Why are so many people in the West against death penalty?
>m-muh human rights
you literally lose your human rights the moment you kill another person
>m-muh innocent getting executed
literally never happens and when it does the family gets gazillion dollars
>i-it's expensive
yeah justice costs money, that doesn't mean we stop delivering it
I'm against the death penalty.
If I can afford not to kill someone I think the right choice is not to kill him.
I don't want the state that flooded my nation with shitskins to have the right to kill me.
While I am for the death penalty I do understand the counter arguments of exspense and government power. Not to be edgy but I think it would be more economical and arguably more humane to kill death row convicts with a shot to the back of the head than a batch of exspensive chemicals that may or may not work. And although I am wary of giving the government power to kill as long as trials are conducted fairly and publicly I see limited harm, it's not like a tyrannical government would decide to kill its citizens but only after a fair legal trial in which due process is observed. At least I think that is less likely. You also have to consider the extreme cost of keeping a killer alive for the next 10-50 years versus a 65 cent bullet
I am for the death penalty for everyone even remotely associated with the UN.
>literally never happens and when it does the family gets gazillion dollars
I remember 5 years ago reading a study that suggested something like 250+ people have been put to death have been exonerated after they started introducing DNA evidence.
1 innocent life is far too much.
Further, it begs the question: do we really want to give the State power to kill citizens? I support the idea of murderers getting killed as an idea, but in practice it means giving far too much power to the State -- power we know they abuse.
most of those were probably criminals anyway
and if the US government wants someone killed they kill him whether it's legal or not
yeah like it really makes a difference if they can kill you when they have the power to lock you up forever
death is such a meme get over yourself
>i-it's expensive
Never heard a normie say this desu. Seems like it would always be cheaper to kill them than feed them and house them forever. Even if the official methods of execution are expensive, we should be allowed to just shoot them with a pistol or cut their throat. People who would be getting the death penalty don't deserve any better.
The government doesn't have the right to take lives from citizens
I've heard the argument that the legal costs are so huge for death penalty cases that it's cheaper to feed them forever but I have hard time believing it too
How expensive can a rope really be for fuck sake?
I tend to err on the side of caution, giving the state the right to take the life of an individual has its risks.
no one cares about expenses. It's just one of those things that gets thrown into literally every discussion ever. It's never about the money just ignore that one. If you're against the death penalty it wouldn't matter if it was free and if you are for it, it wouldn't matter if it costs millions.
The arguments I hear against it is that it's more expensive to kill someone rather than jail them for a life sentence, and sometimes evidence emerges that shows that the accused was innocent but it's after they have been killed so nothing can be done about it.
I think we should bring back public executions.
My only hesitancy is they could do it to an innocent man.
>yeah like it really makes a difference if they can kill you when they have the power to lock you up forever
>this bully can beat you up whenever they want so why stand up for yourself?
Is everyone in Canada a cucked boot licker? Almost every Government in history is responsible for trying to kill dissenters. Why perpetrate it?
>and if the US government wants someone killed they kill him whether it's legal or not
Then why the pretense of a death penalty and a court system at all? Why not just let the US Gov't kill whoever they want, whenever they want?
>says the nation with the death penalty
You tell me then. Why perpetrate it?
Death penalty just doesn't really work. All it does is make the guy who impulsively murdered someone go on a killing spree trying to not get caught by the police. It doesn't really influence the decision making of any potential murderer in any positive way compared to just life in prison. Most murders are impulsive and most of the ones that aren't are not done with the subjective expectation to get caught.
>mfw this could solve many problems in Mexico but NOPE, the UN always stick their Jew noses in here and says that these "people" have rights too
A "person" that beheads, tortures, mutilates, etc. deserves rights too according to the UN, let that sink in...
Even if someone commits murder, the state shouldn't have the right to kill a citizen.
because then people would riot? but it's naive to think your leadership isn't assassinating people because it's illegal
>t. Ahmed al-Abdul Aziz Bashar al-Assad Muhammad Saudi al-Qatar Ramadan bin Laden Abu Aladdin
>you literally lose your human rights the moment you kill another person
Okay, so everyone who has ever killed someone loses human rights? Even those who have defended their country in war?
It obviously does not work like that, and you don't mean it like that. But what do you mean?
"Everybody who has killed another in an injust way loses his human rights"?
But then, what is an injust way? Both Anders Breivik and Muslim Terrorists kill people because they believe that they are just. Where do you draw the line?
