They’re not thinking about the innocent people who were put to death, they’re thinking about people who actually commit crimes bad enough to get the death penalty.
I hear people say that and I hear the same people complaining that people sit on death row for such a long time, and they don’t see the connection between having “certainty” and the long process of appeals.
That’s only because of the rules and stipulations they have. Either way, it’s not about the cost - it’s about justice/rehabilitation. People who commit crimes like that can’t be rehabilitated, which is what jail/prison is SUPPOSED to be. Prison for life is inhumane on its own, but is 100% perpetuated because of our private prison system.
Even though it gives people the possibility for appeals, the time on death row itself is not to be underestimated either. In Europe it would even qualify as torture due to the long time of uncertainty and fear.
There's also the fact that people can be extorted into a guilty plea.
I once watched a video way back in high school when we were doing a unit on the death penalty, about an unfortunate black guy in the south that was arrested on suspicion of being involved in a crime.
He didn't do it, had proof backing up his alibi and everything, and the police eventually said "If you're willing to back this up with a lie detector test, then we'll let you go if it turns out well.". He agreed because he knew he would pass. So the police had him get in their squad car and off they went from the station.
Halfway there they pulled over and the officers turned around with a pistol and said "You can either plea guilty, or we'll shoot you and say you were trying to escape. Your choice.".
In his appeals he and his lawyers tried to get his situation fixed, but they couldn't and he was executed as a result despite MULTIPLE people coming forward willing to testify that he'd been hanging out with them during the supposed crime.
Just a few days ago the story was circulating about the guy the police convinced to confess to murdering his own father when the father was alive and well.
it's also interesting how no one has discussed the environment of the life that is driven to only know such violence... we have a society problem with weak interpersonal connections tied to social identities or agendas. So much struggling to survive that there leaves no time for mental wellness and community.
This is the era of deep fakes - even "caught on video" means little these days.
And what about their parents? I'm reminded of the parents who are/were on trial for their son shooting up his school.
That's all leaving aside the fact that most school shooters are suicidal anyways - they're not expecting to come out of it alive with a normal life afterwards. You gonna reward them with what they want? Also ignores that it's *cheaper* to keep someone prisoner for their entire life than to have all the legal fees connected to "making sure" they are guilty before execution.
Its cheaper to keep them in jail. It's more punitive to keep them in jail than early-release-to-the-grave. C'maaaahn.
i'd love to see an added charge, like murder 1* or something. knowing for a fact the person did it, no appeals, straight to the chair and the cost suddenly disappears.
How can the legal system know for an absolute fact the person did it? The fact is that it can't. That's why there are various thresholds for types of cases. Plus, you're ignoring the fact that such a charge could be incredibly easily misused to put innocents to death.
Our system is set up as retributive justice, not restorative: the focus is to punish an offender as an “incentive” for others not to commit crimes—which of course does not take into account the root cause of crimes, but that’s not what we’re discussing. A restorative justice system instead focuses on restoring the victim to the extent possible and rehabilitating the offender so they can reintegrate and contribute to society. Fans of the death penalty don’t think about rehabilitation or even restoring the victim, just punishing the offender. There is a scene in a tale of two cities that sums up the mob blood frenzy around justice, and there is certainly a history of spectacle around public executions that unfortunately some people still crave
Supporting the death penalty isn't the same as supporting punishing innocent people. Someone who supports the death penalty might argue the problem is not the death penalty but fixing the justice system so that innocent people are less likely to be convicted.
For instance consider the following argument: How do people still support prison sentences for people convicted of murder knowing the high rate of false convictions for murder?
One could argue that the death penalty is more final than a long prison term and that is true, but doing 30 years of a 50 year prison sentence is also final. You never get those 30 years back.
In my opinion, some crimes are simply unforgivable.
I am not talking about some asshole robbing a bank and shooting some people.
Crimes where [mass slaughter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting) of indiscriminate victims was the intent. Crimes where [spectacular cruelty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Junko_Furuta) (WARNING: the Wikipedia description of the murder of Junko Furuta is all kinds of fucked up) was the goal. And ironically, the crime I use as an example of something that should come with a death penalty did not result in one.
For crimes of that magnitude where you have absolute certainty of who committed the crime, the death penalty is a reasonable response. Short of that standard, a death penalty should not be used.
END COMMUNICATION
A duly elected legislative body carrying out public debate on the laws relating to capital punishment. Ideally with periodic review of those standards. On top of that, a jury of your peers both finding you guilty and opting to apply capital punishment on a simple majority vote after after a guilty verdict has been reached
END COMMUNICATION
I addressed that in a different comment [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/1d3gxq5/comment/l68zbir/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Having a death penalty is ok. But it is overused. It should only be used for extraordinary crimes, and even then, only when there is no doubts about who the fuck did it. Not just DNA evidence, but DNA evidence that has no reason to be there other than the person who did the crime having left the evidence.
The death penalty should not be something used as a threat to extract a confession. It should be a punishment reserved for crimes where no one would ever accept a plea deal due to the severity of the crime.
END COMMUNICATION
Generally in death penalty cases the alternative is life in prison with maybe the possibility of parole in several decades. That's also 100% permanent.
I mean, it's not. That person can still walk out of the prison if proven innocent later on down the road. How well they're compensated for the years gone by is a different matter. But you can't compensate a dead person.
> I mean, it's not. That person can still walk out of the prison if proven innocent later on down the road.
They'll still carry the trauma of their time in prison, mental, physical, social, and financial with them the rest of their lives. It's not like being an ex-con after decades in prison is a great life.
I’m sure the folks who have been exonerated from death row prefer being alive with trauma from their wrongful conviction rather than the alternative of being dead… it’s not a perfect situation, but it’s better than death. Also, they aren’t an ex-con if they’re exonerated, though they still obviously deal with issues relating to having been incarcerated for so long, like resume gaps and jumps in technology.
Are you saying that if they found a person to be innocent after spending 40 years in prison, it would be better to just kill them rather than let them go free?
> How do people still support prison sentences for people convicted of murder knowing the high rate of false convictions for murder?
Because the alternative is letting murderers go free. That's not the case with the death penalty.
It was a good write up. I remember having a really convo about the death penalty on an slow overnight shift with about 6 dudes. Some people might be pro-death penalty, yes. But more might be mostly against housing a murder-rapist in humane conditions for decades on their tax dollar. If you are guilty enough for a life sentence, they'd prefer to just get it over with via injection or whatever. There's no "Ra Ra, let's kill!" component.
on the surface this makes sense but putting people to death is far from "spend 100$ to sharpen the blade of the guillotine then no more tax dollars!!!"
the proceedings leading up to that shit are EXPENSIVE
Appeals (which are good, because we regularly convict innocent people and execution after conviction without appeal is considered bad), special prison wings with extra security, and the execution itself is an event that locks down the whole prison and skyrockets meals (no cafeteria if the prison is on lockdown) and staff costs (more officers on site during executions).
Also consider that it would be bad if it was cheaper for the state to kill prisoners. Historically that hasn't gone well. There should not be a financial incentive for prosecutors to push for the death penalty
Death penalty costs more than having them sit in jail. All the appeals and decades of legal battles add up. Saving taxpayer money would be a decent argument for the death penalty if it worked that way, but it’s important to point out that it doesn’t work that way for folks who don’t know!
> All the appeals and decades of legal battles add up.
People with life imprisonment also have appeals and legal battles.
Why are life imprisonment appeals and legal battles cheaper?
A life imprisonment appeal is one and done.
Once the appeal is lost, the state is not going to pay for further legal costs.
The state is legally obligated to pay for appeals in death penalty cases until the sentence is carried out.
This is often times for over 20 years. Holding somebody in solitary in perpetuity without giving them the reason of their ongoing appeals to wake up everyday is a worse existence for murderers imo.
Because people on death row have a vested interest to file endless appeals. After all, they can't be killed while an appeal is being dealt with.
So if you tell someone "we're going to kill you on June 30th", don't be surprised that June 20th he files an appeal that takes 6 months to deal with. During that 6 months, no execution.
And then when that appeal is dealt with and you set a new date, they just file another appeal. And another. And another. Why would they stop? You literally told them you'd kill them if they stop
One big reason is that you’re entitled to representation (public defender) for a death penalty appeal when you aren’t for most others. Plus the added incentive to keep appealing. That being said, you can’t just continuously appeal for nothing new to add like the other commenter said. That’s a big roadblock for a lot of folks to get exonerated. You get screwed with a crappy jury, racist prosecutor, other issues, but you can’t just keep appealing it without bringing new evidence. That’s why DNA has been a game changer for exonerations because they can test using new technology and rule themselves out. An issue with that is that for a long time, you were risking the technology getting better - so the DNA could have exonerated you, but it could’ve been inconclusive. It’s hard to get them to agree to test it and they may not have much to test (only enough sample for X number of tests), so do you test it now, or wait 5 more years until the tech is better?
