I guarantee a hollow-point bullet is cheaper than life-long imprisonment. I know that that’s not how it happens, but I’m just saying. Besides, the death penalty happens every day, much more efficiently than a bureaucracy can do it. Read about the time when a man shot down three teens who broke into his house.
Yeh and the executioners having to received therapy because killing someone is severely psychologically damaging.
Self defence isn’t a death penalty, it’s a Consequence of endangerment (also in most of the west killing someone in self defence or defence of home is actually considered murder or man slaughter, especially in the uk were much of this sites membership comes from, #lawful duty to flee )
What statistics? What Morals? How does it make sense?
What makes prison any better. Why should the state be able to restrict someone’s life to a small cell, bad food, and force them to develop a dependency on the state.
Death is a better alternative to imprisonment, it’s cheaper, it is moral, and it reduced human suffering ten fold. Prison is the real problem.
How could something so irreversible be moral tho?
I think it depends on your morals, because in reality morals are subjective, so to some it may be moral to have the death penalty to others it isnt. That’s sort of why I created this post. People support/reject the Death Penalty for a myriad of reasons, and I think it’s interesteing to see them all.
Agreed. However, state officials should have the right to use lethal force where necessary to defend themselves or others, same as citizens
The death penalty has shown no effect on actual homicide, is more costly than even life imprisonment, and results in the death of not only people in general, but in the likely death of innocents as well. Such a policy has no place in our society.
Neither does life sentences. If you take away the death penalty crime rates are the same, so people obviously aren’t afraid of life in prison.
That’s only because there’s so much extra stuff to go through. Death-row inmates don’t need special housing, so that’ll help cut costs. And if you just cut down some of the stuff, there you go. Now you run the risk of killing an innocent person yes, but I think its worth the risk.
That’s just a cop out. You can’t just say the death penalty should happen because it’s moral, get challenged on to why it is moral, then ad hoc insert that morality is subjective (which most people don’t think is the case). That’s like me saying “Christianity is the truth, it should be forcibly taught to everyone” someone else saying “How is it the truth? Argument x suggests otherwise” then me replying “well it’s true for me”.
Morals may be subjective but ethics are not, and taking the rather substantial risk of killing an innocent for no objective gain is certainly unethical
There has been specific statistical analysis that has shown that the number of executions committed has no discernible effect on homicide rates. In theory it sounds like it would deter crime, but likely due to the mindset of those committing homicide, no such correlation has been shown. Essentially, it’s further unnecessary death.
There are high costs associated with the legal proceedings surround the death penalty that make it vastly more expensive than the alternatives.
You see no societal benefit in capital punishment, and you only see further societal loss with the death of innocent people. It is ridiculous to think people being put to death is helping out society.
I wasn’t using it as a defense. He was asking how the death penalty could and I was just mentioning it ( I wasn’t defending the other dude, just stating.) The other dude didn’t reply and so I was just trying to continue the convo, and it’s true though. It doesn’t matter if most people don’t think its the case. It’s true. The morals of a fundamentalist islamic terrorist will be different than that of a united states gay democrat. It’s just like how there was that poll that said like 50+ percent of americans believed that you had to be religious to be moral (its not like that now, but it’s only 56% who say you don’t have to be religious to be moral, barely a majority.) I’m not saying it should be used as a defense, but just because some things are incomprehensible to one, doesn’t mean it is to another.
Well ethics are based on morals and principles people/ a group have, so they subjective, although they’re not as subject to arbitration as morals, because most people will probably agree killing an inoccent is wrong, but many will probably disagree that not killing anyone at all is right (otherwise people wouldn’t support wars and stuff like that). And, thinking on it, I’m not so gung-ho about the death penalty anymore, but I’m not against it. I think maybe lessen how often it’s used, but crimes like the school-shootings and stuff, should definitely get the death penalty. But, I am more worried,( the more I think about it) about killing an innocent, although I still think there are some who should be put down.
Edit: ^ not innocent people that should be put down, gotta clarify because ik i sound a little stalinish.
I know, I’m not saying it’s a crime deterrent. I’m just saying that some people don’t deserve to live in prison.
I know, I was saying take away some of them, but thinking about it, idk. Ik I’m flip-flopping my ideas, but I’m not as for the death penalty as I was basically like two days ago. I’m not against because killing people is wrong now, but yeah i’d rather lower the risk of innocent people getting killed as much as possible, but I’m still for the death penalty.
Is it? What’s the benefit of keeping child molestors and school shooters? I’ll admit, as I said, I’m certainly more ambivalent about the death penalty atm than I was not so long ago. But I don’t see any societal benefit to keeping those people alive. Although now I’m not really advocating for killing all of them, honeslty now I think the death penalty should be used less (maybe use it only for big cases), there isn’t any soceital benefit in really keeping those people. Very few people are like “well now that I just murdered ten people, I think I’ll be good for the rest of my life,” or “I got to touch 3 kids, I think I’ll stop now.” If people think they can get away with it, chances are they’ll do it. (Honestly, child-rape shouldn’t be given the death penalty. Chances are people who do that will be killed or ruined in prison anyway.)
No, not really. Ethics are a basic code of innate rights that people have and must abide by. It’s the glue that holds society together. Without ethics we would have totalitarian, dysfunctional tyranny, or anarchy (not the good kind). Ethics refer to how human beings should treat one another. Morals are about how people should act relative to themselves. There is a difference. Ethics are not derived from morals, if anything its the other way around.
Your opinion now seems much more sensible. I’m fine with the death penalty, but only in egregious cases with overwhelming evidence (serial killers, school shooters, war criminals, etc.)
Eh, I mean, ethics are generalized though right? So like doing what is best for society would be considered ethical. So therefore, if a group of people being killed would be best for society, wouldn’t it be ethical then to kill those people? But that would also go against a bunch of peoples morals wouldn’t it? Sorry to turn this into questioning about ethics and morals and stuff, but idk ethics seem to confuse me for some reason.
Okay yeah haha but (to defend my earlier self lol) I was thinking that there’d have to be a bunch fo evidence to convict, (even for child rape, so like dna evidence for two or more kids) but I was much more liberal about its use a couple of days ago.