Sup Forums's thoughts on the death penalty?

Sup Forums's thoughts on the death penalty?

Other urls found in this thread:

thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/adultery-stoning.aspx
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

a waste of money

How so?

only for the worst

mass murderers
pedophiles
serial rapists

Require a higher standard of evidence so no fucking endless appeals charade.

Sentence them, one or two appeals, take them out back.

It's a good deterrent

No your retarded system is a waste of money.

If you don't support killing scum you are literally a woman and should check right now to see if you actually have balls.

Fucking revolting in the form it is usually executed (no pun intended). The death penalty SHOULD be carried out by citizens defending their lives, property or the those of other people, not by the state.

Its a good thing to use on leftist, commies, sjw, fembois, cucks and numales.

in other words GET IN THE NOOSE OP

The state should not be in the business of killing citizens. The protections we put on the death penalty to make ourselves imagine that it is somehow not the same as other killing make the entire process enormously costly. The death penalty is not a strong deterrent.

Strongly opposed to the death penalty. If you want to see dead criminals, make concealed carry safer and easier.

inhumane. We need to be more tolerant of criminals because they are good people who just momentarily showed a sign of weakness for a few seconds

Why? The state should help protect its citizens from rouge elements within its own society.

>Require a higher standard of evidence

What are you envisioning? Criminal convictions already require a unanimous verdict with the standard being "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" and most states require a death sentence to also be a unanimous decision.

waste of money in its current form because of the all the appeals; should just be used in cases where guilt is absolutely certain (like marathon bomber) and then it should just be firing squad or rope

The state is hilariously incompetent at justice so giving it the power to carry out an irreversible sentence seems like a bad idea.

Thats what imprisonment is for.

I have no problem with killing as a concept. I support citizens killing in self defense, I'm not shy about war, I believe in the Castle Doctrine and think a duty to retreat is inimical to a free society, but the state should not be in the position of killing citizens. It gives the state too much power which is too easily abused.

>If you don't support killing scum you are literally a woman and should check right now to see if you actually have balls.

Ah the greatest argument in favor of the death penalty!

So my take money should pay for these idiots to be locked up? Fucking Lolbertarian logic I swear the state isn't some abstract thing, it's made up of citizens too every soldier or policeman is a citizen.

I could put forth an actual argument, but if you as a man don't want to remove people who are dangers to you and your own then congratulations you're a pussy mate.

>It gives the state too much power which is too easily abused.
This.

What's that, you're making loud noises about something that you don't like, and someone on the receiving end has deep ties with the state? No problem! They'll just trump up some charges on you, get a kangaroo court conviction, and shove a needle in your arm. You become an afterthought.

Plus there is one other consideration: you can't reverse a death penalty. If you were framed for murder, how can you plead your innocence when you're in a pine box?

The justice system was supposed to work both ways - for the innocent and for the guilty. Hence, "justice is blind", etc.

Cool so child rapists and pedos should be allowed to live and kept alive through my tax money brilliant idea :).

The state already takes your money to lock up lesser offenders. If you want to save money on prisons, reduce the number of consensual crimes or adequately fund rehabilitation programs so ex cons become tax base rather than welfare sinks.

As for the state being made up of citizens, isn't that kind of an odd argument coming from someone living a place where he isn't allowed to carry a weapon and is subject to speech codes? I'm not trying to be a dick, but you're arguing that more state power isn't a big deal because the state is just the people while living in a country where basic human rights like speech and self defense have been limited. I don't see how that limitation being democratic in nature is at all comforting.

>but if you as a man don't want to remove people who are dangers to you and your own then congratulations you're a pussy mate.
Removing people? that is what we have prisons for as that is the entire purpose of a prison. To remove criminals from society for X time being.

But you aren't removing them they still exist and are still using up resources.

Sure, because there are some interests greater than revenge. That said, if you have a weak state and widespread knowledge about jury nullification, citizens actually involved in the event (like, say, the parent of a raped child) can seek their own individual revenge without fear of an overactive state making an example of them.

You're whining about money, we're talking about sovereignty.

Fallacious argument. Not to mention, each prison system is different. I don't know exactly what it is like in Ol' Blighty (looking at your flag) but the American experience is...less than optimal survival conditions for known pedophiles, who are considered the lowest of the low. They usually get shanked in a year or two.

If anything, solitary confinement with three meals, two books a week (content monitored), and art supplies should be the extent of what is given. Let them paint the fucking walls for all I care, they aren't leaving their cell - ever. It would be a living tomb, one to consider in remorse for the rest of their isolate, miserable lives.

