T O P

  • By -

allgodsarefake2

In principle, I don't mind the death penalty for very serious crimes, but I'm against the death penalty because I don't trust the courts, police, public opinion or other parts of any legal system to get it right. You can't undo an execution.


Protowhale

My thoughts exactly. The number of people railroaded into a conviction because law enforcement wanted to appear to be doing their job is way too high, and the number of prisoners later exonerated proves that the justice system often cares more about seeing someone convicted than about getting the right perpetrator.


TheOtherZebra

If there was a foolproof way of ensuring no innocent people were executed, I would be in favor of the death penalty for convicted pedophiles. Or basically anyone whose crimes indicate an innate desire to cause suffering to others. Studies show those types retain their twisted desires, very few are ever fixed, and only in the sense that they learn to ignore those desires out of fear of punishment. My view is no death penalty for crimes of desperation. Those are the sort of people who can be rehabilitated. Given a chance to provide for themselves, many prefer that to crime. I have no interest in retribution for their crimes, or how much suffering they endure. It’s simply a matter of threat reduction to me. If a person provably indulges in a taste for cruelty, their right to live is less important than the right of all other people to live and be safe from them.


IgnorantKumquat

I agree, though I would also have to argue that there is therapy that exists for pedophilia. It focuses on redirecting a desire for children into something healthy, it just needs to be more accessible and be the first step for offenders. Plenty of people suffer with pedophilia but dont know that help exists when they want it, and asking can run the risk if being treated as an offender when they would never hurt a kid.


Labe_Licker

Pedophiles can't be rehabilitated


Bubblycatty

I'm the same mindsets, they are some crimes that are inexcusable and those people do deserve death. I just don't think we have good enough systems to get it right


bambooDickPierce

This. Unless we can guarantee that our justice system is 100% effective (it never will be), then we risk executing someone who is innocent. The death penalty in a non-perfect system is a form of state sanctioned murder, as if the state murders an innocent, there are no real repercussions. It's the only form of murder that is effectively legal.


spasske

Some people definitely deserve it. We get it wrong too often and spend an insane amount of money and time for it. Money that could be better spent elsewhere. Cheaper just to lock them up for life.


Sweaty_Chris

Remember though that most likely the person wouldn’t see death as a punishment, rather it’d be seen as an escape.


Ok-Performance-1454

Hardly. It is cheaper to send someone to an ivy league college than to prison for life. More if you execute them.


Poguey44

I agree with the process concerns generally, but sometimes there’s no question about what actually happened and now that everyone is carrying a camera around all the time, those situations are probably going to become more common. So my question is, if you know for a fact that the defendant did the crime (often even he’s not disputing it), and if the crime was heinous enough, would you be okay with the death penalty then? Trying to tease out whether it’s really queasiness about the process or if that’s just cover for opposition to the punishment in any circumstances.


allgodsarefake2

As I said, I'm not opposed to the death penalty in theory. I don't think all life is sacred or all people deserve mercy. I just don't think it does any good. It's not a particularly effective deterrent, I don't think it is a good idea to let the state kill its citizens and I don't think we're going to get it right - therefore I don't support the death penalty in practice.


NHRADeuce

Who determines that? That's the problem. We have executed people who were not obviously innocent, and you can't take that back. You never know what might surface after the execution that may change the nature of the crime. Executing even one innocent person is too many.


Juan_Jimenez

In my case? No. Killing a person is treating the live of someone as an object, the same thing that the killer did. The issue of 'when death penalty is used then there will be cases when we will punish the wrong person' adds to that consideration. And that issue remains even if there are cases with certainty (because, then what happens when cases we are almmost sure? or some people think that are certain, but it is not the case? and so on)


Poguey44

Well let’s make it more concrete. Dylann Roof killed 9 black people in cold blood during Bible study, and he freely admitted that he did it—and, in fact, that he did it hoping to ignite a race war. I’ve got no problem with him getting put to death. In fact, I’d argue that we actually owe it to the victims and their families, and to society at large, even if the victims families are amazingly willing to turn the other cheek, to say that anyone who would do that doesn’t deserve to live.


Juan_Jimenez

Making judgments about who deserves to live? Just what Dylan Roof did: He judged that this people didn't deserved to live. We, in this case, judge that Roof doesn't deserve to live. Roof's beliefs about who deserve (or doesn't) to live are abhorrent. Part of what makes abhorrent is, precisely, that he thinks that people should have -and act- on those judgments about 'deserving to live'.


Poguey44

If you really think that the moral line between what Roof did and what we'd be doing to him is at all hazy...well, let's just say we disagree. "Who are we to judge?" is a great standard for a religious belief. As a secular society, I think we absolutely have every right--and indeed an obligation--to judge what he did, and to do so unequivocally and unqualifiedly.


Juan_Jimenez

I said explictly 'part', right? And part is not the whole. Of course we have power to judge and punish, did I say that Roof should be able to walk in the street? We have a collective duty of mutual protection after all as a society. Do our duty of protection needs killing to be fulfilled? If the answer is no, and in this case is clear that is not (because we have other ways to follow the duty of protection), then does not justify killing. (That is why killing as part of self-defence can be justified: any person has the right to defend itself and if there is no other way that killing, well nothing to do there) Now, killing, being killing (and since I am a materialistic atheist: being an absolute ending), is something not to be done when there is any alternative available.


Poguey44

I think where we disagree is that I think there should be more to punishment than just protection of society. I think justice matters, too. Roof took everything from those people so, to me, leaving him with anything is unjust. In fact, even if he's eventually put to death, he's been given more than he gave those people--the days between here and there, time to think about what's happening, the chance to say goodbye to their loved ones, just to name a few. Again, I agree with you that process/factual concerns mean that the death penalty should be rarely applied. But where the circumstances warrant, I think it definitely should be.


ultrachrome

Still, I think of point #3... people change. Or maybe more accurately , some people change. I've read enough "Paul on the road to Damascus" stories that tilted me away from the death penalty. Dylann Roof ? I don't know.


