Death Sentence

What do you think? Is it still relevant, did your country still practice it (and how)?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States
phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/28/how-many-people-are-wrongly-convicted-researchers-do-the-math/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The U.S. still practices it even though it has no effect on crime rates. It's some sort of weird pagan ritual.

Last person executed in my country, during peacetime, was in 1825.

I would not call death penalty relevant. It does not reduce the numbers and you pretty much force other citizens to be involved via proxy in the execution because a country is its citizens.

>Is it still relevant
Rich thinking:
>How barbaric, the thought of being locked away with all those rapist and criminals would stop anyone from committing a crime. They don't even have T.V. in prison!

Poor thinking:
>Life sucks
>I should commit a crime, get away with it and i'l have some walking around money, get caught and I will end up in jail.
>In jail i'l get regular meals, be able to work out / play basket ball all day, and I can make some rich boy my bitch.
>Better not kill anybody though because I could get death row.

It absolutely does not work that way though.

Deterrence isn't the only function of punishment. We also want to segregate bad guys from the good guys and to hurt bad guys in proportion to their wrong.

Deterrence does not work. Murder is committed for 3 reasons, passion (sudden emotional bursts that can be controlled by only so much), profit (professional killers who do it rationally and do not think they will get caught/try not to get caught) and compulsion (mental illness, people with serious mental issues). These kind of murderers cannot be deterred.

Peter Hitchens made a good case for the Death Penalty once.

Essentially the death penalty for killing or perhaps even injuring a Police officer was why the Police in England didn't need to carry firearms.

> not using based guillotine
Modern death sentence is shit.

I propose the following rule:

If you commit a criminal offense 3 times you will be sentenced to death.

It is impossible to accidentally fuck up 3 times so its a fool proof system.

Right mate. I'm saying that the death penalty need not have a deterrent effect to be useful because it serves other functions.

I'm sure that effect couldn't be shown empirically. Other European nations probably have comparable police homicide rates.

vigilantism by an informed and armed citizenry is far more effective and effecient to strats of control & geographical inheretence projection, and protection

It's not just about deterrence. Killing them prevents them from breeding, and having more murders.
>But muh crime of passion!
we all get passionate and greedy, we all don't act on our impulses.

You can argue for "eliminating a problem", but what do we have to give in return?

Let the offenders think about their crimes in prison for the rest of their lives, but do not kill in another person's name...

>Vigilantism
Sure.
>OMG I DONT LIKE X DUE TO PETTY REASONS.
>ME TOO BECAUSE HE'S SO ANTI-SOCIAL AND DO NOT COME TO TOWN GATHERINGS.
>LET'S LYNCH HIM IN THE FIRST CRIME HE COMMITS.

You're basically espousing facebook comment-section justice.

strata* oops

>What if said people already made such a fucked up crime during the first attempt?

>Let the offenders think about their crimes in prison for the rest of their lives
1. That costs money. A lot of money. You are taking care of someone, for the rest of there life.

2. They are not thinking about there crimes, they are thinking about how to get drugs/sex/whatever will make there time more enjoyable.

3. Life imprisonment is much much more cruel then a death sentence. Because its 50+ years trapped in a small space, followed by a death sentence.

>Implying police don't try to add as many charges as possible when arresting.

Agreed.
Guillotine is not only a much more guaranteed method of a swift and painless death, but it is also /mu/core

There is also the factor that would you really trust the government to kill a human being?
With all the things they do really well...

Obviously the law has to be changed a bit.

>1. That costs money. A lot of money. You are taking care of someone, for the rest of there life.

The legal costs of the court hearings required to execute someone are greater, unless you want to cut down on those and risk executing innocents even more than what already happens.

That's what government does best. Its the central function of government.

Please dont offer bad arguments for my position.

1. The death penalty as it works in the US is more expensive because of the lengthy appeals process that can last 30+ years. It is in effect life imprisonment plus 30 years of legal fees provided by the taxpayer. The death penalty sentencing and appeals rules mist be changed in order to make it cost effective.

