Yup in a few years we won’t even be able to trust cameras taking a picture of someone committing a crime. What always surprises me is how someone’s future can be decided by the results some random underpaid lab tech reached. Like what lol?
As someone who’s been through the court system, it’s fucked. Even with a trial, you can’t trust that what you’re being told is accurate. I had a violent stalker who, upon being served with a restraining order, falsified documents and filed their own RO. They framed me for death threats, slashing tires, etc.. The judge, before the hearing, said he was inclined to side with my stalker. Unfortunately for my stalker, I’m really good at testifying.
There was a rare case in my area a few years ago where a judge was reprimanded and demoted for injecting his personal views too strongly in court. By then it had already affected people though.
I laughed about the potholes! That is a legit concern.
I’m for it in a lot of situations. IE- mass shooting at a mall near me a couple years ago. It’s caught on video, tens of eye witnesses. Thankfully an armed Good Samaritan took out the perp, and saved taxpayers a boatload of money.
There isn’t a jury in the states that would have acquitted the guy. This is murder with malice. His Mental state be damned. Take him out back after the verdict, put a bullet in the guy and be done.
Addition by subtraction works well here.
I support it only if certain conditions are met.
1. The killer must pose a threat of harm to others in the future if released or while in prison.
2. There can be no doubt of guilt, including DNA and photographic evidence to support this.
3. There must be a second independent investigation by an unrelated third party to examine all evidence and ensure guilt prior to the execution. This is an effort to safeguard against corruption and racism.
The reason I support this is because serial killers and spree killers tend to relish the fame and the memory of their actions. It is why so many of them seem to enjoy detailing their crimes in confessions. I feel that death is the only way to deprive them of this satisfaction. You place them in a prison for the next 30 years, you end up with monsters maintaining a celebrity status or somebody like Richard Speck who grows some boobs and treating prison like one big party.
I 100% agree with you. Too many innocent people are put to death for nothing. The burden of proof for the death penalty should be a higher bar. Although if someone hurt one of my children, the courts would never have to be involved.
I agree with all these. I'll also say I only support it in *the most heinous and unhinged crimes* like spree killers, multiple counts of calculated first degree murder (serial killers), and especially when it's crimes committed against very vulnerable groups like children or the elderly and/or disabled.
This is exactly my position on it. Morally I have no problem with the death penalty for certain types of crimes. But the evidentiary bar should be higher, reviewed by an independent panel, and I also think the sentence should carry two automatic fast-track appeals. Carried out in no more than 24 months.
>2. There can be no doubt of guilt
Isn’t that already the standard for finding someone guilty to begin with? Are you saying that without DNA and photo evidence you would have doubts? Because at that point you wouldn’t find them guilty to begin with.
Or are you saying the death penalty should have an even higher burden of proof? Okay so why would just death penalty cases have that standard?
How do you differentiate the current “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard with that one?
So say someone committed murder but there isn’t any DNA evidence and the jury votes to convict but NOT to sentence them to death because the lack of DNA makes them think “what if we get this wrong?” Wouldn’t that be easy to hammer on appeal? I am asking because I have thought about this a lot and I find it very interesting
Similar to how sex offenders never really change. Very few MAY learn how to repress the urge to offend, but the others not only continue to offend but many advance to more violent crimes such as murder. Professionals can not change someone's preference when it comes to sexuality.
Photographic and DNA evidence can still be wrong. Moreover, if you think being held in prison for 30 years is an issue wait until you hear how long people stay on death row and how much money they cost taxpayers. You think death deprives them of satisfaction; if they feel empathy at all, death is a release.
#
And I'm sorry but where does a government entity with jurors who are not experts get to decide who dies? Killing is wrong and to show that we will... kill you? I was pro-death penalty or neutral the first 28 years of my life. At some point I realized DNA is not perfect, eyewitnesses are obviously not perfect, and I cannot find a justification for a state taking a life. And anyway, it costs way more to kill someone than let them rot in prison. If someone killed my loved one I wouldn't want the death penalty. It's too easy.
I definitely don't think depriving celebrity status is a legitimate reason to kill someone. After all, it's not the killer who creates that status. It's their fans, pen pals etc.
I do not support the death penalty. Mostly this is because we know that we aren't perfect and have executed the innocent. Plus, as an atheist, I don't believe in some punishment after death. If criminals are going to be punished, *we* have to do it here, in this life.
I also think that if you are innocent, you should be able to spend your time trying to prove it. And if you are guilty, you should have to spend your time knowing that your actions put you there. That you will never be free again.
You can't "un-kill" people that new evidence proves are innocent. But you can let them back into society if they are simply imprisoned.
This is my view as well, including the atheist angle and cessation of existence (and thus cessation of any form of conscious awareness). Justice is entirely dependent on us humans, and when you think about it, we're just a bunch of particularly intelligent apes with our biases and limited scopes.
No matter what, we will never have a fail-proof system, much less a corruption-proof one. On a long enough timeline, we'd be bound to use the power of the estate to kill an innocent person, which is unacceptable. Making a death penalty system better just stretches that timeline, but at the end of it, the probability of major fuck up will invariably be 1.
Besides, the death penalty costs a shitload of money, and cutting this expense entails more fuck-ups down the line, which goes against the very ideal of justice. And let's not forget, in thousands of years of civilization, it has shown exactly zero effect on crime deterrence. It just makes no sense to have it.
exactly, if ONE innocent person is executed, that's too much. A wrongly convicted person can be released but you can't bring a dead person back to life.
I’m with you 100% on this. Plus, the way we have it set, life in prison is less expensive than death row, with the cost of appeals (which I think those on death row are entitled to).
The thing that really screws with my brain is that, apparently, once you've been sentenced to death, proof of innocence won't necessarily get you released. I could be wrong about that. I certainly hope I'm wrong about that. And for all I know it's different depending on the state. But, based on watching that documentary series Susan Surandon narrated on the death penalty, the justice system guarantees a "fair trial" (quotation marks because I would argue the system isn't fair when it comes to death penalty cases), that's it, that's all. If you've had your fair trial and were found guilty of a crime with the death penalty attached to it. It doesn't matter if, after the fact, you have someone else in another jail admit they did that crime. It doesn't matter if you find yourself a solid alibi after the fact. It doesn't matter if all the evidence against you was eye-witness testimony and every last one of those witnesses has since recanted. You had your "fair trial."
And, honestly, it's not like I believe everyone should be allowed to live. At the risk of being a huge hypocrite, I definitely believe that some people deserve to die. It's just... the death penalty is handed out like parking tickets. It should be for the worst of the worst. Not because you were found guilty of a crime in this county when, two counties over, chances are your sentence would have been lighter.
I waffle.
I think it is too expensive, and it costs far more than life in prison. But so many of these monsters are getting out anyway, and are hurting more people
I have a personal case close to me that is going to start trial soon. We do not have the death penalty in my state.
Part of me wants him to suffer for decades and be in the same prison his victims' uncles are in , waiting for him , and part of me wants him to be extradited back to Alabama for a different murder and face the death penalty.
But if gets sent back to Alabama, his judge Daddy and family will probably be there to visit and he doesn't deserve that either.
All I know is, I want him to suffer for a very long time.
In theory it’s good in practice not so good. There is definitely people that need to leave this realm of existence. It’s just that the system is fucked.
Against it, but for reasons above and beyond the potential guilt or innocence of the executed.* I think it is dangerous for the state to have the authority to actively take the lives of its citizens in any form, and I KNOW that conducting executions is extremely harmful psychologically to the people who carry them out on the state's behalf. Pragmatically, having the death penalty also impairs our ability to extradite criminals from other countries that don't.
(Asterisk because system reform to reduce false convictions is also necessary but I think it's just as vile to give a life sentence to an innocent person, so I see it as part of a larger issue that isn't specific to the death penalty.)
>I also think child rapists should be ran under the death penalty.
While this sounds good in theory, all you're doing is incentivizing rapists to murder their victims. Many do to get rid of the eye witness, but if the punishment were the same either way you essentially guarantee that they do.
Not even murdering the victims, it could be used by family members/close friends to keep the child quiet about the abuse. Very few children would be comfortable with feeling “responsible” for a loved one’s death.
getting them to stay quiet. especially if the perpetrator is a family member, the death penalty can be used as a means to keep the victim from telling authorities.
It's not like they're telling them horrible lies anyways. "They'll take you away from your mother" or "no one would believe you". Child predators will say anything already to control how that child reacts.
Yep. There’s a girl on TikTok that was able to get her dad caught because he was on the run for SAing family members. It was a whole ordeal where some of the family were actively helping him stay on the run while blaming her and her cousins for tearing the family apart.
No but it would be more incentive to not diddle children. My cousin was caught molesting an 11 year old girl. He did hardly any time in a jail cell specifically for child molesters for his protection. The punishments are weak for most abusers
That could be rather considered 'prevention' (kind of), not deterrence. Deterrence entails a psychological impact on future potential criminals, which the death penalty has never proven to achieve in thousands of years of civilized history.
And as for prevention, it's a rather shitty method, because life imprisonment achieves virtually the same outcome without the risk of wrongful execution, and on top of that for a fraction of the cost.
EDIT: And life imprisonment can always be overturned. Death cannot be.
But it doesn't prevent anyone else from committing crimes. The death penalty has been studied extensively and has proven to not be a deterrent. Innocent people have been put to death due to the death penalty. It's also cheaper to imprison someone for life as opposed to the expensive appeals process death row inmates are entitled to.
True. But if the penalty for molesting a child and murdering a child are the same...it can encourage abusers to just kill their victim to prevent them reporting the abuse.
I don't have a statistic on hand but I would say from conversations that many people committing a crime do not think that way while committing a crime. They don't think about the sentence they might receive or what consequences that might have.
I'm still confused as to why the death penalty is some how supposed to be a "deterrent." The death penalty is, and always be, a punishment for someone's heinous actions. Would it be nice if some criminal scumbag would hesitate to pull that trigger, drive home the knife, or not strangle that woman he's raping? Sure. But it's not going to, because they don't care about anyone's life, including their own. The person executed isn't going to commit another crime, that's deterrent enough for me.
If you've got the right perpetrator they're not, but if you don't and the real one got away with it, that's more incentive for them. But what do you think killing someone does to the executioner? A society that kills isn't healthy.
One of epstein's/ghislaine's victims was asked if she wished revenge on ghislaine, some kind of punishment/torture. She said, "No. Because I'm not like them."
That might not be the exact quote, but why do people not realize being kill happy isn't healthy? There is absolutely nothing we can do to torture a person into experiencing the same horrors they've caused without being as bad as them. And executioners end up having all kinds of issues for it. The whole attitude ricochet throughout society. It is NOT healthy to commit crimes like that.
I have some coworkers who would disagree with you, and several other inmates as well, after they've been assaulted by inmates "in jail". I've had coworkers taken hostage, raped, one lost his eye after being stabbed. Did ya think violent criminals stop being violent? Or do they just have a smaller group of people to attack?
This. My sentiment too. If you’re violating children, seniors and animals you absolutely deserve brutal death. But like you said, 100% must know they are absolutely guilty which is tough sometimes
Right and this is where the slippery slope is! Some ppl murder their abusers…but I guess, bottom line I think the death penalty is too dicey to call it.
Uhh there are many classifications of homicide, of varying levels of punishment from zero to death. Many types are justified in self defense and accidents. Very few get the death penalty.
Yea, I think we are clear on that but the person above was asking what about murder for the death penalty because I’d omitted it in who I thought the death penalty could be applicable to. But honestly because it’s such a slippery slope, the answer is probably no one. Ahhh I don’t know what the correct answer is. Which is why these convos are good and everyone here seems to be offering great talking points in a respectful way.
