Give me your arguments against the death penalty and I'll show you why you're wrong

Give me your arguments against the death penalty and I'll show you why you're wrong

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Hyph_DZa_GQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Marshall_Williams#Prison_years
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I liveD in an all white country

My argument is the following

Might makes right

Im not really against it so this is gonna be a shit argument

Who decides when the death penalty is given? If its the governmrnt then that assumes that what the government does is inherently moral and or just. If it is decides by a majority rule vote than that assumes what the majority deems is just is just, which is wrong.

it's better to spare the life of a criminal than to accidentally kill an innocent man.

Also I don't think it's a good idea to give this kind of power to the government. I agree with

Law is established already. Death penalty is applied to mass killers and people beyond saving. It's not like it comes as a surprise when you are sentenced to death. If you are a redeemable person that commits an unforgivable crime, you get the death penalty in America.

The state has no right judge your life

>law is established already

Doesnt that assume that the existing law is just? It goes back to the majority deeming what is just if the majority votes on a law or votes on someome deciding a just law. For a guilty act to be deemed unjust you would need proof for secular ethics

Take your argument to its logical conclusion.
Who decides when people should go to prison? The state. By following that logic you should be against prisons as well

Libertarians would agree that the criminal justice systems is one of the (few) responsibilities of the government

In the case of a miscarriage of justice you can't undo death penalty.

You can't give someone 30 years of his life back either if he's been unjustly accused and spent them in prison

Wrongful conviction.

You're all talking about the very rare cases when people are wrongly convicted. Would you agree that death penalty is okay in case of true guilt? Then we can argue about the miscarriages of justice?

What im saying is the state should not decide on who or what is just or unjust. It can decide who is guilty no doubt but without rational proof for secular ethics it cannot decide whether or not what they did was just or not.


Even if they do decide what actions are just or unjust, how do they decide on an OBJECTIVE standard for punishment

So you'll just put people on the chair who are guilty, without making any assumptions about just or unjust

It isn't cool enough. Needs more brutality.

But we put guilty people in the chair because we deem their actions unjust. Thats why its called the (((justice))) system

So we put people on the chair because we judge their actions to be unjust, but we put people in prison because they are guilty?

No, but you can release him and give him some economic compensation at least. In the case of death penalty no such option is available.

Sorry, I don't agree with assuming a perfect justice system when discussing what powers the justice system should have.
Any system created and operated by humans will be flawed, thus we must assume a chance of miscarriages of justice happening.
This guys knows what's up
youtube.com/watch?v=Hyph_DZa_GQ

>death penalty
>assisted suicide
>abortion

I'm all for this, too many humans.

We punish guilty people in general because we decide what they did was unjust.

If guilt was possible to correctly determine 100% of the time (and it literally can't be) then I'd have no problem with the death penalty for some crimes.

Capital punishment is a manifestation of an animal desire for retribution, not for justice.

I think it undermines the entire concept of a justice system

What is there is a mis-carriage of justice?
Like politically corrupt trials.

This. What about some hunger games with prisoners?

What if there is no injured party?

I'll share a but of a story here as an example.

I've had my license revoked for moving an uninsured vehicle.

The vehicle on question is a fixer-upper that needed some repairs that I couldn't do where it was. Living at an apartment complex and all. It has been sitting in the same spot for close to a year. I couldn't make the repairs due to the complex's policies, so I was driving it at fucking 1am. Get pulled over for a routine stop, and slapped with a fucking $350 fine and revoked license.

I was NOT driving on a manner that wold be deemed unsafe. Simply moving a vehicle a distance of 2.5 miles to make some repairs the following day, taking roads that are maintained with tax payer money. No injured party at all, yet I got off with two petty misdemeanors when one of them could have been a criminal charge.

...

>No, but you can release him and give him some economic compensation at least. In the case of death penalty no such option is available.

This argument only works if full reimbursement is possible. If we're going to draw arbitrary lines I'll say that in case of miscarried death penalty you can financially compensate the family of the victim.

Do you believe that ALL criminals can be rehabilitated?

And since the state can't and shouldn't decide what's just, how do you justify imprisonment?

...

>This argument only works if full reimbursement is possible.
Wrong, partial is better than none.
>you can financially compensate the family of the victim.
I'm sure the dead guy will be very happy about that

Nice correlation. Maybe states that have more criminals have taken more drastic measures (death penalty)

Injured party or not your actions were deemed unjust/wrong by the state.

