Death Penalty

choiboyx012 said:
I'm OK with it. I used to be more strongly for it but my stance has softened over time. Now I just don't care. Should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes. And if you're going to do it, then do it more swiftly. None of this 10, 20+ years sitting on death row with appeals after appeals and other court shenanigans that lawyers and judges drag for years and years.
Yes I know it isn't a deterrence. I don't think you can really quantify or predict "deterrence" for things like murder, rape, terrorism anyway, but oh well. I have a more retributive view on capital punishment. When it comes to these crimes I don't care about deterrence, rehabilitation, or utilitarian benefits to society of a criminal's death. You die because you deserve to.
Click to expand...
200 people exonnerated in the US on death row since 1973
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence
 
Tarrou said:
I don't understand how they sometimes have trouble doing the killings efficiently. Surely the correct over-dose of the right drug always gets the job done? Why even use other methods than that?
Click to expand...
With this man, they couldn't find a vein so couldn't place the IV line. He was very obese, which may have been the issue.

Of course, the people in prisons who are trying to place the line aren't doctors or nurses. They sometimes have the same problem with long-term IV drug users.
 
Matt Varnish said:
I agree with this, specially built prison, no home comforts like TV, or games. Preferably on an Island somewhere very inhospitable. No contact with the ouside world, not even mail.
Click to expand...
That's a take that reeks of vengeance under the varnish of lawfulness.

Such prisons existed, they were called penal colonies and there's a reason why they disappeared.
 
Withnail said:
It's archaic in my view and should be consigned to the past. The state has to pay someone to carry out state sponsored murder against people who committed murder. I always think of the executioner. How do they have a normal life?
Click to expand...
Executioners have all been frowned upon and basically outcasts throughout History. They generally were treated with a mix of both fear and contempt.

There's no (normal) human being who would brag about exercising this "profession".
 
Last edited:
I really don't care. I don't go in for all the "we've developed past it as a society" rubbish - if it works as a deterrent then we should use it. If it doesn't then don't. If it saves a truly significant amount of cash for a society then do it. If it doesn't then don't.

I don't believe anyone who says they wouldn't take a red-hot poker to the arsehole of a dirty old nonce though. And if you're willing to torture, might as well kill em.
 
Camilo said:
I really don't care. I don't go in for all the "we've developed past it as a society" rubbish - if it works as a deterrent then we should use it. If it doesn't then don't. If it saves a truly significant amount of cash for a society then do it. If it doesn't then don't.

I don't believe anyone who says they wouldn't take a red-hot poker to the arsehole of a dirty old nonce though. And if you're willing to torture, might as well kill em.
Click to expand...
Death penalty doesn’t work as a deterrent, so agreed we shouldn’t use it.
 
Matt Varnish said:
200 people exonnerated in the US on death row since 1973
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence
Click to expand...

I don't understand how any argument in favor of it gets past this hurdle.

Its the end of the debate for any rational person, or anyone who could be trusted with such decisions really.

US arguably has the fairest system of determining innocence/guilt in the world, and yet it is still riddled with errors, and spectacularly open to bias, corruption, misinformation, inaccurate or non factual evidence, etc.

You can only get to the moral argument by narrowing it down to cases where someone admits guilt or there is hard proof, which IF there is a death penalty is what it should be reserved for, and even then from a moral/fair justice point of view I think its very difficult to make it make sense. Its not proven as a deterrent either. In fact it demonstrably isn't much of one. Most homicides are committed on the basis the offender either isn't in a rational frame of mind or doesn't believe they will get caught.

At the moment it isn't really much better than murdering innocent people, because statistically that is more than likely exactly what it is in some cases.
 
Tarrou said:
I don't understand how they sometimes have trouble doing the killings efficiently. Surely the correct over-dose of the right drug always gets the job done? Why even use other methods than that?
Click to expand...
Getting the drugs is a problem, pharma companies won't sell them to the authorities
 
noodlehair said:
I don't understand how any argument in favor of it gets past this hurdle.

Its the end of the debate for any rational person, or anyone who could be trusted with such decisions really.

US arguably has the fairest system of determining innocence/guilt in the world, and yet it is still riddled with errors, and spectacularly open to bias, corruption, misinformation, inaccurate or non factual evidence, etc.