3. Most prisoners on death row, even those who have no chance of getting their conviction reversed, voluntarily appeal their sentence, thus prolonging their prison stay. Facts show that they do everything in their power to avoid death and choose to prolong their sentence over death.

It appears to be more expensive for the state than life imprisonment, and there's always the possibility of executing an innocent.
Frankly I see no upsides to it, outside of situations where keeping prisoners might lead to problems, but nowadays that's not the case outside of war or other peculiar situations.

Bump , i like what you are exposing guys

It costs more to keep them in Death Row than life in prison. You started with a false premise, congratulations. You never even bothered to look anything up.

>would you really trust the government to kill a human being
If they're willing to put in death row people who have no business being there, they'd have no trouble setting up accidents and shit.
It's not much of an argument, the state will always have a near monopoly on force regardless of how you regulate it to use it.

It depends on whether you think it is more humane than solitary.

What if the death penalty could only be implied in cases of purposeful or premeditated murder?

Not only that but if the victim had a family, they could elect to have the victim put on death row but the default (if no family or if they don't choose to speak up) is a life sentence with no parole.

What is wrong with this viewpoint?

Open to criticism.

I broadly support the death penalty:

1. Some crimes (which can be proved beyond reasonable doubt) are so heinous that the perpetrator has essentially forfeited their right to live in society.

2. For crimes that would currently require lifelong prison sentences, such prisoners are currently an unwelcome burden to society and state.

3. Prisoners for whom rehabilitation is not a possibility.

The penalty should be hanging, with all effort to ensure a swift death, and should be carried out in the shortest time possible after sentencing and allowing for appeal (no more than 3 months).

>It costs more money to kill then to keep alive.
This is a problem with the system not the penalty.

The fact that it takes 30+ years to kill someone after they are convicted is the fault of the U.S.'s justice system. It does not actually take 30+ years to execute someone. It does not actually cost more money to kill someone.
This is just the way the system is set up.

I was hoping most people here would be smart enough to grasp that without having to have me explain it.

I was hoping you'd be smart enough to know the reason we wait 30 years to kill someone. *sigh*

It's retarded. It's expensive as fuck, doesn't act as a deterrent and, of course, people are known to have been found innocent after being executed.

not with this corrupted piece of shit system we have to live in

Bring back the guillotine.

If you allowed families of murder victims to excercise that kind of power, they would condemn the murder to death 9 times out of 10. The blame for the murder's death therefore falls on the shoulders of the victim's family, which could in turn prompt those close to the murder to carry out revenge hits on the former.

That cycle would repeat, and it would ultimately end in a bloodbath.

Death penalty is good.

>there are people who unironically argue that child rapists and cannibal murderers should be subsidized by taxpayer money until they die of old age

>i-it costs more

No, actually. It costs more to put them on death row what with the repeated legal costs. Cut out those and you have even MORE innocents being executed.

The death penalty literally does not have any of the benefits it's proponents assert. It's a fundamentally flawed idea based on vengeance.

I live in the US where it is still used. I support it, but it is far too liberal. It should only be used in the worse crimes and only in situations where the chances the person in question is innocent are near 0%.

In other words we need more streamlined executions and not stupid legal clutter because of a marginal chance of "muh judicial errors".

It seems like family feuds would have the basic problem getting off the ground

>you had my son killed
>I'll kill you
>attempt to kill member of opposite family
>everyone, including the criminal justice system, and your prospective victim, knows exactly who you are and why you're pissed
>go to jail
>you made my uncle go to jail
>I'll kill you
>process repeats until family of the original executee is totally wiped out or gives up

That and most of the people in this country who commit murder have no idea who their father is.

I flip back and forth on the death penalty a lot just because it's a difficult issue.

On one hand, I don't like men doling out death to ones that aren't a threat. It's a very final solution to a criminal, one that offers no recourse if someone innocent was found guilty, not to mention it's essentially putting down a person like a rabid dog.

On the other hand, it's nice to be able to impose the ultimate punishment on truly heinous individuals. Bringing justice to families affected by crime is a wonderful thing, and permanently removing dangerous individuals is great too.

