Asklemmy

I'm all against death penalty in any form, except perhaps for some fascist leaderships. There are those who deserve to dance the Spandau ballet.

Fully support it for murder, r*pe, human trafficking, genocide, trafficking and distribution of deadly drugs like fentanyl (which is equivalent to murder in my eyes), and accepting bribery as a government official or embezzlement of public funds over some amount. I really don't see any other way to deal with those kinds of criminals and I can't stand the people who get all high and mighty about "mercy" while dismissing the actual victims.

However, I do think the death penalty needs to be restricted to cases where it is absolutely certain they are guilty of the crimes charged. Beyond beyond a reasonable doubt, there needs to be zero doubt. This alone will spare the vast majority of those criminals and make actual executions extremely rare, but IMO death always needs to be on the table when everyone is absolutely sure they did it.

Additionally, I submit that having life in prison as the only option increases the chance of false convictions because people don't see life in prison as "that serious" compared to death. People will very rightly flip their shit if they find out that an executed person was innocent, but when that same person is imprisoned for decades and is released with their spirit comprehensively broken and with only a few years of their natural life left, people are far more dismissive because they weren't executed. "Oh well that's sad but what can you do? The justice system is imperfect after all, just be glad we didn't execute you." The solution is not to keep people locked up for life on the off chance one of them is innocent, and when one of them is, claim moral superiority about only locking them up for life. The solution is to make absolutely damn sure they're guilty before you sentence them.

Everyone gets hung up on life in prison being "reversible" and have this idealistic idea that if someone is truly innocent, the absolute truth will come out "eventually" and set them free. But look at actual court records and you'll find that in practice it almost never gets reversed even when there is overwhelming evidence of their innocence, and when it does, the courts take their sweet time as if hoping to run out the clock and for the convicted to just die. Courts don't like reopening cases especially for serious crimes because it reflects negatively on them, so you're as good as condemned as soon as the hammer drops whether the sentence is life or death. People like to think of the innocent prisoner as being able to continuously fight for their innocence, but in reality you only get one chance to defend yourself and after that, no one in power will listen to you whether you're alive to speak or not. Innocent people who get their life sentence reversed are the very very rare exception, not the rule, and usually only because their story resonated with the public in a way they cannot forsee or control, and it's the public pressure that gets the courts to reconsider purely in order to preserve their image, not the guilt of potentially sentencing an innocent person. If you're not noticed by the media or your story doesn't resonate with the masses, like the vast majority of innocent convicts, you have no chance of getting out no matter how innocent you are. And the media and public has shown time and time again to be extremely race/culture selective in which convict they pay attention to, so a white person in the West is way more likely to be freed compared to an equally innocent person of colour.

If you truly believe that all humans are equal then you must also believe that it is impossible for one to stand in judgment of another. I believe that killing is wrong because it is one human standing in judgement of another. Society has a duty to protect its members, but judgement and the concept of "punishment" is something that should be left to God.

I am personally not against the death penalty for some crimes if the culprit is indeed responsible but there are too many people in prison for crimes they didn't commit already, so the burden of proof needs to be exceptional. Also, I've heard before that it's actually more costly for states and tax payers to impose the death penalty because of all the built-in appeals, with the costs of the court system and attorney fees, than it is to house someone in prison for life. I further think that those convicted should have the option to choose the death penalty and type of execution for themselves, á la Gary Gilmore.

You cannot be punished if you are dead. The death penalty is just convenient catharsis and a release of burden for the living.

Not the death penalty, but the lost prophets guy who got stabbed to death recently got off easy. Death was too good for him.

In this reality of fallible humans, ineptness, and corruption then no.

However, if it was guaranteed that the person was definitely guilty of certain crimes (such as raping kids. Being a fascist dictator. Premeditated murder. Spraying yourself orange and shitting yourself etc etc) then yeah I'm ok with it.

Ok, life is sacred and all that but if a person is steadfastly evil then they don't deserve life.

I think the death penalty is more about vengeance than justice. If they're going to happen the execution should be swift, public and if there were credible eyewitnesses to the crime, brutal!.

I think the death penalty is silly even from an evil standpoint, death is a kind release compared to life in an American prison.

If we had some omniscient and perfectly fair justice system that could confirm there is no other option, sure. But jeesh, how much further could we be from that yk? The US justice system is becoming increasingly blatantly political.

Also, as someone who thinks punishment is vindictive and unnecessary compared to rehabilitation, the ultimate punishment does not appeal to me.

I am all for it. I can think of dozens of reasons that people should be put down.

Does the method of execution matter to me? Yes.

Does the crime matter? Absolutely

Does the cost matter? No.

I don't know. On one hand, if the crime is so bad that it otherwise warrants lifetime imprisonment...

a) maybe there is a line past which it's deserved. I do generally view life as being something sacred and not something you should be able to take from others, but it's a fuzzy moral question as to whether there are some acts that are so heinous that they would challenge that view. Maybe it has to be for a harm at a societal rather than personal level? Like maybe taking one person's life isn't a warranted punishment for them taking a single other life, but perhaps say, a Nazi has harmed not just so many people, but some essential essence of the society that keeps us happy and healthy. Maybe THAT is bad enough to merit the ultimate violation of personal rights?

b) Is the alternative THAT much better? Is condemning someone to spend the rest of their life in a tiny room with no hope of them ever getting to do something that they want much better than death? Is it really living a life? (Granted, my opinion on that point is colored by my depression. I genuinely think if things got bad enough in my life suicide would be a preferable alternative. A healthier person might have a different view.)

That said, regardless of the above considerations, there is also the issue of the permanence of the punishment not allowing for correcting mistakes. Humans aren't infallible. Plenty of people have been wrongly convicted. If they're merely put in prison then we can always free them if we later learn of our mistake. If we've already killed them... ooops...? Nothing we can do. So perhaps that issue overrides any other moral considerations.

the only people who should get the death penalty, are people who support it

Yup. It should not be a thing.

The death penalty is not an effective punishment, it is a security measure and should only be used if confinement is unsuccessful and the risk is sufficient, which should be a high bar.

Not really, but I'm not against it. When you remember that in order to even get the death penalty, you have to be such a horrible person that you're pretty much no longer human, I don't see a problem with it. And then there is also the issue of the government has to pay potentially millions of dollars every years just for keeping you in prison/jail, so it also has financial benefits (not that the government needs more money, especially considering the fact that they constantly waste it on meaningless bullshit).

But I am also aware of the potential problems, like innocent people getting the death penalty. As a result, I think the death penalty should only be used in situations where there is absolutely no possibility of innocence. This means that the motive is clear and proven, and the evidence for even committing the crime(s) is/are solid.

I think it's appropriate in some cases, when a crime is disgusting and extremely selfish.

These are what I would approve it for.

-Murder for non idealogical reasons, or not for revenge, or also if the murder is cruel.

-Volent pedophilia, including kidnapping and rape or coercion.

-Political corruption or grand scams that hurt many people.

-Propaganda or profiting off destroying democratic institutions. Conspiracy against the public like fiat currencies.

-Sensless animal cruelty.

-promoting religion for power reasons while being a hypocrite.

-Extreme child neglect, like doing drugs while pregnant.

-Dissolving as a politician or advocating for the dissolution of basic human rights like privacy.

-High treason, as is a head of state or a chair of the house working with foreigners to subvert your political autonomy.

-Putting people in prison who are known to be innocent.

These are what I consider to be extremely serious crimes. Probably a few more I can add on there. Most of these as you can see mostly target people with power, the rest are just for cruelty and extreme selfishness at the expense of others which causes mass corruption.