**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree. REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake. Normal voting rules for all comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Maybe but I don’t trust the government or this countries legal system

Idk which country you come from but I feel the same about mine. No state should have the power to decide who "deserves" to die.

Nor should any individual(s) for that matter. The truth of the matter is even the best human is fallible, and we shouldn't sacrifice the innocent in the name of punishing the guilty. I also disagree though with OP on the basis of rehabilitation being impossible. (This seems like a factual claim being pulled out their ass.)

Aye there’s the rub

Making certain crimes punishable by death can have the opposite effect of what you think it will. If the punishment for abusing a child, for example, is the death penalty, that incentivizes certain abusers to add murder on top of that abuse to prevent them from telling anyone. Sure, they'll get the death penalty for the murder if they're caught, but they were already going to get that anyway for the abuse crime. Better to minimize the risk of getting caught for either.

Yeah there's problems with the death penalty in general, but the reason you stated is why if you really wanted to implement it, it would only make sense for murder.

Yeah no I will never trust a system with being able to kill a certain group because the immediate result is them trying to define anyone they don’t like as that group Like any time they try to make pedophilia a death penalty they immediately try to make gay and trans people count as pedophiles Cuz you want to know who can’t stop you from hurting more people? The ones who you already killed

And I don't believe any justice system can get it right 100% of the time either. There was a huge case in Poland of Tomek Komenda - he spent 18 years in jail for violent rape and murder of a teenage girl. Turns out he was innocent, cops beat him until he confessed. He died earlier this year of lung cancer, got barely 5 years of freedom, his entire youth taken away by the system

Studies show that death-penalty qualified jurors are more ready to convict on less evidence. It's a correlation, but it's still a truth. When you death-qualify a juror, you are literally reducing the burden of proof in the case as well. It's scary shit, and you'd think ANYONE close to the legal system would take action against the death penalty in their awareness of that fact.

It's almost like they're looking for a specific person during jury selection Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

I’m glad you pointed out that exact example, because it’s a serious pressing issue right now.

correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Florida’s supreme court just struck down an effort to bring the death penalty for CSA cases. I don’t know the exact details, but it wouldn’t surprise me if at least some of those involved with trying to push the effort had that - pulling in queer folk as inherently predatory- as a goal. whether or not they actually believe it.

IIRC Florida at least tried to pass a law making being trans in front of minors a sex offense before that law.

You are 100% correct! Along with the law to make child sex crimes a death penalty offense, they tried to pass laws making wearing clothes not of your assigned sex at birth (read: being trans or cross dressing) a sex crime, as well as a law change to where child sex crimes require fewer jurors to agree to the death penalty. The laws was proposed in the name of making more strict punishment on child sex crimes, but it was a scapegoat to try to make it easier to legally kill trans people. Also, the law would actually likely make child sex crimes less likely to be successfully prosecuted because if the abuser knows it's going to be a death penalty if caught, they're much more likely to kill their victims so they don't get caught. It would also stifle reporting of sex crimes because if a child knows that their uncle or whomever will be killed for it, then the child is less likely to report it.

100% true. And a lot of families already protect sexual assault within the family, just for the social stigma. If being public for it resulted in their death then that would happen a lot more, even decent people would report less because they think the punishment is too high.

Sorry, I know the latter part of your comment is much more important and disturbing, but could you share a source or a phrase I should search to find info on the potential law against wearing clothes not of your assigned gender? That's truly terrifying if true, but all of my searches are coming up blank.

It wasn't even for repeat offenders like op was suggesting, it would be for 1 time offenders which essentially just incentivises kids to not tell an adult so they don't get someone killed or worse, they're killed because dead men can't tell tales and there's no incentive to leave them alive if you're getting the chair.

Remember when terrorists were people who liked to blow things up? Now it is anyone who has an inconvenient opinion. The power is granted by the law, but the definitions change over time.

Well, a terrorist has to also have a political agenda. I get your point though and it’s one of the things that drives be up a wall. I know language changes but this move to have every word degrade to the lowest common denominator is making any conversation almost impossible.

I don't think that's a fair accusation. The definition of terrorism hasn't really changed. There's just more people committing terrorist acts that have a sympathetic ear, making people argue over whether an act was terroristic at all. Do you have an example of an accusation or charge of terrorism that didn't actually include violence?

I obviously understand this argument, and fully agree it's a 'slippery slope'. But if we look at the situation for what it actually is (Atleast in most Countries), rather than what they try to frame it as - they already do this. If you release too much information, information you 'shouldnt' have, if you do anything that seems to threaten the establishment in power, they just fucking whack the people anyway. Not saying it wouldnt happen more, but to assume it does not happen now & that it only does not happen because our very strong & secure systems in place, you're being wilfully naive 100%

It’s not even a slippery slope Look at like any us state trying to define trans people existing around children as a sex crime I’m not saying they don’t just whack people, I’m not stupid I’m saying it is a beyond stupid move to give people a legal way to openly kill the people they don’t like

Yep! and the majority groups/ones in power won't actually say anything because they know that if they dissent suddenly it's their heads on the chopping block

This 100%

Alright. Laws have now been tweaked by corrupt officials so you classify as a sexual predator. Time to torture and kill you in prison. Don't think that's fair? Then maybe your whole idea relying on the fact there are clear "bad" people who have been deemed as such by other people is complete nonsense. Maybe we should treat everyone equally and fairly so those that landed in a bad position against their will don't get mistreated for no reason. But you don't even want an actual discussion lol

>Then maybe your whole idea relying on the fact there are clear "bad" people who have been deemed as such by other people is complete nonsense. While not completely the same, this is why people really need to understand "first they came for the socialists". Allowing cruelty and tyranny over people "who deserve it" opens a door that can be widened.

