Death Penalty Debate

...

AS A MOVE IT SHOULD BE LED TO BELIEVE IT IS A THING BUT AS AN ACTUAL THING IT WOULD JUST LEAD ONE TO BELIEVE THERE IS A GOOD REASON TO KILL AND SHOULDN'T EXIST

Why does Veeky Forums have a higher than average attendance from the mentally ill?

CAUSE HERE IS WHERE THE SECRET GETTING OUT IS DETRIMENTAL.

The Far Right Fundies seem to be the first to shout death penalty! Execute him! How quickly they forget their own commandments of forgiveness, loving your enemy, turn the other cheek, etc. I don’t think it’s an effective deterrent and, as previously cited, our tax dollars still pay to feed, clothe, house and provide medical care for those on death row for many decades.

For actual confirmed psychopathic serial killers meaning MRIs revealing their frontal lobe is defective.

Eh I generally prefer life in jail with no parole, its expensive but the risks of executing an innocent man makes the death penalty a non-starter for me. OTOH, as a democrat, if people vote to have a death penalty in their state then I'm not going to try to stop them.

>shout
AH LOUD NOISES
>feed, clothe, house and provide medical care
WELL, I MEAN IF THAT'S ALL YOU WANT..IT IS JUST CORRECTIONS AFTER ALL..
ALSO
>deterrent
THAT'S USUALLY A GOOD THINGS OUTSIDE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES THAT ATTEMPT TO DO THAT OR MEDIA TEAMED UP WITH INMATES AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY STAFF

No, first YOU have to explain what words are and how they work, otherwise we can't have a discussion of any kind amirite?

Just filter the fucking retard it's not hard.

No, I only need to discuss language to the extent that we are miscommunicating. So long as our ideas are successfully being understood, it's irrelevant to the discussion of the death penalty.

One cannot escape the need to lay a foundation for the conclusion regarding the death penalty, though.

Yes you do. I don't know what you mean by "discuss" or "language", I insist that you clearly and unambiguously define these terms before we can even begin doing the same for "morality". Because obviously it's impossible to exchange opinions without being 100% certain of the exact meaning of every term being used, it's not like there is literally thousands of years of thought behind the concept of morality that we can all draw on.

Well looks like he was wrong lol.

$0.98 per execution. Everything Class 1 Felony and worse. All other (((considerations))) are spooky fluffy indulgence of sentimentalism.

This is the only way to save western civilization.

Now you've back-peddled, we are having a discussion despite not first discussing the concept of "words". You're just acting in bad faith and pretending you don't understand any word in the English language, despite demonstrating through your responses that we do have a common understanding of many words and grammar.

If you actually need a definition to clear up some confusion, then sure. But the only necessary thing on that front is to ensure the exchange of ideas.

As for the "thousands of years of morality", lmao. There isn't some supreme and true morality that has been universally recognised. You're just trying to avoid the burden of justifying your opinion by saying "uh it's obvious, I don't need to explain." How embarrassing

I'M acting in bad faith? YOU'RE the one demanding people define words like "morality" before you will deign to share your opinion on the death penalty, all I'm doing is reflecting your own asinine demands back on you.

What about the problem of innocent people being convicted for crimes they did not commit? Don't pretend it doesn't happen.

>luckily usually people don't get executed on the spot
not if youre merican

>Dale a tu cuerpo alegria Macarena
>Que tu cuerpo es pa' darle alegria why cosa buena
>Dale a tu cuerpo alegria, Macarena
>Hey Macarena

>usually

Obviously there are insane people out there, some of them cops.

We execute for the wrong crimes. Murder, rape, things like that only hurt a handful of people. Corrupt government officials hurt the entire country.

Take Senator Leeland Yee for instance. He got busted trying to sell rocket launchers and machine guns to the Chinese mafia. He got ~5 years in a minimum security hotel. He should've gotten the rope.

