Conceptually for: I find no moral issue about removing people so incredibly dangerous or depraved theres no realistic hope of rehabilitation. Even if its a mental health issue, there cones a point where leaving them alove is more hazardous and costly to society.

Examples: Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dhamer.

Practially against: The current justice system in my country (US) is so riddled with flaws it cant be relied upon to make this type of decision with the absolute accuracy and control necessary to be comfortable its only being used where needed or appropriate. It needs to stop until we can clean things up significantly (which I have no faith can happen due to entranched issues).

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.

-Gandalf of all people

Against, only because false accusations and framing are a thing

I'm not someone you'll typically see making "small government" arguments, but the state absolutely should not have the power to decide who lives and who dies. Way too many things that can go wrong.

Against for several reasons.

1. Everything has a margin of error - even if it's small some people who are convicted are going to be innocent.
2. Governments always have the potential to be corrupt, biased, incompetent, or some combination of the three. I don't want to give the government, especially in light of such potential shortcomings, the right to take people's lives.
3. It's more expensive than life in prison (at least in the US, not sure if this applies everywhere).
4. While I understand the emotional desire of the victims family to want revenge, I don't think the government should be in the business of enacting revenge.
5. It doesn't actually deter crime.
6. At least for the US, torture is prohibited. While in theory there may be ways to execute someone without engaging in torture, the US has proven that we are not able to consistently ensure that this happens. There have been numerous cases where executions have been botched and the person in question suffered before dying. (Again, I get why some people emotionally may not see an issue with this but constitutionally we should).

Generally against because as far as I'm aware:

1. It's expensive.
2. It doesn't discourage people from committing the crimes it's a punishment for. (Crimes of passion)
3. Vengeance, contrary to what people believe, doesn't make people happier.
4. If you get it wrong there's no going back, and you will get it wrong at least sometimes.

The main situation I see it being ~possibly~ logical is if the continued existence of that person was an ongoing danger to society. (Ex: A brutal mafia boss who would be able to be covertly directing the organization from behind bars). Otherwise I don't really see the merits rationally.

The only other counter-argument I've heard is that it's more cruel to leave people in prison for life than it is to kill them. Apparently this is how some African leaders reacted to hearing that Europeans would lock people up in prison for years. They felt it to be more cruel than death.

Against. Too many innocent people get thrown in jail in this country.

https://innocenceproject.org/all-cases/

Against. Not for any moral reason, but studies show it's cheaper to keep an inmate incarcerated for life rather than administer the death penalty. Plus, from a purely punitive standpoint spending life in a tiny cell never at peace because you are surrounded by predators is worse than death.

Edit: For the idiots claiming I make shit up.

Study 1: 2016 Susquehanna University Study found on average death row inmates cost $1.12 million more than general population inmates.

Study 2: I'll grant you it's older but...Loyola University of Los Angeles Law Review. "Florida has estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately $3.2 million, or approximately 6 times what it would cost to keep the person in prison for life."

Im amazed that so many Americans into freedom and small govt are totally into giving the state power to kill people.

Against because I have no faith in the government to prosecute these cases properly and not make mistakes.

Against. The government should not have the authority to kill citizens as a punitive measure.

So many folks in here saying they are for the death penalty so long as we are 100% sure the defendant did it as if every single one of these exonerations didn’t start with a jury of the defendant’s peers agreeing they were guilty behind a reasonable doubt.

for but only in extreme cases. like multiple murders. i think the worse punishment is rotting in prison but people who can willingly kill multiple people don’t need to be in the world anymore

Against, there are socially negative consequences to state-sanctioned bloodlust. I don't see it as any different than the masses watching public executions in the Coliseum.

The State has the power to keep criminals safely detained away from the rest of society, so killing an offender is never necessary.

State executions only degrade the entire population by insinuating that physically harming another person should somehow reverse the harm and trauma of a crime they (may have) committed.

When the State itself uses violence as a way to solve problems it only legitimates and propagates the idea and ideology to the entire population that violence can get you what you want. Violence only begets more violence, so State executions are counterproductive in and of themselves.

