>

Just a quick question. Does this come from a place of Christian morality? If so, I can offer my thoughts.
/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. >


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. >

Why is their life just as valuable? Is a cancer cell in a person just as valuable as the persons other cells when it will eventually take the life of the person? >

The innocent person's life is valuable. That one innocent person getting sacrificed isn't the cancerous cell, it's the healthy cell that dies in the process. >

Fully agree, but in this scenario where the person is 100% guilty, like caught on camera, given a statement about it and the pleasure they took. Is their life as valuable? >

No, not at all. But the existence of the death penalty even if it's reserved for extremely rare cases means there's a chance of someone slipping through the cracks. Their life is worth keeping the 100% guilty man alive. >

I think then the true issue is the justice system rather than the concept of a death penalty. When it comes to the possibility of an innocent person being placed in the system, I am against it. >

About your 4th point: do you take into account that the money spent to keep someone in prison for the rest of their life, could save many other people somewhere else in the world?
For example it’s estimated that 4000$ can save someone from dying in Guinea. So let’s imagine a loser attacking a school and having to spend 50years in prison. How much will it cost to society? estimation varies a lot but probably something between 2 and 10 millions.
In other words: you could save between 500 and 2500 people with the same amount. Wouldn’t it be arguably more ethic if society executed that person and gave money to charity fighting against malaria in Guinea? >

You have a very good point. I might give you a delta if you elaborate more.
My answer is probably hypocritical and I don't like it either BUT the way I see it is like "the trolley problem", there's a difference between actively killing someone and passively letting someone die. >

I agree there’s a difference but up to which extent? I mean killing someone totally innocent of any crime to save two other people is really something that I don’t think is moral. But when it’s sacrificing one shady person to save 100 innocents because of a special situation then it became a hard question and when it’s killing some kind of piece of shit like Anders Breivik and giving the half a million he cost to Norvegian society to save 125 Guineans dying of Malaria each year, then I personally have the opinion that it would be the right call.
Now of course there’s always some kind of religious or supranatural value you give to life that can totally change how you view the question. >

You do have a point and I agree with you. Thing is, studies have shown that the death penalty can cost more than a life sentence.

Now of course there’s always some kind of religious or supranatural value you give to life that can totally change how you view the question.

I value the lives of those rare cases of executing innocent people. If we have the power to kill people, even if it's reserved for extremely rare cases, the wrong person can find a way to abuse that power and kill innocent people. Abolishing death penalty altogether is worth keeping those innocent people alive, even if it means we can't get rid of Anders Breivik. >

bruh came to read the arguments and im kinda scared that theres a bunch of people that agree with death sentence. you have no right to take human life. even the persons who took lives themselves. its not like killing a dog with rabies preventing them from killing again. we have to look into the problem (why the killings occured), treat it, do something so it doesnt happen again, not just take away life like we're dealing with pests. we have to collaborate together as a humanity to prevent terrorism and wars. i know this sounds utopian but its the right thing to do in the end. >

You presented no alternatives. Just reasons you didn't like it. What would be your idea and we can go from there. >

Life sentence >

At the expensive of tax payers. I'm 100% for it if we just put them in a cell and lose the key. No food, water or other things. >

The death sentence is more expensive, for a lot of reasons, one of which is the right to appeal, which cannot be easily dispensed with. >

Each person should only get a limited amount of times to appeal. Also what about people that admit or there's video evidence with a bunch of witnesses, those people should automatically die >

personally, the only good reason i've ever heard against the deathpenalty is that the people who create and execute the law are to flawed to give the power to kill. History shows us with no exceptions that no authority can wield that power without abusing it or mishandling it.
This is true and i admit that, but i have problems with it and some of your points:


First off, i do not consider it to be a universal truth that all human life, no matter what it's actions, is valuable. If that has become a truth in a large enough part of the world, it has not been so for a long enough time to be as self evident as it is to you personally. A large swad of humanity does not agree with your absolute moral rule on that.


Second, i personally would argue that society would have the right to execute people that had due trail and were found guilty, IF that society had a 'waterproof' proces for it. But because this does not exist i guess this point goes to your side, we can't have the deathpenalty.


