Death Penalty

[Snake of Eden]

The resources that goes to maintain some cold blooded murder lifespan should be instead directed to house, feed an innocent homeless or disadvantaged person. That will be better outcome for society

 

[YourNeighbor]

If the cost of the death penalty is higher than living a lifetime in prison, then I'll take it as clear evidence that there's something horribly corrupt about any system that experiences this, and not as evidence that the death penalty is necessarily bad. Besides, there are other countries in the world, and not all of them have to endure such burocratic nightmare.

The cost stems from the number of appeals that are available to someone sentenced to death, not corruption. The purpose of these appeals is to minimize the risk of error. Get rid of the "bureaucratic nightmare" to make it easier to convict and execute, and you will have more innocent people executed. Simple as that.

The you argue about the humane aspect of keeping someone in prison, waiting for god knows how many years for new evidence, evidence that may never come to save them. I don't know that such a small minority should be representative of the death sentence, even if I agree that everyone should be considered innocent until overwhelming evidence is presented.

Again, every single person who is convicted and sentenced to death in the US is convicted based on evidence that convinced a unanimous jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Every. One. Still, mistakes happen, even when everyone involved is honest and trying their best to do right. Mistakes are inevitable. If you have the death penalty, killing innocent people will be inevitable. Period. How many innocent people are you comfortable executing compared to the truly guilty so that you can satisfy your desire for vengeance? 1 in 100? 1 in 20?

 

[deflationary]

We can't afford an Innocent man die along with perpetrators, no matter how statistically insignificant of innocent-guilty ratio in death row.

I don't get why this kind of reasoning is so popular when it comes to the death penalty, but not when it comes to making new people. Why is creating a shitty life less of a horrifying consequence than snuffing out a good life? The good/bad outcome ratios seem in the same ball-park at the very least. Anyway, that's not really on topic. Just an unsolicited outburst of antinatalism.

On topic, I can't really bring myself to strongly favor either side. I'm not particularly horrified of death penalty as a concept, and I think it might bring some closure to the victims/survivors. So I guess in cases where there's no doubt about guilt, I'm for it. But I guess I also wouldn't generally want governments to decide over who gets to live or die. So, idk, you decide.

Again, every single person who is convicted is convicted based on evidence that convinced a unanimous jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why not just raise the standards for death penalty to be higher than "beyond reasonable doubt" then. Take out the word reasonable or something. There's people that are clearly guilty beyond any doubt.

 

[Pen>Sword]

Nor do the perpetrators have any right to choose who lives and dies or how they can fuck up someone else's life permanently. Kinda messed up that they get to pull that and continue to live. You can't respect life, why the hell should you get to live?

That's because you still have to account the innocent people who are wrongfully convicted. There are many reasons why they're wrongfully convicted. There might be corrupt police, tampered evidence, influential families, terrible defense lawyers, unreasonable judges, racially-charged accusations, emotional juries, and many more. Those may end up having innocent man behind the bars, or worse, inside the noose. Even if they pleaded guilty, there are factors that they did that. Maybe financial constraints, early societal judgment from social media, peer pressure from estranged family members, etc.

Wrongfully convicted or not, they should get to choose where they're headed. Who is 100% sure that this man is guilty beyond reasonable doubt even if the courts get it wrong?

 

[Snake of Eden]

That's because you still have to account the innocent people who are wrongfully convicted. There are many reasons why they're wrongfully convicted. There might be corrupt police, tampered evidence, influential families, terrible defense lawyers, unreasonable judges, racially-charged accusations, emotional juries, and many more. Those may end up having innocent man behind the bars, or worse, inside the noose. Even if they pleaded guilty, there are factors that they did that. Maybe financial constraints, early societal judgment from social media, peer pressure from estranged family members, etc.

Wrongfully convicted or not, they should get to choose where they're headed. Who is 100% sure that this man is guilty beyond reasonable doubt even if the courts get it wrong?

the evidence should be damning beyond doubt to qualify for death penalty. What does that even mean to account for innocence if it can not be a possibility?

 

[Pen>Sword]

the evidence should be damning beyond doubt to qualify for death penalty. What does that even mean to account for innocence if it can not be a possibility?

Here are the list of names who are in death row, only to be exonerated when DNA testing has been used.

Even if the DNA is positive match, there's still chance that they're innocent. Like if a consensual sex happens and caught by a CCTV camera on the street, then a third party witness were bribed to make a false statement to witness. A court may say that the evidence is too damning that the accused deserves to be on death row. Consider that thought experiment, because it could've happen in the future.

 

[BeansOfRequirement]

Or did they have most everything at their disposal and still decided to commit a heinous crime?

This never happened, not once. Genes and environment.

 

[Snake of Eden]

Here are the list of names who are in death row, only to be exonerated when DNA testing has been used.