>If I can afford not to kill someone I think the right choice is not to kill him.
cuck
...
Being back firing squads.
Fast
Efficient
Cheap
Manly as fuck
>1 innocent life is far too much.
problematic reasoning
when ban cars?
what's the % of the wrongly killed in relation to those that deserved it
killing in war is not illegal so it's k
it doesn't matter what allahu snackbars think, they kill civilians
does it have the right to tax the citizens? Imprison them?
You're one obtuse motherfucker, you know that?
The death penalty is just delayed self defense. Society doesn't want you and shouldn't have to pay for you.
You think you're being nice and moral and good but what you're advocating for is imprisonment for decades until they die of old age. You want to spend taxpayer money on the food and water and medical care required to keep them alive and stripped of their liberties in prison, where men are routinely raped by other men. What you advocate is WORSE than the death penalty. You fucking Jews and leftists are despicably cruel people.
Another example of the liberal mental disorder:
>Leniency for the Guilty
>Murder the innocent
Death penalty for crimes relating to theft and up.
Stealing, rape, assault etc. They should all die. Not edgy just practical. Such crimes are more numerous than murder and need harsher punishments to deter criminals.
It would also purge niggers from the gene pool.
human rights activists generally defend anyone, also if they are guilty, because death penalty is inhumane
They don't like perpetrators either but it's not like that can be stopped. In the end the perpetrator gets a benefit in the power dynamic.
Great. Let's start with Muslim countries.
>the US has thousands of nuclear weapons
>burgers are worried about the death penalty giving the state the right to kill people
i imagine situation when someone is framed...
he got executed of course.
later they find it out.
but still they are cases that allowance of execution could be good... examples.
A)Serial killers (because everybody know if they get out they do it again even trying helping them don't change that.)
B)Pedophile (common he will die in prison anyway inmates always got info guy so alternative could be just castraction.)
C)Terrorists
D)some really heavy cases of murder.
like you killed your family.and they prove it to you.. but at this point it's easy to frame someone.
yeet
I wouldnt say that. Please define to me what the difference between my 'normie' linke of thinking and yours lies
>killing in war is not illegal so it's k
but not every kill made during wartime is okay, right?
>it doesn't matter what allahu snackbars think, they kill civilians
So did anders breivik, and I find that a lot of people support him on Sup Forums, or am i wrong?
I like how they're equating death penalty to nigger lynching. When you don't have a death penalty then guys like pic related get to sit in a cushy furnished apartment being fed three meals a day on tax payers' money for the rest of his life.
>Most murders are impulsive and most of the ones that aren't are not done with the subjective expectation to get caught.
Those ones don't get the death penalty. It's for premeditated murder.
Applying physical violence would probably be more efficient to stop the career criminal in his path.
Uh, my apologies. What I tried to say was:
Please indicate what the difference between my 'normie' line of thinking and your line of thinking is
>it literally never happens, but all the times it has happened they got money
>never happened, except for all the times it has
t. Sup Forums
>but not every kill made during wartime is okay, right?
collateral damage
If someone satisfies his serial murder lust under the disguise of war it's not ok of course. But war is chaos, there will be no witness and no evidence
Hey maybe we should not have the death penalty. Does he get a weekly hooker too?
If someone's going to spend the rest of the life in prison, there's no point to not just kill them. Locking them in a box so they can rot 20-40 years before dying isn't any more humane than just straight up ending them.
Death penalty is good.
Most crimes should carry the death penalty as the only punishment on conviction.
It shouldn't be done years after the conviction either. It should be immediately after conviction with a bullet... or a firing squad.
The bodies of those killed by execution should not be buried, but rather used as fertilizer.
We should have only very few prisoners at any given time.
After a few years of such a policy, the crime rate will plummet.
Implying the shitskins won't just end up killing the native population(you), and once they are a super majority, release all of their previously imprisoned brothers.
Basically if you attend at a millenary Roman law principle plus an irrebatible fact.
1. In dubio pro reo. I.e., In case of doubt no one can be condemned.
2. Judicial errors DO exist.
Death penalty is irreversible. So checkmate
> (goverments dont own your life)
>It's Syria all over again
only difference: Instead of a lion the leader will be a traitorous hippie
Yay.
Men bring problems
Kill the men causing the problem,no there's no more problem
>literally never happens
Except when it does
>when it does the family gets gazillion dollars
Great, I may die for no reason but at least I know my wife is getting enough money that she can spend the rest of her life as a useless slut.
