Are You Against the Death Penalty and Why?
- Thread starter foxtrot3d
- Start date
- Status
VanquishUK
Member
Against because death is the easy way out.
cheststrongwell
my cake, fuck off
Against. Because they kill innocent people. That's all that needs to be said.
You're hilarious.
Monocle
Member
Torture is wrong except when I'm really angry and want to make bad people pay! Sometimes justice looks like a hammer and chisel.
I don't see why the death penalty needs to serve some utilitarian purpose and I don't believe it is some blood-lust desire for revenge, it is simply punishment, a recognition by society that this person is no longer deemed fit to live in society. The State absolutely has the power of life and death over you, that kinda cuts to the heart of the social contract, you give up certain liberties in order to live in a civilized society.
You realize that's just an horrendous lack of empathy on your part?
Death penalty costs a lot more than imprisonment.
empty vessel
Member
I oppose the death penalty because I think the State should not have the power to deprive its citizens of life under any circumstances in which it can reasonably confine them where necessary to protect the public interest. I also do not believe it can be applied perfectly, and that it is intolerable for the State to execute even a single one of its innocent citizens. That's principle. In practice, the death penalty is a monstrosity. It is impossible to apply fairly, is racist and classist, and effectively targets for extinction society's weakest members for society's own dysfunctions and failings. I view it as a low grade kind of genocide, quite frankly. We set up and maintain the conditions that cause criminal behavior, and then we kill the people who predictably engage in it. Yet, instead of correcting the problems with the conditions that cause crime, we pretend to deal with it by slaughtering those induced to commit crimes.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Against. It's horribly abusable by the state. Giving the state the power to execute citizens who have already been apprehended and taken away from the public? What could go wrong!
Thanks to the warped and racist nature of much of the justice system, it's more than a little likely an innocent person will be put on death row if they happen to have the wrong skin color for the state they're in.
It also feeds a regressive eye-for-an-eye culture, turning execution into blood sport. (Plenty of people gather around and cheer when an execution is coming up.)
Thanks to the warped and racist nature of much of the justice system, it's more than a little likely an innocent person will be put on death row if they happen to have the wrong skin color for the state they're in.
It also feeds a regressive eye-for-an-eye culture, turning execution into blood sport. (Plenty of people gather around and cheer when an execution is coming up.)
Yes. It is not a crime deterrent, not by a long shot. Sometimes the process is just or even more costly than keeping people in prison. The loss of innocent lives is pretty devastating. It is a terrible power, one that can be misused and is prone to abuse and corruption, and in America it has obvious racial biases which make it even worse.
There is a reason most of world has abolished the practice.
There is a reason most of world has abolished the practice.
I watched a documentary on this recently. People claimed he doused gasoline in a pentagram as part of a Satanic ritual just because he had some Iron Maiden posters.
Innocent person can die in the process. How's that NOT a good reason to abolish the entire practice?
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
Yes: we're supposed to learn how best to rehabilitate inmates. There are things to be learned about rehabilitation even from inmates that are sentenced to life in prison.
highrider
Banned
This pretty much covers it for me.
When you wrote:
I feel, if you're supporting a punishment based system, for heinous enough crimes, torture shouldn't necessarily be out of the question.
And even though you don't think "eye for an eye" is right, that doesn't necessarily need to take place to support some form of punishment like torture.
Just curious to know why do you think the deprivation of freedom is an apt punishment for *any* crime, from rape, to murder, to genocide, to torture.
I think imprisonment for imprisonment's sake is a form of light torture, after all.
--
Not trying to be a dick or anything, btw, just genuinely curious about the reasoning you'd apply; considering other's point of view and so forth.
I don't think the racism is extending into the death penalty debate, it's just a problem with the criminal justice system itself. It may end to the same end result but the reasoning is different. People aren't getting assigned the death penalty because of the color of their skin, they are just being accused and charged of crimes more often. Is racism a problem, yes but it isn't a problem with the death penalty itself, its just the fundamental issue with how our criminal justice system functions. Texas is despicable in its capital punishment practices but I'm hard pressed to call their death penalty assignments racist, if you commit whatever level of crime then they send you off without a care in the world whether you are white, black, brown, red, blue, green, or yellow, the issue just comes back to, its easier for some people to put blame on someone who is black than someone who is white.
Then all being equal, we should weigh that up against the sentenced-innocent variable.
An innocent person can be given a life sentence and subsequently die in prison does that mean that life sentences should be abolished? I'm not saying that executing an innocent person isn't an tragic thing but unless there are statistics showing that it is something that is common I really don't see it as a persuasive point.
EDIT:
I also don't see the argument concerning the actual monetary costs of execution as a valid point, we shouldn't base decisions such as these on whether they are too expensive. What if I were to flip the issue and say it was too expensive to provide health care to the poor or offer basic services to prisoners held in prison? I think we would all agree that these are necessary things no matter how much they cost.
DUFFMCWALIN
Member
It comes down to their actions so this post makes no sense. Are the old people or homeless committing crimes that are deemed worthy of the death penalty? False equivalence.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I don't think the government should have the kind of power. Killing people is not anyway to do anything in a civilized society.
