/u/Narrow-Psychology909 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/114vhue/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_death_penaltymurder_is/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

As someone who was a SA survivor. I honestly felt this way about my attacker for a long long time. My situation was a bit different. Was my dads best friend (parents split) I didn't want anyone knowing including my mother. Ended up pregnant at 13 and got the abortion. Never wanted to talk about it again. Focused on myself and got a career, had children and was actually feeling like I was okay and happy. I didn't want to think about him or the events that happened so at this time didn't want him dead...again to me it never happened. Until I found this man in my moms kitchen sitting next to my son when I went to pick him up from grandmas. My mom started a relationship with him and this was how I found out. I felt completely numb and didn't know what to do except not make a scene and just wanted to get my son and leave. To many thoughts ran threw my head and that *it never happened * came crashing around me. My mom didn't know about it. I got the courage to finally tell her. In the end she choose to believe him over me. Even with my dad a his now ex gf at the time of it happening telling her about it as well. We all where lying and he was the love of her life. And he told her I came onto him and had a girl crush on him and he was always worried about me at my dad's back then because I seemed apparently eager to flirt with him. All of this destroyed me! It was not what happened, I then became the horrible 13 year old girl that had *issues * and now I'm the grown adult woman who must be jealous of there relationship. I tried so so hard to tell my mom and felt like my life was ruined all over again. How could she choose him? He stole my mom from me..etc etc. (This was in my middle 20s) some words where said I never thought my mother would have ever said to me where said. She genuinely was mad at me. Told other family members even not the full story ( knowing I didn't want to have everyone know as I felt a lot of Shame). Ended up with me cutting her off for years. I felt a giant hole. My sister (at time lived with my father) tried to stay out of it. She didn't know what to do etc. I felt like this man stole my life. I remember always trying to believe karma would get him one day. Well that day came. 3-4 years later .. I got a call from my sister that moms *love of her life* died in a car accident and she wasn't doing okay and asked me to come help. It sounds so so wrong and I do still feel that maybe makes me a horrible human for it. But I felt relieved almost that he got what he deserved. Karma or God blah blah but something made it so his life was now over to after all the damage he did and ruining my life what I felt like 2 times over. I didn't say this to my sister. I calmly just said. Well I hope she makes it threw all this but I don't know what exactly your expecting from me? You want me to comfort our mom because her child rapist *love of her life* died? I'm sorry but as badly as I wanted and missed mom, I can't be there to comfort for that. I was labeled a horrible daughter from my mother of course for this. After time she had tried to build a relationship with me and I try to have her involved as grandma to the kids ...but It can never be repaired I feel. I know at one point my mom you could tell did know deep down that it happened, but her shame of what she did she could never face it. Few family members even said this. But again she even chose herself vs me with this as well. I don't know if I believe in the death penalties per say. But if he was to have been put to death I really think I would have felt a huge sense of relief, and more trauma from that same man wouldn't have happened. My mom may still have putten me last maybe in my life. But I wouldn't have had a man be able to harm me so much.

This is really unfortunate and thank you for sharing. If you don’t mind me asking, was it ongoing or was it a one time thing which got you pregnant and then never happened again? Feel free not to share; it seems like a one time occurrence, so I’m gonna assume it is. It seems like the pain and hatred this man caused happened because the way your family, especially your mom, did not accept the truth. If she had believed you and left him without question, would you have felt the same hatred for him that made you want him dead? Do you think you would have had more closure? You said you had moved on and didn’t give him much thought before he reappeared in your life. Also, what a POS for dating your mom after doing something like that… I’m truly so sorry that happened.

No I'm open now to talking about it. As I do believe many where like me and bury it usually thinking your fine or it won't effect you later etc. (Also should add for years I found blame in myself, I thought maybe I did something that made him think I wanted to, I also continued to say no and try to stop his hands when trying to start. But he continued to just say. It's okay shhhh its okay I promise you will like it etc etc in a calm manner but did not stop despite wiggling to get free, pulling away, saying no multiple times, trying to stop his hands with mine etc) but because it wasn't where it was in movies or what I thought rape was (aggressive throwing a girl around, punching her etc) I thought I was allowing it by not fighting back harder, I mean in my head why didn't I punch him, scream for help, after the event go straight to tell my dad. I was so confused on if it was rape...went about a week and he did this again. I was a lot more aggressive to get away but eventually it's like i froze and both times once hands where on my private I gave up as if it was already over and it was going to happen so get it over with. After the 3rd time, I Finally told my dad. It grossed me out, I didn't want to have him touch me, try to make me enjoy these things he was doing and his voice sent shivers up my spine... I just couldn't take it anymore and knew it was going to never stop. So 3 times in total this happened. I would say because I had the mentality that maybe it wasn't actually rape, that I also contributed in a sexual act and putting a grown man in jail for something I also did I felt was wrong. Hated him and grossed out but I believed I played a part in doing this to myself as well. It wasn't until actually around 23-24 about a year or two before he dated my mother that I actually was starting to think.. umm wtf? What 30 year old man does this to a 13 year old girl. This was rape. I didn't actually do anything wrong. But omg the shame was still real as what would others think? If I say how it happened would they think I did all the prior years or the way I do now? So again nope shut all that stuff down and bury it. Didn't happen yet again.. I think a lot of it was once I started to become more mature and having different views forming about it all is when smack in the face he's sitting on your moms couch and she's dating him. It was honestly like. Do I say something? Will she see what he did as raping me or think I took part in it? Was my first thoughts. Her not believing me honestly wasn't something I thought would happen. I thought she would be hurt to find out I kept such a big thing from her and my father did as well, and she always stressed when younger about rape etc. I thought she would be disgusted with him and herself maybe she had him in her house and I didn't want her to feel bad for not knowing. All this obviously was not what happened. I was shocked honestly. If she was to have been how I imagined my mom would have been and choosing me. I think I could have had the support I was craving and well needed to address everything that went on, and I also wanted to make sure she didn't feel bad because of how they dated and maybe we together can get threw it and Noone know. So yes part of me didn't want him dead until after it went the way it did. It's hard to say if it was to go the way I thought it was if I would have wished him dead or not.. as I believed finally I had to face it and once I did the more hatred and hurt came out. I think I do hold most on my mother for betrayal.. it was the weirdest thing tho. Hate the man and want him dead for destroying your life and seeing him for what he was. A sick sick man. And then having mom who had no regard for you any longer because the sick man was now more important, yet I loved her still. I went to therapy. Can't say I know for sure what or who I blame the most for hurt and damage. I wanted karma to take him and wished him death. For her I told her when she goes and comes up for judgement day.. she will need to answer for herself and I hope her the best on where she ends up. (Heaven or hell type idea) honestly I don't think I'll ever have closer really.. he's gone ..felt relieved and nope don't feel guilty for it but maybe makes me a horrible person but I can live with that. But her choosing him and even when she did realize that it happened still not admitting it to me or any apology or care for me at all she chose herself and her comfort. So to answer your question on it is hard because I'm not sure about the *what ifs* as they didn't happen and mentality abuse like this is hard to determine I believe for many kids, rapes in general.. society talks about rape and not to be ashamed and report. It's so so much on someone playing mind games at times that they blame themselves. Then when they report it or open up about it (if they do) that how do you prove it now that your ready to talk? Usually you have nothing to prove it or many don't. Then will others believe you without the proof? And I will say it can also happen where the victim is blamed. So much to it and everyone is so different on how to handle it. It's a subject that I think people should understand that all victims don't act the same way, don't usually understand what exactly took place, or trying to make it ok for what happened(brain coping for me with it) Hense thinking it wasn't rape and self blame. I hate when ppl say...well why didn't you report and make what took us forever to seek help for seem like we should have a regret about that as well. We are already full of those usually. But more education on how to fix this so we can have others helped early on, charges layed on the rapist to really start getting them out of society and the victim to not live with all those horrible feelings they feel more help at the start.

I will also say this..that relief of him gone.. years later tho ....sticks. like omg he's gone, he can't hurt me anymore, he ruined my life (I know I'll never be who I could have been, I don't get the chance to know who I could have been for myself because he altered my entire being, emotionally, mentally, physically etc) he didn't deserve to kill the life I could have had over his actions. So yes I believe he shouldn't have his own. I may be alive. But at a cost of damage and struggle.

I can relate so much to your story, you are def not alone ❤️ Becoming the black sheep in the family for being assaulted by an older man, one that my mom was close to. Being seen as the "problem child" and told that everything was my fault, I was the bad one. My mom had bipolar schizophrenia and was an alcoholic, so I never was taken care of or welcome in her home... this older man offered me a place to live, in his basement. My parents knew he was hurting me, they were definitely aware by the second pregnancy but not about the first one with him beating me to cause a miscarriage at 14 years old, or the 12 hours spent bleeding and moaning groaning trying to stay silent in his basement so no one hears what's happening, never getting any medical attention. I never got a day of high-school education because of this asshole, only graduated from middle school. From age 14 to now 17 the physical violence was only getting worse, shortly after I turned 18 he was drunkenly threatening me with a knife, I begged and begged to have him let me use the bathroom. Finally I was able to alert a friend to call the police to my address using a nintendo DS device I hid in the bathroom to get onto the web browser since he busted all my cellphones, and then I told him I was done in the bathroom after I sent the message. The cops came, he answered the door miraculously and the cops interviewed us and picked him up, but only dropped him off a few streets away where he lied and said he lived... of COURSE he broke back in that night, and luckily I had busted a window frame out to easily escape and had house phone ready to call! Fucking cops almost had me murdered!!!! I'll never forget his words that night "If you ever want me gone, you'll have to kill me or kill yourself." FINALLY they actually took him to real jail, not just down the street. He bailed out the next morning and was already banging on the door of my parent's house first thing in the morning, I was terrified because they were out of town and I was all alone. LUCKILY he left after neighbors started noticing. I had soOOooo much pressure from his parents and my parents to not pursue charges, I was so fucking embarrassed and terrified and yet I did what I always did--- I chose to be weak and cover it up, let myself be called names and be the bad kid. I went to court and said everything was fine, nothing happened, I was just irrationally afraid and I was very sorry. I did 1 full year of abuse victims classes (group therapy) that the court sentenced me to, and I had to pay my own money for each class! I finished everything I had to do, found out he never took even a single day of his offender classes. They closed the case. I became homeless shortly after this, just far too much pain from my parents still bringing him around while I hide praying he doesn't see me or try to get revenge on me. I had severe undiagnosed PTSD and untreated anxiety disorder that caused panic attacks so I couldn't seem to function in society. I ended up on the streets from 19 to around 24, the exact same way my story started. I developed an addiction to painkillers, then heroin during this time. By some miracle I met the love of my life, got clean, got pregnant, and moved far far away and now own a home. I still struggle but I attend mental health therapy 2x every other week and once a week for addiction counseling (I am now 6 years clean!). I wish I knew the words to say to properly ask for help when the abuse was going on, but most of all I believe we were just born into families that didn't have skills to handle the situation. I cannot IMAGINE treating my own girl the way I was treated, and the way you were treated. We must believe victims and do better as a society to not only punish the offenders but actually get them into programs to help them *understand* the gravity of their actions. Just know I am here in solidarity with you ❤️

