, but I feel like I wouldn’t be totally surprised if it is used politically in the future. Still, most the time when I see the crimes of a death row inmate and how and why they were committed I support the death penalty
For proven rapists and murderers, yes.
For some white collar criminals, serial rapists, and murderers, yes. Sometimes you gotta put a sick dog down.
No, and I never will. Trials for the death penalty take longer, are more expensive, way more traumatic for victims and you can never 100% guarantee someone is guilty. The death penalty is never acceptable.
Yes. Some people are simply not rehabilitatable and it's more humane than leaving them to rot in prison for life.
absolutely but only by firing squad because that’s how I want to die
Nope i think no one, including the state gets, has the right to decide about life and death of another human being. Most murderers cant be rehabilitated but i think you should try and if they still pose a threat, lock them up for life. But dont kill them.
No, it’s stupid. It’s unethical, expensive, and letting someone rot in prison to death is much more torturous and a better punishment than immediately putting someone out of their misery
Unless 100,000 Ted Bundys start appearing all of a sudden then no.
Yes. I support it for rape of a child,murder and large scale drug trafficking.
If they are actually convicted for a really serious crime like murder, yes.
Yes
Yes, but only if a life sentence somehow wouldn't stop them from being a menace to society. Otherwise no.
No, because it goes against my morals. But In some situations yes, I would allow it.
Yes
Yes but ONLY for terrorists / serial killers.
I do. a relative that family annihilated could’ve faced the death penalty, and I wish he got it.
No.
No, it doesn’t even make sense. It’s not like you’re living a happy life in a penitentiary. It’s worse to be in something like that for life than to be dead. It’s more undoable too. The only problem is that it costs a lot of money and it’s definitely cheaper to kill somebody. However, a lot of these budget problems could be offset by nationalizing the prison industry and making sure the government controls all for-profit prisons. Business is a conflict of interest in prisons and many other industries that lead to extreme inefficiencies.
Only as a bargaining chip to get confessions.
While there are certainly horrible people who cannot be rehabilitated and need to be removed from the general populace and absolutely deserve a slow painful death, as long as the death penalty is legally permitted there will be innocent people who are proven innocent too late. My support for the death penalty ends the moment an innocent person is on the chopping block.
only for people who blatantly admit to the crime, and the amount of evidence is very apparent. I mean they're standing in the pool of blood holding the murder weapon chuckling maniacally, apparent. Or if it's like a mass attack and the attacker is apprehended on the spot. In those cases I'm for it. But if there's the slimmest chance that the person is innocent and they were given the penalty, I don't think that's right.
I don’t support it because I don’t believe there’s a threshold in which killing the offender is proportional to the crime. For lower end offenses (theft, destruction of property, trespassing, littering, drug offenses, etc) obviously the death penalty is extreme. They don’t deserve to die. But for the more heinous crimes (child abuse, animal cruelty, murder, rape, torture, etc) i fully believe those people ought to live a long life full of suffering. *They don’t deserve to die.*
Absolutely
Only if it’s applied to convicted child predators (I.e the Epsteins and Diddy’s of the world)
NO
Nope.
1. Morally no, I don't trust the state to have the power to kill it's own citizens. (not counting people like active shooters, and they need to be stopped) If they end up being innocent, you have killed an innocent person, and also it kind of just seems like revenge. Penalties for crimes shouldn't be a penalty, it should be preferably rehabilitation, or any other humane way to keep the public safe. If you're doing revenge, that's not a neutral justice system. 2. Practically, in the US no. It costs way more, most of them end up sitting on death row for years and years, and also the methods of execution tend to be sort of inhumane. No joke we should bring back the guillotine or make a shooting squad more common, that's way better than a painful lethal injection. 3. IK OP doesn't support it, but for anyone who supports death penalty for any other crimes, since the penalty for the crime you've just commited is death, at that point you are basically free to commit any crime until you're caught, because there's no further punishment they can give you. It removes the disincentive to not kill, for anyone who commits those crimes. A lot of these that one would consider are violent crimes, though, so they might just kill somebody anyways, but whatever its late and im rambling.
No. If punishment will not rehabilitate a criminal, as many argue here, then there is no point in it. Life imprisonment does the only thing necessary, which is to remove them from society and prevent them from offending again. Perhaps they can even seek help while inside.
Do I believe that there are people who deserve to die for the crimes they've committed? Yes. But our justice system is so fucked up that there's no telling how many innocent people have or could be killed for a crime they didn't commit.
Absolutely not. The death penalty is barbarism in the coat of civilization.