>yeah justice costs money, that doesn't mean we stop delivering it
You don't want justice, you want revenge.
>getting rid of scum of society
>bad
CANNOT believe people are AGAINST cp
I also support voluntary euthanasia for any reason. If a prisoner wants to die he should be allowed to ask the prison doctor to inject him with a lethal dose of morphine or whatever.
>but not every kill made during wartime is okay, right?
right
>So did anders breivik, and I find that a lot of people support him on Sup Forums, or am i wrong?
a national hero protecting his country
memes aside he probably should have been executed too, though many would claim that extraordinary times require extraordinary actions
I'm against the death penalty because I don't trust the government to be taking the lives of its citizens.
Killing someone who raped a child or murdered someone unjustly seems like jsutice to me desu.
The death penalty isn't a punishment. It's an escape. If you kill them, they won't suffer enough for the crimes they have comitted.
>Triggering liberals by complaining he doesn't have modern enough console systems
Wow I wish I was a mass murder in scandi countries.
These dumbfuck Muslims killing themselves, lol. If they really wanted to hurt the country they'd live, leech and get more gibs.
Basically our system encourages a string of appeals, even if it's painfully obvious that the convicted person did the crime.
There are some crimes that are not clear, the evidence not overwhelming. Those are the sorts of crimes where the death penalty shouldn't be on the table at all, and there will be plenty of time to potentially prove their innocence down the road.
Then you have the fucking shit stains that were caught on camera murdering someone in the most heinous way possible. Or you have multiple eye witnesses, dna evidence, ect ect. These are the people that shouldn't even get a trial, forced to kneel, and bullet to the back of the skull. IE: Some guy runs people over with a bus, and is knifing people when the cops arrive- There should not be a trial, they should not be taken alive.
Of course take my logic with a big ol heaping pile of salt, I'm a firm believer in blood guilt too. Crime would cease to exist if you extinguished bloodlines for having birthed a murderer that they failed to strangle in the cradle. The more "modern", and "humane" equivalent would be forced sterilization for bloodlines that produced fuck ups that killed others.
the whole fucking judicial system is based on revenge, what are you on about
Revenge is justice you pencilneck faggot.
>>m-muh human rights
>you literally lose your human rights the moment you kill another person
I'm for the death penalty, but this is false. What do you have to back this up? This statement is utterly anticonstitutional. Like I said, I'm for the death penalty, but what you've made here is simply an idiotic and baseless claim.
>>m-muh innocent getting executed
>literally never happens and when it does the family gets gazillion dollars
You're really doing your argument a disservice. It "literally never happens", but "when it does..." the family gets paid. More idiocy. How about I slay your child and pay you $1,000,000? Money has always done a great job mending emotional trauma, right?
Being that keeping a criminal in prison for life costs potentially several millions of dollars, there comes a point where you literally cannot afford it.
Besides, if the alternative to a bullet is spending your remaining years wasting away in prison with no freedoms and no hope of ever attaining freedom, you are effectively dead anyway. You are a caged creature waiting to die, as this will be your only release.
OK, maybe they should be sent to a torture camp everyone can torture a murderer for just $50/day?
Make the suffering real.
You seem to be ignoring the criminal who /does/ think their actions through. I have no idea what % that constitutes, but the idea is that a sane criminal will potentially weigh killing all the witnesses of a serious crime (and getting the needle), or letting them go and hoping they can get away with it anyways. Or other situations like that.
premeditation, or some other aggravating factor (children, pregnant women, rape + murder, particularly defenseless victim IE: elderly). That can also get you facing a death penalty, just being a crazy faggot only gets you off in blue pilled states that don't even have the death penalty. Of course, those are the ones that will just let the nutjob out in 8-20 years to murder more people.
hmm i would agree with this
>You don't want justice, you want revenge.
Yes.
Using the drug legaliser logic - is it really better when people "take things into their own hands"? Executing the murderer before he gets enclosed in his security enhanced hotel.
There might be a failed artist somewhere just waiting to save you from Merkel, just believe. Or go become a failed artist.
I saw a pretty compelling argument that brutal over the top punishment between the roman empire and the 1800s was a large part of what created such a stable society in Europe/"The West". In sub human societies, the violent murderers tended to accumulate power, rather than be punished for it, you can see that at work in Africa to this day. In Europe, violence was answered with ultra violence, and eventually non-conformists were quite literally eradicated from the gene pool.
Shame the higher probability of conformism in Europe right now is being exploited by (((them))) to extinguish you guys forever.