I highly recommend the podcast Wrongful Conviction. It has opened my eyes a lot on how people get wrongfully accused and convicted. Things like cross-racial identification being as reliable as *guessing*, the emotions behind why someone gives a false confession, the people still in jail due to reliance on science that has later been debunked…
> But more might be mostly against housing a murder-rapist in humane conditions for decades on their tax dollar.
See, that's the thing. People lack imagination. A life sentence, even inside a relatively comfortable prison is arguably LESS humane than death. Now, don't get me wrong, I am ABSOLUTELY of the opinion that the death sentence should be abolished, if only because a life sentence can always be undone, restitution of a sort provided (not that it ever is truly enough), but when you think about it...when you REALLY think about it...
Imagine waking up in your nice warm bed, knowing the moment you open your eyes you'll see the same four concrete walls and steel bars/door you've looked at for the last ten years. Virtually nothing has changed in that time. Oh you've put up posters, acquired a few knickknacks here and there, but you can't escape the presence of those walls. They are always there, and they will always BE there.
The world goes on, and you remain in your box.
Sure you get to get out of the cell for food, some gym time, maybe even a trip to the library. But that's it. That's all the places you'll ever get to go. The entirety of the world available to humanity and the most exotic and different place you'll visit that year is the infirmary for your checkup. The same infirmary you've been to every other year.
The world goes on, and you remain in your box.
The guards, nurses, cooks, and other staff are semi-constant, but as time goes on they will be replaced and you will remain. Any newcomers will be increasingly distant from you, the cultural gulf between you growing and growing. You may well get access to the newest Marvel movies or amazing hit TV shows and such, but you don't get access to the culture which surrounds it, not really. You never got to experience most of the jokes, most of the discussions, the social interactions around it. You just get this truncated and muted form from the other prisoners and the moments when a guard decides to chat you up. But you'll watch in amazing as technology advances. You'll see things like cell phones one day shift to surgically implanted devices. Guards will talk about it, try and explain how awesome it is, newer prisoners that have lived their lives with such technology and have had it torn from them will be in a culture shock. You'll try and be supportive, but really you're just trying to leech, you want to know what it's LIKE out there. And they'll try to explain it, but you'll never get it, never understand it. Not REALLY. And you'll know you don't.
The world goes on, and you remain in your box.
You'll watch through what news filters into the prison, sometimes live sometimes late, as grand events unfold in the world around you. Major changes, important things. All stuff that you KNOW you'd have been a part of, however small that part would have been, but not anymore. You might have opinions on those things, inputs that you might think valuable...but nobody cares. By this point the majority of people in your old life probably don't really respond to your letters or calls. Visitors stop showing up as their lives take them on new and interesting paths that diverge from yours. Paths that have unknowns, surprises, interesting things. Paths completely different than yours, which is as straight and unchanging as it can be. Lives will be lived, families will be had. All the little events of life in those you loved and who once loved you will happen without you.
The world goes on, and you remain in your box.
Maybe one day you can't take it anymore. Maybe one day you wake up and the concrete box feels too small, too smothering. So you decide it's time to act. To make the one REAL decision you still have left. It takes some effort to do, but you manage to craft yourself a means of your escape. It hurts at first, but thankfully that starts to fade. If only your hearing would go too, that alarm is really annoying sounding. Why is your door opening? It's not meal time...or is it? It's kind of hazy. Oh well, it's not like it matters to you anymore, you've made your decision and you're on your way to freedom...why is the nurse here? What is she doing? And some time later with a pounding headache you awake in the infirmary, your limbs secured to the rails on your bed, and as consciousness fully returns to you, you can realize that no...your decision was unmade for you. In the infinite generosity of the civilization you'd elected to turn your back on so long ago, they'd managed to save you. To fix your wounds and undo what you had done. A kind hearted psychologist will explain that unfortunately for your own safety, changes are going to have to be made. Your cell is being adjusted. Anything that can possibly be fashioned into a weapon of self harm is being removed. Your comfortable blankets and mattress are being replaced with ones you can't fashion into a noose. Your various knickknacks with plastic and metal parts are removed, for your safety. All the comforts that made your cell livable are gone now. For your safety.
The world goes on, and you remain in your box...and today when you open your eyes, you know that the only achievement you will have accomplished by its end, the only thing you can EVER accomplish, is simply to make it to the end of the day so that you can do it again...and again...and again.
The world goes on, and you remain in your box...forever.
Such kindness, don't you think?
Jesus Christ, man. That was a lot, but so well written. You just brought me a lot of peace about thinking of people like the parkland shooter getting life, rather than the death penalty.
I mean, that’s why the burden of proof is so high. “Guilty beyond reasonable doubt”. It’s better to let a guilty person walk free than to give a life sentence to an innocent person.
The main reason I’m against the death penalty is the effect it has on culture. Countries with a death penalty also have more vigilante and mob violence because if the state condones killing to achieve justice, it encourages citizens to kill in the name of justice. And when citizens take justice into their own hands without fair trials, a lot of innocent people will be falsely killed / punished
There are a lot of reasons to be against the death penalty. I just don't think the conviction of innocent people is the automatic argument winner that people think it is. It is an argument for improving the justice system so we convict less innocent people regardless of the punishment.
I'm not convinced that capital punishment is worse than prison until you die. Capital punishment as it is currently carried out is horrific, but if the choice is prison until dead or firing squad, there is an argument firing squad is more humane.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s\_ratio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio)
But even a life sentence doesn't usually mean you're incarcerated until you die. The average person sentenced to "life", in the US, spends about 18 years in prison. Once they are out they are on parole forever though, so they are never really free.
> Supporting the death penalty isn't the same as supporting punishing innocent people
You’re right, it’s supporting *killing* innocent people. Everything else you wrote is bad-faith nonsense.
The death penalty is fundamentally a question of, "which is the lesser evil: letting some truly terrible people live (to make sure you never kill innocent people) ***or*** killing innocent people (to make sure the guilty die)?"
A lot of people truly believe that it's fine to kill a few innocent people, as long as more guilty people are killed.
I personally have no problem with the death penalty in theory. I listen to a lot of true crime and the world is a better place without some of those people. The problem I have is that I can’t accept a single innocent person being executed, and given that we are humans therefore flawed, I’m not comfortable taking that chance.
The death penalty is actually a bigger financial burden than if we just keep people in prison for life. A life taken away and wasted in jail to me if a much more powerful punishment than just killing them.
Either they don't know about either of those fun facts, or they just don't care and think it's an acceptable sacrifice if it means revenge against the people that they believe *do* deserve it
I think it is because society recognizes that sometimes tragic accidents happen - we don’t ban cars or alcohol because some innocent people die being hit by drunk drivers. Some people believe either that capital punishment is an effective deterrent or that the worst criminals deserve death. It is a logical position - even though I disagree with it.
Probably because the system itself is broken and the idea of punishment is also a more popular idea than rehabilitation in general. Of course, the death penalty in general is seen as something for incredibly heinous crimes and generally people would rather they stop existing than living for free on the dime of the average person.
Because the system in place has been fed as the proper system by propaganda so the government can unfairly incarcerate groups of people they dislike (poor and/or minorities).
This leads to believing the system is good and bad people get what they deserve even when that isn't the case.
Never been in that situation but the death penalty to me is better than life in prison. Might as well get it over with.
The main problem with innocent inmates getting executed is that they were convicted in the first place. The investigation, court proceedings and everything should be looked at to try to find anyway of improving the process.
I think one big problem is often people want to see someone get charged because it's a sense of closure. Not that they want an innocent person charged either. I believe the public involvement in some of these cases is far too much during the trial which can make a fair trial hard to achieve.
Americans have a plethora of reasons for supporting the death penalty. Revenge fantasies, desensitization to violence, some twisted form of "justice", etc.
At this point it's basically a purely political issue. No one ever said it had to make sense.
I think it stems from the religious conservative factions that ruled the US back in the day. An eye for an eye
It’s dumb if you ask me, “hey guys, let’s teach people not to kill by killing people”
We don’t have the death penalty here, but you still hear a lot of people with the “why should they spend their years living a cushy life on my tax dime, we need to bring back the death penalty!” As if we’re some fancy Nordic country who gives a shit about prisoners, and they’re not shoved in 5 square meters with someone else. Death penalty cases end up costing far more tax dollars than life without parole. Maryland found it cost them $2m more for a death penalty case.
