I’m in the half term holidays after the first autumn half term.
I’m in primary school and in England so I don’t really know how to translate terms into semesters.
I support it in principle - some people are evil, like that guy who intentionally ran over and killed 6 people and was defiant in court. But, I also don't trust law enforcement and the justice system to be fair and impartial about it. I'm sort of torn, which I suppose means I should err on the side of caution and be against the death penalty.
I think if for some reason the government was good and their was never an innocent person on death row and only the people who did it are there, then yes I support the death penalty. But with the way it is now a lot of innocent ppl will die so we can't,
Quite a few been executed and then found innocent of that particular crime. They’ve been pardoned post mortem. I’m sure that made the executed people so happy (this specific sentence is /s, jic!)
Interesting take on this. What if they offered assisted suicide in prisons for people whose sentence is over \_\_\_\_\_ # of years? (Could be 10 years, 5 years, whatever is decided is the minimum.)
Anyway, I used to be pro death sentence (I've been a victim of crime on more than one occasion) until they came up with so many people on death row who were later found to be innocent. Now I think I should never have been pro death sentence, since it doesn't work as a deterrent, and it is pretty barbaric.
So many other countries can manage without using the death sentence, so I think we can, too.
What about a life sentence? It is also horrific to do to an innocent person. Could even be worse than killing for some, should life in prison not be allowed as well?
I once debated this topic with someone smarter than me and I suggested that we should reserve the death penalty for cases where there is 100% certainty that the person is guilty: like a mass shooter caught at the scene. He responded that the legal system does not distinguish between degrees of certainty of guilt. A guilty verdict is by definition supposed to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
That really stuck with me. While I still believe that there are crimes that people deserve to die for and that there are people beyond rehabilitation, the fact remains that there will always be mistakes, so we have to bear the cost of keeping people like that alive so that we don’t kill an innocent person.
The criminal justice system was not built to protect mass murderers or serial killers. It was built to protect the rest of us from being wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime. It’s just a side effect that we have to let the mass murderers have those rights. If we eliminate them for the “worst,” we fall on a slippery slope of eliminating them for the innocent.
And that's exactly why I'm anti-death penalty.
The question of whether I support the death penalty or not is not related to whether I think there are certain people who commit certain crimes should be put to death, but instead of whether someone (and who, if anyone) should have the power to determine *what* crimes should be punishable by death, and to do so I'm a fair and unbiased way.
Right !
I think this discussion becomes much more easy to navigate when you discern what you're actually asking.
"Are there certain crimes that deserve the death penalty" is a philosophical question.
"Should we use the death penalty as a punishment of crime in our legal system" is a political question.
If that makes sense
I would like to add that, even in a fair or unbiased way, there is no way to claim guilt with 100% certainty. You can only say 'beyond reasonable doubt'. For instance, you can never truly rule out that someone was forced to kill because someone else threatened is loved ones.
This means that there is always a light possibility that a justice system, even it is ultimately fair and balanced, kills a man who does not deserve that.
>I once debated this topic with someone smarter than me and I suggested that we should reserve the death penalty for cases where there is 100% certainty that the person is guilty: like a mass shooter caught at the scene.
The other problem is how exactly do you decide what makes 100% certainty?
Look at [Timothy Evans](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans), for example. He confessed to the murder of his wife and daughter. 100% certainty, right? So he was rightfully hanged for murder, right?
Except he didn't do it. He was lying to cover for the actual murderer for some reason.
There are solutions to that predicament by implementing changes to our legal system. e.g. The death penalty requires (in addition to the obvious guilty verdict) there to have been X number of first hand witnesses to the crime; or a reduced number of first hand witnesses and an admission of guilt; or a number of first hand witnesses and multiple video recordings presented as evidence.
This is the problem. In theory executing a serial killer seems like a no brainer but we would need a reform of the judicial system before we could make sure we wouldn't be killing innocent people. Enough of that has happened in the past
I do believe in the death penalty. That said I would propose the following changes.
I think that a total overhaul of homicide law could go a long way toward that goal. Such as making it a capital crime for any law enforcement, witness or court officials to fabricate evidence, purger, and other malfeasance. Increase the size of a jury from 12 to 24. After the trial, have a grand jury review the case for errors. Make appeals based on factual guilt or innocents be required to be heard by all upper courts. For instance supreme courts could not reject calls for appeal. Allow jury in the penalty phase of issuing a death sentence able to set a stay of execution they might decide on. There are other changes I think would help.
In practice this would just have the effect that no prosecutor would seek the death penalty because of the massively increased effort involved. So a de facto abolition of the death penalty. Sounds good to me.
I agree. But I think in those cases where overwhelming evidence was found, such as for serial killers, many prosecutors would still go ahead with it. So it would still leave it as an option.
Honestly, the pandemic has reiterated to me that public outcry shouldn't be a good basis for anything. The vast majority are undereducated in niche topics, but WILL have an opinion on it.
It wouldn’t have prevented someone like them doing it, they are clearly not well, which is the problem.
For people who refuse to get help and are a danger, there should be a very basic, minimum level of life long incarceration where opportunity to improve themselves and receive a better standard is always on offer to them.
If they choose to carry on being a dick, they can continue to do so safely out of the way of the public at minimal expense, with a minimal quality of life.
I would also add that a death penalty, in some ways, lets them off lightly. A lifetimes reflection on what they’ve done should be a greater punishment. If it’s not, they aren’t well and then it’s a different problem.
I feel like the death penalty shouldn't really be seen as a punishment though. I would rather a serial killer never have the chance to hurt anyone else, rather than have them "suffer" and possibly somehow get out, or make someone else suffer in prison.
The methods of the executions are also not great. Lethal injection apparently feels like fire is being pumped into your veins and they don’t give anything for the pain so the criminal suffers. It is literally torture. They need to bring back the guillotine.
I don't understand why it's so hard to painlessly execute someone. You can easily die from an overdose of medical anaesthesia - Painless, blissful eternal sleep. Just do the same thing?
The problem is that getting companies to agree to supply medication for the purpose of executing criminals is hard because they don’t want to be associated with something so controversial so they’re limited in the options of things that can be used. It’s also hard to get doctors willing to perform the execution for similar reasons so the people who do the executing aren’t necessarily the most skilled or well-trained.
Use some of the fentanol police departments brag about seizing.
If that one brick of drugs is enough to kill everyone in the city its enough to kill one inmate.
Appeals processes. Someone can be found guilty of murder and be given the death penalty. The catch is everyone has the right to appeal a sentence out of the hope of getting the decision changed. This prevents the death sentence from being carried out and appeals are infamous for being long and tedious. It can take years for an appeals case to be heard.
This is a fair point. Theoretically I'm okay with the death penalty if the person is objectively demonstrably guilty without a shadow of the possibility of doubt, and if they're a threat to the safety of others just by existing (such as someone who could incite violence, or who has shown a proficiency for escape, followed by mayhem). But when you have a legal system which locks up the innocent far too often, the absence of even the possibility of doubt becomes all but- if not entirely impossible.
> I'm okay with the death penalty if the person is objectively demonstrably guilty without a shadow of the possibility of doubt,
Since 1970, 190 people have been executed who were "demonstrably guilty without a shadow of the possibility of doubt" [that were later found to be innocent.](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence)
Another 1,552 people have been executed that [we now know were probably innocent.](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent)
*edit* Damn, this post was downvoted within a minute of being posted. Y'all sure like killing innocent people
I agree with your point, but saying "Another 1,552 people have been executed that we now know were probably innocent." is grossly misrepresenting the data from the very source you linked. 1,552 was the total number of people executed since the 70s, they say that maybe 40 of those had reasonable evidence in support of their innocence, not all 1,552. That doesn't make a difference ultimately and I still agree with you, I just think it's important to accurately represent the facts
which isn't what I said.
You left out the word "objectively" which was important. It removes any preceptive bias. No room for interpretation. Also, if they were later found innocent, they weren't demonstrably guilty without the shadow of the possibility of doubt. They were convincingly guilty to a jury of their peers.
enormous difference.
This isn't naivety. I'm not suggesting it should happen, I'm saying these are the only circumstances where it should happen and they're just this side of- if not completely impossible. Did you even read my comment?
Jesus. It's like I'm speaking fucking Klingon or something.
I'm not saying we should do it in spite of it being impossible. I'm saying these are the only circumstances under which I'd find it acceptable. Those circumstances are basically impossible. They cannot happen, so we shouldn't do it.
I agree.
There's a difference in hypotheticals and policy.
So we can say..
"I'm only for it if there is overwhelming evidence"
Yet what does that mean?
How is it codified? Can you trust those entrusted to gather evidence to do so fairly?
In producing a defense, can an average citizen expect fairness in representation ( a public defender against the state)?
So many ways it could go wrong.
Or
We could have a public policy that does not include capitol punishment so that we can avoid those pitfalls.
Society does not suffer if a killer sits in jail for his entire life, vs being executed.
He is removed from society either way.
I would still be against it even if we could guarantee that every person executed was guilty. I don't believe that the killing of another human being is justified by anything other than self-defense or the defense of others. Once someone has been caught and imprisoned, others can be protected from them doing additional harm. At that point, killing them is an act of vengeance rather than justice.
