Does method of execution, crime committed or overall cost matter to you?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’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.
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!.
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.
In this reality of fallible humans, ineptness, and corruption then no.
However, if it was guaranteed that the person was definitely guilty of certain crimes (such as raping kids. Being a fascist dictator. Premeditated murder. Spraying yourself orange and shitting yourself etc etc) then yeah I’m ok with it.
Ok, life is sacred and all that but if a person is steadfastly evil then they don’t deserve life.
And you get to determine who is “steadfastly evil”?
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)
In a just society it will always cost more to execute a person than it would cost to imprison them for life. If that’s always going to be the case in a just society you may as well imprison them for life. The outcome is the same.
The reason execution should always cost more is because you have to be absolutely sure to the best of our abilities that the person is guilty. Until we come up with a fool proof way to determine guilt we will always run the risk of executing the wrong person for a crime.
I’m strongly against death penalty when it comes to crimes of individual against individual.
I am for death penalty when it comes to crimes of influential individual against masses though.
A murderer or rapist who ruined one life doesn’t deserve death penalty. A corrupt politician who ruined countless lives cooperating with the billionaires does.
If you truly believe that all humans are equal then you must also believe that it is impossible for one to stand in judgment of another. I believe that killing is wrong because it is one human standing in judgement of another. Society has a duty to protect its members, but judgement and the concept of “punishment” is something that should be left to God.
the concept of “punishment” is something that should be left to God
If a Christian kills an atheist child, the child goes to hell and the Christian can just “repent” and go to heaven.
God is not just.
Also, by this logic, it literally doesn’t matter to the Christian whether he is executed or not because he’s going to heaven anyway, because God doesn’t actually give a shit whether you’re good or evil, just whether you think he’s actually God. So why should the rest of us hellbound mortals have to deal with him for the rest of his natural life?
Heaven is almost certainly not real so I’m not sure where you’re getting that from.
the only people who should get the death penalty, are people who support it
Against, regardless of crime. Regardless of the system used to kill. Regardless of the system used to convict or identify the criminal. Even if they are unrepentant and said they’d do it again. Even under a perfect justice system.
Now life in prison, sure.
Why is life in prison any better or worse? In your opinion.