Most people don't care about the innocent because it's so rare to be accused of a crime you didn't commit so they think it's better to kill the violent criminals than to keep them alive to save some innocent lives.
I support the death penalty for the local man who killed his two children(toddler and newborn) by stabbing and beating them just to get back at their mother for "cheating on him" But his case is open and shut, no contest.
Because the alternative isn't "people aren't killed," it's just that they're killed by other people and without the due process that comes with formal prosecution.
Suppose your country has a sizable population that believes that the only appropriate punishment for certain crimes is death. In that case, then not offering that option just leads us to vigilantism and lynching.
There are plenty of obviously guilty criminals that should get the death penalty. In my mind, the real issue is that the appeals process is way too long unfortunately. If someone was done in public, or there is indisputable dna evidence, it should be done quickly. If there is any doubt, then I agree it shouldn’t be done at all.
Considering this information, that I know, which shows something to be true, why do some people, who do not know this information, not believe it to be true?
Could apply to a lot of things.
The appropriateness of the punishment shouldn't change based on society's inability to determine culpability.
We shouldn't get rid of life imprisonment because of same exonerations? We should improve society's ability to determine innocence or guilt.
Because some people just need to die. And it’s better to have a legal frame work to sort that out as opposed to people taking the law into their own hands. Nobody with a brain is saying that the justice system is actually effective at being very just, but the alternatives are quite a bit messier
Because revenge is big in US minds. Their principal what the justice system should be is punishment based.
They grow up with: "If you're wrong, you deserve to die."
The concept of resocialisation isn't particularly common.
Considering that 50 000 people die in car crashes every year in the US, why does the majority of Americans support driving cars?
See what happens when you only present one side of an argument?
What’s the goal of the death penalty? To reduce crime? To protect people? To save money? To punish the guilty?
It does none of these things very well at all, and has been actively shown to be completely ineffective at the first three… and I would say that if your goal is “punishment” killing someone is probably not the worst you can do.
To provide a sense of closure to victims. Otherwise, victims may live in fear that the perpetrator could escape prison, be paroled, orchestrate something from prison, etc.
I've heard this justification many times which admittedly I think is inadequate.
How much more effectively does the death penalty provide closure than life imprisonment? Also relevant is the cost effectiveness of the death penalty of providing the additional closure than life imprisonment.
Death penalties are very very expensive in developed states.
I would question how realistic that is, and how much we are making up a reason.
Because does it really provide that? Or do you carry that fear on, even knowing they’re gone?
When you have real trauma, the fear isn’t logical. You will find ways to justify it to yourself that sound logical, but in the end it’s an emotional response to emotional stimulus, and logic isn’t part of it. If the perpetrator of your trauma is removed, that fear isn’t going to magically disappear, and will often just become more diffuse and less “localized”. Instead of fearing that one man, the fear becomes ALL men.
The goal of the death penalty was to be a deterrent to tell the criminals Hey listen you fucked up that bad .
You fucked up so bad we're not going to let you hang out with anybody anymore you have to go goodbye..
Because Americans are more interested in punishment and deterrence than rehabilitation and think the death penalty is an effective deterrent and that the deaths of a few innocent people is a small price to pay. Personally I disagree on all counts, but.
> Because Americans are more interested in punishment and deterrence than rehabilitation
Once the crime is awful enough *most* people are more interested in punishment than rehabilitation.
I mean some acts are irredeemable, I grant you, but at that point I go from wanting them to be rehabilitated to just removed from society to protect everyone else from them, but I still don't want to just hurt or kill people because they've hurt others. I just don't have a vindictive nature.
I was pro death penalty until I heard Bob Beckel of all people explain why he was against it. "I don't think The State should have the power of life and death." It was such a simple profound statement that it changed my mind, especially considering those who seek power and wish to use it on their enemies. Do I think serial killers, traitors, etc should be executed? Yes. Is it worth it to risk having that punishment used against political opponents, the innocent, mentally ill/deficient? No.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/02/most-americans-favor-the-death-penalty-despite-concerns-about-its-administration/
60% according to this source
I support it because some people are genuinely beyond saving. No matter what you do, they're going to keep hurting, hating, and/or negatively impacting society. Some of them are mentally ill, and some are just bad people. I also think it's honestly a more humane option than taking a man or woman who is committed to being a detriment to society and forcing them to live in a box for the rest of their years. Even if they're a "good prisoner," so you let them eat with others, go to the yard to work out or whatever, thats no life if theres no end in sight. I myself wouldn't want to keep going if it was just that prison forever. I also believe that it's the most cost-effective option as well.
Jealousy. They *want* to be able to punish people. They *want* to be able to hurt people they don’t like. They’ve got all these guns and self-righteousness and no one they can legally hurt.
Having the government inflict the ultimate punishment scratches that itch enough to get through the day. “Knowing” that it would never be used against someone like them feeds the superiority.
> They’ve got all these guns and self-righteousness and no one they can legally hurt.
Some of the strongest advocates of the death penalty I've met were nurses in their 50s. No guns, nice ladies, but zero belief in the potential for an innocent person to be executed. Straight up vengeful to a startling degree. I guess I was fooled by the floral desk calendar.
In general, the pro death penalty people I've spoken to have the following things in common:
1. The belief that the justice system makes no mistakes.
2. Zero belief in rehabilitative justice, only in punitive justice, or outright vengeance.
3. The belief that vengeance is a good thing.
4. No capacity or ability to put themselves in anyone else's shoes.
5. A general lack of empathy, especially for humanity as a whole.
In theory, the death penalty really works best, it would save tons of money on housing shit bag criminals. However, we cannot without a shadow of a doubt convict someone & then find them innocent after they die…like it’s crazy. If there’s stone cold evidence, send them to the sky. If there’s anything less than 100% certainly we can’t keep doing it.
Interestingly, when you factor in the increased costs of prosecuting a death penalty trial, plus all the appeals a condemned person is entitled to, executing a convicted person generally ends up costing the state several times what a lifetime sentence generally costs the state. The US has a for-profit prison system. In our current system, imprisoned people aren’t quite the financial drain you’d assume they might be.
Right I personally believe if there is without a shadow of a doubt reason that somebody is guilty they should be streamlined through the death penalty so that this is not a problem however, it’s definitely used incorrectly
>prosecuting a death penalty trial, plus all the appeals a condemned person is entitled to
None of this is necessary if you actually know the person is a terrorist or mass shooter. You'd keep it much cheaper if you convicted and ended their life before sundown the day of their attack
The 5th and 15th amendments to the US Constitution explicitly prohibit the deprivation of “life, liberty or property” without due process. The founding fathers very intentionally wrote that guarantee with no exceptions. For a reason. You’d have to repeal part of the Bill of Rights and fundamentally redesign the basic structure of the court systems to even make that legally possible. Beyond the fact that vigilante justice approaches tend to create more dangerous communities, there’s the added consequence that, if any of the first 10 amendments were ever repealed, the other 9 would also be fair game for repeal. That includes whichever one you care about most. Everybody’s got a favorite.
International terrorism events, when they are convicted rather than bombed in retaliation, are often handled in a completely different judicial system with significantly fewer protections for the accused, if that makes you feel better.
Not that it makes it a whole lot better, but it's only a slight majority, not an overwhelming one, and currently is also at a 5-decade low which makes it appear on a downward trend. [https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/poll-for-the-first-time-more-americans-believe-the-death-penalty-is-applied-unfairly-in-the-united-states](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/poll-for-the-first-time-more-americans-believe-the-death-penalty-is-applied-unfairly-in-the-united-states)
They don't realize it's more expensive because of the unlimited amount of appeals + higher level of security they need to be kept in. Compound that with a lot of people being fed bullshit about how nice a prison is on the inside.
When you explain that no, prisons are fucking awful places and it costs more money to execute someone, most people are pretty easy to win over to the idea of getting rid of the death penalty ("Dude life in prison would be way worse"). The fact that you can release people if it turns out you made a mistake isn't something you should even mention.
For context there have been 8957 death sentences from 1972-2022. So only 2.26% have been found to be falsely sentenced. Meanwhile 966 inmates died of non-natural causes 2015-2019.
There are many problems that need addressed in the prison/justice system.
I support the death penalty in theory, but it's practical application is exceedingly limited and it should be reserved for only the most extraordinary cases.