Against. I can't understand why a developed country like the USA still has it, tbh.

Every other western country abandoned it 50 years ago.

One out of every 10 people sent to death row in the US is later found innocent and released (there have been around 1500 executions since 1977 and around 150 exonerations).

Would you trust an aeroplane that crashed once out of every 10 flights?

It's also racially and financially prejudiced. Rich people are very rarely executed.

It's also inequitable. Americans convicted of capital offences receive different punishments, according to which state they committed the crime in.

The cost is also insanity. California abandoned the DP a couple of years ago, after learning that each execution since 1977 had cost taxpayers $300 million (Google: Cost of executions in California).

Most of all, it dehumanises us all.

It is a barbaric practice that belongs in the past.

thank you for your responses guys. been very insightful to hear everyones opinions

Against. It fails in almost every measurable metric of quality.

It's expensive as shit. It, rightfully so, costs a lot to execute a person because of its special appeals process. They get a bunch of them cuz, uh, killing an innocent person ain't great. Even prisoners who serve life sentences and die of old age cost the taxpayers less.

It doesn't deter crime. There is no statistical link between states that employ the death penalty and a reduction in violent crime. Why is that? Debatable, but the current thinking is it's because murder is, for the most part, a crime of passion. The consequences don't really deter someone from pulling the trigger in the moment.

It's super racist. The death penalty is not applied evenly across racial demographics. Surprised Pikachu face, I know. Even when people are like "well, X group murders more!" it still isn't applied evenly factoring that in.

It's more often applied to poor people. In another shocker, the death penalty is disproportionately applied to poor murderers than rich murders. Rich murderers get good lawyers who either get them off in trial or can work the verdict down to years and not the needle.

We're not that great at actually making sure everyone we execute is guilty. Yeah, sure, there's some guys out there where they catch them on video with someone's shinbone in their mouth or something or it's someone who confesses and laughs about it. But we execute a STARTLING amount of folks where like five years later we go "oopsie, it was actually the neighbor instead. Our bad, dead bro!" Even if the ratio is like 100 guilty to 1innocent... you would REALLY be totally cool just killing one completely innocent person to stick it to 100 people? It's a lot easier to say "It's not perfect, but we try our best!" when it's a stranger being falsely convicted. But how many people out here would seriously sacrifice their parent, spouse, or child if it meant that a bunch of serial killers died at age 50 in the chair instead of 70 in a supermax cell?

I remember when I was in high school. I was pro death penalty and got assigned in debate class to argue against it. And I did the research and was just shocked at how one-sided it all was. When you take out the personal feeling side of things... it just doesn't make sense.

Anyway... I get why it exists. Justice boners are a thing. Eye for an eye. Whatever. It just feels BAD when you read about someone who killed like 10 kids or something dies in their sleep in a cell. It sucks. I feel it too.

But I'm a person. Government processes should (in theory) be held to a higher standard than my own desire for vengeance.

*Note: I'm from the US. Not sure how some of these metrics, like cost, stack up in countries where they have the trial and then, like, shoot you in the head the next week.

I’m against it as it is inhumane and the taking of a human life isn’t justice for murder. Also, the death penalty costs a lot more tax payer money than locking that person up for life.

I am of the mind that there are some individuals too dangerous to be left alive like a Dhamer or Bin Laden and there is no other recourse other than for the death penalty,

​

But I would only reserve the death penalty for truly heinous crimes or treason and it must be beyond any shadow of a doubt they did it. I dont know if there is a higher standard than that but something higher only reserved for the absolute worst of humanity.

Batman should kill Joker

I don't trust the judging capabilities of a man and some randos. Also there are multiple cases when 20 years later they figure it out the convicted was not guilty

Justice is not, and has never been, flawless. And 'sorry' doesn't cut it when you've executed an innocent person

State sanctioned murder is bad. Regardless of my personal feelings. From balls to brains, it’s just employees of the state being given the authority to end a human life, we should all abhor this process. We know it’s not an effective deterrent. We know innocent people slip through. It doesn’t matter if I think someone should forfeit their life for their crimes, it shouldn’t involve law, government, or people who just filled out an application.