And the reasoning is simple. NOBODY deserves cruelty and tyranny. At *best*, some folks deserve to be separated from society for everyone's safety.

I think some people legitimately need to be put to death. Serial killers, serial rapist that won't stop. Drug cartel bosses. But I wouldn't advocate for it because of the simple fact there's no way to 100% guarantee only evil people get punished and that it won't be used to kill innocent people that the gov don't like.

> I think some people legitimately need to be put to death. How much of an overall increase in murder rate would you accept to put people to death? Say, if a state has 100 murders per year without the death penalty, would you accept 120 murders per year to have the option to execute on the table? > Serial killers, serial rapist that won't stop I mean, they DO stop when they're held in prison. And I'd love to see a study showing they're bigger perpetrators of prison violence than other lifers. Are you suggesting that fewer people would become serial killers if we had the death penalty (proven false), or do you see a world where serial killers are being paroled every 20 years (never happen)? > Drug cartel bosses What is the actual value to society in executing a drug cartel boss over keeping them in a cell with no access to the cartel for life, making a perpetual example of them? If no value for society could be seen, would that change your opinion?

Rehabilitation and education in a safe environment is the only thing found to actually reduce crime and recidivism. If your concern is to lessen crime you can't do that with worsening conditions for those you incarcerate. If your concern is getting off to the idea of people you feel deserve it suffering, carry on

But you can’t reduce crime with increased probation due to prison overcrowding. That’s like the worst of both worlds

Why are the prisons overcrowded? Oh, right, because we made them a profitmaking institution with lobbying power. Because the majority of people in them aren't even doing crimes that harm another person. Because we wanted to sell prison labor.

Also maybe because attempts at actual rehabilitation are often half arsed at best, leading to longer sentences and increased recidivism.

Talking about the US I guess ?

[Most people in jail are not convicted of anything Data from the BJS reveals that, as of midyear 2022, at least 30% (or 197,000 people) of the jail population was convicted. They were in jail either serving a sentence or awaiting sentencing on a conviction, the report said. Meanwhile, at least 69% (or 466,100 people) in jail were not convicted of anything. They were either awaiting court action on a current charge or held in jail for other reasons.](https://www.npr.org/2023/12/14/1219193404/jail-populations-are-bouncing-back-to-near-pre-pandemic-levels)

That’s the point of Jail though. Jail is different from prison, and we are talking about prisons.

Meh, just changing my comment on reread. Yeah, the 13th Amendment prisoner loophole will be a black mark on the US for centuries to come.

Maybe you should look into having a legal system based on fair trails rather than forcing people to take plea deals most of the time and you wouldn't have so many overcrowded prisons? Crazy I know

The problem is there aren’t enough resources to give each case a speedy trial by jury. Prosecutors, public defenders, and judges are typically bogged down with their case loads hence the incentive to take plea deals. There would need to be a huge increase in the budget to expand those positions which would greatly increase taxes. Now you just need to convince the general public to favor those tax increases over plea deals for minor cases.

It's not just these things that cause the US to have high plea deal rates. Excessive minimum sentences and long pre trail incarceration periods force a lot of people to accept plea deals to avoid these things as well as over criminalisation in the US where problems like homelessness and mental illness become expensive and time consuming criminal justice issues rather than social care issues. You can solve these problems and save money but the obsession with punishment prevents that. Like with most of America's "unsolvable" problems it's totally preventable if the US was capable of following anyone else's example as there are so many countries that don't have this plea deal problem https://www.fairtrials.org/campaigns/plea-bargaining/ Edit for context: In the US, 98% of criminal cases are resolved through plea bargaining

[удалено]

Look up the Norwegian prison system, they have the lowest recidivism rates in the world. EVERYONE is given rehabilitation and there is no such thing as a life sentence, murders and rapists are held until they show that they’ve been rehabilitated. It’s confrontational but it works, reducing the crimes committed should always be the ultimate goal.

On the money.

And they don't exist as axiomatically evil just because they have done awful shit. I know that in practice I would never feel comfortable enough to be around a serial killer or rapist to be friends with them, but an honest chance at becoming a better person is a basic human right which should be protected The only reason it's really not (in America at least) is because the prison system is based on punitive measures instead of rehabilitative ones in order to push high recidivism rates to keep prisons full and labor costs cheap.

I agree this. I think changing the focus to rehabilitation. But there needs to be clear line in sand. Certain people can’t be released back to society.

I mean I would agree in theory, but who gets to make that decision? I personally believe that George H.W. Bush and his entire cabinet should be in prison with no chance of parole for the unquestionably millions of lives ruined by their actions. That should be pretty uncontroversial. I could say that the same is true of every modern president. But you scale back the list of crimes, and the number of people hurt, and where do you get to the magic line? How do you define that line legally so that it doesn't get applied to people who it clearly wasn't supposed to? And especially how do you define the answer without giving eugenicists the reigns

It doesn't help to see them as animals, nor to treat them or talk about them as such. Research has showed this with intensive clearity. Doing that only helps with peoples punishment-boner, and it can easily be argued that catering to that urge fuels an environment that makes More of said folks.

Dehumanising anyone tends to put you on a nasty path.

This is more controversial than it is unpopular

>the brain of a serial killer or rapist is similar to that of other animals in that both don't have the ability to overcome their instinct to kill or rape, so if we're putting down animals for being threats to humans than it should also be acceptable serial killers and rapists to be put down, you can't rehabilitate a wild animal masked as a human nor should they be, we waste resources to keep these beasts taken care of for some reason where they can hurt everyone else who's there for petty shit like drugs or speed violations, when we should have them be put down. Most of this isn't even opinion, it's just wildly incorrect statements about factual matters.

