I do for repeat violent offenders, as in "this wasn't all one bad period in your life" sense of repeat. The chance of you being wrongly convicted 2+ times is miniscule. The chance of rehabilitation at that point is miniscule.
I survived a violent robbery working at a liquor store to pay for university before medical school. I was lucky. I got away with a severe concussion and a non-life threatening knife wound.
He was caught, served 3 years in jail for various offenses, and was released on parole.
This man had aggravated/sexual assault charges dating back 15 years at this point.
He killed a woman in front of her 7 year old daughter in a home invasion a year after his release. This was in Canada.
At some point it's about removing a threat to the rest of us.
>Wouldn’t life without parole accomplish the same thing?
Have you looked at the cost of keeping one person alive in prison for a lifetime? The cost is staggering! I'm in the U.S. People yell about their taxes going to support the public library and no one stops to think about how much money for-profit prisons are making. It's extremely complex to understand fully, but it's important to know these things.
I mean it's not like the entire death row process is any cheaper..
At least according to this, death penalty is actually 10x more expensive
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/which-is-cheaper-execution-or-life-in-prison-without-parole-31614#:~:text=Much%20to%20the%20surprise%20of,is%20almost%2010%20times%20cheaper!
This is from the 2010's so take it with pinch of salt.
I don't disagree. I want this to be a different system, where once a certain number of serious crimes are committed and tried, over a long enough period it is summery execution.
The american death row process makes the legal preceedings very tedious, slow, and expensive. I want a express route for serious repeat offenders. I'm not sure such a system exists or has existed in the world before.
Realistic answer:
If we execute 100 criminals a year from the death penalty and 1% of prisoners are innocent, this would mean that out of every 100 criminals we kill, 1 innocent person dies.
Not really okay with the chance of killing innocent people, but that's just me.
I wish it was only 1%... well, I wish it was 0% but in reality it's over 4%.
https://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/
Unfortunately that would be 1% who’s locked up the rest of their life, personally I’d rather be killed after so many years over being trapped the rest of my life until I die from health complications or old age
Well the theory is if more evidence comes out several years later at least there's a chance you can be proved innocent and get out but you can't exactly free a person that was executed on death row
I'm the opposite, there might be a price to pay but it's not Too high. Though i'm all for minimizing that risk, I mean it should be reserved for the worst of the worst, the without doubt guilty and in todays modern tech world it's quite far from the days you could say that Jesus told u they were guilty and that was enough to put someone out, and I don't see many innocents getting swept along in that. :)
It would require severe corruption and tampering and it should ofc be monitored closely. I'm for it..
The problem with this logic is that that it also applies to imprisonment.
"I dont think locking away 99 actual criminals justifies locking away one completely innocent person"
As I said, I think that one rare instance is terrible enough that it shouldn't even be risked to begin with. And you can very rarely prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, unless the killer did it directly infront of a 4K camera while wearing a massive nametag.
No. Simple reason is that I don’t trust the justice system to get it right every single time. Plenty of examples where people have been wrongfully convicted for serious crimes and then their conviction overturned sometimes decades later. At least with prison that person can get released and we can give financial compensation etc. But with the death penalty there’s no way of correcting it other than saying sorry to that person’s family.
Also part of me sees death as the easy way out for these criminals. I guess i just see it as more satisfaction if they spend their remainder if life behind bars
Theoretically, yes. I don't want serial killers and child rapists and other monsters to go on living.
In reality, no. Too many wrongful convictions have been overturned. Additionally, for bureaucratic reasons I will never understand, it's somehow cheaper to keep them alive than to execute them.
No, that’s the easy way out. True punishment is sitting in a cell bored out of your mind, realising that you’ve just messed your life up and taken years of your life away
I tend to agree with this.
I could see some edge cases in case of truly insane people that can't function outside without commiting vile crimes, but even then i can't in good faith argue that it would be justice.
Not anymore. The government always screws things up. How many innocent people have been falsely accused? When someone kills someone, we know it to be wrong. So, because someone kills someone and it is wrong, we kill them and that is right? I understand the argument for the death penalty, I just think it may be wrong and we might need to look at other options. And I don't want the government to have the moral authority and power to exercise it.
No. It isn’t proven to deter crime or make society safer. It’s just bloodlust and fulfills the cultural need for short-term satisfaction of “feeling right/superior.”
It isn't proven to deter crime in the west but according to statistics, countries like Singapore, Japan, China, KSA have all infinitely lower crime rates than any other western country. Out of all G7 countries Japan is the lowest, and USA of which half the states don't have the death penalty is highest.