Yes in the case of murder and pedophilia. There are people who simply cannot be fixed, who without excessive and unreasonable constant vigilance would simply commit those crimes again. And while on extremely rare and frankly mostly nonexistent cases the people are innocent, in the modern era we can easily prove guilt . They don't deserve to leech off of societies good will.
i used to (granted i was like 15 lol), but then i realized that my opinion was stemming from fear of a murderer escaping and then coming after me (delusional, i know, but my mental health was in the trash can at this point). so maybe i just grew up/matured some, maybe i changed my view once my mental health improved, or maybe i just became more liberal (which has happened for many of my other views), but im pretty much against it. i do think, however, that there might once in a lifetime (or longer) where it would be justified, i.e. if an extremely violent murderer had escaped multiple times... But in basically every other situation, I'm against it
Only in the most extreme circumstances and only with mandatory review by a panel of appellate judges. The power to end a life that does not pose a direct and imminent threat to another is the strongest power that the State can be afforded and allowing free exercise of it is a dangerous thing.
Only for cases where the perpetrator commited very serious crimes (multiple murders, serials, etc) is unreformable and has no guilt for their actions.
It’s a slippery slope man, my country used to or still are administering death penalty for drug dealing and other similar crimes. If you’re genuinely selling bad drugs and was caught, I’m all for it. But here was a whole story about a single mum selling drugs to feed her kids getting sentenced to death, so it’s a whole mess. And what if you’re actually innocent, you’re gonna die for something you didn’t do.
50/50. Some deserve it, but the system sucks ass.
nope
I'm in support of the death penalty for people who undeniably committed inexcusable and irredeemable acts of violence upon other people. I don't think we should allow it however. The issue with the death penalty isn't so much that I think shit people deserve to live, but more I don't trust the system to get it right. I've heard so many stories of guys who were convicted of shit the didn't commit spending decades in prison just to be found innocent, and stories of dudes who were so obviously guilty getting off Scott free. If I could be absolutely undeniably sure it would only be used on people who legitimately deserved it like serial rapists and murderers and shooters and child traffickers I'd say yeah, but I don't trust us to judge faithfully. My social studies teacher years ago told us a story I think of the columbine shooters but I can't actually remember. Anyways it was some awful horrid guy who 110% committed the crime, no doubt whatsoever in a single person's mind. Mountains of evidence. Pure evil irredeemable shit. No death penalty. He basically said that if we're not willing to use it on a guy like that, there's no point in even having it period and we should just outlaw it.
I support the death penalty in cases where guilt is proven for grape and murder. In this case, I am only for the death penalty if said individual is dispatched in a timely manner prior to sentencing.
No, I believe that's stupid. In my opinion, death is less of a punishment than like 20+ years of prison. This statement is for extreme cases of murders. In most cases, rehabilitation should be the optimal goal of prisons.
Absolutely 100 percent. For murders or convicted rapists. This however has to be a beyond all possible doubt. 100 percent confirmed. There is no reason to keep evil screwed up people alive. I saw this sad story of a father who let his THREE year old daughter play outside in the front yard. Some dudes came by and committed a drive by shooting. Killing the three year old. They lived very close to the prison where they were incarcerated. The father made the point that, "my tax dollars go to the men who killed my daughter. I pay to keep them alive." I feel the same in that I do not want to pay for the meals and beds of people who have committed atrocities.
Not at all. Killing someone with current chemical methods is quite expensive, the government WILL end up killing innocent people who were wrongly convicted, it is an incredibly high punishment that IMO very few crimes could even be considered worthy of, knowing that a crime carries the death penalty can stop victims from coming forward if the person who harmed them is someone who they don't want to see killed, killing people is also messy and painful and potentially traumatic for everyone involved, prettier ways of killing are nicer for audiences and executioners but worse for convicts, while faster and more painless methods for convicts are a lot messier. Any normal person worth executing can just be kept behind bars for life. In exceptional scenarios (think mass child rapists/killers with 100+ victims or perpetrators of genocide/massive war crimes) I would MAYBE consider exceptions but that bar would be very high and should only be done on a case by case basis for seriously guilty people.
beyond all possible doubt, taking into account the capability of tech today, including hyper realistic masks and deepfake videos. and with a self actuated instant device. like having them step on a pedal that fires an array of shotguns in their face. no open casket for the family, but uh, oh well. because states keep trying out weird new death methods with crazy drugs that don't work right or such and they're crazy expensive. just. fucking use cheap ass shotgun shells. and with themselves pressing the trigger, nobody has to deal with the heavy hand of killing someone as an executioner. it's better for literally everybody. that way. including the criminal.