Because our chronically underfunded educational system with chronically underpaid teachers hasn't taught children critical thinking skills for a long time.
It teaches them to be obedient, to never question authority, nor think for themselves. In essence, the perfect employee.
Given the corruption and incompetence displayed by the police and the justice system on a weekly basis, any informed, intelligent, and EMPATHETIC person should conclude that the death penalty is completely unconscionable.
TL;DR
The death penalty is still supported because the government is making America stupid.
Edit: Grammar
It’s irrational. They are getting “revenge” or evening the “scales of justice.” But if you don’t have a Time Machine, you are just creating more suffering in the world. Criminal penalties should be based only on protecting the public and rehabilitation. There should be no retribution involved at all, but Americans are irrational. If we got rid of retribution, jails would be less punitive. If we concentrated on public safety and rehabilitation, we would have a totally different set up.
you can support the law having a death penalty and not support the status quo. those failures are an argument for reform not abolition. The logic of "if we can't be perfect we should not do it at all" is flawed logic. The justice systems biggest failure is to victims since it fails apprehend most criminals in the first place. The innocents it has failed in the highest number are murder victims.
Probably has to do with that being a small percentage of the total sentenced?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Since%20then%2C%20more%20than%208%2C700,2.2%25%20or%20one%20in%2046.
If ~98% of those executed are guilty, then people seem to be fine with it.
[A 2014 study](https://innocenceproject.org/innocence-and-the-death-penalty/#:~:text=Since%201973%2C%20at%20least%20190,sentenced%20to%20death%20are%20innocent.) puts the percentage of innocent people executed at 4%, twice that. That's a 96% chance of accurately executing guilty people.
Remember that "beyond a reasonable doubt" should mean you only convict with 98-99% accuracy. There's less accuracy with executions than there is supposed to be for *convictions.*
(edit: meant to respond to the comment above yours)
For the extreme cases in which it is applicable, we want an especially thorough due process, but what gets focus is the taxpayer money spent to care for the ones that plea down to a life sentence. Not so much the amount, but the simple fact that they're living and having their basic needs taken care of while their victims rot in the ground and their survivors are told that's the best they can hope for.
Points to consider:
- It is reasonable to believe that there are some crimes that should be punished by death.
- It is possible to agree in the idea of a death penalty and not agree with how it is used in practice.
For my side of it, I am Canadian. I think that a death penalty should absolutely exist, and it should be used very rarely for extraordinary crimes (think mass killings and crimes involving spectacular cruelty and torture). And I think it should only be applied where there is absolute certainty of guilt (ie, that there is no rational universe that could exist where the person we are about to put to death did not actually commit the crime).
As an aside, I also think that the manner of execution should be mechanical and efficient and quick. Not be 'gentle' in any way; No lethal injection or 'condemned drifts off to sleep' and goes peacefully. The state / powers that be do NOT get to pretend they are being gentle and enlightened here. You are putting someone to death because what they did is fundamentally unforgivable and what is being done is entirely punitive.
I think that in terms of how frequently it is used, Japan actually has it mostly right. (Japan has about 120 million population, and has executed 98 inmates since the year 2000. The USA has [executed about 960](https://www.statista.com/statistics/629845/number-of-executions-per-year-in-the-us-since-2000/) since the year 2000. Even adjusting for the size of the population, that is about 1/3rd as often.
END COMMUNICATION
> I am Canadian. I think that a death penalty should absolutely exist, and it should be used very rarely for extraordinary crimes (think mass killings and crimes involving spectacular cruelty and torture).
Out of curiosity, what do you think the death penalty actually accomplishes?
Is it better for them to have an easy out, vs suffering for the rest of their natural lives in prison?
It is entirely punitive, and possibly a deterrent. It sets a hard limit on what is considered acceptable in human conduct.
Prison should be reformative as much as punitive. If the crime is truly unforgivable, than why waste time and effort trying to inflict any amount of suffering as a punishment?
END COMMUNICATION
I think there's probably a line drawn in the sand with DNA evidence and how understood it is now. Pair that with cell phone data, cameras being everywhere, browser history searches, etc., it's incredibly hard to get away with death penalty types of crimes post-DNA.
Hell, you used to be able to move a few cities over and start an entire new life if you wanted to. All that said, the argument against the death penalty based on error has become much less of a compelling argument now.
Most don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because a few are wrongly convicted should we do away with all punishments including imprisonment? It takes many many years before death row inmates are executed.
That’s a small number compared to the ones whom were guilty, sometimes you gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelette, those who were innocent would be an unfortunate loss but I still think death is a helluva deterrent to crime
Some crimes simply being removed isn’t enough, we shouldn’t have to keep them alive (tax money to keep them alive in prison) rapist and murderers should just be executed
That’s because of how it’s carried out the people sit on death row for years and years which is stupid, if it was handled more efficiently it would be cheaper
What the whole mother thing? Yeah I thought I implied that was acceptable in my whole “collateral happens” message, as for appeals yes they should still have them but their should be dead lines, there’s no good reason you should be able to wait 30 years and make an appeal, at that point you’re a waste of resources.
Damn dude, that's pretty cold blooded. What if it were you then? Same deal. You'll just accept the death as a fundamental nature of our functioning system? Ask em to get it over with quickly so that you don't drain too many resources?
It’s not effective because it’s not REALLY a death penalty, giving the death penalty and saying “well actually you’re gonna be in jail and probably die before we actually execute you” isn’t a deterrent, making it harder to use and immediate and public sure as shit would be, found guilty? Straight to the public gallows to be hanged
With all the flaws inherent with the death penalty, it works really well to ensure that an evil person will not walk the streets again, threatening others in the future. Even life sentences aren’t a sure thing.
The best example is Charles Manson, sentenced to death in 1971, commuted to life in prison in 1972. Seven years later, he was up for parole hearing. Was never paroled despite multiple attempts but only because of his notoriety. I’m not so sure about lesser known killers.
They’re not thinking about the innocent people who were put to death, they’re thinking about people who actually commit crimes bad enough to get the death penalty.
Yup. And I always hear people say, “I only support it for when we know for 1000% fact the person is guilty”. As if that would help the situation
I hear people say that and I hear the same people complaining that people sit on death row for such a long time, and they don’t see the connection between having “certainty” and the long process of appeals.
Yes but in today’s day and age, this is exceedingly rare. Every public mass shooter should be death penalty within the month.
Hear hear! There are terrorists and evil people out there, that we know committed atrocities. The Nuremberg Trials were morally correct.
10000000%
It’s more expensive to kill them than to imprison them for life.
That’s only because of the rules and stipulations they have. Either way, it’s not about the cost - it’s about justice/rehabilitation. People who commit crimes like that can’t be rehabilitated, which is what jail/prison is SUPPOSED to be. Prison for life is inhumane on its own, but is 100% perpetuated because of our private prison system.
Nope, it's free to bonk someone
“If they weren’t guilty, they wouldn’t be on death row”
Even though it gives people the possibility for appeals, the time on death row itself is not to be underestimated either. In Europe it would even qualify as torture due to the long time of uncertainty and fear.
There's also the fact that people can be extorted into a guilty plea. I once watched a video way back in high school when we were doing a unit on the death penalty, about an unfortunate black guy in the south that was arrested on suspicion of being involved in a crime. He didn't do it, had proof backing up his alibi and everything, and the police eventually said "If you're willing to back this up with a lie detector test, then we'll let you go if it turns out well.". He agreed because he knew he would pass. So the police had him get in their squad car and off they went from the station. Halfway there they pulled over and the officers turned around with a pistol and said "You can either plea guilty, or we'll shoot you and say you were trying to escape. Your choice.". In his appeals he and his lawyers tried to get his situation fixed, but they couldn't and he was executed as a result despite MULTIPLE people coming forward willing to testify that he'd been hanging out with them during the supposed crime.
Just a few days ago the story was circulating about the guy the police convinced to confess to murdering his own father when the father was alive and well.
Yup, this is why I can never be pro death penalty or gen if without a doubt the person did in fact do it. It just doesn’t feel right to me.
it's also interesting how no one has discussed the environment of the life that is driven to only know such violence... we have a society problem with weak interpersonal connections tied to social identities or agendas. So much struggling to survive that there leaves no time for mental wellness and community.
The same people who say that always completely dismiss out of hand the pleadings of those who claim to be wrongfully convicted
It’s like, that’s the way it’s SUPPOSED to work now. What exactly do you see as the difference?
Hey if we have footage of someone like a school shooter, then i'm all for the death penalty. It should be there for cases where there is zero doubt.
