Lets see Veeky Forums consesus on the death penalty

Smart criminals don't get caught, they get rich.

Why should a random nigger with a Hi-point have greater power over his fellow humans than the Supreme Court does?

Why should death be the exclusive power of criminals?

yes. If you've violated the social contract to the point of getting executed, "le lifetime prison sentence" won't really matter to you.

it should be reserved only for the worst cases and should be used in such a way to elicit extreme psychological torment on the individual. No date of execution and the execution could be any method.

Sometimes life in prison just isn't enough.

My government does not allow for criminals to be executed, but can still take lives through war.

Even if it couldn't, by your logic you cold say "why should rape be the exclusive power of criminals", or "theft", or anything.

>"Derserve" [SIC] is subjective...

THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHO, AND WHY, SOMEONE DOES NOT DESERVE TO LIVE, ARE SUBJECTIVE, BUT THEY CAN BE OBJECTIVELY ESTABLISHED —WHAT DO YOU THINK LAWS, "RIGHTS", "OBLIGATIONS", ETHICOMORAL MORES, ET CETERA, ARE?

SUBJECTIVITY IS NOT EQUIVALENT WITH ARBITRARINESS.

>... as some persons can be wrongfully executed...

WHICH IS WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE A DUE PROCESS, AND WHY CORRUPTION MUST BE NULL AS A PRECONDITION TO ANY STATAL FUNCTION.

>... or the individuals who are not executed despite being a higher threat to the state.

?

UNDER PERFECT LEGAL, AND STATAL, CONDITIONS, WHY WOULD SOMEONE WHO IS A THREAT TO THE STATE NOT BE PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY?

>Execution just invites tyrannical governments.

THAT MAXIM DERIVES FROM THE SAME SPURIOUS LOGIC THAT CLAIMS THAT "POWER CORRUPTS".

IT IS NOT THE CAPABILITY THAT CORRUPTS, BUT CORRUPTION THAT MISUTILIZES CAPABILITY.

YOU ARE BEING NONSEQUITURIAL.

>IT IS NOT THE CAPABILITY THAT CORRUPTS, BUT CORRUPTION THAT MISUTILIZES CAPABILITY.
It is the capability that invites the attention of corruptors.

Yes but not because it should but because the company has allotted itself the extra rights to do so and no one really disagrees with it.

OBVIOUSLY, BUT DOES THAT ENTAIL THAT THE CAPABILITY ITSELF IS MALIGNANT, OR CORRUPTIVE? NO.

ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC, A CHILD WHO HAS BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED WOULD BE AT FAULT, BECAUSE A PEDERAST WAS ATTRACTED TO HIM/HER.

No. It literally serves no purpose. It does not work as a deterrent against crime, otherwise SEA would not have a huge drug trafficking problem, Saudi Arabian gays/apostates would not exist, serial killers would not exist, etc.

Civilized countries do not need to murder its citizens to maintain law and order; the only arguments burgers will give me to say that we should execute criminals, are based only on emotivism.

Read Caesar's speech against the execution of the Catilinarian conspirators; it's still very topical.

Context: Cataline and ascociates become frustrated with the gridlock in Roman politics & decide to seize power by force, but are stopped by Cicero and the senate.

>bartleby.com/268/2/19.html

Read the whole thing, it's really worth it!

It's debatable if someone deserves to be executed since the severity of the crime differs from perspective to perspective. As I said, there are people who are being executed for lesser crimes than others.

>... the severity of the crime differs from perspective to perspective.

IF THERE ARE LAWS, NO, IT DOES NOT.

>the government
No
>the people
Yes

Why torment the dead?

No. If you value personal liberty and rights or have any respect for some inherent value or potential in human life, why would you trust the infallibility and the motive of the state to snuff out the life of anyone?

The capability by itself means nothing like a gun without someone to shoot it. If guns are going to exist then everyone should have a right to own one. Also, a child is a person not a capability or object.

WHY ARE YOU WRITING IN CAPS LOCK?

>deserve
A moronic assertion.

You're talking about objectives, when you're whole argument for why someone might be killed is because they "deserve to die". It's just moronic emotivism.