Even if the DNA is positive match, there's still chance that they're innocent. Like if a consensual sex happens and caught by a CCTV camera on the street, then a third party witness were bribed to make a false statement to witness. A court may say that the evidence is too damning that the accused deserves to be on death row. Consider that thought experiment, because it could've happen in the future.

Thats not damning evidence and rape is bad example. I am talking about a murder fully unprovoked, first degree, witnessed, well documented with video, confessed to, history and motive. How could a solid case like this qualify for possibility of innocence at all?

 

[odradek]

No the death penalty is not a better alternative to life in prison. There's too much room for error and there are rarely ever murder or rape cases with enough so called "damning" evidence to justify some narrow usage of capital punishment. The legal system is so flawed.

I find it odd on a site with such distrust of governments that there would be so many eager to give back the state the power to kill for vengeance. State sanctioned murder just seems folly.

This point is kind of moot tho. Most places in the world have abolished capital punishment for good reason and are very unlikely to go back on this. The places that still practice it have well earned suspect reputations.

 

[Snake of Eden]

No the death penalty is not a better alternative to life in prison. There's too much room for error and there are rarely ever murder or rape cases with enough so called "damning" evidence to justify some narrow usage of capital punishment. The legal system is so flawed.

I find it odd on a site with such distrust of governments that there would be so many eager to give back the state the power to kill for vengeance. State sanctioned murder just seems folly.

This point is kind of moot tho. Most places in the world have abolished capital punishment for good reason and are very unlikely to go back on this. The places that still practice it have well earned suspect reputations.

This site is many things other than a pro choice forum. Discussions are open and off topic stuff does not have to reflect a certain value system. My mind is boggled by many people who think so many things are beyond discussion and re-examining. I dont think it is moot either. Just like the world can go forward on issues it can also go backward. We dont have some universal guarantee that things will just keep on progressing indefinitely towards a specific outlook. The world goes cyclical as much as it goes linear

 

[Pen>Sword]

Thats not damning evidence and rape is bad example. I am talking about a murder fully unprovoked, first degree, witnessed, well documented with video, confessed to, history and motive. How could a solid case like this qualify for possibility of innocence at all?

In those cases, life imprisonment still works. Why kill a person if prison can prevent it. Yes, he can still kill inside the prison, but he could be isolated if he is on the verge of killing spree. If he clearly didn't rehabilitate even after his life sentence, they could still extend his sentence until death.

We're now entering in philosophy, but that's OK. Society shouldn't kill out of vengeance. A person can kill for self-defense, but vengeance, no. Blood for blood may be the most "practical solution", but it's nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction for emotional parties. We shouldn't kill a person that has happened based on the past. We still should try to rehabilitate them even if it's overrated. We need to be level-headed when we talk about policies that permanently changes lives.

Those who've been deservedly convicted of the most heinous crimes are now in their most vulnerable state, rendering themselves defenseless. Justice can be served without death. It is a popular solution, but not the solution. Death penalty is the wrong answer because there are many other options.

Even criminal psychopaths stop engaging in crimes in old age. I'd love to find citations for this, but nursing school and time constraints won't allow me.

 

[odradek]

This site is many things other than a pro choice forum. Discussions are open and off topic stuff does not have to reflect a certain value system. My mind is boggled by many people who think so many things are beyond discussion and re-examining. I dont think it is moot either. Just like the world can go forward on issues it can also go backward. We dont have some universal guarantee that things will just keep on progressing indefinitely towards a specific outlook. The world goes cyclical as much as it goes linear

You seem to be projecting a lot on to my comments. I never said it shouldn't be discussed or reexamined, I just offered my own opinion. I also wasn't trying to define what should or should not be discussed here. I don't understand how me offering an opinion is somehow trying to define this site as only for pro-choice discussions. Am I not participating in the discussion?

When I said the point is moot I meant practically. It's abolishment is unlikely to be reversed where it has already been outlawed. Feel free to discuss it's merits, you are a mod and I have no ability to control or change anything here. No where did I say this shouldn't be discussed or reexamined. I just think it doesn't matter either way and I disagree with capital punishment on principle.

 

[WhiteRabbit]

The death penalty is barbaric. Something that should be left in the past. Not to mention it's more expensive, but I see that's already been discussed.

The racial statistics of death row in my country make me uncomfortable. Black men are 14% of the population.

Current U.S. Death Row Population by Race

Race	Number	Percentage
Black	1018	41%
Latinx	335	14%
White	1050	42%
Other	71	3%

 

[Snake of Eden]

No the death penalty is not a better alternative to life in prison. There's too much room for error and there are rarely ever murder or rape cases with enough so called "damning" evidence to justify some narrow usage of capital punishment. The legal system is so flawed.

