So, death penalty

[Ashadowpie]

i dont like the death penalty, what a waste of evil people that we could experiment on instead of innocent animals. terrible i know but well...they deserve it IMO.

i think this concept should only be done if they would be on death row though.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

I?d like to preface this by pointing out many of my comments were directed toward the arguments others have been making to illustrate my point below that trading one problem for another doesn?t fix anything. So onward?

Money? That's really more important than making sure the wrong person isn't executed?

If someone makes an argument in regards to cost, then they should realize the cheapest option is the most efficient one. One trial, one bullet and one hour in a furnace. The accuracy of conviction is a failure in the machine; one that should be fixed as opposed to trashing the machine entirely. You don?t throw away a TV simply because one button on it is broken.

So what? You don't go down to their level. And you can't really say that will happen in prison for sure, but if it will, that's the problem that must be fixed.

We don?t go down to their level. People are failing to understand the difference between someone recklessly murdering another person for any arbitrary reason and a group of individuals working within a clearly defined system to enact justice on criminals based on evidence and degrees of guilt. It?s like saying an finger painting 8 year old and Da Vinci do the same thing because in the end paint is applied to a canvas.
I could point you toward several documentaries and studies that report prison life can be a very dangerous and terrible thing. But if you think locking up criminals in a confined space will lead to polite chess matches and afternoon tea, then I can?t help you.

Again, are you really saying money is the most important thing here? Also, Sweden and Denmark base their judicial system around rehabilitation and they have some very low crime rates, even compared to the rest of the western world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homicide-world.png
This is also interesting http://releasedandrestored.org/statistics.html The recidivism rate in the US is 67.5%, in Sweden it's 35%. The incarceration rate in Denmark is 58 per 100k people, in Sweden it's 69, in the US it's 689.

Given the tax rates in the listed countries; you could say money is an important factor here. There are also cultural and historical differences between them which should be taken into consideration. We also have different legal systems, different laws in general and different enforcement methods. What works for one country may not work for another. But when you decide to suggest to the American public that raising their taxes to the levels of Sweden or Denmark, let me make some popcorn first.

Unemployment is a problem because of the price of labour, not because of limited jobs. Since this doesn't apply to prisoners, you can theoretically create new jobs without affecting unemployment. Either way, you don't need to make them work if it's that much of a problem.

Unemployment is actually affected by the number of jobs. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise? I?m not saying it?s the only factor, I?m simply saying don?t attempt to correct one problem by adding to another.

Not really sure how this is that much a problem outside of "they must suffer!".

When prison life becomes an attractive substitute to working a minimum wage job and contributing to society; there is a problem.

But they're not a danger if they're in prison.

Sure, because we?re not ethically opposed to subjecting criminals to the same horrors they force on civilians, just so long as they do it to each other. Yah? that?s not arbitrary at all?

Yes there is. A cop will kill someone on the street if they must, to save themselves or others. It's a necessity, they're not doing it to punish the criminal like you would in court after they've been captured.

The cop deemed it necessary to end a life given the options at his/her disposal to safeguard the lives of the citizens he/her is sworn to protect. Now swap out the nouns and you get the *exact* same set of circumstances. You?re asserting the notion that ending the life of another person is only acceptable in the heat of the moment; which most crimes of passion are. Do you not see the inherent hypocrisy in that?

They're not acceptable. And they're unnecessary.

Nothing created by humans has a 100% success rate. The common car has several hundred if not thousand components that work in sync with each other. If any system fails, it could potential have dire consequences, even if not directly caused by human error. Mechanic components wear as time passes. Electrical components deteriorate through use. Approximately 24,000 people were killed in 2011 in car accidents (according to the NHTSA in one report). By your logic, the failure rate of cars is unacceptable and therefore unnecessary. We don?t dismantle the entire transportation industry because of a few (statistically speaking) flaws in design. We correct them and move on. Suggesting otherwise is, because I can?t think of a better way to put it; idiotic.

