comment: >
  
  
  There should have to be rock hard evidence
  It isn’t vengeance, it’s both justice and a deterrent to prevent it from happening again
  I’ve never heard this argument made
  Why should I have to pay for some serial rapist who killed 8 six year old girls to have food shelter and water?
context: /u/friendlypondfrog (OP) has awarded 11 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 >
  
  It looks like you haven't given a Delta yet for this, so I think I'll say it. What about people who are known risks even while they are in prison. For instance what if they have escaped from prison before and they are killers? Or what if they have mafia ties and clearly have had people within the police system that are working for them? I do not think killing is ever justified on its own. But it can be justified if it is necessary to protect others. >
  
  
  I do not think killing is ever justified on its own. But it can be justified if it is necessary to protect others.
  
  Agreed !delta
  
  what if they have mafia ties and clearly have had people within the police system that are working for them?
  
  I did give one or two deltas for this. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Square-Dragonfruit76 (6∆).
  ^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 >
  
  1 in 9 people on death row are later found innocent due to that appeals process. You want innocent people to be murdered to save money? >
  
  You sound unhinged. You're entirely supporting OP's hypothesis that only sociopaths can really support the death penalty. Go see a therapist. >
  
  You're a unhinged ghoul who wants innocent people dead. You're walking, talking proof of the immorality of the death penalty to all decent people. >
  
  Yes he is.
  Also, not sure why you're even bringing the case up since he was never on death row. It has nothing to do with the topic here. >
  
  For serial killers and psychopaths with no chance of rehabilitation I think its the most ethical choice. A life in captivity is an unjust way to live. If a dog had rabies and is guaranteed to attack people we have them put down. There is no hope that they will be cured. If in the future there is a cure for psychopathy and serial killers then certainly we should use that method. But until then I think its the most humane way to deal with them. We are primarily social creatures, when someone is anti social to the point of taking pleasure in killing people then it's the right thing to remove them from society and to humanely kill them. It sounds terrible, but having read about the horrors that some people have inflicted on others I think its best to be done with them and make the world safer. I do accept that innocent people can be falsely imprisoned, that is the only thing that created doubt for me, but that's about the justice system as a whole. In an ideal scenario where we absolutely know that the person is guilty then a quick painless death is better for everyone. >
  
  I don't disagree with you at all, I understand that life in prison is unjust. Thing is, I believe serial killers deserve that kind of punishment. Is it hypocritical l? Yes probably, but we need to punish them somehow. Do they deserve to die? Yes, absolutely, but that one innocent person deserves to live more.
  Do we currently have a quick/painless execution method? >
  
  I'll be honest, I'm too familiar with the methods used, but certainly animals are put down painlessly from what I understand. With execution I'm suggesting that it also removes the sense or revenge, desiring that they suffer. I don't think revenge is good for victims either, it only prolongs the suffering for everyone. >
  
  
  but certainly animals are put down painlessly from what I understand
  
  Yes, the thing is, doctors and pharmacists don't cooperate with the government to kill prisoners, none of the executioners are trained medical staff and the cocktail isn't made by professionals. They paralyse the person before the injection so that the viewers won't see them suffer, the few cases where the process failed have shown that lethal injection is extremely painful and the person indeed suffers. >
  
  I didn't know that, that sounds horrific. >
  
  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. >
  
  I think your wrong with your rebuttals but instead let me try to pose one that you didn’t have up. Having high profile, convicted terrorists alive in jail encourages hostage taking and additional terrorist acts by the terrorist organization in order to compel us to release them. In effect them being alive can potentially cause more people to die. And just to make it clear I’m not talking about executing every minor terrorist. The ones a terrorist organization would invest operational resources in to compel us to release them either have high body counts or deep pockets funding them and would be high profile enough to ensure zero chance of wrongful conviction. >
  
  
  high profile enough to ensure zero chance of wrongful conviction.  
  
  So the solution to preventing execution of innocent people is to not execute innocent people.  Sounds magical. >
  
  What I’m referring to are the sort of names you see as masterminds behind plots on the news. I would also add that typically, because they believe their cause is righteous and they refuse to acknowledge our justice system these people don’t claim innocence of any sort. They just claim that their actions are justified. >
  
  But this is not the typical death row inmate. >
  
  Oh your absolutely right and I wouldn’t argue for the death penalty as it stands. For one thing giving prosecutors discretion in when they seek it has led to horribly racist outcomes. But that doesn’t mean I don’t see any instances where it should be employed. >
  
  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. >
  
  The goal of the dead penalty absolutely is punishment, not just preventing crime. Otherwise life in prison with sufficient safeguards would do the trick. >
  
  You are correct on that point. Although safeguards can be taken.
  Let me ask you a hypothetical then. If I could show you that a (fill in the worst crime you can imagine ) would never hurt anyone ever again with 100, percent certainly, do you think the people who are in favor of the dead penalty would say that person does not need the dead penalty anymore? >
  
  Then we must have spoken with totally different people. Most people I've seen argue for the dead penalty have argued that the people deserved it. That some things forfeit your right to life. 
  Let's agree to disagree then. I would be interested to the rates of recidivism of these criminals though >
  
  That is absolutely ridiculous. That argument just means everyone should be executed >
  
  You presented no alternatives. Just reasons you didn't like it. What would be your idea and we can go from there. >
  
  Life sentence >
  
  Is it more wrong to kill an innocent man or to keep him imprisoned for the entirety of his life? >
  
  During a life sentence evidence can come up, the person can be exonerated, and they can be given restitution (rarely is it a justifiable amount, but it's something.) You can't bring an innocent person back to life after you executed them to apologize for wrongfully convicting them. >
  
  Let's use the moral approach sense you mentioned morals in your argument. 
  
  
  You believe that the death penalty is imorral, but not everyone believes that, why should we go with your interpretation? Why can't we go with my morals or leave it to the societies morals? If society is OK with the death penalty then it is moral. Societal morals have changed over time. There was a time when society agreed that homosexuality was immoral, but that has changed. You may be thinking "see, society got homosexuality wrong for so long they cant be trusted", but by removing the death penalty many will say "see, society is getting it wrong". If society can get it wrong maybe you can too. Things are right if you agree and wrong if you don't. Perhaps society will phase out death penalties one day.
  
  
  For morals to exist there mist be consequences for actions. For society to function there must be consequences for actions. 
  
  
  There was a time when people took justice into their own hands like if you killed my brother I could kill you. Now we have taken that right away from the individual and given it to the state. It is the states role to serve out justice and justice includes restitution. If you steal from me you owe what was taken. 
  
  
  This is all over simplified of course. >
  
  2) i completely disagree that for moral to exist there needs to be consequences. A thief not getting caught doesn't make it not immoral anymore. >
  
  Unfortunately, there are necessary “evils”. What you consider “immoral” is just yin/yang. Do we want capital murder, abortion, life imprisonment? Absolutely not. Is it necessary? Yes. This is how you can live in two truths at once. Sometimes reality doesn’t feel good, but if you can recognize the actual application it has in the bigger picture, you can allow yourself to think more broadly while sitting in the discomfort. I hope this helps! >
  
  My arguement is simple, a Hanging is more merciful, redemptive, and even dignified, then throwing someone in a pit of 30 years.
  Merciful - because life in prison, especially solitary confinement, is a fate worse than death.
  Redemptive - because being faced with ones mortality will focus the mind and force one to deepy reflex on one's crimes, and one's life.
  Dignified - I guess this one its a bit personal.  If one is able to face his death with honesty and integrity, I would call that pretty damn dignified.  Especially if the alternative is being left to rot in a hole.
  Ofc innocence is notwithstanding.  To condemn an innocent is always wrong, though if faced with a life-sentence or the hangman, I know which Id want, as explained above. >
  
  
  Merciful - because life in prison, especially solitary confinement, is a fate worse than death.
  