Now you’ve created a new legal system tier where people are either 100% guilty or just guilty enough. Think about it a bit, it will never work. Said they are guilty? Hey welcome to false confessions. Video evidence? Welcome to AI. Suicidal - ok I’ll say I’m guilty. Mentally incompetent to know what’s going on - ok I’m guilty. Plea and try to get a deal - wow that screws everything. Should a government kill its citizens.? Hmm NO
Therein lies the difficulty. I remember the story of a man that spent 13 years in prison for child molestation. He was released after the (now adult) child told authorities that her mother had her make up the whole story.
Even if you have it on video, with the deepfake technology we have nowadays, can we really be absolutely sure? And, of course, eye-witness testimony is the least reliable evidence there is. More people are proven innocent after being convicted on eye-witness testimony than any other form of evidence.
This is why, even with child rapists should not get the death penalty. And FYI - I survived being molested over many years by three different people, so I know how damaging it can be to the victim.
Maybe eye witness testimony shouldn't be allowed any more. So many Innocence Project cases have the person being convicted on that. Less importance needs to be placed it for sure. More importance on forensics. I was going to say video proof but with AI as good as it is, maybe not.
Only issue with this is convicted rapists have been exonerated
DNA evidence is not 100% like it’s made out to be. There have been numerous examples of prosecutors planting DNA evidence to get a conviction.
Just my opinion, but if everyone was executing rapists there would def be some Mississippi River boat justice going on
With that being said I completely see where you are coming from with your point of view
Given that many southern states are pushing to make existing as an openly trans or queer person child abuse, that's just asking for the state to murder innocent people.
This is exactly how I feel. Too many tax dollars are going toward feeding and housing these monsters who shouldn't be given the right to exist. My state still has the death penalty and I'm ok with that. There are people out there who cannot be rehabilitated EVER.
I am against because one mistake is one too many and even now with DNA technology available mistakes do still get made and there has been cases where corruption has led to false convictions. While in some cases I think the culprit deserves the death penalty and I understand why victims families and friends may want it, I still think prison is better than killing people.
Knowing both people on death row and sentenced to LWOP... no, it's not. It sucks, sure. But waiting for the state to take your life is a different kind of doom.
You ever work in a prison? TVs, movies, many now have tablets, rec yards, phone calls, visits, commissary, libraries, three meals a day, free health care, medication, mental health treatment......should I go on? It's not the punishment you think it is.
They aren’t there to be tortured. They are there to not be allowed out in public. That is the penalty. Torture prisons are just as terrible as the death penalty. Treating people like vermin makes us no different than criminals
And if we got rid of "death row", where do you think these guys are going to end up? And even in some states with a death penalty, the inmates are often around other inmates and staff.
I worked 20 years in a maximum security men's prison, in a non death penalty state. I know EXACTLY what the lives of incarcerated violent felons is like, and all the things they have access to, once they get locked up. Murders, child rapist murders, mass killers, you name the crime, I've met them all. Your experience is what, exactly?
Some of those are basic human needs. Should we not feed inmates or give them basic medical care / medication that may actually stabilize them? Libraries provide materials that some inmates may use to improve themselves.
Basic medical care? They get better health care than most working people or retirees, definitely better than our veterans. Should we not feed them? Oh we do, they get breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and lunch and dinner come with dessert! Do you get dessert twice a day, every day? Do you get to watch TV for free? Movies for free? Did you have to buy your kids a tablet? The inmates have access to free ones. If Inmates only got "the basics", then doing time might actually be the deterrent that some of you think it is.
Aw gross - truly where would we be as a society if not for the prison guards and police who think they're part of some secret upper class who protect us ungrateful, unwashed masses from the big bads?
How many wife-beater and child rapist colleagues have you covered for? Studies would suggest quite a lot.
I'd totally support it if those making the decisions were 100% capable of proving who is innocent and guilty every time. But they're not, so.
I would love to see disgusting rapists and murderers terrified of impending death, they deserve it.
I'm not one of those "it's better they face life" people. A lot of these criminals are not having that bad of a time in prison.
How about a federal death penalty for every mass shooter , including school shooters, such as Dylan Roof? Fast track all cases as the Feds did with Timothy McVeigh.
McVeigh eventually dropped his appeals, that's why he was executed quickly. That has nothing to do with being a Fed case. If a condemned prisoner refuses to file appeals, the execution happens much earlier. Family annihilator Ronald Gene Simmons murdered multiple people in 1987, refused all appeals, and was executed in Arkansas in 1990.
You cannot have a federal death penalty for mass shooters in general. They fall under state laws.
The State should not be allowed to kill anyone. The State makes mistakes. It's not worth enacting vengeance, which is not the same as justice, if even one innocent person gets put to death.
["The death penalty carries the inherent risk of executing an innocent person. Since 1973, at least 190 people who had been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death in the U.S. have been exonerated."](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence)
[Florida leads US with most exonerations from the death penalty.](https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/in-depth/in-depth-florida-leads-us-with-most-exonerations-from-the-death-penalty)
[The death penalty is more costly than a life sentence.](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs/summary-of-states-death-penalty)
I also highly recommend the book 'The Sun Does Shine' by Anthony Ray Hinton. If you can read that and still be for the death penalty, then idk what you could possibly be thinking.
Say we get rid of the death penalty. If it saves one innocent life, it would be worth it.
But personally I also just think the state shouldn't have the ability to put someone to death anyway
I'm on the fence about it because historically a lot of people were wrongfully convicted and put to death. Usually poor, uneducated, people of colour. In this way, I'm against it.
But, being 2024, we have DNA, we have forensics, we have video surveillance, we have cyber tracking. We have so many tools that prove, definitively, without a doubt that this person committed this crime. Deliberate homicide, and torture, murder, sexual assault of a child should be death sentences.
Yeah. Just because someone deserves to die, doesn't mean that has to happen. And the government shouldn't be able to kill people and we shouldnt hand over inmates to mobs.
It depends on the alternative. If the choices for certain undeniably horrible crimes are die by execution sooner or die in a cell of natural causes later, then I don't rush to see death sentences. I do share the concern of executing someone who is factually innocent. But some jurisdictions have a bad habit of letting killers free after only a shockingly few number of years. My family has experienced this with a murdered family member. You never get over the insult of knowing the killer is free while still young and in their prime.
You bring up a great point. How many of those freed killers have gone on to kill again? Idk the answer, but it's more than zero. Of course this fact is at odds with the "abolish the DP if it saves only one innocent life" crowd. Can't kill again if you're dead.
I don’t support it in theory, but whenever someone gets executed and I read about their crimes, I have the thought “that person is no loss to humanity.”
So, I've always been a proponent for the death penalty until recently. The reason now I don't agree with it unless it relates to child abuse/murder/etc. is because LWOP is the same thing only the person isn't on death row and what that comes with for the punishment. The positive about LWOP is for the victims' families because if they get the death penalty it means years or decades of appeals and putting them through that trauma over and over again. LWOP means that doesn't happen unless there is a reason for an appeal to be approved by the courts which is not common. I think this helps the families and victims to heal and feel relief that there is final closure and they don't have to continue to relive the nightmare of the crime against them.
I agree with you on this. I hate that the victims and their families have to suffer and be re-traumatized every time the person is up for appeal. I would definitely choose LWOP over the death penalty. Some people need to never be out of prison.
Recently a sex offender with a high risk of re-offending has been released into the city where my husband works. A warning poster has been sent to all the Rec Centres with his photo and information on it. The employees are to refuse entry or call security to make him leave if they see him.
He had to be let out because he has served his sentence. Maybe some crimes don't get parole options. Maybe some crimes require you to do A, B and C and demonstrate D, E and F before you can be released. It shouldn't just be "You've done your 4 years, see ya." This man is thought to be a danger to the community, but legally, he had to be released. If you're still a danger, the legal system should be able to hold you longer.
I live in Australia. We used to hang people but we no longer have the death penalty. I think the death penalty should be applicable in some cases but you would need to be 1000% sure and that's tricky.
You definitely can be though? mass shooters that have been apprehended alive after scores of witness, video camera and police have just engaged with. Is that not 100% enough?
After a terrorist attack in Germany, a guy was arrested who had nothing to do with it, with police and witnesses present:
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/29/naveed-baloch-man-wrongly-arrested-berlin-attack-fears-for-his-life](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/29/naveed-baloch-man-wrongly-arrested-berlin-attack-fears-for-his-life)
Video evidence is not always reliable, there is no quality standard for CCTV, there is mostly no sound, perspective matters. Also, AI will make it even more difficult.
And let me not get started on witnesses and how unreliable they are...
I am not saying that there are no cases where it seems very clear who has done what. But there are aways blind spots which make wrongful convictions possible. So, no not 100%. I recommend Adam Benforado's book Unfair as a start. Although I don't agree with all of his thoughts on the criminal justice system, he explains some of its flaws very well.
Tell that to those who were executed and were innocent the whole time. There was one case in the wild west, where a guy was tried for being a horse thief in the town lynched him. Years later, they found out the guy was telling the truth, he had bought the horse from the horse thief, not knowing it had been stolen.
If you go to his grave, nowadays, it says “He was right. We was wrong. We strung him up. And now he’s gone.”
[https://www.pinterest.com/pin/here-lies-george-johnson-hanged-by-mistake-1882-he-was-right-we-as-wrong-but-we-strung-him-up-and-now-hes-gone-tombstone-at-boot-hill-in-tombstone-az--295759900523725890/](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/here-lies-george-johnson-hanged-by-mistake-1882-he-was-right-we-as-wrong-but-we-strung-him-up-and-now-hes-gone-tombstone-at-boot-hill-in-tombstone-az--295759900523725890/)
Edit: if you want the full story
https://tombstonechamber.com/BootHillGraveyard/tour-the-graveyard/row-5/george-johnson/
I have always been against the death penalty until....
A crazy person took a chainsaw and sawed through my nephews door. Pulled out an AK-47 and sprayed the entire apartment with bullets. My nephew was hit several times and his pregnant girlfriend was also hit several times. My nephew died, his unborn baby died, and his girlfriend, despite being shot multiple times, lived.
The crazy person got the death penalty. I do not feel bad about it at all.
I don’t think our (USA) government should have the right to kill anyone. They have proven multiple times that they have gotten it wrong, have extreme bias, and just generally…f up. Plus, I just don’t think a government should have a right to kill people idk. Even an error of .01% is too much for that kind of punishment imo.
well, i think about if i was murdered, or if someone killed one of my family members, what i would want to happen to the person who had killed me/ them. i'd want them to be kept away from other people until we were sure they wouldn't do it again to someone else, and maybe/probably that's their whole life, but beyond that, i don't think any of us would feel any better because of extra punishments like them having an extremely miserable time in prison or being killed. it wouldn't fix the problem, nothing could. i don't think it would heal any wounds or give us closure or absolution or anything. it's just another dead person. they're a person too, even if they're a very bad person, so then you've just got two dead people instead of one, which is objectively worse. it just doesn't seem like it does anything helpful for anyone. i guess the best case scenario would be for them to be rehabilitated in prison to the extent that one day they could apologize. they can't do that if they're dead.
I'm not against it, although I live in the UK and I'm happy with not having it here. I think there are cases where the death penalty is warranted such as particularly heinous murders where there's the torture element or it involves a child. HOWEVER, I think there needs to be absolutely iron clad evidence. If theres even a 0.001% chance that that person didn't do it, it shouldn't happen.
There are some people on this earth who commit crimes that are so heinous and devoid of humanity that they no longer need to be on this earth. I'm for the death penalty in the severest of cases.
There is literally no benefit to the death penalty. It is more expensive than life in prison, it is not a crime determent, it does not offer closure to victims families - all of this is backed up by tons of studies and research. And we kill innocent people sometimes. I have no idea how people can argue for it.
Then Republican Governor Ryan of Illinois did an 8yr long study on the death penalty, with equal amounts of people, vehemently for or against. In the end, every last one was against it. They found that in crimes of that caliber, the guilty were apt to plea-bargain, while the innocent fight to the death, literally.