I'd love to see how you propose to do this.

That would depend entirely on what specific issues you have with the system that doesn?t revolve around your personal sense of morality. I?d like to avoid try to keep the discussion as objective as possible; far too many people are appealing to emotion here.

 

[orangeban]

I think the death penatly is abhorrent, and probably one of the worst things about the USA, next to the torture and the temperature (fuck Florida in the summer).

1) The death penatly is expensive, there are posts above me explaining this

2) It's pointless, apart from fulfilling a desire for "justice" that is really just anger there is no reason not to put people in prison, especially since it's not cheaper (see above).

3) Keeping in mind that it's pointless, how can it be worth the risk of executing an innocent?

4) Totally counter to the goals of the justice system, protection and rehabilitation. Alright, it fulfills the protection element, but so does prison. Rehabilitation is clearly not fulfilled by the death penalty. The justice system should always be aiming to rehabilitate criminals and allow them to be functioning citizens, the death penalty is in opposition to this goal. Considering the number of mentally ill people on death row, this is particularly abhorrent.

5) The state shouldn't have the ability to kill it's citizens, no-one should have that ability, particularly not those as powerful as the state.

6) We should send out a message that killing is wrong, not that it's okay in certain circumstances (i.e. when the person being murdered is a criminal). In the case of war, killing people isn't right, but it's a matter of self-defence (and wars should be about self-defence), therefore acceptable. Execution isn't self-defence.

 

[Chalacachaca]

I'm from Venezuela, so basically we were the first nation to abolish death penalty but ironically going to jail is itself a death penalty here (as well as living anywhere outside one *badom tish*).
My opinion on the matter is that noneone should be able to decide the fate of somebody else, I mean I even have regrets when killing a bug, so for me the act of killing another human being is entirely wrong.

 

[NEDM]

Whats more inhumane? Painless execution, or life in prison being a toy for someone named Bubba?

As for this topic, While this doesn't apply to everyone, does anyone ever notice the same group of people who defend abortion being fine and acceptable, slam execution as barbaric? While the same people who cry murder at abortion, defend executions? Until you people get in the line all life needs to be preserved or all life is expendable; it comes off as entirely insincere.

 

[MammothBlade]

I'll go back to something I said in another post, is money really the most important thing here? Anyway, it's the system's duty to try, however likely it is, to rehabilitate and treat these people. Many are mentally ill.

This really just backs up what I said.
"One is wrong and one isn't".
How so, and who are you to decide it?
"One is legal and one is illegal".
Again, just changing formalities, just changing the law to make killing by themselves legal. They're both ending someone's life and that's the main thing.

No, as sure that David Cameron is Prime Minister, or that a man named Anders Behring Breivik shot up an island full of youngsters. There are some things you just can't legitimately deny, unless there is a massive conspiracy of deception.

Sociopaths are by their nature, "mentally ill". Does that mean I think they should be spared punishment? No. They are still conscious of their actions, if not the emotional harm caused by them. It's different for those with psychosis, who may believe they killed in self-defence. I'd argue no serial killer is worth sparing or rehabilitating, but the severely delusional cannot be blamed for what they've done and so their punishment must be relegated to life in a secure mental institution.

Euthanasia is killing. Abortion is killing. Yet both are considered acceptable and legal by some people and countries. The concept of killing and murder needs to be re-defined, because it's inadequate to describe the moral implications.

 

[orangeban]

Whats more inhumane? Painless execution, or life in prison being a toy for someone named Bubba?

As for this topic, While this doesn't apply to everyone, does anyone ever notice the same group of people who defend abortion being fine and acceptable, slam execution as barbaric? While the same people who cry murder at abortion, defend executions? Until you people get in the line all life needs to be preserved or all life is expendable; it comes off as entirely insincere.

