Does method of execution, crime committed or overall cost matter to you?
Yes, I believe it’s nearly always immoral, and the exception is public figures directly involved in crimes against humanity.
If you have to have a trial to figure out if you got the right person, that’s too much doubt. It’s just Nuremberg, Saddam, the radio guy from Rwanda, and folks like them. Everything else regardless of how monstrous the state should only kill if they are absolutely incapable of keeping that person from taking more lives.
Also governments should be held accountable when one prisoner kills another in a situation that could have been predicted. And yes this includes pedos being stabbed in prison.
I don’t personally see a difference in a serial rapist and a public figure like you stated. I think both should be axed, assuming dead to rights evidence of crime.
Because for non public figures we keep thinking we have dead to rights evidence of crimes and executing people who turn out innocent
I recognize the unfortunate fact that innocent people have been and will continue to be killed unjustly. I’m saying drawing a moral line between one would need to extend to the other. If it’s wrong, its wrong. The idea that you’d pick and choose who deserves it just means you’re in favor of it.
Fully support it for murder, r*pe, human trafficking, genocide, trafficking and distribution of deadly drugs like fentanyl (which is equivalent to murder in my eyes), and accepting bribery as a government official or embezzlement of public funds over some amount. I really don’t see any other way to deal with those kinds of criminals and I can’t stand the people who get all high and mighty about “mercy” while dismissing the actual victims.
However, I do think the death penalty needs to be restricted to cases where it is absolutely certain they are guilty of the crimes charged. Beyond beyond a reasonable doubt, there needs to be zero doubt. This alone will spare the vast majority of those criminals and make actual executions extremely rare, but IMO death always needs to be on the table when everyone is absolutely sure they did it.
Additionally, I submit that having life in prison as the only option increases the chance of false convictions because people don’t see life in prison as “that serious” compared to death. People will very rightly flip their shit if they find out that an executed person was innocent, but when that same person is imprisoned for decades and is released with their spirit comprehensively broken and with only a few years of their natural life left, people are far more dismissive because they weren’t executed. “Oh well that’s sad but what can you do? The justice system is imperfect after all, just be glad we didn’t execute you.” The solution is not to keep people locked up for life on the off chance one of them is innocent, and when one of them is, claim moral superiority about only locking them up for life. The solution is to make absolutely damn sure they’re guilty before you sentence them.
Everyone gets hung up on life in prison being “reversible” and have this idealistic idea that if someone is truly innocent, the absolute truth will come out “eventually” and set them free. But look at actual court records and you’ll find that in practice it almost never gets reversed even when there is overwhelming evidence of their innocence, and when it does, the courts take their sweet time as if hoping to run out the clock and for the convicted to just die. Courts don’t like reopening cases especially for serious crimes because it reflects negatively on them, so you’re as good as condemned as soon as the hammer drops whether the sentence is life or death. People like to think of the innocent prisoner as being able to continuously fight for their innocence, but in reality you only get one chance to defend yourself and after that, no one in power will listen to you whether you’re alive to speak or not. Innocent people who get their life sentence reversed are the very very rare exception, not the rule, and usually only because their story resonated with the public in a way they cannot forsee or control, and it’s the public pressure that gets the courts to reconsider purely in order to preserve their image, not the guilt of potentially sentencing an innocent person. If you’re not noticed by the media or your story doesn’t resonate with the masses, like the vast majority of innocent convicts, you have no chance of getting out no matter how innocent you are. And the media and public has shown time and time again to be extremely race/culture selective in which convict they pay attention to, so a white person in the West is way more likely to be freed compared to an equally innocent person of colour.
The death penalty is wrong because life is precious and even the worst people can change if given enough time and help.
However, if it is strictly necessary to kill someone currently engaging in murder to stop them (i.e. the capitalist class), i.e. the situation is so time-sensitive that innocent people are going to die if the murderer isn’t stopped, then I’m 1000% cool with killing the murderers until they stop murdering or are dead, whichever happens first.
Oh yeah I draw a heavy distinction between those two things. In fact, according to my moral compass, not killing someone actively engaging in murder would be immoral. Like if one person is stabbing an innocent person, green light 1000%. But thats just my morals.
not killing someone actively engaging in murder would be immoral
Are you sure? Like I wouldn’t condemn you for stabbing a murderer frankly, but let’s say you can tackle or distract or knock out the murderer, or just do something that isn’t stabbing them but still stops them without hurting you, then only if it is feasible to do so, then surely that’s a better outcome? Again, I would 1000% not fault you for acting quickly in a real situation and stabbing a murderer, but since we are in the proverbial armchair we can afford to be a little bit more subtle here.
IMO I think “could be” is more accurate than “would be”.
Yes that would be a better outcome but, absolutely a much bigger risk. Im a particularly big/strong guy. I’ve spent a couple years training 2 martial arts disciplines lately. I also grew up a middle school, high school and college wrestler. I still don’t see a way I could be 100% sure I wouldn’t be fataly injured by getting involved, unless I had a gun. Ideally nobody dies but its such a crazy huge risk to attack someone with a weapon.