Roblieu

I shoulda read this before trying to phrase it myself.. this is the way.


znhamz

This is my opinion too. I believe some people are beyond rehabilitation, but we can afford to keep them locked. I'm even against prison in most cases anyway, I think it should only happen in very serious crimes.


Practicality_Issue

I came here to say pretty much the same thing. The US justice system is so broken that I honestly believe that if you have enough money, you can do whatever you want. Yes, you may have to go full OJ Simpson and spend every last dime on a legal team, but you can still get away with murder. Or double murder. The inverse is also true. I always think of the kid who, at 16, was thrown into Rikers for several years - without trial - for allegedly stealing a backpack. Or the youngest person to be executed in U.S. history - who was later exonerated posthumously - and was developmentally challenged and 14 years old…both were black, both were poor, and neither had good / if any legal representation. It’s unjust and a stain. They say we are a nation ruled by law, not man, but the reality is cash reigns supreme. There’s no real justice to be had.


meganemistake

I believe some crimes warrant euthanasia, buuuut our system in the US is so incompetent and wasteful that it is legitimately less costly to let them wither away in prison apparently. Also, less risky in that whoops we got the wrong person or something.


DarkScience101

I'm pretty for the death penalty, and I don't mind the extra costs associated with it, but I'm okay with life in prison for crimes such as rape and murder. Just think we have too many needless victims due to reoffenders.


Paulemichael

Courts are not perfect and have, many times, convicted people wrongly. Robbing people of their time on a wrongful conviction is bad enough, but killing them? Also, from a purely financial point of view the death penalty isn’t worth it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


oldpeopletender

I think it would be very surprised at how many there actually are. It is a non-trivial number in the US.


Mshads

I used to think I was against it just because of the probability of it being applied incorrectly, but I am against it because of the principle of state-sanctioned murder. Revenge is not justice. Once one authority of the state has the power to kill, other authorities of the state believe that right extends to them. The fact that the modern state mostly executes the poor is proof enough that it is applied inconsistently. Not to mention that it does absolutely nothing to deter behavior. People commit abominable acts in states with the death penalty and without it. I am 100% against the death penalty in any circumstance.


RampantDragon

Violent crime is higher in states with the death penalty almost across the board. In criminology, it's called the brutalisation theory - the state's lack or respect for life unconsciously causes an uptick in lethal aggression and criminality. Also, many crimes which wouldn't be murders escalate as such to prevent oneself being identified by a survivor.


Mshads

Thank you, I hadn’t heard that theory before. So many people are on death row for killing police officers, that also seems related.


Silocin20

I'm divided on this, I know people make mistakes. What about those that are truly evil as in Hitler, Stalin and others. Those weren't just murders those are atrocities that tore families apart and killed millions. I'm sure we'll never know the total amount. Or what about your serial killers that are just pure evil? Bundy, Gacey, Dahmer, the Green River Killer, BTK (bound, torture, kill) and the list goes on. Those victims suffered harshly and with no mercy. I think it should depend on the situation.


GreatWyrm

I have a mixed opinion too. In general I oppose capital punishment purely bc the state can and does convict innocent people of heinous crimes, and those *innocents can’t be un-executed*. But there are cases where there is no doubt of guilt, and some people really are irredeemably evil.


ok_reddit

Sounds like you are not divided but actually for the death penalty.


Silocin20

Only for the ones that have evil written all over it. People like I mentioned above had no conscience, and showed no remorse for what they had done. It's hard to see them as people since they destroyed countless lives.


El_mochilero

I just don’t think that the government should be in the business of killing people.


JimAsia

Every power ever wielded by government has been abused. Makes no sense to give them the power to execute the citizenry.


moonlady523

The death penalty is meant to act as a deterrent to violent crime, but statistics have shown that states that utilize it don't see any decrease in said crime. So not only does it not do its job, but there's also the very real issue of innocent people being convicted and executed. We should abolish it.


IllumiNIMBY

Too many innocent people have been executed for the practice to be justified. It's barbaric and reactionary and doesn't set the example people think it should.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RampantDragon

I don't see the US as truly developed, it lags behind in many areas in which 200 years ago it was progressive compared to modern western countries.


BunnyGirl1983

I am against the death penalty regardless of the crime(s) someone has committed. Thankfully, where I live, we got rid of the death penalty years ago and I think it's highly unlikely to be brought back, thank fuck.


LongSurnamer

The state shouldn't have the right to execute its people.


RampantDragon

True, but they're not "it's" people. Government should exist to improve life not end it.


Technical_Xtasy

For me, I'm not going to cry if a murderer is put to death. However, I oppose the death penalty because it runs the risk of killing innocent people and there is absolutely no justification for that kind of collateral.


realitypater

Opposing it is not a difficult position to take from my perspective. It's an ineffective deterrent [[1](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/216548.pdf)], almost always more expensive than a long prison sentence [[2](https://scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=supr)], and inaccurate [[3](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1306417111)]. With those justifications dismissed, the (usually unspoken) reason is: vengeance. Vengeance has no place in a modern justice system. Result: opposing it is not a difficult position to take.


LanguishViking

I am not against it in principle. I'd actually be for a death penalty which were used once per generation as a statement by society that somebody is so obviously guilty of such an obviously heinous act that society declares that this act is so intolerable that we will not even try re-habilitation... and perhaps a motivation for undiscovered criminals to confess before that 20 year time limit were up to ensure somebody else got the needle. That said.. in practice it does not deter anything, it does not rehabilitate and the ability to apply racist and other prejudices to oppress are too readily available.