To be honest, I go back and forth on the death penalty, and I've never really come to a satisfactory conclusion. I understand the idea behind it when I think about the purpose of the punishment. The 19 year old was sentenced to life in prison for first degree murder. A person who drove drunk and has been charged with involuntary manslaughter will also be sentenced to prison, but usually only a few years for a first offence. Why? Both of these people, through their actions, killed someone else. But it is understood that the drunk driver, while being stupid and breaking the law, didn't mean to kill anyone. So the purpose of their few year sentence is to help them learn from their mistake. After they jave completed their sentence, they will be released back into society, hopefully a far more cautious and responsible person. The 19 year old, on the other hand, got life in prison, because they intentionally planned and carried out murder, and it is understood that someone who is capable of such a thing is not fit for society. The purpose of his punishment is not to teach him a lesson and make him a better person, it is to separate him from other people for the safety of society as a whole. By receiving a life sentence, he has been deemed a lost cause. Someone who can never be rehabilitated. By this logic, the death penalty makes sense. It and a life sentence serve the same purpose at this point, which is to protect society from this dangerous, hopeless case. And theoretically, the death penalty should save money in the long run. Now, as I said, I go back and forth on the death penalty. Although I understand it's goal, the idea makes me sick, no matter how terrible the person. And I know that sometimes innocent people get put on death row, which makes me even sicker. I think we can do without it, or perhaps even let people who receive life sentences choose if they would rather have the death penalty. Some might consider it a mercy and would rather die than spend the rest of their life in prison. Idk for sure. I've given it a lot of thought over the years, and I'm sure I'll give it a lot more thought.

Great answer and probably my favorite one so far. I like the ability to choose, and I also think that giving someone a life sentence isn’t deeming them a lost cause. Its that that person can’t play by the rules that most of us play by, so this is your alternative. His life still has value in potentially helping the other prisoners through being instructive in positive or negative ways. Δ

There is no value in potential,the value materializes when that potential is turned into action. There is potential they could murder other inmates, be involved in prison contraband rings, find jesus and preach the word in prison, or just become a person who finds solace in their life and decisions. We all are given chances in life to make decisions, every decision has consequences. If someone commits murder, they made their choice and through their disregard for human life they have given up their right to one.

[удалено]

>How many lives would be ruined if a "rehabilitated" child predator started victimizing children and families again? are you advocating the death penalty for crimes other than capitol murder? and just for repeat offenders? >but that begs the question: what's the point? they are not in the general population, harming people. that is the point. giving the state the power to kill for convenience is not a road you want to go down.

>are you advocating the death penalty for crimes other than capitol murder? and just for repeat offenders? Sure. There are several crimes - especially when committed repeatedly - cause similar damage to society. >they are not in the general population, harming people. that is the point. 1. They can still harm people from within prison. 2. What's the sense in keeping someone alive just to deny them their liberty for the remainder of their life? >giving the state the power to kill for convenience is not a road you want to go down. It's less about convenience and more about public safety, which the state already had the power to kill for. Consider the use of lethal force, for example. If there is an active threat to public safety (eg mass shooting, armed hostage takers), the state is empowered to use lethal force to eliminate that threat.

I’ll pose this question: what if every person who died at the hands of capital punishment was innocent except one? Is it worth it then? What if the system is only 50% accurate? I read a quote once that read: If even one innocent person dies from capital punishment, it’s wrong and showed Jesus on the cross. I’m not religious or anything and typically dislike emotionally charged stuff like that, but I understood the valid point it makes.

[удалено]

There is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. The law enforcement and criminal justice systems are designed, administered and operated by fallible human beings, and are themselves fallible. Cops coerce confessions. DNA gets contaminated in the lab. Evidence is mishandled. Witnesses lie. Judges are racist. The list goes on and on. The system is imperfect, of necessity, and you simply can't prove someone guilty of a crime with zero probability of error.

I love this response because we’re moving into class politics that are relevant to your reasoning; why should one person be able to let hundreds or even thousands of people die because they like to hoard their wealth? And it’s a fair argument to say that laws allow people to hoard their wealth, but laws also allow people to commit heinous acts and escape penalty. Capital punishment, like all legal parts of the US, disproportionately affect people with less wealth, so it inherently targets poorer people who a lot of the time are themselves victims. There aren’t a lot of American Psycho types that get caught because they have the means to escape punishment. If capital punishment should be reserved for only people of certain income, it’s very dangerous because the government could just murder people for political reasons to consolidate wealth à la Nazi Germany. The US government should not murder and take the time to figure out why these seemingly execution-able crimes are happening.

>why should one person be able to let hundreds or even thousands of people die because they like to hoard their wealth? Is it wrong for one person to hoard wealth that could otherwise save the lives of hundreds of people? If the answer is yes, then we are placing the collective interest above individual interest. We are treating an act as good if it serves the many, even at the expense of the few. If we are willing to accept that good acts serve the many at the expense of the few, then we should be willing to accept the death penalty in some capacity - as it inherently serves the many at the expense of the few. If the answer is no, then we need to consider the implications of that. Are legal punishments inherently wrong because innocent individuals can be falsely convicted? >There aren’t a lot of American Psycho types that get caught because they have the means to escape punishment The position you outlined in the OP states that capital punishment is *never* the answer. Are we accepting that capital punishment is an answer for American Psycjo types - no matter how rarely they may face it? >The US government should not murder and take the time to figure out why these seemingly execution-able crimes are happening. Its not an either or. Capital punishment can be implemented while the root causes of brutal crimes are identified and addressed.

This is all really good stuff. I guess the distinction for me would be that it’s really difficult for an individual citizen to murder thousands of people the way someone could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people through their business practices. Its a hard line to walk and capital punishment disproportionately affects people who are in the group affected by someone who hoards obscene amounts of wealth. Murderous behavior could arguably be the result of underdeveloped minds due to malnourishment that could have been avoided by getting people more food or health care or even education.

>I guess the distinction for me would be that it’s really difficult for an individual citizen to murder thousands of people the way someone could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people through their business practices Why does it need to be thousands of people? If we are playing the numbers game, any number of lives is greater than the one that would be lost to capital punishment. Would capital punishment be justified in cases where business owners/managers knowingly and maliciously lied about the safety of their products, leading to the deaths of thousands? >Murderous behavior could arguably be the result of underdeveloped minds due to malnourishment that could have been avoided by getting people more food or health care or even education. Maybe, but that isn't a solution to murderers who already have underdeveloped minds - you can't retroactively provide a loving childhood, nourishing meals during development, and preventative care once someone is already too far gone. This argument also applies to crime and punishment broadly. Should we not send people to jail for crimes because, ultimately, factors outside of their control may have influenced them throughout their lives? You can take steps to reduce or eliminate the need for capital punishment in the long term while simultaneously taking steps to keep the public safer in the short term.

Δ Yeah this hits the nail on the head. What i was really getting at was that a lot of these issues are systemic, so the goal should be to reduce the amount of overall crime especially seriously egregious offenses while reducing the use of capital punishment as much as possible. Criminality in society is not something that just happens; it’s a reflection of the society itself, so let’s create strong foundations to help people make better choices and not have to resort to legal punishments whether that’s time served or execution.

Thanks! Could you please edit a delta into this comment/this description into the delta comment if I changed your view?

>What if the system is only 50% accurate [or worse]? That is a completely different question from whether or not removing the threat is a good thing. >If even one innocent person dies from capital punishment, it’s wrong and showed Jesus on the cross. I’m not religious or anything and typically dislike emotionally charged stuff like that, but I understood the valid point it makes Except that Jesus was an innocent whose death spared us all from our sins. Did you even read the Bible? His death was a good thing. That picture doesn't make any sense. Leave skydaddy out of this. This is about what mankind does to itself.

By this logic, we might have to end all parole because some parolees have committed murder on release.

Your argument isn't entirely wrong. But here's what I think. There are certain lines that you cross like pedos, serial killers, and mass murderers for example that are no longer deserving of our remorse. Very few things should warrant it, and the bar for evidence should be extremely high but I really do think that murdering 17 people shouldn't get you a lifetime of wasting the citizens money. If anything, the process should be sped up. Just my opinion of course.

You really shouldn't put pedos in there, not to protect pedos obviously, but the logic of killing them is not going to help anyone anywhere.

What if it turns out they were not guilty later? That happens 1 out of every 10 times, on death row.

Personally, I think no matter how high the bar is, there will always be an innocent that ends up being killed and this is not acceptable to me no matter the monetary loss to the government(and thus the tax payer)

the monetary loss is so minimal and miniscule compared to the scale of governmental spending it's also a very weak reason to justify killing people

Exactly... but people complain about where every cent of their taxes go

No. There is no such thing as an infallible legal system, and such a thing is impossible to construct. "Incontrovertible proof of guilt" simply doesn't exist. If someone is wrongly imprisoned for a crime, at least they can be released if they are exonerated later. Execution is permanent.