  I believe killing is immoral but that doesn't mean I think we shouldn't punish them. If a man commits genocide they absolutely deserve to rot in prison, executing them is mercy, I'd even say we must put them on suicide watch to make sure they actually serve their sentence.
  
  Ofc innocence is notwithstanding. To condemn an innocent is always wrong, though if faced with a life-sentence or the hangman, I know which Id want, as explained above.
  
  I'm giving you a !delta for this. I still believe death penalty is wrong and I'd personally prefer life sentence hoping I'd get released some day. But I never considered the fact that a life sentence can be harder for the innocent than the death penalty. >
  
  I think you're inconsistent in your views here. Why is one thing vengeance and the other isn't? You say they deserve to rot in prison but they don't deserve to die? Why? That seems arbitrary. I don't think people should get the death penalty, but I think you are saying this for the wrong reasons. >
  
  You're right, both of them are vengeance. What I'm trying to say is that there are better solutions than the death penalty. >
  
  prison costs tax payers >
  
  Just a quick question. Does this come from a place of Christian morality? If so, I can offer my thoughts. >
  
  Not really, I was raised in a Muslim society and don't even know what the Christian pov says about it, but I'd be glad to hear your thoughts. >
  
   Gotcha man. I used to be like you for a time. I used to hold the belief that there is no room for us to decide who lives and who dies and particularly the thing that stopped me from supporting the death penalty was a view that everyone could be redeemed and we should give them every chance possible. But upon further study and looking into my own morality, I saw that not only is it Biblically permissible for a government to institute a death penalty, but it is sometimes advisable. If I have time I'll provide the passages that lead me to this conclusion but plenty of Old Testament scriptures state it is permissible and no New Testament passages conflict with this idea. 
   The real question for me then is should it be enforced and if so, when? The answer comes down to life. Life is the most valuable thing we have and justice would indicate the malicious or unfeeling taking of life is a crime worthy of death. Granted, there are exceptions and that's what the judicial process is for. 
   Now one argument that may be brought up is "Hey. You just said life is most valuable. So why take another and increase the number of lives that are taken." Well, the issue with that is two-fold. For one, the people who are on death row are those who would be likely to kill again or have already killed many, and two, would you say your rights are valuable? I would. But when we commit a crime we forfeit those rights. Such goes for life. If you commit an act such as the malicious taking of a life, your forfeit your right to life.
   The thing that specifically got me off the "give them time to repent" train of thought was one, the failure to deliver right justice, and two, the length of time people are on Death Row. They are there for years and if ever someone is going to look back at the things they've done and repent, it would be when death is looming.
   So this has been my perspective from a Chistian worldview and I hope you take time to respond to me. I know you had more concerns but if you get back to me we can cover these. >
  
  So, I live in Iran, a religious "Islamic Republic". I pron wouldn't have had such strong opinions about the death penalty. Idk how much you know about the current situation in my country but taking a quick look at r/newiran might help.
  
  not only is it Biblically permissible for a government to institute a death penalty, but it is sometimes advisable
  
  Yup, exactly. I have nothing against any religion. But we can't really make social decisions based on religious scripts. 
  
  The thing that specifically got me off the "give them time to repent" train of thought was one, the failure to deliver right justice, and two, the length of time people are on Death Row. They are there for years and if ever someone is going to look back at the things they've done and repent, it would be when death is looming.
  
  Islam also permits execution in some situations, what has the government done here? Execute people based on Quran. The executions are skyrocketing. People murder and then murder some more because they're gonna die anyway so why not. People get raped and don't report it because they know the rapist and don't want them to die. The government has recently come up with some shit called "war against God" or whatever and is executing people for what, setting a trash can on fire. That's what I mean when I say the wrong person will use the permission to kill people for petty crimes. Some people deserve to die, but the power to actually kill them must not be on the table. >
  
  A. There is always a chance of jail break and these people getting into society again. Better be safe than sorry.
  B. The whole argument about innocent people getting killed, I am pretty sure that the police do arrest and sometimes kill people who weren't the real criminals, yet, they shouldn't just be striped off their weapons entirely or just never take decisions on their own. It is impossible to create a perfect justice system because we, humans, run it. Fear of failure shouldn't mean the end of trying to succeed.
  C. Probably the most obvious one, death is a motivator enough in most cases for people to avoid doing such crimes in the first place. Now the ones that do commit them, they are not the average Joes who just flip and do it, these are people who in most cases are mentally ill, have been through trauma, substance abusers etc who should have received help a long time ago but now can't be brought to reason.
  D. The only saving grace of your opinion is that, instead of death penalty, maybe they should be subjected to therapy, medications etc. But I dont think you could change someone who has been through years of trauma or has mental disorders or are just broken from within with psychological experts or medicines, yet, with a high possibility that all of the resources and time will go in vain. In that case, it is better to weed off the lawn than try to genetically modify it to turn it to flowers with a high possibility of failing.
  E. But the silver lining is that imo in the future, we will be able to either just change these people completely through advancement in medicine or inflict the same punishment experience through technology etc which would then make death penalty useless. It's just that, that future isn't here yet. >
  
  
  There is always a chance of jail break and these people getting into society again. Better be safe than sorry.
  
  So we should punish them before commiting jail break instead of making sure they won't escape?
  
  The whole argument about innocent people getting killed, I am pretty sure that the police do arrest and sometimes kill people who weren't the real criminals, yet, they shouldn't just be striped off their weapons entirely or just never take decisions on their own. It is impossible to create a perfect justice system because we, humans, run it. Fear of failure shouldn't mean the end of trying to succeed.
  
  We can't really do anything about those who get killed by the police, but we do have the option to do something about the innocent people on death row, why not prevent it if we can.
  
  Probably the most obvious one, death is a motivator enough in most cases for people to avoid doing such crimes in the first place. Now the ones that do commit them, they are not the average Joes who just flip and do it, these are people who in most cases are mentally ill, have been through trauma, substance abusers etc who should have received help a long time ago but now can't be brought to reason.
  