Killing the person literally serves no purpose, and simply justifies the killing and injuring of people out of revenge. The purpose of the justice system should always be to rehabilitate criminals, and if that fails then to prevent crime. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that death sentences have not helped lower crime rates to a meaningful point.

Yes.
It makes the masses feel good to see the worst of the worst of our society put to death. It gets them to feel there's such a thing as Justice in in the world (this is a good thing)

The government has whatever rights the people will allow it to have.

So whether it has that right rather varies by what country you live in, I suppose.

Whether it's a good idea to let it have that right - that's another question. In the US at least, given that proof of innocence has been discovered, post-execution, in between 12%-20% of cases, depending on the state, it probably isn't a real good idea.

If it required a red-handed clause, and was solely reserved for those likely to repeat the crime, rather than simply the disgust the crime generates, and didn't involve a billion appeals, I'd be more apt to approve, but as things are now, the judicial system is far too incompetent and emotionally charged for this to be a wise policy.

>muh feelings are the reason ppl should die

i support the death penalty but this is a retard argument

>In the early morning hours of 1 March 1953, after an all-night dinner and a movie,[318] Stalin arrived at his Kuntsevo residence 15 km west of Moscow centre, with interior minister Lavrentiy Beria and future premiers Georgy Malenkov, Nikolai Bulganin, and Nikita Khrushchev, where he retired to his bedroom to sleep. At dawn, Stalin did not emerge from his room.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

>(and that's a good thing)

major red flag people, shouldn't have to be said if it really were a good thing.

NTG, but oddly, "muh feelings" are why people die a great deal of the time.

If you could maintain social integrity and stability by offing 0.0001% of the population every year, would ya do it?

Though, personally, I don't think the death penalty actually helps much in that regards. I'm for its use as a public safety measure, but that's not how it's employed in my country, nor does it seem particularly useful as a social mollifier.

>THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHO, AND WHY, SOMEONE DOES NOT DESERVE TO LIVE, ARE SUBJECTIVE, BUT THEY CAN BE OBJECTIVELY ESTABLISHED —WHAT DO YOU THINK LAWS, "RIGHTS", "OBLIGATIONS", ETHICOMORAL MORES, ET CETERA, ARE?
Laws in their own way are arbitrary as they're not objectively natural which is the only form of objectivity. They can be subject to change at any time and a government can sometimes ignore them.

>UNDER PERFECT LEGAL, AND STATAL, CONDITIONS, WHY WOULD SOMEONE WHO IS A THREAT TO THE STATE NOT BE PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY?
Punished as in executed? Yes. Miraculously, there are those still alive despite committing crimes that are worse that the people being executed.

>THAT MAXIM DERIVES FROM THE SAME SPURIOUS LOGIC THAT CLAIMS THAT "POWER CORRUPTS". IT IS NOT THE CAPABILITY THAT CORRUPTS, BUT CORRUPTION THAT MISUTILIZES CAPABILITY.
Tell that to every corrupt/tyrannical government.

So... Letting people feel there is justice in the world isn't a good thing?

Seems to me providing the illusion of justice is one of the things that holds society together.

Not that you necessarily need to kill people to do it, and not that it isn't more often an act of injustice when governments kill people in general... But I fail to see how having the feeling that justice exists is a bad thing, save perhaps when it is indeed leading to denial of the fact that it doesn't.

Only in cases of capital offenses and any considered unable to rejoin society.

Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. (Romans 12:19)

Its a spook but its a spook that gets people to pretend there's fairness in the world, that bad things will ultimately happen to bad people, that the wicked will be punished.

>they call athiest edge lords

>have the right
What does that even mean?

Proverbs 24:24 Whoever says to the guilty, “You are innocent,” will be cursed by peoples and denounced by nations. 25 But it will go well with those who convict the guilty, and rich blessing will come on them.

>Does the goverment have the right to execute you
>government
>right
Governments don't have rights, they have powers.