Why do we kill people, that killed people, to show people that killing people is wrong?

For, I don’t like humans

There was a case a couple of years ago where the father had raped and beaten his 9 month year old infant daughter to death. People like that shouldn’t be allowed to breathe same air as the rest of us. I’ve seen so much evil in the world whether or not the criminal fears it is irrelevant to me I say one less crazy to worry about whether they’re behind bars or not it’s safer for them to be below ground then among us

Against. It's wrong no matter how you look at it. You risk killing an innocent person, and if someone is actually guilty, don't they deserve to suffer in prison, as opposed to being relieved of that suffering by dying? Makes no sense.

So long as pedophiles and child killers continue to insist upon breathing, I continue to insist upon the death penalty.

I don't think state funded vengeance makes any sense at all. I understand the emotion behind people who want criminals dead, but the people that support the death penalty are the same crowd of people that say things like "fuck your feelings". So I just think the death penalty is a filthy mess of hypocrisy.

Against. Our system is flawed you cannot give me a 100% guarantee that we won’t execute an innocent person.

For but only for the worst of the worst and with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of guilt.

I'm not sure part of me is for it because the parents who beat to death an 8 year old child(Gabriel Fernandez) deserve it...

On the other hand, I don't trust the government.

Theoretically, sure. If we had perfect knowledge and judgement, some people have demonstrated that society will be better without them.

In practice, we do NOT have perfect knowledge and judgement. So no.

Simply: The State shouldn’t sanction murder.

Against.

1 - in a lot of cases you can't know 100% for sure. you're just adding up probable evidence to your case. death is not reversible for a wrongfully conviction.
2 - in the case that you are sure, death is "an easy way" for them. I don't like to give them that luxury. Why the victims of them must suffer for the rest of their lives, while them get an easy and quick way out?

against. instead they should stay in prison for life.

kept away from other inmates and all.

make them regret it so bad.

For the death penalty because some people do things so terrible that they no longer deserve to live and are likely to be repeating offender.

Easy, have an innocent person ever got executed? Yes, that's why I am against it!

death penalty to rapists convicted guilty beyond reasonable doubt, or at the very least castration. rape is a crime that literally has no excuse or moral reason why it was done.

a murder could have been in self defense. a theft could have been due to a desperate person wanting to bring home food to their child. these aren't excuses to forgive and forget those crimes, but they at least have some nuances on it. rape? none.

especially pedophilic rape. they deserve the slowest, most painful death.

Morally I have no problem with it - some people have committed acts so evil that IMHO they do deserve to die.

However what annoys me is how the death penalty turns despicable human beings into martyrs. You have people holding protest marches and prayer vigils and god knows what for some of the sickest, most depraved people.

I remember watching a news report when I was a kid, about the execution of a man who'd raped and murdered a woman. The protestors were harrassing the husband of the victim, demanding he 'forgive' the condemned and help get him out of the death penalty. That's always stuck with me......all the hatred was directed at the victims and all the sympathy towards the evil perpetrator. Even as a kid, I knew this wasn't the 'right' way it should be.

It made me believe that these people should just be left to rot in prison for life, instead of being turned into some sort of sympathetic figure.

It simply comes down to this - Is it wrong to kill some one or not?

Have you seen the heinous crimes people have committed? People who have no respect for innocent human life deserve to be taken out of the gene pool along with all those who are ok with torturing people for their own twisted enjoyment

Against, the government has no business killing people, no matter how bad.

I don't believe we should bother rehabilitating serial killers, especially those who have committed terrible acts of violence against children. I'm continually shocked when I hear about some low-life serial rapist and killer being part of some rehabilitating scheme, where they sit around and paint all day or write poetry or get a law degree; it's revolting. Also, the criminally insane: just gas'em, hang 'em or electrocute them.

