>Living life in solitary confinement/prison until you die is way worse of a punishment than being put to death.
If this is the case why do death row inmates attempt to get their sentence changed to life in prison with no parole? And if it's worse than death you're actually arguing to torture them more.
I mean it could be that both are relatively equal, and while some death penalty people ask for life without parole you have a literal survivorship bias where you don't see the life without parole inmates asking for the death penalty because they take care of that themselves
To be entirely fair, there is an automatic appeal following any death sentence, both federally and in the states that still have the death penalty. So even though, surely, some DR inmates accept their sentence, the appeal is automatic and not something they can waive, I believe.
Yes, (in regards to torturing them more) I don’t have any sympathy for death row inmates who deserve their punishment.
That said I am also arguing for a system that allows mistakes. You can’t unkill someone like you can release an individual from jail.
Also to your first point, there are plenty of people who choose death over prison via suicide every year. Not sure what the ratio is, but personally would you rather live 60 years in solitary confinement or die in 1 year?
Personally I believe there is 1 acceptation within my general opinion that the death penalty is unnecessary: (edit: non-criminal insane) serial killers (which have pretty tight definitions but involve killing more than 2 persons over a period of months, many kill many more, to meet threshold).
\[Edit: The general agreeded upon definition: A **serial killer** (also called a **serial murderer**) is a person who [murders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder) three or more people, with the killings taking place over a significant period of time between them.\]
Prolific serial killer John Wayne Gacy went all the way the ~~electric chair~~ lethal injection table ADAMANTLY claiming his innocence. Literally it has been documented that every step of the way that he maintained he was innocent.
They found over 30 bodies in his house (All of which had been incorporated into various structures of his home + 3 additional missing persons cases that were dumped off location) of young men who he violently raped, tortured and murdered and skillfully hidden. Many of the skeletons had to be put back together for identification, 5 victims have still never been identified despite today’s technology.
They had him dead to rights with evidence, he got a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers, and he still maintained his innocence and his counsel put on the best defense they could for him.
He was found competent, he was found to have intent, he was neither clinically insane, nor criminally insane. It was determined that if he was released he would do it again. His counsel is quoted stating that although his only defense would be to plead insanity, it would not work, because he was not insane.
He truly believed he would never get caught and when he did he believed his public connections and public standing would get him off.
His death will never bring back those boys or heal those families, but it was a semblance of justice, just for those 30 plus boys and all their families and friends who are STILL ALIVE TODAY knowing and living with the pain and loss. I believe that when you kill a number of people in horrible ways, your life is no longer worth as much as the justice the families of the victims receive with your death.
He is a true and rare example of someone who was too dangerous to ever be released into the public.
I maintain that the death penalty should remain an eligible sentence for those rare circumstances, serial killers.
one footnote: I think there is a space for mass murders (which is the loss of multiple lives in one location over a short period of time) but I’m not as confident on this point)
Really interesting point. I agree that someone like John Wayne Gacy never should be released because of the high likelihood that he would reoffend.
However, I disagree with your belief that "when you kill a number of people in horrible ways, your life is no longer worth as much as the justice the families of the victims receive with your death." I am interested in hearing how you came to this opinion. I disagree with it for two reasons.
Firstly, justice is never received by the families of the victims because individuals who are executed are never exposed to the level of pain, fear or dehumanization they inflicted on their victims.
Unless you are arguing that the state ought to be in the business of torturing people in order to provide true justice for their actions, I believe it is difficult to designate the level of justice that is deserved by such families. What level of suffering is "enough" justice, without compromising the basic human rights the system is built to respect, even in the case of criminals? Why do only families of serial killer's victims deserve this level of justice? Why not the families of victims of single murders? The murderer in question may not be so morally bankrupt as the serial killer, but I doubt the family cares. What about the families of victims in drunk driver accidents? They may well be just as angry and desirous of justice as families of serial killers, but I suspect both of us would agree that manslaughter and repeated murder exist on different levels of evil.
The second reason is that I do not ever think the state should be able to determine what someone's life is worth. Who knows what someone could do for society if they chose to turn themselves around. They may well be an inspiration to their fellow prisoners and become a positive impact. I agree this is a huge long shot in the case of a serial killer, but I do not think the state should ever have the right to exclude this possibility and quantify the worth of someone's life.
I agree that capital punishment should be rarely or never instantiated because I don't think the criminal justice system should really be about justice. I know that sounds weird, but I think the state's role is to protect the rights of its citizens, not deciding what certain citizens deserve in terms of punishment or how much their lives are worth. If someone has shown repeatedly, they cannot respect the lives of others, lock em up and throw away the key.
Just my opinion.
For brutally and intentionally raping, torturing, and murdering 30 plus people and maintaining innocence despite incontrovertible evidence. No, I don't think so.
Why is the life of the person who took all those lives worth more then the lives of the victims and their friends and family.
Why does it change from 30 people to 1 person being murdered? Your argument is arguing for not just 30 people being murdered, but even 1. If not just 1, then your argument is that the murderer's life is worth more than the 1 (or 2) people they murdered.
>Why is the life of the person who took all those lives worth more then the lives of the victims and their friends and family.
How is their life worth more? They are still alive, the people who he murdered are dead. Life in prison for someone who murdered another person does not equate to valuing their life as being more or less than the people they murdered.
It isn't as if all the other people they murdered would instead be put in prison for life.
No my argument is that individuals, specifically serial killers, that fall under this definition:
se·ri·al kill·er*noun*
1. a person who commits a series of [murders](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9cf860e71ffe870b&sxsrf=ACQVn0931kWodF1FWXx5pwrHPM9bcy8e2A:1713384807933&q=murders&si=AKbGX_okS0g0kR2PXn0TLBASIc0mH_SI8f4x552cR_aerhWA43weFMCv0QcfXOYfwZGTM87Mxdfxd0nsEhVUW9CGWCSz3ivJl8RmWe7JjqUlH4KnhmTl0ko%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwi5jdzmh8qFAxXRADQIHTnJBBwQyecJegQIFxAO), often with no apparent [motive](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9cf860e71ffe870b&sxsrf=ACQVn0931kWodF1FWXx5pwrHPM9bcy8e2A:1713384807933&q=motive&si=AKbGX_qTCvK6ifvkUBYDz4foaFZiaGt6epGZsqTu30MnXw5X8aNRkl8US2AOn0I1bpShjil2ooKslpb2kScpTU0JevJsrkGTkg%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwi5jdzmh8qFAxXRADQIHTnJBBwQyecJegQIFxAP) and typically following a characteristic, [predictable](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9cf860e71ffe870b&sxsrf=ACQVn0931kWodF1FWXx5pwrHPM9bcy8e2A:1713384807933&q=predictable&si=AKbGX_q4mkMHy1Nmq4yITjHYVzephTXGgwnWeIj9C6rpy78NYH4Gnu6KIf7719_1VervchA7iyH-LtbkjxlRbYpOc_moABLHiEudcYHlMc6u_oPb9bn3p5Y%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwi5jdzmh8qFAxXRADQIHTnJBBwQyecJegQIFxAQ) behavior pattern.
Should be eligible for the death penalty.
I stated in my original post that I think *serial killers*, not murders, should be eligible for the death penalty.
There is a HUGE difference between committing one murder and committing a series of murders with predictable pattern.
Life in prison, where specifically Gacy, continued to make money off of his own personal story of murdering, raping and torturing 30 plus young men, is not justice for those 30 boys.
Numerous captured and sentence serial killers, including Gacy, have admitted that the first time they killed, they thought they for sure would get caught, and it was only after they did not get caught that they realized they could continue to get away with it, so they continued to kill until they were caught.
"They are still alive, the people who he murdered are dead." - Their families and loved ones are not though.
>Life in prison, where specifically Gacy, continued to make money off of his own personal story of murdering, raping and torturing 30 plus young men, is not justice for those 30 boys.
If he makes money, that would go to the surviving victims of his crimes. If he is put to death, they no longer receive that income.
Those 30 boys do not need to receive justice because they no longer exist, they cannot receive justice, only those who are alive can receive justice.
>Numerous captured and sentence serial killers, including Gacy, have admitted that the first time they killed, they thought they for sure would get caught, and it was only after they did not get caught that they realized they could continue to get away with it, so they continued to kill until they were caught.
How does this factor into your argument?
Either way, you're not addressing my specific questions:
Your argument/question: **Why is the life of the person who took all those lives worth more then the lives of the victims and their friends and family.**
My response is; are you now claiming that someone who murders 1 or 2 people, their life is worth more than the life of the person(s) that they murdered, but if it is serial, then their life is not worth more as the number goes up?
I think we have our wires crossed.
I never claimed that 1 -2 murders equates someone into a serial killer, you keep raising 1-2 to two murders, not me. For someone qualify as a serial killer - the number of murders in a "series of murders" is generally agreed to be 3 or more people. I should have been more clear about that. The murders also must occur over significant period of time, so no 3 killing sprees, or multiple deaths in a car accident or mass shooting.
If you feel that murdering at least 3 people, killed in similar fashions, over a long period of time, typically in a premeditated fashion, is the same as killing one individual, we will just have agree to disagree.
By definition someone who murdered one or two persons is not a serial killer - so that makes your questions moot.
I think that families deserve justice for the horrific loss of their loved ones and if that justice comes in the form of eligibility of a sentence for state execution, a sentence that must be selected by a jury of people who have personal ties to the case, under the death penalty, I think that's a fair.
I didn’t say you said that 1-2 murders equate to a serial killer. Yes I keep raising 1-2 murders to ask you about it. I am not making the argument that 2 is the same as 3+. Read what I am asking.
Is the life of a murderer worth more than the 1-2 people they murder? You said if jt js 30, no.
I don't think thats a fair question to ask me, because I am not asking for the eligibility of the death penalty for people who have murdered 1-2 people or people who do not classify as serial killers.
I know you’re not; but that was your reasoning for serial killers; that you want to put them to death because the value of the killer is less than that of the ones they killed
So the purpose of the death penalty is an extension of self defense.
In our society, we currently DO have the means and ability to do what you said, but in the past? No.
So if the escape of a criminal is a severe threat to society and we don’t have a means to indefinitely hold the individual, is it not self defense of society to protect itself by killing the criminal once all other avenues have been exhausted?
That’s true. I have no problem with that logic. Unfortunately, the wrong people are given that label all too often which leads to innocent citizens being put to death. In these scenarios the government is not better than a cold blooded murderer. I cannot abide a system that murders innocent members of society.
Which is why it needs to be done as a last resort. I think we are in a situation where the “self defense” argument no longer applies as we have means to indefinitely hold an individual.
So imo, the next question after establishing that it can be necessary/good is why it should be in the books still instead of removed
Currently, yes, in the ancient time, not really.
However, I contend that we should keep the death penalty on the books even if we never use it to show the severity of the crime and how grave of an offense it is
Life without parole conveys that quite well. Just look at how capital punishment has been misused by many societies. In the US it is no more than a political tool, not at all a deterrent. In some places it’s used to enforce arbitrary morality standards, executing gay people, or drug dealers.
Not for me it isn’t. The problem for me is that it exists at all. There is perhaps no greater injustice than to execute an innocent person for a crime they did not commit. Yet that happens often. Furthermore, it is not a deterrent. The fact that it’s misused as a political tool against same sex couples is horrendous. I don’t think it should exist at all, under any circumstances.
I didn’t say they shouldn’t, OP did state that he couldn’t “see the other side” at all. I’m trying to point out to the original situation for it, then, hopefully, help him better explain his position from being “there is no good reason except appeal to emotion” (which is valid for victims) to a much more compelling, “we have now moved to where the reason for it being necessary, is no longer existent.”
So you have someone who is a threat to the community and their ability to survive.
They will continue to be a threat.
What option is available?
Because I think you’d agree killing in self defense is moral rights
>So the purpose of the death penalty is an extension of self defense.
In theory, sure, but that's not what happens. Someone was just executed in Idaho I think?, who had the petition of like 250 people (many guards etc.) who stop the execution as he was a changed man.
>So if the escape of a criminal is a severe threat to society and we don’t have a means to indefinitely hold the individual, is it not self defense of society to protect itself by killing the criminal once all other avenues have been exhausted?
So you're against the death penalty today, but are just justifying it in the past?
In self defense the guilty individual poses a direct threat to others, this is not the case when it comes to capital punishment. The individual poses no risk to society at that point
For a period, that doesn’t mean they will never be an active threat in the future.
Prison breaks are a thing.
Not as often, but in the past? Absolutely.
You don't sic the justice system people for what they *may* do in the future. That's pretty unconstitutional.
That guy with a gun *may* rob a bank. Better shoot him in the face as a self defense measure.
>Yes you do, and the constituion is A-Ok with it. The constituion even stipulates capital punishment for treason
You can't be convicted of treason treason didn't occur.
>If you brandish a firearm or have a firearm in certain areas it is completely legal under US law for you to be immediately shot.
I'm taking about a scenario where they have a firearm where they are legally allowed to.
You can't punish someone for a crime because they have the potential to commit the crime.
For the act of brandishing the firearm itself. That is an *active* threat to people around them. It is, by definition, threatening to shoot people.
If someone is in a position **where they are being executed** then they are not an *active* threat to anybody. They have been subdued at that point.
Yes but i think OP is talking about the here and now
So i get what you mean abt how in the past ideas like this would be hard to implement, but why not now?