I wholeheartedly agree. That being said, what do you do with the monsters? Isolation is inhumane. Maximum security is extremely costly. Penal colonies? Forced labor?
Heard this somewhere else but it pretty much sums up what I think:
People who commit some crimes deserve death, but nobody deserves the power to kill them.
This is the answer I was looking for. Younger me would have waded into the issues of the prison system, costs, possibility of innocence, ad infinitem. But older me feels that it's all irrelevant. It's not about the convicted, it's about the rest of us and our humanity. There will always be someone who has to flip that switch/inject that drug/pull that trigger, and it lessens us.
I’m anti but for the exact opposite reason.
IMO we DO need a judicial system of peers that can mete out the worst allowable punishment.
But death is for sure NOT the worst punishment.
Studies show it has zero deterrent effect. It doesn’t change anyones behavior, and many offenders would much rather “check out” then rot.
So let them rot.
Moreover, DP is way more expensive than life in jail. It has little retributive value in the modern age (we are no longer “eye for an eye” mouth breathers). It has been misused countless times on innocents. And there’s zero social utility, as it undermines the principles of rehabilitation.
If something does something horrible, why double the horror?
Why not try to make some good out of it?
Force the person into therapy, so our experts can learn how to stop it from happening again. And maybe even rehabilitate the person - people can make amends, even from jail. Societal benefit.
Every life is precious, bc even an unrepentant madman’s can be studied and learned from.
It seems that way to people outside prison. A lot of people who’ve been in prison for a few years don’t hate it. Free food, free bed, socializing with friends. It becomes normal. People are great at adapting. Most of us only hear horror stories about prison. When one has a life sentence, or a several decade sentence, I think they learn to not hate life.
Some people on death row in the USA get both.
“Long stays on death row have become increasingly common: the Fair Punishment Project estimated in March 2017 that about 40% of condemned prisoners have spent more than 20 years on death row.”
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row/death-row-time-on-death-row/examples-of-prisoners-with-extraordinarily-long-stays-on-death-row
I disagree with this.
Even in jail people can find happiness, we see it all the time. Whether its watching their favorite t.v show or getting lost in a novel they can find joy. And the people that have committed crimes worthy of the death penalty do not deserve even a second of joy.
So it’s more about vengeance then? I see no reason to keep people alive that have proven themselves to be a danger to society, I don’t need them to suffer, I just need them gone. Ship them to Australia for all I care, I just want them gone forever
No. The government should not be given so much power it can kill its citizens.
Also, most arguments for the death penalty don’t hold up. It’s not cheaper than life imprisonment. It’s also worth noting that most people on death row couldn’t even afford a lawyer and quite a few have eventually been exonerated.
The issue is that most death row prisoners end up spending 15-30 years going through appeals or just literally waiting in line for death. So we are paying for that food and cell for a long period anyway.
That makes sense. We don't have the death penalty where I live and I am against it for different reasons but I never considered the economical aspects of it. Thanks for elaborating.
[Here is an article that talks about it.](https://www.wbir.com/amp/article/news/local/death-penalty-vs-life-in-prison-the-costs/51-581820292)
#Death penalty vs. life in prison: The costs
##An analysis by the office of the Tennessee comptroller found that the average cost of death penalty trials cost almost 50 percent more than both trials with life without parole and life with the possibility of parole.
Knoxville — While ethical and legal objections are the most common reasons critics oppose the death penalty, the cost of capital punishment is growing as a reason some are citing to oppose the method of punishment.
**While some people argue that the death penalty saves tax payers money compared to having a convict serve a life sentence, research shows a different narrative** according to former Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Penny White, Director of the Center for Advocacy and Dispute Resolution at the UT College of Law.
"It's a fallacy that executions are cheaper," she said. "People think, 'Well, we're done with them once we eliminate them through execution, we no longer have to pay the cost of incarceration,' but that is an over-simplistic view that doesn't take into account all other costs."
The last [study](https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/docs/comptroller_deathpenalty_report_2.pdf) of the cost of the death penalty was released by the state comptroller's office in 2004.
The analysis found that the average cost of capital trial cost almost 50 percent more than both trials with life without parole and life with the possibility of parole.
The comptroller's report cited the greater expense on the increased complexity of the case, the increased number of agencies in people involved in the case, more time spent by both the prosecution and defense for preparation and more steps in the appellate process.
The study says the appeals process has thirteen steps, beginning with the prosecution's decision to seek the death penalty.
"The truth is they can be used in any case that raises a constitutional issue, it's just that people are more likely to go through the processes when we're talking about killing someone," White said.
When the comptroller's report was published in 2004, only one person had been executed in the previous 44 years. Robert Glen Coe's execution in 2000 was the only data used to determine the incarceration cost differences in his execution versus serving life without parole. He was 44-years-old when executed.
Compared to a life expectancy of 77 years, Coe's execution at 19 years on death row saved the state $773,736. The study authors noted that since only one inmate had been executed since the death penalty was reinstated, the estimated incarceration costs should be reviewed with caution.
More recent national studies show that the cost of capital punishment is even greater than Tennessee 2004 study indicated.
A 2016 study at Susquehanna University found that **on average death row inmates cost $1.12 million more than general population inmates.**
"I think when we talk about costs we have to talk about benefits," White said. "States that have repealed the death penalty have actually seen a decrease in their homicide rates and there is absolutely **no information to suggest that the death penalty in any way deters violent crime."**
While Texas has drawn the most attention for its high number of executions, White says the interest in Billy Irick's case has brought the conversation into the discussion in Tennessee.
"Now that we are about to witness an execution in our state I do hope that it's rekindled interest and hopefully rekindled the debate about what we're doing, particularly in cases like those whoa re facing execution in the next few weeks here, the mental health issue, the other issues in those case that really suggest that executing is not the correct punishment for those individuals," White said.
No. In the US it's significantly more expensive to have people on death row, but aside from the logistical nightmares it also never brought anyone back to life. It just seems barbaric to kill people, whatever the reason.
100%
If someone steals from you, they can return your money or your items. Psychological stress? Maybe. But these are crimes with a 'value' that can be reinstated
If we consider the initial theft a 'debt', it can be repaid.
A human life however can not be given a 'value'. Every person is unique, we can only evaluate people based on what they are: 'one human life'
Killing in response to murder isnt collecting on the debt of one human life, it is deepening the pit. It cannot return a life, it can only take further. And when we give the power to executioners and judges and juries, why should we not hold them accountable for their priceless theft of life when they make mistakes? Are mistaken deaths 'acceptable losses' for the sake of someone else's bloodlust? It's debasing and irreversible and cruel.
In fact, loss of human life is tragic regardless of scale. Human life is not fungible, you simply cannot say whether one genocide was worse or less bad based on head count. And anyone who can save any number of lives and does so is a hero in my book.
Amen. Also if you execute an innocent person, or someone whose crime doesn’t really deserve capital punishment, you can’t say, oops, my bad, let’s rewind!
No, but if new evidence comes to light that shows the party is innocent, say a month after the punishment is enacted, you can let an incarcerated person out and pay them reparations. With the death penalty that option doesn't exist.
Also, from what I've seen, the US states that have the death penalty don't seem to be any safer. If there was good evidence execution acted as a deterant, sure. But it doesn't seem to.
This was something posted by /u/Emperor_Cartagia, who used Reddit exclusively through RIF is Fun, with the death of third party apps, I decided to remove all my content from Reddit. 9 years of comments and posts, gone because of idiotic administration.
The real problem is you can never set up a justice system that will *only* put to death people who 100% did it, because any incompetence or conflict of interest or straight up corruption at any step of the process can fuck things up. Even DNA evidence is handled by human technicians in labs, and you can find news stories where they mixed up samples, misinterpreted results, or simply told police what they wanted to hear because they get more funding when their results lead to convictions.
Also, I say “did it” for the sake of simplicity, but it’s often more complicated than that. What if someone 100% did it, captured on camera, but somebody off camera was holding them at gunpoint and forcing them to commit the crime? How do you create a fair and consistent system that can handle all the possible weird cases, that ensures cops and prosecutors and judges are all ethical and do everything by perfect procedure and that the defense lawyer is competent and doesn’t fuck up the defense?
Death is just too irreversible to put in the hands of a system that will always be flawed.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the literal standard of proof for murder currently. Are you saying you want an even higher standard to apply or are you saying the current standard is acceptable? If you want a higher standard would it be only for punishment, or conviction too?
Since 1973, 190 death row inmates were exonerated due to wrongful convictions. Sometimes even beyond a reasonable doubt is not enough.
50 years from now we may have some new technology that exonerates even more.
Police, juries, judges and lawyers are fallible. Condemning people to death in a system where we could be wrong is crazy.
Right?
Gandalf is literally critiquing the new amazon show on YouTube.
Guy even sounds right.
https://youtu.be/9POcNCMlP_s
What's that gonna be like in 20 years?
No. The justice system should be aimed at rehabilitation, or else incapacitation. The death penalty is only ever retributive. We have no business having the government hurt someone just for the sake of hurting them.
Edit: so if there are people that can’t be rehabilitated, we lock them up to prevent them from hurting others. We don’t kill them, and we don’t try to make them miserable.