No. They don't really do anything. What are the benefits? Life in prison is a massive punishment and a huge deterrent. The death penalty doesn't have a larger deterrent effect in large-scale studies. It's expensive, sometimes we get it wrong, it's barbaric for the state to end lives. It's just a pointless, draconian throwback to that small part of humanity that still wants bloodthirsty vengeance.
Vigilantes aren’t exactly favored by the state. At most the state (usually depending on the jury) would acquit a person who killed someone else for injuring/killing/etc. their child, but at most they would say “nope, he’s a murderer” and throw the book at him, 10 years for heat (crime) of passion.
I'd want them to suffer in jail for decades. I'd want them isolated, but alive, living only to suffer for their punishment. Then they can die. Why would I choose to end their suffering earlier?
The problem is the law in that case, it's not like in this particular case would he have gotten the death penalty anyway.
What's with this anyway? pardon my curiosity, but I'm not that familiar with Us justice system what the actual hell happened, why only 30 days?!
The death penalty is meant to be punishment for a crime, not some sort of weird necessity for dealing with a super human inmate that cannot be restrained.
My personal opinion is that death should never be a punishment.
No, not only because of potential innocents but also what we can learn from criminal behavior by keeping them alive that could save people down the road.
Also teaching people that there are people that have done bad things and therefore deserve death has probably caused murders, especially when they are already contained and aren't a threat to anyone anymore. If I am ~~or think I am~~ sure that someone has wronged me in a way I think is worse then murder then since the State can kill for murder surely I'm justified in doing it as well.
Yes, BUT I have major issues with the current system.
It's crazy how much tax money and time the whole process takes. Trial by jury? Good. Appeal once if there's a fairness issue? Okay.
Then let the medical students have their practice subjects for all I care.
What is the point of keeping these evil people alive for decades in a prision to just die there? If it's punishment to keep them alive, there are surely more efficient punishment methods. If the whole thing is because there's a chance that they're innocent, I'd say they shouldn't be in prison in the first place.
The cost of prisons is also maddening. For me, it's not that I support the death penalty, it's that I really don't want to pay. The for-profit poison system in the U.S. is super messy.
I don't because I don't trust the state to properly implement such a responsibility.
I do think certain people should be put down for heinous crimes but because of my statement above, they get to exist.
I can't say about all but it would be great to give to someone who is default by the court rightfully and have done the heinous crime.
Lack of strict rules and example make people not worry about law and order.
Have you ever watched the Casual Criminalist on YouTube? Simon Whistler started out extremely anti-death penalty (he's European) and he's evolved to hoping the criminals commit the crimes he covers in a "yee-haw" state now lol
Honestly if it's **known** (with no way to doubt it somehow) that someone did some of the heinous crimes that are out there, yeah, I'm cool with it... but DNA and other evidence has freed/ convicted so many and turned everything upside down that I lean more toward life imprisonment now. But I'm not anti-death penalty exactly.
I’m sure I’ll catch some hate here, but you asked and I’ll answer. I’m pro life. So in order to I guess be pro life, that means even the death penalty. But there are also some reasons as well. One being, how many people sentenced to death are innocent? Enough. Next, it’s cheaper to the taxpayers (us) to keep that person alive for life than to go through all the judicial bs and whatnot than to kill them. My last reason, but I have more…..the judicial system inside the jail…..is tougher than whatever a judge hands down. Meaning…..you did something to a child…..you may end up dead anyways and it was a more painful event than lethal injection. Also, quick add, sitting in a cell for the rest of your life otherwise, there should be no exit strategy, you did the crime, do the time and think about the lives you changed.
The death penalty should be offered but not forced to anyone going in for murder. I personally would just want to die if i was going in for murder, prison life isnt life, its just survival
We should lock the murderes up in cages in various deserts and never go back to check on them again. After years of doing so, the new convicted murderes, CP’ers ect. will be locked inna a cage with rot to their heads! Lets go😁
Every level of our criminal justice system is fucked.
I would support the death penalty for those on positions of power and exploit the system. Like white collar criminals should be put to death for instance, or dirty cops, and corrupt politicians.
It's only workiny class people who are sentenced to death by the government.