Until you're the one getting slapped with a death sentence for a crime you didn't commit. Are you fucking serious?
Kano on the Phone
Member
The death penalty makes us all murderers. It's pointless.
I know you're sarcastic, but i feel like people are often for or against things like torture a bit arbitrarily.
I also don't want to descend into silly syllogisms (that sounded weird), but i think it's the mentality at the very core that should be examined, rather than just the details spawning from it.
In this case, the rehabilitation vs punishment angle.
Against it for now.
I've read too many stories of innocent men (usually African Americans) being sentenced to death for crimes they never committed and having decades of their lives essentially stolen by the state. Their lives would've been stolen, too, if they were unlucky enough.
I've read too many stories of innocent men (usually African Americans) being sentenced to death for crimes they never committed and having decades of their lives essentially stolen by the state. Their lives would've been stolen, too, if they were unlucky enough.
I'm confused what you are showing me here now. I guess I assumed that racism meant that minorities were overrepresented in the death penalty system but, if I'm reading this right, its more whites overall. Past that, the only real question I have is why latinos are at such a small number, comparatively. I almost have to question how they are defining latino and how many people in the white or black category should probably be in the latino category instead.
Yep. For reasons both moral and practical. (and you can throw financial in there as well, though that's not a reason I'm against the death penalty, just another argument for a side I already think is correct)
Morally, I don't believe in justice-as-revenge. It's pointless, it's causes harm without commensurate benefit, it damages our ability to think clearly and punish appropriately. The only upside to the death penalty is that it makes people who enjoy revenge feel pleasure. This is not a good basis for a justice system.
The justice system ought to be aimed at protecting society and at rehabilitation, at making sure a person who committed a crime comes out the other side with the best possible chance of making something of themselves, of avoiding recidivism. Killing someone is obviously never going to rehabilitate them. If someone is completely incorrigible, such that they're never, ever going to improve, then leave them in prison for the protection of society. Or put them in a secure mental facility if that might help.
Practically, there's the problem of innocents killed. There's already nothing gained by killing a person rather than leaving them in prison for life. But it's also possible (not just possible, it's something that's happened many times!) to convict an innocent and sentence them to death and... well, the punishment is irrevocable. At least if they've only been imprisoned we can let them out and give them some kind of restitution. So in practical terms, we are irrevocably killing innocents without actually gaining anything. (People argue about deterrence, but I'd be very surprised if capital punishment vs life imprisonment made an appreciable difference in murder rates. Typically likelihood of punishment is a much stronger factor in deterrence than the actual level of punishment.)
Finally, blah blah it's more expensive to kill a prisoner than house them for life. I don't really care that much about this angle, but hey, another log for the fire.
Basically, the death penalty loses in every category you can pick. The only possible argument for it is closure for the family of a victim... but that argument could apply to many crimes beyond just murder.
Morally, I don't believe in justice-as-revenge. It's pointless, it's causes harm without commensurate benefit, it damages our ability to think clearly and punish appropriately. The only upside to the death penalty is that it makes people who enjoy revenge feel pleasure. This is not a good basis for a justice system.
The justice system ought to be aimed at protecting society and at rehabilitation, at making sure a person who committed a crime comes out the other side with the best possible chance of making something of themselves, of avoiding recidivism. Killing someone is obviously never going to rehabilitate them. If someone is completely incorrigible, such that they're never, ever going to improve, then leave them in prison for the protection of society. Or put them in a secure mental facility if that might help.
Practically, there's the problem of innocents killed. There's already nothing gained by killing a person rather than leaving them in prison for life. But it's also possible (not just possible, it's something that's happened many times!) to convict an innocent and sentence them to death and... well, the punishment is irrevocable. At least if they've only been imprisoned we can let them out and give them some kind of restitution. So in practical terms, we are irrevocably killing innocents without actually gaining anything. (People argue about deterrence, but I'd be very surprised if capital punishment vs life imprisonment made an appreciable difference in murder rates. Typically likelihood of punishment is a much stronger factor in deterrence than the actual level of punishment.)
Finally, blah blah it's more expensive to kill a prisoner than house them for life. I don't really care that much about this angle, but hey, another log for the fire.
Basically, the death penalty loses in every category you can pick. The only possible argument for it is closure for the family of a victim... but that argument could apply to many crimes beyond just murder.
The EU is attempting to do just that.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...-prison-without-parole-inhuman-and-degrading/
Regardless, people given life sentences can still be pardoned and appeal their cases.
No offense, but you need to educate yourself on this issue before spouting incorrect opinions.
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/race-and-death-penalty
You are more likely to be sentenced to death if you are black, especially if you killed a white person. The opposite is true if you're white and the victim is black.
Monocle
Member
Loss of personal liberty is punishment enough. Beyond that, revenge is almost always the prime motivator. Punishment isn't for criminals so much as everyone else. It's a way to reinforce the divide between us vs. them, to serve as a warning to potential lawbreakers (even though we already know deterrence doesn't work), and to reassure us that we live in a just society where the wicked are made to pay.
