comment: >
  
  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.
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!