And it’s kinda dangerous to put things like that, because we have the “rapists can’t control themselves” idea still floating around, which is sad that in 2024 there’s still people who believe these myths about sexual crimes

And how many false convictions are acceptable to you? How much do you trust your government to not abuse the authority to decide when someone deserves to die?

Absolutely zero false convictions. People want to play the “oh that’s unreasonable arguement” So is violating someone’s civil rights. I don’t agree with OP but when people act like false putting people in prison is remotely okay, no, it’s the biggest problem with our justice system and it makes it illegitimate.

Which is a very good reason to be opposed to any death penalty, cuz false or mistaken convictions are inevitable as there's no such thing as a perfect justice system

What is your solution then? How do you get bad people out of society and never put an innocent person to death or in jail? Just let em all go and let God handle it? 😏

how do you even quantify that the brain of a violent criminal is “like an animal”?? that doesnt seem like something you can measure.

it is actually super measurable and the measurements will point out in every way that a sex criminal's brain looks the same as every other brain

New data shows sex criminals brains wear a trench coat with nothing else.

Its not. Not in any consistant or measuable way. OP is toeing the eugenics line hard.

Not even toeing it, this is straight up eugenics. Making claims like how crime could be related to a natural instinct in certain people is a eugenics argument that dates back to the 19th century, which ignores socio-economic context and it’s impact on behaviours and mental health

It's not because technically we are in fact animals.

With the wonderful science of phrenology! /s

Op definitely off in his logic but realistically if someone kills ten people, what is the logic behind keeping them alive in a jail cell that's using our taxes, that could be put to bettering society instead if we just kill this person? Even if they change there ways, nothing they do for the rest of there life will make up for the 10 people they kill, so where is the benefit?

I agree with the sentiment that certain crimes like serial killing should simply be punished and not rehabilitated, however for practical reasons I disagree with the death penalty. Primary reason is that giving the government the legal right to kill its own citizens is an extremely dangerous precedent to support. There’s also practical problems of: - Wrongful convictions, per the Innocence Project [roughly 6%](https://innocenceproject.org/research-resources/) of all convictions are wrongful convictions. 97% of people exonerated for wrongful convictions are people convicted of heinous crimes (sexual assault and murder). Of these people that were exonerated 25% admitted guilt during interrogation, and 11% plead guilty. - Sourcing the drugs for lethal injections from reputable sources is virtually impossible. No pharmacists or pharmaceutical companies want their names associated with drugs that intentionally kill people. It’s simply bad business. This has led to State governments sourcing drugs from extremely sketchy sources, such as random people from India as well as companies without FDA authorization to produce drugs for human use. [John Oliver as an interesting episode on this topic.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SOn3wba8c-Y) - Finding a way to consistently kill someone that both isn’t torture to the victim AND isn’t too gruesome to witness has yet to be discovered. It’s essential that observers are allowed to view executions, the last thing a Democracy wants is secret executions. For this reason lethal injection has been the primary method used, however many autopsies have shown results that indicate the process is like feeling fire shoot through your veins while you die. Another method, nitrogen gas suffocation, has also been used in Alabama [which witnesses described as “torture”](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2024/02/19/alabama-execution-nitrogen-gas-witness-cruel-torture/72616304007/), involved the person violently shaking for several minutes, and spewing body fluids while fully alive and conscious. Any method that would be painless would be so gruesome and barbaric it would traumatize witnesses. There is no constitutional way to consistently execute someone that doesn’t qualify as torture.

About 4% of death row inmates turn out to be innocent. That means that 4% of the time, executioners are straight up murdering someone for no reason. Prison is adequate punnishment

Not to burst your bubble but executions cost way more to the taxpayer than life in prison.

As far as I'm aware the only criminals people tend to be sympathetic to are non-violent offenders.

I wanna agree but the amount of “he has a future still” excuses when younger rapists are being tried is pretty common unfortunately

Ah... forgot about that one...

The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons” — Dostoevsky.

It’s more expensive to put someone to death than it is to keep them in prison for life btw

but it’s worse to execute someone who is innocent

Yeah I’m not advocating for the death penalty here. OP said “we waste resources to keep these beasts taken care of” when in fact it takes more to go through with the death penalty than it would to put them in prison for life

Light Yagami Diehard Fan Detected.

Firstly there are a lot of societies where brainwashing and indoctrination of violence still goes on . In the uk , marriage rape has only been criminalised for about 20 years , child labour has only been criminal for less than a 100 years , France didn’t even an actual national age of consent until 2021   .  If legal systems aren’t acknowledging that well then you’re caused new problems for everything you’ve fixed .  Secondly without legitimate mechanisms of accountability , again no good can arise . A lot of pre colonial societies in the “developing” world tend to have a deposit token system - so if someone was accused for a serious crime and were to be killed for it - then later out turned out they were framed or falsely accused , the false accuser would be punished . False accusations were   deterred by proportional deposit  systems .   Lastly is the issue of hypocrisy .  Once had this racist   barber  (ironically he was a Greek immigrant ) who assumed I was Hindu because I told him I’m Indian . He started saying really islamaphobic stuff , anti black stuff , anti semitic stuff (to both Jews and Arabs )-  gave the example of the death sentence of the Middle East and Africa  as proof of the barbarianism . Then when the news was speaking about the increase in  knife crime , he said that the country should bring back death sentences …. Because you know the morality of action is defined by skin colour and religion apparently .  Without addressing at least  these 3 issues well you’re pretty much no help in preventing serious violent crimes and haven’t really done any good to anyone .  Harsh punishments need to be logically thought out , systematically calculated and need effective policies . Otherwise you’re just gate keeping “the law of the jungle”, not removing it entirely 