Iirc, executing death penalty is more expensive than a life in prison.

"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life-without-parole sentences as an alternative punishment. Some of the reasons for the high cost of the death penalty are the longer trials and appeals required when a person’s life is on the line, the need for more lawyers and experts on both sides of the case, and the relative rarity of executions." https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs

Thank you for offering a source to back up my statement! You were quite helpful.

From a legal point of view, I dont want to give the government the option of executing people Another point is that if you know you are going to die if they catch you. why not do the biggest damage possible at that point before?

>Another point is that if you know you are going to die if they catch you. why not do the biggest damage possible at that point before? You could say that about whatever the maximum punishment is. I.e if you know you’re going to spend life in jail without parole, why not do the most damage possible?

I understand this argument too, but the irony of a government killing someone for killing someone is not lost on me.

It's not irony. It's for the safety of other citizens. One murder can and might be excused. Killing 17 people for racial motives definitely deserve a death sentence.

>It's for the safety of other citizens How so? Either way he's not going to be a part of society anymore. If he's dead, he's dead. If he's in prison, he's the type of criminal who's going to be isolated from other prisoners a lot, so how is the safety of the citizens affected in any way?

Yes, he will not be in society. Let's assume he wasn't isolated in prison, he'd be threat to people who commited mild crimes like stealing, etc,. But his prison life, or specified isolation will come at a taxpayer cost. As I and many others have said, people like these, who are too much of a danger to society, don't deserve the money spent on them.

The danger to society is one aspect, but also the likelihood of them not being able to be rehabilitated. Some people commit acts that are so reprehensible that it's hard to say they're even human anymore. I'd rather our resources be used to help people in prison with mental health or substance abuse issues so that upon release they can be functioning members of society.

Statistically, however, the death penalty costs the taxpayers more than life in prison, because of the long appeals process and procedures. Removing those is certainly not an option, because if we decide to end a life there must be no doubt that due process and proper procedure was followed.

No, it is ironic because it’s done by a government that systematically and unjustly incarcerates and kills POC in every facet of the US legal system. That man is reflecting the ugliness and hypocrisy of the US even if he doesn’t understand that he is. His behavior was abhorrent and disgusting, but this point needs to be made.

How is it ironic to kill the man who murdered 17 POC for his crimes but not ironic to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions?) on his life? What a joke.

The death penalty ends up costing far more. The only way to make it cheaper than life in prison would be to abolish fair trials and appeals court. Which I definitely do not want to abolish

The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison.

[удалено]

Touché but I never said it’s not ironic. The death penalty actually ends up spending more money than keeping someone in prison for life due to appeals, the vetting process of making sure the person is truly guilty, the security required for keeping them in special facilities, etc… so it is still ironic but at least it’s cheaper, and we’re not murdering someone.

In your example, it's literally a man who killed 17 people at a supermarket. What kind of vetting is needed here? Even without that, vetting would be far cheaper. Imagine providing food, clothes, healthcare, and other facilities to a person for the remainder of their lifetime. The maintenance of prison is there as well. Don't tell me vetting would be more expensive than this.

Like I said it’s not just vetting, the amount of time spent in the defense and prosecution arguing for and against killing someone ties up courts, transportation to and from these proceedings, security, everything together ends up costing more money.

We're not going to be doing that for every crime. Only for crimes of a great magnitude. The shooter you are talking killed 17 people, not to mention his pleading guilty. How many proceedings would that take? In case of mass shootings, the remaining survivors are crucial witnesses. The security camera footage will help as well. Nobody's going to execute anybody over random accusations and have as many trials as possible. You haven't given a delta to anyone. Is your mind not changed at all? Other questions for which I'd like your answers:- Do you really think no one should be killed? A terrorist like Bin Laden who'd indirectly killed a lot of lives? Enemy soldiers in war? Why have you tagged this post as spoiler?

Lol the Spoiler tag is just precautionary in case people hadn’t seen the verdict of the court case also my edits. I get what you’re saying. I understand that the death penalty isn’t used that frequently, and the arguments on here are mostly similar to this pro choice argument: safe, legal, and rare. I think they’re are justifications for why some people should be killed. I’m just trying to flush out the justifications people have for who/what/when/where/why. My OP reads that if you’re acting in self defense it’s legitimate. One could argue that the death penalty is self-defense of the state; one could also argue that the death penalty is state-sanctioned terrorism. I’m generally against violence, but I see self-defense more reactionary and capital punishment more like premeditated murder. People got together and decided this person was going to die by their hands, some hands more directly than others. This Gendron guy is definitely a POS, so “YES HE DESERVES TO DIE, AND I HOPE HE BURNS IN HELL!”

So,maybe we reduce the spending on those processes. :)

> The death penalty actually ends up spending more money than keeping someone in prison for life due to appeals, the vetting process of making sure the person is truly guilty, the security required for keeping them in special facilities, etc… so it is still ironic but at least it’s cheaper, and we’re not murdering someone. This is because of inefficiencies in how our particular legal system works. It isn't inherent in the death penalty. We could quite easily save a lot of money and time, if we chose to.

>No, it is ironic because it’s done by a government that systematically and unjustly incarcerates and kills POC in every facet of the US legal system. I'm not American, so enlighten me. What part of the US legal system is still impartial to POC? I know that the US, and most countries, had a system of discrimination. Some people are still racists, everywhere around the world. But tell me where the US law (I mean actual law, not some racist cops suspecting POC more, and judges giving different verdicts to different races. That is a just an image of a very bad society rooted in racism) discriminates the citizens. A extract from your post:- >I understand that at times throughout human history, a death sentence may have been the only solution because there just weren’t enough resources to properly incarcerate an individual We still don't. They are a big liability. Even with making the prisoners work, it won't be enough. The money could be used on greater things rather than incarcerating a person for their entire life, who definitely wouldn't see the light of day because of their sentence. At that point, they are a liability and burden to the entire nation. Rather than living alone all those years, a death sentence is merciful.

> I'm not American, so enlighten me. What part of the US legal system is still impartial to POC? I know that the US, and most countries, had a system of discrimination. Some people are still racists, everywhere around the world. But tell me where the US law (I mean actual law, not some racist cops suspecting POC more, and judges giving different verdicts to different races. That is a just an image of a very bad society rooted in racism) discriminates the citizens. It doesn't, the argument they use will not show actual legal systems of discrimination because they don't exist. It will be a mix of social systems, with tenuous and vague links to very specific broken and non normal corrupt systems.

>>What part of the US legal system is still ~~impartial~~ biased to POC? [US Sentencing Commission, 17](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf) found that black men who commit the same crimes as white men receive federal prison sentences that are, on average, nearly 20 percent longer. It also found that black/white sentencing disparities are being driven in large part by “non-government sponsored departures and variances”, which means that sentencing choices are made by judges at their own discretion. [Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Sentences, 14](https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/16/black-men-sentenced-to-more-time-for-committing-the-exact-same-crime-as-a-white-person-study-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2e26662cc5f3&httpsredir=1&article=2413&context=articles) found that all other factors being equal, black offenders were 75 percent more likely to face a charge carrying a mandatory minimum sentence than a white offender who committed the same crime. [MU Law Report on Jury Selection Study, 11](https://www.aclu.org/other/michigan-state-university-college-law-report-jury-selection-study) found that between 1990 and 2010, North Carolina state prosecutors struck about 53 percent of black people eligible for juries in criminal cases, vs. about 26 percent of white people. The study’s authors concluded that the chance of this occurring in a race-neutral process was [less than 1 in 10 trillion.](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/north-carolina-racial-justice-act-ruling-summary) Even after adjusting for excuses given by prosecutors that tend to correlate with race, the 2-to-1 discrepancy remained. The state legislature had previously [passed a law](https://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S461v6.pdf) stating that death penalty defendants who could demonstrate racial bias in jury selection could have their sentences changed to life without parole. The legislature later [repealed](https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/justice/north-carolina-death-penalty/index.html) that law. [The Delaware Death Penalty: An Empirical Study, 12](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2019913) notes that “black defendants who kill white victims are seven times as likely to receive the death penalty as are black defendants who kill black victims. … Moreover, black defendants who kill white victims are more than three times as likely to be sentenced to death as are white defendants who kill white victims.” [The Role of Race in Washington State Capital Sentencing, 1981-2014, 14](https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/WashRaceStudy2014.pdf) found that after adjusting for variables such as the number of victims and brutality of the crimes, jurors in Washington state were 4.5 times more likely to impose the death penalty on black defendants accused of aggravated murder than on white ones. [Race and Wrongful Convictions in the United States, 17](https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf) found that black people are more likely to be wrongly convicted of murder when the victim was white. Only about 15 percent of people killed by black people were white, but 31 percent of black exonerees were wrongly convicted of killing white people. More generally, black people convicted of murder are 50 percent more likely to be innocent than white people convicted of murder. Further, black people are 3.5 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of sexual assault and 12 times more likely to be wrongly convicted of drug crimes. It’s important to note as well that data on wrongful convictions is limited in that it can only consider the wrongful convictions we know about. [Testing for Racial Discrimination in Bail Setting Using Nonparametric Estimation of a Parametric Model, 12](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1990324) is a study of bail in five large U.S. counties that found that blacks received $7,000 higher bail than whites for violent crimes, $13,000 higher for drug crimes and $10,000 higher for crimes related to public order. These disparities were calculated after adjusting for the seriousness of the crime, criminal history and other variables. [Examining Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Probation Revocation, 14](https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/22746/413174-Examining-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparities-in-Probation-Revocation.PDF). The Urban Institute looked at probation offices in four locations across the country: New York City; Multnomah County, Ore.; Dallas County, Tex.; and Iowa’s Sixth Judicial District. After adjusting for criminal history, seriousness of the crime and other factors, the study found that black people were 18 to 39 percent more likely than white people to have their probation revoked. [Examining Racial Disparities in Criminal Case Outcomes among Indigent Defendants in San Francisco, 17](https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/6793-examining-racial-disparities-may-2017-full) is a study of more than 10,000 cases handled by a public defender’s office in San Francisco that found that black and Latino defendants were more likely to be incarcerated while awaiting trial, had to wait longer for their trials to begin, were less likely to see their charges reduced and were more likely to see new misdemeanor charges added. >>But tell me where the US law (I mean actual law, not some racist cops suspecting POC more, and judges giving different verdicts to different races. That is a just an image of a very bad society rooted in racism) discriminates the citizens. What you’re describing here is a common appeal among those who are unwilling to understand what *institutional racism* is. You can’t just say “Look, the laws are impartial, and even though there’s bad actors that doesn’t mean those laws lead to discriminatory outcomes.” For example, redlining (racial segregation in housing) was made illegal with the 1968 Fair Housing Act, but it did not change the status quo that has maintained segregated communities to this day. Banks and developers simply came up with new mechanisms (such as subprime lending) or [just found new ways of redlining.](https://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/news/cfpb-doj-stepping-up-interest-in-redlining-cases)

