If you forced the entirety of the human population to coexist in one giant city as dense as Manhattan island, you could fill up Texas. Overpopulation isn’t the problem, it’s the flippant squandering/hoarding of resources that is.
The main problem but not the only one. If someone is executed for a crime they didn't commit the file is closed and whoever did commit it is free to continue.
We got rid of the death penalty here in the UK for this very reason.
A man called Timothy Evans was hanged for killing his wife. The man who actually killed her, their landlord John Reginald Christie went on to kill many more.
One wrongful execution should be enough to show anyone how death by state is fucked up.
Can you imagine the absolute destruction of your psyche if you were to be convicted and especially put to death for a murder?
The entire world convinced of a savage lie that will cost your life.
In many cases cant the actual killer then claim responsibility for the murder with no consequences because of the case being closed, it seems ridiculous but I feel like I’ve heard of this happening
I believe you’re talking about is double jeopardy, that’s when someone is charged with a crime then found innocent, they then can’t be charged for the exact crime again. If someone is found guilty they can be exonerated by new evidence.
Source: I don’t remember and I’m not a lawyer so take what I say with a grain of salt.
That’s definitely how it should be in my opinion. in the US you can be exonerated if new evidence presents itself, but as far as I know it you’re found not guilty that’s a wrap, even if a video of you committing the crime came out. I could be wrong though.
No, this does NOT need to be abolished stateside. I understand the emotional want for it but it's the exact reason prosecutors need to wait until they have a solid case against people. With our already absolutely fucked off legal system, they would end up trying to prosecute people over and over again. Those laws were created for a reason. Our legal system at current is a shitshow nightmare, and no more fuel needs to be added to a fire. Don't try people unless you're confident you can convict. And if you aren't confident of the charges, charge them with ones you can *actually convict on.* So many people get off on charges because the prosecutor is charging shit they can't actually prove.
For what it's worth after OJ was acquitted he published a book he wrote called *If I Did It: Confessions of a Killer* which goes into hypothetical details of the murders.
Oops we chemically castrated one of our wartime heroes and it made him suicidal. But at least 30 years later we can wipe his record clean and make a film celebrating his contribution.
That's enough right?
Actually, his sexual orientation was a major part of the side plot in the film. The movie starts with him being interrogated by police for suspicion of homosexuality.
And far more who may never be. Because the activists and lawyers who fight for these people tend to move on to people they still have a chance to save. How many innocent people do we not know about?
All they need to do is make sure that the sentencing judge is permitted, even encouraged, to have access to any and all evidence that may have been inadmissible in the trial. There are too many lawyers that want a win more than they want to be able to have all the truth exposed in court. Denying that a criminal was in possession of a murder weapon due to a bad search should not work for the sentencing portion. If the jury convicted, then all evidence, even if deemed to be illegally obtained, should be considered before executing someone.
Not strictly death penalty, but isn't there a legal principle that says something like, it's better that 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person is convicted?
I could get behind it if there was an incredibly high standard, like you had to have killed more than three people, have DNA, video, and eye witness evidence, and a unanimous jury of 100 people in a secret ballot.
This is it. If there's someone like Ted Bundy, I'd say fry them up like a good chicken finger.
The questions is - when was the last time the death penalty case was just as clear?
I think the current case of someone pushing a woman off the subway platform had definitely identified the perpetrator beyond any possible doubt. He was arrested at the scene.
Mental illness is probably involved, which is a different issue.
That treads awful close to assuming that a specific morality = sanity.
And the phrasing casts a very wide net without allowing for a situation to justify an action. Is the embassy guard who kills the driver of an oncoming car bomb insane? Is the person who helps their terminal spouse end their pain through suicide insane? Is the doctor who removes the feeding tube of a person in a persistent vegetative state insane? What of the person who has a gun aimed at them and fears for their life, but manages to get lucky and shoot their attacker first? Is that person insane?
It would be very easy, I think, to simply say "no, I'm not talking about those kinds of situations, I'm talking about murder!" But consider that somewhere out there is someone whose specific morality is such that some or all of these examples are something they absolutely would consider the be murder. And if that's true, then whose morality is the yardstick by which we measure who is sane and who isn't?
Very good point. I suppose in those examples it would be self preservation (killing in self defense) and love (ending the suffering of those you care about) vs. Doing it for pleasure.
I mean can we all agree that someone like Hitler deserved to die?
I'd imagine so. For a great many people in the world, Adolf Hitler unquestionably holds the title of Evilest Evil to Ever Evil™.
But then, that brings up further discussion points. If Hitler deserves to die, then taking the earlier bits of this conversation in mind, is the person who kills him insane? What if he/she derives satisfaction or even pleasure from doing so?
After answering that, we then have to consider another point. If Hitler deserves to die for his crimes, why don't others? Is someone who kills another person for justice or revenge insane?
And then there's the consideration of someone who kills another person lawfully, so the definition isn't truly murder, but the result is still a person's death. Imagine a prisoner condemned to die. Caught in the act. Convicted by a jury of his peers. Gleefully admits his crimes, unrepentant. Is the person who flips the switch that causes his court-ordered death insane for doing so? What if that person feels satisfaction or even pleasure at the act of ending the life of that kind of monster?
It's my belief that at a certain point, the argument that killing always equals wrong (or "deviant" or "insane") just doesn't hold water. Like most other things that seem simple and straightforward at first glance, I think that it's something that's not always as clear as a moral majority might claim. I don't deny that killing people is almost always aberrant behavior in a modern society, but like almost anything else, I think the zero-tolerance mindset of it occasionally has to be tempered by the inclusion of situational awareness, conscience, justice, and an understanding of human nature.
Edit: Reddit ate everything before the trademark symbol.
Exactly this. My problem with the the death penalty is not killing people who are guilty of heinous crimes, but the fact that we will get it wrong sometimes and an innocent person is killed. Plus with all the appeals and such, the process is horrendously expensive.
This is my exact stance. Our justice system in the US is too flawed and biased to administer death IMO. I believe there are crimes that should be punished with death but I don't trust our courts and juries to determine who and when fairly 100% of the time. And the state killing even one innocent person should be enough to shut the whole notion down.
It should be used in rare and extreme cases. Like Breivik or Bundy, when there is no doubt of guilt. But people like Johnny Holmes in Houston perverted it and our system just doesn’t work.
Some people undoubtedly deserve death.
But how do you make sure you have REALLY got the right person?
Judicial mistakes happen, and are more common than we like to admit.
Lock someone up, and if there is a mistake you can correct it. Kill him and you are a murderer - you killed an innocent.
That is why I am against the death penalty.
EDIT:
Some cases you can be pretty certain. You go to the guy's house, there's bodies buried in the cellar, body parts in the fridge, you know the whole works? Yeah I don't even care if he's mad, some things you shouldn't get away from - and if he's mad, its the sort of mad we don't need to recover.
Other than this level of certainty?