  Nobody murders another person thinking they'd get caught. But if they do, the chances of them not doing more harm are higher if they know that  murdering another person would increase their sentence and the outcome if killing 1 vs 10 people isn't the same >
  
  The biggest flaw I see is that you say that life in prison is worse and that we should give them life in prison in case they are innocent. I realize that we could let them out ten years later if we found them innocent, but if even one person gets life in prison that was innocent (and spent the rest of their life in prison) then wouldn’t it have been more humane to execute them? >
  
  Yes, I gave several !delta s to this argument. I hadn't considered that a life sentence can actually be harder for innocent people >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/OrangutanOntology (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I will say I used to agree with you until I heard some truly atrocious things that happened. So while I think it should be extremely rare: for all the reasons you say. I do think those most heinous do deserve to be put to death. 
  Gacy didn’t just rape and torture grown men before killing them he did so to children. 
  Same with most serial killers of women: the torture that not just grown women endured before their murder (which honestly should be enough for you to grant exception to your point of view) but the torture and degradation young children endure is beyond disturbing and enraging. 
  Did you know there are child molesters who full on rape babies - literally infants? The babies never survive for very obvious ‘size’ reasons - and can you imagine the pain and torture that that little innocent thing must have endured prior to their dying? 
  Yet you think that person should just live out their life in a jail system that is becoming more and more humane as the years go on? 🫥
  (That is rightly so for many convicts but not for monsters like this). 
  If you learn about these sorts of atrocities and still don’t think that given enough proof of guilt those particular people should be put to death - then I think I’d have to question your empathy gene honestly. 
  I agree the system is not good as it is now. I agree innocent people have been put to death. 
  But I also believe there is a way to change the system so that it is only used in the most heinous of situations, where we remove the systemic bias’s that lead to the wrongful use of this law and where we make sure the proof of guilt is iron clad. >
  
  
  Yet you think that person should just live out their life in a jail system that is becoming more and more humane as the years go on? 🫥
  
  Now that's a point I agree with, they deserve death, no doubt. My only remaining problem is with the innocent really. !delta >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Successful_Nobody_78 (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I mean as for the one counter argument that we shouldn't risk putting an innocent to death. You also argued that a life sentence would theoretically involve more suffering. I'm not trying to be difficult but I think logically you can see that there is no way around the inevitability that at least 1 innocent person will be convicted of crimes they did not commit. In that instance though, ask yourself, would it truly be better that they went to life in prison instead? I mean according to you that's worse. So it seems to me like a lose -lose situation, right? That's not a good enough reason in and of itself because either way these innocents will suffer harshly and unfairly.
  Also, it's easy to say we should have better methods but you don't suggest anything. I'm not huge on the death penalty. Don't get me wrong here I'm just pointing out a logical inconsistency that doesn't work any way you slice it. I think the reality here is that there are no greater solutions because these types of things are the consequences of people abusing their freedoms and free will. >
  
  !delta for the same reason I gave the other person one. I hadn't considered how a life sentence can be worse for the innocent. I still believe we should find a way other than the death penalty and no, I don't have any suggestions. But we can't come up with solutions if we just accept the death penalty as an it-is-what-it-is kind of situation. >
  
  It should be noted that sometimes people who were sentenced life in prison are later released because of new evidence or new DNA methods. But I do agree with other person that life sentence can be torture sometimes, so we need to improve the prison system. >
  
  How many people are cleared from life sentences vs how many are sentenced?
  I think it's like 200/200,000 or 0.1% and lets say that at the maximum 4% are actually innocent 200/8000 chance of an innocent being let go, 
  So let's say we just executed all the life prisoners, that means that your 2.5% of being let free would disappear but in return we wouldn't have to deal with 200k terrible people we have to keep imprisoned for the rest of their lives. Even if I were innocent I would give up that slim chance for the benefit. >
  
  Fair enough >
  
  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. >
  
  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? >
  
  I’m mostly talking theoretical but it doesn’t have to be expensive.
  We could imagine that in certain cases where the culpability of the suspect is certain (think of Breivik in Norway) where right after the trial, he’s just thrown off a cliff. Now of course the number of such case is limited and I certainly not advocate to do that more than for a very very limited number of times and it’s theoretical thinking. >
  
  But how sure do you have to be? A guy was recently found innocent even after dozens of eyewitnesses placed him at or around the scene of the crime. Turned out the police had intimidated many of them into lying. That innocent man spent years on death row. >
  
  Very very very (very) sure.
  again I’m taking the case of Breivik but it’s like 99.999% chance is guilty. The guy was caught on the Island, had manifesto, didn’t deny and there’s so many proof against him.
  So yes it’s very rare but in that case, I still think that after his trial he had been thrown down a cliff and millions donated to fight malaria instead of keeping him alive in high security prison, it would have been the most ethic decision (for me at least) >
  
  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. >
  
  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? >
  
  Of course we shouldnt rush the due process just to save money but the prisons over there are for-profit and thats why they try to get as much money as they can (and thats why i think number is inflated)
  So if death row inmates cost so much to be on the appropriate security what would happen if they got life sentences? If they are that dangerous than you would have to do same kind of security for the rest of their lives rather than couple of years still leading to vastly increased costs >
  
  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 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? >
  
  What about child killers and adult rapists? >
  
  Just wondering where you would draw the line >
  
  I tend to agree. But what about someone who kills during incarceration? Should other lives be put at risk when obviously nothing serves as a deterrent? I believe this may be a logical exception if your underlying rationale is the value of human life. >
  
  The value of innocent human life mostly. There mustn't be a legal "excuse" for the government to kill people.
  The wrong person in power will eventually use that excuse to execute people for petty crimes. We can't be trusted with that kind of power thus we must abolish the option altogether so no one can ever abuse it. That's my point. >
  
  I'm afraid you really ceded the moral high ground. 
  Are you worried about life or just innocent life? And if just innocent life, how do you define innocent? In incarceration, someone could kill a guard, administrator, health care worker, etc. For that matter, just because you're incarcerated and guilty of something doesn't mean it's in any way okay if you're killed by another inmate.
  If capital punishment is allowed only in cases of people already under the next highest punishment, life in prison, who are convicted of murder while convicted, how can that be abused? It's a very clearly defined circumstance, no grey area, no slippery slope.
  What is the moral superiority to an individual, in this case the inmate incarcerated for life, than the state killing someone? What is the higher justice that a person die at the hands and for the purposes of someone already found guilty of enough offenses to be in prison for life as opposed to this person dying after being found guilty in a court of law? >
  
  Some people continue to be dangerous even after they're imprisoned. In cases like that, the alternatives are either ineffective or fates worse than death like extended solitary confinement. >
  
  What would you propose we do with a convicted killer who murders a cell mate or a guard? >
  
  Solitary confinement maybe? Idk, but there must be a better way than killing them. >
  
  So in other words you propose that solitary confinement - as opposed to stay in regular prison - is an appropriate punishment for second murder. If in turn this person would murder another guard, let's say during faking a seizure, his freedom and rights would be furter reduced, but only by a slim margin. Each consecutive sentence is in fact lighter.
  All in all, if you're a convicted murderer, there is very little deterrence in form of punishment to prevent further killing. >
  
  
  All in all, if you're a convicted murderer, there is very little deterrence in form of punishment to prevent further killing.
  
  That seems to be a problem, yes. I still don't fully agree that death penalty is the best solution here. But I'll give you a !delta because I honestly don't have an answer, maybe you're right. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Bartpabicz (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I've always found the death penalty issue to be a weird one. Killing someone seems infinitely more merciful and just than letting them rot in a concrete box where they'll get sodomized for the rest of their life. Some people choose to die. No one chooses to live like a prisoner. 
  Now, you might say that if someone is in prison for say 30 years, and then is proven innocent, at least they get to live a life, while someone who was executed doesn't have that opportunity. I don't entirely disagree, but consider just how vanishingly rare it is that a falsely convicted person is found innocent after conviction. Estimates of false conviction rates range from 1%-10%. That's actually really really high. But only a handful of people get exonerated afterward.
  I'm in favor of substantially improving all of our punishment methodology. But of the punishments we have, I don't think the death penalty is actually the worst. >
  
  
  I've always found the death penalty issue to be a weird one. Killing someone seems infinitely more merciful and just than letting them rot in a concrete box where they'll get sodomized for the rest of their life. Some people choose to die. No one chooses to live like a prisoner. 
  