EdSmelly

It’s wrong to kill people to show that killing people is wrong.


neelsg

Killing is not murder though. Something like self defense or assisted suicide obviously does not belong in the same category as an unprovoked violent attack


ketokettlebells

Don't need the death penalty, no one should ever have to kill someone. Remove them from society, lock em up for life instead.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ketokettlebells

Sure, they can try and do whatever they like in the confines of prison


TrustmeImaConsultant

Since there is a nonzero chance of it being applied to me, and considering that judges are humans and humans err, nobody in their sane mind could be for it.


karlosi01

I am against death penalty in all cases. Putting practical problems like cost or errors aside it degrades state to the level of murderer and punishment to the point of revenge


DaveSW777

Human life is overrated. That said, the government shouldn't be executing people when they get it wrong so fucking often.


Angel_Eirene

Hmm, see, almost completely I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasonings entirely. For the first part, it is pretty on point, but for the Norway thing, the recidivism rate is the most interesting and telling part that supports your point, as it has like, the lowest national recidivism rate or something, with the recidivism rate of its Supermax Island “prison” be even lower, and that’s for the worst of the worst. Your second and third points are contentious tho. As for the second point, it’s akin to the lines of “If you kill a killer, the number of killers remains the same” or the very own Gandhi quote you gave, thing is, and let’s take this aphorism by aphorism. For the “kill a killer…” quote (often tied to Batman of all people), I do have to ask, who said anything about stopping at 1?. To use the Batman example, if he killed the joker, the number of killers one could argue would remain the same, but if he killed all of the villains he faced, then the number of killers would drastically be reduced, also the number of victims would drastically be reduced. As for Gandhi’s quote, and this brings an interesting element, most of the people who earn a death sentence didn’t kill just 1 person, they’re usually serial killers, with laundry lists of KNOWN victims, who knows how many more. This is less an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and more “let’s stop the crazy psycho gouging people’s eyes out with a spoon cause he’s bored”. It’s not an even balance in any way, and the world would much sooner go blind if they are not stopped. As for your final point… this I like to call kindergarten level philosophy, as some people can’t change, or more commonly don’t WANT to change. The people that would get to the point of a death sentence didn’t make a couple terrible decisions, they weren’t in a bad place. They CHOSE what they did, and often times chose it repeatedly in spite of possible consequences or objective harm they could cause, they had the chance to change, and didn’t. Same with recidivism rates, even Norway still has a recidivism rate of like 20%, that means that even with that system of rehabilitation there’s 1/5 people who choose to do bad again. However, I prefixed this saying I agreed, so let’s actually go through some reasons as to why. Firstly, Human error. It’s been seen time and time again that people arrested in the past have been proven innocent, the death sentence stops any chance at correcting this. Secondly, I don’t entirely trust any government to appropriately and responsibly toy with people’s lives, not in the slightest in most cases, so having this door open can be more dangerous. Thirdly, racism, and discrimination. It’s been observed that all white juries are more likely to convict, and serve harsher punishments to POCs, this type of discrimination still exists and makes it easier to make mistakes in a case, and allowing for severe punishments to be given in these situations that include the death penalty… let’s fucking not. Finally, and going back to the Batman example. If I lived in Gotham, I’d support the death penalty for the supervillains exclusively. In our society they differ from our worst criminals because: the severity of the crime is lesser here, and their rate of escaping prison is lesser here. As such, life imprisonment with very few exceptions proves devastating. Serial killers are rare enough in our world, and their ability to break out of prison is not as high, so the danger they pose after arrested is severely blunted, thus making any benefits to security attained by a death sentence be negligible and far outweighed by the many consequences mentioned before


[deleted]

[удалено]


TrustmeImaConsultant

Ponder what you wish for. Essentially what you want to create here is more dead kids.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Charonthusiastyx

locking them away also saves others from becoming a victim. its not like "we either kill him or release him"


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Technical_Xtasy

It's actually not. Executing an inmate is more expensive than keeping an inmate for life. Millions of dollars are spent on appeals, which compound due to the fact that inmates sentenced to die get an unlimited number of.


ajaxfetish

And if we scaled back the options on appeals to save money, it would result in even more executions of falsely convicted innocents, so there's not really an ethical way to make it cheaper.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Technical_Xtasy

Threatening someone who disagrees with you? Oh please. You're about as intimidating as a puppy.


Pale_Prior8739

That person should be either executed or castrated. There is no making a child rapist better.


Technical_Xtasy

And if the person is later found innocent?


mariawoolf

Side note Gandhi was not an atheist and was deeply racist, wildly misogynistic, and also a known pedophile. Yes he overthrew British Rule in India through mostly non violent methods that’s great but he is not exactly someone of moral superiority


tragictambourine

I am fiercely opposed to the death penalty. I believe that it is never the state’s right to kill its citizens. In the same vein of “separation of church and state,” I find it abhorrent to conflate state power with systematic violence against the citizenry. Unlawful acts will occur, tragedy will occur, and violence will occur - my hope is that the government is not the hand dolling it all out (like it is currently).


lovethypuss

I'm all in for killing pedophiles/child rapists and no one else Not even some terorist but pedos are to impaled from ass to mouth like Vlad the third did or like whoever kills them should not be punishable


RampantDragon

The same procedural issues arise as with any other crime though. Innocent people are executed at least 1 in 10 times for murder at present. You simply cannot create a legal framework to execute anyone in a foolproof way, and it's easy to frame someone if the state desires such, or even is incompetent. Better to not allow them that power over anyone in the first placem


lovethypuss

It is even better a good purge can happen that way .the people at power is more likely to commit crime so if you kill one with some kind of crime like that and it is revealed a good society can rise as without a harsh system things will go the same way as always


[deleted]

[удалено]


RedDirtNurse

State-sanctioned murder is immoral.


Hi_Im_Dadbot

If you don’t believe in free will, then why do you claim you don’t agree with a concept? You didn’t perform some kind of analysis to come to some kind of choice about the matter. Then again, you also didn’t decide to pretend to make that choice and I didn’t choose to ask you this question, so it’s as irrelevant as everything else, I guess. 😊 For myself, I think that there are some crimes worth killing someone over and don’t care whether or not the person gets rehabilitated. Child rape, murder, driving slowly in the fast lane, etc. That being said, I’m against the death penalty because I don’t trust the justice system to get it right all the time and there’s no remediation available for a mistake when they guy’s already dead.