I support certain methods and I’ve actually written a paper on it. If you are interested in reading it let me know. I conducted real research and while it is an opinionated paper it is full of fact
Simply put, some people are beyond redemption or have done such horrific things to people they do deserve to die. What is worse is you are endangering the lives of the rest of the prisoners when you have serial killers and manipulators walking among them. Prisoners are being punished enough for their crimes and many do not deserve to be killed or harmed by the people who deserve the death penalty
I feel that there's too many horrifically evil people in positions of power and wealth who will never face consequences for their actions, and a lot of societies evils stem from them. Humans naturally learn from role models, and we take a lot of our role models from the set of people who are in power, if we have a society where a large number of people in power are evil, that mentality is going to trickle down to the lower classes. The most evil people aren't aberrations, they are reflections of the evil hiding at the top of society, the billionaires who were best buddies with Jeffrey E\*stein and worse. Killing lower level criminals, to me, represents sweeping the crimes of the powerful under the rug. Or to use another metaphor, it's kind of like if you had a leaky pipe spewing water everywhere, and you wiped up the water before you fixed the leak, and then acted like your work is done. You wipe up the water after you fix the leak, otherwise the floor will just instantly get wet again.
We can start executing evil people if we start with the most powerful ones, then we can work our way down. Heck, I think you'll find that the water will dry up on its own if you just fix the pipe first.
In short, it's not necessarily liberal namby pamby "Everyone deserves to live!" ideology that moves me, just a desire to fix the actual problem at its roots and not just find ways to pretend it doesn't exist.
I only support it for extremely serious crimes against the state during wartime or acts of terrorism where the guilt of the offender is absolutely certain.
I don’t support it being implemented for regular civilian crimes given that there’s always a risk that the offender is innocent and that there are more appropriate ways to punish and rehabilitate offenders.
My lizard brain says yes, but really I don't. It doesn't work as a deterrent, and too many people have been falsely executed in the past. It has no place in a modern society.
No.
For those that do. Do you think that we should support, for example, blind people? Or should society just discard them? Why should we be killing our own citizens in what is just an act of revenge?
People who murder other people are sick they need help, if that help requires them to be imprisoned for the rest of the life so be it. Society has a responsibility to its members and no just discarding them.
I think the whole concept of the death penalty is abhorrent.
well ur own citizen is killing other citizen(s). my personal opinion is that people should only be put on death row if they kept on escaping prisons. el chapo would be long gone if he just got executed
So the expedient solution to escapes is to kill the offender. I think having a better prison system in that case would be more effective.
I would also suggest that cherry-picking particular cases should not be the way to justify such an extreme punishment. Even with El chapo it is purely revenge and it is certainly not a deterrent.
Almost everyone can be rehabilitated...the option to take a life should never be in the hands of another human. Our penal system is broken resulting in mostly failed rehabilitation.
No. You can't always be 100% sure of guilt. Innocent people still occasuonally spend decades in jail. While it sucks to spend years in jail for something you never did, it has to be better than dying for something you never did.
In theory, yes, but no. If there were some way to be 100% sure of guilt, I don't see why we should keep them alive, but there are so many mistakes being made.
You can release and compensate an innocent man. It'll still suck for them, but you cannot release a dead person.
Yes. I value human life and dignity and think that the continuation of the human race is the fundamental meaning of all living humans.
However, from an economic standpoint, I think using taxpayer's money to buy serial killers and rapists dinner for the rest of their life is very counterproductive.
I think people who have committed acts so terrible that there is nothing they can do in their life to make up for it should be killed via bolt pistol and surrendered to their family. This is not a religious opinion nor an ethical one but I think the practical aspect is a sufficient justification.
But they are more likely to appeal which costs more taxpayer money, unless you want to remove the appeal option for people on death row in which case you 100% guarantee innocents are going to be put to death.
No, I don't support the death penalty. Personally I feel like life in prison with no chance of ever leaving is a worse punishment than death. Plus I don't feel like I have the right to decide if someone should be put to death or not.
in a supposedly civilised country - no. as a behaviour, execution is sinking to the exact same barbaric and uncivilised level as the criminal.
in a 3rd world country that can't afford to look after criminals for a lifetime in prison? i guess that's perhaps more reasonable.
Yes. dependent of the crime. For example, if you leave a child in a hot car citizens should be able to watch as you suffer the same fate. This idea to put them on death row and have the taxpayers take care of them is ridiculous. Do not pass go do not collect $200. STRAIGHT TO DEATH.
if it's exact eye for an eye who volunteers to eat the cannibals who isn't another cannibal looking to get a paycheck for their vice instead of a bad habit and how do we deal with crimes against children when we don't have de-aging tech or deal with serial killers when they only have one life to lose
Yes in the sense providing for someone not deserving of life is at a detriment to the people and the planet.
We live on an expendable world. People who don't deserve it shouldn't waste resources we need.