Yeah I feel you. Personally I have almost 0 martial arts training, almost 0 self-defense experience, and an utterly ambivalent will to live. So if I’m at the point where I’m willing to get physical at all, then I’ve already flown off the handle and my personal safety is just not a factor in the calculation anymore.
Yeah it would depend on the situation. I’d like to think I’d get involved regardless. But, I’ve never been and hopefully will never be in the situation. Interesting hypothetical though. Definitely not something I run through my head all the time on my commute haha.
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 just dont understand that rationale. I’ve seen it among several comments here. Killing is killing, if you’ve got a moral issue with it, why be inconsistent. Wouldn’t the argument that life in prison would be worse be applicable to any person?
i’m not against killing per se. you can kill in self defense for example and be excused. people can kill in a war or a revolution and be excused. in a perfect world, of course, people wouldn’t have reasons to kill. i think the line is drawn if 1) someone massively kills or acts sadistically for chauvinistic reasons (i. e. for being part of a group of persons, not being of the right ethnicity or because they believe in some sort of pseudoscience, like anti-vaxers) 2) are or were in a position of power or high leadership 3) are at risk of returning to positions of power even after arrest (for example, they can be rescued from prison in a coup d’état by its supporters, or being pardoned by political shifts).
the regular serial killer such as manson or ed gein were not in real positions of power and were not at risk of returning to such positions, and could therefore be jailed forever. himmler, heydrich, eichmann, king leopold ii, mobutu, suharto, pretty much every latin american, african, european or asian dictator deserved to be judged with penalties up to the death penalty, and even some “democratic” leaders such us some british prime ministers and french presidents. not to say that i’m only restricting to right, i believe stalin, ceaucescu, enver hoxha and to some extent even mao should be defendants in processes that could lead up to death penalty.
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 is more about vengeance than justice. If they’re going to happen the execution should be swift, public and if there were credible eyewitnesses to the crime, brutal!.
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 think it’s appropriate in some cases, when a crime is disgusting and extremely selfish.
These are what I would approve it for.
-Murder for non idealogical reasons, or not for revenge, or also if the murder is cruel.
-Volent pedophilia, including kidnapping and rape or coercion.
-Political corruption or grand scams that hurt many people.
-Propaganda or profiting off destroying democratic institutions. Conspiracy against the public like fiat currencies.
-Sensless animal cruelty.
-promoting religion for power reasons while being a hypocrite.
-Extreme child neglect, like doing drugs while pregnant.
-Dissolving as a politician or advocating for the dissolution of basic human rights like privacy.
-High treason, as is a head of state or a chair of the house working with foreigners to subvert your political autonomy.
-Putting people in prison who are known to be innocent.
These are what I consider to be extremely serious crimes. Probably a few more I can add on there. Most of these as you can see mostly target people with power, the rest are just for cruelty and extreme selfishness at the expense of others which causes mass corruption.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Those are your opinions, not mine. I didn’t offer an opinion on capital punishment. I just pointed out the pretty f’n obvious flaw in your logic.
No thats not what anyone is saying. Prison reform is an important aspect of the conversation. But, in the instance of a serial rapist/murderer, is rehabilitation even remotely realistic at any point? Sure, its an uncommon fringe case, but, I feel the death penalty should only be used in uncommon fringe cases. No matter what the reform, the prisoner will still have some “good” days. They’ll read an interesting book, interact with someone positively, do drugs or really enjoy a jerk session. FUCK THAT I even if 90% of the days are terrible, in a decades long sentence, thats still alot of good days. An individual like the one we are talking about deserves zero good days. In my personal opinion.
I didn’t offer my opinion on the death penalty. You made an absurd claim to support your position; I merely pointed out how wildly wrong you were.
Yeah the mentality from many commenters seems to be that once someone is in jail for life they are effectively dead. Which just isnt true at all.
Well put
I think some crimes deserve death, but I just don’t trust the government –any government!– to make that decision.
I’ll go one further, I wouldn’t trust any human being 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.
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.
The death penalty is incredibly stupid for more than one reason.
- If someone committed a crime that egregious, they should be punished every day, and you should help them live as long as possible.
- So many innocent people are put to death because our system for determining guilt is far from righteous, or right.
- You don’t talk about Fight Club.
You don’t talk about Fight Club.
No, but you mix PPV and Fight Club and it’s the best reality show ever.
So, I wholeheartedly agree with 2. Its the most reasonable and realistic argument against it in my opinion. I do have an issue with 1. Prison/incarnation will eventually become the new normal. Individuals will enjoy reading a book, making a friend, do drugs and in most cases continue criminal activity. In some cases even send information out, effectively running criminal enterprises from the inside. They wont be free, but, they won’t be as unhappy as people like to think.
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 do not trust the justice system what so ever. Nor the nation state that gave birth to this abomination.
No to the death sentence.
I’d be against it even if we could magically know without a doubt the person’s guilty. Even if it had a negative cost. Even for raping a child.
Life is sacred, whatever “sacred” means for an atheist like me.
(And I was raped as a child, fwiw.)I agree, but for a different reason. I don’t think life is sacred, but as an atheist I do think people get off the hook too easily if they’re just killed. I think it’s fair for them to suffer the rest of their lifetime, just like the victims did.
I think it’s wrong to knowingly inflict suffering in others in any capacity.
