How is the death penalty unjust?

>Justice is not vengeance.

I've yet to hear a compelling argument why that should be the case.

>Our decisions should be based on feelings of outrage and grief
>we should risk executing innocent people to satisfy our emotions
>only child murders get executed
>prisoners can't be forced to work to pay for their upkeep

Where do you live where you'd be allowed to own any kind of sharp tool or not be used as forced labour in the most monotonous work possibly?

Justice can be a virtue to be upheld as a higher moral standard, the kind of thing we use to govern our laws to avoid behaving cruelly and without sense. Or it can be an excuse to act out people's base desires for retribution. But I don't think blood for blood does any worthwhile good, even if it may feel right in the moment.

>Our decisions should be based on feelings of outrage and grief

Yes, actually. Punishing crimes is for the most part retribution. Capital punishment is well-suited to deal with cases where rehabilitation is not an option, such as, but not limited to, the murdering of childeren.

>we should risk executing innocent people to satisfy our emotions

As opposed to letting someone rot in jail for the rest of his life? This risk can be minimised with a more stringent criterion for capital punishment. For example 'with near-certainty rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

You are not convincing user. Civilization begins at the executioners' sword.

It's not. We should start hanging people again.

People jaywalking should be executed.

A person exhibiting such a blatant disregard for the most basic of a society's traffic laws cannot and must not be allowed to sully our traffic laws. They are rules for a reason and must be upheld.

edgy

You could just kill him yourself, theres the video of the man shooting his childs karate teacher because he molested him, I dont think anything happened to him. If you really believe in it and feel strongly why not just act upon those feelings and kill him as the killer of your child did with his. Cause it sounds like you'll just get to party in jail hey free shelter!!!

jail sucks bro spent two years for selling coke (dumbass 18 y/0) and I live in Canada lol it was a fucking shit hole and if people know you're a child molester your time is going to get a whole lot worse because there is no sympathy from anyone no guards, no prisoners will give a fuck about you u less you're valuable somehow

I had a guy try to stab me in the neck because I was "looking at him the wrong way"

As a bystander im not really convinced by you either

I like how people also put some weird quote or saying at the end of their ramblings like their some wise sage dropping knowledge

I'm stunned by the soundness of your argument. How can I argue against it now?

My post wasn't even edgy, you moron.

It was an accepted world view though, not trying to look like some wise sage. Execution is way to up hold society, by giving the most severe crimes the most servere punishment.

>Because innocent people are sometimes convicted for things they didn't do.
So the solution is to let them rot in jail for their life until someone decides to reopen their case and prove them innocent?

The state gives you freedom and can take it away from you anytime
But the state never gave you your life, therefor has no right over it

(Not that guy) wouldn't it all be variables? Depends on who you are, if you'd rather just die knowing you are innocent to avoid being in jail and having a chance of freedom then sure I guess. But what if your case is reopened because someone gave a fuck about you and knew it was wrong and you spend only a year?

It's not really a solution lol there will always be a party unhappy when you're dealing with other peoples lives. Its easy to give your opinion when you're not in the mix, if i was going to be killed I would sure as hell try my hardest to prove them wrong and avoid death as long as possible

But thats just me

Its better than being dead. Its not a solution, but it opens up more possibilities than the alternative. They can keep trying to prove their innocence, and they can be alive. Prison shouldn't be a place where people rot in the first place.

>to act out people's base desires for retribution.

There's nothing wrong with that as long as there's no mob justice involved.

>most severe crimes

And pray tell, how would you determine what the "most severe crimes" are? Tax evasion is more damaging to the state than someone offing a toddler.

Because killing is immoral. Just because the government does it doesn't mean it suddenly becomes okay.

Before you reply to this post, think to yourself. Would you kill someone for any reason other than self defense? If you answer true, then you should be sent to a mental hospital.

Because the false convictions for death penalties, discovered after the fact, range from 16% to 20% depending on the state. Do you really want a government system with this track record to have the power to kill?

Plus, folks with experience with secret information, tend to be useful.