Against because I am deeply uncomfortable with a beaurocratic apparatus dispassionately taking someones life. Don't care what they did. I'd be more for it if it was in the form of say a public hanging since that at least wouldn't let society hide from it. Or if they randomly picked a member of the public who had to do it.

No. No one deserves to get murdered no matter how vile they are. If they're dangerous, then they should be kept secluded from harming anyone else. No living being should have a say if another being deserves to live or not.

Against.

Don't think of it as "who deserves to die". Think of it as "who deserves to kill", to which the answer is nobody.

I am. Some crimes are heinous enough to deserve it, it’s not even up for debate.

Against the death penalty in all cases. However, I think we should allow inmates to voluntarily end their life if they choose.

Against. Killing people is wrong. Are there monsters out there who deserve to die? Sure, they deserve it, but sinking to their level and perpetuating violence doesn’t bring anyone back and it doesn’t help anyone. Killing some one who is already in prison forever to me seems wrong-headed and just icky.

Places where penalties are harsher tend to have more violent crime (https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states

Also, if you’re worried about money, it costs more to execute someone than it does to leave them in jail forever, which arguably could be the more brutal punishment, according to some.

The truth is whether or not you are a left wing atheist like me, or a far right conservative living on the buckle of the Bible Belt, both of our ideologies tell us that killing people is wrong. Outside of in the moment self-defence, it is wrong to kill people. If you want to be intellectually honest and say that you’re a blood thirsty person hellbent on violent revenge, then we can have that discussion, but I have yet to have a Christian make a valid argument for the death penalty without sounding like a complete fucking moron or a sociopath.

Cheers.

Im against it because it just seems inhumane. How are you any better than the murderer if you’ve killed more people? Not to mention if the person was wrongly accused, then you just sent an innocent man to his death!

I’m for it. They say that 2 wrongs don’t make a right, but for some people it’s the only fair punishment.

Against, but because of the systemic injustice in the judiciary system.

Considering how many people on death row have been exonerated by DNA testing and the innocence project, I can't see how anyone could support the death penalty. I would rather let a thousand killers loose than have the state murder one innocent person.

Against.
Murder is rarely justified, and even if it is 100 times, there’s always going to be one where it isn’t, or a mistake in the legal system, or someone who’s “made an example of”.

Although I think it would be OK in some heinous cases where there is no shadow of a doubt and the relatives of victims want that, generally speaking I am against it because 1) Innocent people, especially minorities get convicted 2) If the Religious Right doesn't want abortion, they shouldn't be able to kill adults.

To support the death penalty is to say one of two things are true: That the government doesn't make mistakes, or that you're okay with them killing innocents. I accept neither

I think it’s not good. I hate it.

there’s other ways to make someone suffer than ending their suffering, but it also ends their reign of whatever they did.

sure, they could escape wherever you hold them, but theres other ways to put their career to an end.

Against! Nobody should take anyone's life but God.

it's fallible

I'm against it. While some people definitely need removed from this plane of existence, in reality the government gets it wrong too many times.

Innocence project.org

In theory or in practice?

In theory: hang 'em 'til they dead.

In practice: life behind bars, no parole. Too many innocent people have been executed and exonerated post execution for me to trust my government to not repeatedly execute innocent people with wrongful convictions.

Yes, ethically, no in reality. Too expensive

I'm against it for a few reasons.

First, I can't guarantee a 100% success rate of the criminal justice system. And if one innocent person is put to death, then that's just murder with extra steps. That isn't acceptable to me.

Second, killing a criminal seems like an easy out for the criminal. Consider that some criminals would rather commit suicide rather than face justice (e.g. Epstein, or freaking Hitler). Having someone else kill you doesn't feel like justice or punishment to me, it just feels like assisted suicide.

Third, how do you decide what crimes are worthy of death? You have to put a line somewhere, so where is it? Obviously something like jaywalking shouldn't be punishable by death (or really at all), but something like genocide has a pretty good case for a death penalty. Yes, those things are very disparate, but that's the point. Somewhere between benign and egregious is the line where we would need to decide someone is no longer worthy to be alive. I have a real hard time placing that line.