I find it odd on a site with such distrust of governments that there would be so many eager to give back the state the power to kill for vengeance. State sanctioned murder just seems folly.

This point is kind of moot tho. Most places in the world have abolished capital punishment for good reason and are very unlikely to go back on this. The places that still practice it have well earned suspect reputations.

If I misunderstood then I apologize.

The death penalty is barbaric. Something that should be left in the past. Not to mention it's more expensive, but I see that's already been discussed.

I think definition whats barbaric is highly relative to the times. When the prison system implode or social/economical/political structure starts failing to sustain such methods of punishment, death penalty will be most likely the only other alternative to preserve society. So death penalty can never be inherently barbaric even when society today could afford to see it as such

 

[WhiteRabbit]

I think definition whats barbaric is highly relative to the times. When the prison system implode or social/economical/political structure starts failing to sustain such methods of punishment, death penalty will be most likely the only other alternative to preserve society. So death penalty can never be inherently barbaric even when society today could afford to see it as such

That hasn't happened though.

 

[Arrow]

No. I think the ultimate goal should always be to try to rehabilitate as many people as possible into functioning members of society, and as long as you're a human and not literally an animal I think the capacity to be a functioning member of society is there. Because of that I'm against the death penalty.
Unless criminals want to die, in which case they should be allowed to. Nobody should be forced to live, and there are probably lots of criminals in prison who would actually choose death if given the option, I bet.

 

[LastFlowers]

This never happened, not once. Genes and environment.

Unfortunately I've seen evidence and cases to the contrary, but yes genes and environment are basically the driving force behind every human's life trajectory, where other people and society make up part of the 'environment' aspect.

 

[Snake of Eden]

That hasn't happened though.

I was just making the point that the barbaric aspect to death penalty is relative to the times. It is easy for is to take for granted our position today as compared to the past. There are no insurances we wont be moving backwards someday. What we have now is a luxury rather than a sustainable way of being. We could be one world war from what I am talking about

 

[LastFlowers]

No. I think the ultimate goal should always be to try to rehabilitate as many people as possible into functioning members of society, and as long as you're a human and not literally an animal I think the capacity to be a functioning member of society is there. Because of that I'm against the death penalty.
Unless criminals want to die, in which case they should be allowed to. Nobody should be forced to live, and there are probably lots of criminals in prison who would actually choose death if given the option, I bet.

Humans are weird, they're constantly trying to separate themselves from the rest of the animal kingdom as some superior and self-controlled being, yet are quick to fall back onto the the excuse of "nature" every time they commit a more animalistic act or lean into more animalistic tendencies.
(sorry a bit unrelated to the topic, but I was reminded of this common phenomenon)

 

[WhiteRabbit]

I was just making the point that the barbaric aspect to death penalty is relative to the times. It is easy for is to take for granted our position today as compared to the past. There are no insurances we wont be moving backwards someday. What we have now is a luxury rather than a sustainable way of being. We could be one world war from what I am talking about

I think it's always been barbaric.

 

[Snake of Eden]

No. I think the ultimate goal should always be to try to rehabilitate as many people as possible into functioning members of society, and as long as you're a human and not literally an animal I think the capacity to be a functioning member of society is there. Because of that I'm against the death penalty.
Unless criminals want to die, in which case they should be allowed to. Nobody should be forced to live, and there are probably lots of criminals in prison who would actually choose death if given the option, I bet.

I think seeing the way that the prison system functions has nothing to do with rehabilitation what so ever and if some indivisuals could turn their life around is because of their own choice and not because of the prison system itself. Same analogy is good for mental health interventions. You cant fix most people and they may not be fixed even if they tried to

 

[Snake of Eden]

I think it's always been barbaric.

Without possibility of prisons like today in the past then you think advocating for killers to be let free is a better idea? I am open to suggestions

 

[Arrow]

I find it odd on a site with such distrust of governments that there would be so many eager to give back the state the power to kill for vengeance. State sanctioned murder just seems folly.

Good point. But, why anyone would want the state to have the power to vengefully kill people for committing crimes kind of blows my mind. Why would you want to live in a society where you could very realistically be wrongly convicted and the state just locks you in a box to kill you? If there's even a chance that could happen to anybody then I'd want my government's sole focus to be to help people become better, not this "eye for an eye we make you suffer because you're bad" thing. It's just strange.

they're constantly trying to separate themselves from the rest of the animal kingdom as some superior and self-controlled being, yet are quick to fall back onto the the excuse of "nature" every time they commit a more animalistic act or lean into more animalistic tendencies.