>killing them humanely is also expencive
Clearly you've never seen the helium suicide package info image complete with Amazon links. Killing humanely is cheap as dirt, but there is the problem that you gotta get a doctor on board to monitor the situation.

The trials are a problem though, which yes, is what really makes it more expensive to put someone to death than to keep them in prison. Granted, the life expectancy in prison isn't real high either.

On top of all that, sometimes death penalty inmates are useful. Even absolutely guilty niggers, like Tookie Williams, negotiated a few dozen peace deals between various gangs with his street cred alone, probably saving far more lives (even "blue lives") than he took. ...But we still killed the nigger.

Even among the nuttier ones, they always at least make for interesting psyche papers.

>Why is murder unjust

becasue it's unlawful

Do you really want citizens to be subject to the state officials' whims? Retribution can't be quantified, sentences based on emotion would be unfairly biased by the nature of the sentence giver.

A wrongfully convicted person in jail is better than them being dead, obviously.

When I say civilization, I mean the idea that the state exists to protect its citizens' rights, not just a governing body using power to enforce its laws.

I think human life should be put before emotional needs. A person can get over their feelings, they can't get over being dead.

>comparing tax evasion with killing a young child

Come now user. Are you actually autistic, or just trolling?

Severe crime, in this context, is decided on by the societal outrage caused by the crime. Use your brains before posting.

>Because killing is immoral

Is killing someone in self-defense immoral too?
Killing as punishment for a crime warranting capital punishment is not immoral, in fact, I would argue it is the moral thing to do.

>societal outrage caused by the crime

If retards like you were making the laws murricans would still hang negroes for marrying white woman.

Fuck off with your feelings, justice is blind.

Then it's simply your opinion that you're entitled too and thus not a compelling argument why justice can't be vengeance.

Societal outrage is just code for mob justice. The angrier we feel about it doesn't determine the crime's severity. If societal outrage was the benchmark for a crime's weight then killing a woman would be worse than killing a man, stabbing would be worse than shooting, if and how the body was disposed of would be more significant to the sentencing, and the victim's social status (e.g. if they were a priest, a doctor, or fireman, etc.) would be taken into account. It turns crime into a murky affair, ultimately subject to a court's particular interpretation of the circumstances.

>Do you really want citizens to be subject to the state officials' whims?

No, of course I don't want that. That's why we the judiciary as an independent branch of government, with death penalties requiring the unanimous consent of a jury, in the US at least.

>Retribution can't be quantified, sentences based on emotion would be unfairly biased by the nature of the sentence giver.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by this. A life long jail sentence can't be quantified as retribution or rehabilitation. A judge can't just sentence people to death on a whim, it has a be a crime which carries the death penalty and he has to motivated his decision clearly. If he doesn't, and says: "I just did it on a whim", it will get shot down in appeal.

> I mean the idea that the state exists to protect its citizens' rights, not just a governing body using power to enforce its laws.

Part of protecting citizen rights is by punishing people who infringe upon these rights user. Some times, this happens by capital punishment.

>we should KILL A PERSON because i dont like them and they cost money
Jesus Christ

>Jesus Christ
Well, that is why we killed him.

Perhaps I should have worded it better. I meant the sentence, not the crime, is in part determined by societal outrage.

But what you are only proving my point user. Both murdering a 5 year old girl and killing an old man are a plain murders, however, the killer of the young girl will most likely get a harsher punishment.

>It turns crime into a murky affair, ultimately subject to a court's particular interpretation of the circumstances.

It is like this all over the world. I have studied law and this is a known problem, but not something that can be completely eliminated, as long as the judging is done by humans.

Inshallah brothers, we will bring Sharia punishment to these kaffir in time. "Secular" is just another term for Satan. Allah tells us what to believe, and eye for an eye is best.

The argument against vengance is pretty easy and im suprised you are dumb enough to not realise it: Nobody needs to care about another persons feelings.

Justice can be anything, its just a word. No argument can be made as to why justice as vengeance is wrong. I just view emotional needs as having very little legal value, but morality is subjective.

There is no argument there, you placing such a high value on human life is arbitrary and based on feelings that I don't care about.