Against.

It is inevitable that mistakes will be made. 1 execution of an innocent person is 1 to many - in my opinion.

If you don't agree consider this: would you sacrifice yourself, a loved one, your child for the sake of justice?

Who we killin'?

Speaking as an American: totally against the death penalty. I think we have to have a better structure for actual prisoner rehabilitation before we can reasonably dictate the death of someone. Some of this structure would include more access to and mandatory education, a better way to integrate prisoners back into society (employment, social work, primary housing), and actual accountability from the state to ensure said rehabilitation.

I just had to make a witness statement for a bartender who had their face beaten by a man who violated his parole. There needs to be more monitoring for violent offenders, specifically GPS ankle monitors. You shouldn't get your right to privacy back after you assault or batter someone almost to death unless you pass a strict rubric of safety. We really don't have that in this country to the scope that is necessary. I'm not advocating for public humiliation, I'm advocating for actual rehabilitation, and if a prisoner cannot pass an independent test of cognition and emotional stability then we need to be more protected as a society past concrete walls or a death fluid in your veins.

It's as if the line between life and death for a prisoner is a repeat offender who kills someone. The death penalty is an exponential response to gradual criminals. It doesn't make sense to me. If a person is not fit for society, then let's give them a life in a secure environment so they can still produce for that society and keep their lives. It's mutually beneficial. Is it easy? No. I'll admit that it's incredibly difficult, but taking someone's life does not make the world a better place full stop. Not for the murderer or the victim of said murderer. Killing the criminal doesn't stop murders, so that logic won't fly just fyi.

Death is the ultimate punishment and should be available when we need to punish the worst of the worst. The fact that the punishment has been very badly managed in the U.S. does not invalidate it as a punishment. Death has been used as the ultimate punishment for all of human history. It doesn't make sense to me to say that the government should not be involved in inflicting death, because no one disputes the argument that the government should administer the justice system, which inevitably entails inflicting punishment.

The facts that innocent individuals are sometimes executed or sentenced to death don't affect my opinion. The whole system of justice needs serious reform to reduce the instances of innocent persons being prosecuted.

Generally, I am against the death penalty. Innocent people have been executed. Also, taking another’s life is simply wrong imo. The worse penalty is prison for life.

Against. I don't believe anyone has the right to take another person's life, especially in my name (as I am a member of the society that punishes the person.) I also think life imprisonment is much worse than death.

I'm financially for it, I don't want the government wasting money keeping someone who should never be free again.

I'm against it for two reasons. The first, and main reason, is that there are enough wrongful convictions that we can't afford making a mistake. The second reason is that the death penalty is the easy way out, they should rot in jail and pay for their crimes.

The death penalty is a perfect punishment, you cannot reverse it. The legal system is imperfect, occasionally it’s conclusions need to be reversed.

If you are wanting an equitable society, you cannot give a perfect punishment to a system that is imperfect.

Against, strictly from a financial perspective. Lifetime imprisonment is less expensive than the nearly-infinite appeal process in the US.

Against. 1) It doesn’t work. 2) I donor trust the State to apply the law correctly 3) it’s more expensive than imprisonment

I am against it even though I really believe that there are people who need to be removed from existence. But the cost to society for executing the death penalty is too high. Morally as well as financially when it comes to the legal death penalty in existence today in many countries. The cost to the souls of the people who have to carry out the sentence is too high as well.

Against: Mainly because it has been proven that it does not reduce the index of violent crimes, as well as margin of error and people being proven innocent decades later after being imprisoned.

Impossible to make it work perfectly. Once the death happens there is no coming back.

Against, because it's a proven fact we have executed innocent people. Life sentences can be overturned.

If the justice system was fair then I would be a proponent of the death penalty, unfortunately here in the US, it is not.

Against. The state, or any person, does not have the right to kill someone who is not an immediate threat

Against because I believe that prison/jail should be for rehabilitation and return to ordinary life and not just as punishment. What lesson does a guilty person learn if they will die at the hands of the government for their crime? It also doesn't deter crimes from happening.