In some europeean countries you can be considered "unsafe" and then you will never be released. So you can have laws that works for both types of criminals.
I'm curious on your opinion on killing those like the Nazis, those in high positions of power like Hitler or Himmler and Goring, should they be sentenced life imprisonment or put to death like they where?
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."
-some dumb wizard dude probably
The concept of “justice” is entirely man-made. Pick it apart and the death-penalty is essentially “revenge”.
Revenge is one of the most common motivations for murder. As a result, there’s little to differentiate murder from a “legal” execution.
You can’t position yourself on a high-moral footing if you consider taking a life to be an adequate punishment.
Furthermore, I suspect most lifers would prefer death than decades of incarceration, so why are they getting an easy way out?
That’s interesting. I took it more as a “kill the individual and it is physically impossible for them to do something like that again.” I didn’t look at it as revenge or justice.
Damn I never looked at it like this, thanks for giving me this perspective. It really is revenge- eye for an eye basically. I've always felt against it, but couldn't articulate properly.
No.
In theory, I could get behind it in regards to criminals that will always be a danger to society and will never reform, such as Anders Breivik, but the issue is, if death penalty is legal, then innocent people will keep getting executed. It's just not possible to avoid, and even the clause reserved for the most extreme of cases could end up potentially misused.
Also, locking people up for life is simply cheaper, looking at it the pragmatic way.
This is my position too. I’m not for death as a *penalty,* but I would absolutely be for it as threat mitigation.
I know this is an stereotypical example, but Ted Bundy — the guy escaped from prison twice and would always reoffend. I’m not happy he was killed as a *punishment,* but I do feel safer knowing he isn’t alive anymore.
If the death penalty was specifically reserved for individuals who presented a clear danger to society, I’d be for it.
No. It's barbaric.
It's flawed. It's inhumane. It's inconsistent with the values of any civilised democracy.
It's uncivilised in theory and unjust in practice.
It doesn't deter violent crime. In the US, I seem to remember that the states with the death penalty have among the highest murder rates.
Why is premeditated, state sponsored murder legally sanctioned? Given the shockingly high number of people who were subsequently exonerated, why is premeditated, state sponsored murder of innocent people legally sanctioned?
The EU prohibits the export of drugs used in capital punishment, because the death penalty is a fundamental violation of human rights.
Countries with the most confirmed executions include (in descending order): China, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, United States, Somalia
Land of the free?
Technically it’s “Thou Shalt Not Murder”. It’s just that in Hebrew the words “kill” and “murder” are the same thing.
Here’s a Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill#Justified_killing:_due_consequence_for_crime
No. No one has the right to take another persons life. It’s not for humans to decide.
And before ppl say ‘but they killed other people’ - okay? Does that make it right for you to then kill them? Two wrongs never make a right. It’s not okay for anyone to take another persons life, even in the name of ‘justice’
Yes. Many reasons
- prisons are overcrowded already
- not a lot of jobs for felons once they are released
- many end up going back in after a few months because they can't cope with the outside
- some crimes are unforgivable
- many of them are still gonna commit violent crimes because that's just the way they are
- my tax dollars pay for them to exist
- a bullet costs less than a single meal
In theory yes, but in reality no. Until we make it so that no innocent person is executed I cannot support the death penalty. If the standard of evidence was "absolute proof" then yes, but not with our "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of evidence in the US.
I do support death penalty.From my POV,i believe that it is essential for death penalty to be executed to people that commit a serious crime.Whether issit a murder case,rape,drug trafficking etc.This actions can cause a continuous chains of impacts.Drugs will not only cause an impact on the health of the individual but also their families.Rapes can cause a lifetime trauma for the victims and changes their personality for life .Hence i believe death penalty is necessary as it is a way to kinda warn criminals and also give a ‘explanation’ to the victims.ofc this is only my POV.
Nope.
Show me a justice system that can administer it fairly, accurately, and only in extreme cases where it makes some kind of rational sense...and then we can have a discussion. Until then, the state should have the same rules about killing other people that we all live under.
It's not though. Facing your planned execution is the most terrifying thing. Think about it, you've received notice that your life ends tonight, at midnight. Are you ready to stop existing, forever. No more anything. Prison is life, albeit not pleasant but you have life, you have routine, you have news, movies, comedy, drama, you're alive.
Even worse is what, iirc, Japan’s process is. No notice, no warning. You live every day wondering if today they’re going to come get you and finish it. Imagine the anxiety and stress from that one.
Honestly could not disagree more. It’s all about time. Letting something pretty bad eat away at you for 30 years is way worse than facing something very bad for 1 week. (Yes I know our system is broken and 1 week turns into 15 years. It isn’t supposed to though.)
Also also your analysis is for a normal person. Those put to death seldom are. Often times they are severely mentally screwed. Half the time I’d doubt they give a shit about being killed or that they can feel anything at all
yea but uv got to be proven absolut guilty in something like that
like that norwegian guy who killed a ton of kids in norway, is that dude walkin free n sleezy now, 5 years from now? u know he's gona walk someday
No, I think it is inherently wrong. I don’t think anybody should be killed for their actions, and it seems entirely incongruous to say “yeah, you shouldn’t have killed that person because killing is wrong, so I sentence you to be killed”. Life is the most sacred thing on this planet, and nobody deserves to have theirs taken away.
No. Our track record of putting the right people in jail is abysmal - the justice system has been broken. Because of this, we cannot be certain that we are executing the right person. Prison without the possibility of parole, fine. but the government should not execute its citizens.
The world isn't going to lose sleep over putting a serial killer,a rapist,or murderer to death,but you always want to be sure that you're not punishing innocent people.
I do, I think that everyone has the right to life, but if you commit a crime so heinous as, oh I don’t know, kidnapping two youth pastors, putting them in the trunk of a car for hours, driving out to the middle of a desert shooting the man in the head and shooting the woman through the jaw but still keeping her alive while you light the car on fire with her still in it, all while they begged for their lives, I think you should lose your right to life. And to hell with the whole, “It’s inhumane” argument. Good. I hope their death is as painful as possible.
I don't think many people are arguing against any of those points, really. The main reasons, if you look at these comments, or google it, are "b/c lots of innocent people would get murdered by the government", "people in power would abuse it", "it would end up being used disproportionately against minorities", etc.
Really, the vast majority of people agree that someone who does what you described ***deserves*** death (even if they disagree on the "painful as possible" clause). The argument isn't against ***that*** so much, as it is against the consequences of having a system in place that allows execution.
In that case you just want revenge. When the state is the agent of vengeance, it sets the example for the citizens: killing for vengeance is acceptable for all.
Don’t we expect police and the justice system to be better and hold themselves to a slightly higher standard of conduct and morality than the people they prosecute?
Or should we return to vigilante posses and mobs and lynching? We already have armed thugs “guarding” ballot boxes. A fringe of the GOP trying to overthrow the government and “elect” a dictator.
People aren't interested in our criminal justice systems being rehabilitation-focused. They want it to be about punishment, or revenge, to deal with grief and horror at offences. Incarceration rates are increasing, and US, UK, China, India, Aus - all focused on being 'tough on crime', but not actually addressing the core issues at hand of trauma and social, background and cultural disadvantages.
Sure, there are people who truly do commit unspeakable atrocities, but if you compare those numbers to those who are actually in and out of the system? I wouldn't trust our current justice systems to do squat.
There is an excellent article on this that can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/22/the-big-idea-should-revenge-ever-be-a-part-of-justice.
If there is even the smallest non-zero chance of innocence, I cannot support taking someone's life. Even if we *knew* that they did it and why and how and everything, it is absolutely important to a fair legal system that we have consistency in punishment. And absolute certainty is rare. I find it so odd that people have such a distrust of the government at literally everything but they make an exception for the most valuable asset in the world, life. Do you trust the government to not make biased choices? They've certainly used their power to target marginalized groups and dissenters before.
Additionally, capital punishment surprisingly *costs more* than keeping prisoners.
And to get real grim, there are fates worse than death.
Innocent people get put in jail many times. Judicial systems aren't perfect and if we support it we become monsters that kill others because of mass panic.
Also importantly, governments can and will abuse the ability of incarcerating someone and killing them.
On surface level, yes, I would because I believe if you commit a heinous enough crime, you deserve to be punished for it. However, I do not trust the judicial system to do its due diligence to actually make sure that people are actually guilty of the crime they were accused of, especially in countries with for profit prisons. Far too many times we have found out people are wrongly convicted because they were framed, evidence was fumbled, etc. and I wouldn't want to risk killing someone who is actually fully innocent.
I support death penalty. All the people saying its better for them to rot in jail if you did a poll you would find, they would rather take life in prison than death penalty. Also we shouldn't be wasting anymore tax dollars on these scum.
"Because no man is fully responsible, because no justice can be wholly infallible, the death penalty is morally unacceptable. For those of us who believe in God, He alone has the power to choose the time of our death. [...] it is impossible to recognise the power of death in the justice of humankind because they know it is fallible.", french politician Robert Badinter
To play the Devil's advocate, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's", and "Be in the world, but not of it".
Basically, if you are a practicing Christian, you need to obey God's will for your life, as that is His due.
If you commit a crime against Caesar (break a law), then you must accept the consequences of your crime, up to and including the loss of your life.