You can only get to the moral argument by narrowing it down to cases where someone admits guilt or there is hard proof, which IF there is a death penalty is what it should be reserved for, and even then from a moral/fair justice point of view I think its very difficult to make it make sense.

At the moment it isn't really much better than murdering innocent people, because statistically that is more than likely exactly what it is in some cases.
Click to expand...
That's not really true though is it? Non-white people are far more likely to be imprisoned or given harsher sentences than a white person for the same offence

One of the biggest problems is that judges are often selected based on ideology, whether by election or appointment
 
Red in STL said:
That's not really true though is it? Non-white people are far more likely to be imprisoned or given harsher sentences than a white person for the same offence

One of the biggest problems is that judges are often selected based on ideology, whether by election or appointment
Click to expand...

No the problem is that it is true and yet is still a seriously flawed system, which was my entire point. Did you just not read the rest of the sentence you highlighted?
 
noodlehair said:
No the problem is that it is true and yet is still a seriously flawed system, which was my entire point. Did you just not read the rest of the sentence you highlighted?
Click to expand...
So you are arguing that the US system is arguably the fairest in the world despite its blatant racism
 
For the most heinous criminals, death is actually an easy escape for them. They need to be forced to do labor that benefits other people and have their freedom very limited. For their entire life.
And if you believe eye for an eye, it's not even comparable. The victims often died in a gruesome way while the criminal only got lethally injected. Not even eye for an eye...
 
SilentWitness said:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...illiams-execution-missouri-time-b2618432.html

Missouri death row inmate Marcellus Williams executed despite even the prosecution thinking he was innocent​

There was this one too recently.
Click to expand...

Schmiznurf said:
The fact that he was still executed is fecking dusgusting and it should be treated as murder.
Click to expand...

Very sensationalist how media have framed this. 'Prosecutor' wasn't even involved in that case and he's currently running for a political seat, promoting himself as anti-death penalty among other things hence natural for him to oppose this (also to lay blame on his predecessors). The article itself implies at first glance that it's the one that prosecuted him who thought he was innocent which is nonsense.

Also, the only thing defense had to delay this was that murder weapon had been mishandled (it was), but otherwise the evidence largely pointed to him being guilty and he himself confessed to two different people who were able to produce details of murder that were never released to public and only a murderer would have known about. He also sold a laptop belonging to the victim days after murder and tried to convince the jury that he got it as a gift from his girlfriend. Basically zero doubt that the guy did this (and he stabbed her 43 times, it was a very brutal murder).

Not saying death penalty is great or anything but this story being passed around in recent days with such gross misrepresentation of what actually happened is wrong and needs to be articulated how skewed media's portrayal of this case has been.
 
Berbasbullet said:
Death penalty doesn’t work as a deterrent, so agreed we shouldn’t use it.
Click to expand...
Depends on how much cash it could save then. I'm sure it's a matter of volume. One death probably costs more than locking them up, but a thousand executed nonces might start to make financial sense.

You can't just look at one point.
 
tenpoless said:
For the most heinous criminals, death is actually an easy escape for them. They need to be forced to do labor that benefits other people and have their freedom very limited. For their entire life.
And if you believe eye for an eye, it's not even comparable. The victims often died in a gruesome way while the criminal only got lethally injected. Not even eye for an eye...
Click to expand...

They don't end up doing much labor, nor will they in the future. Prisons are already overcrowded and adding a steady stream of violent criminals only makes prisons worse in terms of gangs, violence, and the general tension of being incarcerated. That's not to say the death penalty is the solution to this, but rather that high incarceration rates aren't helping the conversation.
 
Camilo said:
Depends on how much cash it could save then. I'm sure it's a matter of volume. One death probably costs more than locking them up, but a thousand executed nonces might start to make financial sense.

You can't just look at one point.
Click to expand...
Sorry who’s them? You literally said if it doesn’t work as a deterrent then don’t do it, and it doesn’t.

I’m thinking of the person committing the crime, I’m pretty sure there is scant evidence that the death penalty works properly as a deterrent.
 
1. It does not work as a deterrence. (sources 1, 2, 3)
2. Innocent people have been executed.(sources 1, 2)

Either of those facts alone should disqualify it as a punishment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.