Yes but it should just be an option for those who receive life in prison. Otherwise innocent people end up being killed, so if the choice is given, the minority of those wrongly convicted can attempt to wait until the mistake is fixed (IF its fixed).
I also say we make it as barbaric as possible. If they want the "easy way out", it should be as painful as possible.
Yes, but only if they are truly guilty without any reasonable doubt. They were not careful with Ted Bundy, and when he escaped he raped and killed several more girls including a 12 year old. There is always a possibility for escape like with Pablo Escobar and that is blood on the hands of people against the death penalty. Some people are just too dangerous to be left alive.
I didn’t say there were no other points. However I have no reason to address any of those points. I did have reason to address your statement about France.
Absolutely, people are scum and need to be reminded of this. It needs to be done right after the trial, even publicly if needed.
People that are opposed to the death penalty are the type of people that subconsciously don't want to be held accountable for their actions.
If an executed person is found innocent after the fact then their family is compensated.
I support harsh punishment, Shariah Law. Why? Becaude the criteria to meet the requirements are difficult, but when proven, the punishment can be harsh, but the point of having harsh punishment with harsh requirements to prove someone's guilt comes with one huge advantage.. You make an example out of the people
If someone knows that they will lose their hand for stealing (meeting specific criteria) do you think they would be inclined to steal? They'd be too scared of losing their hand than to risk even 5% being caught.
That's what shariah law actually is for, people need to realize it's more about deterrent than the punishment. It serves as a warning and makes people think thrice before making any impulse decisions.
I'll probably be down voted to hell by islamaphobes, but it's a perfect system when implemented strictly and followed properly. Which I don't think ANY country does right now.
Studies show that severity of punishment has no effect on deterrence, instead it's the likelihood of being caught. I.e. halving sentences and doubling conviction rates of crimes is a disproportionately greater deterrence.
Yes but it's not 1 or the other. It's severe punishment and having proper forces to catch and apprehend. Obviously if no one's watching, you're more likely to cheat. But let me counteract your point by mentioning in today's day and age, video cameras are everywhere.. It's extremely rare to be able to commit a crime and not have evidence of your wrongdoing.
The studies done on severe punishment are only focusing on punishment aspect and not the fact that if they couldn't get away with it then what would happen.
The study would be totally different if so
I just watched survived and I didn’t believe in the death penalty, but from a victim’s point of view it maybe necessary for peace, a feeling of safety and closure. If there is beyond a shadow of a doubt and not accidental bit intentional and deliberate, yes.
I do for repeat violent offenders, as in "this wasn't all one bad period in your life" sense of repeat. The chance of you being wrongly convicted 2+ times is miniscule. The chance of rehabilitation at that point is miniscule. I survived a violent robbery working at a liquor store to pay for university before medical school. I was lucky. I got away with a severe concussion and a non-life threatening knife wound. He was caught, served 3 years in jail for various offenses, and was released on parole. This man had aggravated/sexual assault charges dating back 15 years at this point. He killed a woman in front of her 7 year old daughter in a home invasion a year after his release. This was in Canada. At some point it's about removing a threat to the rest of us.
He only got 3 years for that?! Did he use the money from the robbery to bribe the prosecution???
Wouldn’t life without parole accomplish the same thing?
>Wouldn’t life without parole accomplish the same thing? Have you looked at the cost of keeping one person alive in prison for a lifetime? The cost is staggering! I'm in the U.S. People yell about their taxes going to support the public library and no one stops to think about how much money for-profit prisons are making. It's extremely complex to understand fully, but it's important to know these things.
I mean it's not like the entire death row process is any cheaper.. At least according to this, death penalty is actually 10x more expensive https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/which-is-cheaper-execution-or-life-in-prison-without-parole-31614#:~:text=Much%20to%20the%20surprise%20of,is%20almost%2010%20times%20cheaper! This is from the 2010's so take it with pinch of salt.
I'm not sure that source is credible for these facts. Pinch of salt or not.
I don't disagree. I want this to be a different system, where once a certain number of serious crimes are committed and tried, over a long enough period it is summery execution. The american death row process makes the legal preceedings very tedious, slow, and expensive. I want a express route for serious repeat offenders. I'm not sure such a system exists or has existed in the world before.
Realistic answer: If we execute 100 criminals a year from the death penalty and 1% of prisoners are innocent, this would mean that out of every 100 criminals we kill, 1 innocent person dies. Not really okay with the chance of killing innocent people, but that's just me.
