The death penalty

[B4uz 176]

27 minutes ago, Dickus said:

Uhhh I mean ape no kill ape

 Agree to this 

[Brazz 412]

33 minutes ago, Josh said:

I dunno, perhaps as weird as it sounds it should be a voluntary option for those with life sentences, but you’d need a pretty robust framework to ensure people are not coerced into it against their will. I’m similarly for euthanasia and it’s not so much of a stretch between. 

Actually never thought about euthanasia in the sense of a life sentence in prison. I actually think that would work, especially since it removes the costly aspect to capital punishment which is the appeals processes. I'm in support of most euthanasia based policies and I think this idea is pretty similar.

[Req 228]

No in the US - too expensive from all the appeals and the inmates usually end up sitting on death row for ages wasting even more resources.

 

I suspect many of the other countries listed don't have as strong legal systems.  In those cases, the death penalty would save money vs life imprisonment and should remain. 

 

 

 

[Out 315]

I wonder how many plea deals are taken to avoid a potential death penalty.

 

It's not a thing here so I don't have that strong of an opinion on it. I'd probably edge towards removing it due to the inherent risk of an innocent person losing their life.

[Alex 35]

If we trust lifeguards to save lives, we should trust in them to take them as well.

 

Like and share if you believe lifeguards should serve as judge, jury, and executioner. 

[Flytan 37]

Should be used more often, even against people who ddos/leak imo

[alice 317]

im against it purely because of the amount of innocent people that get executed

[Adam_ 1,040]

2 hours ago, true said:

This is my preference:

 

 

 

Ye except if they actually manage to escape just yeet em back in fuck em

2 hours ago, The End said:

Some questions I'd ask:

 

How much does the presence of a death penalty detract potential criminals?

How much closure does it give to the families and loved ones of the victim(s)?

How much does it cost versus keeping the prisoner in the prison system indefinitely? 

Good questions. It seems Alex has already addressed the last one, not sure if anyone on the forums really. Looked around a bit on google and it seems that there isn't really any strong evidence it deters crime and states with the death penalty don't have a noticeable difference from the ones without. Obviously a lot of sources out there will be biased but these were some of the ones I took a gander at

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states

https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/fact-check/does-death-penalty-deter-crime

https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/48000/act500062008en.pdf

 

The last one says that data throughout the world suggests it does not, and mentions there were studies on this in both the USA and Canada. Hard to say for sure since i'm sure none of this unbiased though.

 

As for the second question similarly it seems most of what comes up on google suggests that often times there isn't much closure, which I think is understandable because it's not really bringing anyone back to life. Obviously i've not been in that position where i'm determining whether or not I feel anything and hope I never am. 

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/the-death-penalty-and-the-myth-of-closure

https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/opinions/marsh-tsarnaev-forgiveness

I thought the second one was interesting where the parents of a young child killed in the boston bombing wanted the death penalty off the table for the bomber.

 

Obviously some of these websites are made by people who want to abolish the death penalty and others are news websites which are going to have some bias though.

1 hour ago, Kuraminha said:

As much as I think it's fair to give the death penalty to rapists, mass murderers, serial killers, child molesters and sick minded individuals who are way beyond recovery, I do recognize the justice system is very dubious, flawed and fallible. In which case, I rather deal with unjust sentences to such psychopaths — e.g., just a few years in prison — than dealing with the death penalty given to innocents.

What do you consider "beyond recovery"? Is it those which you've mentioned? I would agree that I don't see anyone convicted of those crimes (assuming they're actually guilty) being within the realm of being able to be helped. Mostly just asking for clarity and out of curiosity of what you may consider the "line".

 

Also let's hope there aren't too many cases of seriously twisted individuals getting off easier than they should or walking free, though I agree, while it's a thought that makes me quite uneasy, it probably already happens to some degree anyways and i'd prefer innocents were not killed.

 

1 hour ago, Josh said:

I dunno, perhaps as weird as it sounds it should be a voluntary option for those with life sentences, but you’d need a pretty robust framework to ensure people are not coerced into it against their will. I’m similarly for euthanasia and it’s not so much of a stretch between. 
 

I don’t think anyone should be sentenced to death. Even when you think it’s a clear cut case, there’s been enough times where it’s been overturned as new evidence came to light... sometimes it was close to an irreversible mistake. Makes you wonder how many mistakes there have been, and I’m sure over time more will come to light. 

Interesting, never really thought of this or heard it really pitched before. As you and others have said (which isn't something I really knew going into this thread) the legal processes seem to be the expensive part, so this would actually be cheaper and to some degree beneficial. However, do you feel as if this is essentially letting people take the easy way out instead of paying/suffering for their crimes? Do you think if this option were offered, the families of the victims should be required to agree? Personally I don't feel it'd be right if someone took a family member for me and then got to check out without anyone other than themselves approving of it. I'd prefer they rot, but that could just be me.

1 hour ago, Alex said:

I can't speak to the first two, but I can answer your last point. Due to the cost of the appeals process, it's actually cheaper for the state to keep someone in the prison system indefinitely (i.e. life sentence with/without the chance of parole). 

 

On topic I think the death penalty is completely inhumane. The amount of people who have been executed and later exonerated of the crime they were convicted of is extremely tough to look at. If people have committed truly heinous acts, and there are plenty of individuals who have, let them spend the rest of their lives in prison separated from society. 

 

 

Interesting, I didn't know that it was the appeals process that made it more expensive than imprisoning them for life. I remember hearing that it was more expensive to execute and not really understanding why but I probably should've just looked it up. I also agree that i'd probably prefer most of the truly fucked individuals who've committed horrible crimes just sit and rot until they expire. 

1 hour ago, Req said:

No in the US - too expensive from all the appeals and the inmates usually end up sitting on death row for ages wasting even more resources.

