Capital punishment

I can understand the argument; however, it is usually blown out of proportion. The state essentially does, but as usual it depends on the situation. As the name implies, the death penalty is the highest punishment exercised

>Government should have the right to kill me
No legal system is perfect, there is always some chance that there was a miscarriage of justice. Look at what happened when DNA testing was developed. A lot of cases were reexamined and in countries without capital punishment, wrongfully committed people could be released and compensated.

The government already has the right to kill you though.

Where is it in the constitution?

If someone's dead-to-rights guilty, then fucking put his head in a pneumatic press and don't let him drain and petition the legal process to drag his shit on to the millions of dollar level. Fucking kill him.

There should be a death row of "eh, they probably did it, but we don't quite know," asylum, while we kill the other fully-admitted monsters.

Naivety

Their determination of punishment. Also fun fact, although the Bible forbids murder, they give certain entities the ability of determination of consequence. This includes the government in determining death penalty or declaring war.

That kind of argument is only applicable when using extreme examples of corrupt governments like the USSR under Stalin, Cambodia under Pol Pot or North Korea/Saudi Arabia. Yes, it's acknowledged that in these places the death penalty is/was abused as a means of consolidating power, but at the same time, people who use this argument usually fail to acknowledge that the death penalty has been around for thousands of years and, in the grand scheme of things, those cited examples are relatively rare. In the context of history it's more improbable than it is probable.

Moreover, the fact remains that the possibility of death is and always will be the most effective deterrent against crime, particularly the major ones like murder and rape.. Plus, the chances of any miscarriages of justice should be dramatically lower than in past decades due to the advancements of technology and forensic science.

Here in the US and other nations that practice trial by jury, the State has less to do with the decision than by a jury of your peers and a presiding Judge, which is effective in that if your peers from the local area agree on the consequence for a crime, it adds more legitimacy to in exercising the decision should it be made.

that said, I have no problem with traitors to the country, murderers, and other individuals that are a clear and present danger to those around them to be put to death. Spending money to keep such threats to society alive is fruitless to me, but I am of mind that if such penalty is on the table, there must be airtight evidence against those in question. If there is some doubt on the guilt of the accused, then give it a go as a retrial or in the court of appeals.

no because the state should reeducate and not punish criminals. if they cant be reeducated just locking them away is good enough

Not only do your taxes go to their wellbeing, but the fact that many of them do fabrication work for a dollar an hour mean they shaft the economy out of a minimum wage income tax payer and keep whichever company getting the slave labour's costs nice and low. The death penalty is good for the economy, either focus on rehabilitation, or don't waste the fucking energy and money.

Should be allowed. But deeply reserved. Also it can't be clear cut like murder only. What about Fritzl. I would give him the death penalty. Not exactly murder. So it should be up to the judge. Obviously the defendant should have the right to appeal.

>just locking them away is good enough
I disagree, especially if we're talking about genuinely evil people. Let's say someone raped and murdered a teenage girl and got sentenced to life in prison. 3 meals a day. Shelter. Still being able to take part in activities. Making friends, even if they are fellow prisoners. Prison is essentially just a new home. Aside from the prison itself, the criminal is able to move on with his life and live it in relative peace. Now, what of the family of that girl? Their lives are irrevocably ruined and torn apart and the family will likely never recover from this event. The fact that the criminal is still breathing while their little girl is dead would undoubtedly eat away at them for the rest of their days. Can you truly call that justice?

Keep in mind, this is just an emotive argument, but their are other facets of issue that go against keeping the criminal alive, such as the fact that it is simply a waste of taxes to pay for his continued existence while he doesn't do a thing to contribute to society.

The only problems I have with trial by jury is the fact that the jury is always comprised of random people who most likely have no clue how the law actually works. If juries were instead made up of professionals within the field of law who are actually capable of properly analysing the facts, they would then be more effective at determining the accused's innocence or guilt.