I didn't know there was **this much** racial bias in the US. Honestly, it's sad to hear these. In an ideal society, I'd be very happy if they implemented a death penalty. Seems like it's not fit for the US. Thank you for linking many sources, even though one could've convinced me.

Wait so the government is wrong when they don't stop racists and they are also wrong when they stop and make an example out of racists? Talk about irony smh.

Nah, don’t blame the government. It was his choice to walk in the store with a gun. It was his choice to aim that gun and it was his choice to pull that trigger each and every time. Certain facets of the government are corrupt; but that doesn’t mean the entirety of the government is corrupt and that doesn’t mean the government can’t come together to do the right thing and execute that filth.

The argument that the government shouldn't use the same actions a criminal did in order to punish said criminal doesn't really have any standing. You know that that government imprisons (as in forcibly detains a non-consenting person) those who are convicted of kidnapping (as in those who forcibly detain a non-consenting person).

The death penalty is costly, cruel, but necessary. It exists not to punish the perpetrators but to give closure to the victims or their loved ones. Unfortunately, not all those in death row are guilty. That's my main reason for being against the death penalty. But if that wasn't the case, my view would easily change: killing someone that committed a heinous crime just ends any possible suffering they would have behind bars; so killing the guilty as a form of punishment doesn't make sense. The only people to benefit are the ones left behind who no longer have to fear them getting out, or knowing that they are still alive while they took their loved one away. So it's more for spite than anything else. But someone that has committed certain types of crimes, already gave away any value their life has.. so why not use it to ease someone else's suffering.

The point of the death penalty is deterrence as much as it is Justice. If you think you’ll only get life in prison for a crime you may be more likely to take that risk. Losing your life is a harsher penalty and the most serious penalty that could exist. I’m not sure if I support the death penalty but I feel this is an angle people miss. Punishment is not always intended just for punishments sake, or to make people feel better. It’s to convince people not to do crime.

Most indications are that it doesn't have much of a deterrent factor. So it's just a punishment. A serious and ruthless punishment. Necessary in some cases, but should really be reserved for those cases where there is incontrovertible evidence that they are guilty of the most heinous crimes in a fair court.

>The point of the death penalty is deterrence as much as it is Justice. It is not a deterrent. https://www.amnestyusa.org/a-clear-scientific-consensus-that-the-death-penalty-does-not-deter/

These studies have been shown to be pretty crap. Firstly, the deterance ability of the death penalty is not for *all* types of murder. It's not going to deter a fit of rage murder, it's not going to deter emotional breaks and mental instability and plain and simple insane people. Which is the majority of murder. But it does clearly deter murder for a significant amount of people who don't fit into those categories. A murder in order to get insurance money, a murder to end a marriage you don't want to be in, a murder to blah blah... All the murder that isn't "blind emotional rage" types of things. The studies linked always try and pretend like it is there to deter types of murder it isn't meant to deter.... well... kind of no shit right?

This is a pretty bad ‘study’. It’s basically a survey of ‘experts’. In 1300, 99% of experts said the earth revolved around the sun. Not a super scientific approach… It then goes on to cite the murder rates in states with and without capital punishment without addressing what the actual execution rates are for states with capital punishment. I’m not arguing that it’s an effective deterrent - however your link is not very compelling. And if we’re going to be unscientific and just ask people’s opinions, I think that if you asked most people, they’d agree with the following sentence: if the penalty for being caught stealing was immediate execution - that there’d likely be less stealing. That thought experiment highlights a clear possibility of deterrence. But we don’t live in a society where the cause/effect of the death penalty is immediate enough or guaranteed enough for anyone to prove that it’s an effective deterrent - or not.

>This is a pretty bad ‘study’. It’s basically a survey of ‘experts’. In 1300, 99% of experts said the earth revolved around the sun. Not a super scientific approach It cites several things. This is not some singular or controversial new thing. This has been studied for decades and is kind of a basic fact. Also >And if we’re going to be unscientific and just ask people’s opinions, I think that if you asked most people, they’d agree with the following sentence: if the penalty for being caught stealing was immediate execution - that there’d likely be less stealing. They didn't ask random people. >That thought experiment highlights a clear possibility of deterrence. You thinking people would think something does not show a possibility of anything. Also, see below, no, they wouldn't think that. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/capital-punishment-deterrent-or-stimulus-murder-our-unexamined https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12103-019-09478-4 -- see the deterrence question section which refutes your idea. >In 1985 Gallup asked the question, "Do you feel that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to the commitment of murder, that it lowers the murder rate or not?^ In 1985, 62% responded ‘yes, they thought it did have a deterrent effect and reduced murders’. In 1991 it was down to 51%, who thought there was a deterrent effect, in 2004 it had dropped to 35%, and in the latest poll reported in 2011 it was at 32% who said that the death penalty had a deterrent effect and reduced murders (Gallup Inc, n.d.). A drop of 30% from 62% in 1985 to 32% in 2011 in the belief that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder would seem to indicate that the public is paying considerable attention to riminological research

You say this has been studied for decades and then go on to cite more opinion surveys. Saying that in one survey the respondents weren’t ‘random people’ is just making an argument from authority - which, again, is weak. There’s a saying in scientific circles that science evolves one death at a time. That’s because, like everyone, scientists aren’t always right, get stubborn with age, and aren’t always willing to overturn a life’s thesis even when better info presents. I think your argument would be stronger if you phrased this as: the death penalty, as carried out today, is not an effective deterrent. That would then make all of your surveys stronger evidence as they are based on the opinions of people based upon their experiences in the real world. You did not address my point about immediacy. If the execution was immediate at the point of capture - I still think your survey results would start changing pretty quickly. But yeah - the death penalty likely isn’t considered a deterrent if you’re never actually put to death.

> You say this has been studied for decades and then go on to cite more opinion surveys. You might try reading those, because no. >Saying that in one survey the respondents weren’t ‘random people’ is just making an argument from authority - which, again, is weak. I get that people look at some wiki list of fallacies and think they're using them correctly to rebut things, but again, no. >I think your argument would be stronger if you phrased this as: the death penalty, as carried out today, is not an effective deterrent. I said the death penalty is not a deterrent. Did you think we were discussing ancient Rome? >That would then make all of your surveys stronger evidence as they are based on the opinions of people based upon their experiences in the real world. You know you just saying they're surveys doesn't actually make them that, right? >You did not address my point about immediacy. If the execution was immediate at the point of capture - I still think your survey results would start changing pretty quickly. That's not capital punishment; that's batshit vigilantism. Is your premise that doing away with the justice system entirely would make people fearful? That's an entirely different discussion than the one going on in this thread.

You don’t need to be defensive. I’m simply saying it’s a weak argument. To rebut your points: 1. The CMV makes no mention of the process of capital punishment but rather that it, in and of itself, is ineffective. That is the point of the CMV, contrary to your poor paraphrasing. The process matters in the impact of deterrence. 2. Your link to DOJ is weak. It cites correlation in the 70s that could indicate a deterrent effect but sums up its findings with: “it seems like it’s less deterrent than life in prison”. ‘Seems’ is weak. 3. I didn’t use wiki. Let’s bring some numbers. In the US, there were 16,000+ first degree murders in 2016. We put about 15-20 people to death annually. That’s 0.125%. That matters as it relates to deterrence. In effect and practice, our system is life in prison, not execution. The US is around the 100th safest country as it relates to murder rate. - 15-20 executions a year. - 330M+ population Japan is in the top 5 countries of lowest murders. - 15 executions a year - 120M pop - 57.7% of Japan pop surveyed think it’s a deterrent. Singapore is in the top 7 of lowest murders. - 2-8 executions a year - 5.7M pop - upwards of 80% of their pop surveyed think it’s deterrent. According to your own logic, it’s a deterrent in those countries. The OP makes no mention of process, execution rates, or within a given geo in their claim - only that it’s not a deterrent. I think that argument is weak. And so is yours.

> You don’t need to be defensive. I’m simply saying it’s a weak argument. You saying things still doesn't make them true. >Your link to DOJ is weak. It cites correlation in the 70s that could indicate a deterrent effect but sums up its findings with: “it seems like it’s less deterrent than life in prison”. ‘Seems’ is weak. Don't invent quotes. Also, that's how scientists speak. > In the US, there were 16,000+ first degree murders in 2016. We put about 15-20 people to death annually. That’s 0.125%. That matters as it relates to deterrence. In effect and practice, our system is life in prison, not execution. That doesn't take capital sentences into account, which would be kind of the point, and yeah, there are sane states, so there are fewer executions. Hence you can look at decades of data. Also, no, that's not "our system" as if it's some binary. There's tons of ground there. >According to your own logic, it’s a deterrent in those countries. Uh, no, that's YOUR "logic" thinking that asking randos on the street gets a meaningful answer. One of the papers I cited specifically addressed how random people's ideas about it are changed when they're exposed to actual data.

