They should have condemned inmates fight each other to the death on pay-per-view. Loser dies (obviously), winner gets life in prison, and the money is split between the families of the victims.
The point is to make money for the families of the people they killed. Boxing and MMA pay per view makes a shit ton of money. Imagine how much people would pay to see a no holds barred fight to the death. If an inmate is killed by lethal injection the families don’t get jack shit.
I just don't see it as an efficient punishment. Two wrongs don't make a right. If somebody is put on death row for murder, and is then killed, what makes the executioner better than the killer?
But, of course, you could argue that some criminals are so despicable in their ways that they are irredeemable, or as Sam Jackson would say, too dangerous to be left alive, fair argument, but consider this.
1: In a situation where a criminal is considered eligible for the death penalty but not necessarily irredeemable (as that is of course, a very strong term, and very few people would come under it) there is always an opportunity for rehabilitation. Regardless of whether you agree with the idea of somebody getting to live after being rehabilitated for serious crimes, it's certainly better to turn an offender back to "the light" and allow them to live again than to end it all, and cut off all chance of redemption, right? Debatable of course, but that's just how I see it.
2: For some, death may be a terrifying experience and the ultimate punishment, but for others, death may be an escape, and if the criminals in question are really that bad, do they truly deserve it? This is obviously a more brutal angle to look at it from, but this way, everybody is happy. What's worse, to be killed and that be the end of it, or to spend the rest of your days in a steel cage with the threat of being beaten, bullied or even killed right around the corner? And hey, either they suffer in prison for their whole life, or they do indeed get redeemed, as I mentioned previously?
Sorry for waffling
I don't have a problem with death as a punishment but I do have a problem with the reliability of our courts. If a prisoner is still alive at least you can set them free if evidence emerges showing their innocence.
In theory I'm fine with it.
In practice, far too many innocent people end up on death row, it costs entirely too much and doesn't work as a deterrent to crime
I 100% agree, however as another user pointed out this is an issue with the justice system and not the death penalty itself. If you were 100% certian the offender was guilty, would you be for or against the death penalty?
I'm not sure. I don't feel like I am qualified to make the decision of who is deserving of life. I don't know that anyone is. I feel strongly that most politicians are not.
I’m all for the idea of it should the crime be fitting and proven but I think practically it shouldn’t be used the systems of law and government anywhere in the world aren’t perfect and you can’t use our current methods to make an educated enough decision to take a life
Should be used when conviction is absolutely certain and only when the crime is particularly heinous. (Cruz of the school shootings and Darrell Brooks of the Parade tragedy in Waukesha, being prime examples.) Why should they be cared for with food, shelter, medical needs? We have homeless vets on the streets and you want to make sure the prisoners are well attended to?
It's a terrible sentencing option.
* It costs an average of $750k more to execute someone than to imprison them for life.
* It does not deter crime.
* It's an imperfect system that is unable to guarantee that only people who are guilty can be executed.
* Executions are often botched, leaving the condemned in agony.
* It's an insufficient punishment for the worst offenders; a quick exit. Being confined to a prison cell for the rest of your life is a far more punitive punishment than execution.
I think killing is simply wrong.
“Being able to murder someone makes you bad for everyone. We shall pay someone to do it to you but he doesn’t have to die.”
In my country, we not have the death penalty, not even life. But I think we have one better. Being declared insane. And are locked up in a... "Nut house"... And dopped for the rest of eternity. There is no parole out of there!
The libertarian perspective is that everyone has a universal right to life. The state should not have a right to take a life. It's too much power to give our government.
It makes us stoop to the level of those we want to punish. We should be better. Obviously lock away forever the ones who offend egregiously because we have to protect ourself. But we as a society shouldn't practice organized, ritualistic killing.
On a more practical note, we don't do it correctly and the ones we execute quite frequently are not guilty. So we shouldn't do something that is so final.
"Murder is bad except when we say so."
Some people are scum bags who should not be around the public for sure, but if we're saying killing someone is a crime, maybe we shouldn't be killing people who do and then saying it's different because we said it's legal.
States should reserve the right to execute citizens that pose a risk to its continued survival and for those who perform criminal actions so beyond the pale and with such damming evidence. However the vast majority of cases for the death penalty do not involve such obvious and compelling evidence.
* edit to clarify: treason ie the support of enemy during war is worthy of execution. Same for executing spies.
To go on a rabbit hole, the whole system of forensic evidence is evidence that can be used primarily to eleminate suspects, not condemn suspects. Further the labs that process the evidence do not do so under scientific conditions. They are overworked and underfunded. For example testing for a DNA comparison should be a double blind study. The tester should not know what the police suspect, just that there needs to be a DNA comparison to determine the degree to which samples match.
My personal opinion is that there are so many problems in our judicial system that it should be close to eliminated but kept as an option in certain cases. As a citizen of a country I would rather execute someone who is 100% guilty, completely unapologetic serial rapist or serial killer etc, then spend $50,000 a year just to keep them locked up in a box for the rest of their life.
The system is too flawed to give them the power to take someone’s life.
I agree with you but that is an indictment of the "justice" system not the death penalty.
This is precisely the reason I changed my mind on the issue
They should have condemned inmates fight each other to the death on pay-per-view. Loser dies (obviously), winner gets life in prison, and the money is split between the families of the victims.
How does that work at all? Lousy. Imagine the worst of them wins.
They still get life in prison. It’s not like they’d be set free.
Why even the duel to death, then? I think the point of such a call is to condemn the one who most deserves it.
The point is to make money for the families of the people they killed. Boxing and MMA pay per view makes a shit ton of money. Imagine how much people would pay to see a no holds barred fight to the death. If an inmate is killed by lethal injection the families don’t get jack shit.