Or how about that judge in Pennsylvania who got busted for taking bribes. He presided over family court, so there were usually no juries. He would sentence kids to juvenile hall, often the harshest ones, because those penitentiaries were paying him kickbacks. If I remember correctly, he didn't spend a single day in jail. He ruined those kids' lives, and all that happens to him is he loses his job.

People complain about politicians all being scum, but then they let them practically get away with it. If you want your politicians to not be evil, you have to actually hold them accountable.

>Corrupt government officials hurt the entire country.

I'm anti death penalty but I could get behind this.

Its a good debate on most sides, but usually when I don't know the answer, the answer almost certainly isn't killing someone.

That and the only real benefit to the death penalty is bringing closure to the victim's families. It certainly doesn't deter jackshit because most 1st degrees are by literal psychopaths who have long since checked out of society.

To me, its like killing a retard or a disabled child. Sure, they fucked up (sometimes ruined multiple others lives), but death is a sanction reserved for warfare, chaos, age, and disease. We are therefore "unnaturally" ending someone's life: it serves no logical purpose other than to appease feelings (which can be manipulated by thought and meditation). So what the fuck are we doing?

That, and there is always the possibility that the person is not guilty or involved in the murder in some other extraneous way. There is also the fact that many attorneys are shitty and just not qualified to handle a murder case. The ineffective assistance standard is EXTREMELY high to grant a new trial, with this in mind, and the state's choice of evidence, how can we be sure that the person received an adequate defense? It is so impossible to know that it boggles my mind that people would allow the death penalty knowing our constitutional RIGHT to effective counsel per the sixth amendment.

The only argument outside of appeasement is retribution (as in you did x so you deserve y) and to maintain order and confidence in our laws there must be clear standards, but we are long since past that point of 19th century imprisonment.

sure but when it comes to drugs n such it's like the longer they let people get away with shit and people don't die, the better argument those for legalization have.

I would legalize and regulate all drugs, I certainly don't think we should kill people for taking them.

Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty for practical reasons: if I was innocently convicted I would rather be sent to prison with the chance for the case to be reviewed that I could get out early and sue the state rather than get murdered by the state.
Obviously this has the consequence that horrible people get to live, but given the fact that we can lock them away so that they don't do damage I don't see this as big of an issue.

i've never even heard of that as a thing. but yeah, i'd legalize and regulate them too. RECREATIONAL HEROIN!

Just put them in a labour camp in stead desu.

Wrong, dipshit, I'm saying you need to put forth an account of morality and it's basis, and then go on to explain the significance of the death penalty. Otherwise you're just sharing a irrelevant, practical opinion, and groping around in the dark with others for whatever "feels" about right.

It's one thing if a police officer has to use lethal force in the moment against a criminal shooting them, but it seems kind of questionable to give a government the authority to kill its own citizens after secure imprisonment.

well, if you believe the stories, a lot of them ask for it and don't have an "end game".

has anybody else noticed how dead Veeky Forums has been this past 24h period? It's empty and scary

WHY ARE WE YELLING?

i dunno about you but i forgot i had my caps lock on after a big rail gun whatzit on another thread and just went with it.

t. quality post

Who the fuck is that guy?

death penalty should be for murder, rape and treason, and should only be an option in cases where multiple reliable witnesses can confirm he did it. ie. mass shooter and terrorist types

Call me cold but I really do not give a rat's ass about what the family thinks. Revenge killings are not justice, they're petty and useless. IF a good argument can be made that a specific criminal is beyond any form of rehabilitation and is a clear and ongoing danger to others, you could make the case they should be killed. But don't base it on emotion. I understand that's easier said than done, but we should at least try.

He's a police officer who shot an unarmed and drunk American who didn't follow his EXACT FUCKING INSTRUCTIONS

He looks like a faggot with those glasses on.

no

>Should the death penalty be allowed?

No, the legal system simply can’t be trusted to get it right 100% of the time and when the sentence is death, there’s no going back and fixing the mistake.

bet he just found out he wasn't proven guilty and him getting out is strictly for a set up

Am I literally the only person who opposes both abortion and the death penalty?

Victim's dad: "He raped my daughter,mutilated her body and stab me and i saw it with my own eyes!"