The death penalty shouldn't exist partly because the appeals cost so much that it's cheaper just to keep them in prison for life (and no, restricting appeals is not an option because of the second reason). Second, I don't trust the government to execute the right people. So long as bullshit pseudoscience like bite mark analysis, discredited arson hogwash, and the like are allowed in a courtroom, the death penalty should be off the table. In the US, prosecutors and police have proven they can't be trusted to reach the truth 100% of the time. If the cost of that is leaving you blue balls from not getting to kill someone over revenge boner then so be it. At least mistakes can be partially corrected if someone isn't dead. Sure, stolen years can never be returned, but a lot of money can be. Death can't be reversed, and these days it's increasingly clear that prosecutors care more about padding their resumes than finding the truth.

I'm willing to compromise though. They can keep the death penalty so long as prosecutors and perjurers join them in the gas chamber if they send an innocent person to their death.

>They can keep the death penalty so long as prosecutors and perjurers join them in the gas chamber if they send an innocent person to their death.
Given that's technically both conspiracy and premeditated murder, it's a bit odd that isn't already the case.

>At an allegorical level, the central theme is the conflicting human impulses toward civilization and social organization—living by rules, peacefully and in harmony—and toward the will to power. Themes include the tension between groupthink and individuality, between rational and emotional reactions, and between morality and immorality. How these play out, and how different people feel the influences of these form a major subtext of Lord of the Flies.[citation needed] The name "Lord of the Flies" is a literal translation of Beelzebub, from 2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies

But then everyone would have to be super careful and the death penalty wouldn't be a thing cause what you are suggesting doesn't allow the state to execute people, like, under whatever circumstances, noone batting an eye. You are advocating for de facto abolishment of the death penalty if the executioners are to be subjected to the same punishment in cases of misjudgement/corruption and ulterior motives.

You're a 'tard...

I'm tired of being the world's police.

>But then everyone would have to be super careful and the death penalty wouldn't be a thing
Exactly. As it is, the death penalty is a weapon wielded by people who are mostly unaccountable for their mistakes or malfeasance. It's a great power, but there are scant consequences for using it on the wrong person. Courts are loathe to actually punish police officers who commit perjury or prosecutors who withhold exculpatory evidence, or those who stonewall as best they can when new evidence or better science arises years after conviction.

Haven't you ever wondered why prosecutors spend so much effort trying to avoid re-examining cases where they've won and their defendant is now sitting on death row? They don't want people to realize they fucked up? It's not about truth, it's about winning, no matter the cost. Good faith corruption is still corruption.

Think of it like this. If an innocent person is put to death partly due to prosecutorial misconduct or fabricated evidence or perjury, and this is discovered after they're dead, what recourse is there? The state cuts the family a check (after a lengthy battle usually). So where's the incentive for the prosecutor/cop/pseudo-science rent seeking bullshit peddler not to do it again? They don't have to pay a dime, it's the taxpayers. The only real way for miscarriages of justice like this to actually be prevented is the levying of real consequences to those who broke the law to make it happen. Hell, I'd be happy with disbarment but that rarely happens because the courts are way too sympathetic to members of the system.

The death penalty needs greater accountability. You can bet your ass prosecutors would stop committing Brady violations or putting serial perjurers on the stand or using unreliable jailhouse snitches if their bullshit could land them in death row as well. The fact that you think the prosecution would have to be "super careful" just proves my point. They already SHOULD be fucking super careful.

In only the narrowest circumstances is killing ethical. As punishment
from the state it's equivalent to the crimes of the damned.

Political executions are not about protecting the state, they're about removing rivals.

To me the only justified use of capital punishment is in cases of treason. And I mean real treason, not Edward Snowden-tier whistleblowing. Murder, rape all that shit only hurts a few people at most. But treason threatens the entire country.

The existance of a death penalty is based on the assumption that our laws are perfect enough to determine wether a human life should continue or not. Do you honestly think our laws are so infallible? Also for god's sake stop typing in caps you stupid troll

It's not a good thing when your society doesn't know the difference between bloodthirst and justice. Because you're using one to symbolize the other

why do you always type in all caps?

>If you could maintain social integrity and stability by offing 0.0001% of the population every year, would ya do it?
No? What kind of fucking barbaric aztec shit are you lot running? The purpose of a justice system isn't revenge, it's to give approporiate punishment for crimes committed and ensuring said criminals don't offend again.

As a realist, I see life in prison with nighly butt fucks and no internet a worse punishment then death.

