Im opposed to the death penalty (in domestic peacetime)

Im opposed to the death penalty (in domestic peacetime)
Basically, I dont have complete faith in the government to rightfully judge everyone, and so I feel that there is a constant chance that someone will be judged wrongly. And when theyre in prison, theres always the chance of the judgement getting overturned (and you getting a fucking super-fat settlement), but with execution... youre shit outta luck
And if someone can do some form of labour inside prison (not at all uncommon), theyre not a burden on society. They can contribute more than they cost to keep alive.

So.. yeah, I dont think we should have a death penalty. Do you?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Junko_Furuta
twitter.com/AnonBabble

only by jury trials

I used to be for it. I started thinking about it more and I don't like the idea of murder being capitalized by the state in any way. It's not that I don't think people can deserve to die, just that the state can't be given the power to make that decision.

In the end the south was right and Lynch mobs are the real way to do this kinda shit.

‘We’.... ? If you have the balls to kill in the USA and don’t go out with a bang via killing during arrest, then you deserve death.

>I don't like the idea of murder being capitalized by the state in any way. It's not that I don't think people can deserve to die, just that the state can't be given the power to make that decision.
yea thats pretty much my reason. of course some fuckheads are proper evil and undoubtedly guilty, but as a principle, i feel that the moment we start allowing it, thats one step more power for the government than id prefer

jury trials SHOULD be allowed to execute someone? thats... dude, i feel like jury trials are kinda fucked desu

China kills a lot of Chinese with the death penalty

This is a totally valid position. One execution of a wrongly convicted person demolishes the validity of capital punishment.

>Inb4 pol tards fail to counter this argument

Yeah. America's conservative party pushes it really hard even though they also push the 'muh small govt' meme.

Only if sufficient evidence is available (which is hard to define, I admit).

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Junko_Furuta

In your eyes, what is a suitable punishment for this crime?

Death. Horrible inhuman death. The point stands however that I still don't think that the decision to go that far is a power that the state should hold.

The state carries out the will of the people. Juries and judges decide death based on statute. If the people of a state don’t want death it is readily removable via the ballot.

Are you opposed to death qualified juries?

>Basically, I dont have complete faith in the government to rightfully judge everyone, and so I feel that there is a constant chance that someone will be judged wrongly

So imprisoning someone wrongly isn't actually wrong?

okay, so here is where this turns into a bigger situation, but please note this point quite acutely:

The law is bigger than any individual.

What i mean by this is, the law is created from generations upon generations of people who have all fine-tuned it to something far closer to perfection than any specific group of people can match. It is greater than any one person can wholeheartedly comprehend, just like societal norms, and a capitalist economy. No one can control a whole economy (i.e. communism sucks etc), and no one can "comprehend" the whole law. What we have a responsibility to do is, to uphold it. To protect the free market (to continue with that parallel), and to maintain the integrity of the law.

Obviously, I am very tempted to beat the shit outta the person who did that (in your link), and to torture and mutitale and kill that person, but in my opinion, the law should be above such instincts. I am of course having a hard time rationalizing my position here, against something so horrible, but yes, me personally, I would do monstrous things to the accused, but I wouldnt want the legal system to do this. I think theres a difference between justice & punishment, I just cant quite phrase it.

Your premise is predicated on the justice system fucking up and convicting the wrong people, which happens less than 1% of the time (in extreme crimes for which the death penalty can be received, given how many resources are dedicated to solving them).

Tell me -- if all the dindus in pic related admitted guilt or were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, would you want your tax dollars to feed and take care of them for decades? You think the fact they might do some disposable labour makes their lives worth preserving? Typical cuck mentality.

All social constructs inevitably have flaws. With the criminal justice system that fact is amplified 1000 fold due to the sacerdotal structure and the obvious socioeconomic inequities.

of course its wrong?
but then, there at least a chance of righting that wrong. not much hope of that when youre dead

Average time from death sentence to actually carrying it out is 12-18 years. Enough time ?