  Well yeah, if a person commits genocide we can't just let them die, we must put them in a prison to rot. Death penalty is still not justified. >
  
  It actually costs more for someone to be sentenced to death than to remain incarcerated for life.  I researched it once a long time ago.  At that time it was 3 X more expensive as opposed to life imprisonment. >
  
  
  Rationally speaking, if they spent the rest of their life in prison, they'd suffer more, and it'd be a better punishment
  
  With that in mind, should prisons be places of retributive justice? That is, overall unpleasant and uncomfortable places to spend your life?
  Many of anti death penalty advocates also advocate for rehabilitative prisons. Presumably, you would be against this, or at least in favour of a punishing atmosphere wing in place of a death row? >
  
  
  Many of anti death penalty advocates also advocate for rehabilitative prisons. Presumably, you would be against this, or at least in favour of a punishing atmosphere wing in place of a death row?
  
  Of course I'd want prisons to be rehabilitative. what I said about them being worse than death penalty was about those who are absolutely irredeemable, say, cannibals or Nazi war criminals or something. >
  
  So where are those absolutely evil criminals going to be imprisoned?
  You're advocating 2 tiers at least right?
  See, I don't think you've quite hit what it is that you're suggesting.
  You want a prison to exist that is worse than a death sentence? How does that look/work exactly (torture? inhumane conditions? forced labour?) And morally, is it any better than a system with a death penalty? >
  
  I do NOT want a prison that is worse than death sentence. If anything I want a humane prison where the prisoners have a chance to rehabilitate. People said a death sentence in a regular prison is worse than death, and I said some people don't get to just die after all that they've done. >
  
  
  if they spent the rest of their life in prison, they'd suffer more, and it'd be a better punishment.
  
  Right there in your OP, you said that prisoners (who otherwise would have been sentenced to death) should suffer more (during a life sentence in prison)
  How can you balance a system of humane prisons which rehabilitate prisoners, with a system that makes death row level prisoners suffer more in prison, than they would by dying?
  If the prison is humane, then spending their life inside it, is not going to be a worse suffering than execution. >
  
  
  If the prison is humane, then spending their life inside it, is not going to be a worse suffering than execution.
  
  We're separating them from society,  the fact that they don't get to live freely makes them suffer more, doesn't mean we have to torture them. >
  
  How many convicted murderers (et al) do you think would choose execution, if offered a choice between execution and a life sentence? >
  
  Hmmm... idk honestly. Before making this thread I would've said not many, but the thought of a life sentence can be terrifying. >
  
  Has anyone commenting on here actually been incarcerated? I've done 4 years on my first offense, non-violent, no criminal history. I'll tell you I wish I'd killed myself rather than what I had to deal with while I was incarcerated and what I had to deal with post-incarceration.. what I'm still dealing with now mentally. With my personal experience and in my opinion,  death penalty is an easy out for the sentenced. I only did 4 years and I wish I had the death penalty so take that as you wish >
  
  I look at it like this. If it was me, Does what I did deserve death. If I commit a horrible crime do I deserve the worst punishment that can be offered? I think yes. If we look at morals, we could torture them in some medievil fashon or other horrible thing forever, but we dont, we pick moral ways. From a personal standpoint if a person commits rape, pedophilia, murder, torture, kidnapping etc. That person has given up their rights, they are no longer able to act as a normal person and have harmed others. They should be taken off the planet, preferably within hours of conviction. As i think if it was me i should be as well. Why should my tax dollars feed, cloth, medical care, this disgusting act in prison for 10 to 30 years. >
  
  
  They should be taken off the planet, preferably within hours of conviction.
  
  I live in Iran, they do in fact execute people for all the reasons you mentioned, within a short period after conviction and believe me you don't want it. Many people don't report rape to the police because the rapist is their relative or acquaintance they don't want them to die. When the penalty isn't as severe as death it's easier to prevent and bring justice.
  
  Why should my tax dollars feed, cloth, medical care, this disgusting act in prison for 10 to 30 years.
  
  Because executions cost more than a life sentence >
  
  I do want that btw. The only reason they cost more is because of the 30 year trial. Which is why it should be done shortly after trial. >
  
  We can't be sure the trial is fair if we do it in a hurry >
  
  That's true. In reality i dont think any system actually cares enough about human life to care. If they were wrong they just give the family some cash and thats it. However, this gets into arguing to change the whole process. And I don't care to do that since it isn't value added because it will never change.  But that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. >
  
  There's no such thing as a guarantee in life, right?  The ONLY way to guarantee a serial killer or terrorist  will stop is for them to be dead.  As long as they are alive, they csn continue to choose to be violent.  
  What jf they escape prison (exceedingly unlikely, but not impossible), and kill again? >
  
  We should try to find a way and prevent that. Of course there’s no guarantee but we can't take someone's life based on what ifs >
  
  If there are no guarantees, then there is no prevention.
  We can't prevent it if someone is determined enough.  The only way to do so, is death.
  In other words, prevent requires guarantee
  So, that leaves 2 choices (a) eliminate the death penalty and live with the possibility- however slim, that a person may be determined enough to kill again, no matter the obstacle, or (b) allow it, and live eith the possibility that person could have been redeemed, however unlikely.
  It's impossible to both eliminate the death penalty and eliminate the risk of someone evil enough to kill, escape confinement, and kill agsin. >
  
  As long as its not one of your relatives or friends impacted by these criminals not to mention your tax dollars supporting them for the rest of their life? >
  
  Read no.2 >
  
  
  
  The chances of an innocent person getting executed are low / we will only execute those who we are sure are guilty.
  
  
  And not just that, but society changes and our knowledge of how the mind works changes. It's not impossible that today's death sentence is tomorrow's mental health issue. >
  
  How much are you willing to destroy the quality of life for someone imprisoned for life in order to protect the prisoners and guards? Many prisoners are very dangerous even when incarcerated, to other prisoners and guards too. So would you be willing to keep them in solitary confinement until their dying day? Some might even say that keeping someone in a small cage for the rest of their life devoid of meaningful entertainment, socialization, and daylight is crueler than killing them. What do you think about that? >
  
  How about vigilantism? >
  
  they can suicide in prison >
  
  For #4, have you paid taxes for very long, and how educated are you really on the economics of our prison system:federal vs:private? It also costs a lot for death penalty, with appeals etc, the right to trial and appellant court etc. >
  
  Rapists murderers and pedos get no redemption. I strongly support executions, but do think they should work to make sure it's done and done, not calling for torture (even though I would wish it on some honestly?  
  Have you ever been sexually assaulted? I'll never forget the fear or pain. I wasn't his only victim. Probably more out there even now. Prison can't reform most twisted people like that. Some people are just broken in my opinion and should be executed to save the greater community >
  
  I've not been sexually assaulted, no.
  In my country, almost all rapists do get executed. Result? Many people don't report rape because the the rapist was a relative, and they don't want them to die.
  These kind of extreme penalties don't prevent crime, but might prevent the victims from seeking justice. >
  
  
  The death penalty may serve as a deterrent to certain types of crimes, such as murder.
  The death penalty can provide a sense of closure and justice for victims and their families.
  Without the option of the death penalty, the most heinous criminals may pose a risk to public safety even if they are imprisoned. >
  
  Death penalty should be applied only to crimes that can be 100% proven.
  For example , someone picked up during the crime and/or visible cameras that caught it (not those terrible cameras).
  Honestly , I think death penalty shouldn't be painless , the should make them suffer the most until they die. For example , a rapist that stabbed the one that got raped , he should be raped before being cut to death. >
  
  
  Considering the alternative is life in prison without parole how is that unacceptable? Or are we not going to be prosecuting any criminals ever?
  