>m-muh human rights
We know deep don't they are the problematic people only wanting a slap on the wrist just I trust no one against guns or nationalism
>m-muh innocent getting executed
Oxymoron
>i-it's expensive
Let's use bullets then - 33 cents a .303 British if I remember well
I'm all for democratic death penalty, we can start a petition to kill someone, just for the lulz, and with a majority the state has to enact it
If you violate others human rights you *should* loose your own. They forgot to put this in back then, ghengis is completely right.
The only thing Anders did wrong was get caught, instead of racking up a higher count. He basically failed to get ALL of the political class and their children too. The end result was essentially a short term victory, at the cost of any ability for far right politics to take root for a long ass time.
>people wont do thing if punished
naw nigga, they need rehabilitation criminals dindu nuffin
The point is these scum bags don't deserve to live and be fed and housed on the tax payers dime. Any murderer whose crime is heinous or beyond rehabilitation should be executed
Remember kids, you're not 'allowed' to kill someone unless you work for the government.
we absolutely need the death penalty for people who drive under the speed limit
You ever dance with the Devil in the pale moonlight.
I personally believe that capital punishment should be expanded to non-violent crimes.
Like fraud in cases over $10 million, tax evasion above $5 million, drug dealing over $1 million.
> you literally lose your human rights the moment you kill another person
lol no
>literally never happens and when it does the family gets gazillion dollars
Again, wrong. Let alone that human life can't be restored with gazillion dollars.
>yeah justice costs money, that doesn't mean we stop delivering it
Assuming what you're trying to prove, classic.
>tax evasion above $5 million
youre a tool
I say put 'em to work. Chain gangs are better than corpses.
the problem is that it costs an ass load to pay for these criminals living a shit life
((((((united nations))))))
>250+ people have been put to death have been exonerated
Name fucking names.
There are really good workfare programs in some US prisons, shown on TV. Most of the prisoners don't even try to break out anymore (only the ones with good history get this freedom) because it's not worth it (most probably caught and lose all the priveleges) and they can buy stuff from the prison store if they do the work.
No it's not, at least universally. For example the Finnish/Nordic system is based on rehabilitation and the overall results are very good as long as the perpetrator isn't a sociopath/psychopath and has some chance to integrate back to the society(ie. is not some foreign/immigrant loser who never came even close to being part of the society). Most convicted criminals wont repeat their offenses once and even more will stop after a few short sentences. Even in countries like the United States, where prison has been traditionally mostly about punishing and removing criminals from society, lately also about a sort of slave labor, the official purpose of the system is still correcting/rehabilitating. Of course the Nordic model wont probably work well in a heterogenous country with poor social services, because there really is no means to rehabilitate most criminals nor a functional society of some sort to rehabilitate them into in many cases.
The cost.
My personal solution is that in cases that are clear cut, absolutely 0% chance of being wrong, of people that committed rape, murder, etc. like Dylan Roof they get a hydraulic powered guillotine after receiving a sleeping agent. No chance of error, not inhumane with 0% chance that they won't be instantaneously killed, and they'll be asleep/won't feel a thing.
And in the case of people like Roof this can be carried out immediately, short trial, no appeal. Save everyone time, money, and the politicizing that comes with extended death penalties.
Ahhh, in many cases it is already scheduled...
Or in self defense or when aborting a child et cetera et cetera.
Get fucked commie.
Imagine if you have a spastic fit when fighting with someone, and actually fucking kill them.
Now you sit in prison sentenced for death, but you never know when you are going to be executed, only a few months before.
Before that you have a constant fucking existential crisis in your head for years and end up mentally mad in the head why the others fuck you in the ass for being such a weak faggot.
If death penalty, please as soon as possible, like in ancient times.
But that won't bring the Jail (((owners))) money, they get the more money the longer people sit.
I've heard that it costs the justice system an assload when people on death row get to appeal so many damn times.
nordic system is the ultimate cuck system, the sentences are ridiculous and who wants some "rehabilitated" murderers back on streets
If you truly want to make the changes we want to
see executions will have to be increased by orders
of magnitude. The amount of crimes punishable by
death must vastly increase. Definitely sex offenses must be added. Perhaps some different types of degeneracy. Trials must be expedited such as they did with the Volksgerichtshof.
also I wonder how the faggots setting them free feel when it goes wrong again? Back in time nobody wanted to hear about false killings today nobody wants to hear about failed rehabilitation