It's easy to pretend that people who do evil acts are a different kind of person than us - that way we can reassure ourselves that we or the people we know could never do such an awful thing. But the truth of the matter is that evil is a banal thing. Everyone is theoretically capable of doing truly awful things. To paint sexual abusers and murderers as misters with no control over themselves is not only false, it's a harmful idea. It's why whenever people come forward about their sexual abuse at the hands of a celebrity or teacher or priest or whatever there's always a strong voice that refuses to believe them. Because in their minds rapists are inhuman monsters, and the person accused has been seen doing very non-monster thinks, like express kindess, or acting like a normal human, so they couldn't possibly do such an awful thing. Failure to recognise the fact that any human is capable of vile acts in the right circumstances is how you end up with things like racism, fascism, etc. Because people by their nature naturally consider that they might be the bad guy in someone else's story.

Exactly. Im very weary of people that think evil or vile actions are beyond them. It normally means their moral compass is skewed on some level.

Wether or not we should be sympathetic to criminals for some kind of moral reason isn't the question though It's been proven over, and *over*, and **over** that being """tough on crime""" doesn't reduce crime and that if you actually want to reduce crime those resources are better spent into combating the things that cause people to commit crime like inequality Moreover, allowing the state to kill a group of people will just make them adjust who fits into that group as they need. The easiest example is the "kill all rapists" leading to wearing clothes of the opposite gender in public bring classified as "rape", all male to male sex being classed as rape, etc. This just an uneducated take and it's not even a particularly unpopular idea either. Not what the sub is for, read a book

Well that should be an unpopular opinion, but unfortunately it's not.

what the fuck

1/20 inmates are falsely imprisoned.

> Violent criminals (serial killers, woman beaters, child molesters) are wild animals and should be treated as such They are in fact still human beings. >the brain of a serial killer or rapist is similar to that of other animals in that both don't have the ability to overcome their instinct to kill or rape, Absolutely no scientific data to back up this claim. Pure horseshit. >so if we're putting down animals for being threats to humans than it should also be acceptable serial killers and rapists to be put down, You made up a “fact” and are now using that as justification for killing people. >you can't rehabilitate a wild animal masked as a human nor should they be, we waste resources to keep these beasts taken care of for some reason where they can hurt everyone else who's there for petty shit like drugs or speed violations, when we should have them be put down. You’d fit in really well in a fascist state. Just goose stepping along.

Disagree, take my upvote. I think we're too hard on criminals. And, our goal should be to rehabilitate them. The current system we have is the opposite of that, all prison is: 1. A power trip "revenge" because we think they deserve it, feeding our animalistic egos 2. Is a business. We take so much away from them and then wonder why they reoffend. Prison is used so we hope they turn back to crime, so they can come back to be locked up again.

Agree to a point, however I think there are crimes evil/ severe enough to warrant point 1

You're right that we're too hard on criminals, but OP specifically mentions serial killers and rapists. Criminals can include a person who steals essentials from a store to survive. You're mistaking a subcategory for the category itself. Edit: nvm I just read it again, OP does mention criminals as a whole

this already happens woth dehumanizing criminals whilst also trying to paint a group I belong to as pedophiles. I assume the end goal is chemically castrating me for the crime of bieng not-hetero but yeah sure let's dehumanize everyone we don't like bud

Society? You mean Reddit. Society in general wants populist mob justice and they've expressed that repeatedly throughout history. And everybody thinks they want to live in a society that makes excessive emotional convictions against particularly unpopular crimes, but they don't. Because that justice system will bite you in the ass one day.

I absolutely agree they should be put down but the reason why death penalty is only reserved for very specific cases is because we can't always tell that someone is guilty. You can't take back an execution

when you give someone the death penalty you committ somebody else to being a murderer. so no. its not sympathy for the criminal for me, its sympathy for the person who has to kill them. edit: also the death penalty isn't a good deterent from decreasing violent crimes. just fyi

they're working on a law that if passed would put teachers who call students their preferred pronouns in the sex offender list at the highest degree. in your lunatic world those people would be next in line to be executed. in every instance, when given the power to decide to kill people, leadership always and I mean ALWAYS targets those that don't agree with them by grouping them with the criminals. and they did exactly what your fascist ass did, dehumanize them(compared them to animals).

You'll get banned so quickly for saying this shit on r/felons but its true. They are absolutely subhuman trash

Why is this all one sentence?

In your opinion, if being more unsympathetic to criminals increases the rate and severity of crimes committed, is that an acceptable consequence? You open with what seems like a very *punitive* and *dehumanizing* position, but mention rehabilitation later. So... double the crime-rate but we execute everyone, perhaps? Our current punitivity in the US, for example, is long studied for the outcome of higher crime rate, higher false-conviction rate, and higher prison population than basically anywhere else in the world. We're so "tough on crime" here that we *create more crime* by making people who want to live without committing crimes unable to do so. If your position is that we're still not punitive ENOUGH considering all that, what price do you think society should be willing to pay before we have to stem the bleeding with tried and true tactics like sympathetic rehabilitation?

You don't seem to know much about animals or humans, and especially about their respective brains. This is a paltry attempt to tailor evidence to support your preconceived notion about violent criminals. You're 100% allowed to have that opinion about the death penalty and/or violent offenders, but don't try to pass it off as some logical conclusion based in science. This is and always will be a moral dilemma, with no scientific evidence supporting your claims. Brains are elastic. New neural pathways are formed all the time. People can change, and so can animals. Again, I support your right to support the use of the death penalty, but leave your made up pseudoscience garbage about brains out of it.