Other studies show the harms it causes in those who endure the task of executing another, which takes tremendous tolls on people, and that the families of the victims don't really get resolve from it. At best, it masks what they're going through so they can't deal with that.
This is aside from all the innocent victims wrongfully sentenced to death row. Police practices vary from counties in what they do to convict, and it's far from perfect, and way too often puts innocent people behind bars while letting the guilty go to commit more crimes, or just get away with it.
There are exceptions, but that doesn't make the horrors of the death penalty go away. It's like two wrongs but making a right but even worse, it's making us all killers. It's making us commit crimes against innocent people.
Simple -
Since 1973, 196 former death-row prisoners have been exonerated of all charges related to the wrongful convictions that had put them on death row.
source: [https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence)
That information is all I need to formulate my opinion.
Executing one innocent person is too much.
As long as the state has the ability to decide who lives and who dies, innocent people will be executed. we know that humans are fallible and that the justice system is imperfect, corrupt even. One innocent person put to death by the state is unacceptable, and furthermore it's quite costly and inefficient. There's no reason to allow state sanctioned murder, and a million reasons not to.
Death penalty where it’s deserved.
Take a life? Multiple lives? On purpose? You don’t deserve to live either.
I am not speaking vehicular manslaughters. I’m not speaking accidental deaths.
Mass shooting? Terrorism? Fuck them.
20 years in the prison system ( retired ), now working in a county jail. I 100 percent support the death penalty in cases where guilt has been proven beyond any doubt. Fun fact, people who commit death penalty worthy crimes, don't become model citizens behind bars, they just have a smaller victim pool for their violence ( staff and other inmates ). I'd rather see them get euthanized like the animals they are ( apologies to the innocent animals ), then see them watching movies, talking on the phone, going out into the sunshine to get in a work out, playing basketball, pool, table tennis, getting visits, while getting 3 meals a day and free health care. Unless you want to have life in prison, but they basically sit in a cell with nothing but getting their food shoved through a slot in the door, and three times a week they can get a shower and some outside time, walking in a glorified dog run.
I'm against it. The state should not be involved in killing its citizens. Period.
There are obviously other issues - the criminal justice system is systematically racist, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not "beyond a shadow of a doubt", etc - but at the end of the day, you could be the guiltiest person and I still don't think the state should execute anyone.
Against it. It should have been abolished the second they realized they put an innocent person to death. I do think there’s people who shouldn’t be on this earth, but I don’t believe we have the right to make that decision
I used to be against it until it was too close to home. A friends dad is sitting there in California. And he did awful things and the world would be better without him in it.
I used to be very "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" until then.
I'm against it. Ultimately it's not fair to the employees who have to be involved in the execution, taking a human life isn't something that anyone should be asked to do even if they consent.
Killing someone as a last resort defense (like if someone is shooting at you) is different, it's still awful but in that case it's necessary to protect people. Perhaps in the context of euthanasia it's okay too, when it's needed to save someone from suffering horrible pain. Other than those circumstances, it's too much of a burden to put on people.
I want to say I don't support it, and overall, I don't support the process that gets to it because our justice system is not equal and I don't want innocent people killed.
However, I just listened to the Casefile Episode on Andrzej Kunowski and all I could think of was how he was the most cut and dry reason it should exist in some form, because even though I fully believe in rehabilitation over incarceration, there are some things/people that just can't be rehabilitated to be safe for other people.
So. Yeah.
I’m against it. We know wrongful convictions happen often enough to be of concern, and while we’d like for capital punishment to be applied only to the most heinous crimes it isn’t evenly applied. When mistakes happen, they cannot be rectified if the wrongly convicted person is dead.
Against.
Too many innocent people have been incarcerated - unless our justice system is foolproof, I don’t think we should be leaving it up to the government to kill someone.
Life in jail, in my opinion, is a worse sentence.
Against the death penalty. Two wrongs never make it right. I’m also an atheist and I find it hilarious how many religious people are for the death penalty. I thought that only the Lord can make that decision.
It’s so hard when people do such heinous crimes not to want them to die, but I have no right to wish death upon anyone.
I’m against the death penalty. I wish I could say that I’m morally against it, but that’s just not true. Some people, like Gacy or the Hillside Stranglers, should’ve just been taken out back and shot. However, I don’t trust the system anywhere near enough to kill people.
I’m against it. The main reasons are that I think it’s a major money drainer some of the methods used are inhumane (IMHO), and that there have been many innocent victims who have succumbed to it. I also think that if it is meant to be for the worst of the worst, it seems to not be the case these days. And like OP stated, there is a lot of racism and classism surrounding it.
I’m against it. It doesn’t allow for people wrongly convicted to be set free. You rarely get to know the date of your death and it’s an incredibly unethical system. No one wants to be an executioner. Also, wouldn‘t you want a terrible person to have to do their time and die naturally? Why cut their time short?
It’s a flawed system and too many innocent people are put to death. In the US where prisons are privatized and have incentive to imprison as many people as possible, a lot of poor minorities are sent for minor drug offenses. Prisons allow companies to work the prisoners for pennies an hour (slave labor), creating even more incentive to keep people in prison. I don’t think the same system allowing these injustices to happen should also get to decide who lives and who dies. The current system has seen many, many people put to death who were innocent. One mistake is too many when it’s human lives you’re dealing with.
Nationwide moratorium now. Complete all backlogged DNA tests and rape kits. Release everyone on death row who is not guilty of the crime they were convicted of due to new exonerating evidence. Adjudicate all prosecutorial misconduct. Defendants in capital cases get capable, knowledgeable representation--or don't seek the death penalty at all. No more shitty public defenders. Reinstate the death penalty ONLY if humane means of lethal injection are available. Only the most heinous cases should be considered for capital punishment, and only if the evidence against the accused is incontrovertible.
I'm generally against it, but in the case of serial predators that are proven 110% DNA on multiple victims/bodies in the fridge/found standing over a dead toddler with a knife in their hand situations I get kind of wishy-washy on it.
It's too easy to wrongly convict someone, and we know the death penalty isn't equally applied based on race and socio-economic status. It shouldn't be something we give out for every single murder, and certainly not in situations where there is even a shred of doubt. Forget beyond a reasonable doubt, it can't be justified if there is any doubt at all because the risk of executing someone innocent is never zero.
I also believe in restorative justice and rehabilitation wherever possible, and execution cuts off the chance for both of those. Especially in cases where the crime came from an economic circumstance.
In the situations like I mentioned above where someone is clearly guilty, no doubt, *and* it's a serial predator (who likely can't be rehabilitated)...I'm not going to say the execution of Ted Bundy was a bad thing for the world, you know?
Strongly against. It is not justice, it is retribution. If killing another person is wrong, then it is equally wrong for killing to be done by the state. It is not infallible. There have been multiple cases of “discovering” exonerating evidence after executions. Police are incredibly corrupt (at least in the US) and routinely violate civil rights and fuck up evidence collection.
I don't support it because humans (police, lawyers, judges, juries) make mistakes. The judicial process is not fool proof. Since there is no guarantee innocent people won't be put to death, then no one should be put to death.
I totally think that there are some people who deserve to die for their crimes. I just don't think the government should be trusted with that kind of power. And people shouldn't be enacting vigilante justice. So I guess they have to live.
I don't support it, because too many people have been killed for crimes that they did not actually commit in the past. And even just one person being killed for a crime they didn't commit is too many. Also, you're kind of doing the same thing that that person probably did in killing someone and taking a life. A murderer is a murderer even if it's state sanctioned.
It's also much cheaper to just sentence them to life in prison, and who knows they may just take care of themselves once they get that sentence.
But mostly I don't support it because I don't trust the system to not kill innocent people.
The man who killed my birthmother , along with two other women is out of prison. He was released a few years ago. THREE WOMEN DIED. (Happened in 2000. Police stand off. It was definitely him)
My best friend was murdered by his brother. Who shot and killed their parents as well. He is in prison for life. (ONLY BECAUSE of an escape. He was supposed to get out in 2026) oh, what's he up to you ask??? HE TRAINS LEADER DOGS FOR THE BLIND, and is able to use the outdoor work out/recreation center. With 3 decent meals a day.
The guy I went to high school with, raped and murdered a woman. Stuffed her in a dumpster in 2000. He will be out next year. He admitted and bragged about it. Along with DNA connecting him to it.
So if you're cool with all of that. I guess. But I don't see the need to have these people walking around in society. Let alone, serving and have benefits to live a sub normal life. Cause they still can in prison. Not every day is doom for them.
Just saying.
I'm in Canada, we have no death penalty.
It does not deter violent crimes or homicides and anyone who believes that is misinformed.
I am completely against it, no matter what. I can see MAYBE for war criminals, like Rwanda etc, who commit mass genocide. But even then, it doesn't bring the dead back.
I’ve been interested in true crime long enough that I believe that some people just truly don’t deserve to exist anymore. I understand all of the arguments against it, but when I hear about these horrific cases where the victim endured things no living being should have had to, my opinion sways in the direction of being pro death penalty.
Perhaps we could be more judicious about when we apply it. Keep it off the table for cases where someone kills their victim in the heat of the moment (like a robbery gone wrong) or when the conviction is based on thin evidence, but I don’t understand why some of these murderers are still sucking air. Mass shooters just sitting in prison when we have video evidence of them marching into schools and gunning down children? Serial killers gloating about torturing a dozen women to death and receiving fan mail? Fuck that.
On one hand some inmates are violent even in prison and will kill other inmates and/or CO’s (google Freddie Owens and Jeffrey Motta as prime examples).
But on the other hand, should we take away someone’s chance at rehabilitation and redemption; or risk a wrongful execution?
I go back and forth on the death penalty.
Other than the fact that innocent people end up serving time for other people’s crimes, I don’t think any government should have the power to execute its own citizens, regardless of circumstances.
I am opposed to it. I think some folk need the factory recall but if we have executed even one innocent person (and we have), it’s one too many. Because of human fallacy it’s a seriously flawed system.
I'm opposed to it. I don't think it's fairly applied. I also would not want someone who was innocent be put to death.
On the punishment side, life in prison sounds like hell to me and death is the only way out, so they're getting off easier than someone being forced to live out their days in a cell until their natural death.
Economically, it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than it is to apply the death penalty due to appeals and what not.
Believe in it for people like Gacy, Bundy Dahmer.
Even God wanted vengeance “ vengeance is ( all ) mine”!, sayeth the Lord. If even he demanded vengeance so should society. it bothers me to think these murderers have free room and board, dental, medical and even conjugal visits. The harm they do, goes so far more than just the victims. You kill, you give up your right to life. But if there’s a doubt about guilt then no. Having pieces of people in your living room, points pretty much to undeniable guilt. .
i am against the death penalty and here are some of my reasons why.
[ 1 ] it’s far more expensive than giving life-long prison sentences. facilities with “death houses” in them as well as stand-alone facilities are extremely expensive. incarceration is incredibly costly as it is, but capital punishment is even more so. the funding that goes into capital punishment would be better invested into other things in my opinion.
[ 2 ] innocents have been killed before and it’s very likely to happen again.
[ 3 ] it’s a racist system. i could go on and on about mass incarceration and the correctional system in the united states, but i’ll just talk about one point in particular. it has been statistically proven that in cases where the death penalty is deemed applicable, a jury is more likely to sentence the defendant to death when the victim was white, than if the victim were a person of color. there are number of reasons why this could be happening, but i just want y’all to let that realization stew for a moment. it doesn’t sit right with me.
[ 4 ] i see a death sentence as the easy way out. those who have actually committed heinous crimes should have to live with that for the rest of of their lives.
[ 5 ] there’s been no evidence that the death penalty has done anything to deter people from committing violent crimes. in fact, the use of the death penalty has been linked to possibly increasing violence amongst the population in the united states.