I do agree that the institution of trial by jury isn't perfect, as lawyers do prefer the least educated people of the selection pool to be chosen because they are more easily manipulated, I've been stricken from every jury list after stating that my job is as a paralegal in an attorneys office. So hey, if you want a ticket out of jury duty for life, get a job in law as a desk worker.

but to me, it is much more preferable to have your peers review the case rather than by a federal authority directly, which opens the door for more opportunities for corruption than there already is in our legal system.

waste of my tax money. I despise virtue signalling college students who only stop their bullshit once they have to pay taxes too

That's a good point. But then, jurors also aren't immune to being influenced by external forces to make a decision one way or another. By that, I mean someone can bribe them or threaten the safety of their family, which is something the mafia is notorious for. This problem then leads to another issue of the anonymity of the jury, but that's a separate can of worms.

and killing the criminal would accomplish what? the girl is still dead
the state should administer justice not vengeance. also you can never be 100% you're not killing an innocent

kk bruh. instead i despise edgy faggot who only stop their bullshit after something bad happen to them

>and killing the criminal would accomplish what?
What would keeping him alive accomplish?

In general I feel opposed to capital punishment

However I recognize the potential pros: less tax dollars used towards clearly unresponsive criminals, frees up cheap labor, etc which many have pointed out above

I would reserve it for very specific crimes such as war crimes: Hitler gets caught at the end of ww2, that sort of person

The greatest issue when it comes to the death penalty to me is what it should be used for. If we get into this habit of using it willy nilly as a weapon of fear, all that happens is the state gets turned into a vehicle for killing political dissidents. Phillipines right now is a perfect example: drug users punishable by death. To me that is beyond wrong. Someone above mentioned hanging for corrupt politicians and as much as i hate corrupt politicians, i feel this tool could be easily used to kill off political opponents.

Me personally I see keeping someone alive in prison without parole as more punitive than capital punishment. I also envision far less crimes being punishable by prison across the world

To counter the “free up cheap labor” argument, for prisoners i suggest a strict non violence policy. If you are non violent and willing to work the labor you do is free and for the state- work that needs to be done by the state, not for profit prisons. In this situation, for every violent offense against prisoners or staff you receive increasing lengths of isolation, until eventually you rot alone in a cell until you die. Tl;dr: either you live in solitary confinement or work and live in general pop non violently

This forces those who have committed heinous crimes (first degree murder etc) to work and reduce taxation on prisons(prisoners can help do the work to run the prison), while removing the potential for a death penalty on someone who is innocent, and encourages a non violent prisoner

What crimes should the death penalty be allowed for?

the state shouldn't kill its own citizens. just lock him away for the rest of his life. a lifetime to think about its crime it's more than enough of a punishment

>a lifetime to think about its crime it's more than enough of a punishment
I highly doubt he feel that bad about it, especially as the years go by and the crime become more and more of a distant memory. That aside, states have always killed their citizens, provided their transgression was severe enough. Also, the taxes that ordinary citizens pay to keep criminals like that alive could be better spent on things that would actually prove useful, like education, infrastructure, health care etc. When you contextualise it, the continued existence of the criminal just ends up being a detriment to society.

Life for a life. If you kill someone with malicious intent, then you should be killed in turn.

The only reason I generally oppose the death penalty is because of the possibility of a permanent miscarriage of justice. An wrongly imprisoned man may eventually go free, but you can't bring back the dead. In essence, I'm only in favor of the death penalty in cases where the guy clearly did it, like mass shootings.