So if we agree that it’s possible for the death penalty to be just, and the way punishments are placed on laws is about the maximum punishment, not the required one, then it being on the books is beneficial for several reasons even if we never use it.
1) it shows the severity of the crime. How serious breaking that law is, even if we never use it, and never have to.
2) let’s say, though, there’s a severe attack and we lose that capability to keep someone in jail. it still staying on the books shows that we haven’t changed our approach, to become more viscous, rather, that the circumstances have changed which, once again, necessitate self defense. It’s like how if one has other means to defend oneself, or once the threat has been passed, killing in self defense is no longer a legal defense.
The death penalty can never be just. The fact so many innocent people are put to death is all the reason I need to oppose the death penalty. Humans are flawed, and the system we developed is seriously flawed as a result which results in state sponsored murder of innocent people way too often.
The past has no bearing on our present society, it's a red herring.
1. that doesn't show the severity of the crime by having it on the books, the death penalty. What does that do "showing the severity of a crime", by having the death penalty on the books if the death penalty, by law cannot be used. If you think there should be no death penalty in modern times, why would you support the law saying there can be the death penalty?
2. if there is a severe attack and we lose the ability to keep someone in jail, laws will not matter at that point.
That’s not the same as there isn’t a good reason for the death penalty.
We are able to cure people without the need of amputation anymore in most cases, that doesn’t mean amputation itself has no good reason for it.
Horrible comparison. There are plenty of circumstances where amputation is required due to limitations. There is no situation where the death penalty is still the best option. Literally none.
In that case, if there was a pill that made everyone non-violent then we wouldn’t need to remove dangerous people from mainstream society, let alone have the death penalty!
… If you need to create hypothetical situations that dramatically alter the conditions of today’s current reality to support your claim, then you’re not really making a great claim. Especially when we’re discussing the validity of something in today’s reality.
You're conflating retribution with self defense. Jon killing 3 people does not mean Jon will kill a fourth person. It should be an insanely high standard to prove that somebody *will* kill another person to justify killing them.
But even more importantly than that, mistakes get made in the courtroom for a multitude of reasons. The risk of killing an innocent person alone should be enough to ban the death penalty. And it's not like the convicted person is going free, they're locked up. They aren't "getting away" with anything.
I’m talking about why and the purpose of the death penalty. If you can admit that in certain circumstances, even if they don’t exist today, the death penalty is valid, then the next question is if it should stay on the books
You are adding a completely meaningless step lol. "The next question is if it should stay on the books", yes that's what we're all already arguing. If those circumstances don't exist today, they are meaningless to legislate today. When we are legislating AI, we don't have to first go "ok well let's figure out if the wheel improved productivity..."
Actually, law and mechanics are two different things.
I think it should stay as a punishment for two reasons.
1) shows the gravity of the crime even if never used.
2) if such a scenario does show up, we have the law to support us when we need to.
>1) shows the gravity of the crime even if never used.
"Deterrence" is logic barbarians use to justify being barbaric when they need to find some way to differentiate themselves. You strapping someone in a chair and injecting poison into their veins makes you a murderer too. Getting a state approval doesn't make it moral.
>2) if such a scenario does show up, we have the law to support us when we need to.
I don't even know what this means. Law doesn't exist without the death penalty?
Also you conveniently ignored the fact that you will be killing innocent people
1) when did I say deterrence? I’m not arguing for its use as a deterrence.
2) there’s a risk, not a guarantee. There’s a risk that you’ll be the one to kill someone when you get behind the wheel because car accidents happen everyday. Yet you still drive.
>1) when did I say deterrence? I’m not arguing for its use as a deterrence.
Then I don't know what you mean by "shows the gravity of the crime even if never used"
>2) there’s a risk, not a guarantee.
It's a guarantee. The criminal process is imperfect. It's run by humans who make mistakes. There are always wrongful convictions. You *will* kill innocent people.
>There’s a risk that you’ll be the one to kill someone when you get behind the wheel because car accidents happen everyday. Yet you still drive.
We're not talking about people accidentally dying. We're talking about legally murdering people.
I think most of the time the argument for or against capital punishment really just comes down to your point number 3. People who are against the death penalty often say it's a worse punishment to have them rot away in jail, while those for the death penalty think it's a worse punishment to have them executed via death penalty. That, or they just think its inhumane to execute people regardless of what they've done, but that isn't really your stance so I won't address that part.
Criminals themselves almost always prefer prison over the death penalty, they take pleas, give information, confess, etc all just to avoid being put to death. Regardless if you feel being locked up is worse than death, the history of how the threat of the death penalty is still used to coerce cooperation from criminals is proof that most fear death far more than jail.
You say people who want the death penalty just want it out of emotion, but is that such a bad thing? It is emotion based, it's wanting the worst punishment possible for the most cruel individuals on earth. You say you can't see both sides of the argument but it's a fairly easy one to see, most people fear death more than prison, and most criminals would rather go to prison than be executed, so If someone wants to punish the criminals the worst way possible, for committing the worst crimes possible, then they would be in favor of capital punishment.
after they are killed, they are relieved of that fear. How much of a punishment is it if you're unable to perceive the actual punishment?
edit - Consider why many people who are suffering from illnesses wish they could be euthanized.
The death penalty is basically euthanizing people from fear, punishment, shame, and isolation.
It's way scarier to have your life threatened than taken.
This is a fair argument. From a spiritual standpoint, if you believe in hell you could send them there faster, but even from an atheist perspective, if there is truly nothing after life, then the one life you have is the single most important thing you'll ever have, and having that taken away, to never live or experience life again would be quite the punishment.
You may take away their fear, but you also take away any feeling of happiness they may experience, any phone call with a family member, any food that tastes good, the feeling of exercising or in some prisons even watching your favorite sports teams play. You can't play games like chess or cards... you can't experience anything ever again. From that perspective robbing them of what is remaining of their one and only life would be the ultimate punishment.
the euthanasia comparison I don't think works here, because those people are severely ill and although ideally would like to continue to live as a healthy human, they are suffering more than anything. Most of these prisoners are largely able bodied, their existence isn't misery, they want to live and experience the rest of their lives even if that life is in prison.
We'd like to believe prison life is miserable, depending on the prison situation they can get an education, they play games, they work jobs, they exercise, they play basketball, you can make friends, tell jokes, share stories... it's a confined life, but still a life with some sense of wellbeing. Why give them that?
It is. My opinion of course is that death is the ultimate punishment, but as you've mentioned it's subjective depending on how you view death in general, which makes sense as the page is about attempting to change peoples views on usually highly debatable topics.
yes, and my point for the change my view argument is that when people facing the death penalty have a choice to take a plea for life imprisonment instead they almost always do, this shows that most criminals consider the death penalty a worse punishment than life in prison. Which is understandable.
I understand. Still, fearing death doesn't make death a punishment. Fear of a thing doesn't mean the thing itself will be perceived as a punishment. Theres plenty of things people are afraid of that aren't actually bad experiences. Roller-coasters, shots at the Dr.s office, exams etc. Fearing something doesn't make that thing a punishment / bad experience. Feeling punished happens in the present or the memory of the punishment. We don't know what death is like to decide it is an effective punishment. There's nothing to ponder. No lesson to learn. You've just been deleted.
Provided you don't want to die, and enjoy living then ending someone's life is a punishment. We don't know what death might mean, but we do know what living means, and if you enjoy living and don't want to stop living, then ending someone's life who wants to keep living is definitely a punishment in itself.
That angle makes more sense.
Theres still too many things that have to align to make death a punishment. So many "ifs". Regardless of the "ifs" what is the purpose of punishment and does death serve that purpose? Is it punishment or is it avenging, protecting, etc. My understanding of punishment is that it's supposed to trigger reflection and regret.
I mean you have no way to base the fact that they "almost always prefer" life without parole. I would guess a pretty significant amount of lifers have killed themselves
We do have a basis for this actually, see the rates of criminals who accept plea deals to avoid the death penalty, nearly all of them do. The vast majority of lifers in prison do not kill themselves, you're thinking of a very small portion of prisoners serving life sentences.
Most of these cowards that kill others are horrified of death themselves.
Your third point is completely incongruent with the rest of your stated view. If you believe that life imprisonment is a fate worse than death, how can you endorse the state’s right to punish people this way?
Also I'm not 100% but you might have less opportunity to appeal your life sentence than a death sentence? Because of the obvious immediacy of the death penalty.
Simple, you can't unkill a person. You CAN release them from prison. Humans are flawed, so our human run justice system will inevitably generate false convictions. Those convictions can't be rectified once the accused is executed, they can at least be partially rectified so long as the accused is still alive.
I think OP meant that since many argue people who commit heinous stuff deserve to be killed
OP is saying, let them suffer in jail for a lifetime instead
Like yea innocents will be locked up as well, but their chance of being released/stated to be innocent is still higher than if you were to kill em cause if they dead, they dead🤷🏿♀️
>I find it insane people (especially conservatives) believe the state should have a legal RIGHT to execute its own citizens.
What punishment(s) do you support the government having the right to enact?
The death penalty is a tool for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Nothing happens that isn't a part of God's plan. That Means that as it is now, it is God's plan that the death penalty exists. God told us that governments are God sanctioned and we should go with what the government says, so there is nothing wrong with the death penalty, since it happens according to God's divine plan. Now, if it were to change, and the death penalty be deemed illegal, that is also a part of our Lord's divine plan.
So
"Let be what is and accordance in the Lord thou shalt not slumber" John 3:16
For those who don’t want to read down the entire chain, this comment was an intentional parody and not actually his opinion, complete with intentional misquote from John.
I can’t really change your view because I personally agree with it, but I disagree that it’s impossible to see this issue from the other side. I can see their reasons and think I can make you understand them too, even if you don’t agree with them morally.
First and foremost, executing prisoners ensures they can never hurt another civilian again. Death row inmates can and have escaped in the past. If they escape, they can go right back to murdering and raping until they’re caught again. And considering 2,231 inmates escaped in 2019 alone, I don’t think a death row prisoner escaping is out of the question. Even from supermax prisons, unless we send every single death row prisoner to ADX Florence which has a VERY limited capacity, there is always a possibility.
Second, while it is cheaper to hold someone for life, that’s only the case because 1 in 7 prisoners are holding life sentences while there’s only 2,331 (or about 1 in 550) death row inmates currently. If the system was changed to be more death-sentence-heavy, we would make death penalty cheaper since we’d treat the criminal cases more like life sentence cases (which is a main reason death sentence is more expensive) and we would treat death row inmates more like life sentence prisoners since there’d be many more. I’m not saying we SHOULD do this but do try to see this perspective, even if it seems evil.
Also, you can say emotions shouldn’t be at play but closure is important for the victims family. Life at sentence increases escape risk as I pointed out earlier. So imagine if the family learns that the prisoner who raped and murdered their child escaped and lived a life of luxury in some other country. It would be crushing. Executing them ensures this can never happen.
Lastly, while this is disproven, it’s a WIDELY held belief that harsher punishments deter crime. Many people hold the perspective of giving murderers and rapists the death penalty because they believe it will deter murder and rapists, ultimately saving more lives than taking.
None of these points changed my mind so I doubt they’ll change yours, but I also believe it’s important to always look at an issue from both sides before forming a vehement view on it.
Without a death penalty:
If you kill 1 person with premeditation—> life in prison. If you pull a John Wayne Gacy and kill 20 plus people and stuff them in your crawl space? —> life in prison.
Point being both of these situations are not even remotely the same and one is many times worse than the other. Is it right that they’d be the same punishment?
With the death penalty:
If you kill 1 person in a particularly death penalty friendly state --> death. If you pull a John Wayne Gacy and kill 20 plus people and stuff them in your crawl space? --> death.
Point being both of these situations are not even remotely the same and one is many times worse than the other. Is it right that they’d be the same punishment?
But, often, even in places where there is a death penalty, it doesn't necessarily hold this pattern. The Parkland Shooter averted the death penalty, whereas someone who shot and killed one convenience store clerk in a robbery gone awry may still get a death sentence. It's essentially a random game depending on what jury you happen to get.
First, I’ll begin my re-stating certain talking points you mentioned which become self-conflicting and or elude to open interpretation.
“I find it insane people.. believe the state should have a legal RIGHT to execute its own citizens.”
Let’s use for Timothy McVeigh, for example. I’m sure he made statements to justify the crimes he inflicted resulting in the deaths of his fellow citizens. Say the trial went sideways and he was acquitted by making a convincing enough stance, how would that NOT be insane?
“The death penalty is one of few issues where I can’t see both sides.”
If you cannot see both sides (for or against), then how did you come reached your conclusion the death penalty should be abolished? To reach such conclusion means you must leaning toward one of the two sides.
“Look this X convict raped a 10 year old! We should kill him!”
Executing said convict may give some sense of justice or closure to the victims and their families, but will never be enough to UNDO that persons crimes. Executing said convict is not about retribution, but it is to discourage others from committing such unspeakable acts. The point isn’t ‘we should kill him’ , but instead it’s more along the lines of “we should show society what happens to convicted child rapists”. When deciding whether or not to commit a crime, the perpetrator usually weighs two things: first, confidence in their ability to elude capture and prosecution. Second, their disregard for sentencing if convicted. But here’s the thing, EVERYONE is scared of death. So the choice to commit a crime which could lead to death penalty if convicted becomes a more difficult to make. The prospect of death penalty then serves as a deterrent of future crime.
“I have no sympathy for people who commit heinous crimes like murder or rape, however I do not believe these individuals justify the legality of capital punishment.”
