Death Penalty

[Snake of Eden]

What are your thoughts? I am in favour if the conviction is based on evidence that is damning enough

 

[Midgardsorm]

IMO Rapists doesn't deserve the peace of death. They deserve to suffer in a jail for very long.

 

[Fragile]

It certainly depends on the magnitude of the crime, this is definitely not for every murderer even. But I believe that the death penalty is not as bad as an alternative as some people think, since there are many prisoners who are beyond the point of recovery in any conceivable way, and they are eventually going to die behind bars in some decades anyway.

Let's not pretend that prisons are rehabilitative, at least in 99% of the world they are punitive and the concept of achieving recovery and getting to live as a normal member of society is simply not there even for very mild offenders.

Plus, the fact that a heinous criminal who did horrible stuff is now living on my taxes is something that I consider highly disturbing. Even if they are released, it's still a drain on society to keep a mass murderer alive, they need to constantly relocate and hide their identity from people seeking retribution and mass outrage. Not to mention that they may continue to take the lives of innocents once they get the chance.

Instead of pointlessly torturing someone who's life has already ended, with the righteous intent of giving them what they deserve, isn't it more humane to give them a supervised lethal injection and be done with it?

 

[noname223]

lol I have made a very similar thread today. (Though the topic is not funny.) I am against the death sentence and I argue for the right of assisted suicide also for prisoners. I think it is still a big punishment having to die and fighting the SI. I still think it is horrible to commmit suicide even in those circumstances. For me this would be a punishment enough horrible. Life sentence or having to die when you don't really want it. Both seems pretty horrible for me. For me personally dying would be prefered.

 

[narval]

In general, yes, i am in favor.
There's crimes so horrendous and people so inhuman that they can't live in this society. They have to stay forever in jail. Perhaps even with meds/therapy or even in a psiquiatric. This people aren't cappable to live in society without huge risk for people... or they've lose the right of live in it by a very huge gap.

Reincident violators & pederasts, serial killers, terrorists, kidnappers that also tortures theyr victims (even for years). IMO they have loose the right of being considered humans. What whe do with this people? Live for years in jail? wasting resources and giving them a minimal comfort? like they're viable persons? or just like they are persons? Perhaps do you want to throw them into a hole and make theyr life a hell? In the first case they don't desserve, they lost the right, moreover if they're living at our expense. In the second we'll not being much better than them.

So what's left? Killing them or using them as experimental subjects for medicine, crashing tests and so.

Of course this can be problematic:
- If you consider them as individuals, just killing them (or using them as medical test subjects and so) is nearly bad as torture
- People like this are very rare. In order to avoid false culprits it will be necessary a good research. A good and guarantor death penalty system would worth it for highly low ammounts of people?

 

[PreussenBlueJay]

No matter what anyone says the death penalty is simply more humane than keeping a person confined in a cage for decades on end. Keeping them in the cage subjects them to suffering at the hands of vindictive guards or fellow prisoners. At the very least the option for DAS should be available to them.

 

[Snake of Eden]

In general, yes, i am in favor.
There's crimes so horrendous and people so inhuman that they can't live in this society. They have to stay forever in jail. Perhaps even with meds/therapy or even in a psiquiatric. This people aren't cappable to live in society without huge risk for people... or they've lose the right of live in it by a very huge gap.

Reincident violators & pederasts, serial killers, terrorists, kidnappers that also tortures theyr victims (even for years). IMO they have loose the right of being considered humans. What whe do with this people? Live for years in jail? wasting resources and giving them a minimal comfort? like they're viable persons? or just like they are persons? Perhaps do you want to throw them into a hole and make theyr life a hell? In the first case they don't desserve, they lost the right, moreover if they're living at our expense. In the second we'll not being much better than them.

So what's left? Killing them or using them as experimental subjects for medicine, crashing tests and so.

Of course this can be problematic:
- If you consider them as individuals, just killing them (or using them as medical test subjects and so) is nearly bad as torture
- People like this are very rare. In order to avoid false culprits it will be necessary a good research. A good and guarantor death penalty system would worth it for highly low ammounts of people?