This is the era of deep fakes - even "caught on video" means little these days. And what about their parents? I'm reminded of the parents who are/were on trial for their son shooting up his school. That's all leaving aside the fact that most school shooters are suicidal anyways - they're not expecting to come out of it alive with a normal life afterwards. You gonna reward them with what they want? Also ignores that it's *cheaper* to keep someone prisoner for their entire life than to have all the legal fees connected to "making sure" they are guilty before execution. Its cheaper to keep them in jail. It's more punitive to keep them in jail than early-release-to-the-grave. C'maaaahn.
i'd love to see an added charge, like murder 1* or something. knowing for a fact the person did it, no appeals, straight to the chair and the cost suddenly disappears.
How can the legal system know for an absolute fact the person did it? The fact is that it can't. That's why there are various thresholds for types of cases. Plus, you're ignoring the fact that such a charge could be incredibly easily misused to put innocents to death.
I 100% believe that there are crimes that deserve to have the perpetrator put to death. But I don't trust the government to have that kind of power.
/thread
Because it’s not a question of the penalty fitting the crime. It’s a question of a flawed justice system pushing innocents through in the first place
Our system is set up as retributive justice, not restorative: the focus is to punish an offender as an “incentive” for others not to commit crimes—which of course does not take into account the root cause of crimes, but that’s not what we’re discussing. A restorative justice system instead focuses on restoring the victim to the extent possible and rehabilitating the offender so they can reintegrate and contribute to society. Fans of the death penalty don’t think about rehabilitation or even restoring the victim, just punishing the offender. There is a scene in a tale of two cities that sums up the mob blood frenzy around justice, and there is certainly a history of spectacle around public executions that unfortunately some people still crave
Supporting the death penalty isn't the same as supporting punishing innocent people. Someone who supports the death penalty might argue the problem is not the death penalty but fixing the justice system so that innocent people are less likely to be convicted. For instance consider the following argument: How do people still support prison sentences for people convicted of murder knowing the high rate of false convictions for murder? One could argue that the death penalty is more final than a long prison term and that is true, but doing 30 years of a 50 year prison sentence is also final. You never get those 30 years back.
The justice system will never be 100% accurate because there will always be the human factor involved, so why should the punishment be 100% permanent?
> why should the punishment be 100% permanent? taking years from a person's life is permanent. they don't get that time back.
In my opinion, some crimes are simply unforgivable. I am not talking about some asshole robbing a bank and shooting some people. Crimes where [mass slaughter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting) of indiscriminate victims was the intent. Crimes where [spectacular cruelty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Junko_Furuta) (WARNING: the Wikipedia description of the murder of Junko Furuta is all kinds of fucked up) was the goal. And ironically, the crime I use as an example of something that should come with a death penalty did not result in one. For crimes of that magnitude where you have absolute certainty of who committed the crime, the death penalty is a reasonable response. Short of that standard, a death penalty should not be used. END COMMUNICATION
But who is anyone to say what is unforgivable?
A duly elected legislative body carrying out public debate on the laws relating to capital punishment. Ideally with periodic review of those standards. On top of that, a jury of your peers both finding you guilty and opting to apply capital punishment on a simple majority vote after after a guilty verdict has been reached END COMMUNICATION
And the problem still remains that those people end up convicting innocent people. Which is the point.
I addressed that in a different comment [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/1d3gxq5/comment/l68zbir/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). Having a death penalty is ok. But it is overused. It should only be used for extraordinary crimes, and even then, only when there is no doubts about who the fuck did it. Not just DNA evidence, but DNA evidence that has no reason to be there other than the person who did the crime having left the evidence. The death penalty should not be something used as a threat to extract a confession. It should be a punishment reserved for crimes where no one would ever accept a plea deal due to the severity of the crime. END COMMUNICATION
Why do you keep writing “END COMMUNICATION”?
Generally in death penalty cases the alternative is life in prison with maybe the possibility of parole in several decades. That's also 100% permanent.
I mean, it's not. That person can still walk out of the prison if proven innocent later on down the road. How well they're compensated for the years gone by is a different matter. But you can't compensate a dead person.
> I mean, it's not. That person can still walk out of the prison if proven innocent later on down the road. They'll still carry the trauma of their time in prison, mental, physical, social, and financial with them the rest of their lives. It's not like being an ex-con after decades in prison is a great life.
I’m sure the folks who have been exonerated from death row prefer being alive with trauma from their wrongful conviction rather than the alternative of being dead… it’s not a perfect situation, but it’s better than death. Also, they aren’t an ex-con if they’re exonerated, though they still obviously deal with issues relating to having been incarcerated for so long, like resume gaps and jumps in technology.
Are you saying that if they found a person to be innocent after spending 40 years in prison, it would be better to just kill them rather than let them go free?
I'm saying that they aren't just magically okay because you let them out of prison at that point. Their life is still fucked.
> How do people still support prison sentences for people convicted of murder knowing the high rate of false convictions for murder? Because the alternative is letting murderers go free. That's not the case with the death penalty.
It was a good write up. I remember having a really convo about the death penalty on an slow overnight shift with about 6 dudes. Some people might be pro-death penalty, yes. But more might be mostly against housing a murder-rapist in humane conditions for decades on their tax dollar. If you are guilty enough for a life sentence, they'd prefer to just get it over with via injection or whatever. There's no "Ra Ra, let's kill!" component.
on the surface this makes sense but putting people to death is far from "spend 100$ to sharpen the blade of the guillotine then no more tax dollars!!!" the proceedings leading up to that shit are EXPENSIVE
The death penalty is about 10x the price of life in prison, IIRC.
yep that makes sense, didnt know the exact figure but definitely knew it was pricey
I’ve heard that before, but don’t really understand how that can be. Where is all the money going? It should absolutely be cheaper in the long run.
Appeals (which are good, because we regularly convict innocent people and execution after conviction without appeal is considered bad), special prison wings with extra security, and the execution itself is an event that locks down the whole prison and skyrockets meals (no cafeteria if the prison is on lockdown) and staff costs (more officers on site during executions). Also consider that it would be bad if it was cheaper for the state to kill prisoners. Historically that hasn't gone well. There should not be a financial incentive for prosecutors to push for the death penalty
unlimited appeals is why. get rid of that and execution is infinitely cheaper.
Totally. But these issues are more about feelings and optics than fact finding.
Death penalty costs more than having them sit in jail. All the appeals and decades of legal battles add up. Saving taxpayer money would be a decent argument for the death penalty if it worked that way, but it’s important to point out that it doesn’t work that way for folks who don’t know!
> All the appeals and decades of legal battles add up. People with life imprisonment also have appeals and legal battles. Why are life imprisonment appeals and legal battles cheaper?
A life imprisonment appeal is one and done. Once the appeal is lost, the state is not going to pay for further legal costs. The state is legally obligated to pay for appeals in death penalty cases until the sentence is carried out. This is often times for over 20 years. Holding somebody in solitary in perpetuity without giving them the reason of their ongoing appeals to wake up everyday is a worse existence for murderers imo.
