>


pretty much nothing in my comment was limited to those categories.

I should've provided context for those examples, I mentioned rapists and murderers because those are two of the most common reasons people are getting executed in my country and the people I discussed with generally agreed that for those cases it must be abolished, but not some others.


Why is killing people an immoral way to punish them, specifically?


Human life, and life in general, is valuable and we have an obligation to protect it, not destroy it. Even if the prisoner has destroyed other lives themself, it doesn't permit us to take their life.


Why can’t we sacrifice that person, specifically? Let’s say that the death penalty in general is applied to genuinely guilty persons. Why are occasional mistakes a sufficient reason to abolish the death penalty?


As I said their life is just as valuable as the lives of those victims, killing them to punish genuinely guilty people is sacrificing their life. If at some point it's proven that a lifer was actually innocent, we can release them. We can't do anything if they're already dead.
/u/friendlypondfrog (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I think the Nuremberg trials show a decent example where the death penalty is justifiable.
For each of your points:
1) The victims of Nazi rule said they did it, they confessed to doing them(since they believe they were not in the wrong) and no one seems to oppose that view. Of course holocaust deniers exist but every claim they make can be easily disproven with empirical evidence.
2) Justice is not necessarily about maximising suffering. Most of the time it is about an acknowledgment of the crime and the imposition of a consequence that fits it. Death seems fair for genocide, no one gains from additional suffering.
3) Denazification was important and removing their influence was crucial to crumble their hold over the German population
4) No one wants to fund a Nazi, death is merciful and cheap >

You present counterarguments but offer no arguments about why the death penalty should be off the table in the first place.
For example, why does it matter that there are other ways to punish people?  Why does it necessarily matter that there is a non-zero chance that an innocent person will be executed? >


you offer no arguments about why the death penalty should be off the table in the first place.

Yes, and it's because I'm not discussing the death penalty itself, my emphasis is on the "serial killers and terrorists" part. All of the people I had this conversation with were mostly anti-death penalty themselves and agreed that the death penalty should be off the table for murderers, rapists, etc but believed we must have exceptions for rare cases. 

why does it matter that there are other ways to punish people?

Killing people is an immoral way to punish them. They might be a horrible person but we're not.

Why does it necessarily matter that there is a non-zero chance that an innocent person will be executed?

Let's say there's a 0.1% chance that an innocent person will be executed among a thousand terrorists, we can't just sacrifice that one person, their life matters and once we execute them there's no going back. >

Your OP was categorical and not limited to serial killers and rapists.  Also, pretty much nothing in my comment was limited to those categories.


Why is killing people an immoral way to punish them, specifically?


Why can’t we sacrifice that person, specifically?  Let’s say that the death penalty in general is applied to genuinely guilty persons. Why are occasional mistakes a sufficient reason to abolish the death penalty?


To be clear, I do not necessarily disagree with you.  I am just trying to determine the parameters of your belief.