I dont think there is much good arguments against death penalty to be honest. It is just unrealistic and unsustainable solution to hand out jail sentences when crime is very much heinous and proven beyond doubt.

 

[YourNeighbor]

What are your thoughts? I am in favour if the conviction is based on evidence that is damning enough

Every conviction that is upheld on appeal by definition is based on "evidence that is damning enough." Unfortunately, wrongful convictions are inevitable. Some estimates put the false conviction rate in the U.S. at 1-5%. If that's true, perhaps as many as 1 in 20 on death row should not be there. That's a horrifying thought, or should be. People here complain about society being heartless--the death penalty is one of the most heartless aspects of it.

The death penalty obviously cannot be undone once carried out. It is more expensive than life in prison. It does not have any noticeable deterrent effect.

There is simply no good reason to have the death penalty in place.

 

[avoid_slow_death]

Yes. For murderers who kill for no reason or very selfish reasons, child molesters and rapists. These people have absolutely no respect for the lives of others and are very harmful for society as a whole. We have to draw the line somewhere on forgiveness and for me, any of these crimes are unforgivable.

 

[Snake of Eden]

It is more expensive than life in prison.

How?

Every conviction that is upheld on appeal by definition is based on "evidence that is damning enough." Unfortunately, wrongful convictions are inevitable. Some estimates put the false conviction rate in the U.S. at 1-5%. If that's true, perhaps as many as 1 in 20 on death row should not be there. That's a horrifying thought, or should be. People here complain about society being heartless--the death penalty is one of the most heartless aspects of it.

Punishing people for crimes they didnt do is horrifying wether it is jail or death sentence. Thats why I say death penalty should only be used when crime is proven beyond doubt.

It does not have any noticeable deterrent effect.

Deterrence isnt the only benefit to death penalty. People who carry psychopathic tendencies are better off not to let to reproduce. Many other benefits as well

There is simply no good reason to have the death penalty in place.

I dont agree at all. What is so humane about serving a life sentence with no end in sight other than too slow, boring decades long death

 

[noname223]

I dont think there is much good arguments against death penalty to be honest. It is just unrealistic and unsustainable solution to hand out jail sentences when crime is very much heinous and proven beyond doubt.

If you are promortalist people you think dying is better than living (suffering). So dying would be the less sort of punishment. (I am not one but I know some on here sympathize with that.)
I think there are plenty of reasons for not allowing the death sentence. It is proven a lot of people have gotten it despite the fact they were innocent.
Innocent people can be freed but dead people cannot be revived.
Some prison systems in the world have in my opinion too much of a focus on punishment and not rehabilitation. If the prisons are full it is extremely expensive but I don't want to go into further details.

 

[narval]

Every conviction that is upheld on appeal by definition is based on "evidence that is damning enough." Unfortunately, wrongful convictions are inevitable. Some estimates put the false conviction rate in the U.S. at 1-5%. If that's true, perhaps as many as 1 in 20 on death row should not be there. That's a horrifying thought, or should be. People here complain about society being heartless--the death penalty is one of the most heartless aspects of it.

The death penalty obviously cannot be undone once carried out. It is more expensive than life in prison. It does not have any noticeable deterrent effect.

There is simply no good reason to have the death penalty in place.

The main risk i see with death penalty is the first paragraph. A innocent condemned to death is a tragedy.
About being more expensive it's something it could be fixed... and dissuasion of course is important, but IMO this has another aspect: get rid of people who aren't cappable to live in this world ASAP

Anyway, right now i would not reform a legal system to chase outliers
PD: as far as i know, death sentence system in USA it isn't too good

 

[Snake of Eden]

If you are promortalist people you think dying is better than living (suffering). So dying would be the less sort of punishment. (I am not one but I know some on here sympathize with that.)
I think there are plenty of reasons for not allowing the death sentence. It is proven a lot of people have gotten it despite the fact they were innocent.
Innocent people can be freed but dead people cannot be revived.
Some prison systems in the world have in my opinon too much of a focus on punishment and not rehabilitation. If the prisons are full it is extremely expensive but I don't want to go into further details.