How do you give back 5 years to someone who spent 5 years in prison despite being innocent?

Kelsie :((((((((

as i said: by giving them a massive settlement

(NO of course thats not sufficient, but its better than just... being dead)

I know this seems like kind of a childish answer, but why didn't past generations get rid of the death penalty?

If people were getting wrongly convicted and executed willy nilly, then of course it would be outlawed right away. However, the death penalty isn't given lightly.

This is also a good point, enough time is given for new evidence to come to light.

Keep them in prison for life and have them raped over over, do drugs, fight, cry, hate, demoralize them into a shell, into a beast, and it only costs you like 40K a year in taxes. Is that a good alternative?

Systems all are flawed. I advocate for minimising any state funded institutions including their unquestioned authority. Bail is one of the greatest abuses currently in the cj system. Rot in jail for minor offences due to inability to post nominal bail. Corruption within a system that uses population or arrests to justify their budgets.

Yes

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

So, you can't. What's the difference, then?

More importantly, why are we killing or imprisoning people who are innocent in the first place?

Yeah. There are some things that no amount of people in agreement should be able to decide. A republic should be a rule by the citizens but even their powers should be checked by individual's rights.

Ahhh the religious nut rears his ignorant head.

>No one can control a whole economy (i.e. communism sucks etc), and no one can "comprehend" the whole law.

Why does a judge need to comprehend the whole law to punish someone for a brutal crime? There are thousands of judges and special court systems for various types of cases, you're ignoring the subjectivity of countless prosecutors/justices/other officials along the way and acting like the whole justice system is a unitary body.

What is the appropriate punishment for murder then?

Don't post that CIA Pastor who marries white women to niggers here you fucking Christian Communist faggot!

....i dont understand how youre not getting this
the difference is, in one scenario, you spend 5 years in prison, and then get released, but you are now rich

in the other scenario, you get executed without having done anything bad

one is way worse than the other? i dont know how to phrase some "philosophical" difference, just... OBVIOUSLY its worse to get killed for no reason?

and why are we imprisoning innocent people? because the law is imperfect (reflective of its creators), but its greater than any individual, and so therefore theres no way to overturn and "perfect" it. it will just have to keep organically grow and evolve over time, in tune to changing times. it will never be perfect, but it will remain as close to perfection as possible, granted that it remains upheld in a free, capitalist society

as i said in OP: they can labour in prison

why didnt past generations get rid of the death penalty? well, a lot of european countries did? including norway, of course. so why DID we get rid of it?

well, so to my knowledge, there is no research that supports the idea that execution deters crime. and so the only justification for execution that remains is (1) we hate that person and want him to die, and (2) money

and as for (1), i dont think that mentality is philosophically opposed to what the law should be

and (2), labour in prison = doesnt cost money. i mean, just look at your own country (USA): prisons are a damn money-machine

Appropriate should vary for all circumstances and situations. Our system doesn’t have the intellectual or moral strength to differentiate various examples at this time. Quite possibly never will.

Depends. And it's not that the appropriate punishment for something is definitely not murder. Some people have every right to be murdered, tortured even. It's just that the maximum amount if punishment the state is allowed to inflict should be capped below murder. Life incarceration being the max.

of course, again, the judge is also fallible, but i believe a crucially important aspect of their job is to ignore their personal, and to adhere to the law as objectively as possible.

of course they are imperfect, and unable to do so 100% expertly, but i believe a core aspect of their job is to minimize this

You yourself said that monetary compensation is not equivalent to a person losing years of one's life. How is "not compensation" better than "not compensation"?

The law doesn't imprison people. The law is just a set of rules.

What should be done to the recent cops in Chicago caught planting evidence and destroying lives? One did some federal time. To me that sort of abuse calls for death. Trust betrayed. Countless lives and families destroyed. Happens far to often as well.

no, its "SOME compensation" versus "NO compensation + youre dead"

I didn't say "no". I said "not enough".