Pro-choice people don't think that all life is expendable, they (or, at least, I) think that a fetus' right to life is less important than the woman's right to choose. In my opinion, a criminal's right to life is more important than a fetus', because a fetus isn't a sentient creature.

 

[Leadfinger]

I have no problem with it... it works reasonably well not only as a way to get rid of the worst or the worst rather than wasting money letting paying so they can hang around and be unproductive but it has also been shown numerous times to be a reasonably effective deterrent... then again I am military where we can execute you on the spot for cowardice technically so my perspective on it may be different than the average citizen who never has to deal with real violence

all the "if one innocent person is killed it's not worth it" bullshit is tiring tho.. we killed lots and lots of innocent people in WW2 so does that mean it wasn't worth going after the Nazis? Innocent people will always die no matter what you do and sometimes it is justified to kill people... best you can do is try and make the system as good as it can be... and no offence locking people up for life is MORE cruel than the death penalty... just ask anyone who has ever been incarcerated for an extended period... not to mention it is a horrible waste of resources that could be used for better things for people who actually deserve it

It seems immoral to me to kill a person in order to save money.

 

[peruvianskys]

Also, can you point me to the studies that have been done on the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent? You see, people always claim the Death Penalty is ineffective because states that have it have a high rate of crimes that would qualify a person for it, but a higher murder rate in death penalty states actually makes sense. Places with less murder would not need as extreme a deterrent. As we see, correlation does not imply causation.

If I put irradiated uranium dust into the water systems of the states with the highest cancer rates because I was convinced it would cure cancer, and I saw cancer rates go up in those states after a while, it would not be appropriate to say "Probably it's working but these states are just extra cancerous!"

If you introduce a practice in order to cut down the occurrence of a certain activity, and that activity does not go down, you can determine prima facie that the deterrent was not successful. Despite how many times our politicians use it, the argument "It would have been worse without my plan" is illogical; something is not a deterrent by definition, if the activity it attempts to deter does not happen less often after it is introduced.

We cannot draw conclusions based purely on statistics. We must understand the underlying cause of those numbers before we can draw conclusions. I have yet to see a study that attempts to do so, if you know where one is I would love to see it. In particular can you point me to studies of areas when the death penalty has changed? These sorts of things can be very difficult to find from a reliable source, and if you already know where they are it would be a great help.

Dr. Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University: ?There is no reliable, scientifically sound evidence that [shows that executions] can exert a deterrent effect."

Read this study: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DonohueDeter.pdf

Otherwise, most law journals charge for reading, but this is a good quote too:

"The UCLA study conducted by Berk found that in many instances the number of executions by state and year is the key explanatory variable used by researchers, despite the fact that many states in most years execute no one and few states in particular years execute more than five individuals. These values represent about 1% of the available observations that could have been used by researchers to draw conclusions for earlier studies claiming to find that capital punishment is a deterrent. In Professor Berk's study, a re-analysis of the existing data shows that claims of deterrence are a statistical artifact of this anomalous 1%."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

These show conclusively that, while the argument "the death penalty raises the murder rate" is not provable, there is no way to argue effectively that killing criminals deters other criminals.

 

[viranimus]

Some points that have likely been made elsewhere.

The death penalty is a GOOD thing. Its not designed to serve as a detergent for crime. Its designed as a punishment of a crime and elimination of a problem. Case in point. Due to a technicality, the state of California has had to shoulder the burden of housing, providing rehab, medical care, parole investigations, etc for Charles Manson, who is deemed to be sentenced to life in prison. The guy was responsible for the death of many people yet the state of California has to eat the cost of taking care of this guy for just shy of half a century.

Beyond this, the notion that life is something sacred is stupid. We as a species kill all the time. Hell, virtually all species end life in order to extend their own. We are fine with killing for food, for national defense, crime fighting, We excuse it in certain accidents. Hell at times we do it out of simply being humane. Were pretty all right with killing. So the notion that

So in the Irons video, Again, the death penalty is not supposed to be a deterrent for crime. Its supposed to be the punishment. Its not even possible to be a deterrent nor should have ever been considered as a means to keep people from committing crimes. Thats almost a strawman like expectation that has no co-relation to why we kill people.