The "myth" of high prison costs comes not from the people isolated this way, it comes from all of the other bullshit - free TV, extra guards needed for when cell blocks are opened, etc. If you make the cells self-standing (shower included) then they never have to leave - fewer guards, fewer fights, fewer of anything and everything.

Repeat offenders for crimes like theft and drugs should be executed.

The state gained more power in Britain because the citizens allowed it to, pretty much any state rules by consent of its citizens seeing as you need the military and police to hang onto power.

Wait....so you're not cool with the big bad state doing it, but you're ok with individual revenge?

>Repeat offenders for crimes like theft and drugs should be executed.
You should visit the middle east sometime. You might enjoy the public beheadings (still going on in Saudia Arabia), or loosing a hand for theft.

You're advocating barbarism.

I can only assume that you were forced to suck a penis as a child.

Age of consent laws are bullshit. Can you name any other species of animal that has them?

Both edgy and submissive. Interesting.

Matthew 7:15-20

If even a Penny of my tax money goes to funding some pedos meal that is too much, execute them and be done with it. Prison should be for people who have the possibility of being reformed.

>But you aren't removing them they still exist and are still using up resources.
You know how much resources it takes to kill someone on death row in the modern era?

It takes decades to kill someone after all the appeals, the waiting, the pleas and more and it even cost more.


Also as another has pointed out your government is fucked up so why give them the right to kill you?

And finally you are not arguing from logic you sound like a cunt.

Did I stutter? From my first post in this thread I have said that I am comfortable with individual violence but not state violence. You want consent of the citizenry? Thats what it looks like, not the slow slide of low-information voters bargaining away someone else's rights for a slogan.

so paying some dude lifelong asylum inside a prison is cheaper than a bullet to the head?

This.

Besides life sentences are more punishing than death sentences.

To see your entire life go to waste because of a single action is pretty devastating.

A FUCKING LEAF!!

When the bullet is fired by a state actor in modern, western society with significant civil rights protections? Yes, absolutely.

Barbarism by whose measure yours? If you commit crimes against your follow man repeatedly why should you not be removed?

>so paying some dude lifelong asylum inside a prison is cheaper than a bullet to the head?
Which has more value - the bullet, or a life? See

Triggered pedo detected.

Animals also eat their own shit.

It should be enforced. it will be enforced.

How is a drug crime a crime against your fellow man? This isn't even a "lolweed" argument. You're becoming angry at people for having consistent beliefs while at the same time arguing without an internally consistent system of your own beliefs beyond "my money shouldn't pay for people I don't like so someone else should kill them for me."

Who gives a fuck about that poetic justice shit.

It costs taxpayer money for those fuckers to eat, shit, and sleep.

Just give them the injection and there.

I don't think it's justifiable to have the government directly take the lives of its citizens

Whereas you would only eat the shit served to you.

There is also the principle of the matter I don't want my money going to keeping these people alive. My government would never want the death penalty back anyway so how shit they are currently is irrelevant as they'd never bring it back. In clear cut cases there should be no need for dozens of appeals.

They just need to make it cheap. A life is worthless, especially in USA where over 20 people are being murdered every single day.

Someone who is proven 100% guilty of great crimes should simply be shot at a wall.

Nah edgy would be torturing them or some shit. Not submissive simply a statement of fact governments aren't gods they need military, police and the general populace's if not backing than at least apathy.

So you're comfortable with an off duty policeman seeking individual retribution against a criminal who has wronged him...but not if he's in uniform am I getting this right?

Doesn't affect me personally as long as it's not me or an immediate family member.

I guess my political answer is states' right.

My concern also is an innocent might get executed so as long as 100% sure I'm okay like dozen people witness with scientific evidence backing it up

bring back the noose

Oh ffs in modern western European states the death penalty would never come back unless something drastically changes.

The process needs to be expedited. However, it should only be used in cases where the defendant admits guilt or there is clear as day evidence that they did the crime.

1. We already have death penalties in several states and governments.
2. The death penalty has not shown itself to be an effective deterrent - people still arrive on death row, waiting to get jacked up.
3. If the death penalty was effective, we would see dramatic, obvious reductions in crime.
4. The death penalty is a decision that cannot be reversed. You can release a man later found innocent, but you can never bring him back to life.
5. Governments progressively abuse their power over time. This has been demonstrated throughout millennia of history.
6. Governments will eventually use the death penalty not for true criminals, but for "enemies of the state". This too has been demonstrated repeatedly.

Here's one to think about: by your standards, you rate roughly on par with being a "moderate" Muslim. Which means if your wife cheats on you, she will be dragged out in public, and repeatedly stoned until dead. Wouldn't a far better penalty be to simply be shamed in public, so that no man would want to be near her ever?

thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/adultery-stoning.aspx

>pedophiles
You'd execute people for having a mental disability?