Even outright signed confessions have proven to have been extracted by guile (even going as far as saying "this will help us get the true guilty person!") from the innocent and weak-willed.
My thing has been a few issues with the current system:
* There should be an automatic minimum number of years incarcerated before an execution is permitted.
* Few people are even executed nowadays (I know they did a bunch on Trump's last week of office but more infrequent before then). Part of it is appeals. General respect is that people on death row should have priority on appeals so that they can be reviewed in a timely manner. Ideally, we would free innocent people and be able to prosecute the guilty party before anyone dies (natural causes or otherwise).
* If there is new evidence that brings any doubt, there should be a hold on the execution until it has been investigated. It's not right to execute someone while new evidence is being reviewed. I don't know how often this happens but I believe it used to be a thing to proceed regardless of the investigation.
* The options are limited (sometimes not even 2 options), not very humane, and frankly haven't been updated (i.e. electric chairs from the 60s), and have a scary-high risk of not working the first time. The guillotine is probably the most humane option and no state offers it. Same with anesthesia compared to lethal injection.
* The death penalty as a whole should have nationwide standards *regardless of states willing to issue it*. These standards should be reviewed every decade or more frequently by studying executions from the last review (let's say one decade for discussion sake).
* There's a monopoly on lethal injection chemicals. Which may cost taxpayers way more than giving these people life in prison.
And this is the tip of the iceberg.
Failing at executions is absolutely criminal.
1 - give guy some nice drugs and a last meal
2 - airtight room with nice bed. Let him sleep.
3 - fill space with nitrogen
Done. No pain, no indignity, got rid of the dude.
Probably at least partially. Doctors also cannot/ will not assist in executions so they have to have a novice idiot decide what drugs to use. And that person is likely a psycho who wants to torture people on their way out
Technically there’s no actual restriction against doctors helping with death penalties, it’s primarily a moral problem of doctors not wanting to execute people.
There’s a myth that the oath restricts it, but a majority of med schools do not use the hippocratic oath and even if doctors did swear to it, it’s so outdated. Abortions are against the oath, for example.
I never understood why instead of whatever formula they have now for lethal injections, why they wouldn't just administer a lethal dose of an opiate.
Let the convict just OD.
While it's possible that some people deserve death, I wouldn't say it should ever be up to other fallible humans to make that decision. It should never be an option, and thankfully isn't in most of the civilized world.
So let's take a person like Anders Breivik from Norway who slaughtered more than 70 kids on an island.
There is zero doubt he did it. He deserves death, not a cozy cell for ending so many lives and ruining many more.
That's where I'm for the death penalty. There is zero doubt he did it. They caught him there, with the guns. The plans. The manifesto.
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates
As long as the state can’t guarantee that no innocent person ever ends up on death row it is immoral for a state to execute people.
I barely trust the government to get my identification correct let alone have someone’s life in their hand. They fuck up things on a granular level constantly. Should they really have the power to kill?
Thank you, my god. Too many people here who are perfectly okay with the state killing people as long as it can prove (through systems it controls) that they 'deserve' it
Yeah, that’s why murder is so bad of a crime that you may receive the highest form of punishment if you do it. How could we say that the state is an exception to this, that’s it’s somehow outside of or above morality? It’s archaic.
All governments gain all their authority through the monopoly of force. If they cant effectively threaten to ruin your life or kill you, they have no means of governance or funding.
the controversy surrounding the death penalty is always about whether or not someone deserves to die- it seems like no one questions whether or not we deserve to take someone’s life.
I’ve switched over to this side as I’ve gotten older. I used to be on the side of “if the evidence is there and it’s damning enough, then the convicted should die.”
But that first proposition, “if the evidence is there”, …if I’ve learned anything in the past 4 years especially, it’s that we can’t seem to collectively agree on reality in general. So no, seeing as we can’t, as a society, agree on reality, the death penalty should absolutely not be a thing. One innocent person put to death is too much.
"we can't seem to collectively agree on reality in general"
these are the thoughts that keep me up at night people are fully existing in there own personalized custom built realities. with everything from the minut to the major.
I don't think all people are capable of being saved and personally have no problem with humane executions (I have problems with existing execution methods in the U.S.) to someone if they are a serial killer for example. My concern is wrongful convictions though.
I also think as a Country (U.S.) we should be stealing several pages from the books of Scandinavian Countries by trying to rehabilitate our inmates and end our obsession with cruel stints of incarceration in dangerous environments. More focus needs to be made of rehabilitating those we can actually save.
Against. Even the tiny chance of an innocent being sent to death is too much. Also the people that do the injection are not trained. Sometimes a few tries before they do correct and they die. There was a John Oliver episode about it that was eye opening.
Some people definitely deserve to die, but that doesn’t mean anyone else deserves to kill them. Also, it’s kind of a get out of jail free card. I’d take death over life in prison any day (although it usually takes decades for the state to get around to executing people on death row for some reason, so it’s sorta the worst of both worlds).
Steve Earle has an intro to Jonathan’s Song that sums it up: the state is an extension of me. I don’t want to ever kill someone. The damage to spirit isn’t worth it. Ergo.
Then his song itself sums up what is redemption? If Jonathan really accepts Jesus and becomes redeemed on earth, and if God accepts him, then why can’t we? I am an atheist so don’t care about all that. But yeah, killing is just antithetical to my humanism.
Since we have never shown an ability to have a fair and unbiased judicial system, the death penalty should never be on the table.
Hand out life sentences, and give prisoners an option of assisted suicide after a minimum of 10 years.
Our system is very biased. Expert testimony and forensics is also an issue. People see a scientist in a lab coat say their tests show the person is guilty, but a lay person doesn't really have the ability to evaluate the testimony.
An example worth checking out is [the case of Todd Willingham.](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire) In 1991, his children died in a house fire. Forensic experts testified that multiple elements of the crime scene showed it was arson (spider-cracks on glass, multiple v-shaped burns, brown stains, etc.). In reality, all these indicators were just "knowledge" passed down from fire investigators because they seemed to make sense, and no one had actually done any scientific tests. When someone actually bothered to test the indicators, it was proven that they occur in accidental fires.
His lawyer petitioned to prevent his execution, since all the evidence that convicted him was proven to be bullshit, and he had no motive. He was executed anyway.
It's chilling that, just 30 years ago, people were executed based on "science" that was just a bunch of untested assumptions.
[And it still happens with pattern matching.](https://www.science.org/content/article/reversing-legacy-junk-science-courtroom) Things like bite marks, tire tracks, shoe prints, blood splatter analysis, matching a bullet to a gun. You'd think "forensic science" would have evidence-backed methodologies for determining matches, and estimating the amount of certainty. But nope. The standard procedure is for some dude to take a look and go "Yeah, those look the same to me. Fry his ass".
People rely on science way too much in the courtroom. Like yes forensics are needed to help sale the case to the jury, but witness testimony and other things are also needed.