Judge: "I've decided to put him on life sentence where he can live on the prison,sleep,eat,make friends and forgot his past crime.All of this will be done using taxpayers (your) money."

jokes on you, i don't pay taxes. faggot.

but he raped my daughter.Is this justice?My daughter died and he lives in prison forever?

getting his ass raped by other inmates doesn't count as justice btw.

why would a judge say in front of a room full of people who might not even know the guy being sentenced what it takes to be considered "insane" and basically get away with murder?

>haha dude lets give our inefficient, corrupt, beurocratic government institutions a legal avenue to kill their own populous lmao
The American brain, ladies and gentlemen.

>Constitutionality
Spot the American. You do realize a constitution is just a legal document that is interpreted and subject to change right? That's where the amendments come from. It's not the infallible word of god because it says you can own guns.

Death penalty shouldn't exist for just one reason, but it's the strongest one: human fallibility. I don't trust the justice system to get it right 100% of the time, and while we can't exactly give people back years stolen from them for timed served despite innocence, we can give them a lot of money to at least take away the sting. We can't do anything to recompense the dead.

Look at Louisiana and Texas for good reasons why the death penalty is retarded. One county in LA is responsible for a huge proportion of the state's death row inmates, because the DA's office there incentivizes it, giving bonuses or parties to prosecutors who get death row convictions. This is a perverse incentive that runs contrary to justice. Even when people they've sent to death row are exonerated, they still believe in their guilt. In Texas, a junk science regarding arson which has now been proven non-scientific (read; bullshit) led to at least one innocent man's execution.

Here's something to read on the matter
washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/10/04/john-thompson-an-exoneree-and-relentless-voice-for-criminal-justice-reform-has-died/
washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/11/02/how-a-fired-prosecutor-became-the-most-powerful-law-enforcement-official-in-louisiana/
Disable javascript to avoid the subscription request if you've already viewed your free WAPO stories for the month.

Archaic and isn't a deterrent to the crime, only a deterrent in avoiding a trial (guilty plea)

aren't inmates from all over the country transferred to those prisons? and wouldn't it make more sense if the "death penalty" were just a move to find something new out instead of circulating an idea that there is an actual correct reason to kill another person?

No there are lots of inconsistent idiots in the world.

Yeah because people NEVER make mistakes about identifying other people, and they would NEVER lie to send an innocent man they hate to his death, no siree, that NEVER happens.

you realize there's a reason the victim/family of the victim has no say in sentencing, right? a dispassionate judge is the only one who should rule on the fate of a man.

and yes, that is justice. killing is never justice.

The threat of executing an innocent has always been enough to convince me that it shouldn't be allowed. And that's not even getting into the practicals of life in prison being less expensive over time than an execution.

And daily reminder;
>In January, 2000, Governor George Ryan established a moratorium on executions that would last over 10 years. At that point in Illinois' history, the state had exonerated 13 death row inmates in the same time that it had executed 12. Illinois has not executed anyone since the moratorium began, but it has exonerated 7 additional inmates, for a total of 20

With such a margin of error you cannot ensure that the justice system was correct for each of those executed, or those that could be executed in the future.

I don't really trust the justice system, and dislike the idea of institutionalized killing. I mean, it's kinda crazy that it's someone's job, or multiple people's job, to kill someone, on behalf of the state.

Do you even Gewaltmonopol des Staates

Free will doesn't exist and you guys want to execute people, the absolute state of amerifats

There's a clear difference between fighting or acting forcefully on behalf of the state, and killing someone who is pacified and not resisting.

>I don't really trust the justice system, and dislike the idea of institutionalized killing. I mean, it's kinda crazy that it's someone's job, or multiple people's job, to kill someone, on behalf of the state.
Dude what

If free will doesn't exist you can't criticize people for their views, because they don't have any choice in holding them, you dumb faggot.

There is no moral, ethical or judicial justification for ending the life of another.

Violence is subhuman.

