Death Penalty Debate Thread

[McAfee]

Im somewhat torn on this issue with the recent execution of a potentially innocent man named Marcellus Williams and the freeing of an innocent man soon after named Iwao Hakamada. The death penalty has become a debate once again. There are several pros and cons. I found a great website detailing them here.

https://deathpenalty.procon.org/

So do you support or oppose the death penalty? Debate it in this thread.

 

[The Luigi Player]

I once got the death penalty, still alive.
OP should try this as well.

 

[Shroom King]

I love the death penalty. Violent criminals can eat shit and die, literally.

 

[Unifier of Hispania]

The death penalty is beneficial for populous countries with a diverse and low-trust society, because then you don't need to maintain an enourmous incarcerated population. The US is right in leaving that matter to the states, because they differ a lot from one another in their socioeconomic and demographic profiles. While one can argue that the death penalty is necessary in places like California, Texas and Florida, it's difficult to make the same argument when it comes to the New England states, which have low crime rates, higher-trust societies and a relatively more uniform population (by US standards).

 

[Dr. Eldon Tyrell]

I voted yes because this is a hate forum.

 

[rel=alternate]

With all the technological means we have today, I think that the risk is really minimal if we go about it in a smart way and build some form of framework where there needs to be indisputable evidence.

There are some people where there is no fucking doubt in the world what they did. Think about a guy like Brian Steven Smith, who video taped himself killing a woman. In cases such as this one, there is no point to argue about any potential error. So the whole point is moot.

As for people who argue that it encourages criminals to kill their victims. I don't believe this makes much of a difference to people who deserve the death penalty.

In such cases where culpability is obvious, I would also argue that the execution should be carried out ASAP. There is no point in spending money on a rabid animal before you put it down.

 

[Gravemind]

While one can argue that the death penalty is necessary in places like California, Texas and Florida, it's difficult to make the same argument when it comes to the New England states, which have low crime rates, higher-trust societies and a relatively more uniform population (by US standards).

So do you rehabilitate violent offenders that commit a crime that would otherwise earn them the death penalty in places like California, Texas, and Florida?

And if the location is insufficient for proper trial when it comes to the severity of a crime committed, does that mean you extradite the offender to a state that would otherwise be capable of carrying out the death sentence? Just because a location supposedly has a lower crime rate and higher trust doesn't mean crimes like murder won't happen there.

 

[Waifu Denier]

I mean, the only countries that matter (the US, both Chinas, Japan, Middle East, etc.) still retain it.

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

I support it. Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

 

[Hey Johnny Bravo]

If we are going to have the death penalty, there should be incontrovertible empirical evidence that the offender is guilty. We should also make it swift. Lethal injection likely causes the victim to drown in his or her own fluids building up in the lungs and is not humane. Go back to hanging or something quick like firing squad. There is also the question of who is the executioner.

 

[Pol Poggers]

Marcellus Williams

Sounds black.

Libtards say the government shouldn't be allowed to kill people, to which I say: no risk no fun. Not that I am at risk for being mistrialed to death, because I am not black. At the core of the issue there are some kinds of people that I don't want to be part of our society. Of course we could just preempt the issue and deal with the prospective murders, rapists and videogame pirates by killing them when they're mere unruly children. But we seem to have decided to wait with these issues until after they commit horrific crimes.

 

[Squishie PP]

Collateral damage is inevitable either way.

 

[oldTireWater]

This thread has been done before but I'm much too lazy to find it.

 

[We Are The Witches]

If we are going to have the death penalty, there should be incontrovertible empirical evidence that the offender is guilty.

I agree with this.

Otherwise you're open to unfortunate false positives, which cannot be corrected when the person (now known to be innocent) is dead.

As for the method, it can just be through a bullet/s to the head, seems to be the more efficient one.

---

So the only challenge in here is to determine the standards for something to be irrefutable evidence of the offense, because some cases are clear, others, not so much (like let's say, if you're dealing with potentially doctored or manipulated evidence).

 

[Hey Johnny Bravo]

I agree with this.