Who says im placing high value on human life, im placing it on my own. Id rather be life in prison while innocent thant get executed immideatly and then goverment saying they fucked up later.

>justice as vengeance
And that right there, is a key problem. In a nation where the average juror making the decision doesn't know the difference between justice and revenge, they should by no means be offered the opportunity to make it.

>unanimous consent of a jury
That's 12 people's whims

>A life long jail sentence can't be quantified as retribution or rehabilitation
It would be neither retribution nor rehabilitation, just separating a dangerous person from society. What I mean by quantifying retribution is that too some people, a murder should get 25 years in jail, and to others the murderer should be flayed alive, and others will think the fitting punishment lies anywhere in between. None are right or wrong, there is no way to judge what level of punishment is just and fitting to a crime. A crime's corresponding punishment should have nothing to with retribution. Retribution shouldn't be a legal matter since no amount of retribution is the right amount.

>Part of protecting citizen rights is by punishing people who infringe upon these rights
Captial punishment does not make citizens' rights any more secure than imprisonment does. If anything, giving the state that power makes their rights less secure since the state can legally kill the same people it is supposed to protect.

I do agree with that except that I think emotional needs of the majority have to be considered when drafting laws.

Then it's not an argument against vengeance and justness of death penalty for vile crimes but against faults of judiciary that I can sympathize with.

My argument against vengance is still same: I dont care about your feelings.

> Both murdering a 5 year old girl and killing an old man are a plain murders, however, the killer of the young girl will most likely get a harsher punishment

That's how it is, but the two murders should be treated equally. The victim shouldn't prejudice the crime.

>It is like this all over the world. I have studied law and this is a known problem, but not something that can be completely eliminated, as long as the judging is done by humans
But take away the death penalty and it just becomes a range of prison time and fines. One criminal getting five years more than another due to societal outrage is less of an issue than life and death.

I disagree, laws are meant to protect rights, not feelings. Feelings are too personal to be a matter of law, we all know of examples where people cared too much about something unimportant. If society can't fulfill their emotional needs while having their rights then they need to change, not he laws.

>Retribution shouldn't be a legal matter

It has been the corner of criminal law for millennia and continues to be just that to this day. Even if law professors don't like to admit it because of humanitarian and rehabilitation reasons. Without retribution, people will take matters in their own hands.

>just separating a dangerous person from society.

This can't always be a base for imprisonment, because in some cases, criminals are not at serious risk of commiting a second crime, meaning they would walk. After all, if they are not a risk to society, they shouldn't be imprisoned by your logic.

>Captial punishment does not make citizens' rights any more secure than imprisonment does. If anything, giving the state that power makes their rights less secure since the state can legally kill the same people it is supposed to protect.

I understand your point very well, but what if the people want capital punishment? Also, a dead criminal can't escape, slurp up tax-payer money by virtue of just existing or commit another crime.

>That's how it is, but the two murders should be treated equally.

You are completely delusional, my friend. No law system in the world works like this. ALL circumstances of the crime are taken into account when it comes to the sentence.

Too bad that this doesn't answer the question why justice can't be vengeance.

Unpragmatic approach. If laws are too detached from the people subjected to them they stand a chance to be rejected.

Law is not perfect. Therefore death penalty can unjustly kill an innocent.

>It has been the corner of criminal law for millennia and continues to be just that to this day. Even if law professors don't like to admit it because of humanitarian and rehabilitation reasons. Without retribution, people will take matters in their own hands
The is-ought problem. How it is now doesn't change how it should be. If people take matters into their own hands, they will face legal consequences. Vigilante action would be difficult since the criminals are still going to jail, just not as a form of retribution.

>This can't always be a base for imprisonment
No, usually the goal is rehabilitation, but if rehabilitation is impossible is just keeps the offender away from everyone else.
>After all, if they are not a risk to society, they shouldn't be imprisoned by your logic
Yes? What good does it do to punish someone who isn't going to do anything wrong? Any criminal is a risk until rehabilitated, but continuing to punish someone after they've rehabilitated is cruel and pointless. And the criminal still has to pay their debt to society by paying for damages. Of course for murder you can't put a price on life so how much rehabilitation and debt is fair is a tough call.