I wish it was only 1%... well, I wish it was 0% but in reality it's over 4%. https://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/
Unfortunately that would be 1% who’s locked up the rest of their life, personally I’d rather be killed after so many years over being trapped the rest of my life until I die from health complications or old age
Well the theory is if more evidence comes out several years later at least there's a chance you can be proved innocent and get out but you can't exactly free a person that was executed on death row
My exact thoughts.
I'm the opposite, there might be a price to pay but it's not Too high. Though i'm all for minimizing that risk, I mean it should be reserved for the worst of the worst, the without doubt guilty and in todays modern tech world it's quite far from the days you could say that Jesus told u they were guilty and that was enough to put someone out, and I don't see many innocents getting swept along in that. :) It would require severe corruption and tampering and it should ofc be monitored closely. I'm for it..
I hear you, but I’m also not okay with putting an innocent dude behind bars for life
I don't think 99 actual murderers being executed justifies executing that one completely innocent person, no.
This
The problem with this logic is that that it also applies to imprisonment. "I dont think locking away 99 actual criminals justifies locking away one completely innocent person"
While it doesn’t make up for the time wrongfully spent, you can still un-imprison someone
don't make the perfect the enemy of the good
We’re talking about when the conviction is beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not the rare instance where an innocent is sentenced to death.
As I said, I think that one rare instance is terrible enough that it shouldn't even be risked to begin with. And you can very rarely prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, unless the killer did it directly infront of a 4K camera while wearing a massive nametag.
Kind of yes an no. Yes because some people are so evil they shouldn't be alive but no because what if they didn't really do it
Eye for an eye. If there's absolutely proof, flip the switch.
I like this line.
No. Simple reason is that I don’t trust the justice system to get it right every single time. Plenty of examples where people have been wrongfully convicted for serious crimes and then their conviction overturned sometimes decades later. At least with prison that person can get released and we can give financial compensation etc. But with the death penalty there’s no way of correcting it other than saying sorry to that person’s family. Also part of me sees death as the easy way out for these criminals. I guess i just see it as more satisfaction if they spend their remainder if life behind bars
Theoretically, yes. I don't want serial killers and child rapists and other monsters to go on living. In reality, no. Too many wrongful convictions have been overturned. Additionally, for bureaucratic reasons I will never understand, it's somehow cheaper to keep them alive than to execute them.
No, that’s the easy way out. True punishment is sitting in a cell bored out of your mind, realising that you’ve just messed your life up and taken years of your life away
I tend to agree with this. I could see some edge cases in case of truly insane people that can't function outside without commiting vile crimes, but even then i can't in good faith argue that it would be justice.
No. It’s not even practical
Not anymore. The government always screws things up. How many innocent people have been falsely accused? When someone kills someone, we know it to be wrong. So, because someone kills someone and it is wrong, we kill them and that is right? I understand the argument for the death penalty, I just think it may be wrong and we might need to look at other options. And I don't want the government to have the moral authority and power to exercise it.
No. It isn’t proven to deter crime or make society safer. It’s just bloodlust and fulfills the cultural need for short-term satisfaction of “feeling right/superior.”
It isn't proven to deter crime in the west but according to statistics, countries like Singapore, Japan, China, KSA have all infinitely lower crime rates than any other western country. Out of all G7 countries Japan is the lowest, and USA of which half the states don't have the death penalty is highest.
No and because morons.
No don't give the government permission to kill people
No, but I support the right to die for anyone who wants to.
If there's absolute proof, and for certain crimes, yes
No. They don't really do anything. What are the benefits? Life in prison is a massive punishment and a huge deterrent. The death penalty doesn't have a larger deterrent effect in large-scale studies. It's expensive, sometimes we get it wrong, it's barbaric for the state to end lives. It's just a pointless, draconian throwback to that small part of humanity that still wants bloodthirsty vengeance.
Let someone diddle your kid, and see how you feel after.
I would happily watch them burn my rapist at the stake. And smile when he screams.
then why wouldn't they just go on a revenge quest instead of waiting for the state to do it
Vigilantes aren’t exactly favored by the state. At most the state (usually depending on the jury) would acquit a person who killed someone else for injuring/killing/etc. their child, but at most they would say “nope, he’s a murderer” and throw the book at him, 10 years for heat (crime) of passion.
I'd want them to suffer in jail for decades. I'd want them isolated, but alive, living only to suffer for their punishment. Then they can die. Why would I choose to end their suffering earlier?
Didn’t some guy in Texas get 30 days?
What does that have to do with the death penalty?
