Current Events > Supreme Court reinstates death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber

(+) Yeah! (+)

BTW, you guys keep saying innocent people. We are not talking about innocent people here. We are talking about a man who put a bomb behind an eight year old child, and hundreds of other people besides.
And, incidentally, if you say you do support our troops, then you should recognize that this man is a terrorist and an enemy to the United States. By rights he should be dead.

Cocytus posted...

Same here with me for convicts, I guess.

What?

Actually explain the benefit the death penalty is providing society. Explain how it provides a benefit that life in prison does not.

Cocytus posted...

BTW, you guys keep saying innocent people. We are not talking about innocent people here. We are talking about a man who put a bomb behind an eight year old child, and hundreds of other people besides.

No, we're talking about the system as a whole. However certain we are of Tsarnaev's guilt, it doesn't change the fact that the system will make mistakes. And there are perfectly viable, less expensive alternatives that serve the same end of protecting society, so capital punishment literally serves no valid purpose by comparison.

Compsognathus posted...

What?

Actually explain the benefit the death penalty is providing society. Explain how it provides a benefit that life in prison does not.

You don't understand the benefits of a dead murderer?

Compsognathus posted...

As long as you accept that doing so requires an expensive system that executes innocent people to make the worst people dead, then okay.

The potential for innocent people to be killed exists in many systems.
We don't abandon them just because of that.

Compsognathus posted...

No, but the harm of wrongful convictions is lessened if the death penalty ceases,

Oh right. Undeniable.

Tell you what is a far bigger problem, and is unevenly skewed towards race also, armed police officers. If no police officers have guns, the harm of wrongful deaths is lessened. Just give them all tazers instead, but no bullets or lethal weapons at all.
Otherwise you're in favour of the police gunning down innocent black men.
I mean it's that simple really. Do you support the death of innocent children? If you do then just say so , so we know where you stand.

Cocytus posted...

You don't understand the benefits of a dead murderer?

I don't understand how the benefits of dead convicts outweighs the benefits of locked up convicts. Especially given that locking up convicts costs society less.

Compsognathus posted...

Especially given that locking up convicts costs society less.

You're really not going to like my answer to that.

Yeah, we know that you have a lot of issues with the concept of due process

greyfox747 posted...

Yeah, we know that you have a lot of issues with the concept of due process

These guys literally DO get due process, omg.

Sega9599 posted...

The potential for innocent people to be killed exists in many systems.
We don't abandon them just because of that.

1. Yes we do.
2. When it's impractical to abandon a system entirely, we adjust it to lessen the death of innocents. Just like we can adjust the penal system to life in prison rather than death for capital offenses.

Cocytus posted...

You're really not going to like my answer to that.

Not all costs are financial and in fact the financial cost is far secondary to the cost to society that comes with wrongfully executed individuals.

So if your answer is to reduce the financial cost by accelerating or removing the appeals process and thus increasing the number of individuals wrongfully convicted then yes. I am not going to like that answer. That's reducing a secondary cost at the expense of increasing the primary cost.

TheOtherMike posted...

Just like we can adjust the penal system to life in prison rather than death for capital offenses.

Well why would you want to torture an innocent man to death?

Cocytus posted...

You can't deny that keeping an innocent man in prison for life is a detriment to his health. You want to expose an innocent man to that?!?!?!? Nah, let the fucker go, shit.

Being dead is a bigger detriment to health imo

Cocytus posted...

Well why would you want to torture an innocent man to death?

So you're just completely incapable of arguing in good faith. Got it.

TheOtherMike posted...

So you're just completely incapable of arguing in good faith. Got it.

You DON'T think of life in prison as a form of torture?

Cocytus posted...

You DON'T think of life in prison as a form of torture?

It's this simple. Humans are fucking stupid and don't deserve to choose who lives and dies. We can't even trust a government to fix potholes, but we're gonna trust them to kill people at their mercy with unerring righteousness?

Death is a permanent end and this requires an expensive and lengthy process to mitigate the effects human stupidity can have on the process, thus making it more expensive than warehousing inmates.