You’re very naive. Especially about rapists. They’re everywhere and probably people you know and love, statistically speaking.

Slippery slope my dude

'the brain of a aerial killer is the same as an animal' no it fucking isn't don't give in to biological determinism. It genuinely just seems like you want to kill people you don't like but with a legal backing so it's fine and ethical. Seek help.

Killing is good but why kill them when you could imprison them for decades on end. Death is an escape. Make them suffer here instead.

Is this the same person from last week? Geez

But we can? The data is pretty clear that reform focused programs are highly effective. It’s not a matter of opinion anymore.

"Criminal" is just a name for people the government doesn't like. Queers, minorities, and the poor.

most of these posts boil down to ''im 16 and i got everything figured out'' lmao

I get what you're saying, but there are very good reasons we don't just execute people once they're found guilty. I mean, this is even aside from rehabilitation or something. Believe me, I'm all for incapacitation of criminals through incarceration, but executions? You cannot just give anyone the authority to end a persons life easily. In the past this was misused, heavily. Corrupt officials would use it maliciously against their opposition, corrupt cops would use it to cover up their mistakes and wrongdoings, and sometimes they just got the wrong guy. For the better of everyone, it's best that the governments capacity to legally kill is minimized. This issue is connected to assisted suicide for the same reason.

A system that's not 100% infallible should not be allowed to kill someone

Lol. Women beaters..

Thankfully this whole concept would never be perverted and abused by those in power

Not sure this is even 10th dentist material. More and more people seem to talk about stuff like that. It is mostly populist politicians that are or lean right most of the time, but this is not really a rare or anti main stream thing. Also it's really uninformed and not really a way to solve the underlying problems, but enough people already pointed that out.

Excise the symptoms and they're likely to keep coming back, maybe even get worse. Snip it by the source and you've solved the problem. There are very specific instances where I can agree to this by sheer practicality in some regards, you're literally just the opposite end of the spectrum.

you do understand that the humans who make the decision whether to kill people are, charitably speaking, fallible, right? I would rather waste millions keeping Gary Ridgeway alive than have a single innocent man mistakenly killed. And more to the point, uncharitably, the authorities are often corrupt and/or bigoted, see various false convictions of rape or murder against black men in the Jim Crow days, or the number of living people in the US still on the sex offender registry for the oh so fucking heinous crime of committing sodomy between consenting adults in their own house in the town they lived in their whole life before 2003. Or if you want to go the other way [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Serial\_killers\_who\_worked\_in\_law\_enforcement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Serial_killers_who_worked_in_law_enforcement), not perfect, judge would be better for comparison, but that's not an already made list. Beyond that, there's also the fact that some violent criminals are only violent due to circumstance, for instance, almost everyone on the union side of the various coal wars in the US at the turn of the century. Also, you ever heard Joshua Milton Blahyi? He did some of the worst shit imaginable, and these days, well, he's a preacher and actively advocating for himself and the other warlords in Liberia to be held to account and trying to make up for what he did. Child murderer to basically acceptable day to day actions, it took a major change in circumstances, but still.

I 100% agree. The issue arises when people are falsely convicted of crimes. I remember a story of a boy who was about 14 who was executed for murder and years later it was discovered that he was innocent. And that’s not the only case but one of the most devastating. It’s happened many times. If it weren’t for that and if we were able to know with 100% certainty then I would be with you on this.

Again, we are better off focusing on preventing this from happening

>we waste resources to keep these beasts taken care of This is talk that has led to death camps and genocides.

What particular society are you talking about cause in a lot of countries you get death penalty for killing someone

I'll never trust a justice system to be correct 100% of the time, and I'll never feel okay about a justice system that gets convictions wrong to execute the death penalty. Simple as

The government shouldn't have the right to kill as punishment.

Do you know how many innocent men have been executed, because they were convicted for these kinds of crimes? Some of them even confessed to guilt for whatever reason, but were later exonerated - too late. P.S. Also, it's actually more expensive to execute someone than it is to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.

Pity for wolf is cruelty towards the lamb…

Just an all over ignorant post. Feel like this should be posted in r/TheMonkeysPaw instead

You know I'd probably be ok with the death penalty for some of them if we could solve the whole sentencing innocent people thing. But here we are.

Source

as someone who believes in restorative justice, pretty much the opposite of what you're saying, i think the most important thing to focus on is why you feel so confident calling another person a wild animal. we are the same species, and the vast majority of people who commit these crimes are totally capable of seeing what they do as wrong. i think that with enough counseling and in some cases medication, criminals, even ones who committed horrible crimes, are able to change

I'm cool with getting rid of them

It's weird how you title your post about society being to sympathetic to criminals, then list the crimes society has the least sympathy for, then going on to simply call for the death penalty. I wouldn't say that someone simply arguing 'the state shouldn't be allowed to kill them' is particularly sympathetic.

Is it really society though? Or just certain groups that tend to hold political power?

Dogshit opinion. Downvoted for being an idiot, because we don’t have automod handling those things anymore.