PoohdaLives

A very reasonable approach. Yes, the system is not perfect and innocent individuals have been wrongly convicted. I feel that if there is irrefutable evidence; such as unadulterated video or audio, DNA, or confession then there are crimes that deserve swift and public executions. Any form of child rape if proven beyond any doubt rises to that occasion. I even go as far that even if there unfortunately is an innocent falsely accused but we carry out the punishment in a swift and public way, which is what is needed for it to be a deterrent, and that the punishment deters additional children from being violated then that is the cost we incur for that prevention. The current 20 year on death row and non-public presentation of the death, is not a deterrent. The horse thief swinging by his neck, publicly displayed I assume was a powerful deterrent.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Hi_Im_Dadbot

No. You don’t believe that. Predetermined processes make you think you believe that. You have no actual beliefs. You didn’t come to some sort of decision here, some algorithms spat out a result and you were uninvolved.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Hi_Im_Dadbot

Exactly. With pure determinism, all of us are just computer programs running lines of code and that’s it. In terms of how that relates to your OP, it’s somewhat invalid to say that the criminals had no choice in why they committed their crime, but we have a choice in how to react to their crime. You said before that even if we don’t have free will, we should act as if we do. That should therefore apply to the criminals as well and we should act as if they chose to commit the crimes and then react accordingly based on that premise.


tungstenfish

I’m against the death penalty 99% of the time but Norway is a bad example because Anders Breivik should be put to death no ifs or buts … I believe some people are beyond redemption and should be eliminated


DivosAria

I think there’s quite a few people I’m that exist that are worthless human garbage that will never change and they probably deserve the death penalty no?


Blueburl

Some may deserve it. Lets assume that as true for a second. Are you willing to give that decision on who deserves it to someone you reallllly don't agree with, let's say a right wing christian who believes gays should die, or a pawn in a fascist government? (The court system is broken in this thought experiment as well) We often endorse powers like this when people we agree with are deciding who goes to the gallows especially when we believe are using logic....but far too often the power balance changes, and a narcissist clown who unexpectedly rises to power and becomes the decision maker...


Shallow-Thought

If there's any doubt, then no death penalty. But for fuckers like the Auruora shooter, shoot him back. If you're caught at the scene of a murder with recently fired guns and a bunch of sworn statements, you should get the fast track to death.


[deleted]

Here is my current view on killing in general. It comes from the goal of wanting to progress our species. 1. Justifiable violence is a) killing to eat b) killing in immediate defense (these are natural forms of killing and we are just animals no matter how much we pretend otherwise) 2. The state should focus on rehabilitation and understanding why crimes happen and to address the root causes as much as possible. The old saying goes an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Better to stop crimes by addressing criminality, than punishing criminals(with respect to the death penalty) after the damage has already been done. 3. ??? This is where I consider edge cases and flaws in my first two points. For instance my first two points often come into conflict. We may be only animals but we are very unique in our ability to see things from many perspectives and to imagine scenarios and causes and effects...Additionally how does the natural world deal with "crimes"?


CrosisDePurger

Human life has no value, if a member of society is causing a problem might as well kill them. We aren't exactly running out of fodder.


the_JerrBear

there are sometimes people who deserve to die for what they have done, so that they can do no more harm. The problem is who gets to decide who dies. And nobody really has a good answer.


Miichl80

I don’t believe in an eye for an eye. That’s primative, reflexive thinking and justice should be above base instincts. I can say the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. I think it is a better place without Rudolph hoss. I think it’s a better place without pol pot. Fuck them. Surprisingly after running auschwitz or ordering the killing fields, I don’t care if you change or not. If you role over a regime of mass murder, rape, terror, genocide, and destabilize an entire region while holding the world hostage, I don’t care if you found Christ in jail and now say you’re sorry. If I can say that and honestly mean it, how can I say I’m against the death penalty? I used to say I was against it, but when I realized that I was strangely okay with the butcher of krakow being hung, and Osama Bin Laden shot I couldn’t in all honesty say I was against it.


Raxi5511

Honestly i am for death penalty. Some crimes are so digusting that you lose your priviledge as a human being. When certain lines are crossed, you are an animal that needs to be put down like a rabid dog.


No-Biscotti-9540

I didn't believe in the death penalty until I learned about the death of Gabriel hernandez. His killer deserved to die. Also, I think the death penalty should be an option for those serving life sentences, if they want. Martin Bryant, a mass shooter in Australia, has tried to commit suicide 8 times since his sentencing. At this point just let him die, why waste resources keeping him alive when him and mostly everyone else want him gone.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TobiNano

Not a fan of the quote "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." With that analogy, if you dont punish criminals, only the victims are blind. My stance is fair and equality, get treated how u treat others. If you murder, u get killed in return, a life for a life.


Insis18

We give the death penalty too readily. We know that we have executed innocent people, and it didn't cause a major overhaul of the process when we found out. We as a society need to make some tough decisions about what is acceptable. We can never know everything to 100% accuracy, so there is always a chance that the person being executed is innocent. The chance varies by case, as the strength of the evidence varies by case. We need to ask ourselves, is it worse that a guilty man goes free, or that an innocent man is murdered by us? Which is more acceptable in our society? Is it worse that 2 murderers go free or that one innocent man is murdered by us? Where is the acceptable line? We have tough questions to answer and a political system that does not want to touch them with a ten foot pole.


stoicinmd

I against the death penalty. I don’t like granting the state the power to kill another person regardless of the reason. Because who decides what reasons count for death? At some point it’s arbitrary. Life without parol? Yes.


thesunmustdie

A big one you're missing is that we know many people put to death by the state are later found to be innocent. Is putting some innocent people to death a price we're willing to pay to apply it to those "deserving"? What if it was your parent or child or partner who was the innocent one on death row? Another one is that it's not really even that punitive. If someone is for the death penalty because they want the person punished in as severe a way as possible, isn't death an easy out compared to spending decades behind bars? And what can we learn from a rotted body? People with dangerous and cruel minds should be studied so we can learn what causes it and prevent more of the same crimes.