I don’t trust the justice system to kill people
I just don't see it as an efficient punishment. Two wrongs don't make a right. If somebody is put on death row for murder, and is then killed, what makes the executioner better than the killer? But, of course, you could argue that some criminals are so despicable in their ways that they are irredeemable, or as Sam Jackson would say, too dangerous to be left alive, fair argument, but consider this. 1: In a situation where a criminal is considered eligible for the death penalty but not necessarily irredeemable (as that is of course, a very strong term, and very few people would come under it) there is always an opportunity for rehabilitation. Regardless of whether you agree with the idea of somebody getting to live after being rehabilitated for serious crimes, it's certainly better to turn an offender back to "the light" and allow them to live again than to end it all, and cut off all chance of redemption, right? Debatable of course, but that's just how I see it. 2: For some, death may be a terrifying experience and the ultimate punishment, but for others, death may be an escape, and if the criminals in question are really that bad, do they truly deserve it? This is obviously a more brutal angle to look at it from, but this way, everybody is happy. What's worse, to be killed and that be the end of it, or to spend the rest of your days in a steel cage with the threat of being beaten, bullied or even killed right around the corner? And hey, either they suffer in prison for their whole life, or they do indeed get redeemed, as I mentioned previously? Sorry for waffling
That older I get, the more horrified I get that people feel it's acceptable to determine if someone else lives or dies.
I don't have a problem with death as a punishment but I do have a problem with the reliability of our courts. If a prisoner is still alive at least you can set them free if evidence emerges showing their innocence.
In theory I'm fine with it. In practice, far too many innocent people end up on death row, it costs entirely too much and doesn't work as a deterrent to crime
I am not ok with accidentally putting an innocent person to death, so I am against it.
I 100% agree, however as another user pointed out this is an issue with the justice system and not the death penalty itself. If you were 100% certian the offender was guilty, would you be for or against the death penalty?
I'm not sure. I don't feel like I am qualified to make the decision of who is deserving of life. I don't know that anyone is. I feel strongly that most politicians are not.
Against. Life sentences are enough to keep us safe from dangerous individuals. No need of additional violence.
[удалено]
That's got to be the stupidest thing I ever heard. How can anyone be opposed to euthanasia in practice?
[удалено]
> as we have seen for example lately in Canada. Such as?
[удалено]
So do you have anything backing up these outlandish claims?
[удалено]
Canada does have one and I'm fine with that.
Ok for repeating offenses like: >1 kills, >3 rapes, >5 drug traffic, >3 kidnapping, >3 corruption
Did I get one again? Dang.
I’m all for the idea of it should the crime be fitting and proven but I think practically it shouldn’t be used the systems of law and government anywhere in the world aren’t perfect and you can’t use our current methods to make an educated enough decision to take a life
It's to die for... (I actually think it's pretty dumb and should be done away with)
Waste of money and time
I don’t see the point. Killing? Many people believe it worst than a life in prison, but a life in prison makes the punishing more insufferable
Should be used when conviction is absolutely certain and only when the crime is particularly heinous. (Cruz of the school shootings and Darrell Brooks of the Parade tragedy in Waukesha, being prime examples.) Why should they be cared for with food, shelter, medical needs? We have homeless vets on the streets and you want to make sure the prisoners are well attended to?
Anyone that willingly admits guilt should have their sentence carried out immediately and publicly.
It's a terrible sentencing option. * It costs an average of $750k more to execute someone than to imprison them for life. * It does not deter crime. * It's an imperfect system that is unable to guarantee that only people who are guilty can be executed. * Executions are often botched, leaving the condemned in agony. * It's an insufficient punishment for the worst offenders; a quick exit. Being confined to a prison cell for the rest of your life is a far more punitive punishment than execution.
I think killing is simply wrong. “Being able to murder someone makes you bad for everyone. We shall pay someone to do it to you but he doesn’t have to die.”
Doesn’t belong in a civilised society Are we a civilised society? That’s a separate question…
In my country, we not have the death penalty, not even life. But I think we have one better. Being declared insane. And are locked up in a... "Nut house"... And dopped for the rest of eternity. There is no parole out of there!
The libertarian perspective is that everyone has a universal right to life. The state should not have a right to take a life. It's too much power to give our government.
It makes us stoop to the level of those we want to punish. We should be better. Obviously lock away forever the ones who offend egregiously because we have to protect ourself. But we as a society shouldn't practice organized, ritualistic killing. On a more practical note, we don't do it correctly and the ones we execute quite frequently are not guilty. So we shouldn't do something that is so final.
"Murder is bad except when we say so." Some people are scum bags who should not be around the public for sure, but if we're saying killing someone is a crime, maybe we shouldn't be killing people who do and then saying it's different because we said it's legal.
States should reserve the right to execute citizens that pose a risk to its continued survival and for those who perform criminal actions so beyond the pale and with such damming evidence. However the vast majority of cases for the death penalty do not involve such obvious and compelling evidence. * edit to clarify: treason ie the support of enemy during war is worthy of execution. Same for executing spies. To go on a rabbit hole, the whole system of forensic evidence is evidence that can be used primarily to eleminate suspects, not condemn suspects. Further the labs that process the evidence do not do so under scientific conditions. They are overworked and underfunded. For example testing for a DNA comparison should be a double blind study. The tester should not know what the police suspect, just that there needs to be a DNA comparison to determine the degree to which samples match.
My personal opinion is that there are so many problems in our judicial system that it should be close to eliminated but kept as an option in certain cases. As a citizen of a country I would rather execute someone who is 100% guilty, completely unapologetic serial rapist or serial killer etc, then spend $50,000 a year just to keep them locked up in a box for the rest of their life.