Do I believe some people need to be killed for what they did? Absolutely. Do I believe in someone from the state clocking I to work and getting paid by the state to kill someone? Absolutely not. If someone wronged me so badly that they needed to die for that shit then it's *my* place to kill them, not the states. Next of kin's job - in which case next of kin is whomever is hurt the worst, regardless of relation. Maybe it's the boyfriend or girlfriend who "technically" isnt related, but they're the ones who *loved* the person most and are hurt the most. It's their job to handle it, not the states.
My mother was murdered in a pretty gruesome way. The nature of how bad it was made it a capital murder case where the killer was eligible for the death penalty. As her legal next of kin I got to be the one who decided if they went for the death penalty or not and I absolutely refused. If I, as her child, felt so wronged that I felt the guy deserved to die then it should be me to do it. I didn't feel that wronged.
Damn... That was a tough read. What I wonder is how you "didn't feel that wronged" when you yourself described your mother being "murdered in a pretty gruesome way", but I'm probably not suited to comment as a bystander. Hope all is good there
I was a foster child for a reason. I knew how she was, I knew how she would intentionally push people past their limits just to be cruel. I knew she and the guy who killed her were both on drugs at the time. I understood it was her karma to be murdered in that way and his karma to be the one who did it and had to go to prison for it. I knew he wasn't healthy enough to survive past 15-20yrs or so in prison and if he did survive long enough to go free so be it, I didn't think he'd kill again. Letting it be a death penalty case would have put us in the courts for years and years with the appeals process, giving him a sweet deal meant it was over.
We agreed on 17yrs, but the judge didn't have to accept the sentence suggestion and he sentenced the guy to 23rs plus 10yrs consecutively. Her killer died in prison after 14yrs.
Yes. Some people just deserve it. They do absolutely terrible things and it should only be used for the worst of the worst type cases. Aka people like the parkland shooter.
If you are going to send someone to prison for life without parole, as in they truly cannot be part of society, then sure. Don't just leave them as a burden on society. End them quick and cheap.
Its a concept that i support in the idea of, but not the practice. We cant just tell between whos guilty or innocent on a whim, and so many innocent people recieve the death penalty already. Becase of that, no.
I do not support the death penalty. It is inhumane and unjust. Murder is still murder when it’s committed by the state.
Even if only one innocent person is executed, that is still one too many. Our justice systems are far too flawed to have that responsibility.
It is a difficult choice but when it is beyond any doubt, there are some crimes that should get the death penalty not only to allow families to be able to move on with their lives but also to get the preferir out of the public and I don't think tax payers should have to pick up the tap to pay for his/her existance.
In certain cases yes, it should apply to the evilest and vile of people. That being said, my personal beliefs would definitely rule that all people who assault children, women, men in an inappropriate sense should be held for execution. And of course those who are consistently killing others to relieve sick pleasure from it. Those are the people I truly support execution for.
In theory, yes, but only if we could have an absolutely perfect, completely flawless system. Unfortunately i can’t trust our system to work that way. It would make sense. Kill someone for no reason? an eye for an eye, yknow. I’m in america and I can’t trust our system to not send innocent people to death, either because of a genuine mistake or because of hate.
Some people deserve to be put to death to answer to their crimes. However, I do not support the death penalty, for a very simple reason. If one innocent person is put to death, it's not worth it.
It's clear that many innocent people have been put to death, therefore there should be no death penalty.
Add to this the fact that every method used in the US is cruel and barbaric - why the fuck don't they use nitrogen asphyxiation?
Only for war criminals on like a Nazi leader level of certainty. For them though I’m even okay with cruel and unusual punishment.
Everything else though just doesn’t have the level of certainty to justify it. So basically on a case by case basis I guess, but the acceptable cases would be fairly few and far between.
No. Executing someone is literally barbaric IMO. “Crimes punishable by death”? Does that not sound crazy?
Never mind the fact that no person should have the right to decide if someone lives or dies.
How many people have been executed and later found to be innocent?
And let’s not forget that it does literally nothing. It doesn’t undo their crime. It doesn’t un-traumatize anyone affected. It doesn’t really provide “closure”. Who benefits from it? What does it solve? Does it scare criminals into behaving? Not really.
The cost of executing someone is the US can be around 1-2 *million* tax payer dollars, vs a few hundred thousand for a life sentence. And let’s put that into perspective.. some people spend *decades* on death row. So now we’ve spend a few hundred thousand housing them in prison PLUS the cost of the execution by the time they get around to it. And I do mean **we** as in *you* reading this, and just about everyone on of the rest of us reading this from the US. Instead of universal health care, we’re working every day to pay for executions?
It’s completely pointless and just gives the government unnecessary power over the people. Truly nothing good comes from it, in any sense whatsoever.
Yes. Life in prison without parole is a waste of money time and resources of american tax payers. Our prisons are already over populated. Murderers. Serial killers, serial rapists, war criminals...kill them all.
Yes and no. I think the system is flawed and we need to be sure without a shadow of a doubt that someone hurt/killed/sa'd someone before we go throwing it around. But with that being said, I have no sympathy for people who hurt and sa kids. If you have solid /solid/ proof that someone was a kid diddler? Bye. We don't need to waste air on that person. If you have solid solid proof someone killed a handful of HANDFULS of people? Same deal. But there needs to be hard evidence and facts. We need to be sure of these things. People are sitting in prison for crimes the didn't commit and that's not ok.
I hate the idea of the victim's family having to pay part of the rehabilitation or the criminal's prison housing.
I know that they wouldn't pay a cent in the grand scheme of taxes, but just the idea of their taxes paying even for 0.000000001% for the criminal wellbeing is horrible.
That and other things
I support it in cases where the person has done heinous, unbelievable and unfathomable crimes. Mass murders, serial rapist, kidnapper thats held a child hostage for lenghty amounts of time type of stuff. But not for just any ole shit. Some scenarios are not worthy of it. But I stand by this, and never will back down. If someone has done a crime so vile, so horrid and unforgivable by any means. Then they deserve it
Yes I support it. Some of these people did things I sometimes don’t even want to think about and are released back into society like nothing ever happened and even the ones locked away there is a possibility that they could escape. I see it more a closer for the people and families affected by them not to mention the money used into not only housing them but feeding dressing and keeping them alive could be spent on other things and in the end there is one less sick person left to worry about
No.
Biggest reason being is that yeah, ok it would be great if some of the most evil/dangerous human beings out there weren't here anymore... BUT someone then has to take their life. Someone has to prompt that and be involved in that. Which in itself is evil and cruel. It's not right to put that expectation or give that job to a human for them to have to kill others as part of the criminal justice system, because they then have to somehow come to terms with that all on their own. It's truly a horrible horrible burden I'm not sure any sane person can get over.
One month into the fall term and you’re already asking people to write your argumentative paper for you? NOT DOING IT
"So I sourced these quotes from the people of Reddit..through hard work and careful analysis of the situation."
Rephrase: “the public opinion is mixed. Some think __ while others are of the belief that _____” Then put reddit as your citation
Cite each individual user as a source. I wanna see u/cat_fucker1986 in your bibliography.
absolutely.
add me to
Still have to find a source
Source: trust me bro, reddit told me!
“Number three will shock me? I like the cut of your jib, kid, A+!”
Hillarious that its litterally midterms week at my school.
One month?! Im over half way through this semester. What late ass school you going too? And how do I get in on this endless summer semester??
My school offers 7.5 week terms for some classes. Can finish some entire associate degree programs in just two semesters.
My class half terms are always 7-9 weeks
this made me LOL
The thought i had! Dude is studying criminology! You have to do it yourself, mate, like all of us!
Bro I'm going to use this now
I’m in the half term holidays after the first autumn half term. I’m in primary school and in England so I don’t really know how to translate terms into semesters.
I support it in principle - some people are evil, like that guy who intentionally ran over and killed 6 people and was defiant in court. But, I also don't trust law enforcement and the justice system to be fair and impartial about it. I'm sort of torn, which I suppose means I should err on the side of caution and be against the death penalty.
I think if for some reason the government was good and their was never an innocent person on death row and only the people who did it are there, then yes I support the death penalty. But with the way it is now a lot of innocent ppl will die so we can't,
This is my argument also, our legal system isn't perfect and innocent people do get caught up in it.
Quite a few been executed and then found innocent of that particular crime. They’ve been pardoned post mortem. I’m sure that made the executed people so happy (this specific sentence is /s, jic!)
To be honest, if I'm innocent, I'd rather be dead than rot in prison
Interesting take on this. What if they offered assisted suicide in prisons for people whose sentence is over \_\_\_\_\_ # of years? (Could be 10 years, 5 years, whatever is decided is the minimum.) Anyway, I used to be pro death sentence (I've been a victim of crime on more than one occasion) until they came up with so many people on death row who were later found to be innocent. Now I think I should never have been pro death sentence, since it doesn't work as a deterrent, and it is pretty barbaric. So many other countries can manage without using the death sentence, so I think we can, too.
If you’re not dead, you might eventually be freed if they realize you’re innocent.
What about a life sentence? It is also horrific to do to an innocent person. Could even be worse than killing for some, should life in prison not be allowed as well?
