Board 8 > Hypothetically if someone had been convicted of several premeditated..

(+) Yeah! (+)

foolm0r0n posted...

The discussion is not, just that post

I see your point about it, but your response could be applied to just about anything in the discussion, since every aspect of the issue has been discussed already. Doesn't matter to a casual discussion.

There's a big difference between casual discussion and acting incredulous at others disagreeing with your objectively wrong opinion. imo opinions based on incorrect facts don't have a place anywhere, but maybe that's why people don't like to have casual discussions with me.

Can you be both pro-choice and anti-death penalty or is that a contradiction?

foolm0r0n posted...

There's a big difference between casual discussion and acting incredulous at others disagreeing with your objectively wrong opinion. imo opinions based on incorrect facts don't have a place anywhere, but maybe that's why people don't like to have casual discussions with me.

To be perfectly serious, it is. Mocking someone for being so uninformed tends to annoy people more than just arguing to the contrary. It stuck out to me and I'm supportive of humane treatment of criminals.

Not normally. But if there's a risk of their escaping somehow due to powerful connections, then the death penalty may be wise.

guffguy89 posted...

Can you be both pro-choice and anti-death penalty or is that a contradiction?

the same way you can't be pro-life if you're not a vegan

guffguy89 posted...

Can you be both pro-choice and anti-death penalty or is that a contradiction?

Of course not. However I do think being pro-life and pro-death penalty is a contradiction. Although the pro-life person would never admit that.

If a fetus was convicted of first-degree murder then we'd have to worry about that sort of thing.

guffguy89 posted...

Can you be both pro-choice and anti-death penalty or is that a contradiction?

will say that i fully support the death penalty for people who try to non-consensenually live in someone else's body for 9 months

Sceptilesolar posted...

Nobody should be unhappy.

I don't think I've ever disagreed with something more

No.

Was a bit concerned about what the poll results would be since questions like this are obviously designed to make people who normally oppose the death penalty answer differently, but good job Board 8. Happy to see these results (as of this writing anyway).

The state should under absolutely no circumstances ever have the power to kill its citizens. There has never in human history been a case where the state having this ability hasnt led to its abuse. But also it isnt an effective deterrent, its extremely expensive, it doesnt even work as a punishment in most cases (and for those saying well they can live happy lives in prison I would advise you to look up current prison conditions across the anglosphere which is a whole other issue), and there are a lot of cases perhaps even the vast majority where certainty is not actually so certain. The death penalty does nothing other than revenge, and having the death penalty always means that innocent people will be executed. It should never exist at all.

LightningStrikes posted...

No.

Was a bit concerned about what the poll results would be since questions like this are obviously designed to make people who normally oppose the death penalty answer differently, but good job Board 8. Happy to see these results (as of this writing anyway).

The state should under absolutely no circumstances ever have the power to kill its citizens. There has never in human history been a case where the state having this ability hasnt led to its abuse. But also it isnt an effective deterrent, its extremely expensive, it doesnt even work as a punishment in most cases (and for those saying well they can live happy lives in prison I would advise you to look up current prison conditions across the anglosphere which is a whole other issue), and there are a lot of cases perhaps even the vast majority where certainty is not actually so certain. The death penalty does nothing other than revenge, and having the death penalty always means that innocent people will be executed. It should never exist at all.

But the TC is talking about someone who has committed SEVERAL premeditated murders and it is proven without a shadow of a doubt. They are not asking if the death penalty should exist in general. So no innocents are at risk of being wrongly executed in this example.

Besides does the one-off expenditure of execution outweigh the cost of keeping someone (who doesn't value life) in the penal system for the rest of their natural life?

Precedent is a real thing and the only way to prevent misuse of that precedent is to not allow it at all. The reality is in the vast majority of cases the 100% certainty isnt actually a true certainty at all. On cost, the cost per head of the death penalty is literally double the cost per head of life imprisonment, a lot of people dont realise that. There is no pragmatic case for the death penalty just looking at it in numbers terms.

Cavedweller2000 posted...

Besides does the one-off expenditure of execution outweigh the cost of keeping someone (who doesn't value life) in the penal system for the rest of their natural life?

