Current Events > Do you believe in the death penalty?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Well CE?
---

Sure.
---

It doesn't need to be believed in. It exists.
---

No.
---

It's really never the logical thing to do, and believe it or not i have empathy for criminals as well, so no.
---

Would rather see torture tbh

I do not support it in any circumstance.
---

Hell yes.
They should limit appeals to 3 and expedite each one too. Then execute the trash as they were sentenced to instead of them sitting there living off our tax dollars for 30 years.
---

Would rather have them work hard labor than to sit in a cell, waiting to die.
---

It's just a fairy tale.
---

I see the argument brought up that life sentences are cheaper than death sentences, but isn't that because of appeals? Like pleading guilty to get life instead of the death penalty by pleading not guilty + many appeals?

If that's the case, could it be that if the death penalty was banned, you'd actually see an increase of not guilty pleas, thus making life sentences more expensive, if not more expensive than the life/death combo we currently have?

Also, would pleading guilty to the worst of crimes prevent you from life sentences if the death penalty was eliminated?
---

Do you believe in the death penalty?

Yes

Trash should be exterminated, not maintained... and certainly not tolerated. Also reduce the ridiculous endless appeals crap, and hang the convicts instead of wasting money on your little poisons.

Yes, for rape, murder, and other crimes against humanity.
---

Yes, to every extent of the word.
---

No, time and time again history has shown that imprisonment has saved many innocent lives. Hundreds of people have been exonerated through the innocence project that would not have happened had they been executed. Anyone who supports it has innocent blood on their hands tbh.
---

No.
---

Yes. Kill em all and let the Lord sort em out.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

No, time and time again history has shown that imprisonment has saved many innocent lives. Hundreds of people have been exonerated through the innocence project that would not have happened had they been executed. Anyone who supports it has innocent blood on their hands tbh.

Source on those stats please.

Anyone care to address the cost argument I presented in my previous post?
---

WaterLink posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

No, time and time again history has shown that imprisonment has saved many innocent lives. Hundreds of people have been exonerated through the innocence project that would not have happened had they been executed. Anyone who supports it has innocent blood on their hands tbh.

Source on those stats please.

Anyone care to address the cost argument I presented in my previous post?

https://www.innocenceproject.org/

351 count by the Innocence Project. Those are the people that we know are innocent. Imagine all the ones we failed to catch in time.

And your argument: even if it would result in less suspects taking plead deals during the arraignment, suspects make numerous appeals in court. That often take decades of legal work. I don't know the stats to say for sure it would still be less expensive, but if anyone is able to provide that it would be interesting. As far as I know, we don't know what the costs would be if it were banned.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

https://www.innocenceproject.org/

351 count by the Innocence Project. Those are the people that we know are innocent. Imagine all the ones we failed to catch in time.

Ok, I'm on mobile right now so I'm not seeing any article or video here. Is this counting people that "may" have been innocent, or who have been undoubtedly completely innocent? Also over how many years? And I'd love an actual case by case list with sources to each case
---

WaterLink posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

https://www.innocenceproject.org/

351 count by the Innocence Project. Those are the people that we know are innocent. Imagine all the ones we failed to catch in time.

Ok, I'm on mobile right now so I'm not seeing any article or video here. Is this counting people that "may" have been innocent, or who have been undoubtedly completely innocent? Also over how many years? And I'd love an actual case by case list with sources to each case

Exoneration requires extensive evidence to point to innocence. You can't just exonerate someone because a piece of evidence may have been somewhat faulty. The justice system in general fights every step of the exoneration process as laboriously as they did for the prosecution process. But yes they have all the cases on their site.
---

Not a fan. I feel like knowing your death is incoming is cruel. Whether or not they deserve to die or not.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Exoneration requires extensive evidence to point to innocence. You can't just exonerate someone because a piece of evidence may have been somewhat faulty. The justice system in general fights every step of the exoneration process as laboriously as they did for the prosecution process. But yes they have all the cases on their site.

Ok so you're basically saying your previous post is false, because you said you knew these people were innocent, when really you don't.
---

WaterLink posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Exoneration requires extensive evidence to point to innocence. You can't just exonerate someone because a piece of evidence may have been somewhat faulty. The justice system in general fights every step of the exoneration process as laboriously as they did for the prosecution process. But yes they have all the cases on their site.

Ok so you're basically saying your previous post is false, because you said you knew these people were innocent, when really you don't.

Kid, you never know if someone is absolutely innocent or guilty unless you are the suspect himself.

As I said, if you bothered to comprehend is properly, the government fights exoneration every step of the way. You have to be as close to absolute as reasonably possible to exonerate someone of murder.
---

Issue is it takes longer, is more expensive, and you can't really free an innocent man if you've killed him.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Kid, you never know if someone is absolutely innocent or guilty unless you are the suspect himself.