The more willing you are to resort to violence, the less civil rights you should enjoy.
>I think [X] should be shot!
There's plenty of perfectly rational human beings who believe you should be put to death for any number of reasons.

If you reject that any one arbitrary human being holds moral authority over you, then you must also reject that you hold moral authority over any other human being, period.
>But I'm a saint and he's literally Hitler!
Tough. You're somebody's Hitler. Somebody honestly believes that the life you have led makes you more of a monster, more deserving of death, than a mass murderer. Maybe they're insane. Doesn't matter. Their conviction is just as strong as yours.

NOBODY has the moral right to punish another for ANYTHING.

In an ideal world, criminals would be gently ejected from society to live in comfort and happiness, in such a manner that their behavioral flaws no longer threatened other individuals
Lacking means to accomplish this, we could at least work toward abolishing the death penalty, decriminalizing non-violent offenses, and improving prison conditions for the remaining violent offenders.

>If free will doesn't exist you can't criticize people for their views, because they don't have any choice in holding them, you dumb faggot.

The universe determined I would criticize you for being stupid which is because the deterministic universe determined you would be stupid.

>normative ethical relativism on steroids

Normative relativism is stupid. Just pick objective morality or subjective morality. Stop trying to merge the two.

Is this nonsense supposed to defend the death penalty?

I choose negative morality. I refuse to judge and I refuse to be judged. You believe yourself correct, and you must be correct because all of existence as you perceive it supports your assertion.

Likewise, I feel the same about my point of view.

I won't try to convince you to believe as I do, that's pointless. The OP asked an opinion, I gave it.

Try reading the post I replied to you fucktarded spastic.

>HURR i cant help being a moron

You just tried to normative subjective morality on me you faggot.

I know you can't. The universe determined you would be a moron from the moment of the big bang. There was only one possible outcome from that moment, that you would come to exist as a moron.

Naturally, you're retarded.

>hurr

Thing is, you don't even believe this. Which makes you not only a moron and a liar, but a hypocrite, too.

I legitimately believe you are retarded. The strictly deterministic universe foretold this moment by creating you as a retard, and me judging you as a retard.

More sad lies from a dope who think he's smart. Pathetic.

Do you actually think that I think you're smart and I'm lying about thinking that you're a retard?

Pathetic.

You actually think a person can't believe in determinism?

Pathetic.

Why would you trust the government to kill people correctly when you can't trust them on anything else?

Did determinism or free will cause you to be incapable of saying anything but the word 'pathetic'?

>claims to believe in determinism
>expects me to waste my time talking to him

Pathetic.

If free will exists then why is the only thing you can do with your free will is say pathetic?

I choose to call you pathetic because you are. You pretend to hold a view you don't, this is pathetic. If you actually believed you had no free will, you would sit in your room staring at a wall and starve to death.

Not pathetic, just not fully examined.

Pretending you believe something you don't solely for the purpose of annoying people on the internet is pathetic, deal with it.

So you really can't actually comprehend that people can believe in determinism and think determinism means falling to existential crisis?

Do you believe nihilists also stare at walls?

I do not starve because I eat. I eat because I am hungry. I am hungry because of my genes. My genes are as such because of evolution. Determinism would dictate that I don't starve.

You don't starve because you choose to eat when you're hungry. Nothing forces you to eat, hunger merely tells you that your body needs food. You don't even wait until you're actually starving to eat, hell, most of the time you're not even especially hungry when you eat.

If by choose you mean neurological synapses leading to a chemical reaction that causes the entity known as me to perform the action known as eating, then yes, I choose in a deterministic way exercising my agency.

If you mean choose by my immortal intangible conscious soul which has free will which and outside of the physical confines of the universe throwing dice at random and manipulating the physical brain to make the physical body eat, then no.

Denial of free will does not mean denial of agency. It merely changes the scope. If you come up with some other definition of free will, then at best I am a compatibilist, but still a determinist and not succumbing to existential agony.

But yeah, you were still determined to be a retard.

>Denial of free will does not mean denial of agency.

Yes it does, learn the meanings of words.

Only for mass murder, terrorism, and high treason.