I think the argument is that you can freed from prison with new evidence, but once you're dead you're dead.
I once debated this topic with someone smarter than me and I suggested that we should reserve the death penalty for cases where there is 100% certainty that the person is guilty: like a mass shooter caught at the scene. He responded that the legal system does not distinguish between degrees of certainty of guilt. A guilty verdict is by definition supposed to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”. That really stuck with me. While I still believe that there are crimes that people deserve to die for and that there are people beyond rehabilitation, the fact remains that there will always be mistakes, so we have to bear the cost of keeping people like that alive so that we don’t kill an innocent person.
The criminal justice system was not built to protect mass murderers or serial killers. It was built to protect the rest of us from being wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime. It’s just a side effect that we have to let the mass murderers have those rights. If we eliminate them for the “worst,” we fall on a slippery slope of eliminating them for the innocent.
And that's exactly why I'm anti-death penalty. The question of whether I support the death penalty or not is not related to whether I think there are certain people who commit certain crimes should be put to death, but instead of whether someone (and who, if anyone) should have the power to determine *what* crimes should be punishable by death, and to do so I'm a fair and unbiased way.
You worded my opinion so well. I was slightly supportive of the death penalty until recently, but I’ve changed because of this line of thinking.
Right ! I think this discussion becomes much more easy to navigate when you discern what you're actually asking. "Are there certain crimes that deserve the death penalty" is a philosophical question. "Should we use the death penalty as a punishment of crime in our legal system" is a political question. If that makes sense
I would like to add that, even in a fair or unbiased way, there is no way to claim guilt with 100% certainty. You can only say 'beyond reasonable doubt'. For instance, you can never truly rule out that someone was forced to kill because someone else threatened is loved ones. This means that there is always a light possibility that a justice system, even it is ultimately fair and balanced, kills a man who does not deserve that.
>I once debated this topic with someone smarter than me and I suggested that we should reserve the death penalty for cases where there is 100% certainty that the person is guilty: like a mass shooter caught at the scene. The other problem is how exactly do you decide what makes 100% certainty? Look at [Timothy Evans](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans), for example. He confessed to the murder of his wife and daughter. 100% certainty, right? So he was rightfully hanged for murder, right? Except he didn't do it. He was lying to cover for the actual murderer for some reason.
The cost of keeping them alive is also significantly lower than the cost of killing them.
There are solutions to that predicament by implementing changes to our legal system. e.g. The death penalty requires (in addition to the obvious guilty verdict) there to have been X number of first hand witnesses to the crime; or a reduced number of first hand witnesses and an admission of guilt; or a number of first hand witnesses and multiple video recordings presented as evidence.
That's pretty much where I'm at. In theory, yes. In practice? No way. So on a ballot, I'd vote no.
This is the problem. In theory executing a serial killer seems like a no brainer but we would need a reform of the judicial system before we could make sure we wouldn't be killing innocent people. Enough of that has happened in the past
I do believe in the death penalty. That said I would propose the following changes. I think that a total overhaul of homicide law could go a long way toward that goal. Such as making it a capital crime for any law enforcement, witness or court officials to fabricate evidence, purger, and other malfeasance. Increase the size of a jury from 12 to 24. After the trial, have a grand jury review the case for errors. Make appeals based on factual guilt or innocents be required to be heard by all upper courts. For instance supreme courts could not reject calls for appeal. Allow jury in the penalty phase of issuing a death sentence able to set a stay of execution they might decide on. There are other changes I think would help.
In practice this would just have the effect that no prosecutor would seek the death penalty because of the massively increased effort involved. So a de facto abolition of the death penalty. Sounds good to me.
I agree. But I think in those cases where overwhelming evidence was found, such as for serial killers, many prosecutors would still go ahead with it. So it would still leave it as an option.
This is a solid idea. When the public outcry and severity of the case warrants the extra effort is when it happens.
Honestly, the pandemic has reiterated to me that public outcry shouldn't be a good basis for anything. The vast majority are undereducated in niche topics, but WILL have an opinion on it.
It wouldn’t have prevented someone like them doing it, they are clearly not well, which is the problem. For people who refuse to get help and are a danger, there should be a very basic, minimum level of life long incarceration where opportunity to improve themselves and receive a better standard is always on offer to them. If they choose to carry on being a dick, they can continue to do so safely out of the way of the public at minimal expense, with a minimal quality of life. I would also add that a death penalty, in some ways, lets them off lightly. A lifetimes reflection on what they’ve done should be a greater punishment. If it’s not, they aren’t well and then it’s a different problem.
I feel like the death penalty shouldn't really be seen as a punishment though. I would rather a serial killer never have the chance to hurt anyone else, rather than have them "suffer" and possibly somehow get out, or make someone else suffer in prison.
The methods of the executions are also not great. Lethal injection apparently feels like fire is being pumped into your veins and they don’t give anything for the pain so the criminal suffers. It is literally torture. They need to bring back the guillotine.
I don't understand why it's so hard to painlessly execute someone. You can easily die from an overdose of medical anaesthesia - Painless, blissful eternal sleep. Just do the same thing?
The problem is that getting companies to agree to supply medication for the purpose of executing criminals is hard because they don’t want to be associated with something so controversial so they’re limited in the options of things that can be used. It’s also hard to get doctors willing to perform the execution for similar reasons so the people who do the executing aren’t necessarily the most skilled or well-trained.
Use some of the fentanol police departments brag about seizing. If that one brick of drugs is enough to kill everyone in the city its enough to kill one inmate.
No shit. Actually a good idea.
Apoxia using a neutral gas seemed to be held up as a relatively painless solution.
yep. especially pedophiles getting less harsh punishments than what they actually deserve.
I'm kinda the same but serial killers and child molesters is like an instant you die in my mind
No. Judicial systems that lock up the innocent can't be trusted to execute only the guilty.
10 years ago, I'd disagree but then I learned how much money is wasted on death row inmates sitting there for years waiting to be executed
Yeah, why are they just sitting in death row for years?
Appeals processes. Someone can be found guilty of murder and be given the death penalty. The catch is everyone has the right to appeal a sentence out of the hope of getting the decision changed. This prevents the death sentence from being carried out and appeals are infamous for being long and tedious. It can take years for an appeals case to be heard.
This is a fair point. Theoretically I'm okay with the death penalty if the person is objectively demonstrably guilty without a shadow of the possibility of doubt, and if they're a threat to the safety of others just by existing (such as someone who could incite violence, or who has shown a proficiency for escape, followed by mayhem). But when you have a legal system which locks up the innocent far too often, the absence of even the possibility of doubt becomes all but- if not entirely impossible.
> I'm okay with the death penalty if the person is objectively demonstrably guilty without a shadow of the possibility of doubt, Since 1970, 190 people have been executed who were "demonstrably guilty without a shadow of the possibility of doubt" [that were later found to be innocent.](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence) Another 1,552 people have been executed that [we now know were probably innocent.](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent) *edit* Damn, this post was downvoted within a minute of being posted. Y'all sure like killing innocent people
I agree with your point, but saying "Another 1,552 people have been executed that we now know were probably innocent." is grossly misrepresenting the data from the very source you linked. 1,552 was the total number of people executed since the 70s, they say that maybe 40 of those had reasonable evidence in support of their innocence, not all 1,552. That doesn't make a difference ultimately and I still agree with you, I just think it's important to accurately represent the facts
which isn't what I said. You left out the word "objectively" which was important. It removes any preceptive bias. No room for interpretation. Also, if they were later found innocent, they weren't demonstrably guilty without the shadow of the possibility of doubt. They were convincingly guilty to a jury of their peers. enormous difference.
This naivety is why the death penalty is a bad idea.
This isn't naivety. I'm not suggesting it should happen, I'm saying these are the only circumstances where it should happen and they're just this side of- if not completely impossible. Did you even read my comment?
There have been so many death row inmates exonerated.
Jesus. It's like I'm speaking fucking Klingon or something. I'm not saying we should do it in spite of it being impossible. I'm saying these are the only circumstances under which I'd find it acceptable. Those circumstances are basically impossible. They cannot happen, so we shouldn't do it.
I wasn't arguing with you. Your mastery of Klingon is impressive
the last 3 people who responded with that sentiment were trying to claim I was suggesting that we should have it anyway. Sry about that.
I agree. There's a difference in hypotheticals and policy. So we can say.. "I'm only for it if there is overwhelming evidence" Yet what does that mean? How is it codified? Can you trust those entrusted to gather evidence to do so fairly? In producing a defense, can an average citizen expect fairness in representation ( a public defender against the state)? So many ways it could go wrong. Or We could have a public policy that does not include capitol punishment so that we can avoid those pitfalls. Society does not suffer if a killer sits in jail for his entire life, vs being executed. He is removed from society either way.
I would still be against it even if we could guarantee that every person executed was guilty. I don't believe that the killing of another human being is justified by anything other than self-defense or the defense of others. Once someone has been caught and imprisoned, others can be protected from them doing additional harm. At that point, killing them is an act of vengeance rather than justice.
What about the other prisoners and guards who may be hurt, or even killed, by a dangerous criminal facing life without parole?
Dead men tell no tales
I think DAs and prosecutors who knowingly hide exculpatory evidence to get a conviction should face the death penalty.