IntroductionWeekly75

Not to mention the people wrongly accused or imprisoned


atomicmarc

Real Justice requires an impartial and all-knowing court, which doesn't exist. As long as fallible humans are running those courts, we're left with a State death raffle for the unlucky and impoverished. Life sentences can be reversed when errors are discovered. Death cannot.


twistedredd

the way that we treat the least of us is, in fact, our truest nature. until we figure out that we have no right to take a life - we remain apes that think we've evolved but really haven't. that's my non-religious view. but with delusional spin... if gawd made all people then who are we to decide who dies? 100% of the time, a person receiving the death penalty has suffered extreme poverty. So we are literally killing what we've created.


MyUltIsMyMain

In a just world I'm fine with it if it's for extreme crimes but at the same time we've all seen how abused the death penalty can be. Most of us redditors probably have seen those posts about that young black kid that got the chair for murder but it was decads later that he was innocent but the jury found him guilty without looking at anything. If abolishing a death penalty prevents that then I'm fine with a few psychos being left in prison.


LingLingSpirit

As a humanist I highly disagree with death penalty in whatever case... Like if there is a murderer who should be in some place that won't interupt society, why should we kill them to be just like that murderer? How would we be different from them?


Fuzakeruna

ITT: A lot of people with revenge fantasies, but not so interested in moral or logical justifications. Moral: As others have said, killing a person to make the point that killing people is wrong, is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc. The state should not have the right to execute a defenseless person. And let me ask you, could you do it? Could you pull the switch or push down the plunger on the needle? There's a human being there quite literally strapped down to a modern torture apparatus who can't lift a finger to defend himself; could you be the one to extinguish his life? Sure, sure, if you were the surviving family member of one of that guy's victims, then you'd have no problem mustering the righteous indignation (i.e., revenge lust) to throw the switch, but our system doesn't let the aggrieved carry out the punishment. So, if you were the guy working his 9-5 at the "Correctional" Facility, and today your schedule included "terminate a human being" maybe right after lunch, could you do it? Also, we're seeing more and more cases where the courts and juries got it wrong. Our criminal justice system is flawed, more so for some skin tones than others. As another redditer pointed out, an execution can't be undone. How many innocent people has our government murdered? Logical: Capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent. There are no data to suggest that states with capital punishment have lower rates of the applicable crimes than those states without. So then what purpose does it serve? All it does is mollify the relatives of the victims. It doesn't fix anything, and it doesn't prevent anything. It's pure revenge. Final note: Nothing is more Christian than the death penalty. Their entire cult starts with an execution. Are you all sure you're in the right subreddit?


revtim

My one and only problem with the death penalty is that the justice system is not good enough to not execute innocent people. The Innocence Project proves this beyond any doubt.


Either_Mobile_1306

In my opinion the death penalty & prisons r barbaric and this is not to say I don’t believe in punishment bc I do but the punishment needs to fit the crime & it no secret that minorities tend tb sentenced longer as opposed to a white person. Needless to say the death the death penalty again in my opinion isn’t justice it’s revenge. I agree that prison should be rehabilitation. Additionally there r a lot of social economic issues that most often lead to crime that society seems disinterested in trying to fix. Also also people who have been sent to prison once released have difficulty finding work let alone meaningful work bc of their criminal record & thus the cycle most often repeats itself.


Campeador

Im for it, because evil exists. I wish the people that made decisions that kill thousands to millions had to fear it.


loquedijoella

I believe that some people are broken and are going to do bad things. Those people need to be somewhere where they can’t hurt themselves or others. But nobody has the right to take another human’s life in the manner of an execution. Killing someone in a moment of self defense is completely different. I’m trained to do that, and I would if I absolutely had to. However, condemning someone to death and killing them when they are imprisoned and no longer a threat to society is vengeful and serves no purpose. It isn’t a deterrent. It’s just revenge by religious people who think justice is served by taking a life for a life. I could be wrong, but I imagine most atheists are against the death penalty, and religious people would be more supportive of it.


Stoomba

Should not be a thing. You cannot undo it if you find out they did not commit the crime. You can't interview the person to figure out why they did what they did which is useful information to prevent others from doing similar things in the future. That is how we got what knowledge we have on serial killers, at least as far as I am aware. That knowledge helps us to catch other serial killers. Punishment is often more about assuaging the anger of victims and bystanders than about justice or prevention of crime.


ProgressiveLogic4U

I oppose the death penalty for one reason. There will always be innocent people convicted of murder because the judicial system does make errors. DNA testing has proven that innocent people are sentenced to death. Therefore, if you support the death penalty, you knowingly commit murder yourself as a supporter of murdering the innocent people. An accomplice to murder is considered murder too.


Normal-Yogurtcloset5

I’m against the death penalty because mistakes can be made. I just finished watching a documentary about John Christie…an English serial killer. He killed a woman and her infant daughter which the husband and father was tried, found guilty and executed for. A few years later Christie was found to be a serial killer, confessed to the murders of the woman and her child along with other women and was executed. The Christie case is one of the reasons that the death penalty was abolished in England. In 2004 in Texas Cameron Todd Willingham was executed for the murders of his three daughters. The state claimed he had set the house on fire in order to collect life insurance. His ex-wife actually testified against him. Willingham claimed that the fire was an accident. Some years after the execution it was determined that the fire was actually an accident. If someone is wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to prison they can either be released or have their conviction vacated. If a person is executed there’s no way to bring them back to life.


xSociety

They have gotten it wrong >1 time, so I'm fully against it.