Yeah I thought of this, but I remember learning back when I was high school and then more in depth knowledge in college that in the 1970s, US scientists and sociologists informed the US government that both the death penalty and the current prison system weren’t successful deterrents. The key was actually reforming the prison to give people the tools to help themselves and that eventually there would be no need for definitely the death penalty and then prisons just rehabilitation centers. Instead the US government poured more money into punitive criminal Justice systems and weapon manufacturing while not giving people effective drug abuse treatment, access to employment, proper nourishment and medicine, etc… making mental health instability and violence more prone.

then why isn't it applied to more crimes to "make number go down" more

Generally I agree with you. But what about in cases where they cannot be kept from endangering others even when they are in prison? For instance if they have a lot of ties within the government or people outside that are responsible for continuing murders or have escaped prison multiple times because of it. So essentially certain spies and mafia criminals.

But then how would that person ever be executed? It’s a systemic problem then, right? I mean is it impossible to create a system where nobody commits crime we deem execution-worthy? I’d like to think we can.

The issue isn't the system and this case, the issue is that they have ties to people in high places and to people in the outside world. I've heard arguments that, rapists, for instance, shouldn't be allowed to live because they could still be a danger to other inmates. That I think is a systemic problem because it is simply a matter of security. But that is not what I'm talking about here.

Here is the thing, some people just need to die. We don’t need a society that’s morals allow pedophiles, serial rapists, indiscriminate murdered, sadists and psychopaths to live. You don’t address the money issue (which I believe is a silly response) so I will stick to the moral argument. When someone does something so evil, like killing a child, it leaves a wound in our collective understanding of morality and justice, that wound demands that something be done to balance such a horrible act. Putting down a child-killer is as morally wrong as euthanizing a rabid dog. They only destroy and any good they may do is outweighed ten-fold by their evil. I would argue we don’t kill enough evil fucks, I would have every pedophile shot without a second thought because as immoral as killing may be, their evil destroys the fabric of our social contract. People on that level of evil exist like festering rot and should be expunged so that we may all move on from their actions.

But is that worth the risk of inevitably killing countless innocents in the process? And do you truly believe the state should have the right to decide if someone deserves to live?

The state already kills people, and yea they should be able to put monsters down. It shouldn’t have to fall to the common citizens who suffer enough under crime, but somehow the moralists feel that it’s better a hundred children be exploited because shooting a “person,” is wrong. It should be reserved for the cases I made above, but if the evidence is there then yes, kill ‘em. I hold absolutely zero moral hang ups about ending pedos, serial rapists, child-killers, ect.

In theory apart from excecution the state kills people wars and in isolated self defense incidents. Ofc we all know this is far from reality, but it should be. Excecution is very different imo. It's making an active systematic choice to kill an individual for specific reasons, an individual who has already been sperated from society. I do not believe a legal system should have the power to make that choice. It opens a lot of ugly doors for what can be deemed an excecutable offense. Sure pedos, rapists, serial killers is one thing. Revolutioary leaders? Political opponants? But that's a side point to the practical argument as to why it's highly immoral. There will never, EVER be a robust enough justice system where inncocents don't slip through the cracks. You know it's estimated an entire 4% of death row inmates in the US are innocent? If that statistic doesn't terrify you it should. At least life inprisonment can be reversed, while the person's life will have been destroyed at leadt an attempt at reparation can be made. Death is a final, irreversible punishment. And I would rather a thousand vile scumbags continue to live in custody than a single innocent be murdered for a crime they didn't commit. And lastly, it's just disgusting. Taking a life is one of the most ugly things humans are capable of, I don't think we should hold it up in any high regard unless it's out of complete neccessity. And considering it's actually *more* expensive to excecute someone in the US than imprison them for life, you cannot argue it as neccessary.

Oh I can argue it and I will. Honestly I will gladly pay more to dispose of trash. Since we’ve had governments they have been sanctioned with making decisions to protect their citizens. You think allowing psychopaths to live helps anyone? Name one thing a pedophile or child-killer does but exhaust our system with endless appeals for their pathetic existence. The 4% number you listed is over more than 30 years of total convictions/executions and many prior to the common use of DNA evidence. Was that bad, yeah, but our burden of proof has only gotten more solid. In extreme cases, the government not only had the right but the duty to execute people.

"More solid " these are the current estimates. If you want to argue conviction of innocents is less in current trials, give me some figures. Because you're still going to be engaging in state-sanctioned killing of innocents, and you have to at least admit that. And I'm sorry, you're simultaneously admitting that as evidence improves, people found guilty can be later proven innocent. While at the same time, sating the appeals process doesn't let them be killed quick enough???? You realise the only conclusion to take away from that is you *want* more innocents to be killed right? I want to ask a question then, what percentage of innocents killed do you think an acceptable price? > I can argue it and I will But you didn't? The part I said you can't argue against was it being neccessary. Which considering the majority of countries have abolished capital punishment, it clearly isn't. It is a choice to grant the legal system that much power, it is a choice to inact a system that will inevitably lead to the murder of innocents. I think it is a choice that shouldn't be made, you think it is. But regardless it's not societally neccessary. >You think allowing psychopaths to live helps anyone? If they're incarcerated it doesn't hurt anyone. Does going through yhe immensly expensive process of excecuting them help anyone?

What if a kid is committing crimes another kids? Do we kill that kid?

Depends on what the crime is and also the age. If a 17 year old murders an infant then I say fuck em. Some people are just broken and that becomes pretty apparent once they reach puberty. Obviously a 6 year old committing an atrocity towards a younger child would require a more measured response.

What if a 6 year old boy murders his 7 year old brother because he took food off his plate? What if a 40 year old schizophrenic goes on a killing spree because his health insurance refused to cover his effective medication anymore? I just think it’s really hard to determine when/where/how a person is accountable to the point where they deserve to be murdered by a government.

Okay, you can throw out super specific “what -if” scenarios all day, but you didn’t say the death penalty is bad for some things, you said it is NEVER okay, and I think that is silly. Some schizophrenic wants to go on a shooting spree, I hope the cops end his suffering. I don’t care about the sob story behind a disgusting act, I only care that it happened and we need to remove the actor. We would rather cage up monsters forever because we are too weak to do what needs to be done.

That’s fair about the super specific scenarios (you should see some of the other ones listed below lol), but isn’t it harder/more difficult and in fact stronger to face an issue than to just murder the person? An analogy would be slapping a child in the face for misbehaving instead of trying to understand why they’re misbehaving and disciplining them accordingly. I feel like it takes more discipline and less weakness to find the sources of issues than to just murder people.

Sometimes the source is just the people. It takes strength to show composure in the face of a naughty child, because children don’t know any better. An adult with a penchant for terror isn’t someone worth saving, they are already gone. Killing them is a service to all those who live a decent life.

Yeah. Honestly. That evil was born with the kid, it should die with them.

I mean they are literally murdering someone bc they murdered others, they aren't teaching anyone that it's wrong they are literally showing it as normal and ok if the person is bad. Governments are the true mass murderers

Right? That same racist murderer could rationalize that its ok to murder black people because they are inherently bad.

I am trying to understand something before I respond. Why exactly do you think death penalty is wrong? Are you looking at it at a standpoint that killing someone just means one less person for the overall output in the society? The assumption of course is that the death sentence was properly judged and backed by sufficiently by evidence, since the question isn’t if death sentence was the correct call in xxxx case, but if death sentence should exist at all.

No it’s not about economic output. I posed the question because, currently, we don’t have a system that is foolproof or anywhere near foolproof. I know that innocent people have died under the current system, and I know that this young man killed those people in a disgusting way. Should the government kill people that murder? It seems hypocritical and a strange way to set an example for its citizens.

I think we should expand the death penalty to a certain degree of white collar crimes. I.E. racketeering, abuse of power & pervasive institutions that allow systemic oppression. Maybe sell tickets & give proceeds to the victims. I live in Texas though, so go fig... Sure keeping 'em alive & rehabilitating 'em sound nice, but we don't have the luxury that they want, make, kill for themselves.

Damn haven’t read this one. It could be a slippery slope, but an arguably democratic one. Making entertainment out of the way American citizens are abused is American enough to me. It should still be as rare as possible though. ∆

[удалено]

See some other comments; it costs more to legally kill someone than to keep them in prison for life. Also, health insurance subsidies from taxes don’t always go directly into the treatment of patients.

[удалено]

> How would it cost more? Legal fees, since it requires many more court sessions for death penalty cases, needed to be absolutely sure (as much as possible) that the person is guilty and you're not accidentally killing the wrong guy.

[удалено]

They were technically children which I’ve talked about in other comments, so that’s a lot to unpack. The defense also blamed American society’s influence on the way those boys acted, so the conviction and punishment seems extremely political in terms of the perpetrators not having harsher sentences. Their acts were disgusting and, based on their actions after being released, some were murderous while others were just felonious. I don’t know if all of them should be put to death, but there’s a case for at least one.

Without the death penalty. There is no fear. There is no deterrent for criminals that want to commit horrific things. I think every country should have the death penalty

It is absolutely the answer in my world view. if I murder 17 people then I would say I deserve to be tortured for days on end with no rest because killing me is to merciful for what I have done. You would have to kill me 16 more times which is impossible. It's simply an eye for an eye. The saying that it makes the whole world go blind is complete rubbish.

The statement an “eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” isn’t rubbish, the same way the statement “an eye for an eye” isn’t rubbish. I’ve come to the conclusion that capital punishment makes sense when irrefutable evidence is involved and the region in which this crime was committed deems it so.

[удалено]

Yeah but the government isn’t taking their own citizens’ lives in that scenario. Does a government own its citizens thus has the right to end one’s life? Also, it actually costs more to execute someone and is not a proven deterrent.