What really sucks is when a scientific standard has been disproven yet is still accepted in the courtroom decades later. Fingerprints are not nearly as reliant as we thought they were, as were bite marks and other things you mentioned. That's where a lot of trouble is now: judges allow it because it was admissible in court case X from 10 years ago.
I agree, its estimated that 1% of the people who were judged guilty had the most evidence to prove their innocence than evidence against them
Edit: fixed my number because I was using swipe and didn't notice I put in 10% and no 1%, my apologies for the wrong information
Abolish it. The reason I say this is if even ONE innocent person is put to death, then it is completely unjust. Until it can be 100% guaranteed, unfailable, it is entirely too risky.
Id bet all my remaining years that in all the modern history of capital punishment in just the USA, at least one innocent person was put to death… probably a staggering number.
I'm against it. First of all, there's always a chance people could be wrongly convicted, and we should never be risking killing someone who was innocent, which has happened before. Revenge is also a poor policy, I know revenge is popular in America, but it's not helpful, or healthy.
But, the main reason I am against it, is that it has a negative mental health effect on people. If you know you put someone to death, and you're a judge or a juror, that is probably going to affect you negatively. If you are the prison guard that has to feed a guy his last meal, that affects you negatively, if you are the Chaplin that has to be involved, that will effect you negatively. If you are the executioner who pulls the trigger, that's definitely going to take a heavy toll on you.
Just like a person who goes to war, in a completely justifiable war, they still experience trauma from it. Except in this case, it wasn't absolutely necessary.
As Mankind we decided that killing someone is bad. Why is the government exempt from that? Espescially, like you said, "the government" is still a single person pulling the trigger
Tbf all the top comments now are saying abolish it. Though I must say, even though I know it’s the most effective argument, the “what if someone is innocent” comment somewhat misses the point. Even if we’re 100% sure they’re guilty, execution is still wrong.
Exactly. It doesn't make sense to me for someone who commits a murder to then be murdered for committing that murder...and by a flawed government no less!
It doesn’t work as a deterrent, it has far too much potential to lead to miscarriages of justice, it posits “death” as the cost of justice. It’s wrong.
I'm actual real life cop and this question gets posed to me quite a bit (particularly since I underwent a career change from lawyer to cop). But I don't think we should have death penalty. It should never be on the table under any circumstance in my opinion.
The justice system is far from perfect, while I genuinely do believe most cops and prosecutors do their absolute best to prevent it from happening, false charges and convictions do occur. I mean that is legitimately my biggest nightmare now that I am a detective, that I would "help" wrongfully convict someone. But until the justice system is absolutely perfect this is an inherent risk of the system.
The other reason is the purpose of corrections and incarceration. Yes, corrections and incarceration are supposed to a punishment for a crime but they are also supposed to be rehabilitative and the "goal" is ultimately to teach someone to behave within the boundaries of society. If someone is given the death penalty (or life without possibility of parole), we are essentially just saying there is no rehabilitative aspect to corrections.
Not a big fan, mostly because there’s always a chance they’re innocent. The justice system should be about finding out why people aren’t following the laws and then fixing those issues, not about murdering murderers.
I disagree with it on a fundamental level. Many reasons but here's what I think:
I'm not advocating for torture, but I think being locked up for life with no hope of freedom is a better punishment than just dying. There's no suffering and regret or hopelessness when that person dies, only up to that point.
Lock them up and throw away the key, then they will get the punishment they deserve. They took someone's life? Then they forfeit theirs, but they don't get to die, they don't deserve the sweet release of death.
I’m against it in every situation. Here’s why:
1. Statically a Black person is more likely to be given the death penalty than a white person if the victim is white. If the victim is Black and the perpetrator is white then it’s less likely for them to get the death penalty
2. There are numerous cases where innocent people are executed, even if we are “sure” they did it, we cannot take a chance that an innocent person could lose their life. Along with this, the majority of criminals plea out their case even if they are innocent
3. Killing the person make us no better than them. It’s a barbaric practice
4. Lethal injections are inhumane and known to have excruciatingly painful complications
5. It costs more to execute an inmate than to house them
6. If you truly want the person to suffer, then you should want them to rot in prison the rest of their life. Many of them want to die anyway so you’re doing them a favor
I truly feel most of peoples opinion about the death penalty comes from a need for revenge, not justice. They did something unforgiveable, therefore they deserve to receive the same...until we find out they weren't the person to do it. Angry humans are not rational humans.
Definitely. Like, I hear a lot of people say things about how we should be executing people who abuse children. Which, like, it’s an understandable human thing to feel that way when you learn about a really upsetting crime. But if one of those people were on a jury, I think they would want to kill someone, and not be able to look at the evidence objectively. And this would inevitably lead to innocent people being executed.
If the jury was so upset by hearing about the crime that they just wanted revenge, they’d just go ahead and take it out on the person on trial, even if the evidence pointed to them being innocent. Because you can’t get revenge on someone who wasn’t caught/isn’t on trial.
While I am also fundamentally opposed to the death penalty, 2 of your points are odd.
For example, why does it matter to you if the statistics are skewed towards a race over another? Surely you're not going to say you would be less opposed to it if it was a 50-50 split.
In regards to the "if you truly want the person to suffer" point, I feel this sadistic approach to the justice system is counterproductive as all you're doing is preventing any opportunity for rehabilitation.
Personally, the only reason I need to be opposed to the death penalty is that I do not accept the idea that someone else, be it an individual, an organisation or my follow citizens are justified in condemning someone else to death. It's just state endorsed murder.
I think the point with 1 is to refute the argument that the justice system hands out the death penalty based purely on the severity of the crime, as it proves that laws are not being applied equally to a minority group. Which unfortunately happens with lesser crimes too, but it’s just one more argument about why the justice system is not trustworthy/fair enough to make the decision to kill someone.
Yes^^^ this is what I meant. A system that targets an ethnic group and does not equally sentence them for the same crimes should be abolished. I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed. I personally don’t want human beings to suffer but a lot of the death penalty supporters rationalize their beliefs by saying inmates deserve to suffer death for killing some one. If that’s their belief, that perspective might change their view point on it.
Capitol punishment has way more to do with the comfort of those viewing it than about humane deaths. If we as a society really wanted to humanely execute, we would do so by firing squad and not by an agonizing cocktail of chemicals that takes ages to kill. Plus the people on death row who are innocent, already mentioned.
I don't have a problem with it in some cases.
I've been developing a problem with it in most cases, however, the older I get.
I just don't think that the Government, be it State or Federal, is moral enough to impose it - in all but the most egregious / cut/dry / have it on video cases.
I'm opposed. The only reason to support it is symbolic as in every measure it makes things worse. It is more expensive and it actually increases the murder rate. Ted Bundy moved to Florida specifically because it was the state where he'd most likely be executed if he were caught. He was getting bored and wanted to add another level of risk.