I’m
I
I
I
it makes little difference to the world what you want, get your head out your anus

if someone steals $10.000 from you, would you rather get half of it back or get NOTHING back?

..how are you not getting this

Niggers get the death penalty for any offense.
Spics get deported for any offense.
Whites get punished appropriate to the crime, with no death penalty.
Kill all jews and sand niggers.

Leave it to the drunk Brit to shit on a decent thread.

The real loser here is the taxpayers. Mainly you should just minimize the societal damage caused then look into large scale reform of the police. When I say minimize societal damage it is basically remove the problem people from the force via an audit and help those victimized. Minimal punishment of the law enforcement because it really shifts the blame off the more structural problems that lead to it.

It's not enough either way. I am still being wronged. Why am I being wronged in the first place?

The only time killing is justified is when there is an active threat. If someone is subdued, there is no reason to execute them. Just let them rot is prison for the rest of their live.

Because the law is imperfect. Capitalism is imperfect (im also 100% gadsden btw). but theres no better option

...unless you were about to propose something better? not anarchy, i hope

The law doesn't imprison/steal from/kill people.

At this point it's a game of percentages. You run the risk of that happening then being compensated with the understanding that if it doesn't happen you live with the chance that it could so that people it should happen to go away.

yea thats why i specified "domestic peacetime"

if fucking... i dno, russia invades norway, for example, and we capture some of them, but theres an active war going on.. obviously we should just execute them, instead of having to adhere to some faggy UN-protocol or whatever

um ok thanks england

Why wronged ? You realise you live among beasts who socially constructed the system. Nietzsche advocates go to the mountains or to make your own laws and perhaps prevail. At least you live your own Will to Power rather than as a mindless sheep.

dude, what are you on about? ive yet to get ANY idea what you are actually trying to say

Why is it OK for [enter entity] to determine who gets to be imprisoned but not who gets to be killed?

Why is an individual allowed to take a life based off emotion or malicious intent, but a group of individuals not able to based off evidence of a crime?

it is right for the state to determine who gets imprisoned because the state MUST have a monopoly on legal violence. that is the very DEFINITION of "state"

but of course, there must be restraints on the states ability to exercise legal violence. and within the limits of those restraints, in my opinion, is the right to execute

if youre a legit gadsden, this shit should make total sense to you. theres nothing confusing about it

It is ‘ok’ .... that is the current system which is flawed and kills with few checks and balances. ESP true if you are in prison and fight the system. The guards will restrain you and quite possibly extinguish you. Happens daily.

Images like this just bend my barb a little too much and I raep.

Ignoring everything else, why is the government deciding who can be imprisoned OK but the government deciding who can be killed isn't?

dude, to "reply" to someone directly (like im doing to you now), click on the series of numbers at the top of their post

That's the point. No one should be allowed to. They aren't allowed to kill someone but it happens. The state shouldn't be allowed to either so the state must hold itself accountable.

Keep in mind when you imprison dangerous people, they come together. Many gangs form in prison.

Prisons do not rehabilitate and once you release someone they will probably come out worse, and life imprisonment is much more costly than a lethal injection.

for the reasons i specified in OP

but no, lets NOT ignore "everything else". please comment on "everything else", because if you disagree with that, you are not gadsdsen

what about "everything else" i wrote?

The point being that when you let very violent people out they are too old to commit crime.

Your reasoning in the OP was that the government can't be trusted. How can the government not be trusted to decide who can be killed but can be trusted to decide who can be imprisoned?

As for "everything else", what do you mean by "legal violence"?

The USA places the execution sentence in the hands of a jury and at times a judge after conviction. Some states have overturned their statutes permitting execution. Other states have made the process faster. See Texas and Virginia. And my phone doesn’t allows permit direct replies.

Because when you are alive you can still contribute ideas to a society even if it's from inside a jail. When you are dead you can't. Death is the ultimate silencing if ideas that the government shouldn't have access to.