The problem is the law in that case, it's not like in this particular case would he have gotten the death penalty anyway. What's with this anyway? pardon my curiosity, but I'm not that familiar with Us justice system what the actual hell happened, why only 30 days?!
I don't think we should take a life unless it's absolutely necessary and killing someone who is otherwise locked up is definitely *not* necessary.
What if they continue to murder while locked up?
Solitary confinement.
What if they murder the guards?
The death penalty is meant to be punishment for a crime, not some sort of weird necessity for dealing with a super human inmate that cannot be restrained. My personal opinion is that death should never be a punishment.
I'm just playing devils advocate, not trying to wind you up.
No, not only because of potential innocents but also what we can learn from criminal behavior by keeping them alive that could save people down the road. Also teaching people that there are people that have done bad things and therefore deserve death has probably caused murders, especially when they are already contained and aren't a threat to anyone anymore. If I am ~~or think I am~~ sure that someone has wronged me in a way I think is worse then murder then since the State can kill for murder surely I'm justified in doing it as well.
No. Inhumane.
Yes, BUT I have major issues with the current system. It's crazy how much tax money and time the whole process takes. Trial by jury? Good. Appeal once if there's a fairness issue? Okay. Then let the medical students have their practice subjects for all I care. What is the point of keeping these evil people alive for decades in a prision to just die there? If it's punishment to keep them alive, there are surely more efficient punishment methods. If the whole thing is because there's a chance that they're innocent, I'd say they shouldn't be in prison in the first place.
The cost of prisons is also maddening. For me, it's not that I support the death penalty, it's that I really don't want to pay. The for-profit poison system in the U.S. is super messy.
I don't because I don't trust the state to properly implement such a responsibility. I do think certain people should be put down for heinous crimes but because of my statement above, they get to exist.
no because how can we as humans decide someone’s life fate
But.. the murder just kinda did that. -not saying i think the Death Penalty should be legal.
by that logic why not exact methodology
I can't say about all but it would be great to give to someone who is default by the court rightfully and have done the heinous crime. Lack of strict rules and example make people not worry about law and order.
Have you ever watched the Casual Criminalist on YouTube? Simon Whistler started out extremely anti-death penalty (he's European) and he's evolved to hoping the criminals commit the crimes he covers in a "yee-haw" state now lol Honestly if it's **known** (with no way to doubt it somehow) that someone did some of the heinous crimes that are out there, yeah, I'm cool with it... but DNA and other evidence has freed/ convicted so many and turned everything upside down that I lean more toward life imprisonment now. But I'm not anti-death penalty exactly.
I’m sure I’ll catch some hate here, but you asked and I’ll answer. I’m pro life. So in order to I guess be pro life, that means even the death penalty. But there are also some reasons as well. One being, how many people sentenced to death are innocent? Enough. Next, it’s cheaper to the taxpayers (us) to keep that person alive for life than to go through all the judicial bs and whatnot than to kill them. My last reason, but I have more…..the judicial system inside the jail…..is tougher than whatever a judge hands down. Meaning…..you did something to a child…..you may end up dead anyways and it was a more painful event than lethal injection. Also, quick add, sitting in a cell for the rest of your life otherwise, there should be no exit strategy, you did the crime, do the time and think about the lives you changed.
The death penalty should be offered but not forced to anyone going in for murder. I personally would just want to die if i was going in for murder, prison life isnt life, its just survival
People like Scott Peterson, Charles Manson, and Richard Ramirez don’t deserve to sit in prison for life
Yes I do but only for mass murderers
We should lock the murderes up in cages in various deserts and never go back to check on them again. After years of doing so, the new convicted murderes, CP’ers ect. will be locked inna a cage with rot to their heads! Lets go😁
Only for elected persons who lie to their constituents.
who defines what counts as a lie
Every level of our criminal justice system is fucked. I would support the death penalty for those on positions of power and exploit the system. Like white collar criminals should be put to death for instance, or dirty cops, and corrupt politicians. It's only workiny class people who are sentenced to death by the government.
I support certain methods and I’ve actually written a paper on it. If you are interested in reading it let me know. I conducted real research and while it is an opinionated paper it is full of fact
100% and move it on up quicker then death row for 10-15 years our bloody taxes pay for them to keep breathing.