OK and you are subject to a jury of your peers with all the evidence.

Now, your last post said, and I directly quote, "Those are the people that we know are innocent."

So explain to me how "we know" they are innocent? Because that is exactly what you said
---

WaterLink posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Kid, you never know if someone is absolutely innocent or guilty unless you are the suspect himself.

OK and you are subject to a jury of your peers with all the evidence.

Now, your last post said, and I directly quote, "Those are the people that we know are innocent."

So explain to me how "we know" they are innocent? Because that is exactly what you said

Like I said, nobody knows if anyone is guilty or innocent unless they are the suspect themself. But yes, reasonable people know they are innocent. If you're not convinced, well, that's on you. Try to keep up please.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Like I said, nobody knows if anyone is guilty or innocent unless they are the suspect themself. Try to keep up please.

So why did you say "we know they are innocent"?
---

WaterLink posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Like I said, nobody knows if anyone is guilty or innocent unless they are the suspect themself. Try to keep up please.

So why did you say "we know they are innocent"?

Because we do. You're having trouble understanding burden of proof. Here's a tip: there is no absolute level of proof.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Like I said, nobody knows if anyone is guilty or innocent unless they are the suspect themself.

You're contradicting yourself here
---

WaterLink posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Like I said, nobody knows if anyone is guilty or innocent unless they are the suspect themself.

You're contradicting yourself here

I'm not. Read about burden of proof. Get back here when you understand "beyond a shadow of a doubt" does not actually exist. You're asking for absolute 100% proof that they are innocent. There is no such thing. But we reasonable people know that those people are innocent.
---

WaterLink posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Like I said, nobody knows if anyone is guilty or innocent unless they are the suspect themself. Try to keep up please.

So why did you say "we know they are innocent"?

It's fairly obvious he means in the eyes of the law. Stop being intentionally dumb

WaterLink posted...

I see the argument brought up that life sentences are cheaper than death sentences, but isn't that because of appeals? Like pleading guilty to get life instead of the death penalty by pleading not guilty + many appeals?

If that's the case, could it be that if the death penalty was banned, you'd actually see an increase of not guilty pleas, thus making life sentences more expensive, if not more expensive than the life/death combo we currently have?

Also, would pleading guilty to the worst of crimes prevent you from life sentences if the death penalty was eliminated?

Death penalties by law must go to the highest court of appeals possible in every case. If the sentencing is not he death penalty, higher courts can deny seeing the appeal case, and in many of the death sentences that would turn into life sentences, they most certainly would. Usually appeals are only looked at if there is reason to suspect there was a problem with the trial.

The natural question is "why not make it so that death penalty appeals can be denied"? And that's simply a matter of philosophy. Is it better for a prison to pay the cost of living of a pointless life in jail for a heinous murderer, or risk murdering innocent men and women, particularly those that may have been convicted for prejudice? The automatic appeal for death penalty is to ensure there are as few wrongful executions as possible. People sentenced for life can be freed after exoneration. Dead people can't.

The current philosophy is to allow more guilty men to go free than innocent men be unfairly prosecuted. If you feel it should be the opposite, fair enough.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

WaterLink posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Like I said, nobody knows if anyone is guilty or innocent unless they are the suspect themself.

You're contradicting yourself here

I'm not. Read about burden of proof. Get back here when you understand "beyond a shadow of a doubt" does not actually exist. You're asking for absolute 100% proof that they are innocent. There is no such thing. But we reasonable people know that those people are innocent.

Of course there isn't 100%. Criminals, especially ones that plan their crimes out and have a good lawyer won't give that to you. That's why we have a jury.

I have to wait til I get home to my laptop to see this site for myself to see what the change of evidence was for these cases since it has a shitty mobile site, but you can't say "we know they're innocent" and at the same time say "we don't know if they're innocent or guilty". Just saying.
---

WaterLink posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

WaterLink posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Like I said, nobody knows if anyone is guilty or innocent unless they are the suspect themself.

You're contradicting yourself here

I'm not. Read about burden of proof. Get back here when you understand "beyond a shadow of a doubt" does not actually exist. You're asking for absolute 100% proof that they are innocent. There is no such thing. But we reasonable people know that those people are innocent.

Of course there isn't 100%. Criminals, especially ones that plan their crimes out and have a good lawyer won't give that to you. That's why we have a jury.

I have to wait til I get home to my laptop to see this site for myself to see what the change of evidence was for these cases since it has a shitty mobile site, but you can't say "we know they're innocent" and at the same time say "we don't know if they're innocent or guilty". Just saying.

