[–] [deleted] 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] Rosenkavalier 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Great answer. The corruption of courts and the risk of executing innocent people is my strongest reservation as well.

0
2

[–] Salicaz [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

A well presented argument! Thanks for your response.

0
7

[–] MJStone 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

The death penalty is a difficult issue when you consider the risk of it being used to eliminate political rivals or whistleblowers.

0
4

[–] 6062145? 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

If you're wrong about that person committing that crime, you just became a murderer.

Once an innocent person is executed, are you willing to be executed by firing squad for your crime? Are you willing to put he jury and executioners in front of a firing squad?

0
4

[–] Gigan 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The thought of the government killing its own citizens like that is scary to me. No thanks.

0
0

[–] Salicaz [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

At least they're judged by 12 before it happens. The government kills us in more nefarious ways.

0
3

[–] chrimata 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It's not cheaper than prison forever. In the US criminals can continually appeal to higher courts. Often to kill someone costs the gov a ton in legal costs. Unless you are also advocating removing constitutionally protected due process?

0
0

[–] Salicaz [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm from the UK but there shouldn't be continual appeals after a certain few or incase of the court fucking up some how.

0
1

[–] 6063540? 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That's the point of appeals, that there's a possibility the courts fucked up somehow.

0
0

[–] chrimata 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's exactly for that reason, if the court were to fuck up it would be the government putting an innocent person to death. With our innocent until proven guilty system that assumption is made at every level

0
1

[–] Datawych 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I think if the crime has some specific number of credible witnesses, you shouldn't be allowed an appeal process. I don't know what number, though. It would need to be high enough to prevent a small group of 'witnesses' from conspiring to get an innocent person killed, but it would also need to be low enough for it to actually be an effective means of removing undesirables from society.

0
1

[–] thefloodcontrol 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

There are only rare cases, where evidence is extremely clear, where I would support this. When on this topic I always think about Paul Bernardo and how its such a waste of money to keep him alive. Honestly it wouldn't even cost a bullet or pill, you could probably auction off the rights to beat him to death for good money.

0
1

[–] zbou 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I would accept it under two conditions; 1) the execution is highly public and anyone who wants to watch gets to watch b) execution is reserved for the dogs of humanity who without doubt committed the most vile acts and who cannot possibly be reintroduced to society. Use the death penelty like putting down rabid dogs. No political crimes should be execuible.

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)