Otherwise you're open to unfortunate false positives, which cannot be corrected when the person (now known to be innocent) is dead.

As for the method, it can just be through a bullet/s to the head, seems to be the more efficient one.

---

So the only challenge in here is to determine the standards for something to be irrefutable evidence of the offense, because some cases are clear, others, not so much (like let's say, if you're dealing with potentially doctored or manipulated evidence).

By "incontrovertible" and "empirical," I mean something like John Doe posts a video manifesto on social media, livestreams a mass shooting, shows his face and gives his identity on the stream, and a 100% DNA match is all over the evidence. Something so obvious that here's no way on God's green Earth that prosecutors or law enforcement could fuck up.

It is better that ten guilty men go free than to let a single innocent man suffer.

 

[Gravemind]

It is better that ten guilty men go free than to let a single innocent man suffer.

I would be inclined to argue that way of thinking is why things are the way they are now, at least in the U.S., and innocent people still suffer regardless, whether it be due to wrongful conviction or those very same ten guilty men who were allowed to go free.

Adjusted my wording a bit there. Ended up not liking the way I used "due to the ruling of a court" to get my point across.

 

[HandsomeDan]

First as a Christian I would say justified executions for criminal and evil actions are most certainly permitted by he Word of God. Forgiveness which is most certainly required also does not equate to no consequences or no punishment. We should not relish or celebrate these executions and they should be quick and swift. If anything a quick and emotionless execution is more appropriate and says more to fact that the one being executed no longer has our consideration and is now being released to receive God's judgment which is the true threshold of punishment.

It is better that ten guilty men go free than to let a single innocent man suffer.

As to this above statement that often gets used, I really dont agree with this as we dont make decisions on something based off of a chance of someone on rare occasions dying from it. The point of executions are punishment and not really even a deterrent and not enforcing a punishment on the chance that someone is falsely accused is not reason enough to end said punishment. I agree about incontrovertible evidence, I think that there is generally very good "proof" in most cases and as an aside if you really study alot of these "innocent man" on death row cases, the individuals in question may have been innocent of that specific charge but were/are generally part of a criminal element guilty of crimes. Not that this justifies an incorrectly applied death sentence, but I would say the overwhelming amount of these innocent man cases were not just some random family man or business owner pulled from nowhere.

My main issue with modern executions is the time and cost associated with the whole process, there is no reason for this and in and of itself cant be used as a justification for ending executions either.

 

[Chongqing]

potentially innocent man named Marcellus Williams

What the hell?

He's dead to rights.

It is better that ten guilty men go free than to let a single innocent man suffer.

There's something to be said for that, but that's just an argument to not use it often, like in Texas.

There are many cases where the guilt is not in doubt and the convict deserves death. For example, there was that case in Ohio of that black guy who kidnapped little girls, held them and raped them in a dungeon for years (decades?), impregnated them and forced them to give birth as children, which crippled their bodies in unusual ways. He tortured them, raped them, and mistreated them for almost their whole lives.

And there's no doubt that he did it. The death penalty is what every sane person wanted.

But they didnt have it in his state. So they had to spend money to house and feed him in a prison. That means the same people he had victimized now have to pay a tax to support the life of their attacker.

And then a few years later, wouldn't you know it, he "committed suicide," Jeffrey Epstein style, exactly the outcome everyone wanted in the first place.

The death penalty is great, it's just overapplied.


Lastly, the death penalty should be carried out by one member of the national guard using an automatic rifle, no blanks. No bullshit where we obfuscate the fact that the government is violently killing someone.

Lethal injection is the biggest bullshit ever.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I say yes under the condition that there is no legal immunity
That means that if someone is wrongly killed, congratulations, executioner, jury, judge, and prosecutor are guilty of murder

 

[Toji Suzuhara]

It is necessary in various specific but important instances. Child rapists, serial killers, mass shooters, acts like treason or rebellion, very high-profile corruption cases. Events in which the condemned cannot possibly do something to pay back their crime, while at the same time have proven themselves unwilling to change or accept guilt