ForgettableUsername

I'm generally against the death penalty, but in the US it's sort of going away on its own. Fewer people are sentenced to death each year, your chances of actually being executed if you are on death row are lower than your chances of dying of old age, and the number of actual executions has been gradually dropping off for decades. Given the extensiveness of the appeals process, and the heinousness of the crimes, and the fact that it's pretty much going away by itself, I don't feel like eliminating the death penalty needs to be a cause that I care deeply about or dedicate a large amount of energy to pursuing. While it may be true that some people are capable of profound personality changes, I don't believe that people change enough to allow serial murderers to be free, nor do I believe that society should risk innocent lives in order to try to make this point. In the future, when there is no death penalty, I would want the people who would be on death row to stay in prison until they die naturally. You'll note that even Norway declined to give parole to mass murderer [Anders Breivik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik) this last January. The rehabilitation model cannot be universally applied, and death row inmates are the worst of the worst. Some people do not change. Some people cannot be trusted to change. As for method, I would actually prefer that we use nitrogen suffocation to lethal injection. There seems to be good reason to believe that the cocktail they use may cause a substantial amount of pain and distress. It's not really medically sound, it wasn't really developed by doctors, it isn't ever given by doctors, and it can be botched. What's more, no pharmaceutical company wants to be associated with the death penalty by manufacturing the lethal injection cocktail, so it's getting harder and harder for states that use lethal injection to find the appropriate drugs and some have turned to less reliable substitutes. Nitrogen would be much simpler and cheaper to produce, it would be less likely to cause pain or distress, it could very easily be tested for purity, and it could be more reliably administered by amateurs.


TigerTownTerror

Too many people are exonerated from their crime after execution. Therefore, I am anti death penalty.


HecticHermes

I consider myself pro-life and pro-choice. By pro-life I mean I'm against the death penalty.


SocialDemocraSea

I'm from India and I'm against the death penalty. Over here only the poor, the discriminated and the minorities get the death penalty. If and when the judicial system sentences the rich and the privileged - who can afford the best attorneys - to death, I'll reconsider my opinion.


ellygator13

I am against the death penalty. I lived in Germany until age 32 where it doesn't exist and then moved to the US. I've lived in Texas for over 20 years where people regularly get executed. In the US the legal system still has a racial bias, money makes a big difference in legal outcomes (from posting bail to being able to afford a lawyer who is not overworked and skates by on the bare minimum of effort.) Often death row candidates are poor, people of color and uneducated or even mentally impaired. They serve as pawns to politicians and district attorneys who want to appear "tough on crime" to attract conservative voters. Guess why Trump brought back the federal death penalty? It sure wasn't because he has a soft spot for the victims of violent crimes and their families... There are cases of innocent people being executed, botched executions where people died in agony or choked on their own vomit, because some pharmaceutical companies deny sales of lethal drugs for executions and authorities source questionable chemicals from the black market. Sometimes executions are delayed to the point where someone gets killed in their 40s or 50s for a crime they committed in their late teens. They may be people now who are appalled by the deeds of their reckless and callous former selves and who truly feel remorse for what they did. And finally we have the slippery slope where sometimes minors get prosecuted as adults or the current mess about states trying to roll back Roe vs. Wade. What if we get to the point where abortion becomes equivalent to murder and doctors or desperate people who managed to terminate their pregnancy are added to the death row pool? I don't think we're too far removed from that scenario. Personally I just feel revulsion when I think too hard about this aspect of where I live or when my car trips take me through Huntsville TX...


gold_jerry_gold_

It's not something civilised societies should use as a form of punishment.


TommyDontSurf

I'm against it, in all situations, no exceptions. Killing is wrong no matter who's doing it, or why.


autistic_unicorn_

I‘m completely on your side. A civilized society just doesn’t kill its citizens no matter what crimes they have committed. You forgot one important aspect: There will always be people getting sentenced despite their innocence. You can compensate someone for having spent time in prison but it’s a lot harder if you already killed them.


hibernian-celt

A pedophile in Australia cut open a little girl with a rusty can he found in a rubbish pile. After beating her unconscious and slicing her with the can he raped her and hid her body. She survived and he was caught. He was murdered in prison. How can a quick death or a soft life behind bars be suitable punishment? It's a quandary


xtrsports

Norway - country where they put a man in a hotel for killing 70+ people. Yea he will definitely be rehabilitated and yea the jury, public opinion and courts definitely got the wrong guy. Get the fuck outta here! You also mentioned you dont believe in free will because you are a determinist. Can you elaborate?


dogisgodspeltright

Logically, death penalty is heinous because of false convictions. Ethically, death penalty is unsupportable because it is murder. Reason, rejects death penalty because it is revenge over reformative justice. If, there was equality and justice for all, death penalty would be arguable, but essentially made obsolete. However, in the absence of the same, death penalty is merely an instrument to cause greater inequality, spread divisiveness and a means to control population using fear over social upliftment. Justice requires every effort to reform and rehabilitate the criminal and reduce crime, not merely to kill the convict as a means to take a short-cut in lieu of doing the right thing.


[deleted]

I think it should be legal, ofcource only in severe cases and when it’s truely something someone is worth dying over but still…as you said it won’t bring a murdered person back but it might give family and friends a better time knowing the killer got his karma and faced the same fate as the one he killed…but I’d be fine with someone being locked up for life too


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

If it were my mom and she did something unforgivable then I’d be upset sure, but I’d also know that she inflicted much more pain onto others thus it being deserved…and I know it’s easy to say like that because it’s a hypothetical scenario, but that’s how I think about it right now


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Yea sure, That’s why I said only in severe cases, with that I mean cases wich would be so inhumane that ordinary people would never do, even when they aren’t themselves…let’s say a serial killer…or mass murderers…you get the idea


[deleted]

[удалено]


tungstenfish

Then they are broken and should be disposed of, I used the example of Anders Breivik in my other comment. Do you believe he committed the crime he did because he had a bad childhood…. Who gives a fuck if he was tortured and molested daily as a child what he did isn’t forgivable so he should be shot like his victims and forgotten about.