Then As he states people sit on death row for sometimes decades. Again, its punishment for their crimes. It gives them time to think about how they fucked up. Yet, people claim its barbaric to kill someone. As Irons points out it is inhumane to make someone wait on death row. At the same time, life imprisonment is just as psychologically inhumane as a death sentence, especially in the case of younger offenders.

Its incredibly short sighted to think that the death penalty does not have a place in this world. This touchy feely garbage is just unbelievably counterproductive because in a planet where we have roughly 6 times the population we should there is no good reason to split hairs like this. Some people deserve to die. A LOT of people do not deserve to live, some people exist for no other reason than the law prevents them from being killed.

 

[Princess_Dee]

Wow! I am surprised at the many merciful answers here!
I completely support the death penalty. Child rapists, murderers, gang members that facilitate murders, and drunk drivers. (Okay, probably not that last one)
My tax dollars do not need to be going to some low life getting three meals a day, a free gym membership, miscellaneous classes, and endless television time.
Put 'em down like a bad dog! Maybe it's a Texas thing...

 

[MammothBlade]

Some points that have likely been made elsewhere.

The death penalty is a GOOD thing. Its not designed to serve as a detergent for crime. Its designed as a punishment of a crime and elimination of a problem. Case in point. Due to a technicality, the state of California has had to shoulder the burden of housing, providing rehab, medical care, parole investigations, etc for Charles Manson, who is deemed to be sentenced to life in prison. The guy was responsible for the death of many people yet the state of California has to eat the cost of taking care of this guy for just shy of half a century.

Beyond this, the notion that life is something sacred is stupid. We as a species kill all the time. Hell, virtually all species end life in order to extend their own. We are fine with killing for food, for national defense, crime fighting, We excuse it in certain accidents. Hell at times we do it out of simply being humane. Were pretty all right with killing. So the notion that

So in the Irons video, Again, the death penalty is not supposed to be a deterrent for crime. Its supposed to be the punishment. Its not even possible to be a deterrent nor should have ever been considered as a means to keep people from committing crimes. Thats almost a strawman like expectation that has no co-relation to why we kill people.

Then As he states people sit on death row for sometimes decades. Again, its punishment for their crimes. It gives them time to think about how they fucked up. Yet, people claim its barbaric to kill someone. As Irons points out it is inhumane to make someone wait on death row. At the same time, life imprisonment is just as psychologically inhumane as a death sentence, especially in the case of younger offenders.

Its incredibly short sighted to think that the death penalty does not have a place in this world. This touchy feely garbage is just unbelievably counterproductive because in a planet where we have roughly 6 times the population we should there is no good reason to split hairs like this. Some people deserve to die. A LOT of people do not deserve to live, some people exist for no other reason than the law prevents them from being killed.

Very good points. You summed it up better than I could.

 

[NEDM]

Whats more inhumane? Painless execution, or life in prison being a toy for someone named Bubba?

As for this topic, While this doesn't apply to everyone, does anyone ever notice the same group of people who defend abortion being fine and acceptable, slam execution as barbaric? While the same people who cry murder at abortion, defend executions? Until you people get in the line all life needs to be preserved or all life is expendable; it comes off as entirely insincere.

Pro-choice people don't think that all life is expendable, they (or, at least, I) think that a fetus' right to life is less important than the woman's right to choose. In my opinion, a criminal's right to life is more important than a fetus', because a fetus isn't a sentient creature.