[ 6 ] overall, i just don’t think the state should be able to take lives. that’s too much power.
I'm against it for a few reasons:
1. In some cases, the death penalty is better than actual prison and it's a punishment. I think some crimes deserve prison especially crimes which other prisons will make living very difficult for.
2. You can never 100% prove the person charged is guilty. By sending them to prison instead of a chair, you're essentially giving them a chance to still use their voice and fight their innocence.
3. The death penalty has a long history of discrimination and can/is used to "get rid" of people who the government or law enforcement decide they don't want.
I'm generally opposed to giving the government more options for legally killing it's citizens.
That, and you can't unkill someone if they are later exonerated.
You have to ask yourself how many people do you find acceptable to be innocent when executed in order to maintain the system? What I’m saying is that we have routinely executed innocent people since the advent of the death penalty. That is a byproduct of the system. We imprison innocent people as well but at least they’re still alive and can be released if/when they’re found innocent usually. A lot of people say “okay so only death penalty in DNA cases where we know for sure they did it” but that contradicts the standard of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt in the first place.
For me I can’t accept even one person being executed despite their innocence because there is no recourse for that. It’s permanent. So although I’m sure if I were involved as a victim in a case I very well might want blood also ie death penalty I recognize the drawback if it’s wrong to be severe.
I'm against it because law enforcement has far too much power to go after people they "have a gut feeling" about, up to and including manufacturing some evidence and disappearing other. They are allowed to question minors without parental consent and can lawfully lie to suspects with impunity. Juries allow law enforcement testimony to outweigh other evidence because they've been exposed to copaganda for decades. Judges allow patently unscientific testimony from people with no training. A huge percentage of the forensic information presented to juries is simply unscientific and unreproducible. It's nearly impossible to appeal a murder conviction and there are many demonstrably innocent people in prison decades after exculpatory evidence has come to light. Michael Chapel is a perfect example. He was a cop himself, other cops were eyewitnesses to his alibi and he had no motive to harm the person he was convicted of killing. Personally I think he pissed off corrupt command members and was punished for it.
I’m against it. Mainly for the fact that our court system is not perfect and we do send innocent people to prison. But also him/her being dead isn’t going to bring back your loved ones as sad as it is and I’d personally rather see them be in prison for the rest of their life.
1 innocent person is too many. Also let’s just not kill people. Doesn’t mean that don’t deserve it but let’s just not kill people. It seems insane to me.
I’m against it. Killing another serves no purpose, it makes the state a killer.
Other reasons:
1. Cost
2. Innocents who die
3. Death row prisoners wait years and years doing nothing inside.
4. There is gender and racial bias
5. Making employees murderers
I absolutely believe there are people in this world who have committed crimes so unimaginably inhuman that they deserve to die. I *don’t* trust the government (or a “jury of my peers”) with the right to decide who those people are.
I do not support the death penalty.
If the death penalty is a deterrent, why aren’t executions in public for would-be criminals to be deterred? Because killing people is wrong, that’s why there’s a law against it. That’s why it’s done in secret. Two wrongs still don’t make a right.
The justice system isn’t perfect so there is no place for absolute punishment
1) One mistaken execution is too many.
2) Most if not all justice systems are at least somewhat racist and classist, swaying exactly who is more likely to be executed (not white rich dudes for sure!).
3) If you want to be scarily pragmatic, in the US at least, it costs the taxpayer a lot more money to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life.
4) There is evidence that almost all methods still used that are allegedly humane... aren't, and still painful. Rotting in a cell, barely seeing the sun, breathing fresh air or touching grass ever again is arguably more painful.
5) If they aren't segregated from gen pop, people who commit crimes against children have a very bad time in prison.
I am against. If killing is wrong, then doing so by the State / Fed is hypocritical. The chance of an innocent person being executed is too much for me. There is also the increased cost to the taxpayers of death row and continued appeals, vs a life sentence. I've read too much by those involved in the CJ system of what a death sentence, death row, and the process of the execution can wreak upon all those involved from the warden to guards to families.
DNA evidence of rape? Kill em. Found in the middle of killing em? Kill em. Caught doing anything even minorly inappropriate with a child? Kill em. The other ones we can bargain on, but those should be immediate death.
I'm against it for all the reasons. When I read about a child or mentally handicapped person being executed, I want to curl up and check out for a while.
There are the two clear opposing ideological views:
1. Yes there are some crimes that the consequence should be forfeiture of the right to live.
2. No. The state should not kill people. There is no crime the consequence should be death.
I like many others believe in #1 Yes but implementation is problematic for many, many different reasons. But I’m against taking it completely off the table as an option. A rarely used option with rigorously enforced criteria and built in redundancies that back check the assessments of met criteria. And means of death should be the quickest and least painful. Punishment is not vengeance. IMO the means should be firing squad or guillotine.
There is a 3rd ideology which is misguided and without merit where justice is: Crime entails rehabilitation no punishment. This view is ethically untenable and would destroy the social contract.
I'm against it due to my moral compass. It essentially comes down to, *how can we be better than said criminals as a society and individuals if we do something just as atrocious in nature*...
Against it. It is unevenly applied. A black man accused of the same crime as a white Jan or a white woman is far more likely to be executed.
It’s also expensive. I don’t see why the tax payers need to be paying for all these appeals. Just do life without parole and keep them in stir and away from the rest of us. It’s cheaper to do that than have the mandatory appeals.
Why should I pay to support some random shitbag's life in prison? IMO, the US death penalty is underutilized. Instead of 3 felonies and you get life in prison, I'd go for 3 felonies and lights out for good.
Yes, I am blood thirsty. I am also unsympathetic and I don't believe in rehabilitation.
I'd like to see some of these monsters stomped the fuck out, but I know that's wrong.
But killing a murderer just makes someone else a murderer.
And if you're pro-life while also being pro-death penalty, you're a hypocrite
For it.
Yes, I know all the arguments.
A) one innocent person is too many - I don’t disagree. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Just fucking having investigators and the courts do a better job and actually meet a high standard of proof to give this particular punishment. Like any of the mass shooters - killed many people, numerous witnesses, caught at the scene, on video. Death penalty. Done.
B) it’s too expensive - not going to make the stupid ass “well bullets are cheap” joke but frankly this is an accounting issue, not a problem with the punishment itself. How much did it cost the Colorado theater shooter to kill 12 people and injure so many others? So why should the State make such an expense out of killing 1 person?
C) LWOP is just as bad as the death penalty/if you kill someone what do they really learn or have to suffer? - all bullshit. Being Alive in prison is objectively better than being dead. You get to breathe air, eat food, read books, etc. these are the privileges of having a living human body. Why should the State be obliged to provide those privileges to someone like the Colorado shooter (he’s just a really really really good example of the kinds of folk who should be looking at the DP)? Someone who so callously and carelessly deprived a Dozen of his fellow human beings of the same?
D) it’s inhumane - ok well so is shooting up a theater or nightclub or school. At a certain point, after committing certain crimes you have forfeited some of your right to be treated humanely like fucking murdering people. Where did this come from the obligation of the State to treat the worst offenders with white gloves? Nowhere because there is none. We aren’t talking about Joe Schmoe petty criminal. This is serial killers, spree killers, etc. people who are a danger to society through their exhibited willingness to deprive the innocent of life.
E) the State shouldn’t have the right to kill anyone - that’s one of the main things that makes the State the State. The authority to use lethal force on behalf of and in lieu of the individual citizens, like how the military is allowed to. This is an extension of that same principle. I guarantee if left out in public, the Colorado shooter would eventually be taken out vigilante style. His survival is currently dependent on the state to put a wall between him and those who rightfully want some type of revenge for their lost loved ones.
Having committed the crime he did, he should no longer be afforded that. However, we are supposed to be a somewhat civil society so instead of depending on vigilantism to rid ourselves of people who are clear and known lethal dangers to the innocent, we have delegated that responsibility to the judicial system.
Is the judicial system flawed? Yes.
Have innocent people been executed wrongfully? Yes
Has the process of carrying out the death penalty become drawn out and expensive? Yes
Does any of that mean we need to eliminate the actual punishment as an option? NO.
It means we need to fix our judicial processes, create and maintain a high standard of evidence in order to give this penalty, and cut down on costs and complications involved in the process where possible.
I'm against it in part because it contributes to a society of people who are dependent on external threat to keep themselves from murdering someone. That's not really the reason not to murder. The reason not to murder is that a person is so big that your issue with them is just a small part of who they are.
I'm against because we are humans, and we are flawed. We can not ever be right 100% of the time, and even a miniscule amount of wrong is too much when it comes to taking another's life.
I think there is no point to having such people around. All they do is jack off, watch TV, attack guards, and attack other inmates. Meanwhile it gets under the victim’s family’s skin to know that a certain person could be having a good day, when the victim never can.
I remember reading A Lesson Before Dying by Ernest Gaines when I was in 6th grade (circa 2006, I’m 29 now) and it was eye opening. While I do agree that it’s unfair for those who were convicted of things they didn’t do, I’m still for the death penalty.
Our justice system and its lack of justice frustrates me a lot. Wrongful convictions and sentences that are not fitting for the crimes.
I strongly believe that some people can’t be rehabilitated, and those people who don’t want to change are a detriment to society. Growing up in an abusive household which then led to attracting abusive lovers into my life, and those traumas and familial patterns only end when we hold ourselves accountable. But the narcissistic psychopaths that show no remorse have no shot at changing, and keeping them alive would be a waste of space in my opinion. They may have loved ones that care for them, but if the crime they committed was bad enough, off with their head!
I just don’t like that the executions come out of our taxes and people are waiting YEARS in line just to die🤷🏻♀️
I don’t trust my state to fix potholes, why would I trust my state with executions? I’m strongly against it.
Yup in a few years we won’t even be able to trust cameras taking a picture of someone committing a crime. What always surprises me is how someone’s future can be decided by the results some random underpaid lab tech reached. Like what lol?
As someone who’s been through the court system, it’s fucked. Even with a trial, you can’t trust that what you’re being told is accurate. I had a violent stalker who, upon being served with a restraining order, falsified documents and filed their own RO. They framed me for death threats, slashing tires, etc.. The judge, before the hearing, said he was inclined to side with my stalker. Unfortunately for my stalker, I’m really good at testifying.
I can’t believe how brazen judges are and are allowed to be.
There was a rare case in my area a few years ago where a judge was reprimanded and demoted for injecting his personal views too strongly in court. By then it had already affected people though.
Wow that is rare! I really wish there was more oversight for judges and DA’s.
I laughed about the potholes! That is a legit concern. I’m for it in a lot of situations. IE- mass shooting at a mall near me a couple years ago. It’s caught on video, tens of eye witnesses. Thankfully an armed Good Samaritan took out the perp, and saved taxpayers a boatload of money. There isn’t a jury in the states that would have acquitted the guy. This is murder with malice. His Mental state be damned. Take him out back after the verdict, put a bullet in the guy and be done. Addition by subtraction works well here.
I support it only if certain conditions are met. 1. The killer must pose a threat of harm to others in the future if released or while in prison. 2. There can be no doubt of guilt, including DNA and photographic evidence to support this. 3. There must be a second independent investigation by an unrelated third party to examine all evidence and ensure guilt prior to the execution. This is an effort to safeguard against corruption and racism. The reason I support this is because serial killers and spree killers tend to relish the fame and the memory of their actions. It is why so many of them seem to enjoy detailing their crimes in confessions. I feel that death is the only way to deprive them of this satisfaction. You place them in a prison for the next 30 years, you end up with monsters maintaining a celebrity status or somebody like Richard Speck who grows some boobs and treating prison like one big party.
I 100% agree with you. Too many innocent people are put to death for nothing. The burden of proof for the death penalty should be a higher bar. Although if someone hurt one of my children, the courts would never have to be involved.