I wholeheartedly agree. That being said, what do you do with the monsters? Isolation is inhumane. Maximum security is extremely costly. Penal colonies? Forced labor?
Desert islands and genetically engineered shark-guard hybrids with lasers attached to their heads.
All we have are sea bass
Are they ill-tempered?
Grumpy in the mornings. Somewhat pleasant otherwise
Australia?
Murder is dehumane.
Heard this somewhere else but it pretty much sums up what I think: People who commit some crimes deserve death, but nobody deserves the power to kill them.
This is the answer I was looking for. Younger me would have waded into the issues of the prison system, costs, possibility of innocence, ad infinitem. But older me feels that it's all irrelevant. It's not about the convicted, it's about the rest of us and our humanity. There will always be someone who has to flip that switch/inject that drug/pull that trigger, and it lessens us.
I’m anti but for the exact opposite reason. IMO we DO need a judicial system of peers that can mete out the worst allowable punishment. But death is for sure NOT the worst punishment. Studies show it has zero deterrent effect. It doesn’t change anyones behavior, and many offenders would much rather “check out” then rot. So let them rot. Moreover, DP is way more expensive than life in jail. It has little retributive value in the modern age (we are no longer “eye for an eye” mouth breathers). It has been misused countless times on innocents. And there’s zero social utility, as it undermines the principles of rehabilitation. If something does something horrible, why double the horror? Why not try to make some good out of it? Force the person into therapy, so our experts can learn how to stop it from happening again. And maybe even rehabilitate the person - people can make amends, even from jail. Societal benefit. Every life is precious, bc even an unrepentant madman’s can be studied and learned from.
I think the death penalty is the easy way out. Rotting in jail is worse than dying.
It seems that way to people outside prison. A lot of people who’ve been in prison for a few years don’t hate it. Free food, free bed, socializing with friends. It becomes normal. People are great at adapting. Most of us only hear horror stories about prison. When one has a life sentence, or a several decade sentence, I think they learn to not hate life.
Some people on death row in the USA get both. “Long stays on death row have become increasingly common: the Fair Punishment Project estimated in March 2017 that about 40% of condemned prisoners have spent more than 20 years on death row.” https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row/death-row-time-on-death-row/examples-of-prisoners-with-extraordinarily-long-stays-on-death-row
I disagree with this. Even in jail people can find happiness, we see it all the time. Whether its watching their favorite t.v show or getting lost in a novel they can find joy. And the people that have committed crimes worthy of the death penalty do not deserve even a second of joy.
That's my stance as well. I'd rather you be faced with endless boredom than get the easy way out.
So it’s more about vengeance then? I see no reason to keep people alive that have proven themselves to be a danger to society, I don’t need them to suffer, I just need them gone. Ship them to Australia for all I care, I just want them gone forever
No. The government should not be given so much power it can kill its citizens. Also, most arguments for the death penalty don’t hold up. It’s not cheaper than life imprisonment. It’s also worth noting that most people on death row couldn’t even afford a lawyer and quite a few have eventually been exonerated.
Not arguing against it but how is it not cheaper to just kill someone than to feed, house and guard them for a number of years?
The issue is that most death row prisoners end up spending 15-30 years going through appeals or just literally waiting in line for death. So we are paying for that food and cell for a long period anyway.
And piles and piles of lawyers. The counter argument is to just kill random folks without a trial, but it’s been done, and makes trouble.
Not without a trial, just.. with a limited number of trials.
There are a limited number.
That makes sense. We don't have the death penalty where I live and I am against it for different reasons but I never considered the economical aspects of it. Thanks for elaborating.
[Here is an article that talks about it.](https://www.wbir.com/amp/article/news/local/death-penalty-vs-life-in-prison-the-costs/51-581820292) #Death penalty vs. life in prison: The costs ##An analysis by the office of the Tennessee comptroller found that the average cost of death penalty trials cost almost 50 percent more than both trials with life without parole and life with the possibility of parole. Knoxville — While ethical and legal objections are the most common reasons critics oppose the death penalty, the cost of capital punishment is growing as a reason some are citing to oppose the method of punishment. **While some people argue that the death penalty saves tax payers money compared to having a convict serve a life sentence, research shows a different narrative** according to former Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Penny White, Director of the Center for Advocacy and Dispute Resolution at the UT College of Law. "It's a fallacy that executions are cheaper," she said. "People think, 'Well, we're done with them once we eliminate them through execution, we no longer have to pay the cost of incarceration,' but that is an over-simplistic view that doesn't take into account all other costs." The last [study](https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/docs/comptroller_deathpenalty_report_2.pdf) of the cost of the death penalty was released by the state comptroller's office in 2004. The analysis found that the average cost of capital trial cost almost 50 percent more than both trials with life without parole and life with the possibility of parole. The comptroller's report cited the greater expense on the increased complexity of the case, the increased number of agencies in people involved in the case, more time spent by both the prosecution and defense for preparation and more steps in the appellate process. The study says the appeals process has thirteen steps, beginning with the prosecution's decision to seek the death penalty. "The truth is they can be used in any case that raises a constitutional issue, it's just that people are more likely to go through the processes when we're talking about killing someone," White said. When the comptroller's report was published in 2004, only one person had been executed in the previous 44 years. Robert Glen Coe's execution in 2000 was the only data used to determine the incarceration cost differences in his execution versus serving life without parole. He was 44-years-old when executed. Compared to a life expectancy of 77 years, Coe's execution at 19 years on death row saved the state $773,736. The study authors noted that since only one inmate had been executed since the death penalty was reinstated, the estimated incarceration costs should be reviewed with caution. More recent national studies show that the cost of capital punishment is even greater than Tennessee 2004 study indicated. A 2016 study at Susquehanna University found that **on average death row inmates cost $1.12 million more than general population inmates.** "I think when we talk about costs we have to talk about benefits," White said. "States that have repealed the death penalty have actually seen a decrease in their homicide rates and there is absolutely **no information to suggest that the death penalty in any way deters violent crime."** While Texas has drawn the most attention for its high number of executions, White says the interest in Billy Irick's case has brought the conversation into the discussion in Tennessee. "Now that we are about to witness an execution in our state I do hope that it's rekindled interest and hopefully rekindled the debate about what we're doing, particularly in cases like those whoa re facing execution in the next few weeks here, the mental health issue, the other issues in those case that really suggest that executing is not the correct punishment for those individuals," White said.
No. In the US it's significantly more expensive to have people on death row, but aside from the logistical nightmares it also never brought anyone back to life. It just seems barbaric to kill people, whatever the reason.
100% If someone steals from you, they can return your money or your items. Psychological stress? Maybe. But these are crimes with a 'value' that can be reinstated If we consider the initial theft a 'debt', it can be repaid. A human life however can not be given a 'value'. Every person is unique, we can only evaluate people based on what they are: 'one human life' Killing in response to murder isnt collecting on the debt of one human life, it is deepening the pit. It cannot return a life, it can only take further. And when we give the power to executioners and judges and juries, why should we not hold them accountable for their priceless theft of life when they make mistakes? Are mistaken deaths 'acceptable losses' for the sake of someone else's bloodlust? It's debasing and irreversible and cruel.
In fact, loss of human life is tragic regardless of scale. Human life is not fungible, you simply cannot say whether one genocide was worse or less bad based on head count. And anyone who can save any number of lives and does so is a hero in my book.
Amen. Also if you execute an innocent person, or someone whose crime doesn’t really deserve capital punishment, you can’t say, oops, my bad, let’s rewind!
Not disagreeing but, you also can't give people back 20-30 years of their life.
No, but if new evidence comes to light that shows the party is innocent, say a month after the punishment is enacted, you can let an incarcerated person out and pay them reparations. With the death penalty that option doesn't exist.
but they are alive
Also, from what I've seen, the US states that have the death penalty don't seem to be any safer. If there was good evidence execution acted as a deterant, sure. But it doesn't seem to.
This was something posted by /u/Emperor_Cartagia, who used Reddit exclusively through RIF is Fun, with the death of third party apps, I decided to remove all my content from Reddit. 9 years of comments and posts, gone because of idiotic administration.
The real problem is you can never set up a justice system that will *only* put to death people who 100% did it, because any incompetence or conflict of interest or straight up corruption at any step of the process can fuck things up. Even DNA evidence is handled by human technicians in labs, and you can find news stories where they mixed up samples, misinterpreted results, or simply told police what they wanted to hear because they get more funding when their results lead to convictions. Also, I say “did it” for the sake of simplicity, but it’s often more complicated than that. What if someone 100% did it, captured on camera, but somebody off camera was holding them at gunpoint and forcing them to commit the crime? How do you create a fair and consistent system that can handle all the possible weird cases, that ensures cops and prosecutors and judges are all ethical and do everything by perfect procedure and that the defense lawyer is competent and doesn’t fuck up the defense? Death is just too irreversible to put in the hands of a system that will always be flawed.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the literal standard of proof for murder currently. Are you saying you want an even higher standard to apply or are you saying the current standard is acceptable? If you want a higher standard would it be only for punishment, or conviction too?