Cocytus posted...

You DON'T think of life in prison as a form of torture?

Literally no one prefers execution over incarceration, particularly when they're innocent and hope for exoneration. Stop shitposting.

Cocytus posted...

Well why would you want to torture an innocent man to death?

I don't want that either.

I feel like the "there are two options: instant death or lifelong torture" crowd need a bit of an horizon expansion.

@Cocytus

Should we execute everyone sentenced to incarceration to maintain your logic?

hockeybub89 posted...

@Cocytus

Should we execute everyone sentenced to incarceration to maintain your logic?

Not everyone is in prison for murder. Not every murder is the same.

TheOtherMike posted...

1. Yes we do.
2. When it's impractical to abandon a system entirely, we adjust it to lessen the death of innocents. Just like we can adjust the penal system to life in prison rather than death for capital offenses.

Yes, but people don't want it abandoned. They feel it gives them an intangible benefit. I don't think you understand that. I think that, until you make a genuine effort to understand why people prefer the death penalty instead of defaulting to "they're in favour of innocent people being executed" or "lol because a book told them to", then I think your comments like this:

TheOtherMike posted...

So you're just completely incapable of arguing in good faith. Got it.

Hold no water.

hockeybub89 posted...

Death is a permanent end and this requires an expensive and lengthy process to mitigate the effects human stupidity can have on the process, thus making it more expensive than warehousing inmates.

So we put measures in place to make it better.
What IS the rate of wrongful death penalty conviction anyway? It does happen, but what is it, 1 in every 100,000? And how many of them are actually executed?

We have people arguing from a moral standpoint, that even the worst most guilty criminal never deserves to be executed, but instead deserves life imprisonment. Somehow, if they were killed in a shootout with police, that's 'good' and completely ok as opposed to actual execution.
We have people arguing from an economic standpoint.

Some here have said 'only execute when it's 100% undeniable guilty for heinous crimes.' Were people here willing to meet in the middle and discuss? Because no one is opposed to the premature ending of life in SOME circumstances. Therefore there are grounds to come together and communicate effectively.
Were they willing to at least understand why people feel more content? No, instead they ridiculed them. I've done my fair share too. Perhaps I've proven your point of "two wrongs don't make a right".

That's fine, you can make your arguments. But instead of acting superior, we can accept that it does exist, and you're opposed to it in all its forms.

Cocytus posted...

Not everyone is in prison for murder. Not every murder is the same.

But isn't prison torture?

Here, let's listen to a man who actually hast first hand knowledge about it, former warden of Holman...
https://youtu.be/wnuzlkwXZdQ?t=87

Compsognathus posted...

What?

Actually explain the benefit the death penalty is providing society. Explain how it provides a benefit that life in prison does not.

It reduces the average amount of evil in the world.

Sega9599 posted...

Yes, but people don't want it abandoned.

Yes there are some people who don't want it abandoned, but there is an increasing amount who do.

26 states in the US.
108 countries in the world.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It reduces the average amount of evil in the world.

What instrument do you use to measure evil.

Sega9599 posted...

What IS the rate of wrongful death penalty conviction anyway? It does happen, but what is it, 1 in every 100,000?

1 in 25, according to this study.

https://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It reduces the average amount of evil in the world.

More than life in prison? Is the reduction in evil worth the inevitability of innocent people being wrongfully executed?

Someone ask Gobstoppers if he would support the Death Penalty for the Sackler family given it would fulfill his metric of "Reducing the average amount of evil in the world".

Sega9599 posted...

Yes, but people don't want it abandoned.

People are stupid. Big shock.

Sega9599 posted...

Hold no water.

Nah, that comment was 100% correct for what it responded to.