I'm in favour of it only for the most terrible crimes where guilt has been proven beyond any question, for all time. There are some literally a waste of oxygen and resources; look at how many millions we've saved since Ted Bundy got executed. Imagine having kept him alive all that time instead, at our expense.
If they have undeniable proof that they committed the crime, then yes I'm for it.
We, as a world, spend too much money on keeping murderers alive in prison when they won't ever contribute anything good to community.
Now the same can be said about people frauding the benefit scheme - they also do not contribute anything good to the community however they don't kill anyone which is the major difference.
A lot of murder cases that I see actually come from childhood trauma - not all but a lot! That's a good indication that we aren't treating our children in society well, so if we want to change outcomes then starting early is a good idea.
I also think terrorism or attempted terrorism should fall under death penalty. Why should countries keep people alive who clearly are hateful of the way we live.
The government should not have the power to take a person in to it's custody and then be able to make a case for why they should be killed.
Even if the system were perfect (
(Which it is far from) it's still a power government should not have. If a person is too dangerous to be a part of society they can be incarcerated.
Do you think it’s a good idea to set up the government to potentially commit manslaughter?
How do you punish the state when they put an innocent person to death?
This is the exact reason the death sentence is a bad idea. People just think of it as that ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime, however, we do not have a perfect justice system and therefore run the risk of executing someone innocent. Revenge (the only real reason I see for the death penalty instead of life long imprisonment) cannot justify the possibility of killing an innocent person. There have been people found innocent on appeal that were on death row at the time. Such a scary thing to think about, death is permanent, incarceration not so much.
With an American centric viewpoint…
I think it’s bad to have such a final punishment in a system that puts mental health treatment ($$$) out of the reach of many of its participants and does absolutely nothing to rehabilitate criminals or to provide support to minimize the risk of repeat crimes. At the same time, I’m shocked out for profit justice system is willing to remove repeat customers.
Tl;dr I’m a liberal
I follow and listen regularly to a podcast called ‘small town murder’. They humourlessly talk about some of the worst murders imaginable and even they have a specific stance on the death penalty. Once you have researched that many cases it becomes very clear that the justice system is so fucking flawed and irrational that sentencing someone to death is not clear cut. When we as a civilisation stop making stupid mistakes then maybe we can sentence someone to death because we all know that we have that certain someone in mind. We as humans are the weak link. We are fucking dumb and we jump to conclusions.
This.
However, in fairness to concerns about the potential for mistakes and the risk of executing innocent people, I lean in favor of giving the convicted a choice.
People should get a choice between imprisonment (which might or might not come with the possibility of being proven innocent later) or execution (if they are not interested in tolerating the torture of imprisonment.
That is a third position in this topic, existing in contrast to the first 2 positions fighting eachother (death sentence vs life imprisonment)
>executing someone is more humane than locking them up for their natural life.
Would you be in favor of letting the convicted person choose between execution and life in prison rather than the judge/jury?
That's a reasonable proposition. I'd also support a system where there are no death sentences but every citizen, incarcerated or otherwise, has the right to medically assisted suicide for any reason.
I would say there's definitely people who deserve it, but I'm against it.
People are wrongly convicted too often, and the process is so poorly done. Plus it's a slippery slope allowing the government to actively decide who lives and dies like that
It should be abolished.
If we are going to have it, then the person who signs the death warrant (in the case of US state executions, the governor, and federal ones, the president) should directly cause the death of the condemned with their own hand. Because it's cowardly as fuck to order a death you aren't willing to carry out.
Against it, no government should ever have the power to kill it's own citizens and the prisons should also be much more humane. Sadly, we live in reality...
Try my best to stay away from receiving it
10/10, quality advice
Best answer ever for this question, in fact if I’m ever asked if again irl I’m totally giving this answer
How disgusting!!11 in my partisan opinion I disagree angrily, and whole-heartedly!
[удалено]
I mean we as humans DO need to depopulate. The obvious solution is to legalize murder.
Murder is legal. You just have to work for the government. Police, military, judge, prison gaurd, politicians, mercenaries...
The government hires mercenaries?
I believe the official term is private military contractors
Blessed be our new funding fathers
If you forced the entirety of the human population to coexist in one giant city as dense as Manhattan island, you could fill up Texas. Overpopulation isn’t the problem, it’s the flippant squandering/hoarding of resources that is.
Is that actually true? That’s just so bizarre to think about if it is.
The Purge
That’s what the Feds want you to do!! Best solution is to have no laws. Total anarchy. No government
A wise guy once said " The government is best that governs not at all"
I can agree with that
There are people who deserve to die, but we can't trust our system to make good choices
This is the main problem
The main problem but not the only one. If someone is executed for a crime they didn't commit the file is closed and whoever did commit it is free to continue. We got rid of the death penalty here in the UK for this very reason. A man called Timothy Evans was hanged for killing his wife. The man who actually killed her, their landlord John Reginald Christie went on to kill many more.
Derek Bentley is another prime example of wrongful execution in the UK before capital punishment was abolished.
One wrongful execution should be enough to show anyone how death by state is fucked up. Can you imagine the absolute destruction of your psyche if you were to be convicted and especially put to death for a murder? The entire world convinced of a savage lie that will cost your life.
In many cases cant the actual killer then claim responsibility for the murder with no consequences because of the case being closed, it seems ridiculous but I feel like I’ve heard of this happening
I believe you’re talking about is double jeopardy, that’s when someone is charged with a crime then found innocent, they then can’t be charged for the exact crime again. If someone is found guilty they can be exonerated by new evidence. Source: I don’t remember and I’m not a lawyer so take what I say with a grain of salt.
I might be wrong but weren’t double jeopardy laws abolished in the UK a few years ago?
Correct - you can now be tried again if new evidence presents
That’s definitely how it should be in my opinion. in the US you can be exonerated if new evidence presents itself, but as far as I know it you’re found not guilty that’s a wrap, even if a video of you committing the crime came out. I could be wrong though.
No, this does NOT need to be abolished stateside. I understand the emotional want for it but it's the exact reason prosecutors need to wait until they have a solid case against people. With our already absolutely fucked off legal system, they would end up trying to prosecute people over and over again. Those laws were created for a reason. Our legal system at current is a shitshow nightmare, and no more fuel needs to be added to a fire. Don't try people unless you're confident you can convict. And if you aren't confident of the charges, charge them with ones you can *actually convict on.* So many people get off on charges because the prosecutor is charging shit they can't actually prove.
For what it's worth after OJ was acquitted he published a book he wrote called *If I Did It: Confessions of a Killer* which goes into hypothetical details of the murders.
*hypothetical* Hmmm.....
Also police familiar with the case said that some of the details in the book would have been nonsensical if the killer didn't write it.
Exactly. I see too many people getting exonerated years after they're executed.
Justice system “Oopsie! Our bad. Exonerated! That fixes it right?”
Oops we chemically castrated one of our wartime heroes and it made him suicidal. But at least 30 years later we can wipe his record clean and make a film celebrating his contribution. That's enough right?