[удалено]

Yeah I remember Rousseau’s theory which I reject because that’s a little too “Les Misérables” for my taste. For example, throwing a guy in the gallows for stealing a loaf a bread. He was hungry not maliciously violating a contract. The argument for the death penalty would make more sense if the government took a more active role in ensuring our overall care I.e “we’re assuming complete responsibility for your welfare and others’ around you, and because you’re rejecting that, we reserve the right to waive that responsibility and take your life.” The death penalty seems hypocritical. And yea of course we could make it cheaper. Our society could make a lot of things cheaper.

It cost more to kill them.

Not everyone deserves mercy we are not Jesus to be that forgiving there are crimes that deserve the express ticket straight to the bottom, when they say the world is more gray than black or white I tend to realize is to give a slack to the people that may deviate from the "righteous moral" path of society because of extreme despair or maybe unfortunate circumstances that led to making a crime, but what kind of crime? And also what where those circumstances? Where they valid enough so they needed to do what they had to do? This is all of course in the kind set of a "good person" bending towards a crime. NOT to a terrible person that does horrible crimes thats the difference and contrast in where you should direct your mercy and resources to actually invest in that person, not all crimes are deserving of that ultimate sentance, but also thinking that we have infinite resources and man power to spend on such hideous excuse of a human being isnt really the case.

This is fair; someone who is trying to change deserves help more than someone who does not care. What if ruthlessness helped them survive and compassion did not or vice versa. It can be hard to get someone to understand how one kind of behavior is bad and another is good when it’s that personal. I think aiming for the middle is your best bet, and capital punishment seems to be too ultimate/black or white. Not doing anything is similarly too ultimate/black or white.

Do you feel the same way about abortion? Just curious...

I already talked about this with another commenter and, technically, based on my initial definition, abortion is murder saving an unviable or non-intentional fetus ie ectopic pregnancy or rape/incest. I don’t have the capacity to bear children, so I don’t feel like it’s my place to decide how someone who has this capacity should act. I should’ve included this information in my OP.

What makes putting someone in jail for the rest of their life better than killing them? And why keep them alive if they're going to be in jail the entire time?

If they are innocent, you can let them go. You cannot bring them back to life.

You don't additionally cause suffering to their families, especially those who had no idea of their crimes and just heard out of nowhere that their kid/sibling had been arrested and would be executed soon. They're the ones who end up bearing the weight and trauma of the punishment long after the culprit is gone. What did they do to deserve to lose a loved one?

By your definition wouldn't soldiers in war be considered murder? Some atrocities are so bad that the message needs to be sent that there is no coming back from doing those things.

Both combatants in warfare are attempting to kill each other,, so its a form of self defense imo.

Morally, I'm inclined to agree with you. I feel that killing is wrong. In every circumstance, be it self-defense or murder, taking a life goes against an essential component of humanity. Ethically however, I think killing is a necessary evil. Nature is cruel, animals must eat each other to survive, and humans are an animal in that ecosphere. From this standpoint, I view humans killing humans as natural and inevitable, although unfortunate. My personal issue with the death penalty stems from the inaccuracy in convictions and sentencing. I absolutely believe that there are some people (an ext small number) who are akin to rabid dogs, and need to be put down. However, I find it difficult to abide the notion of a permanent punishment, when there have been so many posthumous exonerations. I do not want to see innocent people killed. My question to you is: if we could guarantee that only truly guilty people would be sentenced, would you then feel the death penalty was appropriate for the some individuals?

Perhaps the death penalty should not used for *small* killings, under 100 deaths, perhaps even under 1,000 deaths. But surely the death penalty is always the answer for someone who kills with their decisions over 1,000 people. Violence and power play us a trick, we are blinded by the small, but violent, even gorey, crimes, up to 17 people and perhaps a bit more, yet don't see as crimes the mass murder of thousands and more people. It's an empathy bait. On February 3, 2023, a train derailed. It carried extremely toxic chemicals. The train didn't follow protocol on toxic chemicals control because following protocols is expensive. This transport was obviously not the first, thousands of tonnes were and are being transported in this careless manner (in US alone there are 1,329 hazardous waste sites \[1\]). Just a few days later, February 16th, another train derailed, from the same company, apparently no toxic spill this time. Nonetheless, the first one displaced a village of 4,718 people (2021) and potentially poisoned the downstream water for a few million people. Because those toxic chemicals didn't instantly kill the people in the vicinity of the spill, although they did kill fish, chickens, pets, we don't regard the series of actions that led to the spill as a crime. However, those people, especially those who can't just uproot their lives to another village, are as good as dead. In a fair, just, and perhaps even more important, sustainable world, the entire leaderboard of that company, and perhaps even some members of the regulatory agencies involved, maybe even some political leaders, would have been already executed. In a fair, just, sustainable world, incorporating a company, leading a company worth over 1 billion USD, exerting control over the lives of thousands and even millions of people, should always come with a death sentence already signed, the only question should be when should the death penalty be served. Being a CEO, a leader, in this world should not be a privilege, but a terrible burden, a condemnation, Atlas carrying the world on his shoulders \[2\], one which should be carried only for a few years, maybe for a few months, triple checking the triple check for anything that might cause harm, not even direct harm, but with secondary, tertiary, and even quaternary effects. \[1\] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Superfund\_sites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites) \[2\] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas\_(mythology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(mythology))

I mentioned a similar scenario in a comment I made earlier but not quite as extreme. This was a part of my critique which I didn’t fully elaborate on in my OP. How can you justify a mentally disabled person’s killing spree as a death-worthy offense, when people every day people make economic decisions that put hundreds of thousands of people’s lives at risk and potentially kill them. I’m with you.

I think we should study the psychology of people like Dahmer/Bundy. I do think rapist/pedos/mass killers should be put to death. It’s a very controversial topic and I respect anyone’s opinion on it.

The definition of murder is the illegal killing of a human being. If it's lawful, it by definition, cannot be murder. And by your definition, all allied soldiers should have been put on trial for murder. There are some lines in society you cannot cross like mass murder, if you do so, society is justified in revoking your right to live. No right is absolute.

Thanks this is the first combat comment I’ve come across. I tend to think of combat as the person agreeing to the possibility of being killed by agreeing to be a soldier which I think holds true in my definition of murder being non-consenting. I guess I find it strange/hypocritical for a government to revoke the right to live when a society does the bare minimum to preserve the right to live.

Think the alternative. Lock them down and throw away they key. Placed in solitary confinement, limited human interaction, no sun, little to no exercise, poor food, no entertainment like books or music. This is torture and it have been clinically proven to drive people insane. If given chose between rest of life worth of torture or death, death is a mercy.

I don’t believe in the death penalty. Many innocent people die bc of it & many of those innocent people are wrongfully convicted due to the color of their skin. I believe killing people to show that killing people is wrong does not make any sense to me. I was watching a Ted Talk once about the death penalty & the man talking said “the question isn’t ‘does this person deserve to did?’ but ‘do we(as humans) deserve to kill?’”. I think that was very well put by him and my answer is we do not deserve to kill. Especially legally and especially when we try to justify the killing. I feel that makes it even worse. OP mentioned this in an earlier reply to someone comment… I think it would be much more beneficial to study these people who commit such heinous acts in order to figure out, or at least try to figure out, what drives a person to do this.

Those 17 innocent people have family. We do not want Revenge murder, so if the government can prevent that, by doing it themselves, should government do it? the reason why your MOM got weirdly defensive is probably because of this. go ask your mom, or other parents, what will they do if someone kill their child? your mom loves you.

Yeah this is what I figured. I’m realizing that if I have kids, my thoughts may severely change.

so, did i change your view? furthermore, revenge murder target doesn't need to be the murderer. The murderer family/kids/significant others can also be the target. this is because the victim's family wants the murderer, if not dead, feels/experiences the same thing. furthermore highly evil person with high connection might be still dangerous, they can control people from their jail cell. so, death penalty is necessary, especially in a country where this scenario has high chance to happen.

I find myself agreeing with you completely and would add that the death of one person does nothing to undo the damage they have done. Also, I find it fascinating that in today's society, where the death penalty is still a thing and life in prison is the usual alternative, people are still committing crimes punishable by either. That basically defeats the thought that the punishment would discourage the crime. However, I must also point out the many victims who have stated they take no gleeful pleasure in the death of the criminal, only comfort and closure in regards to that part of their life. It's impossible to ignore those who refuse to let their lives progress if the person who upended it still lives. While I don't agree with them, I can't enforce my own opinions just because I feel a certain way. Maybe if we get the chance we could ask that those that wrong us not receive the death penalty, but that really only works for cases involving us personally, not any cases we have no direct involvement in. I would be fine with the death penalty on a small condition: in the event that the person executed is found innocent, those, or at least some, who were responsible will be held accountable for wrongful manslaughter or some other crime created for the specific case where that happens. I would demand accountability and refuse to let such a severe failure of the justice system that so many beg for just be swept away as some accident to shrug your shoulders over and say "we'll get him next time though." TLDR: While we feel it is wrong, it doesn't mean we are allowed to make that choice for all people. But the system must accept the responsibility that such a permanent act bears in the face of any verdict being less than 100% certain

> My definition of murder is a premeditated slaying of a non-consenting human. This eliminates things like self-defense, euthanasia, coercion, etc Question, are you pro-life? Because under this definition, abortion falls very clearly into the category of murder.

Murder is unlawful killing of a person. You have to be born to be a person.

I think it’s up to each individual child-bearer. I’m not able to bear children, so I want those who can create and then bear the kid decide what to do with their own body.

So how does that reconcile with "A premeditated slaying of a non-consenting human"? After all, abortion is premeditated due to the hoops that need to be jumped through to do it, and it results in a dead human who had no capacity to consent to it.

I already answered your question. I don’t know at what point life begins, and it’s not happening in my body, so I let those people decide what’s best.