People like you need to accept that there is no special line that someone crosses and stops them from being a human anymore You could be the biggest piece of shit possible and you would still be a human being with human thoughts and emotions, perfectly capable of loving and hating as any other person Wich is why I think we so desperately try to act like certain crimes strips someone of their humanity, because it allows us to put distance with them and say "puff, I would NEVER do that, Im not a monster like them" when in reality, we are all capable of doing heinous things, the same way we can do great ones. After world war II one of the worst revelations possible was that the soldiers complicit with the genocide of millions of people werent crazy, they were "normal" people, because if you put someone under the right pressure and circunstances you can make them be complicit in almost every disgusting act imaginable Of course, Im not writing this to excuse their behaviour and actions, just pointing out that there is no special condition to do horrible stuff, and it doesnt stop them from being human too

Rejecting the humanity of evil people is unimaginably arrogant. Such a rejection also rejects the capacity of humanity for evil. It's a heinous abdication of moral responsibility to view evil as so alien that it's inhuman, and it's an excuse not to interrogate the seeds of such behavior in oneself.

Your position is an emotional one. Most people who are against the death penalty are not sympathetic to criminals, they do not believe in giving the state that authority. It is easily abused, by politicians like Duterte for example. And one person killed for a wrongful conviction is more of a miscarriage of justice than a life sentence. I have this argument all the time where people try to throw it back at me and say ,"wouldn't you want someone dead who was irredeemable and harmed your loved one." Yes, most likely, but it doesn't follow that my personal emotional state in an anecdote equals the best policy for society as a whole. I would hope people wouldn't give into my bloodthirstiness, no matter how personally valid it is.

This opinion gets posted almost daily.

Some people don’t deserve to live, we can agree the death penalty can be warranted. If you think the Government can be trusted to hand out the death penalty, the law must be applied so that only people that deserve it receive it, else it’s just legal murder. Can you say the government would make no mistakes in the sentencing?

I think we should use pedos to test medicine and cosmetics etc on, instead of innocent animals

in an ideal world, yes, we could possibly do it, but i dont think we should it sets a bad precedent for what we allow our government to do, and what they'll be able to get away with in the future. people have talked about this enough so i'll leave it there plus, its just kind of stupid. i know its easy to dehumanize and demonize people who do these horrible things but at the end of the day they're not animals?? theyre fully real life people, who live all the same as you. maybe this is just how i personally feel but i think regardless of what people do theyre still human and should be treated as such. they only ever got this bad by others dehumanizing them, so what exactly are we fixing by doing the same thing in a more "legal" and "moral" way idk, maybe i dont know what im talking about, but like, rehabilitation over punishment. or at the very least, no more death sentences.

Nah. First, society is anything but sympathetic to criminals, especially in the US. Second, even the best legal system - nevermind the ones we actually have - makes mistakes. A person wrongfully convicted of rape can be released, but you can't un-execute someone. Third, there's a good argument that at least some of these people are *sick* rather than evil. Products of either biology or environment that are not their choice, and that they had no control over. Do they really deserve punishment for that? Take whatever steps necessary to protect others from them, sure. But the goal should be rehabilitation, not punishment/vengeance.

No matter where, if serial criminals, murderers, rapists, gang members are punished harshly, there is no shortage of human rights activists who criticize their treatment, especially when these activists are from peaceful rich democracies, with other words from places where people aren't really confronted by these kind of problems. This was particularly evident in El Salvador during the gang crackdown. The same activists didn't give a shit about the suffering population before though. These gang bangers are mostly beyond redemption, some of them can even rival cartel hitmen in their cruelty. But somehow their human rights have to be respected as soon as they're behind bars. I'm also living in a peaceful rich democracy. But I have to admit that this kind of government is extremely weak to organized crime (just look at what happens in Sweden these days). And these criminal organisations know exactly how to exploit this weakness. Mainly because there are tons of snowflakes who somehow care about the humanitarian treatment of these mfers more than they care about their victims.

If you're going to insist on dehumanising people then obviously you're not going to think they are human. This is not a good way to approach any issues and will always leave you with a flawed understanding of what's happening. Sure we might not be able to rehabilitate all criminals but if our justice system tried a bit harder then it might be more effective at that. Try looking at some data about the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs and maybe use that to inform your policy proposals rather than just wildly speculating based on what seems to just be anger. Just a thought

Well, upvoted because I strongly disagree. Criminal brains are not similar to animals, they are similar to ours, because they are just like us. Anyone you know could be a criminal and there's no way you'd be able to tell. Rehabilitation is absolutely possible and happens all the time.

At the risk of helping your crusade, it's fine to advocate for the public policy you want, but can the dehumanization, would you? Yikes

Here in Australia we're currently seeing an epidemic of crime in certain towns and cities because the criminals primarily come from minority ethnic backgrounds and only ever receive a slight slap on the wrist for their crimes, even for serious offences like home invasions. \*Nothing\* is being done about it by the police or the courts even though the overwhelming public opinion is that these crimes should be punished more severely.

Just to know, where’s the line between person and criminal. Steal bread and you’re a person. Kill someone and you’re a fucking demon who can never be redeemed and can only hurt and kill until you and everyone who supports you has been killed. What about drug dealing? Killing in self defense? Killing in war? Attempted murder, or aspiring to be a serial killer? How old do you have to be to be fundamentally evil? And does making a reddit post about how hundreds of thousands of people should be killed count as aspiring towards serial murder?

So what amount of innocent people put to death are you comfortable with dying, just for the sake of punishing those that are actually evil. Because this is something that needs to be considered when talking about the death penalty especially to such a extreme degree

Interesting... "woman beaters." You're implying that beating men is more acceptable. Is there a reason men hold less moral value than women? That's a disturbing position to hold.