I know its silly to identify a problem without privising a solution but i honestly dont know.

There is an argument that states that there is an objective set of good morals (secular ethics) that would in turn provide a just system but i honestly dont know or understant secular ethics so i cant tell you much about it

only subhumans think about punishment. Ubermensch think about prevention and rehabilitaion.

Nah, that would be torture.
I believe some people simply can't be rehabilitated.

...

>What is there is a mis-carriage of justice?

Back to English school you paki cunt. And if there was a miscarriage of justice if would be few and far between due to the severity of the crime itself. Its not like planting coke on Johnny for being a cunt, you fucking prick.

Tell that to Nazi Germany fag

But his argument isn't punishment, his argument is that some criminals can't be rehabilitated.
Why would you feed a rabid dog, keep him in life?
Don't you feel it's better to end his life quickly and without pain, instead of locking him up in a 3x3 room for the rest of his life?

Because the death penalty is too merciful. I'd rather be killed than spend decades in a prison like Florence ADX

I'm sure he'll be very happy if you release him after he's been in a cell for half a lifetime. My point is that this argument can be used against the whole criminal justice system, a.k.a. we shouldn't imprison people because full reimbursement (in case of someone who wasn't guilty and didn't go to prison because there are no prisons) is better than partial.

Show me evidence of it successfully deterring crime. I'll wait.

doesnt really prevent more heinous crime, no one does something wrong and thinks of the consequences before doing it. execution is only good in times of conventional war

It doesn't have to prevent/deter crime, it only needs to be in the interest of lawful citizens and their rights. I'd say it's in my interest not to have my taxpayer money going to child rapists for the rest of their lives

-- so they can live in a prison and eat food every day

>I'm sure he'll be very happy if you release him after he's been in a cell for half a lifetime.
way more than if he was dead, yeah

A criminal system that gives zero reimbursement when it makes a mistake because "full is impossible" is not a very good idea. Thats the sort of argument you would expect out of communist china.

>Give me your arguments against the death penalty and I'll show you why you're wrong
Do your best.
1) Because it's a waste of valuable human resources. Prisons provide governments the means to produce goods at a significantly lower cost than what the free market would charge. Unfortunately, our country lacks the backbone to go through with it.

2) Highly educated criminals can continue to produce things of value behind bars. Like this guy, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Marshall_Williams#Prison_years

3) From a law enforcement perspective, the possibility of receiving a death penalty makes it possible to frame someone for murder and have them executed by the state. This, plus the very small percentage of false convictions helps undermine the legitimacy of the legal system.

Any action taken by a government is an action taken by every citizen by proxy. If the government kills an innocent man then every citizen is guilty of murder.

Until you can guarantee guilt 100% then it's wrong. And even if you can guarantee guilt then it comes down to what crimes deserves death. If you execute someone for a crime that not everyone agrees deserves death then you have committed murder on the behalf of the people that disagreed with the crime deserving death.

The death penalty doesn't go far enough it is a weak answer. Human being should have forced birth control and need a permit to have children. Over population is destroying both the planet and the civilization. No need for the death penalty once life is far more precious. If poor criminals can't breed, new poor criminals will decline in numbers. The death penalty is a stupid fix for a larger problem.

OK, so you want the death penalty for chomos? you're jumping all over the place. If your argument is "it costs the taxpayer less", that's also wrong. Try again.

You know know death penalty cases are extremely expensive right? As in easily as much as it'd cost to imprison them for life.

If prisons were more like factories that underpay their "employees" by a lot, then I'm more inclined to accept that alternative.

First part is right. It is murder. Abortion is murder as well. So is euthanasia. So is assisted suicide. So is murder in self-defence. All of these murders are okay by me.

That's a call to reduce the costs, which can be done easily, not to abolish the thing

It is too merciful for some crimes

If you're looking for a counter argument, at least explain what the fuck your stance is. In order to reduce costs, you would need a dictator in charge. Otherwise you need to spend millions as a country to make sure the convicted person is guilty, money you will never get back. So, do you want a dictator in charge? Or do you want half assed death penalty convictions? Because both sound bad.

>which can be done easily
Yea we can also fuck over the rest of the western justice system. Cool idea, Joseph. Maybe reporting neighbors for treason would work too.

Because
>leans closer to the mic
When you kill your enemies... they win.

Why not the death penalty? It makes no sense to ban it because of a few wrong cases.

You too liberal OP? Is that it?