>what if the people want capital punishment?
I don't think what people want is important to the criminal justice system. Those laws should only protect rights, nothing more. The will of the people can influence other laws, like taxes, trade, etc. but not criminal justice.

>Also, a dead criminal can't escape, slurp up tax-payer money by virtue of just existing or commit another crime
This is completely true, but not a matter of justice in my opinion. Its the best option, but not the right choice.

> No law system in the world works like this. ALL circumstances of the crime are taken into account when it comes to the sentence.
Yeah, it works that way, but it doesn't have to. A system could exist to give fairer sentences that are more equal between similar crimes.

Are you serioisly equating jaywalkiing to multiple counts of homicide? How do law threads bring out the retard in so many people?

Why don't we just put people sentenced to die in a contained area or island and just leave them? Seriously?

>I have studied law

I find that unlikely, given the retardation of your posts.

What is the quickest and least painful way to kill someone?

No joke, but I think that cutting people's head is the quickest and the least painful way(since it cut the spinal cord).

It seems cruel, but the quickest way to kill someone. What do you anons think?

It's not, bleeding hearts and retardedly anti-statist people think so. Capital punishment is completely reasonable.

Messy, 5+ minutes of brain activity post mortem. If you're aiming for spectacular ritual, it's great, but otherwise...

Most painless would probably be a nitrogen mask, or room. Brain doesn't realize it's suffocating, so there's no suffocation panic. Make it a room and don't announce it, and the target won't even get the panic attack from knowing when its going to happen. (Though the mask is cheaper, of course.)

ITT: youre just as bad as murderors if you kill them

In a more perfect world, I might agree with you, oddly enough.

But in a world where the state executes the wrong person nearly 1 in 5 times. Where the death penalty is applied based on the amount of rage that the offence causes, rather than the likelihood of the offender to repeat said offence, and a world where the most common crime to bring the death penalty (murder with aggravating circumstances), is in no way deterred by said, as generally speaking, when a human being commits such an act, the consequences are the last thing on his mind... It's the furthest thing from reasonable.

I would have less of a problem with it if it was restricted to those likely to repeat the offence and had a strict Red-Handed Clause attached. From the other direction, the sanity of the individual shouldn't be a factor, particularly if the insanity isn't temporary, or likely to recur.

While it does nothing to deter most murders, I suppose it might do something for High Treason though. That's generally a lengthy premeditated act that takes place at the intellectual level weighing the pros and cons.

But I'm of the school that believes criminal liability should be about public safety, restitution, and rehabilitation, in that order. As there is no opportunity for restitution in the case of murder, and rarely room for rehabilitation, removing the offender from society, in whatever fashion, is the only task left. Given that the justice system is so desperately and inherently flawed, it seems execution is a poor option vs. supermax, at least until fundamental changes can be made to improve its track record.

My native language isn't English. If you mean my arguments, please refute them. Shouldn't be hard, since they are retarded.

Murder =/= killing

Because it makes exoneration impossible for no other reason than "muh feels"

I wouldn't say it's unjust, but I'm opposed to it since it's only an effective deterrent in countries where people are executed quickly like China or Singapore. But executions happening that quickly also increases the chance of innocent people being executed.

In countries like the US, where executions only happen after years of appeals, executions are too infrequent to serve as a useful deterrent. We also only execute people for murder nowadays, so it could only theoretically deter one crime. Furthermore, the cost of all those appeals exceeds the cost of a life imprisonment. There's really no point in keeping the dealth penalty when it's only symbolic and too expensive. And I don't think it's possible for the US to reform the dealth penalty to the point where we could execute people efficently like China or Singapore.

So fuck it, let's not bother with an execution and just throw the fuckers in jail for life and throw away the key. That's better than having to hear about some asshole murderer in the news again and again for years after cause he has yet another appeal.

What is wrong with getting secret agents killed? Seems to me you should get a pension for that.

>For whatever reason its cheaper to feed someone in a cell for a life time than it is to inject liquid death into them.

Reminder that a bullet in the head is instant kill and therefore as human as the liquid bullshit

>to avoid behaving cruelly and without sense.

