2017

>2017
>capital punishment still exists
why?

Other urls found in this thread:

google.ca/search?q=cost to execute a prisoner&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=7WKzWNu-JpDAjwOe-Y2YCw
youtube.com/watch?v=cjgsrGhqb4w
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

why not?

Bodybags for fags

Why not? Killing those who oppose you is the best method of stopping them from opposing you.

In America it's actually cheaper to imprison someone for life than it is to execute them.

>inb4 lelel a bullet only costs 5 cents
that's not how it works here, eurocucks. we have rights

Not in civilized world

>The right to sit out a life sentence and get 1 million appeals before using an overly expensive chemical cocktail that only gives the illusion of a painless death to everyone other than the man being executed.

>Anti-death penalty fags make thousands of laws making death row take forever and expensive
>lol its 2 expensive to execute sum1 we shuld just get rid of it xD

capital punishment is extremely eugenic, you can easily kill all the niggers and spics as soon as they inevitably commit a violent crime.

This method of eugenics actually works unlike Sweden's version.

Feels. Don't tell me it's not feels either, because the death penalty has been altered so much (in the name of feels) that it costs more to execute some one than it does to keep them in prison. Feels everywhere.

Why did it exist in the first place and have things changed enough to nullify those reasons

rights are a meme

Because there are still niggers and kikes out there.

so why SHOULD we have the death penalty instead of just removing bad people from society?

>it costs more to execute some one than it does to keep them in prison.

>instead of just removing bad people from society?
There is no 'instead'. That's exactly what the death penalty does.

do Brazilians not have google or something

google.ca/search?q=cost to execute a prisoner&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=7WKzWNu-JpDAjwOe-Y2YCw

you're not going to make an argument, are you

That claim is so dumb that i don't even have to google it, really. Only the most brainwashed liberals would actually believe such nonsense.

Inb4 provides as source some study made by kikes with liberal arts degrees.

You're the one with no argument. I'm stating that the death penalty removes undesirables from society in a permanent fashion while you are simply stating 'why?'.

there are never any absolutes, do you feel that 1 innocent person being executed is excusable if 999 guilty people are also killed? how many guilty lives in an innocent man worth to you, and if you cant answer that, answer how a much value a guilty persons life loses when they commit a crime worthy of death

i agree with you i think there should be a death penalty but for the sake of having an argument i may as well throw one in the ring

Decent autism bait hue

can't let the goyim think the state isn't more powerful than them

why does capital punishment still exists in 2017
Because the future is now!

Mate if you are going to lock them up either way then does it really matter whether they still have organic function or not?
Are you going to let anyone who commits a crime walk the streets simply because they might be the 1 in 1000 falsely accused? Of course not.
Sure sometimes they get released due to new evidence but when it comes down to it the endless appeals and jail times just clog the system up and drive costs through the roof leading to the situation where we don't have enough manpower or financial ability to prosecute those who need to be dealt with.

Perhaps in a 'perfect' world where guilt can be absolutely proved with no uncertainty then your thought experiment might have value. As it stands we have to get a large amount of people through the court systems for one reason or another and shooting the guys who are going to cost the most is the first step to the efficiency that Western governments fatally lack.

Anons list of things that should get you hung:
>murder
>rape
>torture
>child abuse
>animal abuse

Why animal abuse? what's even considered animal abuse?

Should have said animal cruelty or animal torture

Did you know in China they believe that dog meat tastes better if its been tortured and crucified before being slaughtered? This is soulless behaviour against gods creatures

Chinks are sub human and anyone who behaves like this doesnt deserve to live

It's a well known fact that carnivores taste better when they are saturated in the chemicals produced in extreme circumstances.
It's got a lot to do with the fact that carnivores taste terrible so adding some pain and fear as condiments is practically required if you absolutely want to eat that kind of meat.

Carnivores take significantly more resources to raise and also taste like shit so there's literally no reason to eat them

Fuck chinks

what's ashley up to these days?

It's forbidden in EU countries.
I'm against it on principle: that the legal system makes mistakes and has sent innocent people to death.
That no one has the right to take a human life unless in self defence.
That it is 'a cruel and unusual punishment' according the the US constitution.

>banned under the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution and originally under the English Bill of Rights.
US law is based upon English common law. The Bill of Rights, Habeas corpus, trial by jury, are based on English common law.

Having said that, if anyone wants to hurt my family or friends, I want to kill them. I got burgled a few years ago and I caught the guy in my kitchen. I went postal on the cunt. My mrs. and I came back from the pub and there was a fucking bloke in our kitchen. A fucking pikey.
I went into rage mode and grabbed him, lifted him off the floor and got a kitchen knife out. I wanted to cut off his fingers and was ready to do it. My wife intervened and told me to let the cunt go. I threw him out of our house.

when someone murders someone you love, you will understand

Because people need to be killed sometimes.

Fuck off, that's arbitrary as all hell.

No reason it should cost as much as it does, and it's bullshit anyways. Hurr lock them away it tortures them all their life. No fuck you, sometimes people need to be killed.

>Because people need to be killed sometimes.
why

Due to their own actions.