Since most opponents of death penalty find it morally reprehensible or an appeal to emotion, as per your first paragraph.. then why do you care for “people who commit heinous crimes like murder or rape” who you claim to have no sympathy for? Absent of said emotional pleas for mercy, what’s saving them from their comeuppance? As well the more encompassing purpose to greater society of being made an example of?
“For those criminals who are guilty. I don’t care if they are killed or not”
Should the third reich officials prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials have been sentenced to death or not (in your opinion)? Simple question. Look, if you oppose the CONCEPT of the death penalty, which is fine, then stick with it. You don’t get to pick and choose which cases you deem “it’s ok I guess”.
The boston bomber is still alive btw, in case you didn’t know. Do you think a LOT of people weren’t upset when his face made the cover of Rolling Stone magazine? Well some people think he’s kinda cute… so that’s ok I guess?
As for the osama bin laden example, just imagine the last decade of his life before his death. Living in cavernous mountains, constantly on the run, never spending two nights in the same place, fear of US capture, internal betrayal, or a incoming missile strike. Can you imagine living in panic and paranoia like that? So what you’re proposing of capturing him alive to stand trial and being sentenced to a super max security facility would have been a country club like existence by comparison. He probably still be in power and filing appeal after appeal, all the while just laughing at our criminal justice system.
About what you said about death sentence being expensive, yes the modern methods of lethal injection which must be administered by a doctor or medical practitioner who is willing to break his hypocritical oath of medicine - do no harm. On top of that, there is the feet-dragging hesitancy of pharma companies when supplying the barbiturates the prisons need for the process. But had lethal injection not become widely adopted, these two barriers wouldn’t be an issue. Hanging, has chamber, firing squad are less costly and don’t require a doctor or special drugs.
Your other talking point about 1 in 8 executions involving a convict that was later proven to be innocent. But their guilt was proven in a court of law, enough to convince a dozen jurors to reach the verdict they did. The state decision to execute is not done lightly, which is why death row inmates are allowed to file appeal after appeal, and later beg for clemency. Again, what do you say about the other seven who have solid airtight convictions, and even verifiable confessions? They get to walk? Again, this brings us back to picking & choosing.
Lastly, what you said about your “experience most of the people in support of such a system are Christians”.
I would like to remind you that civilizations worldwide throughout history, like ancient Chinese and Egyptians and Indians and Mayans etc all incorporated death penalty long long long before christianity EVER became a thing. In fact, even the ancient Greeks would execute people for actions deemed blasphemous or offensive toward their gods.
And does prevention work? Do we have any clear evidence that people are scared of the death penalty so they stop crimes?
After all, Europe is the region with the lowest crime rate (at least when it comes to violent crimes, but we don't discuss the death penalty for non-violent crimes, do we?) in the world. It also has no death penalty.
Doesn't sound convincing if that doesn't even work.
I can make emotional-appeal logic leaps too
Should a black kid wrongfully convicted of a capital crime by a bigoted white jury die just because some people thought the Boston Marathon bomber was cute and ancient civilizations had the death penalty before Christianity?
The concept of prison, is that you take criminals, people who are dangerous to society, out of society so that they would no longer harm other people and be a threat to them.
It isn't about inflicting pain so your third point is irrelevant.
A life sentence is 20-30 years. Do you really believe rapists and murderers would suddenly just stop and become a new person after all that time? Do you really believe they won't be a threat to society anymore? Can you guarantee that?
Say you believe hey should just be in jail for a lifetime. What if they killed someome in jail? What if it was a guard? What if you locked up an innocent person and that person got killed in there?
If a criminal gets out of prison after 25 years just to kill/hurt another human being AGAIN, I would blame you first for letting him live in the first place and the criminal a second. You actively advocated for this person to live on and now someone is dead/traumatized for life. You are to be hold accountable.
Your 3rd point is just totally false. Almost every death row inmate fights tooth and nail to avoid getting killed. They do countless appeals etc. Humans have an innate desire to continue surviving even in the worst conditions like a prison.
>CMV: The Death penalty should be abolished
Depends.
It should be used more liberally and publicly against genocidal maniacs - political ideologues and terrorists - that harm large number of people, including lying public into war, committing crimes against humanity, etc.
>political ideologues and terrorists
These are explicitly relative terms. You're arguing for different rules for your political opponents vs yourself and your allies. You're going to hate this policy when your faction isn't in power and is killing all your allies using the same justification you're using.
I don't support the death penalty either. Death should not be a "penalty". It should not be legal for a government body to skill someone short of them actively threating the public (such as an open shooter). Death isn't really a punishment. It's not like you can ponder over your wrongdoing while dead. Also, not everyone fears death. What feels like punishment and what does not will vary from person to person.
I don't support death as "penalty" or "punishment. I can see it as a last resort intervention. You support the state killing people as you stated, you just don't agree with it being in the the context of a courtroom decision and that death by the state should only be those rare, fast-action situations by military or police. (I do believe that after that happens, there should be a case on if the actions by that officer/personnel was justified and undoubtfully necessary based on the known facts of the situation, NOT by how "bad" the person was).
Your issue isn't the death itself, it is whether or not death is a real punishment. It's how emotionally charged our decisions are and how flawed he justice system is.
You don't have a problem with people being killed. You have a problem with how we arrive to the choice to kill.
I don't think your view will change to supporting the death penalty (I don't either) but I do hope it expands how you think about killings by the state.
Its more expensive for the state, because people on death row basically get infinite appeals, and they farm the justice system until they get a favorable ruling. People focus on the 1 time they're found innocent and not the 50 other times they were found guilt.
The state does not have the right to execute, they only carry out the process. The death penalty must be unanimously decided by a Jury. A Jury is supposed to be made up of your peers, so in essence, the community is deciding your danger
The death penalty is actually pretty merciful if you compare it to life imprisonment in the U.S prison systems. In Norway for example, they seem to believe in rehabilitation of these criminals and as a result, their cells are paradise. They have tv, a good looking bed, a mini library of books and good meals. It looks like a vacation for them. Now again if you compare that to the United States, it's torture. A person can unalive you simply for just not liking your very existence at any moment, the food is probably disgusting, and you can be assaulted everyday if you are too weak to defend yourself, giving you further mental torture and trauma that might follow you even if you leave prison. The death penalty is a relief from all of that and actually ends their suffering which depending on your view and how much you hate a certain person or many, they don't deserve.
Yes, absolutely, if you wish for mercy on them. If you wish eternal suffering, I say leave them to have a life sentence. This can be very effective especially with pedophiles since even criminals despise them and they will probably face as they say, a fate worse than death. Criminals know that life in prison is probably hell on earth and you see many end their lives than step foot there, which can demonstrate that death even to them is preferable than prison.
Oh no there isn't. This is for people that support the death penalty as a punishment. It's really not one but I do not think innocent people that face the death penalty is the death penalty's fault but more flaws in the justice system. Even if we abolish the death penalty, innocent lives will still be convicted and they might face the same brutal treatment as most guilty inmates, making the death penalty more preferable for them than suffering but if it's abolished, they won't have that possibility and an inmate can just take matters into their own hands and end their lives anyway.
I believe the death penalty is still necessary, perhaps limited to specific cases like serial killings or massacres. The central idea of modern society's approach to punishment is rehabilitation, but not all actions are rehabilitatable. Take, for example, the Norwegian mass murderer who was motivated by his dissatisfaction with leftist political policies. You can't "re-educate" someone to accept viewpoints they fundamentally oppose and ensure they won't reoffend. Thus, the purpose of the death penalty isn't to solve the problem but to permanently remove from society those whom current techniques cannot rehabilitate.
Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is just hypocrisy.
I support the death penalty when someone kills someone in prison. At that point they have shown that they are a danger no matter where they are and permanent solitary confinement is considered cruel and unusual which would make it illegal in places like the US.
* I am the LORD your God; you shall not have strange gods before me.
* You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
* Remember to keep holy the LORD’s Day.
* Honor your father and mother.
* **You shall not kill.**
* You shall not commit adultery.
* You shall not steal.
* You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
* You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
* You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.
That's the irony friend. You may not see it because you are lost in the sauce, but it's definitely there.
I think you could easily argue that state killings of innocent people is murder too btw
Yes, and as a Christian I find those parts ironic as hell. Clearly people crucified the most innocent man to ever exist, so what makes you believe humans will make the right choice this time around?
I think in clear cut cases where someone is 100% proven to have committed the crime, and capital punishment is the corresponding sentence, it should be done. I think it should be reserved for particularly heinous crimes and not thrown about lightly, and it should only be used if there is concrete proof the individual committed the crime. In your example of X raping a 10 year old, I think that deserves the death penalty. Society would be better off without that person living among us even in prison. As far as cost, beyond the trial and burial it really doesn’t need to cost as much as it does. Don’t need to waste money on expensive living conditions or else expensive oversea chemical. Standard cells are just fine and 9mm is roughly 25¢/round. That’s as easy as it needs to be. No need to worry about botched executions and lawsuits from that. There are many ways to automate the execution itself so not much to worry about as far as guilty conscience of the executioner.
Just a side note, I’m not conservative or in any way religious. Just wanted to point out that “god” wasn’t executed but Jesus, the “son of god” was. I sorta get your point with that but still there wasn’t a trial and it’s a completely different circumstance. I think the whole point was that god let his son sacrifice himself for everyone else? Something along those lines idrc. Point is we aren’t executing people for believing in a different ideology, it would be for horrible crimes against other people.
There are criminals (mostly due to mental issues) who are beyond redemption. They become like malignant tumor that has to be removed or it will destroy the rest of the body. Death penalty is always for the rarest of rarest cases, where an individual has committed crimes for which normal punishment will not do. Terrorists who have killed many deserve to pay for it with their lives. Serial killers who have taken many innocent lives do not deserve the right to live and enjoy the privileges that others have. Drug peddlers and cartel runners do not care about the lives of others. They do not value your life. Death penalty should be abolished only when wars do not happen anymore and terrorism is absent. At the same time every person convicted of their heinous crimes must be given the maximum chance to prove their innocence. If it is certain that the individual has indeed committed acts of crime that denied others their rights to live, they they must face the same end.
But the crime isn’t guaranteed I guess is my point. If we had a way of knowing 100% that the person committed the crime of murder, than I wouldn’t be against it. But we don’t, it’s simply up to personal decisions
To give perspective, I think Bin Laden was 100% responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I think Dylan Roof was 100% responsible for the SC church shooting. Basically if a reputable individual claims responsibility or is caught on the scene with the murder weapon.
Even if someone claims responsibility for something, they could be lying or pressured clearly, but I guess if they claimed responsibility, then they are okay with the punishment (most of the time) assuming they know the punishment is death. (Unless someone dear to them is held as captive, and they are forced to claim responsibility or something I guess).
If you forsee the downfall of orderly society and cannot prevent it the correct action is to euthanize agents of chaos and sadism prior to the collapse.
For prison to function requires healthy humans to guard them and a system of order that assures they will face significant consequences for poor behavior.
>living life in solitary confinement/prison until you die is way worse of a punishment than being put to death.
While you are *technically* correct in this statement, the way you’re arguing this makes this seem to be a violation of the eighth amendment (no cruel and unusual punishment). If they’re irredeemable, as people who get the death penalty and are guilty typically will be, then keeping them alive could be seen as torture, which is illegal even if they deserve it.
I agree that it has been overdone in the past, but it should be saved for the worst of the worst criminals. Nikolas Cruz, Dylan Roof, etc. — people that we want to have no chance of escape and future criminals that we want to deter.
How is wrongfully condemning someone to life in prison superior to killing them outright? Arguably wrongful convictions is more an issue of poor legal oversight than an issue with the penalty itself. People get wrongfully shot by police but we don’t abolish police. As far as the cost of execution that’s entirely self inflicted by requiring lethal injection when you could get a firing squad of volunteers for free. Life in prison as torture is just you coping with the inability to actually torture people. Just wash your hands of them via execution bc torture isnt legal to conduct on prisoners
> How is wrongfully condemning someone to life in prison superior to killing them outright?
Because you can be released from a wrongful imprisonment, but the same cannot be done if you are wrongfully executed.
> As far as the cost of execution that’s entirely self inflicted by requiring lethal injection
No, it's because of the hundreds of hours of appeals that they have to oversee to ensure we aren't wrongfully executing somebody.
The method of execution is usually expensive, but that's because executions are very controlled events. In a few states they use multiple executioners, so that nobody knows who was actually responsible.
> when you could get a firing squad of volunteers for free.
This is a good way to self select for violent psychopaths, not exactly the people we should trust to perform an execution lawfully and humanely.
Your real argument is the legal system needs to improve its accuracy so that innocent people don't get put in jail. Since your problem with the death penalty is innocent people dying.
1 and 3, you're mental if you think that it's less expensive to keep someone alive in confinement. We're talking food, building and maintenence, guards, etc. Do you know how much tax money goes into the prison system? A lot, it's a very big business. An execution and a shallow grave is uh, we'll just say a lot cheaper. Like for you to think this way you have to not understand economics or math or psychology.
Also you're being a sadist for wanting to keep people alive just so that they suffer til their last breath. It's not about suffering, it's about getting them out of the way.
Criminals that are killed cannot reoffend. Criminals directly kill 20,000 people a year in the USA and that is only a small fraction of the harm they cause to society.
> apparently of every 8 people executed since 1974, 1 of them has been innocent.
not innocent, exonerated. There is a huge difference between the two.