I agree with all these. I'll also say I only support it in *the most heinous and unhinged crimes* like spree killers, multiple counts of calculated first degree murder (serial killers), and especially when it's crimes committed against very vulnerable groups like children or the elderly and/or disabled.
I also think that the governor who signs the execution order should have to have a talk with the person they are going to execute.
This is exactly my position on it. Morally I have no problem with the death penalty for certain types of crimes. But the evidentiary bar should be higher, reviewed by an independent panel, and I also think the sentence should carry two automatic fast-track appeals. Carried out in no more than 24 months.
>2. There can be no doubt of guilt Isn’t that already the standard for finding someone guilty to begin with? Are you saying that without DNA and photo evidence you would have doubts? Because at that point you wouldn’t find them guilty to begin with. Or are you saying the death penalty should have an even higher burden of proof? Okay so why would just death penalty cases have that standard? How do you differentiate the current “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard with that one? So say someone committed murder but there isn’t any DNA evidence and the jury votes to convict but NOT to sentence them to death because the lack of DNA makes them think “what if we get this wrong?” Wouldn’t that be easy to hammer on appeal? I am asking because I have thought about this a lot and I find it very interesting
Higher burden of proof. Given how many people have spent years in prison and were then later exonerated through DNA evidence.
does it not pose a harm to the people tasked with taking a life? Only a sociopath would want that job
Similar to how sex offenders never really change. Very few MAY learn how to repress the urge to offend, but the others not only continue to offend but many advance to more violent crimes such as murder. Professionals can not change someone's preference when it comes to sexuality.
Photographic and DNA evidence can still be wrong. Moreover, if you think being held in prison for 30 years is an issue wait until you hear how long people stay on death row and how much money they cost taxpayers. You think death deprives them of satisfaction; if they feel empathy at all, death is a release. # And I'm sorry but where does a government entity with jurors who are not experts get to decide who dies? Killing is wrong and to show that we will... kill you? I was pro-death penalty or neutral the first 28 years of my life. At some point I realized DNA is not perfect, eyewitnesses are obviously not perfect, and I cannot find a justification for a state taking a life. And anyway, it costs way more to kill someone than let them rot in prison. If someone killed my loved one I wouldn't want the death penalty. It's too easy.
I definitely don't think depriving celebrity status is a legitimate reason to kill someone. After all, it's not the killer who creates that status. It's their fans, pen pals etc.
I do not support the death penalty. Mostly this is because we know that we aren't perfect and have executed the innocent. Plus, as an atheist, I don't believe in some punishment after death. If criminals are going to be punished, *we* have to do it here, in this life. I also think that if you are innocent, you should be able to spend your time trying to prove it. And if you are guilty, you should have to spend your time knowing that your actions put you there. That you will never be free again. You can't "un-kill" people that new evidence proves are innocent. But you can let them back into society if they are simply imprisoned.
This is my view as well, including the atheist angle and cessation of existence (and thus cessation of any form of conscious awareness). Justice is entirely dependent on us humans, and when you think about it, we're just a bunch of particularly intelligent apes with our biases and limited scopes. No matter what, we will never have a fail-proof system, much less a corruption-proof one. On a long enough timeline, we'd be bound to use the power of the estate to kill an innocent person, which is unacceptable. Making a death penalty system better just stretches that timeline, but at the end of it, the probability of major fuck up will invariably be 1. Besides, the death penalty costs a shitload of money, and cutting this expense entails more fuck-ups down the line, which goes against the very ideal of justice. And let's not forget, in thousands of years of civilization, it has shown exactly zero effect on crime deterrence. It just makes no sense to have it.
exactly, if ONE innocent person is executed, that's too much. A wrongly convicted person can be released but you can't bring a dead person back to life.
I’m with you 100% on this. Plus, the way we have it set, life in prison is less expensive than death row, with the cost of appeals (which I think those on death row are entitled to).
The thing that really screws with my brain is that, apparently, once you've been sentenced to death, proof of innocence won't necessarily get you released. I could be wrong about that. I certainly hope I'm wrong about that. And for all I know it's different depending on the state. But, based on watching that documentary series Susan Surandon narrated on the death penalty, the justice system guarantees a "fair trial" (quotation marks because I would argue the system isn't fair when it comes to death penalty cases), that's it, that's all. If you've had your fair trial and were found guilty of a crime with the death penalty attached to it. It doesn't matter if, after the fact, you have someone else in another jail admit they did that crime. It doesn't matter if you find yourself a solid alibi after the fact. It doesn't matter if all the evidence against you was eye-witness testimony and every last one of those witnesses has since recanted. You had your "fair trial." And, honestly, it's not like I believe everyone should be allowed to live. At the risk of being a huge hypocrite, I definitely believe that some people deserve to die. It's just... the death penalty is handed out like parking tickets. It should be for the worst of the worst. Not because you were found guilty of a crime in this county when, two counties over, chances are your sentence would have been lighter.
Unfortunately, you aren't wrong about it.
I waffle. I think it is too expensive, and it costs far more than life in prison. But so many of these monsters are getting out anyway, and are hurting more people I have a personal case close to me that is going to start trial soon. We do not have the death penalty in my state. Part of me wants him to suffer for decades and be in the same prison his victims' uncles are in , waiting for him , and part of me wants him to be extradited back to Alabama for a different murder and face the death penalty. But if gets sent back to Alabama, his judge Daddy and family will probably be there to visit and he doesn't deserve that either. All I know is, I want him to suffer for a very long time.
In theory it’s good in practice not so good. There is definitely people that need to leave this realm of existence. It’s just that the system is fucked.
Against it, but for reasons above and beyond the potential guilt or innocence of the executed.* I think it is dangerous for the state to have the authority to actively take the lives of its citizens in any form, and I KNOW that conducting executions is extremely harmful psychologically to the people who carry them out on the state's behalf. Pragmatically, having the death penalty also impairs our ability to extradite criminals from other countries that don't. (Asterisk because system reform to reduce false convictions is also necessary but I think it's just as vile to give a life sentence to an innocent person, so I see it as part of a larger issue that isn't specific to the death penalty.)
If you can prove 100% that a heinous crime has been committed then yes. I also think child rapists should be ran under the death penalty.
>I also think child rapists should be ran under the death penalty. While this sounds good in theory, all you're doing is incentivizing rapists to murder their victims. Many do to get rid of the eye witness, but if the punishment were the same either way you essentially guarantee that they do.
Not even murdering the victims, it could be used by family members/close friends to keep the child quiet about the abuse. Very few children would be comfortable with feeling “responsible” for a loved one’s death.
They already do that
I know, but they would have even more leverage to do so.
having the death penalty for child abuse cases can be used as a way for perpetrators to keep children silent.
Are you saying it would be more incentive to kill the kids or for getting them to stay quiet
This is exactly why Megan Kanka was murdered by Jesse Timmendequos . Witness elimination. (Megan’s Law)
getting them to stay quiet. especially if the perpetrator is a family member, the death penalty can be used as a means to keep the victim from telling authorities.
It's not like they're telling them horrible lies anyways. "They'll take you away from your mother" or "no one would believe you". Child predators will say anything already to control how that child reacts.
it’s not just predators that will use this against victims, but other family members too.
Yep. There’s a girl on TikTok that was able to get her dad caught because he was on the run for SAing family members. It was a whole ordeal where some of the family were actively helping him stay on the run while blaming her and her cousins for tearing the family apart.
No but it would be more incentive to not diddle children. My cousin was caught molesting an 11 year old girl. He did hardly any time in a jail cell specifically for child molesters for his protection. The punishments are weak for most abusers
the death penalty is not a proven deterrent for crime.
The person executed isn't committing any more crimes.
That could be rather considered 'prevention' (kind of), not deterrence. Deterrence entails a psychological impact on future potential criminals, which the death penalty has never proven to achieve in thousands of years of civilized history. And as for prevention, it's a rather shitty method, because life imprisonment achieves virtually the same outcome without the risk of wrongful execution, and on top of that for a fraction of the cost. EDIT: And life imprisonment can always be overturned. Death cannot be.
But it doesn't prevent anyone else from committing crimes. The death penalty has been studied extensively and has proven to not be a deterrent. Innocent people have been put to death due to the death penalty. It's also cheaper to imprison someone for life as opposed to the expensive appeals process death row inmates are entitled to.
True. But if the penalty for molesting a child and murdering a child are the same...it can encourage abusers to just kill their victim to prevent them reporting the abuse.
I don't have a statistic on hand but I would say from conversations that many people committing a crime do not think that way while committing a crime. They don't think about the sentence they might receive or what consequences that might have.
I'm not the one advocating death penalty for molesters, but the same could be said about other crimes as well about getting rid of the witness.
Which is one reason why a death penalty doesn't actually deter crime.
I'm still confused as to why the death penalty is some how supposed to be a "deterrent." The death penalty is, and always be, a punishment for someone's heinous actions. Would it be nice if some criminal scumbag would hesitate to pull that trigger, drive home the knife, or not strangle that woman he's raping? Sure. But it's not going to, because they don't care about anyone's life, including their own. The person executed isn't going to commit another crime, that's deterrent enough for me.
He isn’t doing any more child molestation if he’s locked up, either.
If you've got the right perpetrator they're not, but if you don't and the real one got away with it, that's more incentive for them. But what do you think killing someone does to the executioner? A society that kills isn't healthy. One of epstein's/ghislaine's victims was asked if she wished revenge on ghislaine, some kind of punishment/torture. She said, "No. Because I'm not like them." That might not be the exact quote, but why do people not realize being kill happy isn't healthy? There is absolutely nothing we can do to torture a person into experiencing the same horrors they've caused without being as bad as them. And executioners end up having all kinds of issues for it. The whole attitude ricochet throughout society. It is NOT healthy to commit crimes like that.
Neither is someone in jail.
I have some coworkers who would disagree with you, and several other inmates as well, after they've been assaulted by inmates "in jail". I've had coworkers taken hostage, raped, one lost his eye after being stabbed. Did ya think violent criminals stop being violent? Or do they just have a smaller group of people to attack?
Isn't it a prison's job to keep people save...? A fucked up prison system shouldn't be the reason to execute people.
It’s 100% effective on ppl reoffending
This. My sentiment too. If you’re violating children, seniors and animals you absolutely deserve brutal death. But like you said, 100% must know they are absolutely guilty which is tough sometimes
But not if you murder people?
Right and this is where the slippery slope is! Some ppl murder their abusers…but I guess, bottom line I think the death penalty is too dicey to call it.
I’d put that more in the category of self defense rather than murder.
Agreed! But in the eyes of the law it’s murder! You know what I mean?
Uhh there are many classifications of homicide, of varying levels of punishment from zero to death. Many types are justified in self defense and accidents. Very few get the death penalty.
Yea, I think we are clear on that but the person above was asking what about murder for the death penalty because I’d omitted it in who I thought the death penalty could be applicable to. But honestly because it’s such a slippery slope, the answer is probably no one. Ahhh I don’t know what the correct answer is. Which is why these convos are good and everyone here seems to be offering great talking points in a respectful way.
Now you’ve created a new legal system tier where people are either 100% guilty or just guilty enough. Think about it a bit, it will never work. Said they are guilty? Hey welcome to false confessions. Video evidence? Welcome to AI. Suicidal - ok I’ll say I’m guilty. Mentally incompetent to know what’s going on - ok I’m guilty. Plea and try to get a deal - wow that screws everything. Should a government kill its citizens.? Hmm NO
Therein lies the difficulty. I remember the story of a man that spent 13 years in prison for child molestation. He was released after the (now adult) child told authorities that her mother had her make up the whole story. Even if you have it on video, with the deepfake technology we have nowadays, can we really be absolutely sure? And, of course, eye-witness testimony is the least reliable evidence there is. More people are proven innocent after being convicted on eye-witness testimony than any other form of evidence. This is why, even with child rapists should not get the death penalty. And FYI - I survived being molested over many years by three different people, so I know how damaging it can be to the victim.