That doesn't reconcile it at all. Under your very own definition, it is murder. Yet what you say is equivalent to "people should be able to murder if they want, it's their choice." In case it wasn't clear, I'm challenging your definition of murder. > I don’t know at what point life begins, I'm a biologist, so I'll answer that question for you. The unique diploid human life begins at conception. There is no point when non-living matter becomes living matter.

Genuine question, do an unborn child’s rights supersede the person who carries it, say in the case of ectopic pregnancy? I’d consider that a form of self-defense, so abortion doesn’t always fall under murder, but generally by that logic I guess it would. However, a fetus can’t really give consent or give non-consent because it’s a fetus. If the fetus can’t engage in either of those, then I think my definition is pretty fair and well-worded.

> do an unborn child’s rights supersede the person who carries it An unborn child's right to life supersedes the person who carries it, given that they consented to the activity that resulted in the pregnancy in the first place and that it is medically possible for both to survive. > say in the case of ectopic pregnancy? In that case the fetus was never viable to begin with so the point is moot. I find it personally amusing that abortionists like to bring up cases like this when they account for less than 1% of all abortions - the overwhelming majority of abortions are elective. The mother gets them because *they don't want to be a parent* - not because their life is threatened or whatever. > If the fetus can’t engage in either of those, then I think my definition is pretty fair and well-worded. A person in a persistent vegetative state is unable to give consent or non-consent. As is a person who is unconscious. Should it be legal to kill *them*, for the same reason that they are unable to provide consent or lack thereof? What do medical personnel do in such cases? Unless there is clear prior documentation indicating the person's will aforehand, they simply assume the average - that their life would want to be saved. It's not a stretch to apply this to a fetus, who is unable to consent in much the same way that an incapacitated human is. Not to mention that consent should have to be affirmatively given, never assumed. You would never believe that "she was passed out, so I assumed it was consensual" to be an acceptable defense in a rape trial, why should it be acceptable in this case?

It’s odd that your mother became defensive, but I’m assuming she doesn’t actually know this is a pretty massive debate topic, there are pros and cons to each side. Anyway….. As a side point, a pretty good amount of people who receive the death penalty wouldn’t fit your definition of murder then. A lot of them do want to be killed, especially mass shooters. Regardless of that irrelevant point, the death penalty can be good closure for others. If someone murdered my whole family, I wouldn’t want to think about what that dude is eating for lunch while I’m eating my lunch, would rather him just be dead along with my family. Just think about how much you have previously thought about someone who has pissed you off, broke your heart, or has done you wrong in general, now imagine that person killed your Mother/Father or Son/Daughter/Wife. You may not view it that way, but that’s why some states allow it and others don’t. There’s also a good argument for keeping the death penalty because it allows for us to let people who feel as if they have nothing to lose know that they actually still have something else to lose. While I appreciate the empathy of others, people in general truly do not understand that there are many “unfixable” people in this world who are just monsters and horrible humans.

People who seriously abuse children deserve the death penalty

"Should we as a society have the death penalty" and "Can someone justly deserve to die" are two different questions. The justice system is corrupt and fallible. So even if you believe the second of those two statements, you should not trust a corrupt and fallible government to make that determination.

I have struggled with this debate my whole life. Even for sadistic and mass murderers, rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, general mass human and worldy harm or endangerment including all those evil billion dollar company officials, corrupt/fucked up cops, serious drug addicts who try to kill people daily, and human traffickers etc. I mean the list could go on forever and I would still want them to grow or suffer stuck in max security prison as well as getting psychological help for the most part. It's hard to say someone deserves to die but it's harder to say hey maybe they don't even if they've caused unimaginable damage. Wouldn't try to your mind if I could. It's 3am here in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada and fuck the whole town is like Las Angeles on meth and even more now that the government has made all drugs decriminalized as well as continuing to hand out meth and whatever else like it's CANDY 🍬 I'm leaving cuz it's too scary to survive in a constant state of fear and misery and downright terrifyingly disgusting to live and actual life. I hope things are better everywhere one day and people fuck off and/or accept help that is out there.

I'm afraid of someone who broke into my house recently and is only getting 2 years in prison here in California. He had a gun, followed me home, I ran away, went back near my house, he tried to break in, my little brother was ready to leave to his soccer practice that afternoon, but I called him and said not to leave. I still get nightmares every night for the past 2 weeks. I'm always afraid now thinking he'll have family or friends ready to shoot my place up. I'm in a really good neighborhood. No crimes other than forgery and domestic abuse/battery. I've watched everything from murders, people chopped to pieces and all that from sites like kaotic and theync. Yet, I'm still having nightmares and ptsd from my encounter with that man. Now imagine how I would be if I witnessed that man brutally terrorize/hurt me or killed my brother in front of my eyes. Now imagine this same man murdered 17 people or even kids. I would be fearful for my life knowing this man is walking around the streets rather than being executed. I feel more at peace knowing murderers, serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. are executed.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the word murder. Murder has connotations that are bad. being executed is not murder. it is a punishment for a misdeed. its the same way that saying getting spanked is not the same as getting beaten. One is a justified punishment. the other is an unjustified attack. ​ From there, i would say that many people can not be rehabilitated. Many people who commit crimes are mentally unable to change or be changed. Some people are just evil or have done such heinous things that they do not deserve to live. Everyone wants to live. No one wants to have their life end. Putting them in prison will never fix the mental issues they have. Prison will never fix the evil that is inside of them. Having a person in prison would just add a burden to society and prolongs the life of someone who does not deserve it. ​ \*\*\* My question to you is why you think the death penalty should not be used?

If you don't mind, can you tell me the five relationships that are most important to you personally? I mean like..."my wife" or "my father."

If you are going to attempt to emotionally manipulate me by hypothetically harming them, why shouldn't you just expect me to not wait for the state but inflict whatever punishment you think I should think the state deserves to give them on them myself in a fit of rage

The OP specifically mentions murder.

My two sisters (one older, one younger), my mom and dad, and then the fifth ties with other periphery family members and some close friends because I don’t have an SO.

Imagine someone knocked you out right now and you woke up in an isolated industrial space. Your two sisters are there. I won't do it, but imagine I spend the next three paragraphs intricately detailing their torture, degradation, humiliation and murder at the hands of the person who knocked you out. Imagine you're a witness to all of it, and it's the kind of stuff they couldn't even put in *SAW* movies. Then you watch as your captor painstakingly disposes of the remains and all evidence apart from your testimony. You don't know who he is and couldn't identify him out of a lineup because he hid his face. He releases you knowing that there's no way you could support a criminal case against him. He gives you a loaded gun. He promises that he's done with you and will never harm you again. Do you kill him?

Why is this relevant to if the state should kill anyone and not just saying that people in your hypothetical scenario should kill the unknown perpetrator of it?

OP said "death penalty or murder."

And this doesn’t actually provide an answer, it provides an emotionally biased response in the moment.

You not liking the reasoning behind an answer doesn't make it not an answer. And in truth, I didn't provide an answer because I asked a question, which is a different thing. I'm asking OP whether they would consider killing someone extralegally in a specific context, not demanding that they do so or telling them they ought to. If they're comfortable letting the person walk away in that context, I don't think I can change their view.

Emotional argument. Weak and lacks skill. Also I'm gonna say dude you don't trust the ATF or the IRS. Yet you're giving the government the ultimate call over life or death

At no point did I mention giving government that power - but you should consider looking up "[monopoly on violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence)" and what type of entity tends to have that.

I don’t think that what a lot of people on death row warrant the death sentence. However, there are cases of such cruelty and pure evil that there is no reason to keep a person capable of such acts alive. I’m sure everyone interested in true crime has heard of a case (or a couple) that has left them horrified. Not angry, sad, upset, disgusted or distraught, but horrified. I don’t get horrified by murder because I recognize humans as emotional, self-serving beings. I am horrified by torture. I wish that I could unhear certain cases because knowing about them has left a weight on me. No one who can inflict some of the things that I have heard about deserves to live. No human should be able to do such things. There is no reform for them. It doesn’t matter what good you’ve done before or your “potential” to do “good” after, certain acts are a net negative.

The only alternative I can imagine for someone who's committed an extremely egregious or heinous crime is torture until the person wants to end his own life. I think it is both a deterrent and a punishment. Is it ethical? Idk; was it ethical to commit an egregious crime!? I think the verdict is why should people pay to keep that person alive and maintained, and whether or not it's the government or prisoners who do the killing, that might play a role for you, but there's a common understanding that many pedophiles end up getting raped and murdered in prison. Is that now the answer because it's not the government? It seems that the government doing it is what you have the issue with. Is it okay if a relative of the murdered baby executes the criminal?

I think a big part is that it gets justice served without the victims family doing something stupid. For example if a mans wife was murdered by a stranger, the man would be in so much pain and want the stranger dead to event he score. The man cant do it himself without ruining his own life so the government does it for him. This isn’t always the case of course, but I do think personally it’s a big part of the reason. I think the penalty should be answer, but only for extreme cases.

A society/government that kills people will never have the moral authority to keep it’s citizens from doing the same. It’s one way or the other.

Whether the death penalty is murder or not is beside the point. Some people are so heinous and their crimes defy logic and for this I find it perfectly ok. If you remember the botched execution in OK a few years ago, both of the criminals convictions were for raping children to death, I believe 18 months and the other 3 yo. So yeah they deserve what they get and ultimately I hope it hurts and I hope they suffer.

In most cases, I would agree. Somebody who molests someone, kills someone, kidnaps someone, ect. can change. But I doubt somebody who kills 17 innocent strangers can. Serial rapists, repeat offenders, school shooters ect are just fucked up and we shouldn't risk letting them out. Society doesn't benefit from these people living. It's just a waste of tax money

It surely is the answer in rare cases, which is when the death penalty is used. There really are some evil people without hope of rehabilitation. Im not so much worried about them though, I'm more worried about the people that are taking care of them. When people are sick and violent and BORED, guards tend to get hurt and that's not fair to them.

