>

Yes fair point, I recognise that
I don't think it's wrong or barbaric to painlessly euthanize someone who brutally killed, defiled and ate people's bodies (among other horrible examples).
I don't think there's any argument for the rehabilitation of a person like that. You can't let them out, keeping them around is pointless, and on the off-chance they do escape, is their life worth more than the people they endanger? >

True but it’s much cheaper for us to keep them in prison than to carry out the death penalty. >

Is it actually? One would assume that food, clothing, guards' wages, medical care and God knows what else over the course of 50+ years would come out to more than a lethal dose of whatever.
Edit: well I'll be damned. You're right. How the fuck is that possible? >

Because they got rid of the noose. >

Supposedly it's the high cost of re-trials and appeals, which death-row inmates have more access to than genpop folks. >

Yeah I just saw that. Its weird because there's some cases where the evidence is so clear there shouldn't even be recourse for appeals tying up the court. >

It's mostly from outside people or organizations thinking they're doing right by letting them prolong their life or some weird moral hoolahoop >

Legal fees from all the appeals. The guillotine should be use. Quick result. >

i think the death penalty is problematic when it's used as a weapon of oppression. you may even argue that it's inevitable to be so, but i also believe that truly evil individuals who are unquestionable threats to society, such as serial rapists and murderers, should be executed. i don't think it's about playing god as much as it is about doing the right thing. i'm sure you don't agree with that, but that's how i fem. >

Too much of an error rate to use death penalty justly. >

Very true, innocent people have been killed before >

That's another topic. A lot of people killed and the real killer is out there >

Some people deserve the death penalty. >

I don’t feel like that should be for the government to decide >

Who decides then? >

No one, that’s kinda my point >

Some people most definitely deserve to be executed, if someone brutally raped and killed your child you'd want them dead right? I know I would. >

Yes absolutely. I’d make it slow. >

I'd say the death penalty is justified then in cases like this. >

It’s very difficult to say what I may do if such a thing were to happen to my child or loved one, I definitely would want them dead and I accept what you’re saying, but I feel like a government shouldn’t let their emotions cloud their judgement in the name of revenge and should try to see it differently. This person is a danger - lock them up for the rest of their lives. >

There's some strange mental gymnastics going on with your comment here...
You said you would want them dead and that you would make it slow and painful, but you also think that if the government wants to kill them, that they shouldn't let their emotions cloud their judgment in the name of revenge and should try to see it differently?
That doesn't make any sense. >

It does make sense if you're self-reflective. A lot of people aren't.
People are naturally sadistic, especially toward those who have wronged them. When you acknowledge this, even in yourself, you recognize that this is bad and therefore when you're passionate, you shouldn't be in charge. >

One could argue that a lifetime in solitary confinement is way more barbaric than the death penalty.