The Death Penalty: Justified or Immoral?

[Saint Yosx]

I am completely against it for a fair few reasons, most that have already been said in this thread (e.g the potential to execute innocent people).

Plus, I actually find life imprisonment to be a harsher penalty than the death penalty. I see the death penalty as giving people who really don't deserve it an easy way out. So even for extreme crimes, I'd rather we lock the fucker up for the rest of their existence in a shitty prison than kill them.

I think honestly everybody should be given a second chance no matter how bad they may seem. Even Hitler loved animals...

[Punished UMN]

I am completely against it for a fair few reasons, most that have already been said in this thread (e.g the potential to execute innocent people).

Plus, I actually find life imprisonment to be a harsher penalty than the death penalty. I see the death penalty as giving people who really don't deserve it an easy way out. So even for extreme crimes, I'd rather we lock the fucker up for the rest of their existence in a shitty prison than kill them.

I think honestly everybody should be given a second chance no matter how bad they may seem. Even Hitler loved animals...

It may not necessarily be about chances, or even about the severity of punishment being justified. The threat of the Nazi war criminals had to be neutralized, and prison was no guarantee.

[Nejii]

I am completely against it for a fair few reasons, most that have already been said in this thread (e.g the potential to execute innocent people).

Plus, I actually find life imprisonment to be a harsher penalty than the death penalty. I see the death penalty as giving people who really don't deserve it an easy way out. So even for extreme crimes, I'd rather we lock the fucker up for the rest of their existence in a shitty prison than kill them.

I think honestly everybody should be given a second chance no matter how bad they may seem. Even Hitler loved animals...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU7R1emCw9U

[Saint Yosx]

I think honestly everybody should be given a second chance no matter how bad they may seem. Even Hitler loved animals...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU7R1emCw9U

lol, but all jokes aside Hitler was actually the first leader to advocate against smoking. Now I'm not saying he was a angel and that he did nothing wrong, just that everybody has the potential to do good.

[Zul-ar]

I am completely against it for a fair few reasons, most that have already been said in this thread (e.g the potential to execute innocent people).

This I concede is a valid issue. Of course I suppose that's why death row exists.

Of course I also believe that executions shouldn't be immediate and reserved for only the harshest of criminals. Drug dealer, no. Mass murderer with a body count of thirty, yes. Serial rapist, I'm conflicted.

What I'm trying to say is, suffering is subjective. We don't know if death is a punishment from a murderer's perspective, or salvation. So why kill them if it won't accomplish any suffering on their end?

Schadenfreude, or just to make us feel better about it is definitely an answer, but is that worth risking the possibility of making a mistake and murdering an innocent person? In my opinion, no. Justice boners aren't worth as much as lives.

[Esalia]

I am completely against it for a fair few reasons, most that have already been said in this thread (e.g the potential to execute innocent people).

This I concede is a valid issue. Of course I suppose that's why death row exists.

Of course I also believe that executions shouldn't be immediate and reserved for only the harshest of criminals. Drug dealer, no. Mass murderer with a body count of thirty, yes. Serial rapist, I'm conflicted.

If the death penalty is a hard punishment to pass down (as in, the process is as thorough as possible to ensure as few false positives as possible), and the criminal in question is so dangerous that their threat must be eliminated for the sake of society (like a mass murderer or a war criminal), I can agree more with the death penalty.

Honestly, the false positives are my biggest worry for allowing the death penalty for really anything other than "it's completely and blatantly obvious that it's this person". Whilst life in jail still robs someone of part (or in some cases potentially even most) of their life, they could very well be alive by the time we find out they're innocent. Once someone's executed, no amount of proof showing they're innocent is going to reverse that punishment.

[Nejii]

This I concede is a valid issue. Of course I suppose that's why death row exists.

Of course I also believe that executions shouldn't be immediate and reserved for only the harshest of criminals. Drug dealer, no. Mass murderer with a body count of thirty, yes. Serial rapist, I'm conflicted.

If the death penalty is a hard punishment to pass down (as in, the process is as thorough as possible to ensure as few false positives as possible), and the criminal in question is so dangerous that their threat must be eliminated for the sake of society (like a mass murderer or a war criminal), I can agree more with the death penalty.