Justify it all you want, it's hypocritical. A person commits a crime, the punishment is legal and in the books for years, they get that punishment. A criminal CHOOSES to commit a crime, thus CHOOSES to get the penalty if they get caught. S/he chooses their fate. Are there innocent prisoners, Yep. What about unborn children? How many future cancer curing scientists have been aborted? How many future mothers, fathers, people that advertise on this website don't get the chance to do so? They are equally wronged and are equally innocent. They too end up in a bad spot at a bad time. Im not debating the right and wrong, I am annoyed by the hypocrisy of the people debating.

 

[Meight08]

Better to lock them up for the rest of their lives instead of killing them? Adds to the problem of overcrowded prisons; jacking up the costs.

More expensive to execute then to keep alive? The legal system jacks up the cost given the nature of the appeals process.

Inhumane to execute? A life time of torture with prison rapes, assault and additional murders seems a bit less humane.

Rehabilitation a better idea? Arguing for further costs given the facilities and staff required, even if successful. How many people actually support the science of psychology?

Put them to work? Taking away jobs from productive members of society, adding to unemployment.

Removal of freedom an appropriate punishment? Just make sure you feed them, cloth them, provide them with entertainment (however limited), health care and the opportunity to pursue education and career assistance if/when they depart.

It's unethical and barbaric? Taking a life to save others is nearly universally accepted as an ethical choice. There's little difference between a cop ending the life of a criminal on the street in defense of civilians and the state doing so after a criminal is found guilty by a jury of their peers.

It's not worth the risk? I would suggest you avoid any transportation or the use of any mechanical or electrical device. Failure rates are deemed acceptable on a daily basis so long as the necessary steps are taken to lower them as realistically as possible.

This discussion always confuses me. I'm not interested in trading one problem for another merely because some people get morally philosophical when it comes to ending the life of another human being. Are there flaws in the system? Certainly. Does that mean we end the system entirely? Absurd, repair the system and be on with our lives.

Just so you know those are american standards.
In holland we are being forced to close prisons due to lack of prisoners Prison rape and torture is nonexistent.
Hell it usually only takes a few years of rehabilitation and they are normal members of society again with different names ofcourse.
We learned something with our prisons.
If you treat a prisoner like a normal human being he will return to act like a normal human being quicker.

 

[Patrick Buck]

I love it when people say "I don't belive in the death penanlty".

You should do. It DOES EXIST.

But AGREEING WITH IT is rather differnet eh?
But no, I don't agree with it. Any chance of an innocent person being killed, and it's not worth it. Not at all.

 

[AnarchistFish]

I?d like to preface this by pointing out many of my comments were directed toward the arguments others have been making to illustrate my point below that trading one problem for another doesn?t fix anything. So onward?

Money? That's really more important than making sure the wrong person isn't executed?

If someone makes an argument in regards to cost, then they should realize the cheapest option is the most efficient one. One trial, one bullet and one hour in a furnace. The accuracy of conviction is a failure in the machine; one that should be fixed as opposed to trashing the machine entirely. You don?t throw away a TV simply because one button on it is broken.

Normally I'd agree, but there isn't a way to improve accuracy far enough to make this viable. It can never reach 100%, at least not now, and the current methods of improving the accuracy (appeals etc) actually increase the cost. Which is another thing, it's often more costly to put someone to death than imprison them for life.

So what? You don't go down to their level. And you can't really say that will happen in prison for sure, but if it will, that's the problem that must be fixed.

We don?t go down to their level. People are failing to understand the difference between someone recklessly murdering another person for any arbitrary reason and a group of individuals working within a clearly defined system to enact justice on criminals based on evidence and degrees of guilt. It?s like saying an finger painting 8 year old and Da Vinci do the same thing because in the end paint is applied to a canvas.

I'll go back to what I said somewhere else,

Because you're killing them. Doesn't matter if you've made it look all nice and formal and pretty on the surface. The fact is; you're killing them. And I'd argue against these trials always being fair. Especially in the US.

Where's the difference? It's all killing, it's the same. Just because one side made it legal for themselves, doesn't change it, and just because that person has officially done something morally wrong doesn't change it either.

