Death Penalty

Activates your brain cortex

So when a government declares war its not different than average Joe dropping heavy ordinance on civilian targets?

>That is supposed to be marxist.
Ok.

Let me just remind you actual marxists were fine executing people.

Yes

(A) Commoners have zero authority to file charges, seek the death penalty, or interpret the law. Literally all you're allowed to do is decide whether the evidence you were allowed to hear supports a guilty verdict in light of the Judge's instructions. In certain states, if an oligarch has decided to seek the death penalty, you will help decide whether to impose it. Assuming you are even selected/eligible to be on the little 12 or 6 man jury.

(B) Yes, you surrender your authority to an oligarch who attends the legislature. You have no authority in the legislature, you are not a citizen in a democracy.

Womens rights. Once half the vote became women politicians needed to appeal to a new demographic.

>cultural marxism

>actual marxists were fine executing people
Wasn't the concept of people killing each other something alien to the communist society that Marx spoke about in the manifesto?

Nobody likes the death penalty because its finality clashes with our view of the legal system as flawed human institution. It is accepted that in every trial there is a chance that an innocent man might be convicted, but with the death penalty, there's no chance of that conviction being overturned. There are two ways out of that, 1) You give the defendant ample opportunities to appeal, which drives up the costs and prolongs the penalty's execution for years, or 2) Just abolish the death penalty altogether.

The regular answer brought up in debate (in my experience) is that a great many people put on death row are taken off it after being later proven innocent (I remember the figure being 150 in the last 50 years but don't take that as verified), and that there are a number of cases where someone executed is posthumously proven innocent.

I don't entirely buy into the argument, but it's a reasonable point.

-t. vaguely pro-penalty britbong

Because the last wars made people realize the importance of lives in a greater spectrum, you don't kill for crimes. You can't take a life.
After the second war they made the human rights declaration and this kind of view made the world.
OFC america and africa didn't follow, one because they are dumb as hell and they beat off their meat on guns, and the other beat their meat on qurans which allows killing in many situations.

With overwhelming evidence, I don't think people would object if we guillotined the subhumans of society like kiddy diddlers and serial killers. Better than "rehabilitating" them for the rest of their miserable lives. If they can't even appeal, which seems to be why they take so long to carry out in the first place, then they could be executed on the spot. Lethal injection and what not seems needlessly complicated. I get that decapitation is messy, but its quick and cheap, it could be done right outside the courthouse.

That's the attitude the US states who still have death penalty hold. Problem is, "overwhelming evidence" usually involves years or decades of appeals, so it ends up being costlier than just locking them up somewhere and throwing away the key.

But people most likely don't have free will. What you perceive as free will is probably an illusion.

Elaborate

The two aruments I heart is that
>it doesn't really work as a deterrant since people are not shown to be any less likely to commit crimes
>apparently around 4% of the time, we get the wrong guy

hear*

I can't give an explanation why there has been a decline in the death penalty but we need to still have it for sure. We should be executing all the criminals, the Negroes, the libtards, the druggies, and all law breaking scum.

Kill em all and let god sort em out

>Because the last wars made people realize the importance of lives in a greater spectrum, you don't kill for crimes. You can't take a life.
Pretty sure we executed everyone at Nuremburg

Lol no. Join a boxing club if you want 'violence'.

This is a good thing.
>implying death is worse than 70+ years of incarceration.

>The State has the monopoly on violence
No it doesn't. I can punch you anytime I want. The state hold a monopoly over LEGITIMATE violence however.

Exactly this. It's simply inefficient, it just serves to satisfy the mediocre part of the society.

An elected official is like a lawyer with power of attorney; they were selected by the people to represent the interests of the people and do things in their name. If a government declares war, they're doing that due to popular sentiment, the people are letting their feelings be known and the representatives should follow through on their behalf. That governor who sentenced that man to death only has that power because it is my power to give to him, and if I have that power in the first place then I should be able to execute it myself and not have to use an intermediary.