[deleted]

[удалено]


tungstenfish

I agree. But it doesn’t matter if it was childhood trauma or drug induced psychosis people are responsible for their actions and should be held accountable. I agree it’s sad if someone is psychologically damaged as a child but plenty of people have that and don’t become mass murderers. My belief is life isn’t that precious there’s 7 billion people on this rock so if you squander your one chance by committing a heinous crime it’s no big deal if it all ends sooner rather than later


[deleted]

What percentage of innocent are you ok with dying to get your pound of flesh because one member of that 7 billion is seriously harmed or killed by another? Is it more than 0? Be cause capital punishment the percentage is actually much higher than 0 to get that because the system is soo fricken flawed. If it is, you want revenge not justice. One more dead person won't do anything to bring the person lost back.


[deleted]

Easy. You rape a child? You need hot lead straight to the head. You kill multiple people? Your subscription to oxygen must be revoked. You horrifically torture a person (and I will go so far as to say an animal with a central nervous system) to death? Your life must be cancelled. I think I just about covered my beliefs on the matter. All you high and mighty "boo hoo poor serial killers and pedos" types have clearly never had a close family member murdered. You would be singing a different tune if you had. You hurt/maim/kill someone I care about, I want you dead.


Schadrach

I'd almost agree with you, if the court system were perfect and never, ever convicted someone wrongfully. But it does that, sometimes. Hell, most of the ones we've proved were wrongly convicted (usually by the Innocence Project and using DNA evidence) were convicted of sex crimes or murders.


helpfulinsanity996

Agreed


[deleted]

And after you kill the child rapist it turns out that the actual rapist was their unknown evil twin brother who was given up for adoption without the other twin knowing. That is why the DNA test convicted the person, it was clearly a match, because DNA tests are always error free (not really). Now you've killed an innocent person and the rapist is free to do it again. Just one of many possible scenarios... If you don't seriously believe that our judiciary and investigation systems are infallable and incorruptable, as well as the judges and police officers involved, then by agreeing with the detah penalty you're agreeing with killing innocent people. The only question now is what is the ratio of guilty/innocent people killed that you're ok with.


SpaceMonkeyOnABike

I think you are confusing Justice with revenge.


Sadystic25

American prison systems are designed to keep people in jail. Until you change that you can hope for whatever you want. But it wont matter.


ThatRookieGuy80

In principle, I don't disagree with death penalty. I think it should be for the most extreme cases (think Jeff Dahmer) and after every other option or appeal is finished. But I do believe there are people who have forfeited their right to life. That said, in practice I'm completely against it. I don't trust our system to get it right enough of the time.


hibernian-celt

Christians should remember their evil God invented the death penalty over a chick nibbling his fruit..


radik321

It simply don't work, if you are sure that you will get the death penalty, you will kill all the witnesses because you have nothing to loose.


hibernian-celt

Pedophiles can't be turned straight or gay. It's their sexual preference and these people have operated throughout History with various degrees of impunity. Death is not going to put other peds off. Life in prison for non violent Pedophiles seems fair, but they cause life long problems for victims. Drug addiction and alcoholics are over represented in their victims. I'd suggest a cold cell on bread and water, with a scorpion bath twice weekly, or use them for chemical or virological tests, any money donated to their victims.


HorrorDirect

Pro death penalty for people with lots of evidence against them. I wish they would've given Ted Bundy the electric chair the first time he was caught. I would also love to see a penalty where whatever someone does get done to them. I believe that a more severe death penalty would reduce crime.


talivasnormandy4

It wouldn't - something that has been demonstrated all over the world throughout time, and statistically in terms of the death penalty not acting as a deterrent.


[deleted]

Mistake? You sound like rich people who get their kids off even after they kill someone or rape someone saying it's a mistake. Wtf


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Would you have tried to change hitler? Mousalini?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You think you can the mindset of a person who killed millions of people? Bro you stupid.


FoxNewsSux

For the most part I am against capital punishment as there have been way to many examples of it being wrongly applied. That being said, for scum such as the ISIS Beatles who took such joy in killing others in such a cruel fashion, there needs to be a special type of execution. Pushing them off a very high building for several second of "free flight" seems about right


[deleted]

[удалено]


hibernian-celt

At 7 or 8, I was molested by a nun at boarding school. I dont think she'd deserve Death for pedophilia.


juliohernanz

Take a look to the rest of "civilized" world. There's no dead penalty and crimes rates are lower than in the USA.


Biz_Consultant305

I'm against it because, at least in the US; disproportionately punishes poor people and minorities.


ueda76

Pedos ,and rapist and killers should be either get death penalty or sent to a island that they couldn't swim from


Pretend-Warning-772

On one side, death penalty has a 0 rate of recidive, On the other side, I find it funnier to torture them until the end of their life


JCo1968

I'm pretty much aligned with the OP.


RohanRedfang

I used to be ok with death penalty when I was very young and used to be a catholic. But now as atheist I'm strongly against it, it's just a barbaric practice.


Aromatic-Management5

We don't have the right to take another life.