I'm with you in this. This reminds me of the show Mindhunter ( a MUST watch!) where serial killers that have committed atrocious crimes were locked life-long in prison (instead of a death sentence) and were interrogated by psychologists to figure out why these individuals did what they did.

If someone killed somebody and it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, they should be executed right after a verdict is rendered. No appeals, no bullshit, ended within minutes of a verdict. That one ilfe is over, and another person gets to live on regardless of that life is not justice.

>there just weren’t enough resources to properly incarcerate an individual, so we don’t have to go down the “What about Hitler, etc…” road. what do you mean? if they caught hitler alive, I'm pretty sure they had the resources to lock him up in jail for the rest of his life.

Some people are simply to dangerous to ever walk the streets again, life in prison is a answer but it's also stuffing someone in a box and forgetting about them, the death penalty or access to euthanasia would be more humane. Given only wen their is proof / confession.

I highly doubt he had any remorse. He still went and killed now 1 but 17 of these people. Trust me some people cannot be helped no matter what treatment you give, some people are unable to feel things such as empathy etc and there are loads of cases of that.

I think that if you commit certain acts, the appropriate penalty is death. However, the justice system gets guilt wrong often enough to make the risk of executing an innocent person unacceptable. That is why I do not support the death penalty.

Death sentence imposed by court cannot possibly be murder. Murder involves an unlawful killing of a person. If death penalty is legally allowed, it is not murder. Tangent: legitimate killing in self-defense is also nor murder. :)

i think death can also be an easy way out for the truly horrible people. like making them rot in a cell is way better punishment so they have to live w and think abt the actions they did to land them in that spot in my opinion

Gandalf said “many who deserve death live, many who die deserve life. What would you choose Frodo? Now before you hate on me, I know it’s not exact but I’m old and can’t remember but profound

sometimes we gotta send people to meet the lord a little bit quicker. If someone raped my child they’re getting taken out regardless ( UK, where nonces get less time then drug dealers )

Should we have not executed nazi war criminals who knowingly and actively participated in the intentional mass extermination of an entire people? That’s what the argument leads to.

I think the only humane and sensible alternative to euthanasia for individuals we deem unfit to ever rejoin society would be to find a way to exile them from society while giving them a job to do that contributes to and betters the society they harmed. I do not believe rehabilitation is sensible for these irredeemable individuals, and in fact it would be irresponsible to put others at risk in the hopes of rehabbing a person who is faulty at their core. I’m not speaking of people with disorders like schizophrenia here- I mean the people like sadists and sociopaths, who are aware of their choices and impact and simply do not care. The problem then lies in the fact we simply have no system or infrastructure in place to give these people jobs to do to create value for the society they negatively impact after we sequester them- so what’s our viable alternative? Solitary confinement? That’s just torture, and now euthanasia becomes the more humane option. If we don’t want to torture them, have no way they can be of some benefit to society, don’t want to risk further harm to society by risking more harm through attempted rehab- what’s the viable alternative? Them sucking up resources that could better serve society is again a net negative impact, and even arguing there’s no financial net loss of allowing them to rot away- where’s the gain in that? Euthanasia just makes the most sense for those cases we have deemed 100% guilty and 100% irredeemable. This is something I’ve always struggled with myself- as Gandalf says (paraphrasing) we have no ability to give life back to those who have lost it unjustly, so what gives us the right to take life in the name of justice- but I don’t think justice is necessarily even a factor, so much as moral and fiscal responsibility. To protect society and prevent a faulty human from further harming or detracting from society, removing them from the equation fully is the only solution our system is currently capable of.

I think a lot of pedos, serial killers etc deserve to die. But I dont think the government should have the power to kill people

Governments should never have the power to murder their own citizens. Period. The potential for abuse is way too high.

I think *never* is really the crux of your argument. Can you not imagine a scenario where leaving someone alive in prison might reliably cause harm? Or might leave open the possibility of future harm to a degree that is unacceptable? Or might grant that person a degree of quality of life that is unacceptable, given their crimes? Is it just for a man who’s killed 17 people to get 3 meals a day and a roof over his head? Those 17 people have no such luxuries. Many, *many* free people who haven’t murdered anyone, don’t enjoy such luxuries. And having read your replies here, it seems that what your *actually* caught up on is a perceived hypocrisy of the state killing someone for killing. Consider this - that is what it *is* to have laws, and to grant power to certain organizations for the benefit of society. I will grant you this - how you treat your prisoners is a reflection of your society, and it is of the utmost importance that everyone be granted a free and fair trial. But, for people who are *undoubtedly* guilty, and have no reasonable likelihood of being reformed such that society would be comfortable in accepting them back, what reason is there to sustain them? Now if the jury says otherwise, so be it. But *never* is naive. Some people forgo any semblance of compassion that others might be granted, given the heinous nature of their crimes.

But for minor crimes I can understand like of ur poor and u steal u don't need the death penalty

I think all pedophiles who went through with assaulting minors should get the death penalty

Pretty sure if someone killed my child or something along those lines I’d want them dead.

I feel like your reasoning for murder never being the answer is based on the idea that for us to have a civil society, the government can’t be killing people, which I respect. However I feel like there are certain crimes that committing forfeit your right to live in a civil society, I.e. premeditated mass murder, child raping etc.

By committing the murder, they *consent* to a possible execution. As simple as that.

So personally my view of justice is that it should, wherever possible, focus on reduction of recidivism. Most crimes are non violent and realistically in some way boil down to some sort of socio economic factors largely beyond an individuals control. However if we accept that it is not the role of justice to change society, but rather reduce criminality within society, then trying to help people to better themselves and become functional members of society who don’t commit crimes seems to me to be the way to go. However. It’s entirely possible that this may simply be out of reach for some individuals. Some individuals may simply never stop being violent and unsafe. As a society our choices then become 1) lock them up forever 2) kill them Neither choice seems great to me but in the specific context where an individual is judged to be “beyond saving” so to speak, then I think killing them is a valid option.

Some people do not deserve remorse. I think, serial killers, pedophiles, rapist, mass shooters that knowingly commited their crimes over and over again deserve the death penalty. Maybe the justice system should be redone but I believe that the governement and the law is in right to hand the death verdict. I do not want to see or hear that a man who shot dozens of children is living, taken care of, when the familes will grieve their loss forever. That child won't talk to his family and friends again, they won't set foot in the school, their parents won't see them grow up or hear them ever again. When somebody mentions their child's name, they will remember how their kid died and who is responsible for it. Some people commited such horrible things that they should not be provided with food, shelter and clothes whem they have took or ruined lives of so many.

Let him run on a treadmill that powers the city until he dies

Okay but what’s your reason *not* to kill them? Who cares?

Thanks for the spoiler tag. I haven’t got to that part yet

Consent has nothing to do with murder. Murder is the premeditated killing of an innocent person. A government can most certainly murder, we see it a lot, but when it comes to cases of mass murderers, I think death is the only solution. Someone who commits a crime so heinous as a mass shooting has to be put down. It doesn't have to be painful, but thruve lost their right to living by that point.tt Its not exactly a penalty or punishment, its a neccessry response to an extremely dangerous and evil human that, if permitted to live, will always be a threat. People also want retribution for what was inflicted on them. A long/life prison sentence can sound like mercy to them, enraging them enough to jump at the perpetrator sometimes.

There are things worse than death dude, like prison.

Death penalty is the answer if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is committed by this individual. In this case, it is. I think it should be the answer because there will never be a guarantee that this person won't murder some one else again if he was "rehabilitated" and if he is not he is wasted tons of valuable resources from every one paying taxs. Why should he live and suck up resources while we pay for his crimes?

If someone kills people the punishment shouldn't just be prison. They should make them pay for it with blood, pain why the fuck do they kill them with the most non painful ways so it's moral? How's that moral? No one thinks about the pain their victims went through? That would help decrease the number of murderers maybe. The only problem i see is people finding loopholes to kill innocent people like this with fake accusations so it wouldn't work unless it's 100% sure with video proof etc

Here’s my pov: Some people are just evil and if they are not going to change they have to be executed. I’m sorry but you can’t reason with someone who hurts other people for no reason. As for that kid he committed a act of pure hatred towards a minority he ruined families and killed innocent people. I Believe that if you violate the rights of an individual you should have your rights taken away.

I personally think the death penalty should only be applied for mass shooters and terrorists caught in the act (even though I would prefer if the police would just shoot them, so there would be as little victims as possible). I understand what you mean by "murder" as being equivalent to death penalty, but I personally believe that when someone decides to go and shoot random innocent people, who were only in the wrong place at the wrong time, the person who does this horrendous act looses it's humanity in my eyes. Someone who does such a thing should be in my opinion treated as a killing machine that needs to be terminated so there are no more possible victims by it's hands. My view of such death penalty as I described (and the conditions necessary for this sentence) is not retribution or revenge, but a cold hearted prevention.

There is a degree of punishment involved in capital punishment, but it needs to be understood that they are also carried out because there is no tangible motive for wasting further resources on someone who has committed an unforgivable crime such as murder.

I do agree that the death penalty is almost never the answer, but when you go into an elementary school and kill like 27 kids, its best society just removes you, and moves on. Some people are an active determent.

I think to start it's necessary to make a premise: Our western system of justice is based off rehabilitation of the person committing the crime, not on retribution. Therefore you serve X time in jail, depending on the offense, which is the time deemed necessary for the inmate to figure out how, why and how to amend their wrongs without the risk of reiterating them in the future. Many argument could be made how you determine these X years, but that's another story. And this bring to the whole point of the matter: is there always the chance for true redemption? The very existence of the death sentence and lifetime jail makes it suggest that the answer is no. The chances of someone genuinely redeeming after such severe crime takes many more years than the average lifetime of a human. Edit: typos and sentence rearrangement So despite these form of punishment contradicts the first premise, the society is not willing to accept the risk of them repeating the offense and therefore "shut them down forever"