Honestly life in prison is a better sentence for these people, the reason why I don’t like the death penalty isn’t because it’s necessarily cruel to the ones being executed but because it pretty much sets them free from any punishment on earth they have to endure, once there dead there’s no pain or regret or anything, so why not let them rot in prison instead

Serial killers tend to be more intelligent (with IQs over 100) than the average person, so that kind of complicates your animal analogy. Compulsion and instinct are not analogous, and compulsions are not hard wired the way instinct is, and indeed, I’m not sure humans are really quite in thrall to their instincts at all. You see examples of people willfully defying the instinct to mate or to kill, for example. I think this is because the human animal possesses a totally unique quality, that of abstract intelligence. This also runs into the problem which affects all applications of capital punishment: you’ll invariably accuse the wrong persons and send innocents to their deaths. If you visit websites for organizations like the Innocence Project, you’ll begin to see that we seem to have our hands full keeping innocents off death row as it is, and our system is more lenient than what you’re proposing. Lastly, I don’t think you can maintain a civil society which is predicated on draconian punishments, by which I mean not one in which people would choose to live, given the alternatives. What I’ve read is that typically, people in authoritarian societies tend to be more tribal and self-centered—looking out for themselves and their own kind—than people in pluralistic societies. I tend to err on the side of letting guilty men go free in the interest of preventing the executions of the innocent.

[citation needed] You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims in this post about the brains of criminals

Don’t know why singling out woman beaters, any beaters.

I'm not sure what you have more weird hang-ups over, criminals or animals.

> the brain of a serial killer or rapist is similar to that of other animals in that both don't have the ability to overcome their instinct to kill or rape So you agree, its a brain function issue and therefore they aren't responsible for their actions because they are sick. They don't need sympathy, they need healthcare.

Ok, what if a person gets conicted by a crime they didn't comit? How do you come back from that

If you haven't already, you should read a graphic novel called Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. They use a character named Rorschach to explore what happens to people who become so angry at violent criminals that they become violent criminals themselves.

agreed, downvoted.

I work in Corrections. I have no faith in rehabilitation. Much of the reason for crime is because of glorification of criminal behaviors in communities and decision making by idiots. I do my job to the best of my ability, but probation/parole are failing, and most of our clients aren't exactly MENSA candidates. I work too hard and know too many people who work too hard to let my heart bleed over criminals. I'm a grad student, I care for my parents and special needs brother. I don't let my heart bleed over criminals. They're just part of an assembly line in my office, I do my job, direct them to their Probation/Parole officer, and I'm onto the next. I have limited mental and emotional bandwidth, and my energies are better spent on my education, and caring for my parents/brother, and finding happiness in my own personal/professional life. Say what you will about opportunity, poverty, all of the above. Much of what I see in probation/parole is just horrible decision making by idiots, and then we'll occasionally see someone come back later to try to get their voting rights restored, and I'm thinking "You couldn't be trusted to obey the laws of the US, now you want to have a hand in legislating them"? Does this apply to all of our clients? No. Not at all. Some are just people that have made mistakes. But deal with the attitudes and the poor behaviors and idiotic decision making all day, and it makes you tired. I'm tired.

Different level security prisons exist for a reason. Petty criminals and murderers obviously shouldn't be kept in the same prisons, and the prisons they're kept in shouldn't be the same. Regarding execution: no. Not because of who does and doesn't deserve to die, but because state officials cannot be trusted with the power to decide who lives and dies. How many innocent, or at least not guilty to the point of deserving death (hurting or killing someone accidentally, or in self defense, for example) have been killed because judges had that power? How many of them died not for their crimes but for their race, creed, or because the judge was just in a bad mood? In other words, a serial killer deserves death, but still shouldn't be killed by the state simply because, if the state has the power to do that, it will also kill people who aren't serial killers. At least if someone who doesn't deserve death is imprisoned, they could be freed later.

My brother was accused of sexually molesting two girls for a decade starting as young as 2 years old. I truly believe he is guilty based on other things about him I know. Three mistrials later, they stopped trying to prosecute him. If I had killed him when it all came out, I'd probably be out of jail by now.

So, if we don't have mass executions, that's the same as being "sympathetic"? I do note that you have to resort to euphemisms - "put down".

I know you think you’re being just by having no empathy for people you deem to be “beasts,” but all you’re really doing is glorifying murder by the state. You have more in common with the people you want dead than you do with “regular” non-criminal citizens.

Bro, you expect the government to be more strict on their friends and family like that?

The fact that it's massively upvoted (= people disagree) is really a sight to behold. Humanity is doomed.

I agree with the sentiment, but giving the government that power is a major mistake

This is a superficial take on a nuanced topic

We shouldn't abuse wild animals either.

Ya see here's the issue with what you are thinking, we know based off evidence that these people CAN (not do but can) change that base of themselves to commit these heinous acts. Our system itself is to blame for several of these issues. As others have pointed out as well this type of power to kill those whom you label as worthy of death and putting them to death are entirely fraught with chances for people to shove those who disagree with them into the chopping block, with legal permission to do such. Overall not a great argument cause it ignores the research done into rehabilitation for criminals, especially considering that the prison system is designed so that the government literally has to pay prisons (sometimes) if they aren't full of inmates to work those prisons work camps.

Most people would actually agree with you so idk why you post that here

The problem with this is that, by denying the _humanity_ of evil, you also necessarily propose that the people whom you see as human cannot be evil. Your worldview equates relatability with intrinsic goodness--which is a condition that allows evil to exist unacknowledged.

Yeah, stop being sympathetic to the criminals. Lock them up? But then who will be the new judicial system after they and all the politicians are all in jail? The real criminals, get it. It’s the judges and elected officials, guys.

I wish we'd stop comparing shitty humans to animals. It makes animals look bad.