>Keep in mind when you imprison dangerous people, they come together. Many gangs form in prison.
i feel like thats not NECESSARILY an aspect of prison
which is not me saying i deny that happens. ive seen louis theroux-documentaries and all that. of course it does. but im not sure i necessarily feel that thats a fundamentally inevitable aspect of prison? but i could be wrong here

anyway, i dont think that rehabilitation is the primary function of prison. it should be "punishment" and protecting society from those individuals. but, as i say in OP: people spending time in prison arent necessarily a burden on society. often, prisons make fucktons of money from its inmates through one or another form of labour. so if inmates ARENT a burden on anyone, wouldnt you prefer the possibility that if someone is wrongfully accused, atleast theyll be alive in case new evidence comes to light?

Well it's levels of trust right. I might trust you to go online and shit post but not take care if my kids. There is just a certain level of trust you can have for something or someone else.

not that the government "cant be trusted", but that i dont have complete faith in its judgement. basically, the government is necessary and of course we have to trust it, but part of the reason why we are gadsden is because we recognize the imperfections inherent in government activity

and by "legal violence" i mean "the legal right to excert violence". that is the very definition (quite literally) of what a government is

I personally believe violence should be directed at the current justice system in the USA. Corrupt and self perpetuating. I own firearms solely for this purpose. I’m not a liberal or conservative... I’d rather live dangerously than be told how to live.

Prison isn't for rehabilitation. Never was. It's punishment. Juvinile prison is for rehabilitation, not adult prison.

well presumably you arent an advocate of executing children (unless theyre black)

Define anarchy

Even juvi is punishment. The strong pray on the weak more so than prison.

I don't advocate for any death penalty (unless they are black) but even that is just a fine on the white owners.

Acknowledging it's importance and even necessity doesn't mean I have to trust it. Why do you trust the government to decide who can be imprisoned but not who can be killed?

By "exert violence" do you mean to initiate it? Everyone has the right to exert violence in defense.

Sorry, its*

See Chomsky’s definition. No rulers... not excluding no rules. True anarchy believes ‘hyperborian’ evolution where humanity can solve problems without the state defining how.

That might be the reality but it isn't the defined purpose.

What else happens when you group a bunch of unstable people in a confined space with nothing to do but to talk to other nuts?

Inmates are always a burden on someone. Just because they make money doesn't mean they don't strain communities. Prison guards are killed, escapes are attempted, and prison riots happen. (much more than wrongful conviction)

I'd rather someone be shot with a firing squad in the courtroom if the death penalty was assigned. What I don't want is for someone to be wrongfully convincted. Undeniable evidence should be the only criteria for the death penalty, such as a video recording.

This brought to mind El Chapo Guzman. He should be executed on sight for all the deaths, direct and indirect, he has cause. There is no doubt he has done it, and the crimes are abhorrent.

The definded purpose of prison is also rehabilitation.... I think we have to stop kidding ourselves about these politically correct terms.

>and so I feel that there is a constant chance that someone will be judged wrongly.

This can be solved by creating an independent judging court that only gives out death sentences.

An example on how this could work would be like this:
>Man commits horrible gruesome crime
>He is given a regular trial, where he is sentenced to a certain prison time
>However in this particular case, the evidence is so clear and the crime is so horrible that the judge also sentences him to be investigated and judged by a court that only gives out death sentences.
>The case is then investigated by this body, where they are only interested in figuring out that this particular man is 100% guilty.
>If the special death sentence court finds the man to be absolutely guilty with no reasonable doubt, he will be sentenced to death
>If the special death sentence court finds any flaw, he will not be sentenced to death and given the original sentence he was given in the regular trial.
>The special court does not sentence people to death, they only investigate and review evidence, and give it a stamp of approval.

There are tons of cases where there is no reasonable doubt about guilt. Breivik is one case, there is absolutely no doubt that he committed the crimes that he did, he himself admits it, he was literally the only guy with a gun on an island, and there are tons of witnesses who he shot at. He also had the propaganda video, and the bomb making equipment in his barn. In this case, the special death sentencing court would give stamp his degree of guilt as death sentence worthy.