>I highly doubt he feel that bad about it, especially as the years go by and the crime become more and more of a distant memory
i really don't care how he feel. he could enjoy his prison time for all i care. i see it more like "you don't respect the rules so you can't play with us" than a punishment

>That aside, states have always killed their citizens, provided their transgression was severe enough.
yeah, but i hope my 2018 western democracy is a bit more advanced than a 1500 country

>Also, the taxes that ordinary citizens pay to keep criminals like that alive could be better spent on things that would actually prove useful, like education, infrastructure, health care etc. When you contextualise it, the continued existence of the criminal just ends up being a detriment to society.
Also, the taxes that ordinary citizens pay to keep pensioners alive could be better spent on things that would actually prove useful, like education, infrastructure, health care etc. When you contextualise it, the continued existence of the pensioners just ends up being a detriment to society.

also in my country 39% of prisoners are in due to drugs dealing/consuming drugs, 28%due to stealing and 21% due to stealing. so in the best case my state is going to save 10% on the prisons cost (prob it will be much less than 5%)

*28% due to robbery

Reposting someone’s argument and replacing X with Y is such a shitty lazy thing to do. And it didn’t even work in this situation.

but that isn't my only argument. killing the murderers would save very few money.

also pensioners are 50%+ of my country's debt. that's 60% of GDP spent on useless net fiscal losses. stopping paying pensions would literally solve the biggest problem of italy

>I'm for the death penalty because it is cheaper to kill people than to keep them alive.

Nice value system you have there. Money > human beings.

What if a Government decides apply social orthopedics againts the antiscoial "people" among the society? What if they do the same that nazis did against the jews? Works with innocent people, therefore, should work better without problems with real antisocial pariahs such rapists, killers, kidnappers, children molesters, etc.

Can we just learn of history?

Why today we bring "human rights" against "people" who has an antisocial behaviour not human?

Who don't know other language than violence,
you must talk him on his own language

Attached: tumblr_ogxdxw0g1G1vz9a91o1_1280.jpg (1280x648, 329K)

It's really not

Yeah but money is the best determiner of guilt in the u.s.

The state can already imprison you for life, confiscate your property and pretty much suspend all your rights. Is there that much of a leap between life in prison and death?

Strawman territory my friend. He's not saying that money is more important than the wellbeing of a person, he's saying that given the choice between life in prison and death, and given that both have pretty much the same end result, practicality leads us to favor the death penalty.

Against.

To put them to death is to put them to rest. They don’t deserve eternal rest, they deserve to sit there and think about the horrible thing that they did for as long as they have conscious thoughts.

All the truly heinous crimes are committed by psychopaths who won’t be deterred by the death penalty because they’re not right in the head, and belong in a nut house.

The common criminal who commits crimes out of economic necessity won’t be deterred either, since they’re not likely to do something heinous enough to warrant the death penalty, and only the most violent of these are beyond rehabilitation. Rehabilitation turns an unproductive member of society into a productive one, resulting in a long term gain for society

In order to execute someone it has to be proven beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that they are guilty, otherwise your judiciary system gets stained by the blood of innocents. And the legal costs of doing so are generally more expensive than keeping them locked up for life. Are YOU going to be the one telling a family that the state accidentally executed their innocent family member just to save a few bucks on legal fees?

Cheap labor has to come from somewhere. You may think that union employees ought to be doing that work, but you sure don’t want to pay union employee prices.

I oppose it, not because some people don't deserve it, but because it gives too much power to the state, and because there's a chance of executing an innocent person.

Your willing to use taxpayer dollars so that criminals can sit in a room and think about what they did? Punishment for the sake of punishment is silly

You’re willing to spend even more tax payer dollars to send them on vacation?

I'm fine with it for situations involving betraying the public trust and recidvistic murderers.
Most of the drawbacks of it involve correctable problems with the judicial system. Make capital punishment require stuff like video evidence and require both a lay jury trial and a trial by a panel of professional jurists. Make jurors civilly liable for making mistakes of fact. And then fund 100k for an independent team to do quality assurance 5 years after the fact to ensure the jury was correct and impose fines for errors.

If you knew you'd get a 20,000 fine for sending an innocent man to his death, you wouldn't casually recommend the sentence..

It's one of the few issues I flip-flop back and forth on a lot because it such a difficult issue.