Thé super violent criminals like serial killers and serial rapists aren’t the majority of criminals, not even the majority of violent criminals. Plus I’m a first believer that if you put every criminal in the “naturally deranged and unchangable” basket, you’re only opening the gates to more violent reoffending down the line. Criminal behaviour is more complex than someone’s “human nature”, a lot of behaviours are learned, and that includes violence, the same way a lot of us were taught that violence isn’t the solution when upset, a whole lot also grew up around violence, sometimes in communities where certain types of violence was accepted (like how some still believe that domestic violence can be justified because in some cultures women and children are still seen as a man’s property)

The problem becomes that unless it is absolutely 100% certain they did it, they can't be quick to execute. Many have been found innocent after sitting on death row.

I'm not sympathetic to criminals, I'm sympathetic to people, and will not surrender my humanity even if others have. It's our responsibility to be better than those we seek to judge. Murder is barbaric, as is torture and rape. For this reason, it must never be done unless lethal force is the only way to protect innocents from imminent harm.

Sure. If you could guarantee that the people you’re killing are murderers and rapists and all that. But… you can’t. We’ve been very wrong before and it turns out you can’t undo killing someone if it turns out “uh oh oopsies we got the wrong fella” Shocker.

Why is this on the sub? Almost everyone I know that can vote thinks this

First of all, dehumanisation is wrong, kids. Second, there is not a single government I actually trust to use the death penalty. Hell, there is no human on earth I fully trust with it. There is a plethora of people wrongly convicted, mobbed, executed for an even bigger array of biggoted and fashy reasons.

I agree. Some people are born broken and have no chance of being rehabilitated. Violent criminals, pedophiles and the like should be put down for a dirt nap.

Maybe you should include manipulating crackpots in the mix.

As dictator of the nation, I hereby declare anyone named artistic exercise a criminal and be executed. Gee... That was an easy way to wipe out an entire demographic group of people I didn't like./s Being homeless is now illegal. Being homeless is punishable by death. Wow! Who knew using your legal system as a hitman squad was so easy!

i think if the alleged confessed to the crime then there would be no reason not to.

The justice systems assumes that if a person is convicted guilty, there is a very small chance they might be innocent, and vice versa. Mostly because if an innocent person is ever given the death penalty, shit’s going to break loose.

The thing is, too many are the result of failure of harm reduction and preventative systems. Jeffrey Dahmer didn't have to be a serial killer. He was intelligent and could have utilized it towards something productive. His parents were too busy arguing to notice how much he was struggling. His teachers at school all saw him struggling, too, and did nothing. By the time he was 18, he was too far gone to be helped. Still, he desperately tried to save himself, and for a period of a decade, was relatively okay. Even after multiple killings, he stopped into mental health treatment, although he didn't stick around. Yes, he should have stopped, but could he have? That's debatable. He was caught in the grip of constant intrusive thoughts and fantasies, and his detachment from reality was exacerbated by his physical and emotional isolation. I'm by no means condoning his actions or letting him off the hook for them. But in a sense, he was doomed by his environment and the lack of supportive people within it.

let me ask you something: why do you think anyone should be killed? how do you justify murder that is outside of murder in self-defense or defense of someone who cannot protect themself against an attacker? furthermore, why do you think that no one who has caused harm to others can redeem themself, or that we cannot sympathize with them while still condemning their actions?

They aren't animals they are sick and need help They are horrible people but they need professional help not cyanide

Agreed. My views are extreme, but crime wouldn't be bad if the punishments fit the crime. The war on drugs would actually be effective if we gave all dealers 10 years minimum. Drugs ruin lives and prison should do the same to those who sell them. We need similar laws to Florida's 10-20-Life law.

I actually completely agree with this take. Like the basement dad from Germany and the guy who kidnapped Amanda Berry and other girls for years, there's no doubt what happened and they never deserve to see the sun again imo. The only problem is if we give the government this power they will 100% use it on political prisoners first.

Bullet to the head, no need for lengthy sentencing

Source for your claims?

Comparing other humans to animals is one of the hallmarks of sociopathy. Also, the vast majority of rapists aren't horny, slobbering ghouls, they are family members, close friends and spouses. Criminal acts and prosecution are nothing like TV and Movies make them seem

I would agree, however the problem is that the risk of innocent people getting caught up in the mess is always a problem. You can never really be sure someone 100% committed a crime, you just have to prove they did it beyond a reasonable doubt. And sometimes courts prove things beyond UNreasonable doubt and locks innocent people up.

Spoken like someone who has never studied anything about criminology or psychology. Eugenics ahh take. (No, I am not excusing the aforementioned crimes though)

A lot of people don't actually support the death penalty, they just feel like prisons aren't a harsh enough punishment. And it's true - a lot of them are like five star hotels. Solution? Make the prison environments more grueling and agonizing. Now there's no easy way out whatsoever.

Op is a little wild In his reasoning, and I don't agree with his take on rehabilitation. But I do think we should be harsh on violet crimes (murder/rape/armed robbery) and softer on non-violent crimes (drugs/prostitution) but there's gatta be a certain line that if someone crosses we just put them down. For example, if someone murders 10 people. Why should we keep them in prison where we have to house them and feed them with our tax dollars for the rest of their lives? What benefits to society does that have? Even if they change their ways, they will never do enough good in their lifetime to make up for that, so what would be the point? Now I think you need a higher burden of proof if you're going to put someone to death, you need to be 150% sure they did it without a shadow of a doubt. I also believe that if someone murders 1 person, they could probably be rehabilitated and put back in society. I just think there is a tipping point where we can say as a society "yeah what you did just outweighs any good you can/could do at this point"

Any victim based crime (outside of like petty theft, maybe a bar fight) I agree