Rehabilitation (correction) is just a very overrated concept just like mental health interventions or even worse. Once people are over their formative years, chances for radical change is beyond negligible. I would even argue proponents of jail system the way it is, are lobbying for it to profit from the model from tax payers money

 

[YourNeighbor]

How?

Legal fees. It is much more expensive to put someone to death than to keep them in prison for life. This info is readily available.

Punishing people for crimes they didnt do is horrifying wether it is jail or death sentence. Thats why I say death penalty should only be used when crime is proven beyond doubt.

Because the legal system is run by people, there will always be errors. Everyone is convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt." Still, some people who are convicted are factually innocent. Against, at least 1-5% by best estimates, maybe more. You cannot eliminate error from the criminal justice system.

Deterrence isnt the only benefit to death penalty. People who carry psychopathic tendencies are better off not to let to reproduce. Many other benefits as well

Again, deterrence is no benefit from the death penalty. It has no deterrent effect. All that's left to justify the death penalty is a desire for vengeance. That does not outweigh the monetary costs (especially as life in prison can be a very severe penalty), or the fact that it is *inevitable* that the death penalty results in innocent people being killed. Again, you cannot eliminate false convictions.

I dont agree at all. What is so humane about serving a life sentence with no end in sight other than too slow, boring decades long death

The humane aspect comes from the fact that someone who is in prison and wrongfully convicted can be released if new evidence comes to light, even compensated for their wrongful conviction. Someone who is executed will always be dead, whether they were guilty or not.

 

[noname223]

Rehabilitation (correction) is just a very overrated concept just like mental health interventions or even worse. Once people are over their formative years, chances for radical change is beyond negligible. I would even argue proponents of jail system the way it is, are lobbying for it to profit from the model from tax payers money

I absolutely agree with the last point. Especially in the US there are private prisons and many people get very rich by imprisoning criminals. Though I disagree with you diametrically on your stance about rehabiltation. I think in the US there are many exactly due to this reason against more rehabilitation.
Though I think Scandinavia is a little to liberal when it comes to punishment. I am pretty sure we would not find a compromise. But it is not needed. Everyone can have his/her opinion.

 

[YourNeighbor]

PD: as far as i know, death sentence system in USA it isn't too good

The death sentence system is not too good anywhere. That is why you don't see it in almost any free country. It is a great tool to terrorize citizens and especially the poor and powerless, though, if you're a dictator.

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

I'm against punishment/torture (no matter the crime [if I'm the victim I'll probably ignore this, but it's the thought that counts]). So, I think death should always be an option. Getting to escape from this shitty planet is no punishment, in my opinion it is a favor (depending on how it's done, and the person that is being murdered's attitude toward it). No retarded methods like injections/chair, tho, it could be done inexpensively and humanely with inert gasses or some carotid-blocker. No long waiting times, either.

I think it would have to be case-by-case. If some victim's family really need an execution for closure, or if some prisoner is ok-ish with dying, I don't think it's unreasonable to humanely kill the person. If everyone involved wants the perp to sit around for decades and play videogames/make shitty pillowcases (or whatever), I don't see any huge harm in that either. But the option of death should, generally speaking, be there for people that need assistance, including prisoners.

If someone wants to live or if someone wants someone else dead or not, I don't feel like playing judge, jury and executioner based on my own moral whims. So I'll just say no to senseless suffering and then let the details work themselves out.

Pretending like I actually have some say in things once in a while could be good to maintain sanity...

 

[Snake of Eden]

The humane aspect comes from the fact that someone who is in prison and wrongfully convicted can be released if new evidence comes to light, even compensated for their wrongful conviction. Someone who is executed will always be dead, whether they were guilty or not.