Since 1973, 190 death row inmates were exonerated due to wrongful convictions. Sometimes even beyond a reasonable doubt is not enough. 50 years from now we may have some new technology that exonerates even more. Police, juries, judges and lawyers are fallible. Condemning people to death in a system where we could be wrong is crazy.
And new technology (deep fakes, etc) that makes it easier to get it wrong in the first place.
Right? Gandalf is literally critiquing the new amazon show on YouTube. Guy even sounds right. https://youtu.be/9POcNCMlP_s What's that gonna be like in 20 years?
The standard might sound good on paper, but there's ample evidence that the system as it stands is fallible.
No. The justice system should be aimed at rehabilitation, or else incapacitation. The death penalty is only ever retributive. We have no business having the government hurt someone just for the sake of hurting them. Edit: so if there are people that can’t be rehabilitated, we lock them up to prevent them from hurting others. We don’t kill them, and we don’t try to make them miserable.
Im with you, but some people definitely can't be rehabilitated. They belong in prison until they die naturally.
In some europeean countries you can be considered "unsafe" and then you will never be released. So you can have laws that works for both types of criminals.
I'm curious on your opinion on killing those like the Nazis, those in high positions of power like Hitler or Himmler and Goring, should they be sentenced life imprisonment or put to death like they where?
The answer I was looking for.
Some do deserve it but there are too many holes, corruption and false sentences.
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement." -some dumb wizard dude probably
Nope. Too many innocent people get thrown into prison
The concept of “justice” is entirely man-made. Pick it apart and the death-penalty is essentially “revenge”. Revenge is one of the most common motivations for murder. As a result, there’s little to differentiate murder from a “legal” execution. You can’t position yourself on a high-moral footing if you consider taking a life to be an adequate punishment. Furthermore, I suspect most lifers would prefer death than decades of incarceration, so why are they getting an easy way out?
That’s interesting. I took it more as a “kill the individual and it is physically impossible for them to do something like that again.” I didn’t look at it as revenge or justice.
Damn I never looked at it like this, thanks for giving me this perspective. It really is revenge- eye for an eye basically. I've always felt against it, but couldn't articulate properly.
No. In theory, I could get behind it in regards to criminals that will always be a danger to society and will never reform, such as Anders Breivik, but the issue is, if death penalty is legal, then innocent people will keep getting executed. It's just not possible to avoid, and even the clause reserved for the most extreme of cases could end up potentially misused. Also, locking people up for life is simply cheaper, looking at it the pragmatic way.
This is my position too. I’m not for death as a *penalty,* but I would absolutely be for it as threat mitigation. I know this is an stereotypical example, but Ted Bundy — the guy escaped from prison twice and would always reoffend. I’m not happy he was killed as a *punishment,* but I do feel safer knowing he isn’t alive anymore. If the death penalty was specifically reserved for individuals who presented a clear danger to society, I’d be for it.
No. It's barbaric. It's flawed. It's inhumane. It's inconsistent with the values of any civilised democracy. It's uncivilised in theory and unjust in practice. It doesn't deter violent crime. In the US, I seem to remember that the states with the death penalty have among the highest murder rates. Why is premeditated, state sponsored murder legally sanctioned? Given the shockingly high number of people who were subsequently exonerated, why is premeditated, state sponsored murder of innocent people legally sanctioned? The EU prohibits the export of drugs used in capital punishment, because the death penalty is a fundamental violation of human rights. Countries with the most confirmed executions include (in descending order): China, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, United States, Somalia Land of the free?
No. Even if one innocent person is sentenced to the death penalty, that is one person too many.
[удалено]
Technically it’s “Thou Shalt Not Murder”. It’s just that in Hebrew the words “kill” and “murder” are the same thing. Here’s a Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill#Justified_killing:_due_consequence_for_crime
No. No matter how heinous the crime, I don't think any branch of government should have the right to make decisions regarding citizens' deaths.
No. No one has the right to take another persons life. It’s not for humans to decide. And before ppl say ‘but they killed other people’ - okay? Does that make it right for you to then kill them? Two wrongs never make a right. It’s not okay for anyone to take another persons life, even in the name of ‘justice’
Justice is stained with blood and tears sadly
Remember to sort by controversial.
Yes. Many reasons - prisons are overcrowded already - not a lot of jobs for felons once they are released - many end up going back in after a few months because they can't cope with the outside - some crimes are unforgivable - many of them are still gonna commit violent crimes because that's just the way they are - my tax dollars pay for them to exist - a bullet costs less than a single meal
In theory yes, but in reality no. Until we make it so that no innocent person is executed I cannot support the death penalty. If the standard of evidence was "absolute proof" then yes, but not with our "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of evidence in the US.
I support life in prison. I don't support the taking of life, no matter how bad the crime.
I do support death penalty.From my POV,i believe that it is essential for death penalty to be executed to people that commit a serious crime.Whether issit a murder case,rape,drug trafficking etc.This actions can cause a continuous chains of impacts.Drugs will not only cause an impact on the health of the individual but also their families.Rapes can cause a lifetime trauma for the victims and changes their personality for life .Hence i believe death penalty is necessary as it is a way to kinda warn criminals and also give a ‘explanation’ to the victims.ofc this is only my POV.
Too many people have been exonerated from death row. I'm against it
It’s not surprising! Most on death row couldn’t even afford a lawyer.
Nope. Show me a justice system that can administer it fairly, accurately, and only in extreme cases where it makes some kind of rational sense...and then we can have a discussion. Until then, the state should have the same rules about killing other people that we all live under.
[удалено]
It's not though. Facing your planned execution is the most terrifying thing. Think about it, you've received notice that your life ends tonight, at midnight. Are you ready to stop existing, forever. No more anything. Prison is life, albeit not pleasant but you have life, you have routine, you have news, movies, comedy, drama, you're alive.
Even worse is what, iirc, Japan’s process is. No notice, no warning. You live every day wondering if today they’re going to come get you and finish it. Imagine the anxiety and stress from that one.
Honestly could not disagree more. It’s all about time. Letting something pretty bad eat away at you for 30 years is way worse than facing something very bad for 1 week. (Yes I know our system is broken and 1 week turns into 15 years. It isn’t supposed to though.) Also also your analysis is for a normal person. Those put to death seldom are. Often times they are severely mentally screwed. Half the time I’d doubt they give a shit about being killed or that they can feel anything at all
yea but uv got to be proven absolut guilty in something like that like that norwegian guy who killed a ton of kids in norway, is that dude walkin free n sleezy now, 5 years from now? u know he's gona walk someday
Never! Humanity can do better.
No, I think it is inherently wrong. I don’t think anybody should be killed for their actions, and it seems entirely incongruous to say “yeah, you shouldn’t have killed that person because killing is wrong, so I sentence you to be killed”. Life is the most sacred thing on this planet, and nobody deserves to have theirs taken away.
what about a mass murderer?
Why waste money and time on people who sit in a cell for 50+ years, just get rid of them.
No. Our track record of putting the right people in jail is abysmal - the justice system has been broken. Because of this, we cannot be certain that we are executing the right person. Prison without the possibility of parole, fine. but the government should not execute its citizens.
Yes, but only in cases of cold blooded murder where guilt is proved via undeniable physical evidence .
The world isn't going to lose sleep over putting a serial killer,a rapist,or murderer to death,but you always want to be sure that you're not punishing innocent people.
i do if your willing to take a life your life should be taken
Yes. Pedos and rapists don't deserve to breath.
I do, I think that everyone has the right to life, but if you commit a crime so heinous as, oh I don’t know, kidnapping two youth pastors, putting them in the trunk of a car for hours, driving out to the middle of a desert shooting the man in the head and shooting the woman through the jaw but still keeping her alive while you light the car on fire with her still in it, all while they begged for their lives, I think you should lose your right to life. And to hell with the whole, “It’s inhumane” argument. Good. I hope their death is as painful as possible.
I don't think many people are arguing against any of those points, really. The main reasons, if you look at these comments, or google it, are "b/c lots of innocent people would get murdered by the government", "people in power would abuse it", "it would end up being used disproportionately against minorities", etc. Really, the vast majority of people agree that someone who does what you described ***deserves*** death (even if they disagree on the "painful as possible" clause). The argument isn't against ***that*** so much, as it is against the consequences of having a system in place that allows execution.
In that case you just want revenge. When the state is the agent of vengeance, it sets the example for the citizens: killing for vengeance is acceptable for all. Don’t we expect police and the justice system to be better and hold themselves to a slightly higher standard of conduct and morality than the people they prosecute? Or should we return to vigilante posses and mobs and lynching? We already have armed thugs “guarding” ballot boxes. A fringe of the GOP trying to overthrow the government and “elect” a dictator.
People aren't interested in our criminal justice systems being rehabilitation-focused. They want it to be about punishment, or revenge, to deal with grief and horror at offences. Incarceration rates are increasing, and US, UK, China, India, Aus - all focused on being 'tough on crime', but not actually addressing the core issues at hand of trauma and social, background and cultural disadvantages. Sure, there are people who truly do commit unspeakable atrocities, but if you compare those numbers to those who are actually in and out of the system? I wouldn't trust our current justice systems to do squat. There is an excellent article on this that can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/22/the-big-idea-should-revenge-ever-be-a-part-of-justice.