At the most base level, I believe those who commit crimes deserve a punishment befitting them, and the death penalty is pretty much the top shelf merchandise of meting out justice. For truly horrible people who are a continued threat to others and have little chance of rehabilitation, putting them to death is an effective and final means of removing them from society, and while nothing can undo the wrong they've done, this final act serves as a means of closure towards the victims of their crimes. At the same time, I don't particularly like putting even criminals to death since it usually done when they're at the complete mercy of society and not really a threat anymore, though I understand they certainly could be.

I don't like most methods of execution on those grounds either, lethal injection might be intended to be painless, but I'd think from the time you're strapped down to a table to the time when the narcotics drift you into unconsciousness, the trauma given is that like a caged beast awaiting slaughter. Same goes for a lot of other methods, though lethal injection gives a lot of time between its start and the point of no return (Compared to, say, a firing line that kills with several well-placed rounds, a proper hanging in which the neck is snapped at the end of a drop to bring about instant death, etc). Death, even for criminals, should be quick and at least somewhat dignified.

I think we could find better uses for our prisoners facing the death penalty though. Perhaps gulag or some other version of slave labor, preferably far away from society would be a more useful way to handle death row prisoners, and would solve the issue of them being a drain on society.

Really, I think if a government has advanced that far down that road, a citizen's opinion on the death penalty doesn't make much of a difference, people are getting executed outside of due process anyway.

If I knew I'd be fined for handing down a sentence that might later be overturned, I'd probably not convict anyone.

i think it's incredible some western nations are still barbaric enough to do it

Attached: web15-dem-captlpunshmnt-2400x960_1.jpg (2400x1056, 99K)

Opposed because it's really really hard to repeal a death sentence.

In this case you'd be liability free for a wrongful life sentence, but, if you voted for death you'd assume financial liability.

t. bleeding heart faggot.

I'm for it, as it ensures the safety of the public by guaranteeing there is no chance for the offending party to ever commit a crime again.

Against because the government cannot adequately determine who needs to live and who needs to die. They are jacasses and should stfu on the subject.

I am against. Criminals will suffer more for crimes in indefinite solitary confinement.

Only for serial killers.

Opposed, because what you save by supporting a prisoner's life does not offset the potential cost of giving the state the power to terminate people who aren't active threats (like prisoners aren't).

>That kind of argument is only applicable when using extreme examples of corrupt governments like the USSR under Stalin
Which ANY government can descend into eventually.

> the fact remains that the possibility of death is and always will be the most effective deterrent against crime

People that commit crimes do not expect to get caught, don't think about the consequences or are too stupid to care regardless. No amount of punishment will prevent crimes. Crimes are not a consequence of people thinking they can take the punishment or punishments not being severe enough.

Statist cuck.

>No amount of punishment will prevent crimes. Crimes are not a consequence of people thinking they can take the punishment or punishments not being severe enough.
Eh, depends. There can be some cost-to-benefit calculations, outside crimes of passion. Sure, you can only actually punish people of being caught for crimes, not actually for just commiting them, but having to dodge prosecution can be a hassle. In my country, during holidays, cops will randomly set up stop points on roads and check for people commiting infractions to have them fined. Statistical analysis tells us this goes a long way as deterrence.

Deterrence is a better approach for small crimes and misdemeanors, tho. For serious anti-social behavior, like battering, murder and rape, punishment tends to be less effective on the perpetrator of these crimes. Part of what makes anti-social personalities tick is that they are less risk-avoidant than regular people, that is, fear of punishment, guilt and shame just don't work as well on them, which is why they are more willing to do scummy things and endanger themselves and others.

In favor in the most extreme cases. I think its honestly more acceptable than life imprisonment.

Personally I think prison should be about rehabilitation rather than just punishment and in the case of life imprisonment you are essentially admitting the criminal is beyond saving. At that point you may as well kill them.