The other, not insignificant end of all this is that people do have a pretty visceral negative reaction to executions. Humans are just not wired to handle cold blooded murder well, and most executioners are by and large fucked in the head from the job. The whole reason the firing squad was a thing was so that no one man would bear all the guilt, but could say "We all killed that man". Later they replaced their live ammo with duds and just one live bullet mixed in without the soldiers' knowledge so that they could say "It probably wasn't me who killed him" and it still wasn't enough.

The gallows, the guillotine, the chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, all are attempts to put as much mental distance between the man pulling the trigger and the man being killed and at some point you have to wonder if it's just easier to throw the whole thing out altogether.

TL:DR the emotional toil of executions is also a factor in all of this.

Damn, I wish we still had executions in my country, it must be a well paid job if no one wants to do it and I wouldn't have a problem with it.

>70 years of incarceration that I have to pay for
If there's no chance of rehabilitation why bother? Just put him up against the wall or slave work him to death

Might want to double check that.

Determinism

Why not make them fight each other to death in an arena and broadcast it live for profit?

The state or anyone should never be able to kill someone legaly,,

Yeah you would. You're just a virgin with illusions of emotional aloofness and fortitude.

t. virgin with illusions of emotion

im not a fucking robot

Why do retards confuse "killing" with "murder" all the time? Murder is unlawful killing. If you're sentenced to death by the court then it's by definition lawful and not murder. Faggot.

t. robot.

some good points here

1) It fails too often, and the dead have time and again been proven innocent
2) It doesnt actually act as a deterrent
3) Most serious crimes already have different sentences other than death so you aren't covering them
4) When faced with the death penalty and overwhelming evidence, most people who arent truly desperate, actually innocent or prideful will plead guilty for the second worst option
5) More fluffy but society believes in rehabilitation, lighter sentences for lighter crimes as a more humane and ultimately cost effective measure over long term incarceration or death

Executions then serves only for gratification or saving state resources.

If you make executions easier, you reduce gratification when you kill more innocent people

Trying to make sure executions are done super proper for gratifications will inevitably increase resources needed to execute which is wasteful spending which in turn makes the gratification seem absurd.

saudis still lop off heads occasionally still as i understand from live leak
can't say i would want this happening anywhere near where i live

>What is self-defence?

>I wouldn't have a problem with it
Unless you're a genuine psychopath (in which case you should seek for medical help before doing something wrong) you will have problems with it. There is tons of literature on the topic, cold blood killing has heavy consequences on the mental health.
You probably heard about the Soviet executioner who killed thousands of people with a bullet in the head and was perfectly fine with it? What is less known is that ALL the other executioners ended up with mental disorders (suicidal in many case). The first guy who reached 500 kills was praised as a Bolchevik hero by the regime, BECAUSE all the other had failed. He suicided too...

People's wills are formed through the external environment (everything outside their bodies) and internal environment (everything within their bodies/minds). Free will is based upon what the internal environment (mind/body) decides to enact on itself and the external environment. In this conception, free will is a part of determinism. In terms of blame for crimes, the internal environment equals a person and is blamed. The law usually works in such a way that behavior/configuration of the mind (the parts of assumed conscious control) and not physical appearances is faulted and prosecuted.
So when people say things such as "the lack of education is to blame" or "poverty is to blame", the truth is that ultimately the person is to blame. Even when accounting for the former factors, all of it changed the person's internal will into becoming criminally prone. After all, rapists, murderers, pedophiles, etc. all do evil acts that are formed into their internal wills from the environment as well.
Even when people ask things such as "You should stop being so greedy.", the suggestion is part of the external environment trying to influence/enact itself onto a person's internal environment. Free will is then how the configured internal environment of a person processes the external environment into both the internal and external environment.

>kiddy diddlers
What if they consent though?

How people's wills are formed is unknown at this point and anything highly hypothetical. The point remains however that people have no control over their will.