Honestly, the false positives are my biggest worry for allowing the death penalty for really anything other than "it's completely and blatantly obvious that it's this person". Whilst life in jail still robs someone of part (or in some cases potentially even most) of their life, they could very well be alive by the time we find out they're innocent. Once someone's executed, no amount of proof showing they're innocent is going to reverse that punishment.

Which is why I believe in a strict reservation in using it and shill for a competent and efficient justice system buuuut...

[Ifreann]

Nobody deserves the death penalty.

Not even Ted Bundy, Dennis Rader, Andrei Chikatilo, or Ed Gein? And what of Hermann Goring or other Nazi figureheads?

How do you ensure that those are the only people who are executed? It's easy to look back at infamous criminals from the past, but what do you do with someone accused of similar crimes now? What legal procedure do you employ to guarantee that they are a modern Ted Bundy or Hermann Goring and not just an ordinary criminal or an innocent person?

---

I don't think it's justified to take someone who we have already neutralised as a threat to others, someone we have locked in a cell in a guarded prison, and execute that person. I don't think it matters what crimes they have done, if we can use less than lethal force to keep them from harming others then we should not use lethal force.

But even if you disagree with me, if you believe that some crimes are so abominable that the perpetrator cannot retain the right to life, then I would say that you should still oppose the death penalty. Whatever you think about the morality of executing certain people, as a practical matter it is just not possible to have a criminal justice system that never returns false convictions. If you have capital punishment, then you will, inevitably, execute innocent people. No human system can ever be perfect. We can have all the forensic science advances you could dream of and we'll still have cops, judges, and juries who are biased or corrupt or incompetent.

Not if it is abolished for ordinary crimes but only retained for extraordinary ones.

Because it's impossible to wrongly convict someone of an extraordinary crime?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Totally justified. Plenty of people simply do not deserve to live.

[Ifreann]

Totally justified. Plenty of people simply do not deserve to live.

And finding and killing them will cost how many innocent lives?

[Punished UMN]

Not even Ted Bundy, Dennis Rader, Andrei Chikatilo, or Ed Gein? And what of Hermann Goring or other Nazi figureheads?

How do you ensure that those are the only people who are executed? It's easy to look back at infamous criminals from the past, but what do you do with someone accused of similar crimes now? What legal procedure do you employ to guarantee that they are a modern Ted Bundy or Hermann Goring and not just an ordinary criminal or an innocent person?

---

Not if it is abolished for ordinary crimes but only retained for extraordinary ones.

Because it's impossible to wrongly convict someone of an extraordinary crime?

When I say "extraordinary crime" I mean things such as war crimes or genocide, for which the evidence would be overwhelming.

[Ifreann]

How do you ensure that those are the only people who are executed? It's easy to look back at infamous criminals from the past, but what do you do with someone accused of similar crimes now? What legal procedure do you employ to guarantee that they are a modern Ted Bundy or Hermann Goring and not just an ordinary criminal or an innocent person?

---

Because it's impossible to wrongly convict someone of an extraordinary crime?

When I say "extraordinary crime" I mean things such as war crimes or genocide, for which the evidence would be overwhelming.

That's what I figured, but it's still imperfect people in an imperfect system, they're going to get it wrong at least some of the time.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Totally justified. Plenty of people simply do not deserve to live.

And finding and killing them will cost how many innocent lives?

Not enough to be statistically relevant really. Even with the United States horrifically broken and racist justice system the false conviction rate is very low, and if the system was actually given oversight and repair it could easily be brought down to ~1%.

[Turelisa-]

Wherever this penalty is absent there is accordingly an unchecked tendency among the reprobate type. Since they can't develop a moral conscience, their general motive of rational self-interest can only be influenced by the strongest motive present in human nature, which is self-preservation, and accordingly the only punishment for taking a human life, and in such a wanton, merciless way, is forfeiture of the life of the convicted murderer.
The recent murder in my city of a young man, whose life was still ahead of him, by a pack of mindless brutes wandering the streets looking for somebody, anybody vulnerable to beat up and slaughter with knives attests to my conviction.
Any questions?