This is my main reason for being against capital punishment and I have never seen anyone else mention it. I don't believe the state should have such power.
Are Manning and Snowden traitors? The government decides who is and who isn't a traitor hence who deserves to be liquidated.
At least in prison you can still prove your innocence.
>the possibility of death is and always will be the most effective deterrent against crime
How is the US murder rate doing?
t. Redcoat

A lot of people say they'd rather death to life in prison but when it comes down to it those on trial are always plea-bargaining for that sweet 50-to-life deal.

What’s the point of convicting people in the first place then? The standard right now in most places is “beyond a reasonable doubt”; why bother implementing a more difficult tiered system of guilt and basically admitting that you might be wrong and have jailed someone for no reason?

As far as I’m concerned, prison should exist to rehabilitate. If someone can’t be rehabilitated - serial murderer, serial rapist, long-time pedophile - there is no reason to imprison them, and they should be executed. The state doesn’t exist to punish or reward, but to safeguard the rights of its citizens. If someone will pose a threat for as long as they are alive, the most reasonable option is to have them killed.

>for that sweet 50-to-life deal.
Self preservation and doubt kicks in. They are suffering more there's just always that nagging thought of "oh fuck, I don't want to die" in the back of their heads.

>but to safeguard the rights of its citizens.
The guy on trial is a citizen too dipshit

>why bother implementing a more difficult tiered system of guilt

Because you might be the innocent man on the receiving end one day.

I'd be for it, assuming it was implemented in a timely and efficient way. Generally the state government spends more housing death row inmates than lifers, and most sentenced to death die before their execution.

You don’t have the right to maim, murder, rape, or molest other people. If you do those things, you are a direct threat to the rest of your nation, and you lose your right to live freely. That’s already how the justice system works.

The potential that someone is innocent is what appeals are for. Even with that in place, there’s always the risk that someone will spend most or all of their life in prison only to be exonerated. How is a mistaken execution any different? It’s a reason we need to work to make the justice system less biased and more accurate, but how is that an argument against executing people who are a clear danger for their whole lives, with no potential for rehabilitation?

I have such right, by the right of force.

Power is seldom relinquished freely. The fact of the matter is that guilt within all certainty cannot be established. Even within reasonable doubt can be wrong and this is fine. We are imperfect beings we make mistakes and have errors in judgement. 100 juries can pass a guilty verdict and be wrong every single time. The fundamental saving grace of that system is that errors can potentially be rectified in one instance and due grievances addressed while in the other it cannot.

Similarly once the power is given it cannot easily be returned. If the US or any country practicing capital punishment were to become even more corrupt than it is now how would you stop abuse? How would you stop injustice of innocents killed out of expediency rather than righteous retribution assuming you ever really had such a thing? You wouldn't, you couldn't. The extra cost is a burden that must be barred because the alternative is to give the power of death based on state (not individual) judgement in assumed perpetuity and not simply for particular theoretical perfect cases.

>The guy on trial is a citizen too dipshit
That doesn't make him immune to punishment when he commits a crime, retard.

No but it grants him rights you retard.

Yeah, the Miranda rights and the right to plead his case. He has no rights once he's convicted beyond reasonable doubt, dumbass.

>He has no rights once he's convicted beyond reasonable doubt, dumbass.

That's entirely untrue.

That’s what I’m saying, though - is there a way to rectify the error of putting someone in prison for their entire natural life any more than there is a way to make up for an execution? How are either of these things reversible?

As far as corrupt governments go, I think that’s more relevant, but even then, there’s no way to stop the state from imprisoning innocents/political dissenters until they die. That’s why I believe in an armed citizenry in case a regime needs to be resisted or overthrown when it starts abusing its power. That’s totally off topic, though, and any robust state that has enough control to keep people safe presents a possible danger, whether or not the death penalty is common.

>muh freedumbz

What you are missing is that one carries implications the other doesn't. Your question very simply is just a bad one. You're presenting very specific scenarios and extrapolating on them as if they were equal in all cases. The simple matter is that in one case you had the possibility to appeal and have the situation rectified and in the other you did not.