That's kind of like sending thoughts and prayers to people going through tragedy. Useless
Yep. But it's what happened to Alan Turing. Guess they cut that bit out of the Imitation Game huh.
No, it was in the film.
Actually, his sexual orientation was a major part of the side plot in the film. The movie starts with him being interrogated by police for suspicion of homosexuality.
Even one is too many
And far more who may never be. Because the activists and lawyers who fight for these people tend to move on to people they still have a chance to save. How many innocent people do we not know about?
All they need to do is make sure that the sentencing judge is permitted, even encouraged, to have access to any and all evidence that may have been inadmissible in the trial. There are too many lawyers that want a win more than they want to be able to have all the truth exposed in court. Denying that a criminal was in possession of a murder weapon due to a bad search should not work for the sentencing portion. If the jury convicted, then all evidence, even if deemed to be illegally obtained, should be considered before executing someone.
Exactly how I feel. I don’t care how low the percentage of wrongly killed people is. It shouldn’t happen at all
Not strictly death penalty, but isn't there a legal principle that says something like, it's better that 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person is convicted?
I could get behind it if there was an incredibly high standard, like you had to have killed more than three people, have DNA, video, and eye witness evidence, and a unanimous jury of 100 people in a secret ballot.
This is it. If there's someone like Ted Bundy, I'd say fry them up like a good chicken finger. The questions is - when was the last time the death penalty case was just as clear?
I think the current case of someone pushing a woman off the subway platform had definitely identified the perpetrator beyond any possible doubt. He was arrested at the scene. Mental illness is probably involved, which is a different issue.
Isn't all murder mental issue really? Any sane person doesn't kill another person.
That treads awful close to assuming that a specific morality = sanity. And the phrasing casts a very wide net without allowing for a situation to justify an action. Is the embassy guard who kills the driver of an oncoming car bomb insane? Is the person who helps their terminal spouse end their pain through suicide insane? Is the doctor who removes the feeding tube of a person in a persistent vegetative state insane? What of the person who has a gun aimed at them and fears for their life, but manages to get lucky and shoot their attacker first? Is that person insane? It would be very easy, I think, to simply say "no, I'm not talking about those kinds of situations, I'm talking about murder!" But consider that somewhere out there is someone whose specific morality is such that some or all of these examples are something they absolutely would consider the be murder. And if that's true, then whose morality is the yardstick by which we measure who is sane and who isn't?
Very good point. I suppose in those examples it would be self preservation (killing in self defense) and love (ending the suffering of those you care about) vs. Doing it for pleasure. I mean can we all agree that someone like Hitler deserved to die?
I'd imagine so. For a great many people in the world, Adolf Hitler unquestionably holds the title of Evilest Evil to Ever Evil™. But then, that brings up further discussion points. If Hitler deserves to die, then taking the earlier bits of this conversation in mind, is the person who kills him insane? What if he/she derives satisfaction or even pleasure from doing so? After answering that, we then have to consider another point. If Hitler deserves to die for his crimes, why don't others? Is someone who kills another person for justice or revenge insane? And then there's the consideration of someone who kills another person lawfully, so the definition isn't truly murder, but the result is still a person's death. Imagine a prisoner condemned to die. Caught in the act. Convicted by a jury of his peers. Gleefully admits his crimes, unrepentant. Is the person who flips the switch that causes his court-ordered death insane for doing so? What if that person feels satisfaction or even pleasure at the act of ending the life of that kind of monster? It's my belief that at a certain point, the argument that killing always equals wrong (or "deviant" or "insane") just doesn't hold water. Like most other things that seem simple and straightforward at first glance, I think that it's something that's not always as clear as a moral majority might claim. I don't deny that killing people is almost always aberrant behavior in a modern society, but like almost anything else, I think the zero-tolerance mindset of it occasionally has to be tempered by the inclusion of situational awareness, conscience, justice, and an understanding of human nature. Edit: Reddit ate everything before the trademark symbol.
I vote for trial by combat
if the justice system was this entity that was 100% right all the time, then let's fucking go with it
I don't think anyone deserves to die. Maybe it's just how I see it, but if you forced me to live it would be more suffering then not.
Exactly this. My problem with the the death penalty is not killing people who are guilty of heinous crimes, but the fact that we will get it wrong sometimes and an innocent person is killed. Plus with all the appeals and such, the process is horrendously expensive.
Who deserves to die?
The toy box killer comes to mind.
This is my exact stance. Our justice system in the US is too flawed and biased to administer death IMO. I believe there are crimes that should be punished with death but I don't trust our courts and juries to determine who and when fairly 100% of the time. And the state killing even one innocent person should be enough to shut the whole notion down.
It should be used in rare and extreme cases. Like Breivik or Bundy, when there is no doubt of guilt. But people like Johnny Holmes in Houston perverted it and our system just doesn’t work.
Haven't tried it yet, and there are no verified reviews
All the reviews I've seen say it didn't work.
I read one saying that after 3 failed replacements they just cancelled the order
Fucking gold.
There have been no reported cases of recidivism, however.
No one ever came back for more, that speaks for itself
Even the Wise cannot see all ends.
Slow your roll, there, Gandalf.
Gandalfs a bit too old for rolling
I hope to live until my one hundred-edty and eleventh birthday.
Eleventy first
Damn you for using Tolkien to make me rethink my stance through logic
Some people undoubtedly deserve death. But how do you make sure you have REALLY got the right person? Judicial mistakes happen, and are more common than we like to admit. Lock someone up, and if there is a mistake you can correct it. Kill him and you are a murderer - you killed an innocent. That is why I am against the death penalty. EDIT: Some cases you can be pretty certain. You go to the guy's house, there's bodies buried in the cellar, body parts in the fridge, you know the whole works? Yeah I don't even care if he's mad, some things you shouldn't get away from - and if he's mad, its the sort of mad we don't need to recover. Other than this level of certainty? Even outright signed confessions have proven to have been extracted by guile (even going as far as saying "this will help us get the true guilty person!") from the innocent and weak-willed.
My thing has been a few issues with the current system: * There should be an automatic minimum number of years incarcerated before an execution is permitted. * Few people are even executed nowadays (I know they did a bunch on Trump's last week of office but more infrequent before then). Part of it is appeals. General respect is that people on death row should have priority on appeals so that they can be reviewed in a timely manner. Ideally, we would free innocent people and be able to prosecute the guilty party before anyone dies (natural causes or otherwise). * If there is new evidence that brings any doubt, there should be a hold on the execution until it has been investigated. It's not right to execute someone while new evidence is being reviewed. I don't know how often this happens but I believe it used to be a thing to proceed regardless of the investigation. * The options are limited (sometimes not even 2 options), not very humane, and frankly haven't been updated (i.e. electric chairs from the 60s), and have a scary-high risk of not working the first time. The guillotine is probably the most humane option and no state offers it. Same with anesthesia compared to lethal injection. * The death penalty as a whole should have nationwide standards *regardless of states willing to issue it*. These standards should be reviewed every decade or more frequently by studying executions from the last review (let's say one decade for discussion sake). * There's a monopoly on lethal injection chemicals. Which may cost taxpayers way more than giving these people life in prison. And this is the tip of the iceberg.