 

I suspect many of the other countries listed don't have as strong legal systems.  In those cases, the death penalty would save money vs life imprisonment and should remain. 

 

 

 

If it's in a country with a weaker legal system though, wouldn't that potentially increase the likelihood that someone is being wrongfully convicted, and thus, wrongfully killed? 

1 hour ago, Out said:

I wonder how many plea deals are taken to avoid a potential death penalty.

 

It's not a thing here so I don't have that strong of an opinion on it. I'd probably edge towards removing it due to the inherent risk of an innocent person losing their life.

Good question. I'd imagine there is a fair amount of them both from innocent individuals scared they'll be convicted and not wanting to be sentenced to death, and legitimate criminals who would just prefer to not die. I looked a bit up on google and most of them were very long to the extent they'd put some of my longest threads/posts on these forums to shame. 

There are a few cases mentioned here where innocents were convicted as a result of this:

https://ejusa.org/resource/plea-bargains/

One of the individuals, after looking it up, seems also had mental disabilities and they got a confession out of him after he was told confess or get the death penalty. Pretty fucked.

[@True 2k8 3,227]

10 minutes ago, Adam_ said:

Ye except if they actually manage to escape just yeet em back in fuck em

Only two have escaped from what I've read. A very young girl and a billionaire who was imprisoned by a former prisoner. 

[RagingPanda 339]

Death Penalty should be reserved for pedophiles and serial killers.

Edited April 20, 2021 by RagingPanda

[£Blogs 452]

The death penalty is categorically wrong outright, let alone the staggering quantity of overturned death convictions (when in fact one is enough to make it reprehensible).

 

I also strongly disagree with life without parole as a sentence (although do not disagree with someone getting life in prison and being found to not deserve parole).

 

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Blogs

[Kura 373]

1 hour ago, Adam_ said:

What do you consider "beyond recovery"? Is it those which you've mentioned? I would agree that I don't see anyone convicted of those crimes (assuming they're actually guilty) being within the realm of being able to be helped. Mostly just asking for clarity and out of curiosity of what you may consider the "line".

 

Also let's hope there aren't too many cases of seriously twisted individuals getting off easier than they should or walking free, though I agree, while it's a thought that makes me quite uneasy, it probably already happens to some degree anyways and i'd prefer innocents were not killed.

 

Yes, primarily the ones I've mentioned, but I think it could be applied to reoffenders of first and second degree murder as well, etc. — a situation actually possible in places like where I live. I don't think drawing an exactly line *for every case* would be a fair option; depending on which case you'll need to take into account several details that could change the sentence, of course. But then again, we're discussing these matters in an ideal criminal justice system, in a world in which it actually would work properly the way it's supposed to.

 

Unfortunately such feeling as hope isn't very common when you have a death toll reaching 50-65k murders per year, with most of them even without getting a solution. So, although I'd appreciate such serious measure being applied in a situation as serious as that, the very fact that the system fails to provide public safety to the community well-being tells me it would be greatly unwise to rely on this same exact system to punish people with death sentence. It really feels like a dead end I guess. 

[€dnd5 1,001]

I think the posts about the death penalty being the easy way out aren’t entirely true. For instance in South Carolina they recently had to change their death penalty options because people knew that if they picked lethal injection they would be waiting on death row indefinitely. 
 

https://apnews.com/article/columbia-bills-executions-south-carolina-prisons-d2109813b075045377aae18e25b2fef5

 

 

That being said I don’t believe it is our choice to choose whether a person lives or dies, even through the court system. People are imperfect and sometimes mistakes are made in the trial process. 

[Adam_ 1,040]

2 hours ago, dnd5 said:

I think the posts about the death penalty being the easy way out aren’t entirely true. For instance in South Carolina they recently had to change their death penalty options because people knew that if they picked lethal injection they would be waiting on death row indefinitely. 
 

https://apnews.com/article/columbia-bills-executions-south-carolina-prisons-d2109813b075045377aae18e25b2fef5

 

 

That being said I don’t believe it is our choice to choose whether a person lives or dies, even through the court system. People are imperfect and sometimes mistakes are made in the trial process. 

Interesting, though i'm not familiar with why it would be any different sitting on death row indefinitely as opposed to just serving a life sentence without the death penalty. I would still say that assuming it actually gets carried out, that's probably still "better" (and I use that term loosely) than sitting in jail forever in a lot of cases. Bringing back execution by firing squad though what the hell, I don't know that i'd ever argue the death penalty is "humane" but I feel like that's kind of an even more fucked up way to carry it out. 

 

A lot of people have said the same as what you mention with the possibility of innocents being sentenced and I agree, that is a pretty significant reason to abolish the death penalty. 

[Josh 137]

7 hours ago, Adam_ said:

 

 

Interesting, never really thought of this or heard it really pitched before. As you and others have said (which isn't something I really knew going into this thread) the legal processes seem to be the expensive part, so this would actually be cheaper and to some degree beneficial. However, do you feel as if this is essentially letting people take the easy way out instead of paying/suffering for their crimes? Do you think if this option were offered, the families of the victims should be required to agree? Personally I don't feel it'd be right if someone took a family member for me and then got to check out without anyone other than themselves approving of it. I'd prefer they rot, but that could just be me.

 

I don't think the families should be involved, just like they're not involved in sentencing (e.g if you kill the mother of a disabled child who is also the carer for the child, you don't get a different punishment to someone who killed a different mother (non carer).

 

I also wouldn't say it's the easy way out, many countries suffer with jail overcrowding as it is. It'd be more beneficial to the wider population on the whole, and I'm of the view it's a much bigger price (in Europe at least, most people with life sentences can still get out with good behaviour for 20 something years and showing they reform).