  The difference is that you can release innocent people from prison, but you can't bring them back from the dead. >
  
  
  No appeals process so we won't release them.
  
  That could easily be fixed.
  
  And you can't give people back the time spent in prison
  
  No one's claiming otherwise. The point is that they still have a chance to live out the remainder of their lives, which they wouldn't have if they were executed. >
  
  Some people are too dangerous to be left alive. What if you got an inmate that has killed 10 other inmates. They are unfit to be around other inmates. You could just stick them in solitary confinement forever, but that is more of a tax burden and torture. A rope can solve that problem for cheap. >
  
  When it comes to Norwegian mass shooter Anders Breivik, I definitely think that the death penalty should be an option. These is not a shred of doubt in his guilt, since he was arrested on the premises. He shows no remorse and makes a joke of the whole judiciary system.
  The guy has already cost a lot to society, they should cut their losses. >
  
  I agree he absolutely deserves death, but if we have death as an option, the wrong person can abuse that power and use it to kill innocent people. >
  
  Look, most of the Western democracies are a farce. I didn’t bookmark it, but a few days ago there was an article about a study that outlined how a handful of companies essentially control most of the world’s economy.
  If our only fear is the implementation death penalty, we’ve got the wrong priorities. >
  
  For the record on the ground that even 1 person could possibly die unjustly. However I think your logic about justice vs vengeance is flawed. You say we shouldn't seen death as it's vengeance. Reasonable enough, but then you go on to eat "plus they'll suffer more if we lock them up for the rest of their life!" But I feel like... The desire to make someone suffer? Also sounds a lot like revenge. I'm fact some while say a more cruel form. >
  
  
  The desire to make someone suffer? Also sounds a lot like revenge. I'm fact some while say a more cruel form.
  
  It is, and it's an answer to what I'd do if a loved one was the victim, of course I'd want vengeance. I'm just saying the death penalty isn't the best solution because even if you do want vengeance, them rotting in prison is better than dying. >
  
  So if that's the case how are you going to use the fact that seeking out death is vengeance and not justice as an argument against this penalty in particular >
  
  Hmmm, I think you have a point here !delta
  Maybe saying justice isn't vengeance isn't a good argument. But the vengeance shouldn't necessarily be killing that person back >
  
  This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/v_g_junkie changed your view (comment rule 4).
  DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I agree with your conclusion, but I see one potential problem with your argument for it.  On the one hand, you make the argument that we should not allow even 1 out of 100 innocent person to be executed.  But that same person would then be in prison for life, which you later claim is even more of a punishment.
  The escape clause is that they might be proven not guilty later on.
  But suppose we fixed the broken system of "expert" witnesses, failure to DNA test, etc. -- obviously the right thing to do independent of the other question.  If we do, then there will be no reevaluations of evidence left to save a person who is still found guilty, and that person will be suffering a punishment worse than execution by your estimate.  Doing the right thing now leads to an abhorrent outcome.
  My solution to this quandary is that life in prison should not be a punishment worse than death, and that vengeful people can stuff it.  Appealing to the horribleness of life in prison offers a justification to make it worse, because you've just said that's the point.  But then you are making things even worse than death for the innocent.
  Either we must accept execution as the worst allowable punishment, or else we must accept that punishment is not the point.  Otherwise, we don't really address your other point appropriately. >
  
  Some people will not change no matter what, they will keep trying to hurt, kill, rape, some people just don't change. There's not much we can do about them except for death penalty or life in prison, which they can still hurt or kill or rape. They have a chance of escape if we just lock them up, there's no real reason not to do those things in my opinion, you kill someone and now you no longer have to worry about food, water, shelter, where you're going to sleep, what you're going to do, it's all taken care of, you don't have to worry. Death penalty is a damn good deterrent in my opinion since if you fuck up that badly you won't get the chance to do it again. If the death penalty didn't exist we'd have to make more space for more prisoners since the amount that gets life in prison would increase. If I knew I wouldn't die from it and instead have all my needs meet without me having to do shit, I'd probably kill a man if I ever needed a place to sleep and eat because worst that'll happen, I die and don't have to worry about it, or I get life in prison, in which case I won't have to worry about it, without the fear of the death penalty more dumbfucks will do stupid shit because "no death penalty, we'll get some good lawyers and get out and do it again in a few decades" there's always someone who thinks like this, always people trying to find loopholes. >
  
  Consider this scenario. You are 18 and live with a single parent. Your parent is murdered. You now cannot afford to live and have to leave your home and struggle to ever make ends meet again.
  Meanwhile, the monster who ruined your life is guaranteed a bed and 3 meals a day for life.  Where is justice to be found?
  The cost is largely because of the appeals process.  If we fast track the appellate process on new convictions, the cost is somewhat negated.  Also, as is common in civil practice, we could hold the organization funding the appeal liable to repay the state's appellate costs on unsuccessful appeals.  
  To clarify though, I would require the presence of DNA to support the death penalty.  This is why I said new convictions. Those from before DNA was a thing who could now be exonerated deserve the chance. >
  
  
  The cost is largely because of the appeals process.  If we fast track the appellate process on new convictions, the cost is somewhat negated.
  
  That's also how more mistakes are made though. Fast tracking and not taking the time to properly review things. So your view necessitates you stating more ok with more false convictions and executions, right? >
  
  Having worked with the county jail for nearly a decade now i can assure you the resources wasted to keep people in jail adds many other problems. Assuming all things are done correctly this just means more money is wasted on the jail system. But people make errors all the time. I have seen our clients with multiple violent charges and with active mental illness that is untreated being released from the jail accidently. I have seen Correctional Officers unable to maintain order due to lack of staff. This effectively hurts everyone else. the crime rate inside of jails is high, people get raped or beaten or killed because of these things. Corruption is higher because the need for more staff means a lower standard of staff. This is just some of the problems with a lack of resources.
  I do not believe that someone's life is something that is sacred. It has value and that value can be measured to some extent. If someone has a list of 50 crimes they have committed over decades and has shown no remorse or attempts to improve then their life has a negative value. Its best for all to remove that person and to remove the cost of keeping them around. I once held the view that all people were inherently either neutral or good but having worked with this population for this long i can see a lot off pure evil. 
  Mistakes will always happen for any decision but we can not just focus on the scenario if something goes wrong. >
  
  My biggest issue on this take is it feels like starting to rank human worth is a very dangerous path to start down. It usually ends up in very bad places. What worse is we know there will be abuse of these sorts of power. See all history when there are caste systems or nobility etc.
  Most of your arguments apply very similarly to the "taker" arguments made in some previous elections. I'm leaving a lot to your imagination, but think about connecting the dots between 50 crimes over decades and has a disability that prevents working to couldn't hold down a "good enough" job and  needed social support for decades. I'm not really sure how you can't make the same argument for anyone who isn't currently a net positive earner and paying taxes. And that's a very scary place to go.
  I'd also argue a large portion of why you don't have enough resources is us basically trying to use jail for cheap or free labor and the "solution" for lots of people that probably didn't initially belong there. I.e. drug use offenses, white collar crimes, nonviolent offenses, mental illness, poverty, etc. And our normal issue of not wanting to fund services properly. >
  
