comment: >
  
  
  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.
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.