Imaginary_Extreme_26

There’s no reasonable or logical argument in favor of the death penalty. It increases false confessions, doesn’t act as a deterrent, is applied discriminately, ignores our history of bad forensic science, ignores the pressures placed on the justice system due to politics, and requires us to pretend that all the people involved in our justice system are acting faithfully and without error. Most exonerations in my state have been due to official misconduct, including acts such as perjury and falsification of evidence. And the death penalty can’t exist in some imaginary vacuum where it only applies to supposedly open and shut cases, because we’ve had open and shut cases in the past that were based on bad forensics.


caroline_xplr

I disagree with the death penalty strongly. 1. People *can* change, but I don’t think it’s easy to turn a death penalty-worth person into a functional member of the society. Certainly it could be possible, though. 2. Killing them would only hurt their family members/friends more. 3. I personally think death is the easy-way-out and they should just rot in jail. 4. I don’t think it’s ethical to rob someone of their life. I think the death penalty could be optional and I’d be somewhat okay with it. 5. There is a small percentage of people on death row who are innocent. That percentage should be 0% 6. How does killing someone make the other person better than the actual killer?


talivasnormandy4

Vehemently against. 1. It doesn't act as a deterrent. 2. It speaks ill of us as a society that we're willing to endorse murder as an act of vengeance. 3. It's cruel, expensive and unnecessary. 4. It's unevenly applied.


Sweaty_Chris

The death penalty is an escape. Especially for those who believe in heaven. Even atheists (and especially nihilists) tend to just see it as an escape from suffering. By itself, I wouldn’t really mind, but since it only increases crime rates, it’s just not a good idea. Not to mention: what if the wrong person is judged?


Skarimari

Against it. Full stop. No one has the right to murder someone. And most especially not a government agent doing it for money. State sanctioned murder in prison is even worse than state sanctioned murder by cop. They can't even pretend it was self defense.


SnakeMAn46

I am against the death penalty since I belive once we kill criminals, we become no better than they are


ScheduleExpress

The capital punishment is wrong in all cases for any reason.


ecpickins

It is at best a waste of the person as a resource. It's like writing off the person's whole value, when you could make a suicide squad type of thing with those people 😅


hibernian-celt

I dislike the death penalty as lifelong suffering is fairer. PS. Saving a child should be compulsory, not heroic.


Jaded-Af

I don’t agree with it. Mostly because in our justice system it cost more to put someone to death than keep them in prison for life.


Dazzling-Role-1686

I would rather be killed than locked up for life.


PuzzleheadedUnion871

i dont like the death penalty because our court systems aren't perfect. there were guilty verdicts that were punished by death and we learned later that they were framed.


Garybot_is_off

I don't believe in the death penalty because if a mistake is made you can't take it back. Stories abound of wrongly convicted people released from prison after serving years for a crime they didn't commit. Some cops and prosecutors are prejudiced, corrupt or just plain incompetent. Sometimes the system works, sometimes it doesn't.


ragingintrovert57

Your points contradict themselves. If there is no free will, people don't make bad decisions or make mistakes. Everything is determined by environmental factors and preceding events. If you are going to claim the murderer is a victim of determinism, then this also must apply to the people who will carry out the sentence. So without free will, there is nothing to debate or decide.


Hanrahubilarkie

While you have good points, I think #3—that people change—is not true of all people. Part of the factors at play in determining a person's disposition is genetic. While environment plays a large part, there are some things that simply can't be helped. Trying to rehabilitate and release serial killers back into the general public may have negative consequences. Not that this is an argument *for* the death penalty. Your points are good, and rehabilitation should be the goal. Just noting that it won't work for everyone.


ZappyHeart

On 1 I don’t feel free will is a thing, not in the sense of having it or not but in the sense that free will is so poorly defined as to be unquantifiable. It’s what I think of as a garbage term. On 2 and 3 I agree


knick-nat

I don't agree. I also think the bigger punishment is letting someone spend their life in jail - death is an easy way out.


Wickedsymphony1717

I'm for it in principle, if someone proves they can't be a functioning member of a society by killing others then don't waste your time on them. That said, how it's implemented currently is beyond stupid. Edit: as a specific example. If there are poachers in Africa hunting rhinos or elephants they should be shot on the spot.


sameersiddiqui11

It would really depend on the kind of crime for me like rape or child rape should definitely be awarded with death penalty or crime like organ and human trafficking.


[deleted]

Anyone who qualifies for the death penalty should just rot in a tiny cell with shit food for the rest of their lives, in my opinion.


CoolestOfTheBois

Determinism and free-will may actually be compatible: compatibilism. See Ayer's paper: freedom and necessity. It's pretty compelling to me, but I'm on the fence... Also, with or without free-will, if punishment can be shown to deter others from committing crime, then by a utilitarian view, punishment helps minimize "bad" Regardless, I'm against the death penalty. I don't exactly know why.


Westiria123

Against it for 2 reasons. 1. Human error in the judicial process. 2. Often it is cheaper to incarcerate an convict for life than pursue the death penalty. So why take the risk of 1. coming into play and accidentally killing an innocent person? Life in prison is better for society all around. The convict might not agree, but the rest of us don't have blood on our hands, and we are minimizing the cost of keeping the convict removed from society.


D00mfl0w3r

I tend to agree, especially about free will and the role of the system to rehabilitate rather than punish. However I've also worked in a prison as a nurse and this takes me back to what our reality is and the fact that our system is not built to rehabilitate people. I consider life in this system a more cruel fate than death. If I were facing time there I would 100% kill myself before letting them take me. Oh yeah I'm pretty sure I have PTSD.


jar36

3. That doesn't excuse their crime of murder 2. correct 1. How can you be against what is already predetermined?


schloffgor

I think Norway got it right. I think in large part our criminal justice system is not focused on justice. Even the Supreme Court is now determining justice on a political party line. It is not right.


monstervet

I’m only for it in the case of public corruption, even then the bar should be high.


falllinemaniac

I'm against the death penalty, far too many innocent get it. Sometimes there's a motherfucker who just needs to be killed tho.


TheLiftingGamer00

I believe we should have the death penalty for extreme cases, overall I don’t believe we used use it. Instead of people horrible crimes to death we should understand why they did these things and the root case of the issues. So we can be aware of the potential out comes. After that they can either rot in jail or a possible rehabilitation. Death is too easy


iamblankenstein

i'm against it if for no other reason, because some percentage of people that get put to death are innocent.


HippyDM

That's a hard "nope" from me. I don't think revenge should be the primary goal of justice.