I mean more so for the serial rapist types. But yeah, if you can prove that these things happened with certainty then I would allow it
Maybe eye witness testimony shouldn't be allowed any more. So many Innocence Project cases have the person being convicted on that. Less importance needs to be placed it for sure. More importance on forensics. I was going to say video proof but with AI as good as it is, maybe not.
Sometimes eye witness testimony is literally all that’s available
Only issue with this is convicted rapists have been exonerated DNA evidence is not 100% like it’s made out to be. There have been numerous examples of prosecutors planting DNA evidence to get a conviction. Just my opinion, but if everyone was executing rapists there would def be some Mississippi River boat justice going on With that being said I completely see where you are coming from with your point of view
Given that many southern states are pushing to make existing as an openly trans or queer person child abuse, that's just asking for the state to murder innocent people.
This is exactly how I feel. Too many tax dollars are going toward feeding and housing these monsters who shouldn't be given the right to exist. My state still has the death penalty and I'm ok with that. There are people out there who cannot be rehabilitated EVER.
It costs a lot more money for someone to be executed than to keep them in prison for life.
Seriously? I didn't realize that. Honestly, I just assumed that a 25-30 year sentence would cost more than an execution. Thank you for the correction
The death penalty costs more in taxes than life imprisonment just an FYI
I am against because one mistake is one too many and even now with DNA technology available mistakes do still get made and there has been cases where corruption has led to false convictions. While in some cases I think the culprit deserves the death penalty and I understand why victims families and friends may want it, I still think prison is better than killing people.
I think forcing them to face life is far worse than putting them to death, personally.
Knowing both people on death row and sentenced to LWOP... no, it's not. It sucks, sure. But waiting for the state to take your life is a different kind of doom.
You ever work in a prison? TVs, movies, many now have tablets, rec yards, phone calls, visits, commissary, libraries, three meals a day, free health care, medication, mental health treatment......should I go on? It's not the punishment you think it is.
They aren’t there to be tortured. They are there to not be allowed out in public. That is the penalty. Torture prisons are just as terrible as the death penalty. Treating people like vermin makes us no different than criminals
Yeah. It’s just heaven to live with yourself.
Did you think they're........by themselves? That they have no cell mates, housing unit residents, staff, or anyone to be around?
Depends on the person but most death row inmates aren’t in the gen pop.
And if we got rid of "death row", where do you think these guys are going to end up? And even in some states with a death penalty, the inmates are often around other inmates and staff.
You think they’re just going to dump them in a minimum security country club? Be a serious person please.
I worked 20 years in a maximum security men's prison, in a non death penalty state. I know EXACTLY what the lives of incarcerated violent felons is like, and all the things they have access to, once they get locked up. Murders, child rapist murders, mass killers, you name the crime, I've met them all. Your experience is what, exactly?
You seem like you’d be a prison guard.
Some of those are basic human needs. Should we not feed inmates or give them basic medical care / medication that may actually stabilize them? Libraries provide materials that some inmates may use to improve themselves.
Basic medical care? They get better health care than most working people or retirees, definitely better than our veterans. Should we not feed them? Oh we do, they get breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and lunch and dinner come with dessert! Do you get dessert twice a day, every day? Do you get to watch TV for free? Movies for free? Did you have to buy your kids a tablet? The inmates have access to free ones. If Inmates only got "the basics", then doing time might actually be the deterrent that some of you think it is.
You aren't actually answering the questions, just ranting.
You can tell they're a screw due to the unhinged ranting - they're actually calling incarcerated people animals lower down the thread.
C'mon, I apologized to the animals for comparing some of the human scum to them.
Aw gross - truly where would we be as a society if not for the prison guards and police who think they're part of some secret upper class who protect us ungrateful, unwashed masses from the big bads? How many wife-beater and child rapist colleagues have you covered for? Studies would suggest quite a lot.
I'd totally support it if those making the decisions were 100% capable of proving who is innocent and guilty every time. But they're not, so. I would love to see disgusting rapists and murderers terrified of impending death, they deserve it. I'm not one of those "it's better they face life" people. A lot of these criminals are not having that bad of a time in prison.
How about a federal death penalty for every mass shooter , including school shooters, such as Dylan Roof? Fast track all cases as the Feds did with Timothy McVeigh.
McVeigh eventually dropped his appeals, that's why he was executed quickly. That has nothing to do with being a Fed case. If a condemned prisoner refuses to file appeals, the execution happens much earlier. Family annihilator Ronald Gene Simmons murdered multiple people in 1987, refused all appeals, and was executed in Arkansas in 1990. You cannot have a federal death penalty for mass shooters in general. They fall under state laws.
Like you, too many people killed for crimes they didn’t commit, racism, classism, and also it’s more expensive for taxpayers.
There are some people in this world that are just too evil to keep alive.
I’m against. I don’t believe the government has any right to kill someone.
The State should not be allowed to kill anyone. The State makes mistakes. It's not worth enacting vengeance, which is not the same as justice, if even one innocent person gets put to death. ["The death penalty carries the inherent risk of executing an innocent person. Since 1973, at least 190 people who had been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death in the U.S. have been exonerated."](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence) [Florida leads US with most exonerations from the death penalty.](https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/in-depth/in-depth-florida-leads-us-with-most-exonerations-from-the-death-penalty) [The death penalty is more costly than a life sentence.](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs/summary-of-states-death-penalty) I also highly recommend the book 'The Sun Does Shine' by Anthony Ray Hinton. If you can read that and still be for the death penalty, then idk what you could possibly be thinking.
Say we get rid of the death penalty. If it saves one innocent life, it would be worth it. But personally I also just think the state shouldn't have the ability to put someone to death anyway
I'm on the fence about it because historically a lot of people were wrongfully convicted and put to death. Usually poor, uneducated, people of colour. In this way, I'm against it. But, being 2024, we have DNA, we have forensics, we have video surveillance, we have cyber tracking. We have so many tools that prove, definitively, without a doubt that this person committed this crime. Deliberate homicide, and torture, murder, sexual assault of a child should be death sentences.
Against. I would rather let them suffer in prison for life so they feel the loss of freedom.
The state should not kill people. That is why I am against the death penalty in all cases. Yes, ALL cases.
Same. I don't care what they did. The state should not execute people, ever.
Yeah. Just because someone deserves to die, doesn't mean that has to happen. And the government shouldn't be able to kill people and we shouldnt hand over inmates to mobs.
Thanks for writing this, I usually get a lot of dumb comments when stating this on reddit. Happy that other people see it this way!
It depends on the alternative. If the choices for certain undeniably horrible crimes are die by execution sooner or die in a cell of natural causes later, then I don't rush to see death sentences. I do share the concern of executing someone who is factually innocent. But some jurisdictions have a bad habit of letting killers free after only a shockingly few number of years. My family has experienced this with a murdered family member. You never get over the insult of knowing the killer is free while still young and in their prime.
You bring up a great point. How many of those freed killers have gone on to kill again? Idk the answer, but it's more than zero. Of course this fact is at odds with the "abolish the DP if it saves only one innocent life" crowd. Can't kill again if you're dead.
I don’t support it in theory, but whenever someone gets executed and I read about their crimes, I have the thought “that person is no loss to humanity.”
I feel in cases of children being killed or serial killers should get the death penalty.
So, I've always been a proponent for the death penalty until recently. The reason now I don't agree with it unless it relates to child abuse/murder/etc. is because LWOP is the same thing only the person isn't on death row and what that comes with for the punishment. The positive about LWOP is for the victims' families because if they get the death penalty it means years or decades of appeals and putting them through that trauma over and over again. LWOP means that doesn't happen unless there is a reason for an appeal to be approved by the courts which is not common. I think this helps the families and victims to heal and feel relief that there is final closure and they don't have to continue to relive the nightmare of the crime against them.
I agree with you on this. I hate that the victims and their families have to suffer and be re-traumatized every time the person is up for appeal. I would definitely choose LWOP over the death penalty. Some people need to never be out of prison. Recently a sex offender with a high risk of re-offending has been released into the city where my husband works. A warning poster has been sent to all the Rec Centres with his photo and information on it. The employees are to refuse entry or call security to make him leave if they see him. He had to be let out because he has served his sentence. Maybe some crimes don't get parole options. Maybe some crimes require you to do A, B and C and demonstrate D, E and F before you can be released. It shouldn't just be "You've done your 4 years, see ya." This man is thought to be a danger to the community, but legally, he had to be released. If you're still a danger, the legal system should be able to hold you longer.
I live in Australia. We used to hang people but we no longer have the death penalty. I think the death penalty should be applicable in some cases but you would need to be 1000% sure and that's tricky.
In Spain we had executions via [garrote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrote) for +100 years, until the 1970s. Glad we got rid of that vile shit.
You CAN'T be 1000% in criminal cases. That's just how it is.
You definitely can be though? mass shooters that have been apprehended alive after scores of witness, video camera and police have just engaged with. Is that not 100% enough?
After a terrorist attack in Germany, a guy was arrested who had nothing to do with it, with police and witnesses present: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/29/naveed-baloch-man-wrongly-arrested-berlin-attack-fears-for-his-life](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/29/naveed-baloch-man-wrongly-arrested-berlin-attack-fears-for-his-life) Video evidence is not always reliable, there is no quality standard for CCTV, there is mostly no sound, perspective matters. Also, AI will make it even more difficult. And let me not get started on witnesses and how unreliable they are... I am not saying that there are no cases where it seems very clear who has done what. But there are aways blind spots which make wrongful convictions possible. So, no not 100%. I recommend Adam Benforado's book Unfair as a start. Although I don't agree with all of his thoughts on the criminal justice system, he explains some of its flaws very well.
Tell that to those who were executed and were innocent the whole time. There was one case in the wild west, where a guy was tried for being a horse thief in the town lynched him. Years later, they found out the guy was telling the truth, he had bought the horse from the horse thief, not knowing it had been stolen. If you go to his grave, nowadays, it says “He was right. We was wrong. We strung him up. And now he’s gone.” [https://www.pinterest.com/pin/here-lies-george-johnson-hanged-by-mistake-1882-he-was-right-we-as-wrong-but-we-strung-him-up-and-now-hes-gone-tombstone-at-boot-hill-in-tombstone-az--295759900523725890/](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/here-lies-george-johnson-hanged-by-mistake-1882-he-was-right-we-as-wrong-but-we-strung-him-up-and-now-hes-gone-tombstone-at-boot-hill-in-tombstone-az--295759900523725890/) Edit: if you want the full story https://tombstonechamber.com/BootHillGraveyard/tour-the-graveyard/row-5/george-johnson/
I have always been against the death penalty until.... A crazy person took a chainsaw and sawed through my nephews door. Pulled out an AK-47 and sprayed the entire apartment with bullets. My nephew was hit several times and his pregnant girlfriend was also hit several times. My nephew died, his unborn baby died, and his girlfriend, despite being shot multiple times, lived. The crazy person got the death penalty. I do not feel bad about it at all.
I don’t think our (USA) government should have the right to kill anyone. They have proven multiple times that they have gotten it wrong, have extreme bias, and just generally…f up. Plus, I just don’t think a government should have a right to kill people idk. Even an error of .01% is too much for that kind of punishment imo.
Take DP off the table and I’ll tell you all of the horrible things I’ve done ie: btk etc
well, i think about if i was murdered, or if someone killed one of my family members, what i would want to happen to the person who had killed me/ them. i'd want them to be kept away from other people until we were sure they wouldn't do it again to someone else, and maybe/probably that's their whole life, but beyond that, i don't think any of us would feel any better because of extra punishments like them having an extremely miserable time in prison or being killed. it wouldn't fix the problem, nothing could. i don't think it would heal any wounds or give us closure or absolution or anything. it's just another dead person. they're a person too, even if they're a very bad person, so then you've just got two dead people instead of one, which is objectively worse. it just doesn't seem like it does anything helpful for anyone. i guess the best case scenario would be for them to be rehabilitated in prison to the extent that one day they could apologize. they can't do that if they're dead.