I could point you toward several documentaries and studies that report prison life can be a very dangerous and terrible thing. But if you think locking up criminals in a confined space will lead to polite chess matches and afternoon tea, then I can?t help you.

Not really for you to decide that fate though. But if they want to end their own life, that's a different possibility... (but not which belongs in this argument). And I could use your own argument from earlier. The problem here is to do with prison life, a separate entity, which is what needs fixing here.
If prison life is so bad and the death penalty a better fate, why not give it to everyone? You're really just applying this argument to different situations to suit yourself.

Again, are you really saying money is the most important thing here? Also, Sweden and Denmark base their judicial system around rehabilitation and they have some very low crime rates, even compared to the rest of the western world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homicide-world.png
This is also interesting http://releasedandrestored.org/statistics.html The recidivism rate in the US is 67.5%, in Sweden it's 35%. The incarceration rate in Denmark is 58 per 100k people, in Sweden it's 69, in the US it's 689.

Given the tax rates in the listed countries; you could say money is an important factor here. There are also cultural and historical differences between them which should be taken into consideration. We also have different legal systems, different laws in general and different enforcement methods. What works for one country may not work for another. But when you decide to suggest to the American public that raising their taxes to the levels of Sweden or Denmark, let me make some popcorn first.

True, but there is still an apparent correlation. Anyway, this can be applied to the US on its own. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Unemployment is a problem because of the price of labour, not because of limited jobs. Since this doesn't apply to prisoners, you can theoretically create new jobs without affecting unemployment. Either way, you don't need to make them work if it's that much of a problem.

Unemployment is actually affected by the number of jobs. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise? I?m not saying it?s the only factor, I?m simply saying don?t attempt to correct one problem by adding to another.

And the number of jobs is affected by the price of labour. It's not the only factor, but it's a significant one.

Not really sure how this is that much a problem outside of "they must suffer!".

When prison life becomes an attractive substitute to working a minimum wage job and contributing to society; there is a problem.

True, but this is an issue separate to the death penalty. You'll still have prison life with or without it.

But they're not a danger if they're in prison.

Sure, because we?re not ethically opposed to subjecting criminals to the same horrors they force on civilians, just so long as they do it to each other. Yah? that?s not arbitrary at all?

I think we've covered this already. What does this have to do with the death penalty anyway?

Yes there is. A cop will kill someone on the street if they must, to save themselves or others. It's a necessity, they're not doing it to punish the criminal like you would in court after they've been captured.

The cop deemed it necessary to end a life given the options at his/her disposal to safeguard the lives of the citizens he/her is sworn to protect. Now swap out the nouns and you get the *exact* same set of circumstances. You?re asserting the notion that ending the life of another person is only acceptable in the heat of the moment; which most crimes of passion are. Do you not see the inherent hypocrisy in that?

I'm still not seeing your point here. They're not a danger to civilians in prison, and if they're a danger to each other in prison, that's not an issue that will be fixed with the death penalty nor is it a problem with the status of the death penalty itself.

They're not acceptable. And they're unnecessary.

Nothing created by humans has a 100% success rate. The common car has several hundred if not thousand components that work in sync with each other. If any system fails, it could potential have dire consequences, even if not directly caused by human error. Mechanic components wear as time passes. Electrical components deteriorate through use. Approximately 24,000 people were killed in 2011 in car accidents (according to the NHTSA in one report). By your logic, the failure rate of cars is unacceptable and therefore unnecessary. We don?t dismantle the entire transportation industry because of a few (statistically speaking) flaws in design. We correct them and move on. Suggesting otherwise is, because I can?t think of a better way to put it; idiotic.

Cars actually have a use though. The mistakes in the death penalty system are just so pointless. What's the point of it in the first place?
Punishment? Isn't worth it really. And it's too much of a subjective, emotional response.
Deterrent? Has been shown not to work.
Cost? Costs more to execute someone than imprison them for life.