If someone was proven beyond doubt to have committed murder in public with 10s of witnesses for example and being filmed, death penalty is a better alternative than life sentence. Same goes for repeated offenders like serial killers and rapists. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. And I dont think it is too far fetched to say there are crimes that can be proven beyond doubt that no later emerging evidence should be anticipated or that will sound really cartoonish

 

[Ringo]

From a pragmatic point of view, yes, because I don't want my taxes to be directed to keeping an undesirable alive until he or she finishes rotting in his or her cell, I don't see it as optimal when that money can be invested in better things , capital punishment is suitable for irrecoverable people, those whose crimes ended or completely ruined the lives of those affected, people capable of carrying out these acts in a premeditated and conscious manner are irrecoverable, things like adulterating food, especially those intended for children's consumption should considered a direct and serious attack on their lives.

The main risk i see with death penalty is the first paragraph. A innocent condemned to death is a tragedy.
About being more expensive it's something it could be fixed... and dissuasion of course is important, but IMO this has another aspect: get rid of people who aren't cappable to live in this world ASAP

Anyway, right now i would not reform a legal system to chase outliers
PD: as far as i know, death sentence system in USA it isn't too good

I don't think death penalty it's something applicable, for reasons such as those expressed here, since we would require institutions as clean and organized as we can to reduce as much as possible the number of possible innocent people killed by mistake, these things don't abound, even in countries considered socially developed there have been many cases of partiality that lead to what can well be described as arbitrary penalties.

 

[Sherri]

If there's evidence 100% there no biggest punishment than life without parole for the rest of their lives. So they can revive everything bad they did and haunt them every night. Just my opinion, there's always someone who will disagree and I respect their views.

 

[LONE WOLF.]

I fully support the return of the Death Sentence for Crimes like Murder, Rape, Gross indecency, Sexual Assault, Spouse Beating, Burglary, Street Robbery and Pet Theft! And men who wear skinny jeans over the age of 50!!!

 

[Fragile]

Legal fees. It is much more expensive to put someone to death than to keep them in prison for life. This info is readily available.

Because the legal system is run by people, there will always be errors. Everyone is convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt." Still, some people who are convicted are factually innocent. Against, at least 1-5% by best estimates, maybe more. You cannot eliminate error from the criminal justice system.

Again, deterrence is no benefit from the death penalty. It has no deterrent effect. All that's left to justify the death penalty is a desire for vengeance. That does not outweigh the monetary costs (especially as life in prison can be a very severe penalty), or the fact that it is *inevitable* that the death penalty results in innocent people being killed. Again, you cannot eliminate false convictions.

The humane aspect comes from the fact that someone who is in prison and wrongfully convicted can be released if new evidence comes to light, even compensated for their wrongful conviction. Someone who is executed will always be dead, whether they were guilty or not.

If the cost of the death penalty is higher than living a lifetime in prison, then I'll take it as clear evidence that there's something horribly corrupt about any system that experiences this, and not as evidence that the death penalty is necessarily bad. Besides, there are other countries in the world, and not all of them have to endure such burocratic nightmare.

The you argue about the humane aspect of keeping someone in prison, waiting for god knows how many years for new evidence, evidence that may never come to save them. I don't know that such a small minority should be representative of the death sentence, even if I agree that everyone should be considered innocent until overwhelming evidence is presented.

 

[LastFlowers]

Abolishing it completely could pose a problem, as I do believe that there are plenty of people genuinely terrified of the death penalty, even more so than prison itself, and that fear keeps them in line.

However, there is always the chance that someone on death row is innocent, and they just need more time and more help from the outside to prove it. Once they're dead, their fight is over and they die "guilty".

Then you've also got to look at things via a case by case basis, what was the person's background, were they set up to fail by society? Or did they have most everything at their disposal and still decided to commit a heinous crime?
We need to concern ourselves with why even some inherently decent people are pushed to the brink or have their heads so fucked up, that they attack the world that fucked them.
Even if we do punish them, make an example out of them, we should still assess and analyze why and how they got to that point, the external factors, their environment, their circumstances, their interpersonal relationships, etc..rather than shout "psychopath" or "monster" at everyone and calling it a day.