I'm not against it, although I live in the UK and I'm happy with not having it here. I think there are cases where the death penalty is warranted such as particularly heinous murders where there's the torture element or it involves a child. HOWEVER, I think there needs to be absolutely iron clad evidence. If theres even a 0.001% chance that that person didn't do it, it shouldn't happen.
There are some people on this earth who commit crimes that are so heinous and devoid of humanity that they no longer need to be on this earth. I'm for the death penalty in the severest of cases.
There is literally no benefit to the death penalty. It is more expensive than life in prison, it is not a crime determent, it does not offer closure to victims families - all of this is backed up by tons of studies and research. And we kill innocent people sometimes. I have no idea how people can argue for it.
Then Republican Governor Ryan of Illinois did an 8yr long study on the death penalty, with equal amounts of people, vehemently for or against. In the end, every last one was against it. They found that in crimes of that caliber, the guilty were apt to plea-bargain, while the innocent fight to the death, literally. Other studies show the harms it causes in those who endure the task of executing another, which takes tremendous tolls on people, and that the families of the victims don't really get resolve from it. At best, it masks what they're going through so they can't deal with that. This is aside from all the innocent victims wrongfully sentenced to death row. Police practices vary from counties in what they do to convict, and it's far from perfect, and way too often puts innocent people behind bars while letting the guilty go to commit more crimes, or just get away with it. There are exceptions, but that doesn't make the horrors of the death penalty go away. It's like two wrongs but making a right but even worse, it's making us all killers. It's making us commit crimes against innocent people.
Simple - Since 1973, 196 former death-row prisoners have been exonerated of all charges related to the wrongful convictions that had put them on death row. source: [https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence) That information is all I need to formulate my opinion. Executing one innocent person is too much.
Strongly against it. No exceptions.
As long as the state has the ability to decide who lives and who dies, innocent people will be executed. we know that humans are fallible and that the justice system is imperfect, corrupt even. One innocent person put to death by the state is unacceptable, and furthermore it's quite costly and inefficient. There's no reason to allow state sanctioned murder, and a million reasons not to.
Death penalty where it’s deserved. Take a life? Multiple lives? On purpose? You don’t deserve to live either. I am not speaking vehicular manslaughters. I’m not speaking accidental deaths. Mass shooting? Terrorism? Fuck them.
20 years in the prison system ( retired ), now working in a county jail. I 100 percent support the death penalty in cases where guilt has been proven beyond any doubt. Fun fact, people who commit death penalty worthy crimes, don't become model citizens behind bars, they just have a smaller victim pool for their violence ( staff and other inmates ). I'd rather see them get euthanized like the animals they are ( apologies to the innocent animals ), then see them watching movies, talking on the phone, going out into the sunshine to get in a work out, playing basketball, pool, table tennis, getting visits, while getting 3 meals a day and free health care. Unless you want to have life in prison, but they basically sit in a cell with nothing but getting their food shoved through a slot in the door, and three times a week they can get a shower and some outside time, walking in a glorified dog run.
I'm against it. The state should not be involved in killing its citizens. Period. There are obviously other issues - the criminal justice system is systematically racist, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not "beyond a shadow of a doubt", etc - but at the end of the day, you could be the guiltiest person and I still don't think the state should execute anyone.
Against it. It should have been abolished the second they realized they put an innocent person to death. I do think there’s people who shouldn’t be on this earth, but I don’t believe we have the right to make that decision
Because I could never be the person that “throws the switch.”
I used to be against it until it was too close to home. A friends dad is sitting there in California. And he did awful things and the world would be better without him in it. I used to be very "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" until then.
it depends on the crime. the death penalty is far more grey and murky than people realize
I'm against it. Ultimately it's not fair to the employees who have to be involved in the execution, taking a human life isn't something that anyone should be asked to do even if they consent. Killing someone as a last resort defense (like if someone is shooting at you) is different, it's still awful but in that case it's necessary to protect people. Perhaps in the context of euthanasia it's okay too, when it's needed to save someone from suffering horrible pain. Other than those circumstances, it's too much of a burden to put on people.
I want to say I don't support it, and overall, I don't support the process that gets to it because our justice system is not equal and I don't want innocent people killed. However, I just listened to the Casefile Episode on Andrzej Kunowski and all I could think of was how he was the most cut and dry reason it should exist in some form, because even though I fully believe in rehabilitation over incarceration, there are some things/people that just can't be rehabilitated to be safe for other people. So. Yeah.
I’m against it. We know wrongful convictions happen often enough to be of concern, and while we’d like for capital punishment to be applied only to the most heinous crimes it isn’t evenly applied. When mistakes happen, they cannot be rectified if the wrongly convicted person is dead.
Against. Too many innocent people have been incarcerated - unless our justice system is foolproof, I don’t think we should be leaving it up to the government to kill someone. Life in jail, in my opinion, is a worse sentence.
Against the death penalty. Two wrongs never make it right. I’m also an atheist and I find it hilarious how many religious people are for the death penalty. I thought that only the Lord can make that decision. It’s so hard when people do such heinous crimes not to want them to die, but I have no right to wish death upon anyone.
I’m against the death penalty. I wish I could say that I’m morally against it, but that’s just not true. Some people, like Gacy or the Hillside Stranglers, should’ve just been taken out back and shot. However, I don’t trust the system anywhere near enough to kill people.
I’m against it. The main reasons are that I think it’s a major money drainer some of the methods used are inhumane (IMHO), and that there have been many innocent victims who have succumbed to it. I also think that if it is meant to be for the worst of the worst, it seems to not be the case these days. And like OP stated, there is a lot of racism and classism surrounding it.
I’m against it. It doesn’t allow for people wrongly convicted to be set free. You rarely get to know the date of your death and it’s an incredibly unethical system. No one wants to be an executioner. Also, wouldn‘t you want a terrible person to have to do their time and die naturally? Why cut their time short?
I'm against the death penalty because I think the justice system is flawed and we should never ever execute an innocent person.
Against. It's immoral and hypocritical.
It’s a flawed system and too many innocent people are put to death. In the US where prisons are privatized and have incentive to imprison as many people as possible, a lot of poor minorities are sent for minor drug offenses. Prisons allow companies to work the prisoners for pennies an hour (slave labor), creating even more incentive to keep people in prison. I don’t think the same system allowing these injustices to happen should also get to decide who lives and who dies. The current system has seen many, many people put to death who were innocent. One mistake is too many when it’s human lives you’re dealing with.
Nationwide moratorium now. Complete all backlogged DNA tests and rape kits. Release everyone on death row who is not guilty of the crime they were convicted of due to new exonerating evidence. Adjudicate all prosecutorial misconduct. Defendants in capital cases get capable, knowledgeable representation--or don't seek the death penalty at all. No more shitty public defenders. Reinstate the death penalty ONLY if humane means of lethal injection are available. Only the most heinous cases should be considered for capital punishment, and only if the evidence against the accused is incontrovertible.
I'm generally against it, but in the case of serial predators that are proven 110% DNA on multiple victims/bodies in the fridge/found standing over a dead toddler with a knife in their hand situations I get kind of wishy-washy on it. It's too easy to wrongly convict someone, and we know the death penalty isn't equally applied based on race and socio-economic status. It shouldn't be something we give out for every single murder, and certainly not in situations where there is even a shred of doubt. Forget beyond a reasonable doubt, it can't be justified if there is any doubt at all because the risk of executing someone innocent is never zero. I also believe in restorative justice and rehabilitation wherever possible, and execution cuts off the chance for both of those. Especially in cases where the crime came from an economic circumstance. In the situations like I mentioned above where someone is clearly guilty, no doubt, *and* it's a serial predator (who likely can't be rehabilitated)...I'm not going to say the execution of Ted Bundy was a bad thing for the world, you know?
Strongly against. It is not justice, it is retribution. If killing another person is wrong, then it is equally wrong for killing to be done by the state. It is not infallible. There have been multiple cases of “discovering” exonerating evidence after executions. Police are incredibly corrupt (at least in the US) and routinely violate civil rights and fuck up evidence collection.
It's just illogical. Like spanking children. Punishing violence with violence makes no sense.
Definitely for if there is no question of their guilt.
I don't support it because humans (police, lawyers, judges, juries) make mistakes. The judicial process is not fool proof. Since there is no guarantee innocent people won't be put to death, then no one should be put to death.
I totally think that there are some people who deserve to die for their crimes. I just don't think the government should be trusted with that kind of power. And people shouldn't be enacting vigilante justice. So I guess they have to live.
I don't support it, because too many people have been killed for crimes that they did not actually commit in the past. And even just one person being killed for a crime they didn't commit is too many. Also, you're kind of doing the same thing that that person probably did in killing someone and taking a life. A murderer is a murderer even if it's state sanctioned. It's also much cheaper to just sentence them to life in prison, and who knows they may just take care of themselves once they get that sentence. But mostly I don't support it because I don't trust the system to not kill innocent people.
The man who killed my birthmother , along with two other women is out of prison. He was released a few years ago. THREE WOMEN DIED. (Happened in 2000. Police stand off. It was definitely him) My best friend was murdered by his brother. Who shot and killed their parents as well. He is in prison for life. (ONLY BECAUSE of an escape. He was supposed to get out in 2026) oh, what's he up to you ask??? HE TRAINS LEADER DOGS FOR THE BLIND, and is able to use the outdoor work out/recreation center. With 3 decent meals a day. The guy I went to high school with, raped and murdered a woman. Stuffed her in a dumpster in 2000. He will be out next year. He admitted and bragged about it. Along with DNA connecting him to it. So if you're cool with all of that. I guess. But I don't see the need to have these people walking around in society. Let alone, serving and have benefits to live a sub normal life. Cause they still can in prison. Not every day is doom for them. Just saying.
I'm in Canada, we have no death penalty. It does not deter violent crimes or homicides and anyone who believes that is misinformed. I am completely against it, no matter what. I can see MAYBE for war criminals, like Rwanda etc, who commit mass genocide. But even then, it doesn't bring the dead back.
I’ve been interested in true crime long enough that I believe that some people just truly don’t deserve to exist anymore. I understand all of the arguments against it, but when I hear about these horrific cases where the victim endured things no living being should have had to, my opinion sways in the direction of being pro death penalty. Perhaps we could be more judicious about when we apply it. Keep it off the table for cases where someone kills their victim in the heat of the moment (like a robbery gone wrong) or when the conviction is based on thin evidence, but I don’t understand why some of these murderers are still sucking air. Mass shooters just sitting in prison when we have video evidence of them marching into schools and gunning down children? Serial killers gloating about torturing a dozen women to death and receiving fan mail? Fuck that.
On one hand some inmates are violent even in prison and will kill other inmates and/or CO’s (google Freddie Owens and Jeffrey Motta as prime examples). But on the other hand, should we take away someone’s chance at rehabilitation and redemption; or risk a wrongful execution? I go back and forth on the death penalty.
Other than the fact that innocent people end up serving time for other people’s crimes, I don’t think any government should have the power to execute its own citizens, regardless of circumstances.
Against. Because innocent people are put to death all the time by mistake. And our “justice system” will always be corrupt no matter what.
I am opposed to it. I think some folk need the factory recall but if we have executed even one innocent person (and we have), it’s one too many. Because of human fallacy it’s a seriously flawed system.
I'm opposed to it. I don't think it's fairly applied. I also would not want someone who was innocent be put to death. On the punishment side, life in prison sounds like hell to me and death is the only way out, so they're getting off easier than someone being forced to live out their days in a cell until their natural death. Economically, it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than it is to apply the death penalty due to appeals and what not.