Yes you can. "We know they're innocent beyond a reasonable doubt" But we also "Don't know they're innocent beyond a sliver of a doubt". If you're going to ask for an impossible standard, then in that case we don't know. And clearly even after I told you the difficulties of exoneration you continued to press for an impossible standard. So that's what I assumed.
---

Hm

No law is ever going to be absolutely perfect. Perhaps, if we can develop tech, with which we can just simply read suspect/s mind. You know, as to always establish those 99% odds on, whether they did it or not AND even the circumstances, which led to the crime :).

But yea. I've never been fan of this "Well, how many wrongfully convicted would be killed." defence. True, it's not entirely without merit. And that if you just imprison everyone for live. Then yes. At rare occasions, it may turn out, that the said person was in fact innocent afterall. And his life was thus spared.

But on the other hand. Being jailed for years, decades or worse, the rest of your life, may not be that much better fate. So by this same: "Pity the slim, slim minority logic", should we start making prisons into comfy 5 star hotels... so, no innocent is never, ever accidently subjected into unjust suffering? Even tho, these people would probably make like 0.1% of the entire prison population. When compared to all the rapists, murderers and other people who definitely do deserve to at the very least, suffer for their crime just a little bit :). Oh! And continue requiring constant maintenance (eat, drink, etc.), which they no longer even deserve to have.

Well, I don't believe we should. Hmph! Not that prisons aint already way too comfortable in certain parts of the world. No, I believe that we definitely should exterminate the most degenerate among us. AND definitely not coddle criminals because 1/10000 might, or might not be innocent.

It aint perfect solution. But it's better AND more just overall in my opinion.

ChainedRedone posted...

Yes you can. "We know they're innocent beyond a reasonable doubt" But we also "Don't know they're innocent beyond a sliver of a doubt". If you're going to ask for an impossible standard, then in that case we don't know. And clearly even after I told you the difficulties of exoneration you continued to press for an impossible standard. So that's what I assumed.

That's not what you said at first. You said you knew they were innocent in one post. Then in a subsequent post you said you had no way of knowing whether they were innocent.

I'm not trying to say there aren't innocent people being convicted. I'm just saying don't go around saying you "know" they are innocent when you don't. And then go even further to suggest there are more "we don't know about" when you don't really know about these you claim to be sure about in the first place.

All I'm asking for is some consistency.
---

WaterLink posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Yes you can. "We know they're innocent beyond a reasonable doubt" But we also "Don't know they're innocent beyond a sliver of a doubt". If you're going to ask for an impossible standard, then in that case we don't know. And clearly even after I told you the difficulties of exoneration you continued to press for an impossible standard. So that's what I assumed.

That's not what you said at first. You said you knew they were innocent in one post. Then in a subsequent post you said you had no way of knowing whether they were innocent.

I'm not trying to say there aren't innocent people being convicted. I'm just saying don't go around saying you "know" they are innocent when you don't. And then go even further to suggest there are more "we don't know about" when you don't really know about these you claim to be sure about in the first place.

All I'm asking for is some consistency.

No, I said we know they are innocent because we do to any reasonable degree. You asked for an absolute standard of proof which in that case we do not know because that standard is impossible to achieve. Not sure why you're having so much trouble understanding this simple concept.
---

hell no. literally, absolutely no reason for it. that and we arent animals

No, only because of the risk of executing an innocent person, no matter how small.

Yes because some people are no different than a rabid animal that needs to be put down. You can't rehabilitate people who don't want to, or unable to, be rehabilitated.
---

I think every offense should be punished by death, like that one shitty Star Trek TNG episode

I don't support it in any situation
---

I (Butters) voted third option, which still means I'm pro-death...but the third option is the only option that makes sense. There's some who kill 1 or 2 people, and there's some that kill like 10, 100, or A THOUSAND HUNDRED TRILLION! How can you possibly say that all killers deserve the same fate (regardless of what it should be)? Murder isn't totally irredeemable, but certain people aren't worth keeping alive.
---

Here's an idea to solve a ton of loophole problems...give certain people life sentences in solitary confinement with no food. Then it would be like both a life sentence and a death sentence, but they could be denied the right to an appeal since it's technically not the death penalty! Eye for an Eye, loophole for a loophole, etc.
---

treewojima posted...

I think every offense should be punished by death, like that one shitty Star Trek TNG episode

Walk on the grass? ded.

If the crime can be proven by hard indisputable evidence yes, but if there's even a shred of doubt and no hard evidence then no.
---

People have far too much of a mindset that death is some sort of unbeatable punishment. There are things that are far, FAR worse than death, and is why the death penalty should not be used. For example: placing a person in a room without windows, or any sort of way to tell time, or even hear people outside. It may not seem like all much of a punishment, but the psychological effects are extreme. You do that, and the person will suffer far incomparably more than any death penalty will ever accomplish.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

If the crime can be proven by hard indisputable evidence yes, but if there's even a shred of doubt and no hard evidence then no.

No such burden of proof in the eyes of the law. What you're saying is silly. Be pragmatic.
---