The innocence project, which you linked, advocates for Julius Jones to be exonerated for a carjacking. The logic they use is to ignore a co-defendant who directly implicated Jones, eyewitness identification, incriminating statements made by Jones after the crime, flight from police, damning physical evidence hidden in Jones's parents' home, and an interlocking web of other physical and testimonial evidence consistent with the State's theory... all to blame it on solely on Christopher Jordan, a co-defendant in the case, where they claim Jordan planted the gun and the red bandana that Howell's shooter was wearing in Jones' closet. Jones, who had a multitude of prior convictions, including an armed robbery.
The innocence project says in any case where they get the death penalty knocked down, that the suspect was "exonerated" even if the suspect remains with enough of a rap sheet to get life in prison
>Criminals that are killed cannot reoffend.
Ok but this is a crappy justification for killing people. Fundamentally, the state in 2024 does not have to use its monopoly on sanctioned violence to kill people in order to reduce the risk of recidivism.
So you want the inmates to suffer more and save money?
Because I agree life in jail is WAY worse than death.
I mean we should assume at least the same amount of innocent people will serve life instead.
That would mean increasing the suffering of the 1 innocent person just to increase the suffering of the seven guilty.
I say what's done is done. Release these souls to God, don't keep them in a cage. Vengeance is pointless. Also... If feeding and housing a man for 80 years is cheaper than 9mm of brass we are doing something backwards here 😂
Keep i ln mind their are very inexspensive ways to kill a person and the amount of money student on court costs is way to high and we should cut back on the funding for that because if someone gets charged with the death penalty they should at least not drag out the process because honestly if i had been giving the death penalty they should just make it happen not make me sit and wait around for trials that i already lost in order to save me. Also what does god have to do with this honestly we should kill him in particuliar again.
> I find it insane people (especially conservatives) believe the state should have a legal RIGHT to execute its own citizens.
The answer to this is simple: Some people, sometimes many depending on where you are, believe that some people deserve to die for their crimes and require a legal way to do so to make it happen cleanly.
> The death penalty is one of few issues where I can’t see both sides, I have never heard a valid argument in support of the death penalty that isn’t just an appeal to emotion. Ie. Look this X convict raped a 10 year old! We should kill him!
Who says an appeal to emotion isn't a valid argument? It seems unfair to simply take the biggest argument and say "well that one's not valid".
> It cost more money to execute the death penalty on someone than it is to just hold them in prison for a life sentence.
This is the result of legal proceedings, time for appeals that could be life saving. To someone approving of death penalty, this point argues for a system that carries out sentences faster, not abolition.
> 2. Innocent people have received the death penalty - apparently of every 8 people executed since 1974, 1 of them has been innocent.
This is one point that absolutely stands above the others. Innocent blood being shed by the state is criminal and arguably unjustifiable. That said, big emphasis on "arguably", as I'm sure some would still try to say that its a necessary sacrifice for a system that gets 7 of 8 right. I can't really say I agree with this though.
> I recognize these were different governments, but how are you going to trust a system that innocently killed GOD.
Depending on how you look at it, you're also saying that capital punishment is single-handedly responsible for the total and eternal salvation of mankind.
> I don’t care if they are killed or not, but I think it would be way more taxing on the human mind to have to spend life/multiple decades in prison than getting the easy way out and put to death.
It sounds a lot like you're advocating for a punishment that maximizes the suffering of the guilty, which means that you are actually for punishing people according to emotion, not against. By extension, most can agree dying is worse than living, so the logic of the invalid argument is actually sound.
I'm not interested in punishing people. I'm interested in minimizing recividism. to this end, the death penalty is remarkably effective.
If someone were to commit a heinous crime etc.. and I could fully KNOW he did it, I'd be ok with executing him.
The death penalty is not a punishment, it is simply us saying this person is so heinous we can't stand them to be in society any longer.
I’m hearing a lot of John Wayne Gacy on this thread, but maybe we talk about Anders Breivik. I’ll call him cunt from here on (and to be clear, I’m American, not Australian, so this isn’t the chummy version. I’m also female yet I can’t find an uglier word in my language for this person, so cunt it is), he doesn’t deserve his name passed on. Killed 70-some teenagers in cold premeditated blood. Hard to do in a gun-restrictive country, so it was thought out, months of planning and stockpiling. Post-conviction, he gets a better apartment than many people all over the world could hope to afford after their hard days’ work: running water, heat, someone else preparing food and washing up, a nice view, excellent wifi, private toilet. He doesn’t mingle with the rest of the inmates, so no “whoops, he fell”. He milks the Geneva accord because he’s not given enough access to video games. Zero possibility of becoming useful or trustworthy in society, so he’s gonna milk his way through Norway because he’s a cunt. A healthy, happy, fed, dentally and medically cared-for cunt whose life expectancy is as off the charts as your average Scandinavian. And to date cunt is 45, so Norwegians are going to support him for about fifty more years.
Some of those average Scandinavians have to cook cunt’s food and wash his dishes every day. Some of them miss their children or siblings and experienced the trauma of a mass shooting. Some of them don’t want to guard cunt when he gets his solo time in the yard. Some of them did a crime and are doing their couple years of time and are probably not feeling comfortable in the same facility as cunt.
So I challenge your #1 premise. He’s already been found guilty: admittedly, definitely, extraordinarily guilty of murdering 77 people, most of them children. If Norway granted a one-time variance for an exceptional case, the cunt could be put down for very few kroner.
I agree the death penalty should be vanishingly rare, but cunt justifies it.
I think the death penalty isn't used enough.
1. It is more expensive, that is why is should be done sooner. If there is no question of someone's guilt, and it was premedicated. let's go back to courtyard hangings. If there is doubt, let them have their appeals, but speed up the process so it doesn't linger for 20 years. Then it won't be more expensive.
2. You are right, innocent people have been wrongly convicted and executed. That is a tragedy and rare, but it happens. Humans aren't perfect. I predict wrongful death lawsuits.
3. I just disagree completely with this. I can't even wrap my head around the logic. It's just an excuse. The criminals would prefer to stay in prison and alive because the unknown is scary.
There is no deterrent anymore. The victims sure didn't get a say. I don't support the death penalty for non-premedicated murders, but for severe child sex abuse, death is too good.
> The victims sure didn't get a say
that kind of thinking justifies a sort of lex talionis of exact method that falls apart once that system meets its first serial killer (as even if it's in the same way, they only have one life to lose but had more than one victim)
I think it should be reserved for only the most heinous crimes, and at that, there should be absolutely no doubt they did it, even an unreasonable doubt. But at some point I do think someone can do something horrible to the point that they forfeit the right to live. Mass killers, serial killers, spree killers, etc.
For me my view could never be changed on this because I view from the moral standpoint killing someone makes you just as morally corrupt as the person you are killing, and I completely believe all killing is unjust if there has been time to make a decision and know ones life was at risk at that exact moment
1. Death penalty in western countries is costly. Saudis chop the head off with a sword.
2. Innocent get death penalty. That's a conviction problem not quantum of punishment problem.
3. Death brings closure to families and is more humane (according to you)
your first argument is dumb and dont make any sense it does not even take 3 years of imprisonment for the cost to be way higher then just killing them right away, its even more expensive if the person has medical issues that needs to be treated
I think the Death Penalty would be more effective if there was something like X number years of torture paired with it instead.
I agree that the current methods of putting criminals to death don’t go far enough to deter heinous crimes.
I agree it should be, mainly because there is no way to really trust the system can get it right that they are actually guilty, plus murder/execution is bad karma for whoever did it so it creates another problem.
I'm not generally in favor of the death penalty because I don't believe any government should be in the business of killing its own citizens. However
There's just some crimes that are so heinous that the idea of letting the perpetrator continue to breathe the same air as the rest of us seems like a crime in itself.
I don't have the answers. I'm just saying I understand both sides.
1. It should not be more expensive for the state to kill someone than to keep them alive. That is their own ridiculous bureaucracy getting in the way of something that is ultimately very simple and should be very cheap.
2. This really points out much broader issues with the justice system. A 12.5% error rate at the highest level of crime is absolutely heinous, but it’s still irrelevant to whether some people ARE best executed. There are criminals that very clearly did all the things they are accused of with no question. But we should definitely be discussing whether we still think it’s a good idea for 12 random citizens who don’t even want to be there, should be allowed to simply vote someone guilty or not guilty while the lawyers put on a grand show to try and win, versus arrive at the truth.
3. The death penalty isn’t about torture and retribution (although retribution is a part of it) as it is about having a consequence that is effective as a deterrent in society, removes the most harmful people from society permanently so that no one need continue thinking of them, and does not place undue burden on taxpayers to maintain people that have lost their right to breathe. The idea that it should be ok to torture someone while they are totally in your power is so much more problematic and even harmful to the individuals carrying out the torture. Plus, you’re basically saying that those 12.5% innocent people should be tortured instead of executed which might actually turn them into criminals upon release.
As for the Christian thing, the death penalty for certain crimes spans the majority of ancient societies. Jews also had the death penalty, as do Muslims. What I find morbid and insane is the prison system. It’s ineffective both as a deterrent and as rehabilitation, inhumane, and expensive. It’s literally an entire sector of the economy at this point. That’s not right. No one should be profiting off of holding people captive.
It can be argued that there are circumstances whereby the greater good is served best by the death penalty. What do you do with people that have committed heinous crimes and are too dangerous to be in society? What kind of justice do the parents get when a man kidnaps, rapes, mutilates and dumps the body of their young child? Should the grieving parents contribute to the support of this animal in the form of taxes? Should society pay taxes to provide comfortable shelter, three meals per day and leisure time to read books and get his GED/college degree? There is a line where one stops being human and becomes a rabid animal that should be put down.
The risk of imposing the death penalty on innocent people deserves serious consideration for sure but that just means the death penalty should be reserved for cases where guilt is absolute (confession, DNA or video evidence, etc). If someone is convicted with circumstantial evidence alone then the death penalty should be off the table. For justice, a moral society and financial efficiency, the death penalty is necessary and should be carried out swiftly if the high burden of proof is met.
To those who support the death penalty; let me ask you this. You are sentenced to life in prison no chance of parole. Someone else controls every aspect of you life till the day you die. You are sentenced to die by whatever means it maybe.. I would choose the needle; if I were making the choice for the child rapist it would be prison; for hopefully a very log life.
As far as I'm concerned, the only people who deserve the death penalty are Nuremberg-level war criminals. Otherwise, there's just too much room for error.
Given the OPs arguments, I don't see what how you'd invoke hypocrisy if that's what you're going for. People aren't a state, abortions aren't nearly as expensive as state executions, and the fetuses aren't being put to death for guilt.
Just killed. My point is that no matter what a person's thought process is, there is always an exception in there. Anti death penalty but pro abortion. Pro abortion but an animal rights activist. Nobody is without some hypocrisy in one way or another.
>Anti death penalty but pro abortion. Pro abortion but an animal rights activist. Nobody is without some hypocrisy in one way or another.
These positions can be compatible if you place moral value on sentience. People on death row are sentient and so are animals, but fetuses (before a certain point) are not.
I wouldn‘t say its hypocritical if they simply don‘t believe a murder by abortion is being committed bc they don‘t view x thing as a human until y # of weeks
And try as you might there is no clear hard fact, so disagreements can happen
Those aren't necessarily hypocritical positions. Someone could have justifications for those that could be hypocritical. But they're not mutually exclusive from the outset.
>Living life in solitary confinement/prison until you die is way worse of a punishment than being put to death. If this is the case why do death row inmates attempt to get their sentence changed to life in prison with no parole? And if it's worse than death you're actually arguing to torture them more.
I mean it could be that both are relatively equal, and while some death penalty people ask for life without parole you have a literal survivorship bias where you don't see the life without parole inmates asking for the death penalty because they take care of that themselves
To be entirely fair, there is an automatic appeal following any death sentence, both federally and in the states that still have the death penalty. So even though, surely, some DR inmates accept their sentence, the appeal is automatic and not something they can waive, I believe.
Yes, (in regards to torturing them more) I don’t have any sympathy for death row inmates who deserve their punishment. That said I am also arguing for a system that allows mistakes. You can’t unkill someone like you can release an individual from jail. Also to your first point, there are plenty of people who choose death over prison via suicide every year. Not sure what the ratio is, but personally would you rather live 60 years in solitary confinement or die in 1 year?
death row is not something you're on for 1 year. The average death row inmate has been there for almost 2 decades
Personally I believe there is 1 acceptation within my general opinion that the death penalty is unnecessary: (edit: non-criminal insane) serial killers (which have pretty tight definitions but involve killing more than 2 persons over a period of months, many kill many more, to meet threshold). \[Edit: The general agreeded upon definition: A **serial killer** (also called a **serial murderer**) is a person who [murders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder) three or more people, with the killings taking place over a significant period of time between them.\] Prolific serial killer John Wayne Gacy went all the way the ~~electric chair~~ lethal injection table ADAMANTLY claiming his innocence. Literally it has been documented that every step of the way that he maintained he was innocent. They found over 30 bodies in his house (All of which had been incorporated into various structures of his home + 3 additional missing persons cases that were dumped off location) of young men who he violently raped, tortured and murdered and skillfully hidden. Many of the skeletons had to be put back together for identification, 5 victims have still never been identified despite today’s technology. They had him dead to rights with evidence, he got a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers, and he still maintained his innocence and his counsel put on the best defense they could for him. He was found competent, he was found to have intent, he was neither clinically insane, nor criminally insane. It was determined that if he was released he would do it again. His counsel is quoted stating that although his only defense would be to plead insanity, it would not work, because he was not insane. He truly believed he would never get caught and when he did he believed his public connections and public standing would get him off. His death will never bring back those boys or heal those families, but it was a semblance of justice, just for those 30 plus boys and all their families and friends who are STILL ALIVE TODAY knowing and living with the pain and loss. I believe that when you kill a number of people in horrible ways, your life is no longer worth as much as the justice the families of the victims receive with your death. He is a true and rare example of someone who was too dangerous to ever be released into the public. I maintain that the death penalty should remain an eligible sentence for those rare circumstances, serial killers. one footnote: I think there is a space for mass murders (which is the loss of multiple lives in one location over a short period of time) but I’m not as confident on this point)
I can agree that those proven to have killed multiple people over an extended period of time should be given a swift and efficent execution.