Well for one the populace has to pay for them when they inevitably become ill from their use, but also because them buying from drug dealers finances these criminals.
How are my beliefs not consistent?

As a lawyer I think there should be very limited death penalty.

Only when someone kills again after once being convicted for murder, or he is serial murderer AND there is 100% evidence

life for life doesn't work

The state shouldn't kill people.

How can murder be forbidden by law if the state executes civilians? Kinda hypocritical.

>You know how much resources it takes to kill someone on death row in the modern era?
It used to take less than two months between the crime being committed and, if found guilty by a jury of peers, the execution being performed in the UK before the abolition in the 60's.
The US has just had numerous governments against the death penalty who have done their best to make it appear unworkable in the hopes that people will give it up.

And you'd eat the shit served to you by Mr goldenburg just because he's the head of a private corporation and not the 'state'

Only uninformed and bluepilled children support it.

Using the US system which is the best and most efficient one in the world:
a) It's more expensive than life penalty;
b) 4% of these sentenced to death are innocent, possibly more who were never found innocent;
c) Average time in the death row is 15 years;
d) The amount of people sentenced to death is so little that the "it helps empty jails" argument does not work;

Let me crush the most basic counter-arguments before you people try to spread your common sense:

>WE CAN JUST MAKE IT CHEAPER
No you can't. It is currently expensive as fuck and 4% of the people are innocent. Make it cheaper and that number will get higher. 4 is already too much to be honest.

>WE CAN REDUCE THEIR TIME IN THE DEATH ROW
See above.

>WE CAN ONLY TRY DEATH PENALTY WHEN WE ARE 100% SURE THE PERSON IS A MURDERER
That's how it already works dumbnuts, death penalty is only used when there is no single shadow of doubt

>WTF WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES
Use google, it's not difficult

Hang em high

Hes got some good points. It would allow a citizen to better defend himself, as opposed to relying on the state. Plus, mob justice would be a much better deterrent than state execution.

What is your opinion about the guy who murdered the parents of hus ex classmate, and kept the guy there for a night?

>Using the US system which is the best and most efficient one in the world:
Except it demonstrably isn't. There was no problem with the death penalty in the UK before it's abolition.

Edgy

>The state shouldn't kill people
Right

>How can the state make murder forbidden and at the same time execute civilians that's hypocritical
Wrong

a) Murder is the act of killing illegally, if the state does it then it is not murder, but instead justified homicide;
b) The state can perform many activities that are forbidden to citizens, see the police;

1. Any state that has an automatic death penalty after repeat offences?
2. It also removes dangers so they can't pose a threat again, also I think it's just to execute murders, pedos etc.
3. It's not just about reducing it but making sure these scum can't be threats again
4. Unless you are 99% certain you shouldn't be executed unless you are a repeat offender of course besides no system is perfect.
5. HOLY SHIT, governments are made up of people? Wow who knew.
6.' Governments will eventually use imprisonment not for true criminals, but for "enemies of the state". This too has been demonstrated repeatedly.'

I drink water...Muslims also drink water...oh shit.

Look at all the redditors above
>muh it costs too much
>muh it's not humane
>muh feelings

REMINDER THAT Sup Forums IS STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF KILLING EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T WHITE

Not really, your country's death penalty was as good as Venezuela's current system. Everything is rushed, they give the defendant little opportunities to prove their innocence and a very, very short time window.

Right now in the US they have dozens of opportunities, more than 15 years, many, many trials and appeals, and even with all that 4% of these sentenced to death end up being innocent people.

Your country didn't have even 20% of the security that the US had within their system. I wonder how many of these who died were innocent.

Yep the shitty US system has soured the entire West on it.

>hurrr redditors xdd
I legitimately believe that anyone who randomly brings up reddit as an offense in a discussion is not really bright

I'm not against either really I suppose, but being against one and not the other makes no sense.

Only if it can be carried out effectively i.e. a bullet to the head. Lethal injection cuckoldry whereby it becomes more expensive to execute someone than keep them in prison for a lifetime, no.

The death penalty should be enforced for those in politics. Politicians should be held accountable and made example of for their transgressions against the laws they swear to uphold.

As for the general public i think it is debatable. Certain crimes definitely call for it in my opinion.

The US appeal system is a joke, our system was quite efficient also you must remember it was before the advent of forensics and cctv.

>prove their innocence
The defendant doesn't have to prove their innocence - the state has to prove guilt.
Are you saying it's bad that the state has it's hands tied behind it's back in such cases?