[UniversalCommons]

Some people are predators. They have incurable mental illnesses that cause them to kill people serially or rape people serially. There is a large portion of people who are sadists in a given population. This is their natural tendency. The main reason I can see for keeping them alive is preventative, finding out how to identify them and prevent other people with these tendencies to act on their instincts. We need to understand what makes a sociopath a killer or rapist. There should be a period where they spend time in diagnosis like lab rats, then they should be executed.

[Turelisa-]

Some people are predators. They have incurable mental illnesses that cause them to kill people serially or rape people serially. There is a large portion of people who are sadists in a given population. This is their natural tendency. The main reason I can see for keeping them alive is preventative, finding out how to identify them and prevent other people with these tendencies to act on their instincts. We need to understand what makes a sociopath a killer or rapist. There should be a period where they spend time in diagnosis like lab rats, then they should be executed.

True. Depravity is a major factor in all crimes. Sadism exists, however much we try to rationalise it out of existence with the fallacious argument of the environment factor, and it has been proven time and time again by various cases where criminals convicted of serious crimes and released into society, apparantly cured of their perversity, subsequently commit further human atrocities.

[Wallenburg]

Some people are predators. They have incurable mental illnesses that cause them to kill people serially or rape people serially. There is a large portion of people who are sadists in a given population. This is their natural tendency. The main reason I can see for keeping them alive is preventative, finding out how to identify them and prevent other people with these tendencies to act on their instincts. We need to understand what makes a sociopath a killer or rapist. There should be a period where they spend time in diagnosis like lab rats, then they should be executed.

Seeing as this post drips with sadism, is it your intention to go willingly or do you expect some special exemption to this hypothetical policy?

[Adamede]

So long as there is a real possibility of executing an innocent individual, the death penalty is not justified.

[Neanderthaland]

Justified in cases where an individual would remain a danger to society even when incarcerated. Such as a powerful Mafia boss, or a deposed dictator.

Otherwise not.

[Loben III]

Justified, some people are too far gone.

[Atheris]

Against it in most cases. Sexual predators, serial killers, and war criminals don't get my mercy, though.

[Ifreann]

And finding and killing them will cost how many innocent lives?

Not enough to be statistically relevant really. Even with the United States horrifically broken and racist justice system the false conviction rate is very low, and if the system was actually given oversight and repair it could easily be brought down to ~1%.

If you're writing off the deaths of innocent people as statistically irrelevant then what is even your problem with these people who supposedly don't deserve to live? Are they getting executed for not filling out the proper forms before killing a statistically insignificant number of people?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not enough to be statistically relevant really. Even with the United States horrifically broken and racist justice system the false conviction rate is very low, and if the system was actually given oversight and repair it could easily be brought down to ~1%.

If you're writing off the deaths of innocent people as statistically irrelevant then what is even your problem with these people who supposedly don't deserve to live? Are they getting executed for not filling out the proper forms before killing a statistically insignificant number of people?

Every single system leads to innocents being wronged in one way or another. That's just a result of human imperfection. The ideal is to simply make that number as small as possible, which is fully possible even with the death penalty.

[Awesomeland]

Justified. There simply exist clear cases where an individual can be of no further use to society and represents an uncontrollable destructive effect. However, I don't see this so much as a penalty, because a penalty implies that this is intended as a punishment, so much as a simple matter of repurposing assets. Some people are just so broken and commit acts so heinous that the only sensible move forward is to repurpose them for spare parts.

[Ifreann]

If you're writing off the deaths of innocent people as statistically irrelevant then what is even your problem with these people who supposedly don't deserve to live? Are they getting executed for not filling out the proper forms before killing a statistically insignificant number of people?

Every single system leads to innocents being wronged in one way or another. That's just a result of human imperfection. The ideal is to simply make that number as small as possible, which is fully possible even with the death penalty.

People who are wrongly imprisoned can be freed. People who are wrongly fined can have their money returned. People wrongly executed are dead forever.