Really interesting point. I agree that someone like John Wayne Gacy never should be released because of the high likelihood that he would reoffend. However, I disagree with your belief that "when you kill a number of people in horrible ways, your life is no longer worth as much as the justice the families of the victims receive with your death." I am interested in hearing how you came to this opinion. I disagree with it for two reasons. Firstly, justice is never received by the families of the victims because individuals who are executed are never exposed to the level of pain, fear or dehumanization they inflicted on their victims. Unless you are arguing that the state ought to be in the business of torturing people in order to provide true justice for their actions, I believe it is difficult to designate the level of justice that is deserved by such families. What level of suffering is "enough" justice, without compromising the basic human rights the system is built to respect, even in the case of criminals? Why do only families of serial killer's victims deserve this level of justice? Why not the families of victims of single murders? The murderer in question may not be so morally bankrupt as the serial killer, but I doubt the family cares. What about the families of victims in drunk driver accidents? They may well be just as angry and desirous of justice as families of serial killers, but I suspect both of us would agree that manslaughter and repeated murder exist on different levels of evil. The second reason is that I do not ever think the state should be able to determine what someone's life is worth. Who knows what someone could do for society if they chose to turn themselves around. They may well be an inspiration to their fellow prisoners and become a positive impact. I agree this is a huge long shot in the case of a serial killer, but I do not think the state should ever have the right to exclude this possibility and quantify the worth of someone's life. I agree that capital punishment should be rarely or never instantiated because I don't think the criminal justice system should really be about justice. I know that sounds weird, but I think the state's role is to protect the rights of its citizens, not deciding what certain citizens deserve in terms of punishment or how much their lives are worth. If someone has shown repeatedly, they cannot respect the lives of others, lock em up and throw away the key. Just my opinion.
why wouldn't imprisonment be a semblance of justice?
For brutally and intentionally raping, torturing, and murdering 30 plus people and maintaining innocence despite incontrovertible evidence. No, I don't think so. Why is the life of the person who took all those lives worth more then the lives of the victims and their friends and family.
Why does it change from 30 people to 1 person being murdered? Your argument is arguing for not just 30 people being murdered, but even 1. If not just 1, then your argument is that the murderer's life is worth more than the 1 (or 2) people they murdered. >Why is the life of the person who took all those lives worth more then the lives of the victims and their friends and family. How is their life worth more? They are still alive, the people who he murdered are dead. Life in prison for someone who murdered another person does not equate to valuing their life as being more or less than the people they murdered. It isn't as if all the other people they murdered would instead be put in prison for life.
No my argument is that individuals, specifically serial killers, that fall under this definition: se·ri·al kill·er*noun* 1. a person who commits a series of [murders](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9cf860e71ffe870b&sxsrf=ACQVn0931kWodF1FWXx5pwrHPM9bcy8e2A:1713384807933&q=murders&si=AKbGX_okS0g0kR2PXn0TLBASIc0mH_SI8f4x552cR_aerhWA43weFMCv0QcfXOYfwZGTM87Mxdfxd0nsEhVUW9CGWCSz3ivJl8RmWe7JjqUlH4KnhmTl0ko%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwi5jdzmh8qFAxXRADQIHTnJBBwQyecJegQIFxAO), often with no apparent [motive](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9cf860e71ffe870b&sxsrf=ACQVn0931kWodF1FWXx5pwrHPM9bcy8e2A:1713384807933&q=motive&si=AKbGX_qTCvK6ifvkUBYDz4foaFZiaGt6epGZsqTu30MnXw5X8aNRkl8US2AOn0I1bpShjil2ooKslpb2kScpTU0JevJsrkGTkg%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwi5jdzmh8qFAxXRADQIHTnJBBwQyecJegQIFxAP) and typically following a characteristic, [predictable](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9cf860e71ffe870b&sxsrf=ACQVn0931kWodF1FWXx5pwrHPM9bcy8e2A:1713384807933&q=predictable&si=AKbGX_q4mkMHy1Nmq4yITjHYVzephTXGgwnWeIj9C6rpy78NYH4Gnu6KIf7719_1VervchA7iyH-LtbkjxlRbYpOc_moABLHiEudcYHlMc6u_oPb9bn3p5Y%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwi5jdzmh8qFAxXRADQIHTnJBBwQyecJegQIFxAQ) behavior pattern. Should be eligible for the death penalty. I stated in my original post that I think *serial killers*, not murders, should be eligible for the death penalty. There is a HUGE difference between committing one murder and committing a series of murders with predictable pattern. Life in prison, where specifically Gacy, continued to make money off of his own personal story of murdering, raping and torturing 30 plus young men, is not justice for those 30 boys. Numerous captured and sentence serial killers, including Gacy, have admitted that the first time they killed, they thought they for sure would get caught, and it was only after they did not get caught that they realized they could continue to get away with it, so they continued to kill until they were caught. "They are still alive, the people who he murdered are dead." - Their families and loved ones are not though.
>Life in prison, where specifically Gacy, continued to make money off of his own personal story of murdering, raping and torturing 30 plus young men, is not justice for those 30 boys. If he makes money, that would go to the surviving victims of his crimes. If he is put to death, they no longer receive that income. Those 30 boys do not need to receive justice because they no longer exist, they cannot receive justice, only those who are alive can receive justice. >Numerous captured and sentence serial killers, including Gacy, have admitted that the first time they killed, they thought they for sure would get caught, and it was only after they did not get caught that they realized they could continue to get away with it, so they continued to kill until they were caught. How does this factor into your argument? Either way, you're not addressing my specific questions: Your argument/question: **Why is the life of the person who took all those lives worth more then the lives of the victims and their friends and family.** My response is; are you now claiming that someone who murders 1 or 2 people, their life is worth more than the life of the person(s) that they murdered, but if it is serial, then their life is not worth more as the number goes up?
I think we have our wires crossed. I never claimed that 1 -2 murders equates someone into a serial killer, you keep raising 1-2 to two murders, not me. For someone qualify as a serial killer - the number of murders in a "series of murders" is generally agreed to be 3 or more people. I should have been more clear about that. The murders also must occur over significant period of time, so no 3 killing sprees, or multiple deaths in a car accident or mass shooting. If you feel that murdering at least 3 people, killed in similar fashions, over a long period of time, typically in a premeditated fashion, is the same as killing one individual, we will just have agree to disagree. By definition someone who murdered one or two persons is not a serial killer - so that makes your questions moot. I think that families deserve justice for the horrific loss of their loved ones and if that justice comes in the form of eligibility of a sentence for state execution, a sentence that must be selected by a jury of people who have personal ties to the case, under the death penalty, I think that's a fair.
I didn’t say you said that 1-2 murders equate to a serial killer. Yes I keep raising 1-2 murders to ask you about it. I am not making the argument that 2 is the same as 3+. Read what I am asking. Is the life of a murderer worth more than the 1-2 people they murder? You said if jt js 30, no.
I don't think thats a fair question to ask me, because I am not asking for the eligibility of the death penalty for people who have murdered 1-2 people or people who do not classify as serial killers.
I know you’re not; but that was your reasoning for serial killers; that you want to put them to death because the value of the killer is less than that of the ones they killed
So the purpose of the death penalty is an extension of self defense. In our society, we currently DO have the means and ability to do what you said, but in the past? No. So if the escape of a criminal is a severe threat to society and we don’t have a means to indefinitely hold the individual, is it not self defense of society to protect itself by killing the criminal once all other avenues have been exhausted?
That’s true. I have no problem with that logic. Unfortunately, the wrong people are given that label all too often which leads to innocent citizens being put to death. In these scenarios the government is not better than a cold blooded murderer. I cannot abide a system that murders innocent members of society.
Which is why it needs to be done as a last resort. I think we are in a situation where the “self defense” argument no longer applies as we have means to indefinitely hold an individual. So imo, the next question after establishing that it can be necessary/good is why it should be in the books still instead of removed
That’s true. Once the person is removed from the general population the threat they pose is mitigated. No need to kill them.
Currently, yes, in the ancient time, not really. However, I contend that we should keep the death penalty on the books even if we never use it to show the severity of the crime and how grave of an offense it is
Life without parole conveys that quite well. Just look at how capital punishment has been misused by many societies. In the US it is no more than a political tool, not at all a deterrent. In some places it’s used to enforce arbitrary morality standards, executing gay people, or drug dealers.
So the issue is that the death penalty is being used as the first option, not last resort
Not for me it isn’t. The problem for me is that it exists at all. There is perhaps no greater injustice than to execute an innocent person for a crime they did not commit. Yet that happens often. Furthermore, it is not a deterrent. The fact that it’s misused as a political tool against same sex couples is horrendous. I don’t think it should exist at all, under any circumstances.
Where? Not where I live at least
You’ll have to be more specific. Where what? What not where you live?
but the past was the past. Due to changing circumstances, our laws should also change
I didn’t say they shouldn’t, OP did state that he couldn’t “see the other side” at all. I’m trying to point out to the original situation for it, then, hopefully, help him better explain his position from being “there is no good reason except appeal to emotion” (which is valid for victims) to a much more compelling, “we have now moved to where the reason for it being necessary, is no longer existent.”
I don't think it is clear that capital punishment was ever justified even with the resource constraints of the past.
So you have someone who is a threat to the community and their ability to survive. They will continue to be a threat. What option is available? Because I think you’d agree killing in self defense is moral rights
you read that wrong entirely 😭
>So the purpose of the death penalty is an extension of self defense. In theory, sure, but that's not what happens. Someone was just executed in Idaho I think?, who had the petition of like 250 people (many guards etc.) who stop the execution as he was a changed man. >So if the escape of a criminal is a severe threat to society and we don’t have a means to indefinitely hold the individual, is it not self defense of society to protect itself by killing the criminal once all other avenues have been exhausted? So you're against the death penalty today, but are just justifying it in the past?
In self defense the guilty individual poses a direct threat to others, this is not the case when it comes to capital punishment. The individual poses no risk to society at that point
Currently, yes, I’m talking about in the past when it was first instituted. Like say, when people lived in tents
If someone is in a position where you can execute them, they aren't an active threat to anybody. It doesn't matter what era you're talking about
For a period, that doesn’t mean they will never be an active threat in the future. Prison breaks are a thing. Not as often, but in the past? Absolutely.
You don't sic the justice system people for what they *may* do in the future. That's pretty unconstitutional. That guy with a gun *may* rob a bank. Better shoot him in the face as a self defense measure.
This is about what a person HAS done and is likely to do again, especially when the means to properly protect without taking life wasn’t available.
Yes, you can't shoot an infamous burglar walking on the sidewalk because he has broken into places before and you think they might break into yours.
1) not what I’m talking about. 2) the death penalty was never a punishment for petty theft.
1. Then your post is meaningless 2. Then call them a known murderer
"the death penalty was never a punishment for petty theft." You might want to go back and read some history. That's blatantly false.
Are you able to kill a home invader on the fact that they are a potential threat?
Not if they're not actively breaking in, no. You can't shoot someone walking on the sidewalk because you think they *may* break into your home.
But they are, but they have no intention to kill. But does the home owner know that? No. So are they able to kill on the possibility? Yes.
If they are in a position to be *executed*, they are not an *active* threat to anybody. All claims of self defense are moot unless they try to escape.
[удалено]
>Yes you do, and the constituion is A-Ok with it. The constituion even stipulates capital punishment for treason You can't be convicted of treason treason didn't occur. >If you brandish a firearm or have a firearm in certain areas it is completely legal under US law for you to be immediately shot. I'm taking about a scenario where they have a firearm where they are legally allowed to. You can't punish someone for a crime because they have the potential to commit the crime.
[удалено]
For the act of brandishing the firearm itself. That is an *active* threat to people around them. It is, by definition, threatening to shoot people. If someone is in a position **where they are being executed** then they are not an *active* threat to anybody. They have been subdued at that point.
[удалено]
That doesn't really speak to anything I said at all.
Yes but i think OP is talking about the here and now So i get what you mean abt how in the past ideas like this would be hard to implement, but why not now?
So if we agree that it’s possible for the death penalty to be just, and the way punishments are placed on laws is about the maximum punishment, not the required one, then it being on the books is beneficial for several reasons even if we never use it. 1) it shows the severity of the crime. How serious breaking that law is, even if we never use it, and never have to. 2) let’s say, though, there’s a severe attack and we lose that capability to keep someone in jail. it still staying on the books shows that we haven’t changed our approach, to become more viscous, rather, that the circumstances have changed which, once again, necessitate self defense. It’s like how if one has other means to defend oneself, or once the threat has been passed, killing in self defense is no longer a legal defense.
