comment: >
  
  
  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.
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.