Vengeance isnt behaving cruelly and without sense

I respectfully disagree.

>But in a world where the state executes the wrong person nearly 1 in 5 times. Where the death penalty is applied based on the amount of rage that the offence causes, rather than the likelihood of the offender to repeat said offence, and a world where the most common crime to bring the death penalty (murder with aggravating circumstances), is in no way deterred by said, as generally speaking, when a human being commits such an act, the consequences are the last thing on his mind... It's the furthest thing from reasonable.

The part about risk of killing innocents is the only intelligent argument in this paragraph
The rest is just typical leftist "I'm entitled not to receive what I inflicted" retardation

Vengeance isnt wanton, therfore it isnt behaving without a sense
As for the cruelty, it only applies if the vengeance is harsher than the act that caused it

Again, I respectfully disagree. I consider the desire of vengeance to be without sense, and vengeance itself to be cruel.

You seem to be implying that vengeance is deserved of anyone who has victimized another, therefore, it makes sense that a victim would desire vengeance. I disagree. You also seem to imply that, since vengeance is deserved of an offender, it is not cruel to enact it. Again, I disagree.

If you did not imply these things, I apologize.

Daily reminder that OP is almost certainly an American, a sandnigger or an Asian.

Because those 3rd world places are the only ones who have the death penalty. The rest of us are civilized people.

>tfw you would be executed if you went to Saudi Arabia

>I consider the desire of vengeance to be without sense, and vengeance itself to be cruel.

You happen to be a cuckold who votes on the left and thus are barely a human being at all

Sorry for offending your sensitive political outlook. Have you considered posting on a site that operates a much stricter discussion, so as to avoid encountering people who disagree with you? If so, please try Reddit.

Also, nice dubs.

>The rest of us are civilized people.

And here's what you get as a reward

>the most industrialized, technologically advanced regions of earth are 3rd world because they don't agree with me

The Asians seem to be the only people left who understand how a nation-state works.

Murder == intentional killing

Capital punishment is murder.

Nope, murder is unlawful killing, that's the literal definition. It doesn't matter if it's on purpose or not.

>the most industrialized, technologically advanced regions of earth

So, not the U.S in other words.

>Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.[1][2][3]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Capital punishment is lawful and has a justification
Try again

It seems to me that the only reason a debate on the subject exists is cause drawing the hardline that killing is morally abhorrent in all circumstances is a great way to show off how moral and virtuous you are

Gonna tell me that killing people is wrong even when the guy on deathrow is straight up evil or a psychopath, the fuck outta here

Leftards can't into pragmatism
Virtue signaling is what they live for

Killing isn't immoral in all circumstances. It's just immoral in any other circumstance than self-defense.

A cold clinical death is hardly getting what they received in most cases. Indeed, you can't usually give them what they received without being excessively and creatively cruel (call me a leftist, but I don't want my state institutions to be as psychotic as the mass murderers it puts down). More effective, even vengeance-wise, to keep them alive and suffering over time.

Personally, I'd take the quick death over 20 years+ in prison, but for a lot of these guys, prison has become par for the course, I suppose.

>If you sell information that kills secret agents

Who fucking cares, intelligence agencies are almost always in the wrong.

>you should be tortured, let alone killed

Ascribing moral authority to a hypothetical (generic) authority makes it seem like you wish for anybody and anything to be above and over you. Fucking faggot cuck

No, this shit's fucking retarded.

>hey man morals don't exist
Then spend two dollars shooting him you faggot

>you can't murder somebody because of muh feelings
what about if they're an actual fucking murderor than has forfeit their right?

Potential false accusations are the only actual argument itt, the rest are retarded as hell.

Were you even intending to respond to my post?

I'll at least pretend you were - you're assuming that intelligence dindus weren't causing far more harm than good anyways. Or on a matter of more obvious and higher moral propinquity, violating the rights of others. In a consequentialist sense, the guy selling the information is the real dindu. The action is at least morally grey if not outright morally superior (or less immoral, kek)

The state does not give freedom. If anything it restricts freedom in return for safety/civilization. This also means by your argument they have no right to take your freedom.