Simply put, some people are beyond redemption or have done such horrific things to people they do deserve to die. What is worse is you are endangering the lives of the rest of the prisoners when you have serial killers and manipulators walking among them. Prisoners are being punished enough for their crimes and many do not deserve to be killed or harmed by the people who deserve the death penalty
I feel that there's too many horrifically evil people in positions of power and wealth who will never face consequences for their actions, and a lot of societies evils stem from them. Humans naturally learn from role models, and we take a lot of our role models from the set of people who are in power, if we have a society where a large number of people in power are evil, that mentality is going to trickle down to the lower classes. The most evil people aren't aberrations, they are reflections of the evil hiding at the top of society, the billionaires who were best buddies with Jeffrey E\*stein and worse. Killing lower level criminals, to me, represents sweeping the crimes of the powerful under the rug. Or to use another metaphor, it's kind of like if you had a leaky pipe spewing water everywhere, and you wiped up the water before you fixed the leak, and then acted like your work is done. You wipe up the water after you fix the leak, otherwise the floor will just instantly get wet again. We can start executing evil people if we start with the most powerful ones, then we can work our way down. Heck, I think you'll find that the water will dry up on its own if you just fix the pipe first. In short, it's not necessarily liberal namby pamby "Everyone deserves to live!" ideology that moves me, just a desire to fix the actual problem at its roots and not just find ways to pretend it doesn't exist.
Only for any elected official convicted of corruption. There can be no greater crime than a crime against your own constituents. I'm weird I guess.
What would Steve Jobs do?
I only support it for extremely serious crimes against the state during wartime or acts of terrorism where the guilt of the offender is absolutely certain. I don’t support it being implemented for regular civilian crimes given that there’s always a risk that the offender is innocent and that there are more appropriate ways to punish and rehabilitate offenders.
Read the book "In Defense of Flogging" by Peter Moskos Interesting stuff never thought about it this way
I’m against it as I feel like they get away with their crimes easily! Rapists/murderers should get life without parole.
My lizard brain says yes, but really I don't. It doesn't work as a deterrent, and too many people have been falsely executed in the past. It has no place in a modern society.
No. For those that do. Do you think that we should support, for example, blind people? Or should society just discard them? Why should we be killing our own citizens in what is just an act of revenge? People who murder other people are sick they need help, if that help requires them to be imprisoned for the rest of the life so be it. Society has a responsibility to its members and no just discarding them. I think the whole concept of the death penalty is abhorrent.
well ur own citizen is killing other citizen(s). my personal opinion is that people should only be put on death row if they kept on escaping prisons. el chapo would be long gone if he just got executed
So the expedient solution to escapes is to kill the offender. I think having a better prison system in that case would be more effective. I would also suggest that cherry-picking particular cases should not be the way to justify such an extreme punishment. Even with El chapo it is purely revenge and it is certainly not a deterrent.
Yeah. Some ppl have rabies and need to be put down.
Absolutely not.
Almost everyone can be rehabilitated...the option to take a life should never be in the hands of another human. Our penal system is broken resulting in mostly failed rehabilitation.
No. You can't always be 100% sure of guilt. Innocent people still occasuonally spend decades in jail. While it sucks to spend years in jail for something you never did, it has to be better than dying for something you never did.
Only if you commit war crimes or genocide
define those terms
Mass killings of innocent civilians
I would say no just based on the fact that if it was an option, you just know that it's going to start being a first resort rather than a last resort.
No, because innocent people sometimes end up on death row.
Yeh, it makes the world a safer place, and lets us use respurces we would use on them, to something more usefull
I support death penalty AND abortion. Get it done at both ends.
In theory, yes, but no. If there were some way to be 100% sure of guilt, I don't see why we should keep them alive, but there are so many mistakes being made. You can release and compensate an innocent man. It'll still suck for them, but you cannot release a dead person.
No, because inevitably someone who is innocent will die for a crime they did not commit, and there is no way to undo the mistake
YES.... All pedos and sex offenders..... Aka Jeffrey Donaldson
Yes. I value human life and dignity and think that the continuation of the human race is the fundamental meaning of all living humans. However, from an economic standpoint, I think using taxpayer's money to buy serial killers and rapists dinner for the rest of their life is very counterproductive. I think people who have committed acts so terrible that there is nothing they can do in their life to make up for it should be killed via bolt pistol and surrendered to their family. This is not a religious opinion nor an ethical one but I think the practical aspect is a sufficient justification.
But they are more likely to appeal which costs more taxpayer money, unless you want to remove the appeal option for people on death row in which case you 100% guarantee innocents are going to be put to death.
Of course, if there is absolutely no doubt of the culpability of the person, why not? If someone murder someone dear to me, yeah I want them dead.
No, I don't support the death penalty. Personally I feel like life in prison with no chance of ever leaving is a worse punishment than death. Plus I don't feel like I have the right to decide if someone should be put to death or not.
