Death Penalty Debate

The death penalty is necessary for those who should be permanently removed from society as a result of their actions. I am baffled at people that think "life in prison" is somehow more 'humane' and gives them the moral high ground. This litmus test fails even in the face of the tried and true "but what if we put someone wrongly convicted to death?" argument. If given the choice between a reasonably quick and clean death or 30/40+ years completely deprived of freedom, I know few people who would choose the latter.

It mean's a little less about what the severity of the penalty is to the convict vs. what we permit our justice system to be allowed to do. For the record I think prisons are pretty extreme too.

I'm not gonna pretend to have all the answers here, I just don't really agree with the prospect of having to kill people or put them in prison for x amount of years just because we haven't thought of something better yet. Ideally your civilization should be good enough where people wouldn't want to commit crimes that we use these kinds of penalties for.

Check out the movie Citizen X, about the serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. And how this Soviet mode of thinking actually led to more killings. They had created a just and equity based society thus removing the need for people to commit crime so how could there possibly be a killer on the loose? Those things only happen in capitalistic societies, not our classless utopia.


www.imdb.com/title/tt0112681/

dude what Soviet mode of thinking? What are you even reading? I just expressed that there should be a better way and i dont enjoy being complicit in a system that grants selected people an authority to kill and imprison their own people without proposing any solution of my own.

Can you please cut me a break? Just because im speaking doesnt make it affront to the holy way of doing things. We're not living in a utopia -- the system is flawed and warrants criticism.

Yess yess yee. I think I agree.
The Death Penalty should be strictly voluntary.
Or not, maybe.

Depends on how much of a bonifide, irridemible monster someone is. Though imo, death penalty seems less to punish, per se, but more of a tool to acheive "closure in regards to the broader concept of justice" for heinous acts of that deserving caliber.
Out of principle though, I'm not a fan of other people qualifying other people as death-worthy if there's no risk of the same thing in return.
I'd rather under-shoot on the number of death penalties than over-shoot. So I'm against.


You're right, it's a waste of meat. Clearly we should send them to CIA black-sites to do human experimentation on them.

Life time long term and death penalty are both inhumane, if it matters.

The difference is that when a convict is killed, one can't be secretly replaced with a double.

So death penalty ensures that convict is removed from society, and life long term doesn't

I'm pro death / anti life / violence activist, so I'm pro death penalty by default.

There's no good reason to give evil people an easy way out, when imprisoning them and forcing them to work is more productive.

"Deleted" sure has a lot of things to say on this forum.

Hit-and-run, I guess?

Is it though? Between the overhead of housing, feeding, clothing them, then transporting them to and from work sites in addition to the extra manpower needed to watch them and hopefully prevent their escape, still seems like a net loss compared to execution. That's assuming they are even put to work in the first place.

I'm not sure if that is always the case.

For example, sometimes serial killers enter a plea bargain, where they admit to where the other bodies are buried, in exchange of being spared the death penalty. The families of the victims just want to have closure for their loved ones, and find out what happened to them sometimes.

Henry Lee Lucas, Samuel Little, Ted Bundy (for a short time), and Gary Ridgeway were famous examples of this.

Nevertheless,

the argument which is a harsher punishment is irrelevant to me.

To me the main objective should be to eliminate a destructive individual from society.

SilverMiner What is a single example of this happening?

It's just not practical. Someone with the money and influence to not only subvert courts and police but silence them on the matter is somebody who would be recognized out in the world. How would you silence everybody? You'd have to pay off/intimidate judges, attorneys, stenographers, police officers, and every inmate that comes in contact with either the mastermind or his double. Nobody talks? Not even the victim taking his place in prison? He just goes along willingly? His friends and family don't kick up a fuss with the newspapers and media and online about their innocent loved one who was not only convicted of a crime they didn't commit, but under an entirely different identity? I assume here you could suggest they get a homeless man with no connections and put him in solitary confinement. But then why bother with the double in the first place?

The lens through which you view reality is distorted and ridiculous and the only reason one believes this sort of thing (without thinking a single aspect of it all the way through) is for the self-satisfaction of supposing they're far more elucidated than the rest of the world. Everyone else is simply living in the matrix and you get to be Neo. It's a comforting power fantasy that takes a chaotic complicated world and packages it into an easily digestible narrative that can account for any scenario.

Please think your theories through. Again, I feel bad for picking on you but I'm so bored of people nonchalantly suggesting batshit conspiracies with all the conviction of a mystic who sees through the veil.