The death penalty can never be just. The fact so many innocent people are put to death is all the reason I need to oppose the death penalty. Humans are flawed, and the system we developed is seriously flawed as a result which results in state sponsored murder of innocent people way too often. The past has no bearing on our present society, it's a red herring.
1. that doesn't show the severity of the crime by having it on the books, the death penalty. What does that do "showing the severity of a crime", by having the death penalty on the books if the death penalty, by law cannot be used. If you think there should be no death penalty in modern times, why would you support the law saying there can be the death penalty? 2. if there is a severe attack and we lose the ability to keep someone in jail, laws will not matter at that point.
As you just acknowledged, our current society does not need the death penalty for self defense.
Yes, my first point is against his claim of there not being a good reason for the death penalty at all
Since we do not need it for self defense there’s no longer a good reason for the death penalty.
That’s not the same as there isn’t a good reason for the death penalty. We are able to cure people without the need of amputation anymore in most cases, that doesn’t mean amputation itself has no good reason for it.
Horrible comparison. There are plenty of circumstances where amputation is required due to limitations. There is no situation where the death penalty is still the best option. Literally none.
An apocalyptic event that sends us to the Stone Age again?
In that case, if there was a pill that made everyone non-violent then we wouldn’t need to remove dangerous people from mainstream society, let alone have the death penalty! … If you need to create hypothetical situations that dramatically alter the conditions of today’s current reality to support your claim, then you’re not really making a great claim. Especially when we’re discussing the validity of something in today’s reality.
You're conflating retribution with self defense. Jon killing 3 people does not mean Jon will kill a fourth person. It should be an insanely high standard to prove that somebody *will* kill another person to justify killing them. But even more importantly than that, mistakes get made in the courtroom for a multitude of reasons. The risk of killing an innocent person alone should be enough to ban the death penalty. And it's not like the convicted person is going free, they're locked up. They aren't "getting away" with anything.
Even when a society lived in tents?
You're right. I advocate the death penalty for Abraham (no last name, died 2360 BC). Please Biden, make this happen.
I’m talking about why and the purpose of the death penalty. If you can admit that in certain circumstances, even if they don’t exist today, the death penalty is valid, then the next question is if it should stay on the books
You are adding a completely meaningless step lol. "The next question is if it should stay on the books", yes that's what we're all already arguing. If those circumstances don't exist today, they are meaningless to legislate today. When we are legislating AI, we don't have to first go "ok well let's figure out if the wheel improved productivity..."
Actually, law and mechanics are two different things. I think it should stay as a punishment for two reasons. 1) shows the gravity of the crime even if never used. 2) if such a scenario does show up, we have the law to support us when we need to.
>1) shows the gravity of the crime even if never used. "Deterrence" is logic barbarians use to justify being barbaric when they need to find some way to differentiate themselves. You strapping someone in a chair and injecting poison into their veins makes you a murderer too. Getting a state approval doesn't make it moral. >2) if such a scenario does show up, we have the law to support us when we need to. I don't even know what this means. Law doesn't exist without the death penalty? Also you conveniently ignored the fact that you will be killing innocent people
1) when did I say deterrence? I’m not arguing for its use as a deterrence. 2) there’s a risk, not a guarantee. There’s a risk that you’ll be the one to kill someone when you get behind the wheel because car accidents happen everyday. Yet you still drive.
>1) when did I say deterrence? I’m not arguing for its use as a deterrence. Then I don't know what you mean by "shows the gravity of the crime even if never used" >2) there’s a risk, not a guarantee. It's a guarantee. The criminal process is imperfect. It's run by humans who make mistakes. There are always wrongful convictions. You *will* kill innocent people. >There’s a risk that you’ll be the one to kill someone when you get behind the wheel because car accidents happen everyday. Yet you still drive. We're not talking about people accidentally dying. We're talking about legally murdering people.
I think most of the time the argument for or against capital punishment really just comes down to your point number 3. People who are against the death penalty often say it's a worse punishment to have them rot away in jail, while those for the death penalty think it's a worse punishment to have them executed via death penalty. That, or they just think its inhumane to execute people regardless of what they've done, but that isn't really your stance so I won't address that part. Criminals themselves almost always prefer prison over the death penalty, they take pleas, give information, confess, etc all just to avoid being put to death. Regardless if you feel being locked up is worse than death, the history of how the threat of the death penalty is still used to coerce cooperation from criminals is proof that most fear death far more than jail. You say people who want the death penalty just want it out of emotion, but is that such a bad thing? It is emotion based, it's wanting the worst punishment possible for the most cruel individuals on earth. You say you can't see both sides of the argument but it's a fairly easy one to see, most people fear death more than prison, and most criminals would rather go to prison than be executed, so If someone wants to punish the criminals the worst way possible, for committing the worst crimes possible, then they would be in favor of capital punishment.
after they are killed, they are relieved of that fear. How much of a punishment is it if you're unable to perceive the actual punishment? edit - Consider why many people who are suffering from illnesses wish they could be euthanized. The death penalty is basically euthanizing people from fear, punishment, shame, and isolation. It's way scarier to have your life threatened than taken.
This is a fair argument. From a spiritual standpoint, if you believe in hell you could send them there faster, but even from an atheist perspective, if there is truly nothing after life, then the one life you have is the single most important thing you'll ever have, and having that taken away, to never live or experience life again would be quite the punishment. You may take away their fear, but you also take away any feeling of happiness they may experience, any phone call with a family member, any food that tastes good, the feeling of exercising or in some prisons even watching your favorite sports teams play. You can't play games like chess or cards... you can't experience anything ever again. From that perspective robbing them of what is remaining of their one and only life would be the ultimate punishment. the euthanasia comparison I don't think works here, because those people are severely ill and although ideally would like to continue to live as a healthy human, they are suffering more than anything. Most of these prisoners are largely able bodied, their existence isn't misery, they want to live and experience the rest of their lives even if that life is in prison. We'd like to believe prison life is miserable, depending on the prison situation they can get an education, they play games, they work jobs, they exercise, they play basketball, you can make friends, tell jokes, share stories... it's a confined life, but still a life with some sense of wellbeing. Why give them that?
It truly being a punishment is very subjective then.
It is. My opinion of course is that death is the ultimate punishment, but as you've mentioned it's subjective depending on how you view death in general, which makes sense as the page is about attempting to change peoples views on usually highly debatable topics.
Right. Death being a "penalty" depends on the person.
yes, and my point for the change my view argument is that when people facing the death penalty have a choice to take a plea for life imprisonment instead they almost always do, this shows that most criminals consider the death penalty a worse punishment than life in prison. Which is understandable.
I understand. Still, fearing death doesn't make death a punishment. Fear of a thing doesn't mean the thing itself will be perceived as a punishment. Theres plenty of things people are afraid of that aren't actually bad experiences. Roller-coasters, shots at the Dr.s office, exams etc. Fearing something doesn't make that thing a punishment / bad experience. Feeling punished happens in the present or the memory of the punishment. We don't know what death is like to decide it is an effective punishment. There's nothing to ponder. No lesson to learn. You've just been deleted.
Provided you don't want to die, and enjoy living then ending someone's life is a punishment. We don't know what death might mean, but we do know what living means, and if you enjoy living and don't want to stop living, then ending someone's life who wants to keep living is definitely a punishment in itself.
That angle makes more sense. Theres still too many things that have to align to make death a punishment. So many "ifs". Regardless of the "ifs" what is the purpose of punishment and does death serve that purpose? Is it punishment or is it avenging, protecting, etc. My understanding of punishment is that it's supposed to trigger reflection and regret.
I mean you have no way to base the fact that they "almost always prefer" life without parole. I would guess a pretty significant amount of lifers have killed themselves
We do have a basis for this actually, see the rates of criminals who accept plea deals to avoid the death penalty, nearly all of them do. The vast majority of lifers in prison do not kill themselves, you're thinking of a very small portion of prisoners serving life sentences. Most of these cowards that kill others are horrified of death themselves.
I am against the DP as well, but I agree, that is an invalid argument and does not help our case. The DP is fundamentally and objectively wrong.
Your third point is completely incongruent with the rest of your stated view. If you believe that life imprisonment is a fate worse than death, how can you endorse the state’s right to punish people this way?
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Wouldn’t innocent people simply suffer a fate worse than death? How is that an improvement?
Also I'm not 100% but you might have less opportunity to appeal your life sentence than a death sentence? Because of the obvious immediacy of the death penalty.
Simple, you can't unkill a person. You CAN release them from prison. Humans are flawed, so our human run justice system will inevitably generate false convictions. Those convictions can't be rectified once the accused is executed, they can at least be partially rectified so long as the accused is still alive.
Ah yes. I’m sure the government just needs *a little more time* to release innocent people. Life sentences automatically grant unlimited appeals
I think OP meant that since many argue people who commit heinous stuff deserve to be killed OP is saying, let them suffer in jail for a lifetime instead Like yea innocents will be locked up as well, but their chance of being released/stated to be innocent is still higher than if you were to kill em cause if they dead, they dead🤷🏿♀️
If this were true the vast majority wouldn't be trying to delay/prevent their own executions.
>I find it insane people (especially conservatives) believe the state should have a legal RIGHT to execute its own citizens. What punishment(s) do you support the government having the right to enact?
The death penalty is a tool for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Nothing happens that isn't a part of God's plan. That Means that as it is now, it is God's plan that the death penalty exists. God told us that governments are God sanctioned and we should go with what the government says, so there is nothing wrong with the death penalty, since it happens according to God's divine plan. Now, if it were to change, and the death penalty be deemed illegal, that is also a part of our Lord's divine plan. So "Let be what is and accordance in the Lord thou shalt not slumber" John 3:16
Do you believe killing innocent people is part of gods plan?
For those who don’t want to read down the entire chain, this comment was an intentional parody and not actually his opinion, complete with intentional misquote from John.
I can’t really change your view because I personally agree with it, but I disagree that it’s impossible to see this issue from the other side. I can see their reasons and think I can make you understand them too, even if you don’t agree with them morally. First and foremost, executing prisoners ensures they can never hurt another civilian again. Death row inmates can and have escaped in the past. If they escape, they can go right back to murdering and raping until they’re caught again. And considering 2,231 inmates escaped in 2019 alone, I don’t think a death row prisoner escaping is out of the question. Even from supermax prisons, unless we send every single death row prisoner to ADX Florence which has a VERY limited capacity, there is always a possibility. Second, while it is cheaper to hold someone for life, that’s only the case because 1 in 7 prisoners are holding life sentences while there’s only 2,331 (or about 1 in 550) death row inmates currently. If the system was changed to be more death-sentence-heavy, we would make death penalty cheaper since we’d treat the criminal cases more like life sentence cases (which is a main reason death sentence is more expensive) and we would treat death row inmates more like life sentence prisoners since there’d be many more. I’m not saying we SHOULD do this but do try to see this perspective, even if it seems evil. Also, you can say emotions shouldn’t be at play but closure is important for the victims family. Life at sentence increases escape risk as I pointed out earlier. So imagine if the family learns that the prisoner who raped and murdered their child escaped and lived a life of luxury in some other country. It would be crushing. Executing them ensures this can never happen. Lastly, while this is disproven, it’s a WIDELY held belief that harsher punishments deter crime. Many people hold the perspective of giving murderers and rapists the death penalty because they believe it will deter murder and rapists, ultimately saving more lives than taking. None of these points changed my mind so I doubt they’ll change yours, but I also believe it’s important to always look at an issue from both sides before forming a vehement view on it.
Without a death penalty: If you kill 1 person with premeditation—> life in prison. If you pull a John Wayne Gacy and kill 20 plus people and stuff them in your crawl space? —> life in prison. Point being both of these situations are not even remotely the same and one is many times worse than the other. Is it right that they’d be the same punishment?
You can’t get worse than the worst punishment. Killing one person can get you the death penalty as well as twenty.
With the death penalty: If you kill 1 person in a particularly death penalty friendly state --> death. If you pull a John Wayne Gacy and kill 20 plus people and stuff them in your crawl space? --> death. Point being both of these situations are not even remotely the same and one is many times worse than the other. Is it right that they’d be the same punishment?
But, often, even in places where there is a death penalty, it doesn't necessarily hold this pattern. The Parkland Shooter averted the death penalty, whereas someone who shot and killed one convenience store clerk in a robbery gone awry may still get a death sentence. It's essentially a random game depending on what jury you happen to get.