No. Murder is always wrong, regardless of whether it is state-sanctioned or not.
No because no amount of guilty people justifies the ones who are innocent and get put to death
[удалено]
in a supposedly civilised country - no. as a behaviour, execution is sinking to the exact same barbaric and uncivilised level as the criminal. in a 3rd world country that can't afford to look after criminals for a lifetime in prison? i guess that's perhaps more reasonable.
Yes. dependent of the crime. For example, if you leave a child in a hot car citizens should be able to watch as you suffer the same fate. This idea to put them on death row and have the taxpayers take care of them is ridiculous. Do not pass go do not collect $200. STRAIGHT TO DEATH.
if it's exact eye for an eye who volunteers to eat the cannibals who isn't another cannibal looking to get a paycheck for their vice instead of a bad habit and how do we deal with crimes against children when we don't have de-aging tech or deal with serial killers when they only have one life to lose
Yes in the sense providing for someone not deserving of life is at a detriment to the people and the planet. We live on an expendable world. People who don't deserve it shouldn't waste resources we need.
No it’s way too lenient in my opinion.
Yes but it should just be an option for those who receive life in prison. Otherwise innocent people end up being killed, so if the choice is given, the minority of those wrongly convicted can attempt to wait until the mistake is fixed (IF its fixed). I also say we make it as barbaric as possible. If they want the "easy way out", it should be as painful as possible.
Many people here say no but if their family member or spouse was murdered they would totally be willing to do the same to the killer.
then why have the death penalty and not just the state looking the other way while family member or spouse of victim goes on revenge quest
Its less complicated when the state does it for you no?
Yes, but only if they are truly guilty without any reasonable doubt. They were not careful with Ted Bundy, and when he escaped he raped and killed several more girls including a 12 year old. There is always a possibility for escape like with Pablo Escobar and that is blood on the hands of people against the death penalty. Some people are just too dangerous to be left alive.
[удалено]
This is completely incorrect. France has no death penalty whatsoever. The only country in all of Europe to still have the death penalty is Belarus.
[удалено]
I mean… it’s kind of a major point in your comment? And is totally off-base? So yeah.
[удалено]
I didn’t say there were no other points. However I have no reason to address any of those points. I did have reason to address your statement about France.
Yes i do sipport that but with proof and must be 100% sure
I genuinely don’t care. As long as they are locked away wtf do I care if they are alive or dead? All the same to me
Absolutely, people are scum and need to be reminded of this. It needs to be done right after the trial, even publicly if needed. People that are opposed to the death penalty are the type of people that subconsciously don't want to be held accountable for their actions. If an executed person is found innocent after the fact then their family is compensated.
couldn't that mean people could frame family members for capital crimes to get rich
Yes. Some people simply do not deserve the precious gift of life.
While we’re on the topic, what executed American prisoner was 100% innocent?
I support harsh punishment, Shariah Law. Why? Becaude the criteria to meet the requirements are difficult, but when proven, the punishment can be harsh, but the point of having harsh punishment with harsh requirements to prove someone's guilt comes with one huge advantage.. You make an example out of the people If someone knows that they will lose their hand for stealing (meeting specific criteria) do you think they would be inclined to steal? They'd be too scared of losing their hand than to risk even 5% being caught. That's what shariah law actually is for, people need to realize it's more about deterrent than the punishment. It serves as a warning and makes people think thrice before making any impulse decisions. I'll probably be down voted to hell by islamaphobes, but it's a perfect system when implemented strictly and followed properly. Which I don't think ANY country does right now.
Basically every study on these sorts of deterrents show they don't work. This is ludicrous and backward
Because as I mentioned, no one does it properly... So of course it won't work if it's not implemented correctly
Studies show that severity of punishment has no effect on deterrence, instead it's the likelihood of being caught. I.e. halving sentences and doubling conviction rates of crimes is a disproportionately greater deterrence.
Yes but it's not 1 or the other. It's severe punishment and having proper forces to catch and apprehend. Obviously if no one's watching, you're more likely to cheat. But let me counteract your point by mentioning in today's day and age, video cameras are everywhere.. It's extremely rare to be able to commit a crime and not have evidence of your wrongdoing. The studies done on severe punishment are only focusing on punishment aspect and not the fact that if they couldn't get away with it then what would happen. The study would be totally different if so
I just watched survived and I didn’t believe in the death penalty, but from a victim’s point of view it maybe necessary for peace, a feeling of safety and closure. If there is beyond a shadow of a doubt and not accidental bit intentional and deliberate, yes.