I'm aware that it serves no purpose as a deterrent to crime, but neither is prison after a certain point of criminal action. Speaking personally though, if I had the choice between life in prison or the death sentence, I'd probably pick death just because life in a cage isn't worth living (Assuming I got to pick the manner of my execution, that is.).

>citizenry
>informed

>marginal chance we literally might end an innocent man's life made more likely

Leave me out of it, wew

this

i agree with it in principle but implementation frankly isn't worth it.

A person who commits a crime fitting of the death penalty really is no better than a rabid dog.

this is politics not history

>Bringing justice to families affected by crime is a wonderful thing

Who says that those families want the criminal executed, though?

Personally even if someone did something horrible like kill my boyfriend I wouldn't want them executed. I don't believe in vengeance in generally and especially not in such a permanent way.

Do you think that the use of the death penalty should be a choice for those afflicted by the crime, then? What if some of the people afflicted say the criminal should be executed and others say he shouldn't?

i think people sentenced to death should be forced to fight to the death on gladiatorial arenas instead of plain, boring execution.

[Citation needed]

Many of these studies were conducted during a death penalty moratorium, which is not the same as having no death penalty at all.

I'm innocent and don't mind dying to keep the system going smoothly.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States

University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross led a team of experts in the law and in statistics that estimated the likely number of unjust convictions. The study determined that at least 4% of people on death row were and are likely innocent. The research was peer reviewed and the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published it. Gross has no doubt that some innocent people have been executed.


"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

>Personally even if someone did something horrible like kill my boyfriend I wouldn't want them executed.

Guess he didnt mean that much to you then lol
Seriously though WTF? Sounds like you'd fucking date your BF's killer 'cos he was stronger' you vapid person. If i lost my significant other id want some form of justice and by that i mean body pieces even if it was a robbery gon awry.

What if your boyfriend was tortured,sodamized, died slowly in agony and then dissolved in an acid bath? saying you knew that, then how would you feel? still not angry enough for blood you fucking robot?

>[Citation needed]
Because it is not obvious that the US has insane crime rates.

Does it not?

>That and most of the people in this country who commit murder have no idea who their father is.
Top Kek

>Sounds like you'd fucking date your BF's killer 'cos he was stronger' you vapid person
Of course I wouldn't do that.

What I'm saying is that there is no gain to me from killing a criminal no matter how horrible the things he did are. I don't feel satisfaction after ruining someone's life just because he did the same to me, and I'm sure there are other people who think the same as me.

>things 16 year olds say

As always, the US sides with the rest of the 3rd world countries.

Alright, im sorry i lost my temper with you there.

I'm sure what your saying is true and i can understand not wanting to seem malicious or cruel but in regards to murder of your boyfriend who im sure you care for dearly, can you not see an injustice to them living? someone who was over all a good man now prematurly snuffed out whilst his killer does some prison but for all you know gets out and gets to live happily ever after with his true love?

In that case it would of course depend on the circumstances but to not want a more solid justice held seems inhuman on your part, at the very least overtly apathetic.

Then again if you think your boyfriends a bit of a dick I guess it would make sense in some way, id need to know more to give a reasonable deciding of the murderers fate.


You might feel im being brash and radicle saying you should execute a murder but I'd actully say its not that clear cut. Your example however does not cast your BF's killer in a good light though.

Was it a crime of passion out of jealousy? a random victim to a serial killer/rapist? very diffrent murders which would deserve very diffrent punishment.

>vigilantism
It's working in the Phillipines isn't it

t. John Wayne

Why not go full Enver Hoxha and bury murderers alive under the corpses of their victims?
Seems to work.

>Having your country filled to the brim with people who jerk off to others being guillotined

No thanks, r9k.