But what do I know? Maybe I will look forward to the nightly rapes after 5 years or so.

If a soul cannot be turned from transgression, better that soul be severed from its means of offense.

I mean really. If I went crazy and killed some one, I'd ask for the death penalty. I don't want to sit around in some prison for 50 years with no porn and nightly gay sex.

Unless Christians are wrong and gay sex is good.

No. I don't believe anyone deserves unnatural death. Even those who take life themselves.

If you look forward to it, its not really rape.

I'm not sure I could get used to nightly rape by gangster rappers.

So, "muh feelings" from the other side as well then? Basically, you're saying, despite how many lives a stable and intact society saves, it isn't worth killing a minute fraction of a fraction of them to keep it so.

to a convict, what's the practical difference between life inprisonment and execution?

If there are certain people unwilling or unable to be rehabilitated into congruence with society, why waste state or private resources housing and feeding them when either way you're effectively removing them from the population?

Personally, if I had the choice between spending even the majority of my life in prison or a relatively quick and painless death, I'd choose death.

In a democratic society its more expensive to do the legal things that ensure that they have their appeals on death row.

If you want a fascist government that puts people to death without appeal, chances are they will find something that you do to put you to death.

I mean if I were a dictator I'd put lots of people to death, but I wouldn't want to be a pleb who was put to death for voicing dissent because they took away my internet to look at hentai.

>muh feelings are the reason ppl shouldn't die

Jesus said to turn the other cheek and forbade murder with a commandment. Therefore the death penalty is against the moral teachings of the Lord Christ.

The government has no rights and no authority, only brute force and propaganda.
The government is a dragon feeding off of the very same suppliants worshiping it for protection. The government is a horrible towering golem tormenting its creators. The government is a false god that has convinced us that he is needed to maintain cosmic order. The government is a virus turning its victims into its propagators and defenders.

I'm not advocating quicker trials or a more expeditious route to the executioner, simply that I believe that some people are, by nature or choice, incompatible with/harmful to society and their fellow man. Off the top of my head these would be repeat offenders of the worst crimes, whatever the people (not the state) deem those to be.
Now I don't think those people should be proactively picked from the population and done away with, but when those cases appear I don't see the value in keeping them alive for 25+ years when there's no chance of them reintegrating.

Should they get the same chance to appeal as everybody else? Yes. But at the end of the day, some people need to be removed from the world, and in my view an execution is more humane than making them sit in prison for decades until they die "naturally" and would save us the cost of keeping them fed, clothed, and healthy.

Yes but they should do it immediately after the sentencing. No one deserves to wait decades on death row for their death. While some see the wait as possible time for the convict's name to be cleared, I see it as a needless cruelty. Those who do the sentencing should be absolutely sure of the facts before such a steep punishment anyways.

No, i'm saying that the proposed course is fucking retarded, prove to me that executing people lowers the crime rate significantly, as it stands in America innocent men can and do die, murdered by the state, executions fundamentally disregard the creed of innocent until proven guilty, because there's the tiniest fraction a chance ome new piece of evidence, some new method will prove them innocent, as has happened and will continue to happen.

Murder is not justice.

A punishment that doesn't seriously punish (Instant death versus the majority of your life without basic freedom) and doesn't rehabilitate is a shit course of action in attempting to stop criminals.

But really death is not a detriment to murder?

If I am going to murder someone, I don't really care about dying. Maybe the prison rape and being the btich, but not death.

Its like killing coyotes. You kill one and the rest breed more making you a net gain of coyotes in the end.

>the right

This.
Death Penalty is security theater which does nothing to deter crime or prevent recidivism.

The government spends a shit ton of money, a handful of lawyers get rich, a tiny minority has their rights revoked, a larg number of camouflage wearing forest apes in flyover states go on working and paying taxes and stuffing whoppers into their fat faces and don't go bashing their heads against anything which scares or confuses them. Sacrifice a brown skinned man or two and it calms them down, makes them less likely to be walking around all skittish and nervous and get caught up in some retarded bullshit.

>whatever the people (not the state) deem those to be
I think you have some weird idea as to how this whole peoplestate relationship works.

Yes they do, but in most cases its counter productive and shouldnt be used outside of war