Hmm. Nature can act on things that aren't animals, though. Even if I thought we weren't animals (i do, of course, i just think we're fundamentally very different from them) I could still argue that nature has a massive effect on us. Rocks aren't animals but they're affected by nature. Tectonic plates, planetary movements. Huge things that aren't animals but still natural. Humans could be that, hypothetically, just in a different way.

the way that the prison system functions has nothing to do with rehabilitation what so ever and if some indivisuals could turn their life around is because of their own choice and not because of the prison system itself

But if the system were rehabilitative then even more people's lives could be turned around. And Better environments allow more people to make better choices. Maybe some wouldn't want to be fixed, that's always a possibility.

 

[Snake of Eden]

Good point. But, why anyone would want the state to have the power to vengefully kill people for committing crimes kind of blows my mind. Why would you want to live in a society where you could very realistically be wrongly convicted and the state just locks you in a box to kill you? If there's even a chance that could happen to anybody then I'd want my government's sole focus to be to help people become better, not this "eye for an eye we make you suffer because you're bad" thing. It's just strange.

Thats ok. When the state could afford to rehabilitate individuals like in today. I want someone to tell me when the prison system is no longer sustainable because of whatever reason in future. What is a good way of tackling this type of problem with cold blooded thirsty murders who want to kill who ever they could? prison systems are gone. What do we do?

 

[Arrow]

What is a good way of tackling this type of problem with cold blooded thirsty murders who want to kill who ever they could? prison systems are gone. What do we do?

Well prison systems being gone would probably be very bad. If you commit those crimes its pretty reasonable that you'd get locked up, but what happens inside of the prisons is the thing that needs to change. No prisons would probably be a big problem I imagine.

 

[Snake of Eden]

Well prison systems being gone would probably be very bad. If you commit those crimes its pretty reasonable that you'd get locked up, but what happens inside of the prisons is the thing that needs to change. No prisons would probably be a big problem I imagine.

Regression of our species is inevitable. Death penalty will not be barbaric when it is the only way to keep social stability when the prison system fails and no longer is sustainable. Anybody who argued that is delusional

 

[Arrow]

Regression of our species is inevitable. Death penalty will not be barbaric when it is the only way to keep social stability when the prison system fails and no longer is sustainable. Anybody who argued that is delusional

I don't know if regression is necessarily inevitable. If the death penalty were the only way to keep social stability then it might be better to have it than to not. But I don't think it's needed today in America at least, and I think we'd be better off without it + a rehabilitative justice system, which we don't really have.

 

[meetapple]

The death penalty has been shown to be ineffective as a deterrent. That leaves retribution and incarceration. Retribution is the satisfaction that a victim (or victim's family) gets when one who has hurt you gets put in jail. Incarceration is the elimination of danger to society by virtue of the fact that the prisoner is in jail and can't hurt any free people there. In this case, the prisoner is killed leaving no chance that he will hurt others. It seems that the death penalty is mostly justified by retribution. People feel better about the fact that the convict gets killed after he has committed a heinous act towards them. To me this does not justify the risk that an innocent person could be executed even if there was a lot of evidence against him. Also, the death penalty is somewhat inhumane even if the person was guilty of the crime he was accused of.

 

[Fragile]

The cost stems from the number of appeals that are available to someone sentenced to death, not corruption. The purpose of these appeals is to minimize the risk of error. Get rid of the "bureaucratic nightmare" to make it easier to convict and execute, and you will have more innocent people executed. Simple as that.

Again, every single person who is convicted and sentenced to death in the US is convicted based on evidence that convinced a unanimous jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Every. One. Still, mistakes happen, even when everyone involved is honest and trying their best to do right. Mistakes are inevitable. If you have the death penalty, killing innocent people will be inevitable. Period. How many innocent people are you comfortable executing compared to the truly guilty so that you can satisfy your desire for vengeance? 1 in 100? 1 in 20?

You make some solid points and I understand your reasoning. I'm not in favor of every death sentence, but there are some extreme cases that escape both of our arguments either in favor or pro-death sentence.

However, let's move past this "vengeance" reasoning, It's highly subjective, and it could also be said that keeping a prisoner in a cell for life is a much harsher form of torture. So let's not delve into that side of this discussion, it's very shallow at the very least.

 

[BeansOfRequirement]

The racial statistics of death row in my country make me uncomfortable. Black men are 14% of the population.

Current U.S. Death Row Population by Race

Race	Number	Percentage
Black	1018	41%
Latinx	335	14%
White	1050	42%
Other	71	3%

Looks like black people get executed less than white people, when you take the murder rate into account. 4,800 (W) vs 6,500 (B) homicides in 2019. The issue isn't that black people are being executed more for murders, it's that the murder rate itself is higher (poverty, history, etc).

Expanded Homicide Data Table 3

ucr.fbi.gov

I personally dislike dividing people into "races" and this way of talking about it, though.