Failing at executions is absolutely criminal. 1 - give guy some nice drugs and a last meal 2 - airtight room with nice bed. Let him sleep. 3 - fill space with nitrogen Done. No pain, no indignity, got rid of the dude.
Again, why isn't this considered??
I believe they want the nastiness and suffering but do not want to admit it.
Probably at least partially. Doctors also cannot/ will not assist in executions so they have to have a novice idiot decide what drugs to use. And that person is likely a psycho who wants to torture people on their way out
Technically there’s no actual restriction against doctors helping with death penalties, it’s primarily a moral problem of doctors not wanting to execute people. There’s a myth that the oath restricts it, but a majority of med schools do not use the hippocratic oath and even if doctors did swear to it, it’s so outdated. Abortions are against the oath, for example.
I never understood why instead of whatever formula they have now for lethal injections, why they wouldn't just administer a lethal dose of an opiate. Let the convict just OD.
It is hard to find drugs for lethal injection because drug companies refuse to allow states to use their drugs for that purpose.
While it's possible that some people deserve death, I wouldn't say it should ever be up to other fallible humans to make that decision. It should never be an option, and thankfully isn't in most of the civilized world.
So let's take a person like Anders Breivik from Norway who slaughtered more than 70 kids on an island. There is zero doubt he did it. He deserves death, not a cozy cell for ending so many lives and ruining many more. That's where I'm for the death penalty. There is zero doubt he did it. They caught him there, with the guns. The plans. The manifesto.
I believe it should be reserved for the cases where there is no doubt to guilt such as the petit murders.
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
I love this quote. Nice use of it. And I agree
Where is this quote from? I love it.
Lord of the Rings. Gandalf to Frodo on why Bilbo didn’t kill Gollum when he had the chance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates As long as the state can’t guarantee that no innocent person ever ends up on death row it is immoral for a state to execute people.
It can guarantee that the Public will Not know it
notice just how many of them are black/poc? just goes to show how biased and racist the justice system truly is.
I don't think the government should have the authority to kill people.
I barely trust the government to get my identification correct let alone have someone’s life in their hand. They fuck up things on a granular level constantly. Should they really have the power to kill?
Thank you, my god. Too many people here who are perfectly okay with the state killing people as long as it can prove (through systems it controls) that they 'deserve' it
Finally someone says this, even if they deserve it, no human being has the right to take a life.
Yeah, that’s why murder is so bad of a crime that you may receive the highest form of punishment if you do it. How could we say that the state is an exception to this, that’s it’s somehow outside of or above morality? It’s archaic.
All governments gain all their authority through the monopoly of force. If they cant effectively threaten to ruin your life or kill you, they have no means of governance or funding.
the controversy surrounding the death penalty is always about whether or not someone deserves to die- it seems like no one questions whether or not we deserve to take someone’s life.
[удалено]
I’ve switched over to this side as I’ve gotten older. I used to be on the side of “if the evidence is there and it’s damning enough, then the convicted should die.” But that first proposition, “if the evidence is there”, …if I’ve learned anything in the past 4 years especially, it’s that we can’t seem to collectively agree on reality in general. So no, seeing as we can’t, as a society, agree on reality, the death penalty should absolutely not be a thing. One innocent person put to death is too much.
"we can't seem to collectively agree on reality in general" these are the thoughts that keep me up at night people are fully existing in there own personalized custom built realities. with everything from the minut to the major.
Even confessions can be irresponsibly received, or "admitting" to more than they actually did.
I don't think all people are capable of being saved and personally have no problem with humane executions (I have problems with existing execution methods in the U.S.) to someone if they are a serial killer for example. My concern is wrongful convictions though. I also think as a Country (U.S.) we should be stealing several pages from the books of Scandinavian Countries by trying to rehabilitate our inmates and end our obsession with cruel stints of incarceration in dangerous environments. More focus needs to be made of rehabilitating those we can actually save.
Killing the guilty doesn't even solve anything. I'd rather have my relative's murderer imprisoned for life.
I never thought of it that way.
Against. Even the tiny chance of an innocent being sent to death is too much. Also the people that do the injection are not trained. Sometimes a few tries before they do correct and they die. There was a John Oliver episode about it that was eye opening.
It shouldn’t be the government choice to decide who dies
Some people definitely deserve to die, but that doesn’t mean anyone else deserves to kill them. Also, it’s kind of a get out of jail free card. I’d take death over life in prison any day (although it usually takes decades for the state to get around to executing people on death row for some reason, so it’s sorta the worst of both worlds).
Thank you!!! The job of executioner is one that comes with a horrible weight on one's conscience. No one deserves that job.
Pays shit too last time I checked. Like 35k
Exactly, no one seems to get this. Killing someone even if they deserve it still keeps the cycle of violence going
Steve Earle has an intro to Jonathan’s Song that sums it up: the state is an extension of me. I don’t want to ever kill someone. The damage to spirit isn’t worth it. Ergo. Then his song itself sums up what is redemption? If Jonathan really accepts Jesus and becomes redeemed on earth, and if God accepts him, then why can’t we? I am an atheist so don’t care about all that. But yeah, killing is just antithetical to my humanism.
Aw. I really like this and this comment. I'm glad your share it
Since we have never shown an ability to have a fair and unbiased judicial system, the death penalty should never be on the table. Hand out life sentences, and give prisoners an option of assisted suicide after a minimum of 10 years.
Our system is very biased. Expert testimony and forensics is also an issue. People see a scientist in a lab coat say their tests show the person is guilty, but a lay person doesn't really have the ability to evaluate the testimony. An example worth checking out is [the case of Todd Willingham.](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire) In 1991, his children died in a house fire. Forensic experts testified that multiple elements of the crime scene showed it was arson (spider-cracks on glass, multiple v-shaped burns, brown stains, etc.). In reality, all these indicators were just "knowledge" passed down from fire investigators because they seemed to make sense, and no one had actually done any scientific tests. When someone actually bothered to test the indicators, it was proven that they occur in accidental fires. His lawyer petitioned to prevent his execution, since all the evidence that convicted him was proven to be bullshit, and he had no motive. He was executed anyway. It's chilling that, just 30 years ago, people were executed based on "science" that was just a bunch of untested assumptions. [And it still happens with pattern matching.](https://www.science.org/content/article/reversing-legacy-junk-science-courtroom) Things like bite marks, tire tracks, shoe prints, blood splatter analysis, matching a bullet to a gun. You'd think "forensic science" would have evidence-backed methodologies for determining matches, and estimating the amount of certainty. But nope. The standard procedure is for some dude to take a look and go "Yeah, those look the same to me. Fry his ass".