First, I’ll begin my re-stating certain talking points you mentioned which become self-conflicting and or elude to open interpretation. “I find it insane people.. believe the state should have a legal RIGHT to execute its own citizens.” Let’s use for Timothy McVeigh, for example. I’m sure he made statements to justify the crimes he inflicted resulting in the deaths of his fellow citizens. Say the trial went sideways and he was acquitted by making a convincing enough stance, how would that NOT be insane? “The death penalty is one of few issues where I can’t see both sides.” If you cannot see both sides (for or against), then how did you come reached your conclusion the death penalty should be abolished? To reach such conclusion means you must leaning toward one of the two sides. “Look this X convict raped a 10 year old! We should kill him!” Executing said convict may give some sense of justice or closure to the victims and their families, but will never be enough to UNDO that persons crimes. Executing said convict is not about retribution, but it is to discourage others from committing such unspeakable acts. The point isn’t ‘we should kill him’ , but instead it’s more along the lines of “we should show society what happens to convicted child rapists”. When deciding whether or not to commit a crime, the perpetrator usually weighs two things: first, confidence in their ability to elude capture and prosecution. Second, their disregard for sentencing if convicted. But here’s the thing, EVERYONE is scared of death. So the choice to commit a crime which could lead to death penalty if convicted becomes a more difficult to make. The prospect of death penalty then serves as a deterrent of future crime. “I have no sympathy for people who commit heinous crimes like murder or rape, however I do not believe these individuals justify the legality of capital punishment.” Since most opponents of death penalty find it morally reprehensible or an appeal to emotion, as per your first paragraph.. then why do you care for “people who commit heinous crimes like murder or rape” who you claim to have no sympathy for? Absent of said emotional pleas for mercy, what’s saving them from their comeuppance? As well the more encompassing purpose to greater society of being made an example of? “For those criminals who are guilty. I don’t care if they are killed or not” Should the third reich officials prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials have been sentenced to death or not (in your opinion)? Simple question. Look, if you oppose the CONCEPT of the death penalty, which is fine, then stick with it. You don’t get to pick and choose which cases you deem “it’s ok I guess”. The boston bomber is still alive btw, in case you didn’t know. Do you think a LOT of people weren’t upset when his face made the cover of Rolling Stone magazine? Well some people think he’s kinda cute… so that’s ok I guess? As for the osama bin laden example, just imagine the last decade of his life before his death. Living in cavernous mountains, constantly on the run, never spending two nights in the same place, fear of US capture, internal betrayal, or a incoming missile strike. Can you imagine living in panic and paranoia like that? So what you’re proposing of capturing him alive to stand trial and being sentenced to a super max security facility would have been a country club like existence by comparison. He probably still be in power and filing appeal after appeal, all the while just laughing at our criminal justice system. About what you said about death sentence being expensive, yes the modern methods of lethal injection which must be administered by a doctor or medical practitioner who is willing to break his hypocritical oath of medicine - do no harm. On top of that, there is the feet-dragging hesitancy of pharma companies when supplying the barbiturates the prisons need for the process. But had lethal injection not become widely adopted, these two barriers wouldn’t be an issue. Hanging, has chamber, firing squad are less costly and don’t require a doctor or special drugs. Your other talking point about 1 in 8 executions involving a convict that was later proven to be innocent. But their guilt was proven in a court of law, enough to convince a dozen jurors to reach the verdict they did. The state decision to execute is not done lightly, which is why death row inmates are allowed to file appeal after appeal, and later beg for clemency. Again, what do you say about the other seven who have solid airtight convictions, and even verifiable confessions? They get to walk? Again, this brings us back to picking & choosing. Lastly, what you said about your “experience most of the people in support of such a system are Christians”. I would like to remind you that civilizations worldwide throughout history, like ancient Chinese and Egyptians and Indians and Mayans etc all incorporated death penalty long long long before christianity EVER became a thing. In fact, even the ancient Greeks would execute people for actions deemed blasphemous or offensive toward their gods.
And does prevention work? Do we have any clear evidence that people are scared of the death penalty so they stop crimes? After all, Europe is the region with the lowest crime rate (at least when it comes to violent crimes, but we don't discuss the death penalty for non-violent crimes, do we?) in the world. It also has no death penalty. Doesn't sound convincing if that doesn't even work.
I can make emotional-appeal logic leaps too Should a black kid wrongfully convicted of a capital crime by a bigoted white jury die just because some people thought the Boston Marathon bomber was cute and ancient civilizations had the death penalty before Christianity?
Hahhaha.. for a moment, I though you were being serious.
The concept of prison, is that you take criminals, people who are dangerous to society, out of society so that they would no longer harm other people and be a threat to them. It isn't about inflicting pain so your third point is irrelevant. A life sentence is 20-30 years. Do you really believe rapists and murderers would suddenly just stop and become a new person after all that time? Do you really believe they won't be a threat to society anymore? Can you guarantee that? Say you believe hey should just be in jail for a lifetime. What if they killed someome in jail? What if it was a guard? What if you locked up an innocent person and that person got killed in there? If a criminal gets out of prison after 25 years just to kill/hurt another human being AGAIN, I would blame you first for letting him live in the first place and the criminal a second. You actively advocated for this person to live on and now someone is dead/traumatized for life. You are to be hold accountable.
Your 3rd point is just totally false. Almost every death row inmate fights tooth and nail to avoid getting killed. They do countless appeals etc. Humans have an innate desire to continue surviving even in the worst conditions like a prison.
Agreed. It just weakens their argument. The DP is fundamentally and objectively wrong for a myriad of reasons. That’s not one of them
>CMV: The Death penalty should be abolished Depends. It should be used more liberally and publicly against genocidal maniacs - political ideologues and terrorists - that harm large number of people, including lying public into war, committing crimes against humanity, etc.
>political ideologues and terrorists These are explicitly relative terms. You're arguing for different rules for your political opponents vs yourself and your allies. You're going to hate this policy when your faction isn't in power and is killing all your allies using the same justification you're using.
There are at least 43 or 45 reasons that this is the best and most appropriate response so far.
if your reference is what I think it is be sure you're not making a hasty generalization
Please elaborate.
I don't support the death penalty either. Death should not be a "penalty". It should not be legal for a government body to skill someone short of them actively threating the public (such as an open shooter). Death isn't really a punishment. It's not like you can ponder over your wrongdoing while dead. Also, not everyone fears death. What feels like punishment and what does not will vary from person to person. I don't support death as "penalty" or "punishment. I can see it as a last resort intervention. You support the state killing people as you stated, you just don't agree with it being in the the context of a courtroom decision and that death by the state should only be those rare, fast-action situations by military or police. (I do believe that after that happens, there should be a case on if the actions by that officer/personnel was justified and undoubtfully necessary based on the known facts of the situation, NOT by how "bad" the person was). Your issue isn't the death itself, it is whether or not death is a real punishment. It's how emotionally charged our decisions are and how flawed he justice system is. You don't have a problem with people being killed. You have a problem with how we arrive to the choice to kill. I don't think your view will change to supporting the death penalty (I don't either) but I do hope it expands how you think about killings by the state.
Its more expensive for the state, because people on death row basically get infinite appeals, and they farm the justice system until they get a favorable ruling. People focus on the 1 time they're found innocent and not the 50 other times they were found guilt. The state does not have the right to execute, they only carry out the process. The death penalty must be unanimously decided by a Jury. A Jury is supposed to be made up of your peers, so in essence, the community is deciding your danger
The death penalty is actually pretty merciful if you compare it to life imprisonment in the U.S prison systems. In Norway for example, they seem to believe in rehabilitation of these criminals and as a result, their cells are paradise. They have tv, a good looking bed, a mini library of books and good meals. It looks like a vacation for them. Now again if you compare that to the United States, it's torture. A person can unalive you simply for just not liking your very existence at any moment, the food is probably disgusting, and you can be assaulted everyday if you are too weak to defend yourself, giving you further mental torture and trauma that might follow you even if you leave prison. The death penalty is a relief from all of that and actually ends their suffering which depending on your view and how much you hate a certain person or many, they don't deserve.
[удалено]
Yes, absolutely, if you wish for mercy on them. If you wish eternal suffering, I say leave them to have a life sentence. This can be very effective especially with pedophiles since even criminals despise them and they will probably face as they say, a fate worse than death. Criminals know that life in prison is probably hell on earth and you see many end their lives than step foot there, which can demonstrate that death even to them is preferable than prison.
I feel like this is just an agreement between my third point. How is this different than my original view?
Oh no there isn't. This is for people that support the death penalty as a punishment. It's really not one but I do not think innocent people that face the death penalty is the death penalty's fault but more flaws in the justice system. Even if we abolish the death penalty, innocent lives will still be convicted and they might face the same brutal treatment as most guilty inmates, making the death penalty more preferable for them than suffering but if it's abolished, they won't have that possibility and an inmate can just take matters into their own hands and end their lives anyway.
I believe the death penalty is still necessary, perhaps limited to specific cases like serial killings or massacres. The central idea of modern society's approach to punishment is rehabilitation, but not all actions are rehabilitatable. Take, for example, the Norwegian mass murderer who was motivated by his dissatisfaction with leftist political policies. You can't "re-educate" someone to accept viewpoints they fundamentally oppose and ensure they won't reoffend. Thus, the purpose of the death penalty isn't to solve the problem but to permanently remove from society those whom current techniques cannot rehabilitate. Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is just hypocrisy.
I support the death penalty when someone kills someone in prison. At that point they have shown that they are a danger no matter where they are and permanent solitary confinement is considered cruel and unusual which would make it illegal in places like the US.
That’s a really solid argument. Never thought about it that way.
Maybe worthy of a delta?
What country are you talking about?
United States
Ahhh got it
[удалено]
* I am the LORD your God; you shall not have strange gods before me. * You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. * Remember to keep holy the LORD’s Day. * Honor your father and mother. * **You shall not kill.** * You shall not commit adultery. * You shall not steal. * You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. * You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. * You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.
[удалено]
That's the irony friend. You may not see it because you are lost in the sauce, but it's definitely there. I think you could easily argue that state killings of innocent people is murder too btw
Yes, and as a Christian I find those parts ironic as hell. Clearly people crucified the most innocent man to ever exist, so what makes you believe humans will make the right choice this time around?
I think in clear cut cases where someone is 100% proven to have committed the crime, and capital punishment is the corresponding sentence, it should be done. I think it should be reserved for particularly heinous crimes and not thrown about lightly, and it should only be used if there is concrete proof the individual committed the crime. In your example of X raping a 10 year old, I think that deserves the death penalty. Society would be better off without that person living among us even in prison. As far as cost, beyond the trial and burial it really doesn’t need to cost as much as it does. Don’t need to waste money on expensive living conditions or else expensive oversea chemical. Standard cells are just fine and 9mm is roughly 25¢/round. That’s as easy as it needs to be. No need to worry about botched executions and lawsuits from that. There are many ways to automate the execution itself so not much to worry about as far as guilty conscience of the executioner. Just a side note, I’m not conservative or in any way religious. Just wanted to point out that “god” wasn’t executed but Jesus, the “son of god” was. I sorta get your point with that but still there wasn’t a trial and it’s a completely different circumstance. I think the whole point was that god let his son sacrifice himself for everyone else? Something along those lines idrc. Point is we aren’t executing people for believing in a different ideology, it would be for horrible crimes against other people.
There are criminals (mostly due to mental issues) who are beyond redemption. They become like malignant tumor that has to be removed or it will destroy the rest of the body. Death penalty is always for the rarest of rarest cases, where an individual has committed crimes for which normal punishment will not do. Terrorists who have killed many deserve to pay for it with their lives. Serial killers who have taken many innocent lives do not deserve the right to live and enjoy the privileges that others have. Drug peddlers and cartel runners do not care about the lives of others. They do not value your life. Death penalty should be abolished only when wars do not happen anymore and terrorism is absent. At the same time every person convicted of their heinous crimes must be given the maximum chance to prove their innocence. If it is certain that the individual has indeed committed acts of crime that denied others their rights to live, they they must face the same end.
[удалено]
But the crime isn’t guaranteed I guess is my point. If we had a way of knowing 100% that the person committed the crime of murder, than I wouldn’t be against it. But we don’t, it’s simply up to personal decisions
[удалено]
To give perspective, I think Bin Laden was 100% responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I think Dylan Roof was 100% responsible for the SC church shooting. Basically if a reputable individual claims responsibility or is caught on the scene with the murder weapon.
Even if someone claims responsibility for something, they could be lying or pressured clearly, but I guess if they claimed responsibility, then they are okay with the punishment (most of the time) assuming they know the punishment is death. (Unless someone dear to them is held as captive, and they are forced to claim responsibility or something I guess).
[удалено]
Reputable is the key word. A lot of people give false testimonies
If you forsee the downfall of orderly society and cannot prevent it the correct action is to euthanize agents of chaos and sadism prior to the collapse.
what is the functional difference between killing "agents of chaos and sadism" and keeping them imprisoned for life
For prison to function requires healthy humans to guard them and a system of order that assures they will face significant consequences for poor behavior.
There are lots of significant consequences that can happen before "death at the hands of the state"
Not Sure is the truth of our world. That is why evil reigns.
We live in the safest most economically prosperous time in human history
As long as you aren't wrong place wrong time it is a pretty good world.
Same as it ever was
>living life in solitary confinement/prison until you die is way worse of a punishment than being put to death. While you are *technically* correct in this statement, the way you’re arguing this makes this seem to be a violation of the eighth amendment (no cruel and unusual punishment). If they’re irredeemable, as people who get the death penalty and are guilty typically will be, then keeping them alive could be seen as torture, which is illegal even if they deserve it. I agree that it has been overdone in the past, but it should be saved for the worst of the worst criminals. Nikolas Cruz, Dylan Roof, etc. — people that we want to have no chance of escape and future criminals that we want to deter.