  What if the prisoner is too rich/clever/strong for the authorities to handle, that there's no reliable way to prevent him from being dangerous to others? What if the government has no capacity/resources to contain him effectively?
  Those would be my reasonings for not shutting the door on the death penalty. >
  
  If they're that rich surely they can find a way to escape the death penalty. But I don't disagree with you, !delta >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/skisagooner (2∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I agree that the death penalty should be abolished. Humans shouldn’t decide if other humans should live as a life is that valuable. Humans are imperfect. Perhaps in the future, AI can, but as for now no.
  1) They can turn up as innocent. 
  2) Have a mental disability, and need psychiatric help.
  3) Could potentially be useful in war, or doing some kind of slave work instead.
  4) Why not be torturous instead? >
  
  I’ve already made post arguing why death penalty should continue.
  Basically the loss of innocents is no excuse for why the state should not do their duty in bringing order to chaos. Executing a criminal brings order to the chaos they inflicted and could inflict in the future, as well as bringing a definitive closure to both society and the victims.
  Murdered people cannot give their opinion as to what should be done to the attacker, so it is up to the state to provide the appropriate justice for them in turn >
  
  if u think about it. the death penalty is really more suicide than penalty. 
  the criminals know the law regarding the action that they're going to do. knowing the consequences, they still do it. that to me just sounds like suicide. >
  
  So then who defined the serial killers or terrorists? What if it’s a long shot and not really defined but they are still in that category >
  
  The only exception to a ban on the death penalty which I consider reasonable are the extremely rare case of powerful criminals who can break out, or whose presence will motivate attacks by those outside the prison, as well as possibly inside. 
  Examples could include certain infamous terrorists, like Ben bin Laden, or heads of state. For example, imprisoning Hitler over the longterm, if he had been captured, would likely be far more dangerous. 
  Also, if the person has escaped in the past and while out committed more extreme violence, I would be willing to put this person to death as well.
  But generally, I think the fact that even 1 in a million people might be innocent, means that the death penalty is unethical well over 99% of the time. Exceptions would probably occur only a few times each decade. >
  
  
  The only exception to a ban on the death penalty which I consider reasonable are the extremely rare case of powerful criminals who can break out, or whose presence will motivate attacks by those outside the prison, as well as possibly inside. 
  Examples could include certain infamous terrorists, like Ben bin Laden, or heads of state. For example, imprisoning Hitler over the longterm, if he had been captured, would likely be far more dangerous. 
  
  Agreed !delta >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/anoriginalinvisible (2∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I’m simple and I see it why have one life having the potential of killing/ruining multiple lives. Better to have a 100% that they can’t harm anyone else by ending their life. >
  
  You're right, some people don't deserve to be alive but if there's a chance that an innocent person will be executed, we shouldn't risk it >
  
  I’m not trying to win this argument but it seems like your only defense for not having the death penalty is because it’s running the risk of condemning an innocent person. You’re right, it’s no light matter to shorten the lives of the  blameless, but having that as your only defense leaves your view vulnerable for attacks and others are less inclined to agree with it or consider it a worthy opinion. >
  
  Yes... I was hoping someone would convince me why sacrificing one innocent man out of 100 murderers is worth it. >
  
  I acknowledge your opinion and you are not isolated because of it. I think at this point it is futile for me to debate with you. In my research about the death penalty, I have discovered that innocent people being convicted is higher than expected and that a large population of the United States agrees with you. Nonetheless, I enjoyed my thread with you, OP. >
  
  Why are you wasting so much energy defending killers? >
  
  I'm not defending killers. I'm saying the system isn't good enough to be sure no innocent person will be executed, so we shouldn't risk it >
  
  You're saying killers shouldn't get as harsh a punishment, that's defending them. >
  
  I'm saying a life sentence is worse than death penalty, how's that defending them? >
  
  Why are you wasting so much energy considering the needs of killers? Kinda sus. >
  
  I'm considering the needs of innocent people not killers >
  
  The death penalty is not punishment it is the extinguishing of a bad actor to send a massage to those who would act as badly of consequences.
  Prisons are not ran in a way to actually reform the inmates.
  To abolish the death penalty I see 2 problems.
  
  
  capacity to contain the really bad actors in a way to avoid their transmitting a perspective encouraging acting badly.
  
  
  prisons do more to keep bad actors alienated. ex recidivism...
  
  
  To kill must only be in defence and as we do not have a system that is presently able to drfend us so the death penalty is defensive and should continue to be used. 
  I am saying this with the full knowledge that innocent people will be wrongfully convicted and executed. 
  eggs and omelettes    :( >
  
  So. I like this question a lot because it's a very intricate thought. However there is a large problem I'm not sure you took into account, and that is, the moral compass you sit on is drastically different from many others. There are people without a moral compass at all, and due to this, a conversation over this subject becomes a moral high ground fight. How would you discuss this with someone who has no morals, or someone who wouldn't care for either end result?
  I also want to ask a hypothetical. Say we abolished death penalty, and then you were tasked with assigning sentences and punishments to those who were on death row, how would you assign a punishment, and what type of punishments would you propose instead? >
  
  
  Say we abolished death penalty, and then you were tasked with assigning sentences and punishments to those who were on death row, how would you assign a punishment, and what type of punishments would you propose instead?
  
  A few hours ago someone asked a similar question and I said life sentence. Now that I've read people's opinions I'm not sure anymore >
  
  The death penalty and life sentences are separate punishments, with a stance like you have, you should think about options to replace the death penalty. You come up short by using a method that serves a different purpose. You should think on what options we don't already have that reach the same effectiveness of the death penalty. The only problem is options of such severity would be highly immoral, which is why we use death as a punishment. If you offered up the idea that all death row inmates should be sentenced to solitary for life, you would get the backlash of how immoral it would be to do to someone. These gaps are what make your topic so difficult to approach when you already took a side. You should take some time to think out some ways that we could punish criminals severely without death, and you will start getting an idea of how hard it is to make punishments that sound better than death, that are fair punishments. >
  
  
  You should think on what options we don't already have that reach the same effectiveness of the death penalty. The only problem is options of such severity would be highly immoral, which is why we use death as a punishment
  
  !delta 
  That's a good point. I wouldn't say I haven't thought of it but when you put it that way, yes, currently death penalty might be the best solution. That doesn't mean we should just accept it, we must try and come up with a better punishment and by just accepting death penalty we probably won't come up with anything. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/iSilent_Nebula (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Maybe I'm a terrible person or maybe it's the utilitarian in me, but I believe that instead of death row those prisoners should be offered up for human trials and experiments for scientific and medical purposes. Now their continued existence can be contributed to scientific and medical technological advancement. If our tax dollars are going to pay for these prisoners to continue their lives, might as well make them count towards something. >
  
  Well, the 4 arguments you listed for the death penalty have some issues 
  
  It's actually much cheaper to house a prisoner for life than keep someone in death row.  Why?  The endless appeal process for death row inmates.  No one wants to execute the wrong person, so death row inmates can keep on appealing and appealing.  Furthermore, since they are already on death row, they have every incentive in the world to keep on appealing.  This is why death row prisoners are more expensive to keep than those serving a life sentence.
  