-But, this is also hypocritical, because we DO allow this flawed system we have to lock up people for life. You said to this well, atleast we have a chance to realise our mistake, but thats hardly a robust check on the system. You may be wrongly locked up for life, but hey, there's a minor chance at one point someone will look a little better...sorry, that does not count as a provision in the system that accounts for wrong convictions, that's just sheer luck and a nice hollywood movie plot imo.
So in the end i guess my point is that we only can't have the DP because we can't handle the logistics of it as a species, but, i think it would be a legit penalty to give. Society has the right i think. I won't bother listing all the 'why we should's' as other posts have covered that already and i'm ranting, sorry. >

Would you kill someone in self defense? >

Yes, I'd try not to but if I had to yes I would. Killing someone armed, killing a terrorist in a war, killing them in self-defence and situations alike is justifiable but when you execute a prisoner you're killing a defenceless person. >

Killing in a war? Who started the war, who benefits? I think your belief in this sort of killing (being moral as you alluded to) not being the same as the killing of a convicted criminal is a bit odd. The criminal has been convicted, in our justice system, yes, but still convicted. Probably many times over.
How is it more moral to kill in war? Sure, it’s kill or be killed there but the person on the other side of this war that one kills doesn’t know you. They’re doing what they’re told, same as you would be. Kill the other side because they don’t believe what we believe.
If anything, it should be more moral to have the death penalty. >

Hmm, good point. When I said killing a terrorist in a war is ok I had Bin Laden in mind. It's not moral to kill in a war, in fact war itself isn't moral and we should do our best to prevent it. But it happens, wethere we like it or not. As you said It's a kill-or-be-killed situation. If we have a way to capture them safely and without harming anyone we should do that, if not killing them is kinda self-defence. >

What is the difference between sending a transcontinental missile to their house during a war and capturing and executing them? >

Hmm, maybe he wasn't a good example. I still believe killing terrorists while fighting them cannot be compared with killing them in custody. >

It costs tax payers significantly more to execute someone than it does to incarcerate them for life. This is due to all the legal fees from court cases and the appeals process. Notice how everyone that is executed committed their crime 10+ years ago? That’s how long they have been appealing the death sentence and the taxpayers foot the bill as it’s “The state Vs XYZ. 
Lock them up and throw away the key and save us all a bunch of money. >

I feel like death penalty being more costly than imprisonment only holds water because american system set it up that way, i dont view that argument as objective truth since at most extreme you could just kill a person with a knife and it wouldnt cost anything (i know you cant and you shouldnt use that method for execution, im just giving an extreme example)
Calling due process a premeditated murder is stretching it, if you go by that logic then deliberating on any crime is a crime and if the argument is taken literally i guess you would be fine with people being brought straight from accusation to the firing line, right? >

I don't see any arguments backing your reasoning except for except for 1.There is a chance of an innocent person getting executed, to prevent that we just have to only give death penalty to the ones we have a concrete evidence against 2.It's against my morals. You know that others don't necessarily share your morals, right? I don't find it immoral to give the death penalty to terrorists, serial killers. They are holding the human race back. For me it is like banning someone from a game for constantly killing their teammates intentionally. >


You know that others don't necessarily share your morals, right?

Yup, that's why I'm here, I genuinely someone to change my view.

I don't find it immoral to give the death penalty to terrorists,serial killers. They are holding the human race back.

What if we gave them a life sentence and separated them from society, they wouldn't be able to harm anyone in there. We're killing them because we want vengeance, I understand that, that's why I want someone to cmv, I don't want to share the earth with a terrorist either but vengeance isn't always justice. >

As the people you spoke with told you, it takes a lot of money and resources that can be spent on others who will give something back to the society. Why don't we just take the easy way out and kill them? In the end they are going to die, we are just making it happen sooner. It's not about vengeance or justice, giving them the death penalty is just more efficient. So why do we have to spend our resources on terrorists and serial killers? Why do we have to take the hard road? >

Wasn't there a study that said the process of the death penalty often costs more than a life sentence? >

I think it's moral to kill certain people like enemies in war, terrorists, and personally I believe in the death penalty for people like child rapists.   
I don't see all killing as immoral simply because I cannot stomach doing the act myself.   
I couldn't do heart surgery if I tried, because I would pass out from just the sight of blood. Does my own personal sensitives to the act make heart surgery immoral? Just because you couldn't kill someone rightfully so doesn't make it immoral. I'm curious why you think it's immoral in the first place. >

What about child killers and adult rapists? >

Did I have to list out every possible criminal I think deserves the Death Penalty? >

Just wondering where you would draw the line