And just like Cocytus, you aren't arguing in good faith, either. Regardless of anyone's fee-fees, there is objectively no benefit to execution. None. Notice how neither you nor anyone else has been able to reconcile the added cost (both financial and societal), nor the inability to release dead people if/when they're exonerated, nor the fact that life in prison serves the same end of protecting society. Several of you are literally trying to argue that execution is preferable to life in prison, ffs. There have been suggestions that we do away with or rush the appeals, which will only lead to sloppier work and more innocent deaths. You people are deflecting, strawmanning, and arguing exclusively from a perspective of vengeance rather than justice.

Sega9599 posted...

It does happen, but what is it, 1 in every 100,000?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

At least 4%. Nearly 1 in 20, and probably more. Like, stop trying to argue something you clearly know nothing about.

I just want to know how many innocent people are acceptable losses to kill a 100% guilty person. And how many of their family members, or other loved ones, they believe is an okay sacrifice to be mistakenly killed.

None of them in this thread have actually answered other than "I don't want innocent people to die, but we're talking only about guilty people" as if we live in some fantasy world where the world's justice system has no corruption and is absolutely perfectly correct all of the time, no mistakes, no issues, no bad actors, nothing wrong ever.

Remember the longer a murderer is kept alive the longer he has to plan an escape and kill more people, in addition to killing their fellow prisoners. Not killing murderers allows them to kill innocent people in prison.

BilalPowell posted...

Remember the longer a murderer is kept alive the longer he has to plan an escape and kill more people, in addition to killing their fellow prisoners. Not killing murderers allows them to kill innocent people in prison.

We should kill murderers before they murder. Just to be safe.

Get on it Tom Cruise

Cocytus posted...

Do you support our troops? Well, then, you're supporting murder.

I support the existence of a military for self defense & defense of our allies. I do not support what we do with the military in many situations but that's an entirely different subject. The military does a lot of objectively good things like disaster relief.

There's no way to support state sanctioned murder without supporting state sanctioned murder.

You can support state sanctioned murder of known terrorists without supporting state sanctioned murder of reasonable doubt terrorists

In theory, maybe. But in practice?

BilalPowell posted...

You can support state sanctioned murder of known terrorists without supporting state sanctioned murder of reasonable doubt terrorists

It's a war crime to execute POWs.

Tyranthraxus posted...

It's a war crime to execute POWs.

They killed those guys from Nuremberg.

Cocytus posted...

They killed those guys from Nuremberg.

"Hey we did this thing 80 years ago that was stupid let's keep doing it"

So you're saying you wanted Hitler to watch TV, make license plates and work out all day for 30 years after world War 2 if he didnt kill himself?

Tyranthraxus posted...

"Hey we did this thing 80 years ago that was stupid let's keep doing it"

You honestly believe that was a bad thing? I heard of being woke but damn, even the SS gets a pass from you.

BilalPowell posted...

Remember the longer a murderer is kept alive the longer he has to plan an escape and kill more people, in addition to killing their fellow prisoners. Not killing murderers allows them to kill innocent people in prison.

There are less maximum-security prison escapes than wrongful executions.

BilalPowell posted...

Dammit I wanted him to get free food, air conditioning, education, healthcare, gym membership and TV for another 30 years

I would because it costs taxpayers less. Anyone who is actually conservative should be against the death penalty.

Cocytus posted...

You honestly believe that was a bad thing? I heard of being woke but damn, even the SS gets a pass from you.

Why do pro-death penalty arguments always eventually lead to this?

We get it. You are willing to sacrifice innocent people because pieces of shit living in a small box is too much for you to handle. It's like how people go on about how Anders Brevik gets "special" treatment, ignoring that he is not the only inmate in Norway.

You care more about vengeance than some overall improvement to the world. "Why protect innocent people and rehabilitate most inmates if it means some really bad murderers get to eat lunch in a cell for 30 years?"

You're not protecting innocent people if you're letting murderers be around them for 30 years

TBH the death penalty system should be overhauled. Should be used when...

1. 100% certainty of guilt, video proof etc. without question reserved for 1st degree murder and sexual child molesters.
2. Date of death should not be known to them, no goodbyes no special meals. Once it is their time they should be dragged out back and killed by a firing squad.
3. The appeals should be non existent.