Yes. That's why we're saying it. Because it's a fact throughout all of history.

Why does the death penalty cost so much? Logically you'd think it would be vastly less expensive than keeping a person alive with all that comes with.

The long and numerous trials, inmates are not executed right away - inmates sentenced to death often spend decades awaiting execution, and then of course the cost of the execution itself.

Death row inmates generally have more appeal avenues because, at least in theory, the system is set up to make sure the state can't fast track killing people without giving them every opportunity to defend themselves (whether as wrongfully convicted or that it is too extreme a recourse for their crimes.)

Additionally, since most people facing the death penalty are unlikely to be able to afford legal representation, they must be given said representation and the state is the one who pays for that.

Housing them also is generally more expensive because often they aren't housed in gen pop but in their own block or solitary and that costs more because it usually brings heightened security with it.

~~~

As for the question itself - no. The state should not be given that power. I know the topic premise grants the hypothetical 100% certainty of guilt but I'll still say no here on general principle. Though I'm also in the camp that life without parole is the worse punishment so even from a "revenge" point of view the death penalty doesn't make sense to me.

Also a little distressed by the amount of times solitary has been brought up as a "solution" given that solitary confinement beyond 15 days is defined as torture by the UN and I think experts place the time where it should generally be considered torture as even shorter.

foolm0r0n posted...

There's fundamentally no way in a just society to execute someone without using way more resources than alternatives. It's always the worse option.

Your poll also needs to stipulate 0% doubt AND 0% chance of rehabilitation to make your argument complete.

Exactly this. I'm actually a supporter of the death penalty in concept, but there's no way to justly implement it.

Waluigi1 posted...

Why does the death penalty cost so much? Logically you'd think it would be vastly less expensive than keeping a person alive with all that comes with.

Use the example of the magic 100% correct oracle in this topic. The lawyer's argument would of course be "well my client is the exception". So now the justice system will have to exhaust all avenues to prove that the client is not actually an exception to the oracle. The fact that the oracle is 100% correct doesn't actually solve the cost problem in a just society.

Snake5555555555 posted...

No, the death penalty is never justified. There is no such thing as a humane way to end someone's life.

What about when someone killed a child or a dog?

Man we don't have to prove the oracle is legit. It's the oracle!

Must be a corrupt system.

Anyway, if a criminal is beyond redemption, then yes, execute the piece of shit!

MegaWentEvil posted...

What about when someone killed a child or a dog?

Scar FMA bout to get that double death penalty special

Solitary confinement, among many other things we do to people in prison, is absolutely torture, and if you think torturing someone as punishment for their crimes is a good and just thing to do then I think you're a bad person and I don't want to associate with you

Paratroopa1 posted...

Solitary confinement, among many other things we do to people in prison, is absolutely torture, and if you think torturing someone as punishment for their crimes is a good and just thing to do then I think you're a bad person and I don't want to associate with you

Criminals deserve to suffer. The more they suffer, the better.

MegaWentEvil posted...

Criminals deserve to suffer. The more they suffer, the better.

Says inmate #8876251-0004 from his 5th year in solitary. The fake message board filled with AI generated posts has worked wonders to keep him calm.

Lmao

Not even AI could dream up some of the stuff that is posted on this board

foolm0r0n posted...

Says inmate #8876251-0004 from his 5th year in solitary. The fake message board filled with AI generated posts has worked wonders to keep him calm.

Anyway, my opinion is the opposite of Paratroopa's. To me, people who are against the death penalty are monsters themselves. I would never say a simple "hi" to someone who defends the "rights" of criminals.

is there a line there

like, does jaywalking mean someone forfeits all their rights in your eyes? going 61 mph in a 60mph limit?

can't we just vacate Australia and send all the criminals there or something. Or maybe Greenland? I hear there's a lot of room there.

Thorn posted...

is there a line there

like, does jaywalking mean someone forfeits all their rights in your eyes? going 61 mph in a 60mph limit?

No, but murdering an innocent, or say, rape does.

What's interesting is that although MWE is a parody, his view is not fundamentally different from anyone who supports the death penalty. They might use nicer words and cleaner logic but it really is equivalent.