I'd love to see how you propose to do this.

That would depend entirely on what specific issues you have with the system that doesn?t revolve around your personal sense of morality. I?d like to avoid try to keep the discussion as objective as possible; far too many people are appealing to emotion here.

Odd, because emotion is usually the cause of arguments in favour of it. I'm thinking of the issues to do with incorrect convictions, and corruption in the system which also leads to incorrect convictions. Those are the main ones.

I'll go back to something I said in another post, is money really the most important thing here? Anyway, it's the system's duty to try, however likely it is, to rehabilitate and treat these people. Many are mentally ill.

This really just backs up what I said.
"One is wrong and one isn't".
How so, and who are you to decide it?
"One is legal and one is illegal".
Again, just changing formalities, just changing the law to make killing by themselves legal. They're both ending someone's life and that's the main thing.

No, as sure that David Cameron is Prime Minister, or that a man named Anders Behring Breivik shot up an island full of youngsters. There are some things you just can't legitimately deny, unless there is a massive conspiracy of deception.

Cases that this can apply to are extremely rare though, and they're still not absolutely 100%. They can be 99.999% certain but never 100%.

Sociopaths are by their nature, "mentally ill". Does that mean I think they should be spared punishment? No. They are still conscious of their actions, if not the emotional harm caused by them.

They may be conscious, but does that make them fully voluntary? It's all down the mind, really. Everything is.

Anyway, what's the core argument in favour of the death penalty here? Why is it necessary?

holyfuckingwalloftext

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I'm against the death penalty. I don't think it's a justifiable thing for any civilised society to still be doing.

Though just to mess up some people's heads I'm very much pro-abortion and pro-assisted suicide. Work that out.

That'll be because that's a person's choice, not the state. The state should never be allowed to kill someone for their crimes, it isn't their business to be killing their own citizens.

OT: No. If I wanted someone to be dead I'd kill them myself, not have the legal system do it for me.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

As long as there is any chance that an innocent person can be executed, no matter how small, it's not worth it.

I'll just leave this here.

So what, we just let them rot in prison for life? Do you have any idea how aweful prison is?

You're given two options: subsist on a deserted island with a single tree that occassionally drops coconuts or use the single hand gun on the island to blow your brains out. Oh, and there's no chance of escape, rescue, or any other source of food. What would you do?

essentially, this is prison.

I once read an EXTREMELY convincing short story that convicted me not only of the justification of the death penalty, but it's moral (yes, moral) superiority. I WISH TO THE HIGH HEAVENS I KEPT THE FREAKING TITLE! but alas, when I was 14, online forum debates weren't a daily occurrence. At any rate, life sentences are the equivalent to slow, mental torture, draining the humanity out of a person until there is nothing left but a diabolical, empty shell full of resentment and hatred. It is a living death. The death penalty is an end to the torture, allowing a person to pass away with at least the dignity of retaining their humanity.

Even if I was innocent, I'd probably prefer the death penalty. It would be better than wasting away in a prison, and even if I was let lose 10 years, 20 years, etc. down the line I don't know I'd have much humanity left in me to care about the world.

Can I get the non hyperbolic version?

The one that includes facts?

 

[Rainforce]

if you cared so much about innocents being killed and "justice" then you should be putting effort into reforming the justice system not a proven viable penalty

"justice", huh. you sound like someone who just gave up on everything so he can survive with at least a little bit of sanity left.
I don't know how right or wrong you are, but you mostly sound aggressive and terribly broken, like someone who can not ever forgive himself for what he has done.
I feel sorry for you.

On topic: the death penalty has probably it's uses in keeping overpopulation at bay and intimidating the population, but it's still murder in the name of righteousness.
Considering general ideals, we don't want to scare people nor commit murder with whatever excuse fits us best.
(but we sure as hell do anyways)
it's a primitive and pathetic remnant of a past we are afraid to drop, if anything.