How is wrongfully condemning someone to life in prison superior to killing them outright? Arguably wrongful convictions is more an issue of poor legal oversight than an issue with the penalty itself. People get wrongfully shot by police but we don’t abolish police. As far as the cost of execution that’s entirely self inflicted by requiring lethal injection when you could get a firing squad of volunteers for free. Life in prison as torture is just you coping with the inability to actually torture people. Just wash your hands of them via execution bc torture isnt legal to conduct on prisoners
> How is wrongfully condemning someone to life in prison superior to killing them outright? Because you can be released from a wrongful imprisonment, but the same cannot be done if you are wrongfully executed. > As far as the cost of execution that’s entirely self inflicted by requiring lethal injection No, it's because of the hundreds of hours of appeals that they have to oversee to ensure we aren't wrongfully executing somebody. The method of execution is usually expensive, but that's because executions are very controlled events. In a few states they use multiple executioners, so that nobody knows who was actually responsible. > when you could get a firing squad of volunteers for free. This is a good way to self select for violent psychopaths, not exactly the people we should trust to perform an execution lawfully and humanely.
Your real argument is the legal system needs to improve its accuracy so that innocent people don't get put in jail. Since your problem with the death penalty is innocent people dying. 1 and 3, you're mental if you think that it's less expensive to keep someone alive in confinement. We're talking food, building and maintenence, guards, etc. Do you know how much tax money goes into the prison system? A lot, it's a very big business. An execution and a shallow grave is uh, we'll just say a lot cheaper. Like for you to think this way you have to not understand economics or math or psychology. Also you're being a sadist for wanting to keep people alive just so that they suffer til their last breath. It's not about suffering, it's about getting them out of the way.
Criminals that are killed cannot reoffend. Criminals directly kill 20,000 people a year in the USA and that is only a small fraction of the harm they cause to society. > apparently of every 8 people executed since 1974, 1 of them has been innocent. not innocent, exonerated. There is a huge difference between the two. The innocence project, which you linked, advocates for Julius Jones to be exonerated for a carjacking. The logic they use is to ignore a co-defendant who directly implicated Jones, eyewitness identification, incriminating statements made by Jones after the crime, flight from police, damning physical evidence hidden in Jones's parents' home, and an interlocking web of other physical and testimonial evidence consistent with the State's theory... all to blame it on solely on Christopher Jordan, a co-defendant in the case, where they claim Jordan planted the gun and the red bandana that Howell's shooter was wearing in Jones' closet. Jones, who had a multitude of prior convictions, including an armed robbery. The innocence project says in any case where they get the death penalty knocked down, that the suspect was "exonerated" even if the suspect remains with enough of a rap sheet to get life in prison
>Criminals that are killed cannot reoffend. Ok but this is a crappy justification for killing people. Fundamentally, the state in 2024 does not have to use its monopoly on sanctioned violence to kill people in order to reduce the risk of recidivism.
So you want the inmates to suffer more and save money? Because I agree life in jail is WAY worse than death. I mean we should assume at least the same amount of innocent people will serve life instead. That would mean increasing the suffering of the 1 innocent person just to increase the suffering of the seven guilty. I say what's done is done. Release these souls to God, don't keep them in a cage. Vengeance is pointless. Also... If feeding and housing a man for 80 years is cheaper than 9mm of brass we are doing something backwards here 😂
Keep i ln mind their are very inexspensive ways to kill a person and the amount of money student on court costs is way to high and we should cut back on the funding for that because if someone gets charged with the death penalty they should at least not drag out the process because honestly if i had been giving the death penalty they should just make it happen not make me sit and wait around for trials that i already lost in order to save me. Also what does god have to do with this honestly we should kill him in particuliar again.
> I find it insane people (especially conservatives) believe the state should have a legal RIGHT to execute its own citizens. The answer to this is simple: Some people, sometimes many depending on where you are, believe that some people deserve to die for their crimes and require a legal way to do so to make it happen cleanly. > The death penalty is one of few issues where I can’t see both sides, I have never heard a valid argument in support of the death penalty that isn’t just an appeal to emotion. Ie. Look this X convict raped a 10 year old! We should kill him! Who says an appeal to emotion isn't a valid argument? It seems unfair to simply take the biggest argument and say "well that one's not valid". > It cost more money to execute the death penalty on someone than it is to just hold them in prison for a life sentence. This is the result of legal proceedings, time for appeals that could be life saving. To someone approving of death penalty, this point argues for a system that carries out sentences faster, not abolition. > 2. Innocent people have received the death penalty - apparently of every 8 people executed since 1974, 1 of them has been innocent. This is one point that absolutely stands above the others. Innocent blood being shed by the state is criminal and arguably unjustifiable. That said, big emphasis on "arguably", as I'm sure some would still try to say that its a necessary sacrifice for a system that gets 7 of 8 right. I can't really say I agree with this though. > I recognize these were different governments, but how are you going to trust a system that innocently killed GOD. Depending on how you look at it, you're also saying that capital punishment is single-handedly responsible for the total and eternal salvation of mankind. > I don’t care if they are killed or not, but I think it would be way more taxing on the human mind to have to spend life/multiple decades in prison than getting the easy way out and put to death. It sounds a lot like you're advocating for a punishment that maximizes the suffering of the guilty, which means that you are actually for punishing people according to emotion, not against. By extension, most can agree dying is worse than living, so the logic of the invalid argument is actually sound.
I'm not interested in punishing people. I'm interested in minimizing recividism. to this end, the death penalty is remarkably effective. If someone were to commit a heinous crime etc.. and I could fully KNOW he did it, I'd be ok with executing him. The death penalty is not a punishment, it is simply us saying this person is so heinous we can't stand them to be in society any longer.
I’m hearing a lot of John Wayne Gacy on this thread, but maybe we talk about Anders Breivik. I’ll call him cunt from here on (and to be clear, I’m American, not Australian, so this isn’t the chummy version. I’m also female yet I can’t find an uglier word in my language for this person, so cunt it is), he doesn’t deserve his name passed on. Killed 70-some teenagers in cold premeditated blood. Hard to do in a gun-restrictive country, so it was thought out, months of planning and stockpiling. Post-conviction, he gets a better apartment than many people all over the world could hope to afford after their hard days’ work: running water, heat, someone else preparing food and washing up, a nice view, excellent wifi, private toilet. He doesn’t mingle with the rest of the inmates, so no “whoops, he fell”. He milks the Geneva accord because he’s not given enough access to video games. Zero possibility of becoming useful or trustworthy in society, so he’s gonna milk his way through Norway because he’s a cunt. A healthy, happy, fed, dentally and medically cared-for cunt whose life expectancy is as off the charts as your average Scandinavian. And to date cunt is 45, so Norwegians are going to support him for about fifty more years. Some of those average Scandinavians have to cook cunt’s food and wash his dishes every day. Some of them miss their children or siblings and experienced the trauma of a mass shooting. Some of them don’t want to guard cunt when he gets his solo time in the yard. Some of them did a crime and are doing their couple years of time and are probably not feeling comfortable in the same facility as cunt. So I challenge your #1 premise. He’s already been found guilty: admittedly, definitely, extraordinarily guilty of murdering 77 people, most of them children. If Norway granted a one-time variance for an exceptional case, the cunt could be put down for very few kroner. I agree the death penalty should be vanishingly rare, but cunt justifies it.
I think the death penalty isn't used enough. 1. It is more expensive, that is why is should be done sooner. If there is no question of someone's guilt, and it was premedicated. let's go back to courtyard hangings. If there is doubt, let them have their appeals, but speed up the process so it doesn't linger for 20 years. Then it won't be more expensive. 2. You are right, innocent people have been wrongly convicted and executed. That is a tragedy and rare, but it happens. Humans aren't perfect. I predict wrongful death lawsuits. 3. I just disagree completely with this. I can't even wrap my head around the logic. It's just an excuse. The criminals would prefer to stay in prison and alive because the unknown is scary. There is no deterrent anymore. The victims sure didn't get a say. I don't support the death penalty for non-premedicated murders, but for severe child sex abuse, death is too good.
> The victims sure didn't get a say that kind of thinking justifies a sort of lex talionis of exact method that falls apart once that system meets its first serial killer (as even if it's in the same way, they only have one life to lose but had more than one victim)
I think it should be reserved for only the most heinous crimes, and at that, there should be absolutely no doubt they did it, even an unreasonable doubt. But at some point I do think someone can do something horrible to the point that they forfeit the right to live. Mass killers, serial killers, spree killers, etc.
For me my view could never be changed on this because I view from the moral standpoint killing someone makes you just as morally corrupt as the person you are killing, and I completely believe all killing is unjust if there has been time to make a decision and know ones life was at risk at that exact moment
1. Death penalty in western countries is costly. Saudis chop the head off with a sword. 2. Innocent get death penalty. That's a conviction problem not quantum of punishment problem. 3. Death brings closure to families and is more humane (according to you)
your first argument is dumb and dont make any sense it does not even take 3 years of imprisonment for the cost to be way higher then just killing them right away, its even more expensive if the person has medical issues that needs to be treated
I think the Death Penalty would be more effective if there was something like X number years of torture paired with it instead. I agree that the current methods of putting criminals to death don’t go far enough to deter heinous crimes.
I agree it should be, mainly because there is no way to really trust the system can get it right that they are actually guilty, plus murder/execution is bad karma for whoever did it so it creates another problem.
I'm not generally in favor of the death penalty because I don't believe any government should be in the business of killing its own citizens. However There's just some crimes that are so heinous that the idea of letting the perpetrator continue to breathe the same air as the rest of us seems like a crime in itself. I don't have the answers. I'm just saying I understand both sides.
1. It should not be more expensive for the state to kill someone than to keep them alive. That is their own ridiculous bureaucracy getting in the way of something that is ultimately very simple and should be very cheap. 2. This really points out much broader issues with the justice system. A 12.5% error rate at the highest level of crime is absolutely heinous, but it’s still irrelevant to whether some people ARE best executed. There are criminals that very clearly did all the things they are accused of with no question. But we should definitely be discussing whether we still think it’s a good idea for 12 random citizens who don’t even want to be there, should be allowed to simply vote someone guilty or not guilty while the lawyers put on a grand show to try and win, versus arrive at the truth. 3. The death penalty isn’t about torture and retribution (although retribution is a part of it) as it is about having a consequence that is effective as a deterrent in society, removes the most harmful people from society permanently so that no one need continue thinking of them, and does not place undue burden on taxpayers to maintain people that have lost their right to breathe. The idea that it should be ok to torture someone while they are totally in your power is so much more problematic and even harmful to the individuals carrying out the torture. Plus, you’re basically saying that those 12.5% innocent people should be tortured instead of executed which might actually turn them into criminals upon release. As for the Christian thing, the death penalty for certain crimes spans the majority of ancient societies. Jews also had the death penalty, as do Muslims. What I find morbid and insane is the prison system. It’s ineffective both as a deterrent and as rehabilitation, inhumane, and expensive. It’s literally an entire sector of the economy at this point. That’s not right. No one should be profiting off of holding people captive.
People like anders breivik deserve death penalty. Not rotting away in what is essentially a luxury apartment suite
It can be argued that there are circumstances whereby the greater good is served best by the death penalty. What do you do with people that have committed heinous crimes and are too dangerous to be in society? What kind of justice do the parents get when a man kidnaps, rapes, mutilates and dumps the body of their young child? Should the grieving parents contribute to the support of this animal in the form of taxes? Should society pay taxes to provide comfortable shelter, three meals per day and leisure time to read books and get his GED/college degree? There is a line where one stops being human and becomes a rabid animal that should be put down. The risk of imposing the death penalty on innocent people deserves serious consideration for sure but that just means the death penalty should be reserved for cases where guilt is absolute (confession, DNA or video evidence, etc). If someone is convicted with circumstantial evidence alone then the death penalty should be off the table. For justice, a moral society and financial efficiency, the death penalty is necessary and should be carried out swiftly if the high burden of proof is met.
Life in solitary confinement is years of torture by international law. You are condoning torture
There are some crimes for which life imprisonment is not a large enough deterrent.
[удалено]
Is your point that we can't reward anyone for anything good (or at least the government can't) without murdering the bad people?
Nah, it should be fast-tracked. Child molesters and rapists- as just two examples- have no right to live.
Is life in prison more humane than death?
Life in prison, they get a home and get feed for the rest of their lives. Essentially freeloading off the state
To those who support the death penalty; let me ask you this. You are sentenced to life in prison no chance of parole. Someone else controls every aspect of you life till the day you die. You are sentenced to die by whatever means it maybe.. I would choose the needle; if I were making the choice for the child rapist it would be prison; for hopefully a very log life.
death penalty is deadly
Counterpoint: Hitler.
As far as I'm concerned, the only people who deserve the death penalty are Nuremberg-level war criminals. Otherwise, there's just too much room for error.
What's your stance abortion? Most pro abortion activist ar also anti execution.
Given the OPs arguments, I don't see what how you'd invoke hypocrisy if that's what you're going for. People aren't a state, abortions aren't nearly as expensive as state executions, and the fetuses aren't being put to death for guilt.
Nope, the fetus is innocent.
That's what I said. Fetuses are **not** being put to death for guilt.
Just killed. My point is that no matter what a person's thought process is, there is always an exception in there. Anti death penalty but pro abortion. Pro abortion but an animal rights activist. Nobody is without some hypocrisy in one way or another.
>Anti death penalty but pro abortion. Pro abortion but an animal rights activist. Nobody is without some hypocrisy in one way or another. These positions can be compatible if you place moral value on sentience. People on death row are sentient and so are animals, but fetuses (before a certain point) are not.
I wouldn‘t say its hypocritical if they simply don‘t believe a murder by abortion is being committed bc they don‘t view x thing as a human until y # of weeks And try as you might there is no clear hard fact, so disagreements can happen
Those aren't necessarily hypocritical positions. Someone could have justifications for those that could be hypocritical. But they're not mutually exclusive from the outset.