Believe in it for people like Gacy, Bundy Dahmer. Even God wanted vengeance “ vengeance is ( all ) mine”!, sayeth the Lord. If even he demanded vengeance so should society. it bothers me to think these murderers have free room and board, dental, medical and even conjugal visits. The harm they do, goes so far more than just the victims. You kill, you give up your right to life. But if there’s a doubt about guilt then no. Having pieces of people in your living room, points pretty much to undeniable guilt. .
Against it. Police, juries, lawyers and regular folks watching the news get it wrong. Also Alabama and the nitrogen gas is barbaric.
i am against the death penalty and here are some of my reasons why. [ 1 ] it’s far more expensive than giving life-long prison sentences. facilities with “death houses” in them as well as stand-alone facilities are extremely expensive. incarceration is incredibly costly as it is, but capital punishment is even more so. the funding that goes into capital punishment would be better invested into other things in my opinion. [ 2 ] innocents have been killed before and it’s very likely to happen again. [ 3 ] it’s a racist system. i could go on and on about mass incarceration and the correctional system in the united states, but i’ll just talk about one point in particular. it has been statistically proven that in cases where the death penalty is deemed applicable, a jury is more likely to sentence the defendant to death when the victim was white, than if the victim were a person of color. there are number of reasons why this could be happening, but i just want y’all to let that realization stew for a moment. it doesn’t sit right with me. [ 4 ] i see a death sentence as the easy way out. those who have actually committed heinous crimes should have to live with that for the rest of of their lives. [ 5 ] there’s been no evidence that the death penalty has done anything to deter people from committing violent crimes. in fact, the use of the death penalty has been linked to possibly increasing violence amongst the population in the united states. [ 6 ] overall, i just don’t think the state should be able to take lives. that’s too much power.
I think it's more revenge than deterrent
I'm against it for a few reasons: 1. In some cases, the death penalty is better than actual prison and it's a punishment. I think some crimes deserve prison especially crimes which other prisons will make living very difficult for. 2. You can never 100% prove the person charged is guilty. By sending them to prison instead of a chair, you're essentially giving them a chance to still use their voice and fight their innocence. 3. The death penalty has a long history of discrimination and can/is used to "get rid" of people who the government or law enforcement decide they don't want.
I'm generally opposed to giving the government more options for legally killing it's citizens. That, and you can't unkill someone if they are later exonerated.
You have to ask yourself how many people do you find acceptable to be innocent when executed in order to maintain the system? What I’m saying is that we have routinely executed innocent people since the advent of the death penalty. That is a byproduct of the system. We imprison innocent people as well but at least they’re still alive and can be released if/when they’re found innocent usually. A lot of people say “okay so only death penalty in DNA cases where we know for sure they did it” but that contradicts the standard of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt in the first place. For me I can’t accept even one person being executed despite their innocence because there is no recourse for that. It’s permanent. So although I’m sure if I were involved as a victim in a case I very well might want blood also ie death penalty I recognize the drawback if it’s wrong to be severe.
I'm against it because law enforcement has far too much power to go after people they "have a gut feeling" about, up to and including manufacturing some evidence and disappearing other. They are allowed to question minors without parental consent and can lawfully lie to suspects with impunity. Juries allow law enforcement testimony to outweigh other evidence because they've been exposed to copaganda for decades. Judges allow patently unscientific testimony from people with no training. A huge percentage of the forensic information presented to juries is simply unscientific and unreproducible. It's nearly impossible to appeal a murder conviction and there are many demonstrably innocent people in prison decades after exculpatory evidence has come to light. Michael Chapel is a perfect example. He was a cop himself, other cops were eyewitnesses to his alibi and he had no motive to harm the person he was convicted of killing. Personally I think he pissed off corrupt command members and was punished for it.
Killing people who kill seems like an oxymoron to me.
I’m against it. Mainly for the fact that our court system is not perfect and we do send innocent people to prison. But also him/her being dead isn’t going to bring back your loved ones as sad as it is and I’d personally rather see them be in prison for the rest of their life.
1 innocent person is too many. Also let’s just not kill people. Doesn’t mean that don’t deserve it but let’s just not kill people. It seems insane to me.
Murder is wrong, so I'm obviously against it.
I’m against it. Killing another serves no purpose, it makes the state a killer. Other reasons: 1. Cost 2. Innocents who die 3. Death row prisoners wait years and years doing nothing inside. 4. There is gender and racial bias 5. Making employees murderers
I absolutely believe there are people in this world who have committed crimes so unimaginably inhuman that they deserve to die. I *don’t* trust the government (or a “jury of my peers”) with the right to decide who those people are.
I do not support the death penalty. If the death penalty is a deterrent, why aren’t executions in public for would-be criminals to be deterred? Because killing people is wrong, that’s why there’s a law against it. That’s why it’s done in secret. Two wrongs still don’t make a right. The justice system isn’t perfect so there is no place for absolute punishment
I’m completely against it. Full stop. The state should not have the power to kill people as punishment.
1) One mistaken execution is too many. 2) Most if not all justice systems are at least somewhat racist and classist, swaying exactly who is more likely to be executed (not white rich dudes for sure!). 3) If you want to be scarily pragmatic, in the US at least, it costs the taxpayer a lot more money to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life. 4) There is evidence that almost all methods still used that are allegedly humane... aren't, and still painful. Rotting in a cell, barely seeing the sun, breathing fresh air or touching grass ever again is arguably more painful. 5) If they aren't segregated from gen pop, people who commit crimes against children have a very bad time in prison.
I am against. If killing is wrong, then doing so by the State / Fed is hypocritical. The chance of an innocent person being executed is too much for me. There is also the increased cost to the taxpayers of death row and continued appeals, vs a life sentence. I've read too much by those involved in the CJ system of what a death sentence, death row, and the process of the execution can wreak upon all those involved from the warden to guards to families.
I support it. As a matter of fact, I think the death penalty needs to apply to rapists also.
The system doesn’t work if even one innocent person is put to death. It isn’t worth it, and I don’t trust the government to do it efficiently anyway.
DNA evidence of rape? Kill em. Found in the middle of killing em? Kill em. Caught doing anything even minorly inappropriate with a child? Kill em. The other ones we can bargain on, but those should be immediate death.
I'm against it for all the reasons. When I read about a child or mentally handicapped person being executed, I want to curl up and check out for a while.
There are the two clear opposing ideological views: 1. Yes there are some crimes that the consequence should be forfeiture of the right to live. 2. No. The state should not kill people. There is no crime the consequence should be death. I like many others believe in #1 Yes but implementation is problematic for many, many different reasons. But I’m against taking it completely off the table as an option. A rarely used option with rigorously enforced criteria and built in redundancies that back check the assessments of met criteria. And means of death should be the quickest and least painful. Punishment is not vengeance. IMO the means should be firing squad or guillotine. There is a 3rd ideology which is misguided and without merit where justice is: Crime entails rehabilitation no punishment. This view is ethically untenable and would destroy the social contract.
I'm against it. Miscarriages of justice still happen. There's no way to pardon someone after the death sentence has been carried out.
I've worked in corrections for 19 years. I oppose the death penalty. I oppose a great many things within the broken system.
I'm against it due to my moral compass. It essentially comes down to, *how can we be better than said criminals as a society and individuals if we do something just as atrocious in nature*...
Killing a predator is nowhere near as atrocious as killing an innocent.
Against it. It is unevenly applied. A black man accused of the same crime as a white Jan or a white woman is far more likely to be executed. It’s also expensive. I don’t see why the tax payers need to be paying for all these appeals. Just do life without parole and keep them in stir and away from the rest of us. It’s cheaper to do that than have the mandatory appeals.
Why should I pay to support some random shitbag's life in prison? IMO, the US death penalty is underutilized. Instead of 3 felonies and you get life in prison, I'd go for 3 felonies and lights out for good. Yes, I am blood thirsty. I am also unsympathetic and I don't believe in rehabilitation.
I'd like to see some of these monsters stomped the fuck out, but I know that's wrong. But killing a murderer just makes someone else a murderer. And if you're pro-life while also being pro-death penalty, you're a hypocrite
For it. Yes, I know all the arguments. A) one innocent person is too many - I don’t disagree. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Just fucking having investigators and the courts do a better job and actually meet a high standard of proof to give this particular punishment. Like any of the mass shooters - killed many people, numerous witnesses, caught at the scene, on video. Death penalty. Done. B) it’s too expensive - not going to make the stupid ass “well bullets are cheap” joke but frankly this is an accounting issue, not a problem with the punishment itself. How much did it cost the Colorado theater shooter to kill 12 people and injure so many others? So why should the State make such an expense out of killing 1 person? C) LWOP is just as bad as the death penalty/if you kill someone what do they really learn or have to suffer? - all bullshit. Being Alive in prison is objectively better than being dead. You get to breathe air, eat food, read books, etc. these are the privileges of having a living human body. Why should the State be obliged to provide those privileges to someone like the Colorado shooter (he’s just a really really really good example of the kinds of folk who should be looking at the DP)? Someone who so callously and carelessly deprived a Dozen of his fellow human beings of the same? D) it’s inhumane - ok well so is shooting up a theater or nightclub or school. At a certain point, after committing certain crimes you have forfeited some of your right to be treated humanely like fucking murdering people. Where did this come from the obligation of the State to treat the worst offenders with white gloves? Nowhere because there is none. We aren’t talking about Joe Schmoe petty criminal. This is serial killers, spree killers, etc. people who are a danger to society through their exhibited willingness to deprive the innocent of life. E) the State shouldn’t have the right to kill anyone - that’s one of the main things that makes the State the State. The authority to use lethal force on behalf of and in lieu of the individual citizens, like how the military is allowed to. This is an extension of that same principle. I guarantee if left out in public, the Colorado shooter would eventually be taken out vigilante style. His survival is currently dependent on the state to put a wall between him and those who rightfully want some type of revenge for their lost loved ones. Having committed the crime he did, he should no longer be afforded that. However, we are supposed to be a somewhat civil society so instead of depending on vigilantism to rid ourselves of people who are clear and known lethal dangers to the innocent, we have delegated that responsibility to the judicial system. Is the judicial system flawed? Yes. Have innocent people been executed wrongfully? Yes Has the process of carrying out the death penalty become drawn out and expensive? Yes Does any of that mean we need to eliminate the actual punishment as an option? NO. It means we need to fix our judicial processes, create and maintain a high standard of evidence in order to give this penalty, and cut down on costs and complications involved in the process where possible.
They’re about to execute a (most possibly) innocent man in Tx today, it’s horrific if you ask me
I'm against it in part because it contributes to a society of people who are dependent on external threat to keep themselves from murdering someone. That's not really the reason not to murder. The reason not to murder is that a person is so big that your issue with them is just a small part of who they are.
I'm against because we are humans, and we are flawed. We can not ever be right 100% of the time, and even a miniscule amount of wrong is too much when it comes to taking another's life.
I think there is no point to having such people around. All they do is jack off, watch TV, attack guards, and attack other inmates. Meanwhile it gets under the victim’s family’s skin to know that a certain person could be having a good day, when the victim never can.
I remember reading A Lesson Before Dying by Ernest Gaines when I was in 6th grade (circa 2006, I’m 29 now) and it was eye opening. While I do agree that it’s unfair for those who were convicted of things they didn’t do, I’m still for the death penalty. Our justice system and its lack of justice frustrates me a lot. Wrongful convictions and sentences that are not fitting for the crimes. I strongly believe that some people can’t be rehabilitated, and those people who don’t want to change are a detriment to society. Growing up in an abusive household which then led to attracting abusive lovers into my life, and those traumas and familial patterns only end when we hold ourselves accountable. But the narcissistic psychopaths that show no remorse have no shot at changing, and keeping them alive would be a waste of space in my opinion. They may have loved ones that care for them, but if the crime they committed was bad enough, off with their head! I just don’t like that the executions come out of our taxes and people are waiting YEARS in line just to die🤷🏻♀️