Eh, he's kinda right in that a convicted felon can and does lose a number of major rights, like the right to vote, the right to possess firearms and the right to attend jury duty.

That's not "kinda right" that's "kinda" entirely not at all what he wrote.

The point still stands, that once convicted, a person is deprived of rights.

What implications? The state has the right to make judgements that individuals can’t make in the interest of safety. And how do you think you would rectify wrongful imprisonment in any significant way? Less than 1/2 of US states will pay for wrongful inprisonment, and even then, I personally don’t think any amount of cash could make up for having the best years of my life stolen from me.

I haven’t said that people on death row should have the ability to appeal taken away from them. I don’t think there’s a good reason to have that be the case.

No, it's not. Criminals are the bottom of the barrel for any society and thus don't deserve the same rights as the average citizen.

>The point still stands
Shifted goals tend to always stand. yeah.

How am I shifting the goalpost? It's an indisputable fact that convicts lose a lot of their rights. Ergo, what he said isn't "entirely untrue".

Those sentenced to death cost tax payers more than a life sentence would, and evidence suggests it doesn't serve as a deterrent
deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

The implication that one is the same as the other in all cases. You are not going to imprison every wrongfully convicted person for their entire lives but once you kill someone that is it. There is no way to fix the mistake. There is no appeals process once a prisoner is dead because they are dead.

>How am I shifting the goalpost?
From:
>He has no rights once he's convicted beyond reasonable doubt
to:
>convicts lose a lot of their rights

Ergo it is entirely untrue that a convict has no rights once convicted of a crime because he still has some rights.

Stop getting all salty because you were wrong about something on the internet (oh noes).

And you also samefagged.

Shame on you user, shame.

Lol, so apparently arguing back counts as "getting salty". And more than one person arguing doesn't count as samefagging. Are you 12?

He has no major rights. Can't own a gun, can't vote, can't take part in the judicial process., can't travel abroad, can't become employed in certain fields, can't apply for federal/state grants etc. He loses a shit ton of rights.

>loses a shit ton of rights.
That doesn't mean he doesn't have any rights though you inbred retard.

I'm arguing with a moron. Get some reading comprehension and then come back to me.

Guess I should try and reach you at The Arc.

Attached: iu[2].png&f=1.png (244x226, 4K)

About 4.1% of the people on death row are exonerated. That’s a low estimate as far as the number of men who are actually innocent, and it’s got to be a horrific situation, but I still see it as necessary in order to make totally sure monsters aren’t capable of committing further crimes. I get what you’re saying, though, and the refusal to execute people as a consequence of the “reasonable doubt” standard for conviction is something I can respect.

He retains some rights, even if he loses his freedom. The right to not be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment is a big one. He’s still a citizen. He has the right to protest or complain about prison conditions because the First Amendment still applies to him. If he’s disabled or ill, he has the right to free medical care, which is something even non-felons don’t have.

There is nothing wrong with the death penalty, it can be an appropriate response to crime. If we accept that crime ought to be punished (and literally every country accepts at least restricting peoples' rights) and if we accept that the severity of the punishment ought to reflect the severity of the crime (again, every country accepts this) then we should have no problem with capital punishment being on the table.

>b-but what about the extraordinarily low chance of an innocent being executed
We entrust the state with all sorts of decisions from economics to warfare that can potentially lead to innocent deaths, this is no different.

As I see it if they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt you should not fear an appeals process will get them released to hurt others. They would only be freed if they presented reasonable doubt that they were not guilty anyway in which case they should be freed.

If you're against the death penalty then you basically want child murderers and rapists to stay alive.

> It's endangerment of innocents for no reason.

It sure is but it's probably not the innocents you’re thinking of…

I have no moral problem with the State executing someone for their crimes, my problem is that the State can’t be counted on to reliably execute the right person and I don’t want end up being that person.

Attached: Man_released_from_prison_after_28_years_0_28833490_ver1.0_640_480.jpg (640x480, 88K)