>There was no problem with the death penalty in the UK before it's abolition.

They kept executing people who were innocent, mentally ill, piss poor or who killed on the spur of the moment.

now I don't know which case are you talking about, but if people decided who will get death penalty, then Rezesova, the Péntek László gipsy, the murderers of Marian Cozma would all be dead.
Sure, there were some cases in our country where death penalty would be justified, but only like 5 since 1990

I have a legit question for you

Do you honestly believe that lethal injection is what makes death sentence more expensive than life prison?

Do you honestly, by your heart, believe that lethal injection legitimately costs over U$500.000?

What the fuck is wrong with the education of Sup Forums

Pakistan also is officailly Islamic...England is officially Anglican wow Muslims support a concept of a state Church roughly similar but totally the same thing.

Repeatedly proven to be:

1) Ineffective at deterring crimes
2) More expensive than life imprisonment without parole.
3) Mistakenly and irreversibly puts innocent people to death.

The only argument for people who support the death penalty is "muh feelings".

>They kept executing people who were innocent
except they didn't
>implying your punishment should be determined by how much money you have

>death penalty abolished in the 60's

Don't your police shoot innocent people quite a lot? When are you abolishing your police force?

You can do mental gymnastics as much as you want, the statistics is clear: Even by giving the defendant 15 years worth of opportunities to appeal, 4% of these who get death sentence still end up being innocent.

>we can remove appeals to make it cheaper
Then the 4% becomes a 10%, good job, the state now kills more innocent people every year than any criminal you could possibly kill.

>the defendant doesn't have to prove their innocence, the state has to prove guilt
Spouting nonsense won't really work with me, I'm a law student. Yes, the defendant has to prove their innocence if the state has evidence that proves their guilt beyond any reasonable doubt, which is not difficult to come by against an innocent person at all

it should be extremely painful

You also have to remember our police were caught out not reporting actual crime statistics, so it could be even worse.

If they have 15 years how the fuck do they find out those 4% are innocent? Also police shit innocent people too should we get rid of them?
Also Brazil is a crime ridden shit hole if you executed more of your scum perhaps you'd be better off.

It's stupid (revenge basically) The state is often wrong too.

>stating that the state must prove guilt is mental gymnastics

>I'm a law student
>in Brazil

What's wrong with revenge you cuck?

>Brazilian intellectual

>The state is often wrong too
It's lucky that the state has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt then, rather than forcing the population to prove innocence as they apparently do in Brazil.

You can't blame him mate they inherited Portuguese shit not good old common law.

>except they didn't

Yes, they did.

>that graph

Crime was not recorded with any seriousness until the 1980s. The death penalty poses no deterrent to people who commit the vast majority of murders that would attract a death sentence.

>If they have 15 years how the fuck do they find out those 4% are innocent?
Quite simple

Method 1
>be citizen
>be sentenced to death after many trials
>spend years in death row
>eventually manage to prove innocence or the police finds the real culprit
>manages to live through it, statistics register it

Method 2
>be citizen
>be sentenced to death after many trials
>fail to prove innocence, die
>many years later the police finds that citizen was innocent
>statistics register it

Meaning that the real number will be much higher than 4% since there's all people who were never found to be innocent.

>police shit innocent people too should we get rid of them?
what

the police is an essential service for the population, their purpose is much, much more than just executing criminals (which is something they are not even supposed to do)

death penalty is just luxury for edgy children who want to pay 50% more to kill possibly innocent people instead of just keeping them arrested for life

>also brazil is a crime ridden shit hole if you executed more of your scum you'd be better off
Death penalty is not a deterrent

Is this really supposed to be an argument? The U.S. court system is built on the the idea that it is better for 100 guilty people to go free than 1 innocent person to be wrongfully convicted.

Beyond that, there is a redeeming factor to police, even if they make mistakes. There is no redeeming factor to the death penalty. WE know it doesn't deter crime and that it costs more. We are literally spending tax payer money to put innocent people to death as a net result.

...if crime wasn't recorded with any seriousness until 1980s and the death penalty was abolished in the 60s how the fuck do you know it had no effect by your logic?

>Crime was not recorded with any seriousness until the 1980s
LOL. Crime after the 1980's was recorded as an opinion poll. No one even reported homicide before the 1980's anyway, right? :^)

>prove innocence
It seems your problem lies more with the jury system than anything else.

What's wrong with you cucks from the UK? Are all of you this uneducated or am I getting a specially stupid batch?

The state must prove someone's guilt, and it manages to do that then the defendant must prove their innocence, it's that simple, do you need me to draw it for you to understand?