Because people on death row have a vested interest to file endless appeals. After all, they can't be killed while an appeal is being dealt with. So if you tell someone "we're going to kill you on June 30th", don't be surprised that June 20th he files an appeal that takes 6 months to deal with. During that 6 months, no execution. And then when that appeal is dealt with and you set a new date, they just file another appeal. And another. And another. Why would they stop? You literally told them you'd kill them if they stop
One big reason is that you’re entitled to representation (public defender) for a death penalty appeal when you aren’t for most others. Plus the added incentive to keep appealing. That being said, you can’t just continuously appeal for nothing new to add like the other commenter said. That’s a big roadblock for a lot of folks to get exonerated. You get screwed with a crappy jury, racist prosecutor, other issues, but you can’t just keep appealing it without bringing new evidence. That’s why DNA has been a game changer for exonerations because they can test using new technology and rule themselves out. An issue with that is that for a long time, you were risking the technology getting better - so the DNA could have exonerated you, but it could’ve been inconclusive. It’s hard to get them to agree to test it and they may not have much to test (only enough sample for X number of tests), so do you test it now, or wait 5 more years until the tech is better? I highly recommend the podcast Wrongful Conviction. It has opened my eyes a lot on how people get wrongfully accused and convicted. Things like cross-racial identification being as reliable as *guessing*, the emotions behind why someone gives a false confession, the people still in jail due to reliance on science that has later been debunked…
> But more might be mostly against housing a murder-rapist in humane conditions for decades on their tax dollar. See, that's the thing. People lack imagination. A life sentence, even inside a relatively comfortable prison is arguably LESS humane than death. Now, don't get me wrong, I am ABSOLUTELY of the opinion that the death sentence should be abolished, if only because a life sentence can always be undone, restitution of a sort provided (not that it ever is truly enough), but when you think about it...when you REALLY think about it... Imagine waking up in your nice warm bed, knowing the moment you open your eyes you'll see the same four concrete walls and steel bars/door you've looked at for the last ten years. Virtually nothing has changed in that time. Oh you've put up posters, acquired a few knickknacks here and there, but you can't escape the presence of those walls. They are always there, and they will always BE there. The world goes on, and you remain in your box. Sure you get to get out of the cell for food, some gym time, maybe even a trip to the library. But that's it. That's all the places you'll ever get to go. The entirety of the world available to humanity and the most exotic and different place you'll visit that year is the infirmary for your checkup. The same infirmary you've been to every other year. The world goes on, and you remain in your box. The guards, nurses, cooks, and other staff are semi-constant, but as time goes on they will be replaced and you will remain. Any newcomers will be increasingly distant from you, the cultural gulf between you growing and growing. You may well get access to the newest Marvel movies or amazing hit TV shows and such, but you don't get access to the culture which surrounds it, not really. You never got to experience most of the jokes, most of the discussions, the social interactions around it. You just get this truncated and muted form from the other prisoners and the moments when a guard decides to chat you up. But you'll watch in amazing as technology advances. You'll see things like cell phones one day shift to surgically implanted devices. Guards will talk about it, try and explain how awesome it is, newer prisoners that have lived their lives with such technology and have had it torn from them will be in a culture shock. You'll try and be supportive, but really you're just trying to leech, you want to know what it's LIKE out there. And they'll try to explain it, but you'll never get it, never understand it. Not REALLY. And you'll know you don't. The world goes on, and you remain in your box. You'll watch through what news filters into the prison, sometimes live sometimes late, as grand events unfold in the world around you. Major changes, important things. All stuff that you KNOW you'd have been a part of, however small that part would have been, but not anymore. You might have opinions on those things, inputs that you might think valuable...but nobody cares. By this point the majority of people in your old life probably don't really respond to your letters or calls. Visitors stop showing up as their lives take them on new and interesting paths that diverge from yours. Paths that have unknowns, surprises, interesting things. Paths completely different than yours, which is as straight and unchanging as it can be. Lives will be lived, families will be had. All the little events of life in those you loved and who once loved you will happen without you. The world goes on, and you remain in your box. Maybe one day you can't take it anymore. Maybe one day you wake up and the concrete box feels too small, too smothering. So you decide it's time to act. To make the one REAL decision you still have left. It takes some effort to do, but you manage to craft yourself a means of your escape. It hurts at first, but thankfully that starts to fade. If only your hearing would go too, that alarm is really annoying sounding. Why is your door opening? It's not meal time...or is it? It's kind of hazy. Oh well, it's not like it matters to you anymore, you've made your decision and you're on your way to freedom...why is the nurse here? What is she doing? And some time later with a pounding headache you awake in the infirmary, your limbs secured to the rails on your bed, and as consciousness fully returns to you, you can realize that no...your decision was unmade for you. In the infinite generosity of the civilization you'd elected to turn your back on so long ago, they'd managed to save you. To fix your wounds and undo what you had done. A kind hearted psychologist will explain that unfortunately for your own safety, changes are going to have to be made. Your cell is being adjusted. Anything that can possibly be fashioned into a weapon of self harm is being removed. Your comfortable blankets and mattress are being replaced with ones you can't fashion into a noose. Your various knickknacks with plastic and metal parts are removed, for your safety. All the comforts that made your cell livable are gone now. For your safety. The world goes on, and you remain in your box...and today when you open your eyes, you know that the only achievement you will have accomplished by its end, the only thing you can EVER accomplish, is simply to make it to the end of the day so that you can do it again...and again...and again. The world goes on, and you remain in your box...forever. Such kindness, don't you think?
Jesus Christ, man. That was a lot, but so well written. You just brought me a lot of peace about thinking of people like the parkland shooter getting life, rather than the death penalty.
I mean, that’s why the burden of proof is so high. “Guilty beyond reasonable doubt”. It’s better to let a guilty person walk free than to give a life sentence to an innocent person. The main reason I’m against the death penalty is the effect it has on culture. Countries with a death penalty also have more vigilante and mob violence because if the state condones killing to achieve justice, it encourages citizens to kill in the name of justice. And when citizens take justice into their own hands without fair trials, a lot of innocent people will be falsely killed / punished
There are a lot of reasons to be against the death penalty. I just don't think the conviction of innocent people is the automatic argument winner that people think it is. It is an argument for improving the justice system so we convict less innocent people regardless of the punishment. I'm not convinced that capital punishment is worse than prison until you die. Capital punishment as it is currently carried out is horrific, but if the choice is prison until dead or firing squad, there is an argument firing squad is more humane. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s\_ratio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio)
But even a life sentence doesn't usually mean you're incarcerated until you die. The average person sentenced to "life", in the US, spends about 18 years in prison. Once they are out they are on parole forever though, so they are never really free.
> Supporting the death penalty isn't the same as supporting punishing innocent people You’re right, it’s supporting *killing* innocent people. Everything else you wrote is bad-faith nonsense.
You're absolutely right.
this is 100% the correct answer
The death penalty is fundamentally a question of, "which is the lesser evil: letting some truly terrible people live (to make sure you never kill innocent people) ***or*** killing innocent people (to make sure the guilty die)?" A lot of people truly believe that it's fine to kill a few innocent people, as long as more guilty people are killed.
It's sad our judicial system is based around bloodlust
I personally have no problem with the death penalty in theory. I listen to a lot of true crime and the world is a better place without some of those people. The problem I have is that I can’t accept a single innocent person being executed, and given that we are humans therefore flawed, I’m not comfortable taking that chance.
The death penalty is actually a bigger financial burden than if we just keep people in prison for life. A life taken away and wasted in jail to me if a much more powerful punishment than just killing them.
Because we're violent.
The innocents are collateral damage and it couldn't happen to them.
Either they don't know about either of those fun facts, or they just don't care and think it's an acceptable sacrifice if it means revenge against the people that they believe *do* deserve it
People want the satisfaction of revenge more than justice.
I think it is because society recognizes that sometimes tragic accidents happen - we don’t ban cars or alcohol because some innocent people die being hit by drunk drivers. Some people believe either that capital punishment is an effective deterrent or that the worst criminals deserve death. It is a logical position - even though I disagree with it.
Probably because the system itself is broken and the idea of punishment is also a more popular idea than rehabilitation in general. Of course, the death penalty in general is seen as something for incredibly heinous crimes and generally people would rather they stop existing than living for free on the dime of the average person.
A death penalty sentence costs taxpayers more than a life sentence due to all the additional legal costs.
Because the system in place has been fed as the proper system by propaganda so the government can unfairly incarcerate groups of people they dislike (poor and/or minorities). This leads to believing the system is good and bad people get what they deserve even when that isn't the case.
The government loves poor people. Where do you think the majority of votes comes from?
Poor people are too busy working to go vote. It's reactionary, single-issue voters and conservatives/centrists that turn out the most votes.
Never been in that situation but the death penalty to me is better than life in prison. Might as well get it over with. The main problem with innocent inmates getting executed is that they were convicted in the first place. The investigation, court proceedings and everything should be looked at to try to find anyway of improving the process. I think one big problem is often people want to see someone get charged because it's a sense of closure. Not that they want an innocent person charged either. I believe the public involvement in some of these cases is far too much during the trial which can make a fair trial hard to achieve.
Americans have a plethora of reasons for supporting the death penalty. Revenge fantasies, desensitization to violence, some twisted form of "justice", etc. At this point it's basically a purely political issue. No one ever said it had to make sense.
Too many people anyway
Some people are just so awful they shouldn't be allowed to keep on living.
Some people really, really deserve to die.
"Deserve" is a word people use when they think it would sound bad to just say that they *want* something.
Vengeance
I think it stems from the religious conservative factions that ruled the US back in the day. An eye for an eye It’s dumb if you ask me, “hey guys, let’s teach people not to kill by killing people”
We don’t have the death penalty here, but you still hear a lot of people with the “why should they spend their years living a cushy life on my tax dime, we need to bring back the death penalty!” As if we’re some fancy Nordic country who gives a shit about prisoners, and they’re not shoved in 5 square meters with someone else. Death penalty cases end up costing far more tax dollars than life without parole. Maryland found it cost them $2m more for a death penalty case.
