Does method of execution, crime committed or overall cost matter to you?
Yes. No one knows what happens when you die, no one truly knows if someone is guilty, no judicial system is perfect etc etc. Too much risk for the reward of killing someone (with a 10 ish percent of being innocent)
I’m all against death penalty in any form, except perhaps for some fascist leaderships. There are those who deserve to dance the Spandau ballet.
I think even one innocent person being executed makes it all not worth it. Though that may be clouded by the facts, it doesn’t deter crime and it costs more than life imprisonment.
In a perfect world, I think the death penalty could have a deterrence effect for white collar crime. I’d support the death penalty in that case. The line I draw where the death penalty is deserved is when someone systematically makes the world a worse place. Even serial killers don’t reach that threshold for me.
There’s no world where we can do that without ever executing an innocent person though. So I am firmly against the death penalty.
I do not trust the justice system what so ever. Nor the nation state that gave birth to this abomination.
No to the death sentence.
Yup. It should not be a thing.
The death penalty is not an effective punishment, it is a security measure and should only be used if confinement is unsuccessful and the risk is sufficient, which should be a high bar.
I am all for it. I can think of dozens of reasons that people should be put down.
Does the method of execution matter to me? Yes.
Does the crime matter? Absolutely
Does the cost matter? No.
the state should never enforce the death penalty. remove any hierarchical structures keeping together the justice system and bring in a community council operating under direct democracy and subject to regulation and recall. make sure the people ultimately have the power if corruption is suspected.
the death penalty should be a true rarity for extreme cases. i am currently unsure what i would consider for my own beliefs but i do know rehabilitation should be prioritized regardless.
I think some crimes deserve death, but I just don’t trust the government –any government!– to make that decision.
Yeah pretty much this. If you make the death penalty for the “ickiest bad crime” the govt will accuse the people it wants to get rid of by expanding the definition.
The death penalty should ALMOST never be used. The only use for the death penalty is for world leaders that direct their subordinates to commit atrocious acts.
Normal civilians, no matter how dangerous, should only ever be treated with dignity. There is no place for state sanctioned murder.
A) It is immoral.
B) The justice system isn’t perfect, and death is final.
C) The actual cost of going through all the trials and effort to put someone to death is typically higher than just keeping them locked up.
D) There is no humane way to put someone to death.
E) It is not effective at preventing crime. It only makes it so people have nothing to lose by being caught.
Well put
B and E are the strongest cases against it in my opinion. I think C could be mitigated with new practices. A is arguable dependent on the individuals morals, ethically, youd have a better argument. D feels like we just haven’t tried, what about a FAT dose of fent or a gunshot to the head. I’d be fine with killing convicted serial rapists, serial murderers and serial pedophiles. But that brings up B, wrongful convictions happen all the time and you’re right, it is final.
C) Cutting the cost of putting someone to death just increases the chances that you’re putting the wrong person to death. It’s expensive cause that’s the best way to ensure that it’s being done right. Cutting costs just means you’re going to make more mistakes.
D) The reason we can’t do it humanely is because anyone with the training to do it right doesn’t want to participate in the process. It’s not that we’re not smart enough. And even if we can do it painlessly, it doesn’t mean that it’s still not a horrible experience.
Why are you putting people do death? What’s the purpose? Cause it makes you feel better that this person isn’t alive anymore? Then that’s a terrible reason.
So they won’t do it again? We already have them locked up, they’re done commiting crimes.
So it stops others from doing it? Well, we already know that doesn’t work.
So what’s the reason?
So they won’t do it again? We already have them locked up, they’re done commiting crimes.
People run gangs while inside. Being incarcerated definitely doesn’t stop them from committing crimes.
So because we have a poorly run prison system, we should just murder people instead since we’re too lazy to fix it?
I appreciate your points and they are valid.I agree with you for the most part honestly. If there was video evidence of them committing the crimes I could see expediting the process. But with AI now even that isn’t 100%. The most reasonable argument for it I’ve heard goes something like the following. The person being put to death should never have the opportunity to experience happiness again. Which they will have the opportunity to do while incarcerated. They will enjoy a book, make a friend, have a good conversation or enjoy drugs/exercise. I don’t really have any empathy for a serial rapist and I don’t personally believe a person like that deserves or is capable of any type or rehabilitation.
If killing people is wrong, its wrong.
Ummm, checks notes, yes, killing people is wrong.
So, checks notes, we shouldn’t do it. State sanctioned murder is still, checks notes, murder.
Our notes appear to be in alignment. Let the minutes show that 1. Murder is wrong and 2. We shouldn’t do it.
I oppose it simply because it doesn’t work. It is not a deterrent, and it does not serve justice to put people to death, and it costs far more to execute someone than it does to rehabilitate them (the most expensive alternative - I’m not suggesting rehabilitation is an option for everyone).
And sometimes we execute innocent people. Like, how many of your family members would you be willing to put to death to keep the death penalty? Every innocent victim of the death penalty had a family, and that family never imagined it could happen to them.
Yeah nothing has come out showing it has any tangible positive benefits. Shocking I know haha.
I think the death penalty could be just, but, unfortunately our justice system is too capricious and dysfunctional to be worthy of administering it.
Yeah, its tough because I feel like if we KNOW a person has commited atrocities, kill em. But, there have been so many cases of wrongful conviction it gets messy.
I’m against it. It does nothing to protect people that a life sentence doesn’t do. It’s permanent, there’s no correcting for mistakes. It’s about punishment, not deterrent.
Killing even a killer when there’s an option to lock them up instead is unnecessary. It smacks of religious/moral judgement that is beyond what a justice system should be focused on. If an afterlife exists and is run by some supernatural deity(ies), they will take care of punishment.
Killing even a killer when there’s an option to lock them up instead is unnecessary.
So if keeping them locked up is not an option, say in a emergency situation or a failed state, you’d be okay with it?
That’s a reasonable view. I agree with just about everything you’ve said. I don’t see how its a religous judgement necessarily though.
I think the death penalty is silly even from an evil standpoint, death is a kind release compared to life in an American prison.
Are you saying prisons in America are a cruel and/or unusual punishment?