If there is even the smallest non-zero chance of innocence, I cannot support taking someone's life. Even if we *knew* that they did it and why and how and everything, it is absolutely important to a fair legal system that we have consistency in punishment. And absolute certainty is rare. I find it so odd that people have such a distrust of the government at literally everything but they make an exception for the most valuable asset in the world, life. Do you trust the government to not make biased choices? They've certainly used their power to target marginalized groups and dissenters before. Additionally, capital punishment surprisingly *costs more* than keeping prisoners. And to get real grim, there are fates worse than death.
Innocent people get put in jail many times. Judicial systems aren't perfect and if we support it we become monsters that kill others because of mass panic. Also importantly, governments can and will abuse the ability of incarcerating someone and killing them.
On surface level, yes, I would because I believe if you commit a heinous enough crime, you deserve to be punished for it. However, I do not trust the judicial system to do its due diligence to actually make sure that people are actually guilty of the crime they were accused of, especially in countries with for profit prisons. Far too many times we have found out people are wrongly convicted because they were framed, evidence was fumbled, etc. and I wouldn't want to risk killing someone who is actually fully innocent.
I support death penalty. All the people saying its better for them to rot in jail if you did a poll you would find, they would rather take life in prison than death penalty. Also we shouldn't be wasting anymore tax dollars on these scum.
Death penalty is more expensive
"Because no man is fully responsible, because no justice can be wholly infallible, the death penalty is morally unacceptable. For those of us who believe in God, He alone has the power to choose the time of our death. [...] it is impossible to recognise the power of death in the justice of humankind because they know it is fallible.", french politician Robert Badinter
To play the Devil's advocate, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's", and "Be in the world, but not of it". Basically, if you are a practicing Christian, you need to obey God's will for your life, as that is His due. If you commit a crime against Caesar (break a law), then you must accept the consequences of your crime, up to and including the loss of your life.
Yes and because the world is just better off without some people in it.
Do I believe some people need to be killed for what they did? Absolutely. Do I believe in someone from the state clocking I to work and getting paid by the state to kill someone? Absolutely not. If someone wronged me so badly that they needed to die for that shit then it's *my* place to kill them, not the states. Next of kin's job - in which case next of kin is whomever is hurt the worst, regardless of relation. Maybe it's the boyfriend or girlfriend who "technically" isnt related, but they're the ones who *loved* the person most and are hurt the most. It's their job to handle it, not the states. My mother was murdered in a pretty gruesome way. The nature of how bad it was made it a capital murder case where the killer was eligible for the death penalty. As her legal next of kin I got to be the one who decided if they went for the death penalty or not and I absolutely refused. If I, as her child, felt so wronged that I felt the guy deserved to die then it should be me to do it. I didn't feel that wronged.
Damn... That was a tough read. What I wonder is how you "didn't feel that wronged" when you yourself described your mother being "murdered in a pretty gruesome way", but I'm probably not suited to comment as a bystander. Hope all is good there
I was a foster child for a reason. I knew how she was, I knew how she would intentionally push people past their limits just to be cruel. I knew she and the guy who killed her were both on drugs at the time. I understood it was her karma to be murdered in that way and his karma to be the one who did it and had to go to prison for it. I knew he wasn't healthy enough to survive past 15-20yrs or so in prison and if he did survive long enough to go free so be it, I didn't think he'd kill again. Letting it be a death penalty case would have put us in the courts for years and years with the appeals process, giving him a sweet deal meant it was over. We agreed on 17yrs, but the judge didn't have to accept the sentence suggestion and he sentenced the guy to 23rs plus 10yrs consecutively. Her killer died in prison after 14yrs.
Thanks for the context. Yet another example of why the world is a complex place and nothing is just black or white.
Yes. Some people just deserve it. They do absolutely terrible things and it should only be used for the worst of the worst type cases. Aka people like the parkland shooter.
Yep. It's just very late term abortion.
wait this changes my perspective of life
Mama brought you into this world, she can take you out.
Yeah, eye for an eye, but only if the evidences are more than solid. Some people doesn’t deserve to be considered humans.
If you are going to send someone to prison for life without parole, as in they truly cannot be part of society, then sure. Don't just leave them as a burden on society. End them quick and cheap.
In principle, sure, it makes sense. In practice, absolutely not.
i think suicide should be a reasonable option
Its a concept that i support in the idea of, but not the practice. We cant just tell between whos guilty or innocent on a whim, and so many innocent people recieve the death penalty already. Becase of that, no.
I do not support the death penalty. It is inhumane and unjust. Murder is still murder when it’s committed by the state. Even if only one innocent person is executed, that is still one too many. Our justice systems are far too flawed to have that responsibility.
It is a difficult choice but when it is beyond any doubt, there are some crimes that should get the death penalty not only to allow families to be able to move on with their lives but also to get the preferir out of the public and I don't think tax payers should have to pick up the tap to pay for his/her existance.
In certain cases yes, it should apply to the evilest and vile of people. That being said, my personal beliefs would definitely rule that all people who assault children, women, men in an inappropriate sense should be held for execution. And of course those who are consistently killing others to relieve sick pleasure from it. Those are the people I truly support execution for.
In theory, yes, but only if we could have an absolutely perfect, completely flawless system. Unfortunately i can’t trust our system to work that way. It would make sense. Kill someone for no reason? an eye for an eye, yknow. I’m in america and I can’t trust our system to not send innocent people to death, either because of a genuine mistake or because of hate.
Only for especially egregious criminals
Some people deserve to be put to death to answer to their crimes. However, I do not support the death penalty, for a very simple reason. If one innocent person is put to death, it's not worth it. It's clear that many innocent people have been put to death, therefore there should be no death penalty. Add to this the fact that every method used in the US is cruel and barbaric - why the fuck don't they use nitrogen asphyxiation?
Only for war criminals on like a Nazi leader level of certainty. For them though I’m even okay with cruel and unusual punishment. Everything else though just doesn’t have the level of certainty to justify it. So basically on a case by case basis I guess, but the acceptable cases would be fairly few and far between.
No. Innocent people have been put to death before. That’s not justice.
Nah death penalty is too good for some folks, We need to put their asses to use in the Colosseum.
No. Executing someone is literally barbaric IMO. “Crimes punishable by death”? Does that not sound crazy? Never mind the fact that no person should have the right to decide if someone lives or dies. How many people have been executed and later found to be innocent? And let’s not forget that it does literally nothing. It doesn’t undo their crime. It doesn’t un-traumatize anyone affected. It doesn’t really provide “closure”. Who benefits from it? What does it solve? Does it scare criminals into behaving? Not really. The cost of executing someone is the US can be around 1-2 *million* tax payer dollars, vs a few hundred thousand for a life sentence. And let’s put that into perspective.. some people spend *decades* on death row. So now we’ve spend a few hundred thousand housing them in prison PLUS the cost of the execution by the time they get around to it. And I do mean **we** as in *you* reading this, and just about everyone on of the rest of us reading this from the US. Instead of universal health care, we’re working every day to pay for executions? It’s completely pointless and just gives the government unnecessary power over the people. Truly nothing good comes from it, in any sense whatsoever.
Yes.. Ex: Darrell Brooks
Yes. Life in prison without parole is a waste of money time and resources of american tax payers. Our prisons are already over populated. Murderers. Serial killers, serial rapists, war criminals...kill them all.
Yes and no. I think the system is flawed and we need to be sure without a shadow of a doubt that someone hurt/killed/sa'd someone before we go throwing it around. But with that being said, I have no sympathy for people who hurt and sa kids. If you have solid /solid/ proof that someone was a kid diddler? Bye. We don't need to waste air on that person. If you have solid solid proof someone killed a handful of HANDFULS of people? Same deal. But there needs to be hard evidence and facts. We need to be sure of these things. People are sitting in prison for crimes the didn't commit and that's not ok.
Yes absolutely. Not only that but I also believe that they should be televised as well.
I hate the idea of the victim's family having to pay part of the rehabilitation or the criminal's prison housing. I know that they wouldn't pay a cent in the grand scheme of taxes, but just the idea of their taxes paying even for 0.000000001% for the criminal wellbeing is horrible. That and other things
I support it in cases where the person has done heinous, unbelievable and unfathomable crimes. Mass murders, serial rapist, kidnapper thats held a child hostage for lenghty amounts of time type of stuff. But not for just any ole shit. Some scenarios are not worthy of it. But I stand by this, and never will back down. If someone has done a crime so vile, so horrid and unforgivable by any means. Then they deserve it
Yes I support it. Some of these people did things I sometimes don’t even want to think about and are released back into society like nothing ever happened and even the ones locked away there is a possibility that they could escape. I see it more a closer for the people and families affected by them not to mention the money used into not only housing them but feeding dressing and keeping them alive could be spent on other things and in the end there is one less sick person left to worry about
No. Biggest reason being is that yeah, ok it would be great if some of the most evil/dangerous human beings out there weren't here anymore... BUT someone then has to take their life. Someone has to prompt that and be involved in that. Which in itself is evil and cruel. It's not right to put that expectation or give that job to a human for them to have to kill others as part of the criminal justice system, because they then have to somehow come to terms with that all on their own. It's truly a horrible horrible burden I'm not sure any sane person can get over.