  Don't believe me?  Google is only a few clicks away.
  
  I would argue, and many victims would agree that the death row does not provide closure?  Why?  Once again, the appeals process; every time they appeal it becomes another court proceeding that they have to pay attention to or participate in.  The victim's families have to go through that trauma again and again and again....
  
  Look, I am anti-death penalty because of efficiency reasons.  It really is more efficient for society to lock people up and throw awauly the key than it is to put peeps on death row. >
  
  What about pedophiles? >
  
  #1: I'm pro-death penalty in extreme cases, but I think we need to seriously raise the bar for evidence to hand down that kind of conviction. We need multiple people on the scene, CCTV footage, DNA evidence, the whole shebang. If we can prove that they committed a capital offense without 0 doubt, I don't mind executing mass murders, pedophiles, and other assorted worst-of-the-worst criminals.
  #2: I have to strongly disagree with the logic you use in point #2. Saying that we shouldn't execute someone because it's an "emotional" or "vengeful" response could just as easily be applied to any sort of punishment. Isn't it vengeful and emotional to want a serial killer to spend the rest of their life in prison? If someone murders my loved one, I want vengeance, and I hope the justice system would deliver that. 
  #3: Honestly I've never heard this point made before, and I don't think it would really be relevant except in fringe cases like ideological terrorists. I'm more interested in the death penalty for justice
  #4: It actually costs more to execute a person than to give them life in prison because of all the mandatory appeals, the cost associated with death row imprisonment, and the insane cost of those execution drugs. The cost isn't that different though, and I don't think it should inform our decision about whether or not the death penalty is acceptable >
  
  If someone killed your grandma with a sledgehammer, would you pay for his 2 daily meals for the next 60 years? >
  
  should you be forced to kill him with a sledgehammer or at least be locked in a room with only him and a sledgehammer within your reach but beyond his and it be expected that you kill him with the sledgehammer?
  Emotional manipulation works both ways >
  
  Regarding argument 4:  Last I heard, it took more money to execute someone because of the costs associated with the years-long appeals process that invariably comes up.  And you can't get rid of that complex, expensive process without seriously damaging due process.
  Also:  With prison privatization, those prisoners are often a source of cheap labor, defraying the costs considerably. >
  
  
  Rationally speaking, if they spent the rest of their life in prison, they'd suffer more, and it'd be a better punishment. They have ruined lives, and we can't just give them the sweet release of death.  
  It's morally problematic
  
  So which is it? Morally problematic or more merciful than life in prison? >
  
  The justice system should have nothing to do with punishment. We know that negative reinforcement does not achieve anything, and prison systems should be about rehabilitation and education. Justice comes into it, but while people might get a sense of brief catharsis after their victimiser is incarcerated, it won't help them to heal overall.
  In this light, my personal opinion is that, in the case of a life sentence or of a person who can not be rehabilitated, the more humane option is execution. A person should not be forced to live in a cage. A person should not remain a burden to society beyond their ability to commit a crime. 
  I ultimately agree that a single innocent person executed is too many, even if it was one in a million. That being said, we can ascertain when a person is certainly guilty without any doubt quite often, and our ability to do so is likely to expand. >
  
  I think it is cruel and unusual punishment to incarcerate a human for 20 years or more. If your crime is bad enough that you cannot be rehabilitated in less time than it takes to get a PhD then society should do the compassionate thing and end your time here.
  I’d ask you to consider that those who disagree with you could take the same extreme position and say 100% accuracy in rehabilitation is required before releasing someone. Why should society tolerate even 1% recidivism of violent felons? Those victims are innocent, so we could say that releasing a prisoner makes the system responsible for ensuring they’re not going to harm again.
  I think the current use of capital punishment is unbalanced with dna tests, sympathetic juries and near endless appeals. >
  
  Punishments are supposed to fit crimes. Once a person is murdered they are dead it's permanent. If a serial killer or terrorist is left alive they always have the chance of regaining their freedom either through escape, prisoner trade offs, pardons, or legal technicality. >
  
  you will never change your mind bc you have already made up your definition of what justice is and dont seem open to changing it. 
  For example: you insist that lethal injection is not justice but rather vengeance ( whats in a name? ) 
  justice system exists to do just that, deal out justice. Not rehabilitate, and not restore anything that was lost, it exists for the victims, which seem to have less rights than their perpetrators. 
  serial killers/terrorist who get pleasure out of torture and murdering many many people being subjected to a painless lethal injection after being granted everything they could desire within the confines of a prison cell is in no way shape or form "vengeance" >
  
  
  serial killers/terrorist who get pleasure out of torture and murdering many many people being subjected to a painless lethal injection after being granted everything they could desire within the confines of a prison cell is in no way shape or form "vengeance"
  
  what would vengeance be, killing the serial killer as many times as they had victims in the exact same way with a non-merciful way to resurrect them in between to be killed again and staging what looks like an exact copy of the terrorist mass murder or w/e a given terrorist engaged in but with them as the only real fatality? >
  
  1.) If there is eyewitness, video evidence, forensic proof and a confession..there is a 0% chance the individual is innocent.  
  2.) Justice and vengeance are subjective concepts.  Holding a human being in a cage forever is no less vengeful than ending his or her life.  Believing that it is is the actual emotional argument  
  3.) Making someone a living martyr isn't helpful.  However, indoctrinating others is less problematic than giving someone a chance to kill again.  Put someone in an ever increasingly smaller box with less autonomy, dignity and freedom, again, while less barbaric is no necessarily more humane.  
  4.) Paying to keep a loved one's killer alive is re-victimizing the victim's family for the rest of their lives. >
  
  Some people are beyond help, or at the very least our current system is unable to help them.
  Would you consider a life in jail better than death? Is that not just torture followed by death anyway? >
  
  You'll understand death penalty later in life >
  
  I’ve read that execution is actually more expensive for the state than keeping someone in prison for a life sentence. I also used to think that execution was less of a punishment than life in prison, but many of the people sentenced to death fight it tooth and nail until the very last moment. That makes me think death is worse in their eyes than life imprisonment >
  
  
  
  That argument doesn't make sense and seems like a form of special pleading. I say this because, there is a possibility that someone innocent will be sent to prison for life. Which is unjust. And the falsely accused person will suffer for the rest of their life knowing that they do not deserve that punishment. Should we ban life imprisonment too? I'm sure you're answer is no.
  
  
  The death penalty is Justice. And vengeance is personal in nature. It's not like it's the victims family that is executing the condemned. This is why it's important that these people are judged and sentenced by a jury of their peers. Not the family of the deceased.
  
  
  Again these people are sentenced to death for their crimes. Not their ideology.
  
  
  Taking a life is not easy in general. Especially doing so, where the person doesn't suffer. Ask the police, soldiers and others who did so without malicious intent. There is a reason some executions have multiple executioners. For example on a firing range. 4 rifleman have their guns. 3 are loaded with blanks while one with live rounds. They are told to aim the same place and fire at the same time. This saves them from guilt and or prevents satisfaction. 
  