Having a punishment like the death sentence to be reserved for only the most heinous criminals wherein the State reserves its right to punish for the sake of punishment in only a few, clear cut cases seems like a good idea. In the USA's case, there are too many biases and inconsistencies in law enforcement and in our criminal justice system for such a thing to work out as planned. I don't just mean racial and gender-based biases (although those exist), but also the inequality of legal representation, imperfect practices surrounding jury selection, that certain communities are more policed than others, that some judges are more likely to give harsher sentences than others.

When trying people for the death penalty, I think it's important to give people equal treatment and adhere to strict standards and rules. Ultimately the death sentence is too tied to who the victims, criminal and prosecutor are rather than the crime itself in most cases.

As someone in the US who is opposed to the death penalty because of the potential of accidentally executing innocents: fuck whether or not it affects crime rates, some motherfuckers just deserve to die.

My country used to practice it before the UN and American forced them to stop. That resulted in widespread murders and robberies. Now the crime is decreasing again since last year because we hang people by the neck until dead.

civil administration isn't based off 'muh feelings', sjw scum

>Killing them prevents them from breeding, and having more murders.
So is life in prison.
Killing them just satisfies a sense of justice.
One I completely have, hell I would love if it was proportional to the crime commited.
They're lit on fire if they killed someone with fire.
Pedophilia and rape is punished with sodomy and castration.
But I'm a vengeful person and keep my views to myself.

Couldn't you argue that the death penalty is to save money? I.E. Joe Blow killed his wife and instead of feeding him and locking him in a cage on the taxpayer's dollar you just hang him or something?

Or would a privatized prison be more agreeable, wherein they work in exchange for their food/shelter costs?

you tried.

Replace the death penalty with human genetic alteration experiments.

Nah. A pay per view game show!

>Sounds like you'd fucking date your BF's killer 'cos he was stronger' you vapid person

Did you get lost on your way to /r9k/ you moron? That's a ridiculous conclusion to jump to, not wanting someone dead doesn't mean you want to fuck them.

>Professional killers
Pffft hahaha, come spend 5 days in Brazil.

Honestly never understood it.

Surely a full life in prison is worse than death. I mean he is going to die in your prison either way.

I guess it costs a lot more.

Yeah. Nightly ass rapings would be pretty bad for the rest of your life.

Actually it costs more in court costs to put someone to death than it does to keep them alive for life.

Also the problem is that the court system is imperfect. Plenty of people on death row and in life that were exhonarated after new evidence came forward.

I mean if you been in prison for 30 years then "Woo!" I guess. If your dead then well sorry.

I don't think the state should have more rights than the rest of the population of the country.

I have a right to defend myself with lethal force if necessary, but that is to protect my own life. But I don't have the right to kill my neighbor if he killed his daughter in 2010, and I don't think the state should either.

>*Sigh*
This is a joke right?
And do you have any statistics on false positives leading to executions?
Didn't think so.

So what about the motherfuckers that basically certainly commited countless atrocities (here for instance it's really easy to know since sometimes the criminals film themselves doing their sick shit) should we be faggots and pretend that we need more proof than what's reasonable?

If the court is failing at convicting the right people that is an entirely different issue.

>Even more innocents
You're such a bleeding heart bitch, do you actually think there is a large proportion of false convictions followed by death sentence?

1 is 1000 too many

Yes it does you cock-gobbling liberal, it stops them from doing the same shit over and over again.

t. Someone who lives in a place with a shitty legal system with a horrible murder rate
The only deterrent here is the occasional cop shooting robbers up, and even then it doesn't work because "killing muh poor criminals they dindu nuffin they was good boys sure they just raped, killed and sold drugs but they was gonna turn their life around".

Honestly fuck you fucking whore gringos putos cocksucking sons of whores, if you motherfuckers stopped being such drug addicted whoresons we wouldn even have as many problems and then you export this liberal bullcrap?
Fucking off yourself.