I'm against the death penalty.
The main reason is that there is always a danger that you execute an innocent person, and there is no way to undo such an error.
Even when the person in question is obviously guilty, I don't see the point in society killing someone unless there really is a pressing need (self defense). No point in stooping to the killers level.
The main reason is that there is always a danger that you execute an innocent person, and there is no way to undo such an error.
Even when the person in question is obviously guilty, I don't see the point in society killing someone unless there really is a pressing need (self defense). No point in stooping to the killers level.
With life sentence there's still a chance to save the person (even if it's few years after he/she was imprisoned). With death penalty there's zero chance. None. Nada. You're killing the person right now and nothing can change that, nothing can bring him/her to life.
Many studies have already shown that death penalty is not a good deterrent.
Black people are given the death penalty way out of proportion to the population. Innocent black people are given the death penalty way out of proportion to the population.
The "race card" is entirely appropriate here.
I'm against it because it's not a deterrent, it costs a lot of money, and many innocent people have been executed. The state should never be allowed the authority to kill its citizens. It's obscene and there's no going back if you make a mistake.
The criminal justice system needs to be a bit more scientific and shift its focus toward prevention and rehabilitation. Fewer victims of crime > The thrill of punishment.
The criminal justice system needs to be a bit more scientific and shift its focus toward prevention and rehabilitation. Fewer victims of crime > The thrill of punishment.
rudieboy77
Member
I am against, violence for violence does not ease loss.
But the death penalty assignments are incredibly racist (you're more likely to be recommended for the death penalty if you're black, you're also more likely to be recommended for the death penalty if your victim was white) so maybe that should be fixed before we administer the death penalty to anyone because clearly we're not doing it in an unbiased way.
Used to be for. But with the expense realities and the possibility of getting it wrong, I'm against . And if any pro person was innocently convicted, I'm sure they'd be suddenly against as well. At least for normal crime
I find most of the morale questions like this are easily answered once you put yourself in the shoes.
Although to backpedal a bit, dudes like hitler and bin laden who are guilty of crimes without a shadow of a doubt, and whose death expense should be no more than the cost of the bullet, kill them on sight.
I find most of the morale questions like this are easily answered once you put yourself in the shoes.
Although to backpedal a bit, dudes like hitler and bin laden who are guilty of crimes without a shadow of a doubt, and whose death expense should be no more than the cost of the bullet, kill them on sight.
But it's not about revenge, nor is it really about deterrence, I've already explained my point it is simply about punishment. It's about recognizing the abhorrent acts this person has committed and deeming them no longer fit to remain in society in any capacity. Revenge is about the victims, about emotion and an eye for an eye. Justice isn't supposed to be about revenge it is about dealing out an equitable punishment for the crime a person has committed.
That's why death row inmates are given every chance to appeal their conviction and can even ask for a pardon from the Governor of the State. Now, that's not to say that this doesn't mean an innocent person can't still be executed but it seriously reduces the risk. It's not as simple as "you are sentenced to death" and then two weeks later they are executed.
SmackCrackleNPop
Member
Against. Cheaper to keep them in prison. The reason the death penalty is expensive because of multiple appeals and the legal costs involved .
One innocent person being executed is enough to dissuade me to be against. The system has just enough room for mistakes that it happens. At least if innocent people go to prison and later is proven innocent they can get out. When you execute them no chance of that
One innocent person being executed is enough to dissuade me to be against. The system has just enough room for mistakes that it happens. At least if innocent people go to prison and later is proven innocent they can get out. When you execute them no chance of that
I think you are giving the death penalty too much benefit of the doubt. The US has removed hundreds of people from death row, mainly because the ability to study DNA evidence has improved. The technological shortcomings of a single field nearly sent well over a hundred innocent people to their death. This is just old cases that still had useful DNA evidence, haven't carried out the execution yet, managed to be successfully reopened and ended up getting overturned. Some cases are affected by prosecutorial misconduct, others by sloppy employees or lazy investigators, and often you have juries that are stuck with only one suspect and feel like they have no other explanation. There are many ways that an innocent person could be found guilty, and I think it happens more often than people should be comfortable with.
You've brushed off significant costs without addressing whether the benefits outweigh them. It hasn't been shown to be effective in deterring crimes or improving the lives of victim's families, since the trials tend to drag on much longer if the fate of someone's life is being decided. The legal costs are much higher when the death penalty is pursued, which is warranted since legal fees should not be a determining factor in the outcome. What benefit does it have, aside from satisfying bloodlust? I'm not "soft on crime" and I think punishment and rehabilitation should both be a significant part of the sentence, but why is there a systematic need to make them pay a price that you could never refund? Can you actually show significant benefits to that, outweighing the costs, that can't be achieved with life behind bars?
Why? Surely just killing someone is enough of a mental defect to then rule out everyone? Why shouldn't minors be therefore punished in the same way?
I'm against the death penalty as it solves nothing, killing someone doesn't make them pay for their crime, they just dissapear from earth and never have to think or worry about anything ever again. Thankfully I live in the UK, which while not perfect atleast has a somewhat decent justice system.
- Status