What’s everyones opinion on the death penalty? I’m definitely for it, and India certainly deserves applause.
Poor people should be farmed and the right to their internal organs owned by the upper class in an effort to preserve the rich and powerful at the expense of the peasants
Many people deserve death, but the justice system is not perfect, and killing someone is not reversible, thus the state should not have the power to murder people.
People often forget the state has its own power interests and it is very difficult to discourage a state from engaging in them (impossible if others are, most states dont do bad things because they like them, they deem them neccesery things to do)
Political prisoners can be cloaked from being political ones by basically framing them in a crime (something most states have plenty enough resources to do) . Julian Assange is a fairly famous example of a highly suspicious accusation of being a child molestor, coincidentally when wiki leaks had just leaked fuck tonnes of information on the USA and the UK (the accusation being mentioned also vanished when hes talked about),
In fact its a favourite political tool to rap someone into a sex scandal, a child had “accused” trump of sexually molesting them or when they were a child, during his campaign, when it was announced that trump was president elect, the case literally vanished without a trace(this would easily have led to an impeachment too if true) . I don’t like trump, i think hes a fucking moron, and i am deeply sympathetic to those who want a death penalty or loosen our judicial standards because i know it will catch more criminals,
But you cannot let the state have access to a legitmate tool of murder, the rules of the justice system automatically acquits anyone involved in the execution of an innocent person, from the jury to the prosecution to the judge, unless perjury is found (and rarely is). It will be used against political prisoners (you think chelsea manning would be alive today if treason or military crimes like leaking secrets could be punished with execution?)
Well one they’d have to be convicted, so there’d have to be proof. Yeah innocent people go to jail, but that’s a small percentage. Ik “we shouldn’t risk killing an innocent person,” but I do think people like child molestors should face severe punishment, and life-long prisonment isn’t actually deterring people, and it costs more to keep those people in prison than to kill them.
Standards of proof have changed, alot in recent times. For example finger prints are no longer considered evidence in US courts, because they are not unique. People have been put on death row with literal pseudo science in the USA like "bite mark analyses ". DNA alone isnt always reliable either, witness accounts have been proven to be suspicious even when a person isnt lying , you can actually suggest new elements indirectly that they will “remember” in their memory, the older the memory the more susceptible, and often court cases last years due to their immense complexity.
There is no evidence the death penalty is an effective deterrent, most child molestors act on an irrational impulse meaning a deterrent (usually a rational calculation) would likely not be effective anyway, vs say a robbery which is a rational calculation especially if its organised.
It does not, a death penalty usually takes 10 years to actually occur because of the appeals proccess and system that exists in any valid justice system. The death penalty itself is an extremely expensive procedure, specialists have to be on hand if the execution goes wrong. The appeals process alone can cost more then a life sentence.
|Sorry for the multiple responses but i feel each setence deserves its own post as a thought, I will homogenise them into a single response later if this discussion continues.
Its not that, that was not my point, i said its a very powerful political tool, you can kill the person who knows the crimes of your state and knows how to prove them (take the russian nerf gas incident)for instance, no matter how good of a justice system you have, you will always have casualties, however at least they wont be deaths, it is exceedingly hard for a corrupt state, say 20 years later to keep you in when half the people who put you in there are not even around anymore to stop it. You cant say the same if you are dead.
Don’t worry about the multiple points, your good.
That’s why you make it simpler. And in the times where they exceed 10 years of jail time, then it is cheaper. ^ Ik thats harder said then done, and like I don’t want innocent people to get killed, but (sorry i’m so non-chalant about it,)
I’m not saying it deters people, ik its been proven that is has no effect. But for cases with life-long sentences and those of really heinous crimes, idk. I guess I could compromise with like 24/7 solitary confinement, but they’d still be sucking up money.
That is true. Got me there lol.
Oh I know, I wasn’t coming after you (sorry if you thought that lol), but that’s just an argument that pops up and it just came into my speech.
I agree with it, nasty business however; and I do think that a fair trial should be held and there should be about a five year waiting period before you get executed so you can appeal or wait for more evidence to remove the charge.
My position has always been to leave it up to the prisoner, and to have the option always available. A five year waiting period is a good idea as well.
You sure about that? I’d be interested to know where you’re getting this from.
where i’m getting what from?
Yeah innocent people go to jail, but that’s a small percentage.
I think we’d like to believe that the majority of people in prison were actually guilty, meaning that they did in fact commit the crime rather than being “found guilty” by a jury. Ideally, we would want the best, most up-standing, most honest people to serve on a jury, but the reality is that they are hand-picked and most good jurors are excluded and sent home. This story seems to be consistent across the board and yes I’m giving a personal anecdote here. It’s not like we can expect the system to give us the straight skinny.
And I’m not trying to add a solipsistic spin. I’m just adding food for thought that if research does exist on the subject, can we really trust it? Or is this something we should just go with our gut on?
Well in all honestly, few innocent people jailed is probably in like the thousands. But if you take away like small drug crimes and the like I’m sure that number would drop. I haven’t done extensive research into the subject, not gonna lie.
A new way to get convictions would be nice, but right now a jury seems to probably be the best way of doing things. I don’t really like how jurors can be sent away tbh. I think that subverts the system, and I think it should be done away with. The randomly selected jury should not be susceptible to change (unless something comes up with a juror, but the defense/prosecution should not have a say in the formation of the jury.)
I’m sure there is research, but as with everything it should be taken with a grain of salt. The issue could always be better or worse, as I’m sure no research project is all comprehensive.
The death penalty, by premise is flawed, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?
Every single country in the modern world has an imperfect justice system, you too, Scandinavia and the people who have the power to take someones life certainly should not have that sort of power. The Death Penalty in Ireland hasn’t even been abolished longer than 20 years, but the last actual execution was over 40 years ago IIRC
TL:DR Rotting in prison is much more torture than killing someone imo.
If you are going to have the death penalty you have it for the worst crime which is murder. If a rapist stands to face the death penalty for their crime they have nothing to lose killing their victim.
If your position is retribution is flawed and you think prison is worse than killing people, then surely you don’t agree with sending people to prison?
An interesting perspective, but still, is having the death penalty at all something reasonable for the government to wield?
I think giving the state the authority to take the lives of their own citizens requires a number of good reasons. I’m yet to come across any.
Statistically, morally, etc., it makes sense WITH SOME SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE. Child rapists? They should be crucified on top of the city halls. Thieves? Give them another chance. Since imprisoning someone costs substantially more than a lethal injection, the death penalty is economically reasonable. All around, it’s just a good idea.