She was so cute, why did she have to go? :(

Let's use the bataclan killers for example. Killed 100+ people in a well planned attack, admit it, but show no remorse.

Why should he be kept alive at the expense of the country whom he violated?

because all life is sacred

I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty and pro-assisted suicide.

Is this the alien pic that caused so much of a commotion?

If all life is sacred, and he took 100 lives, what should be his punishment?

He violated the sacred 100 times over

In china it's cheaper to execute them. There are some things we can learn from the Chinese.

>life
>sacred
>lives are ended constantly all over the world 24/7

Lel

A "life sentence" is just a sentence to death by time. If wrongfully convicted the odds of overturning it are slim, and I would rather spend 15 years in prison before being executed humanely than live inhumanely for the rest of my life or risk dying violently in prison.

his punishment should be life imprisonment, putting him to death would be hypocritical

i agree. either shoot them or put them in a labor camp

its better than keeping people locked up forever

Because OP makes shit threads

I am following his argument of all life being sacred

But what use is there in keeping someone so atrocious alive? Someone with such disregard for the principals of our society, who has sworn he will do it again should he be released

what do yu mean with "what use"? it's the right thing to do m8

Brits abolished it. We kept it. Britbongs are cucks

Reminder for anti-death penaltyfags: You have no consistent argument to stand on

>The state shouldn't have the power to take someones life!
Oh, but they can lock you up for the rest of what remains of it in terrible American prisons where you life experience will be limited to extreme boredom and violence/threats to your life from other inmates? Not an argument.
>But what if we kill an innocent person!
The exoneration rate for death row is about 2%. The exoneration rate for life imprisonment is about .02% This is thanks to government mandated appeals and extra attention from NGOs like the innocence project. If you are convinced of a crime you didn't commit, it is IN YOUR BEST INTEREST to be given the death penalty. Not an argument!
>B-but it's so expensive!
That is mostly due to the aforementioned appeals. Is it ok for innocent people to remain in prison as long as they let them die in prison instead of just killing them? You could offer the same appeals to lifers, but that would make them just as expensive as the death penalty, if not moreso. Btw there are far more lifers than death row inmates. In other words, NOT AN ARGUMENT

The ONLY way you can be logically and morally consistent and against the death penalty, is if you are also against life in prison or support the extension of expensive extra legal appeals and attention death row inmates get to inmates who are sentenced to life in prison.

QED

youtube.com/watch?v=cjgsrGhqb4w

Well every action has a purpose or a use

I guess the purpose for you is the moral victory

I see no moral problem in ending such a guilty party though

Bullshit

ok stalin

The death penalty has been consistently proven to not act as a deterrent against future crime. The government has also executed innocent people before.

ok out of touch hippy

Locking them into a small room for the rest of their life and feeding them shit food paid by law-abiding citizens makes one civilized?

what happened to this girl?

To be quite honest, I consider the death penalty more humane. Don't stick me in a fucking cage full of psychopaths for the rest of my god damn life. Just put me up against a wall, give me a cigarette and let me go to my God like a man. The only thing you're sparing by failing to kill these people is your own weak sense of self righteousness.

Some people are too far gone to be saved, except through death

Your position is correct and consistent within the framework of governance as it is understood today.

However, since we're talking moral principles, let's say -- how should criminals be dealt with, for real?

There is an argument that keeping undesirables fed and medically cared for indefinitely is economically net-negative for a society, and more of a reward for certain castes than a punishment. Why should my value be used to house and provide for the worst felons and violent criminals? Is there a better way that doesn't involve coercing me, who didn't violate anyones rights?

Yes. In a free society, the ultimate punishment is exile and ostracism. As a habitual violent criminal, your exile never expires and no DROs are willing to engage with you. You cannot buy and sell, you cannot be homeless on private property, you cannot obtain medical care or incur any debts because you can't pay it back, you can't obtain residency because any property manager who accepts you is probably violating their insurance & DRO. The sentence is effectively death, living innawoods, in exile.

Of course, certain industries will cater to the exiled population, living on the peripheries of a modern free society. Labor is cheap when you don't have anywhere to go. As a murderer, a child molester, a habitual violent criminal you can exist in indentured servitude for firms without strict DROs or die. The deterrent against being a violent criminal in a free society is simple: you don't get to play anymore. No smartphone, no Walmart, no credit card. You can be a janitor at a factory where they pay you in cornbread and a place to sleep. They might even let you slide and buy some stuff at the company store.

What is a good deterrent?

Death penalty has a pretty good rate of stopping repeat offenders

it's stupid to waste tax money on criminal scums that would stay in prison for the rest of their year anyway.

*their life

I agree that exile would theoretically be a good alternative, the only problem is for exile to actually work they need to ACTUALLY be exiled, as in total physical removal. Having an underclass that still exists physically among the general population is asking for trouble. The problem then is that there's no place to exile them to. All the frontiers are gone.

Because some people just need to fucking die

Only because we blow millions on retarded execution methods like lethal injection rather than just dragging the fucker into the prison yard and shooting him and appeals.