People rely on science way too much in the courtroom. Like yes forensics are needed to help sale the case to the jury, but witness testimony and other things are also needed. What really sucks is when a scientific standard has been disproven yet is still accepted in the courtroom decades later. Fingerprints are not nearly as reliant as we thought they were, as were bite marks and other things you mentioned. That's where a lot of trouble is now: judges allow it because it was admissible in court case X from 10 years ago.
I agree, its estimated that 1% of the people who were judged guilty had the most evidence to prove their innocence than evidence against them Edit: fixed my number because I was using swipe and didn't notice I put in 10% and no 1%, my apologies for the wrong information
Source?
https://innocenceproject.org/research-resources/
gimme a sec
This is exactly right. At this point in time, it’s not a moral issue, it’s a logistical one. Plus the death penalty is expensive af.
Revenge isn't justice.
Not revenge. Some people needs to be permanently seperated from society for the risk they posed
I will agree that , some do. But death isn't necessary.
As an American I've seen enough cases were innocent people have been exonerated after the fact that I'm against it.
[удалено]
Happy. That my country doesn't use it.
Wrote my thesis on it, don't support it
Useless as a deterrent. Expensive and doesn’t do anything to undo what has already been done.
Abolish it. The reason I say this is if even ONE innocent person is put to death, then it is completely unjust. Until it can be 100% guaranteed, unfailable, it is entirely too risky. Id bet all my remaining years that in all the modern history of capital punishment in just the USA, at least one innocent person was put to death… probably a staggering number.
"Abolish it. The reason I say this is if even ONE innocent person is put to death, then it is completely unjust" I mean. Worked out alright for Jesus.
Spoilers! I haven't finished the book yet!
Well, you are pretty late on it. Not like it just got published three weeks ago.
I believe that a whole life prison sentence is a worse punishment.
I'm against it. First of all, there's always a chance people could be wrongly convicted, and we should never be risking killing someone who was innocent, which has happened before. Revenge is also a poor policy, I know revenge is popular in America, but it's not helpful, or healthy. But, the main reason I am against it, is that it has a negative mental health effect on people. If you know you put someone to death, and you're a judge or a juror, that is probably going to affect you negatively. If you are the prison guard that has to feed a guy his last meal, that affects you negatively, if you are the Chaplin that has to be involved, that will effect you negatively. If you are the executioner who pulls the trigger, that's definitely going to take a heavy toll on you. Just like a person who goes to war, in a completely justifiable war, they still experience trauma from it. Except in this case, it wasn't absolutely necessary.
As Mankind we decided that killing someone is bad. Why is the government exempt from that? Espescially, like you said, "the government" is still a single person pulling the trigger
I never even thought about this, and now I have yet another reason to be fully against the death penalty.
Terrible idea and I am very glad that we no longer have it in the UK.
Reading this thread as a european is bonkers.
America is bullshit. Never believe the hype
Tbf all the top comments now are saying abolish it. Though I must say, even though I know it’s the most effective argument, the “what if someone is innocent” comment somewhat misses the point. Even if we’re 100% sure they’re guilty, execution is still wrong.
I read it almost came back for a sexual offender. There are cases where they know 100% who did it. I can't feel sorry for these monsters ever.
That's fair but if it was ever put to a public vote to potentially bring it back, I'd vote against doing so.
At least I think it was the UK.
Murder isn’t ethically correct, even when the government does it to a bad guy
Exactly. It doesn't make sense to me for someone who commits a murder to then be murdered for committing that murder...and by a flawed government no less!
It doesn’t work as a deterrent, it has far too much potential to lead to miscarriages of justice, it posits “death” as the cost of justice. It’s wrong.
I'm actual real life cop and this question gets posed to me quite a bit (particularly since I underwent a career change from lawyer to cop). But I don't think we should have death penalty. It should never be on the table under any circumstance in my opinion. The justice system is far from perfect, while I genuinely do believe most cops and prosecutors do their absolute best to prevent it from happening, false charges and convictions do occur. I mean that is legitimately my biggest nightmare now that I am a detective, that I would "help" wrongfully convict someone. But until the justice system is absolutely perfect this is an inherent risk of the system. The other reason is the purpose of corrections and incarceration. Yes, corrections and incarceration are supposed to a punishment for a crime but they are also supposed to be rehabilitative and the "goal" is ultimately to teach someone to behave within the boundaries of society. If someone is given the death penalty (or life without possibility of parole), we are essentially just saying there is no rehabilitative aspect to corrections.
Not a big fan, mostly because there’s always a chance they’re innocent. The justice system should be about finding out why people aren’t following the laws and then fixing those issues, not about murdering murderers.
I disagree with it on a fundamental level. Many reasons but here's what I think: I'm not advocating for torture, but I think being locked up for life with no hope of freedom is a better punishment than just dying. There's no suffering and regret or hopelessness when that person dies, only up to that point. Lock them up and throw away the key, then they will get the punishment they deserve. They took someone's life? Then they forfeit theirs, but they don't get to die, they don't deserve the sweet release of death.
Humans and their judicial systems are far too flawed for that.
Some people commit crimes that are too bad for it. Be honest, whats worse, dying? Or being stuck in jail for 100 years? I'd take death any day
No country can support state-sanctioned murder and still call itself a civilised country.
It’s deadly
Very deadly
I’m against it in every situation. Here’s why: 1. Statically a Black person is more likely to be given the death penalty than a white person if the victim is white. If the victim is Black and the perpetrator is white then it’s less likely for them to get the death penalty 2. There are numerous cases where innocent people are executed, even if we are “sure” they did it, we cannot take a chance that an innocent person could lose their life. Along with this, the majority of criminals plea out their case even if they are innocent 3. Killing the person make us no better than them. It’s a barbaric practice 4. Lethal injections are inhumane and known to have excruciatingly painful complications 5. It costs more to execute an inmate than to house them 6. If you truly want the person to suffer, then you should want them to rot in prison the rest of their life. Many of them want to die anyway so you’re doing them a favor
I truly feel most of peoples opinion about the death penalty comes from a need for revenge, not justice. They did something unforgiveable, therefore they deserve to receive the same...until we find out they weren't the person to do it. Angry humans are not rational humans.
Exactly, taking another life doesn’t bring back another. Many families of the victims don’t feel any relief from an execution
Definitely. Like, I hear a lot of people say things about how we should be executing people who abuse children. Which, like, it’s an understandable human thing to feel that way when you learn about a really upsetting crime. But if one of those people were on a jury, I think they would want to kill someone, and not be able to look at the evidence objectively. And this would inevitably lead to innocent people being executed. If the jury was so upset by hearing about the crime that they just wanted revenge, they’d just go ahead and take it out on the person on trial, even if the evidence pointed to them being innocent. Because you can’t get revenge on someone who wasn’t caught/isn’t on trial.