>do you actually think there is a large proportion of false convictions followed by death sentence?

phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/28/how-many-people-are-wrongly-convicted-researchers-do-the-math/

>"Gross and his colleagues collected data on the 7,482 people who were sentenced to death between 1973 — the first year of modern death-penalty laws — and 2004. Of these, 117 were exonerated, or 1.6 percent. But among these, 107 were exonerated while they were still on death row"

>"Fortunately it’s probably not many. Innocent defendants are far more likley to have their sentenced changed to life in prison than to be executed. Still, with an error rate of 4 percent, the researchers write, “it is all but certain that several of the 1,320 defendants executed since 1977 were innocent.”"

>several of 1,320 defendants executed since 1977 were innocent.
>several

Not when tens of thousands get murdered, there is no material means to keep motherfuckers in jail and the net gains would outweight the moral costs.
Fuck you.

>But 1 in 1000
If you honestly think that'd be the rate or that it's somehow less horrible to let someone to rot for 40 years in a jail cell then you're just a cunt.

And? Every time a murder gets capped here that is another 3 or 4 people being saved.
You're thinking with colourful "do what's righr and pretty" first world mentality.

>there is no material means to keep motherfuckers in jail
You realise death row inmates spend most of a life sentence in prison anyway?

>But 1 in 1000
Work on that reading comprehension. One is too many, whatever the rate is

Maybe your country is 3rd world because most people share your shitty mentality, have you ever thought of that eh cabron?

>bleeding

If you were a libertarian, you'd argue that we should not give the state the right to put people to death, but rather force them to respect property laws.

Killing people under castle law is a different thing altogether.

the safest countries in the world have the death penalty, e.g. hong kong, singapore, taiwan, japan, south korea.

punishment belongs to criminals, not the innocent. people follow incentives. society functions off of incentives, not your ideals.

What about New Zealand, Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Austria or Switzerland?

If you're the guy who made the original statement

>It is impossible to accidentally fuck up 3 times so its a fool proof system.

And then add the addendum "also we need to change the laws around whether you can get charged for 3 offenses" you probably didn't think it through.

>hong kong, singapore, taiwan, japan, south korea.

These are not the safest countries in the world. Besides, correlation doesn't equal causation, because Honduras also has the death penalty, and it has one of the highest murder rates in the world.

>According to the DOJ, roughly 66% of all criminals are arrested again within 3 years
>Somehow killing these people will have no effect on the crime rate and criminals regardless of their severity are utterly unafraid of death and it wouldn't deter a single one of them
>mfw

The arguments against the death penalty are completely irrational. It's the standard "w-well it wouldn't deter anyone because of these reasons I can't substantiate" and misleading statistics.

I guarantee you if we started hanging a couple thousand criminals a year per state we'd see a drastic drop in crime rates. Kill every rapist, kill every murderer. Regardless of your opinion, keeping them alive in jail for 20 years paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so isn't ideal.

I know the current death penalty system is fucking stupid and criminals spend their whole lives on death row and actually cost us more, but I'd give them 3 sundays to say sorry to whatever god they've got, then hang them.

>killing all people who commit a crime

You're retarded.

>Every time a murder gets capped here that is another 3 or 4 people being saved.

Where do you live that every murderer on average kills or even wants to kill 3 to 4 people?

Can you cite any statistic whatsoever that validates that assertion?

these countries currently have public riots and rape gangs that run around in the streets.

police add extra charges because legal technicalities make conviction unreasonably difficult. it's part of the decay of the larger legal system. but the legal system decaying is not an argument for the LACK of need for punishment

they are though.

and please stop which this ocrrelation causation bullshit. I never said anything of the sort.

What I said is that it works. maybe it's not that ONLY thing that works, or can possibly work. but it's the thing that works the best.

so there ya go, doofus

>but it's the thing that works the best.

The only thing the death penalty does, is satisfying people's hunger for revenge. Nothing else.

And in many cases it doesn't even do that, because people have still lost their loved ones.

US does it but for basically high profile murder cases, like where child rape or brutal attacking is involved, or with serial killers. Applied only in some states where the degeneracy is high. We only really do lethal injection, and where firing squad, hanging, electrocution, and lethal gas are applied it's by choice and lethal injection is always an option.

>Rapists and murderers are all criminals

Might want to improve your reading comprehension before calling other people retards