One other thing, as for the "insanity defense" I actually think there are an incredible amount of people who abuse this when the fact of the matter is they deserve to be prosecuted as a sane individual.
It's bizarre that being certifiably "insane" on trial in the court of law is one of the few areas of life where that label will do you any good.
That seems backwards to me.

 

[Pen>Sword]

I say let the convicted man to decide his punishment. I don't believe in death penalty as the government has total control of the prisoner's bodily autonomy. My criminology professors overwhelmingly are against it, it doesn't reduce crime and it's purely vengeance. Those who've been rehabilitated or reformed no longer deserve death penalty. Not to mention, there are falsely convicted on death row. We can't afford an Innocent man die along with perpetrators, no matter how statistically insignificant of innocent-guilty ratio in death row.

If I'd choose one, I'd say life sentence. The government has no right to control people's decision of their ultimate fate.

 

[Snake of Eden]

One other thing, as for the "insanity defense" I actually think there are an incredible amount of people who abuse this when the fact of the matter is they deserve to be prosecuted as a sane individual.
It's bizarre that being certifiably "insane" on trial in the court of law is one of the few areas of life where that label will do you any good.
That seems backwards to me.

I dont understand how someone can be seen insane as if it is okay what they have done and just get away with treatement instead and are not seen as too unstable and unreliable as to be let out into society again. There is a famous case that happened in Toronto, Canada where a guy literally beheaded one random passenger sitting in front of him without any provokation or interaction what so ever. He got away with it based in insanity defense. How fucked up is that? There is absolutely no advantage or humanity in keeping someone like that alive. None!

 

[Snake of Eden]

If I'd choose one, I'd say life sentence. The government has no right to control people's decision of their ultimate fate.

Let them loose, why the punishment at all then?

 

[noname223]

I dont understand how someone can be seen insane as if it is okay what they have done and just get away with treatement instead and are not seen as too unstable and unreliable as to be let out into society again. There is a famous case that happened in Toronto, Canada where a guy literally beheaded one random passenger sitting in front of him without any provokation or interaction what so ever. He got away with it based in insanity defense. How fucked up is that? There is absolutely no advantage or humanity in keeping someone like that alive. None!

What if the person had a psychosis? I have heard about a case where someone pushed an innocent woman in front of a train. It was a lot in the media where I live. He was a refugee who experienced war (maybe torture) in his own country and turned insane due to that. He now spends the rest of his life in the forensics. Would you also give him death sentence?

I had a psychosis twice and met a lot of people who had it. Most of them have no control over their action then.

With this example I wanted to show that there are sometimes reasons why insanity should count as defense.

 

[LastFlowers]

I dont understand how someone can be seen insane as if it is okay what they have done and just get away with treatement instead and are not seen as too unstable and unreliable as to be let out into society again. There is a famous case that happened in Toronto, Canada where a guy literally beheaded one random passenger sitting in front of him without any provokation or interaction what so ever. He got away with it based in insanity defense. How fucked up is that? There is absolutely no advantage or humanity in keeping someone like that alive. None!

Exactly, it doesn't make sense and it's not consistent, and yes I have heard of that case, I cannot believe that they let that man go, what a reprehensible level of moral and ethical irresponsibility to allow for such a thing, whoever made that call is the truly insane one.

 

[Pen>Sword]

Let them loose, why the punishment at all then?

Life sentence in prison is still a severe punishment. Ask any prisoners, they'd say that being behind the bars is beyond hell itself. I never said anything about them leaving scot-free.

 

[avoid_slow_death]

If I'd choose one, I'd say life sentence. The government has no right to control people's decision of their ultimate fate.

Nor do the perpetrators have any right to choose who lives and dies or how they can fuck up someone else's life permanently. Kinda messed up that they get to pull that and continue to live. You can't respect life, why the hell should you get to live?