  
  My thoughts comes down to treat your neighbor as you want them to treat you. And if you're going to deliberately take the life of your neighbors on mass. Then you deserve the same. But you'll be given the dignity of a quick and painless death. 
  Will this bring the family any comfort maybe. But it's not just about them. It's us as a collective. We need a society that have limits and consequences for extremely heinous actions. And whether or not life in prison is a punishment, is dependent of the person. If that killer made his peace with going to prison. Then spending life in prison is not a punishment. Especially considering all of his or her needs will be met for the rest of their life. >
  
  I think there needs to be a much stricter policy on death penalty, but I disagree. 
  I think death penalty is most applicable for people who killed many others, because serial killers like that are not saveable. People are just born that way, and in some sense killing them is better than letting them rot away in prison for the rest of their life or allow them to live and give them a chance to appeal. 
  I think it's doing justice for the killers, victims, victim families, and the general public to have mass murderers dead than alive even if in a max security prison. >
  
  So,  if a child of yours(strictly for example only) who is 7 and was kid napped  sexually assaulted, beaten,  and  killed would you still want to fight death penalty???  I would be waiting the penalty for losing my child.   Terrists  behead Christian people just for their beliefs
  And usually a line of individuals on their knees and will  be executed.  Terrorists bomb a school 
  More than likely if in Texas and other southern tiers  more than likely good ol boys would love to welcome him with open arms.  Now,  I will not insult your intelligence  nor will I not say anything negative about your beliefs I was just was  presenting giving a hypothetical. 
  Take care and merry Christmas >
  
  
  Even a 1% chance means 1 out of 100 is dying unjustly,
  
  It is probably much lower than 1% with modern tech, but even the alternative is someone spending life in prison unjustly. You say yourself that life in prison is worse than death anyway. If you believe that life in prison is more suffering than death, then how is it more unjust to kill a wrongfully convicted person compared to sticking them in jail for their whole life? >
  
  
  Rationally speaking, if they spent the rest of their life in prison, they'd suffer more, and it'd be a better punishment. 
  
  Only if the conditions in said prison were designed to deliberately make the incarcerated suffer. "Humane" prisons like those in Norway are basically hotels that you're not allowed to leave. When you have mass murderers like Anders Breivik getting a Playstation in prison, we have a problem. >
  
  Recently there was an exchange between the US and idk which country. It was that basketball player for some hardcore baddie. Have you considered the fact that cases like these can arise when you keep the hardcore baddies alive? >
  
  I agree with this. If 1 innocent person is executed, it’s Too many to justify it. It’s horrific to think innocent people have experienced this. I think it is the easy way out , instead of figuring out what caused the act, how to intervene sooner, essentially we could learn a lot about how to prevent if we studied and attempted to reform. As to the last point, if we didn’t imprison so many people we’d have more resources to handle the truly heinous ones. There should be expanded house arrests, minimum security communities etc… >
  
  You are beyond hopeless imo. Serial killers? Child killer etc..say for example the pos that killed Athena Strand needs to FRY.  No argument..eye for an eye..you choose to take a life..you forfeit your right to breathe >
  
  If a person definitely commits a violent crime and punishment is not feared criminals won’t be scared to commit violent crimes as we are starting to see now happen >
  
  To me, the death penalty is a last resort to use on criminals who cannot be redeemed in any shape or form. There's no chance of re-integrating them into society and keeping them in prison for their entire life means there's also the chance they might escape, or influence or murder other inmates who've done lesser crimes. 
  It's more about removing a threat so morally, legally, and socially corrupt that keeping them alive is a risk. The entire process shouldn't be taken lightly, of course, and perhaps it should only be done after repeated attempts to rehabilitate the criminal has failed. >
  
  You do not need changing your mind, those favouring it are the ones in the wrong. >
  
  So sick >
  
  I think that we spend a lot of time trying to justify the death penalty without asking ourselves why this is okay/the right solution in the first place. Although I don't necessarily disagree with you, many of  your responses are rooted in the belief that death is the "easy way out." We get one life (as far as we know) and one death. To be sent to death is likely the worst outcome for those who recognize this (non-reincarnation-believers) and those who value life.
  Another question for you: Does pro-death penalty equate to the belief that those who commit such crimes are absolutely unredeemable? Do we trust the courts to make this determination? Does the death penalty question actually revolve around this question of redemption? >
  
  The argument that the person could be innocent is legit but never considers the fact that time in prison is also an irreversible loss. I think a better argument would be having a better standard of proof for the death penalty - like multiple pieces of scientifically strong evidence, not only beyond reasonable doubt which is subjective to the jury. >
  
  If we shouldn't kill killers because we're just stooping to their level, I could only deduce that a life of torture would be equally immoral by that logic. Unfortunately, a long life of humane incarceration is not deterrent enough to dissuade people from committing these crimes. The show "I am a Killer" on Netflix interviews Death Row inmates and some of them stated that a lot of prisoners do things to try and get themselves on death row. They would rather be executed and comfortable in their final days than live a life of chaos in general population prison. >
  
  If someone is murdered in cold blood then yes the murderer should be as well along with rapist, pedophiles, animal abusers, serial killers, and nazis. If we didn't have people like this on earth there wouldn't be any death penalties. >
  
  What are your thoughts on what to do with ppl like Bundy who were escape artists and serial killers? >
  
  Yeah, until someone u love gets hurt... you'll change ur mind in a NY minute... >
  
  I’m a bit late to this party but here’s my take. Killers, Rapists, and the like deserve death while you make a designation between vengeance and justice they can be the same thing and in this case they are. If you do these things you don’t deserve rehabilitation, you don’t deserve to continue exist just in a jail cell where you might be able to escape, you don’t deserve a pain free existence. You’ve either ended someone else’s story just because you thought you were justified or you made someone miserable in the worst way possible and in a way that we warned you over and over again not to. What people like this truly deserve is pain constant agonizing pain but because that would make us worse than them we ship them off to the beyond to deal with. I also think there should be a minimum wait period of at least 5 years (tho maybe more) for new evidence to be presented and that this should be reserved for cases that are exceptionally clear in their out come. For example Ted Bundy. >
  
  Just saying, If I was an innocent person and someone I knew closely was murdered by a serial killer, or I survived a serial killer. It would haunt my entire life knowing that they could possibly escape. >
  
  “No one should get the death penalty” Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Vlad the Impaler, Pol Pot, Heinrich Himmler, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Ivan the Terrible, Leopold the IInd of Belgium, Kim Il Sung (1912-1994), Kim Jong-il (1941-2011) and Kim Jong-un (born 1983), Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Nero Roman Empire, Genghis Khan, Mao Zedong, Maximilien Robespierre, and more.🙌 >
  
  My opinion is life in prison is wise than death that’s why I’m against the death penalty I see it as a easy out >
  
  Your logic sucks. If a person breaks out of prison and has been convicted of rape and/or murder, then breaks into my house, rapes my daughter and I catch them in the act with a knife to the throat of my daughter, then society has no right to sentence them to death. But if I just off the guy while catching him in the act, then that’s cool. That logic has zero justice and will result in anarchy. It is society’s (read law enforcement, justice system, etc.) duty to protect the innocent and sometimes that means putting some to death in order to give justice to the innocent so the innocent do not feel the need to take the law into their own hands. >
  
  Mass murderers should be tortured >
  
  what about rapists and pedos?
  anyway, i probably agree. but in this case, death may be more merciful than a life sentence.  
  also, Green Mile.