That definition is just 'no government because we assume communities will make make shift governments that will work out well enough.'

dude, i suggest you read some core libertarian literature. F.A Hayek, for example, to better understand your own principles.

The government has a monopoly on the legal right to excert violence. That is the definition of what a government is. What else would be the core aspect that separates government from other actors? Yes, you can do self-defence, but only police (i.e. the government) can beat, restrain, imprison, etc, with impunity. And thats how it MUST be. if anyone could beat up anyone, or restrain or imprison anyone, thatd be fucked. only the government can do so, in order to ensure stability. in order for the government to serve its purpose, which is to (1) protect your life (2) protect your liberty (3) protect your stuff

without a government to do so, you have anarchy (somalia). but with a government that has an UNLIMITED capacity for doing so, you basically have north korea.

north korea & somalia sucks. the US doesnt, because there is LIMITED government, but still SOME government

dude.... just.... read Thomas Paine, or F.A. Hayek, or John Stuart Mill or just whoever

I like the death penalty because it gives prosecutors and negotiators something to bargain with.
>"Let the hostages go and we will take the death penalty off the table"

But it should ONLY be applied with a SLAM DUNK case. AFTER a person is convicted where the jury RECOMMENDS the death penalty, a separate panel decides if a "super-preponderance of proof" is enough to warrant execution. You would need like three separate absolute pieces of evidence like DNA, video, and an eye witness. No jailhouse snitches or confessions from retards / teens, or anything even slightly exculpatory. Unfortunately most courts in America are too retarded to do this.

I spent time in county. The burden was guards who abused power daily. Inmates doing time for shoplifting due to inability to post 250 bail is injustice and corruption.

No. Adult prison in the US system was never tasked with the purpose if rehabilitating criminals. Only punishment.

Wait till you live with niggers a bit longer.
Does jailing a beast make it behave?
Niggers can't be rehabilitated.
They are a waste of money and resources.
Best thing is to kill them all now to save the planet.
And the jews and mudslimes.
It's the only way.

not trying to be a dick, it just doesnt seem like you fully comprehend the core principles of classical liberalism

I think there should be more death sentencing

death for the family that defends a murderer

death for any legal aid of an obviously guilty murderer

death for people in an organisation that routinely funds murderers (muslim orgs that fund isis)

death for anyone that complains about any of the above (helping the helpers of murderers)

You have a limited propaganda driven belief of anarchy. Read Chomsky on the subject.

Death penalties keep the genepool clean, but there needs to be a high standard of proof for it to work. This jury duty is bullshit, though it does prevent the state from determining guilt. The problem is most people are dumb.

do NOT let pic non-related's like OPs let you fap or break a potential no-fap

Maybe you're too stupid to reach logical conclusions on your own, but I am not. You still have not addressed what I have asked you.

And no, the government shouldn't be allowed to do those things with impunity, or at least without being equivalently punished for doing those things to innocent people.

>im an edgy 14 year old who just found Sup Forums: the post

yeah i dont deny any of this, but you also cant deny that its pretty much inevitable? (unless you plan to have death penalty be the ONLY penalty, i guess)

but, i mean, the ones who would otherwise have gotten execution, presumably theyre lifers anyway? so who gives a shit if they become gang members? theyre never getting out anyway

Yeah, death is great!

Perhaps? All systems are inherently flawed. Our federal death sentences operate like this. See okc bomber. Politics in USA are nfluences all this... conservatives verses liberals.

Death penalty imo should only be used when the defendant admits guilt. If the defendant refuses to admit guilt, there's always a chance that he really did dindunuffin, and thus we shouldn't kill him. But if even the defendant himself admits guilt, he should get the chair. It also eliminates the chance of being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.

what did you ask me exactly?
why do i trust the government to decide who gets imprisoned and not?

because governments in the west are elected under a free, democratic process? you seem to have a fundamental lack of knowledge about the core principles of western society, and confused by things that should be very obvious to any capitalist