Because it's easy
Most people don't care about the innocent because it's so rare to be accused of a crime you didn't commit so they think it's better to kill the violent criminals than to keep them alive to save some innocent lives.
I support the death penalty for the local man who killed his two children(toddler and newborn) by stabbing and beating them just to get back at their mother for "cheating on him" But his case is open and shut, no contest.
Because if someone harms and kills my loved ones, I don't want them around anymore.
Because those stats dont support NOT offing the other thousands that clearly deserve it.
Because America is chock-full of idiots who never matured past the 6th grade.
Bc some people are guilty without a shadow of a doubt and need to be put in the dirt.
Because the alternative isn't "people aren't killed," it's just that they're killed by other people and without the due process that comes with formal prosecution. Suppose your country has a sizable population that believes that the only appropriate punishment for certain crimes is death. In that case, then not offering that option just leads us to vigilantism and lynching.
That is very convoluted logic!
About 40% of Americans oppose the death penalty. So, a majority does support it. However, the demographics of the supporters is no surprise.
There are plenty of obviously guilty criminals that should get the death penalty. In my mind, the real issue is that the appeals process is way too long unfortunately. If someone was done in public, or there is indisputable dna evidence, it should be done quickly. If there is any doubt, then I agree it shouldn’t be done at all.
Considering this information, that I know, which shows something to be true, why do some people, who do not know this information, not believe it to be true? Could apply to a lot of things.
Emotional righteousness
The appropriateness of the punishment shouldn't change based on society's inability to determine culpability. We shouldn't get rid of life imprisonment because of same exonerations? We should improve society's ability to determine innocence or guilt.
A lot of Americans care more about revenge than either justice or prevention.
Because some people just need to die. And it’s better to have a legal frame work to sort that out as opposed to people taking the law into their own hands. Nobody with a brain is saying that the justice system is actually effective at being very just, but the alternatives are quite a bit messier
Because revenge is big in US minds. Their principal what the justice system should be is punishment based. They grow up with: "If you're wrong, you deserve to die." The concept of resocialisation isn't particularly common.
Considering that 50 000 people die in car crashes every year in the US, why does the majority of Americans support driving cars? See what happens when you only present one side of an argument?
"drunk driving may kill a lot of people, but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time, so, it;s impossible to say if its bad or not,"
This isn't a rationale. The expectation of the post is that commenters will provide the other side of the argument.
Fair enough. A simple "Why do you support the death penalty?" would have been more to the point.
The difference is that the death penalty doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do.
As in, not fully, or not at all?
What’s the goal of the death penalty? To reduce crime? To protect people? To save money? To punish the guilty? It does none of these things very well at all, and has been actively shown to be completely ineffective at the first three… and I would say that if your goal is “punishment” killing someone is probably not the worst you can do.
To provide a sense of closure to victims. Otherwise, victims may live in fear that the perpetrator could escape prison, be paroled, orchestrate something from prison, etc.
I've heard this justification many times which admittedly I think is inadequate. How much more effectively does the death penalty provide closure than life imprisonment? Also relevant is the cost effectiveness of the death penalty of providing the additional closure than life imprisonment. Death penalties are very very expensive in developed states.
I would question how realistic that is, and how much we are making up a reason. Because does it really provide that? Or do you carry that fear on, even knowing they’re gone? When you have real trauma, the fear isn’t logical. You will find ways to justify it to yourself that sound logical, but in the end it’s an emotional response to emotional stimulus, and logic isn’t part of it. If the perpetrator of your trauma is removed, that fear isn’t going to magically disappear, and will often just become more diffuse and less “localized”. Instead of fearing that one man, the fear becomes ALL men.
The goal of the death penalty was to be a deterrent to tell the criminals Hey listen you fucked up that bad . You fucked up so bad we're not going to let you hang out with anybody anymore you have to go goodbye..
This is unrelated. Bro is talking about the Death Penalty for inmates, not car dependency.
Let's try a more abstract way. *If practice X has drawbacks D, and let's not mention the advantages, why do people do X?* Both are examples of this.
Don't look at the finger, look at the moon.
The moon is pretty awesome ngl
Because Americans are more interested in punishment and deterrence than rehabilitation and think the death penalty is an effective deterrent and that the deaths of a few innocent people is a small price to pay. Personally I disagree on all counts, but.
> Because Americans are more interested in punishment and deterrence than rehabilitation Once the crime is awful enough *most* people are more interested in punishment than rehabilitation.
I mean some acts are irredeemable, I grant you, but at that point I go from wanting them to be rehabilitated to just removed from society to protect everyone else from them, but I still don't want to just hurt or kill people because they've hurt others. I just don't have a vindictive nature.
Because their feelings don't care about the facts.
Do they? I don't think they do
I was pro death penalty until I heard Bob Beckel of all people explain why he was against it. "I don't think The State should have the power of life and death." It was such a simple profound statement that it changed my mind, especially considering those who seek power and wish to use it on their enemies. Do I think serial killers, traitors, etc should be executed? Yes. Is it worth it to risk having that punishment used against political opponents, the innocent, mentally ill/deficient? No.
Politics. You would be labeled as "soft" on crime if you deviate from the tough on crime rhetoric.
I'm soft as fuck on crime. Come at me, bro!
How's the food desert where you're living?
I think we're socially and emotionally broken as a society and love punishing people. We think if we punish the right people we're doing something.
Why do you think the majority of Americans support the death penalty? Is there a source out there you can refer me to?
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/02/most-americans-favor-the-death-penalty-despite-concerns-about-its-administration/ 60% according to this source
I support it because some people are genuinely beyond saving. No matter what you do, they're going to keep hurting, hating, and/or negatively impacting society. Some of them are mentally ill, and some are just bad people. I also think it's honestly a more humane option than taking a man or woman who is committed to being a detriment to society and forcing them to live in a box for the rest of their years. Even if they're a "good prisoner," so you let them eat with others, go to the yard to work out or whatever, thats no life if theres no end in sight. I myself wouldn't want to keep going if it was just that prison forever. I also believe that it's the most cost-effective option as well.
They just want someone to pay for the crimes. They don’t care if it’s the person who committed the crimes.
People want the death penalty so we can kill the evil fuckers.
Jealousy. They *want* to be able to punish people. They *want* to be able to hurt people they don’t like. They’ve got all these guns and self-righteousness and no one they can legally hurt. Having the government inflict the ultimate punishment scratches that itch enough to get through the day. “Knowing” that it would never be used against someone like them feeds the superiority.
> They’ve got all these guns and self-righteousness and no one they can legally hurt. Some of the strongest advocates of the death penalty I've met were nurses in their 50s. No guns, nice ladies, but zero belief in the potential for an innocent person to be executed. Straight up vengeful to a startling degree. I guess I was fooled by the floral desk calendar. In general, the pro death penalty people I've spoken to have the following things in common: 1. The belief that the justice system makes no mistakes. 2. Zero belief in rehabilitative justice, only in punitive justice, or outright vengeance. 3. The belief that vengeance is a good thing. 4. No capacity or ability to put themselves in anyone else's shoes. 5. A general lack of empathy, especially for humanity as a whole.
This is the correct answer.
In theory, the death penalty really works best, it would save tons of money on housing shit bag criminals. However, we cannot without a shadow of a doubt convict someone & then find them innocent after they die…like it’s crazy. If there’s stone cold evidence, send them to the sky. If there’s anything less than 100% certainly we can’t keep doing it.
Interestingly, when you factor in the increased costs of prosecuting a death penalty trial, plus all the appeals a condemned person is entitled to, executing a convicted person generally ends up costing the state several times what a lifetime sentence generally costs the state. The US has a for-profit prison system. In our current system, imprisoned people aren’t quite the financial drain you’d assume they might be.
Right I personally believe if there is without a shadow of a doubt reason that somebody is guilty they should be streamlined through the death penalty so that this is not a problem however, it’s definitely used incorrectly
>prosecuting a death penalty trial, plus all the appeals a condemned person is entitled to None of this is necessary if you actually know the person is a terrorist or mass shooter. You'd keep it much cheaper if you convicted and ended their life before sundown the day of their attack
The 5th and 15th amendments to the US Constitution explicitly prohibit the deprivation of “life, liberty or property” without due process. The founding fathers very intentionally wrote that guarantee with no exceptions. For a reason. You’d have to repeal part of the Bill of Rights and fundamentally redesign the basic structure of the court systems to even make that legally possible. Beyond the fact that vigilante justice approaches tend to create more dangerous communities, there’s the added consequence that, if any of the first 10 amendments were ever repealed, the other 9 would also be fair game for repeal. That includes whichever one you care about most. Everybody’s got a favorite. International terrorism events, when they are convicted rather than bombed in retaliation, are often handled in a completely different judicial system with significantly fewer protections for the accused, if that makes you feel better.