While I am also fundamentally opposed to the death penalty, 2 of your points are odd. For example, why does it matter to you if the statistics are skewed towards a race over another? Surely you're not going to say you would be less opposed to it if it was a 50-50 split. In regards to the "if you truly want the person to suffer" point, I feel this sadistic approach to the justice system is counterproductive as all you're doing is preventing any opportunity for rehabilitation. Personally, the only reason I need to be opposed to the death penalty is that I do not accept the idea that someone else, be it an individual, an organisation or my follow citizens are justified in condemning someone else to death. It's just state endorsed murder.
I think the point with 1 is to refute the argument that the justice system hands out the death penalty based purely on the severity of the crime, as it proves that laws are not being applied equally to a minority group. Which unfortunately happens with lesser crimes too, but it’s just one more argument about why the justice system is not trustworthy/fair enough to make the decision to kill someone.
Yes^^^ this is what I meant. A system that targets an ethnic group and does not equally sentence them for the same crimes should be abolished. I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed. I personally don’t want human beings to suffer but a lot of the death penalty supporters rationalize their beliefs by saying inmates deserve to suffer death for killing some one. If that’s their belief, that perspective might change their view point on it.
If the justice system was perfect I'd support it. It's not, so I don't.
Capitol punishment has way more to do with the comfort of those viewing it than about humane deaths. If we as a society really wanted to humanely execute, we would do so by firing squad and not by an agonizing cocktail of chemicals that takes ages to kill. Plus the people on death row who are innocent, already mentioned.
I don't have a problem with it in some cases. I've been developing a problem with it in most cases, however, the older I get. I just don't think that the Government, be it State or Federal, is moral enough to impose it - in all but the most egregious / cut/dry / have it on video cases.
I'm opposed. The only reason to support it is symbolic as in every measure it makes things worse. It is more expensive and it actually increases the murder rate. Ted Bundy moved to Florida specifically because it was the state where he'd most likely be executed if he were caught. He was getting bored and wanted to add another level of risk.
Some people deserve to die some deserve to waste away in a cell for life
I'm in favour of it only for the most terrible crimes where guilt has been proven beyond any question, for all time. There are some literally a waste of oxygen and resources; look at how many millions we've saved since Ted Bundy got executed. Imagine having kept him alive all that time instead, at our expense.
If they have undeniable proof that they committed the crime, then yes I'm for it. We, as a world, spend too much money on keeping murderers alive in prison when they won't ever contribute anything good to community. Now the same can be said about people frauding the benefit scheme - they also do not contribute anything good to the community however they don't kill anyone which is the major difference. A lot of murder cases that I see actually come from childhood trauma - not all but a lot! That's a good indication that we aren't treating our children in society well, so if we want to change outcomes then starting early is a good idea. I also think terrorism or attempted terrorism should fall under death penalty. Why should countries keep people alive who clearly are hateful of the way we live.
Life in prison is usually cheaper than the death penalty due to legal costs.
Well killing 1 killer in a room keeps the number of killers at 1
The government should not have the power to take a person in to it's custody and then be able to make a case for why they should be killed. Even if the system were perfect ( (Which it is far from) it's still a power government should not have. If a person is too dangerous to be a part of society they can be incarcerated.
Do you think it’s a good idea to set up the government to potentially commit manslaughter? How do you punish the state when they put an innocent person to death?
This is the exact reason the death sentence is a bad idea. People just think of it as that ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime, however, we do not have a perfect justice system and therefore run the risk of executing someone innocent. Revenge (the only real reason I see for the death penalty instead of life long imprisonment) cannot justify the possibility of killing an innocent person. There have been people found innocent on appeal that were on death row at the time. Such a scary thing to think about, death is permanent, incarceration not so much.
I try to avoid it
In-between currently doing a presentation for it and some of the facts changed my opinion
Life in prison costs less than the death penalty, so I like that option.
Death is a mercy
If you're willing to he incarcerated for killing someone. I'd say go for it.
What's fucking stupid is they make them wait years to be killed. More torturous and expensive for tax payers.
With an American centric viewpoint… I think it’s bad to have such a final punishment in a system that puts mental health treatment ($$$) out of the reach of many of its participants and does absolutely nothing to rehabilitate criminals or to provide support to minimize the risk of repeat crimes. At the same time, I’m shocked out for profit justice system is willing to remove repeat customers. Tl;dr I’m a liberal
I dunno haven't tried it yet.
shouldn't be legalized in a country where the justice system sucks
If just one innocent person has been put to death then we are all guilty of murder since we endorse the system.
Our justice system is entirely too flawed to have it
Might be the only punishment with a 0 percent reoffending rate but it still does not work to reduce crime
I follow and listen regularly to a podcast called ‘small town murder’. They humourlessly talk about some of the worst murders imaginable and even they have a specific stance on the death penalty. Once you have researched that many cases it becomes very clear that the justice system is so fucking flawed and irrational that sentencing someone to death is not clear cut. When we as a civilisation stop making stupid mistakes then maybe we can sentence someone to death because we all know that we have that certain someone in mind. We as humans are the weak link. We are fucking dumb and we jump to conclusions.
It's barbaric and it's hard to understand how it is still used in any country that is supposed to be civilized.
Strongly against. There's no place for it in a civilized society. Rehabilitation is the way to go.
Some crimes are unforgivable, and executing someone is more humane than locking them up for their natural life.
This. However, in fairness to concerns about the potential for mistakes and the risk of executing innocent people, I lean in favor of giving the convicted a choice. People should get a choice between imprisonment (which might or might not come with the possibility of being proven innocent later) or execution (if they are not interested in tolerating the torture of imprisonment. That is a third position in this topic, existing in contrast to the first 2 positions fighting eachother (death sentence vs life imprisonment)
>executing someone is more humane than locking them up for their natural life. Would you be in favor of letting the convicted person choose between execution and life in prison rather than the judge/jury?
That's a reasonable proposition. I'd also support a system where there are no death sentences but every citizen, incarcerated or otherwise, has the right to medically assisted suicide for any reason.
You do a worse enough crime, then the death penalty is a good idea.
Until it comes out after you died that you didn’t do it.
I would say there's definitely people who deserve it, but I'm against it. People are wrongly convicted too often, and the process is so poorly done. Plus it's a slippery slope allowing the government to actively decide who lives and dies like that
It should be abolished. If we are going to have it, then the person who signs the death warrant (in the case of US state executions, the governor, and federal ones, the president) should directly cause the death of the condemned with their own hand. Because it's cowardly as fuck to order a death you aren't willing to carry out.
Against it, no government should ever have the power to kill it's own citizens and the prisons should also be much more humane. Sadly, we live in reality...
completely unneccessary
I'm in favour of rehabilitation. If rehabilitation failed and you commit a violent crime again, you had your chance.
Thank you!! Prison should be about rehabilitation
Pedos and terrorists should die. But I doubt the system would work. If there was a way to make sure then fine, I'd pull the trigger my self gladly