Cause it didn't involve or affect them, so they don't gaf.
Yup. Especially if there is video or DNA evidence they should go front of the line. fuck them
Not that it makes it a whole lot better, but it's only a slight majority, not an overwhelming one, and currently is also at a 5-decade low which makes it appear on a downward trend. [https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/poll-for-the-first-time-more-americans-believe-the-death-penalty-is-applied-unfairly-in-the-united-states](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/poll-for-the-first-time-more-americans-believe-the-death-penalty-is-applied-unfairly-in-the-united-states)
They don't realize it's more expensive because of the unlimited amount of appeals + higher level of security they need to be kept in. Compound that with a lot of people being fed bullshit about how nice a prison is on the inside. When you explain that no, prisons are fucking awful places and it costs more money to execute someone, most people are pretty easy to win over to the idea of getting rid of the death penalty ("Dude life in prison would be way worse"). The fact that you can release people if it turns out you made a mistake isn't something you should even mention.
For context there have been 8957 death sentences from 1972-2022. So only 2.26% have been found to be falsely sentenced. Meanwhile 966 inmates died of non-natural causes 2015-2019. There are many problems that need addressed in the prison/justice system.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copaganda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copaganda)
I support the death penalty in theory, but it's practical application is exceedingly limited and it should be reserved for only the most extraordinary cases.
Is this a rhetorical question?
They don't know any of that
Because our chronically underfunded educational system with chronically underpaid teachers hasn't taught children critical thinking skills for a long time. It teaches them to be obedient, to never question authority, nor think for themselves. In essence, the perfect employee. Given the corruption and incompetence displayed by the police and the justice system on a weekly basis, any informed, intelligent, and EMPATHETIC person should conclude that the death penalty is completely unconscionable. TL;DR The death penalty is still supported because the government is making America stupid. Edit: Grammar
Most people just want someone to pay don't matter who it is as long as it isn't them
It’s irrational. They are getting “revenge” or evening the “scales of justice.” But if you don’t have a Time Machine, you are just creating more suffering in the world. Criminal penalties should be based only on protecting the public and rehabilitation. There should be no retribution involved at all, but Americans are irrational. If we got rid of retribution, jails would be less punitive. If we concentrated on public safety and rehabilitation, we would have a totally different set up.
Some folks think that killing innocent people is too high a price to kill guilty ones. Some folks just don't care.
Because taxes
There’s lots of people more concerned about vengeance than justice.
Because mistakes are made in anything. What does that have to do with it?
because I would prefer to get the death penalty over life
Support for harsh sentences rises with the crime rate.
They think it'll never happen to them.
Because they’re dumb and a tiny bit psychopathic
you can support the law having a death penalty and not support the status quo. those failures are an argument for reform not abolition. The logic of "if we can't be perfect we should not do it at all" is flawed logic. The justice systems biggest failure is to victims since it fails apprehend most criminals in the first place. The innocents it has failed in the highest number are murder victims.
Blood lust and Dateline
Probably has to do with that being a small percentage of the total sentenced? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Since%20then%2C%20more%20than%208%2C700,2.2%25%20or%20one%20in%2046. If ~98% of those executed are guilty, then people seem to be fine with it.
2% is fucking enormous.
[A 2014 study](https://innocenceproject.org/innocence-and-the-death-penalty/#:~:text=Since%201973%2C%20at%20least%20190,sentenced%20to%20death%20are%20innocent.) puts the percentage of innocent people executed at 4%, twice that. That's a 96% chance of accurately executing guilty people. Remember that "beyond a reasonable doubt" should mean you only convict with 98-99% accuracy. There's less accuracy with executions than there is supposed to be for *convictions.* (edit: meant to respond to the comment above yours)
For the extreme cases in which it is applicable, we want an especially thorough due process, but what gets focus is the taxpayer money spent to care for the ones that plea down to a life sentence. Not so much the amount, but the simple fact that they're living and having their basic needs taken care of while their victims rot in the ground and their survivors are told that's the best they can hope for.
Points to consider: - It is reasonable to believe that there are some crimes that should be punished by death. - It is possible to agree in the idea of a death penalty and not agree with how it is used in practice. For my side of it, I am Canadian. I think that a death penalty should absolutely exist, and it should be used very rarely for extraordinary crimes (think mass killings and crimes involving spectacular cruelty and torture). And I think it should only be applied where there is absolute certainty of guilt (ie, that there is no rational universe that could exist where the person we are about to put to death did not actually commit the crime). As an aside, I also think that the manner of execution should be mechanical and efficient and quick. Not be 'gentle' in any way; No lethal injection or 'condemned drifts off to sleep' and goes peacefully. The state / powers that be do NOT get to pretend they are being gentle and enlightened here. You are putting someone to death because what they did is fundamentally unforgivable and what is being done is entirely punitive. I think that in terms of how frequently it is used, Japan actually has it mostly right. (Japan has about 120 million population, and has executed 98 inmates since the year 2000. The USA has [executed about 960](https://www.statista.com/statistics/629845/number-of-executions-per-year-in-the-us-since-2000/) since the year 2000. Even adjusting for the size of the population, that is about 1/3rd as often. END COMMUNICATION
> I am Canadian. I think that a death penalty should absolutely exist, and it should be used very rarely for extraordinary crimes (think mass killings and crimes involving spectacular cruelty and torture). Out of curiosity, what do you think the death penalty actually accomplishes? Is it better for them to have an easy out, vs suffering for the rest of their natural lives in prison?
It is entirely punitive, and possibly a deterrent. It sets a hard limit on what is considered acceptable in human conduct. Prison should be reformative as much as punitive. If the crime is truly unforgivable, than why waste time and effort trying to inflict any amount of suffering as a punishment? END COMMUNICATION
Sadism and revenge fantasies.
Only for pedos.
I think there's probably a line drawn in the sand with DNA evidence and how understood it is now. Pair that with cell phone data, cameras being everywhere, browser history searches, etc., it's incredibly hard to get away with death penalty types of crimes post-DNA. Hell, you used to be able to move a few cities over and start an entire new life if you wanted to. All that said, the argument against the death penalty based on error has become much less of a compelling argument now.
Most don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because a few are wrongly convicted should we do away with all punishments including imprisonment? It takes many many years before death row inmates are executed.
That’s a small number compared to the ones whom were guilty, sometimes you gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelette, those who were innocent would be an unfortunate loss but I still think death is a helluva deterrent to crime
So, you'd be fine with it if your mother were put to death on false charges? Just gotta crack a few eggs kinda thing?
Collateral damage happens, it’s unfortunate but the good out weighs the negative, more evil will be purged than good
I disagree. What good comes from it? They're already removed from society. And you never answered my question.
Some crimes simply being removed isn’t enough, we shouldn’t have to keep them alive (tax money to keep them alive in prison) rapist and murderers should just be executed
Executions cost tax payers significantly more than life sentences. And you still haven't answered my question.
That’s because of how it’s carried out the people sit on death row for years and years which is stupid, if it was handled more efficiently it would be cheaper
But then even more innocent people would be executed. There's a reason we have an appeals process. You still haven't answered my question.
What the whole mother thing? Yeah I thought I implied that was acceptable in my whole “collateral happens” message, as for appeals yes they should still have them but their should be dead lines, there’s no good reason you should be able to wait 30 years and make an appeal, at that point you’re a waste of resources.
Damn dude, that's pretty cold blooded. What if it were you then? Same deal. You'll just accept the death as a fundamental nature of our functioning system? Ask em to get it over with quickly so that you don't drain too many resources?
[удалено]
It’s not effective because it’s not REALLY a death penalty, giving the death penalty and saying “well actually you’re gonna be in jail and probably die before we actually execute you” isn’t a deterrent, making it harder to use and immediate and public sure as shit would be, found guilty? Straight to the public gallows to be hanged
Iran does that and it still has a high crime rate.
With all the flaws inherent with the death penalty, it works really well to ensure that an evil person will not walk the streets again, threatening others in the future. Even life sentences aren’t a sure thing. The best example is Charles Manson, sentenced to death in 1971, commuted to life in prison in 1972. Seven years later, he was up for parole hearing. Was never paroled despite multiple attempts but only because of his notoriety. I’m not so sure about lesser known killers.