Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Pure-Produce-2428 t1_iugi6fu wrote

What’s to debate? If we can convict people with flawless decisions than fine but otherwise we will end up executing innocent people. If you’re okay with that than let us execute you first. No? Okay then, no capital punishment. It’s pretty simple.

16

CryonautX t1_iuh3wc2 wrote

I don't want to be imprisoned for any amount of time either. So I guess we should just not have prison sentences?

Wrongful persecution is a separate problem of a legal system. Noone should be wrongfully convicted, period. Not just noone should be wrongfully convicted for the death penalty.

−4

Pure-Produce-2428 t1_iuh8nai wrote

Yes however we are literally discussing the death penalty.

6

[deleted] t1_iuio6g3 wrote

[removed]

2

Pure-Produce-2428 t1_iuiomr4 wrote

I left out the part about the difference between execution and imprisonment is that one is not reversible. Okay, you can choose the lightest version of imprisonment or the lightest version of execution. I’ll go to prison for a month but someone in favor of execution won’t choose to be executed. If you think my logic is flawed than what’s your logic for capital punishment?

1

[deleted] t1_iugu4wk wrote

[removed]

−7

Pure-Produce-2428 t1_iugw38i wrote

Ah no. Imprisonment can be reversed. Execution cannot. I forgot to mention that part. Is that a “nuance” to you?

16

[deleted] t1_iugxtxw wrote

[removed]

−3

Pure-Produce-2428 t1_iuh8z2n wrote

Those years can’t be given back but nothing is as irreversible as death. Plus we have an alternative to capital punishment that is the same to people on the outside, mostly: life in prison without parole. We don’t execute that many people and the cost per person ends up being more when you take into account litigation etc (I need to look that up to be sure). I believe the government should be in the business of helping people but not the business of killing people. Along with a lack of an effective healthcare system we are also an outlier in terms of capital punishment.

6

[deleted] t1_iuiwl1l wrote

[removed]

1

JonskMusic t1_iuiyav5 wrote

that sometimes involves killing people. <-- this isn't a given, just an opinion.

I suggest that due to the infallibility of humans and the reversible nature of execution we should utilize life in prison without parole as a substitute. This stops us from executing innocent people, which happens more than it should (my opinion), resolves any moral implications and allows for legal appeals which are meaningless after execution. We also know that capital punishment isn't a deterrent to crime. And it isn't a cost saving vs life sentence.

The benefit of capital punishment might be the relief that family members of victims feel, which also isn't as clear cut. That leaves the negative which is that we accidentally murder people sometimes. Why would we choose to accidentally murder people so that others could feel slightly better, maybe, about their loved ones being murdered, particularly when there is an alternative that protects society and doesn't involve extra murders.

- obviously this site is biased, but this isn't controversial information.
• https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs
• https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/deterrence

1

dkobod t1_iuh798n wrote

You’re actually just what-abouting and taking up valuable energy from more productive discussions. Clearly, execution is different in that it is a final decision.

4

booga_booga_partyguy t1_iuikvqy wrote

And...?

Are you seriously trying to argue that you can bring an executed person back to life? Or are you arguing someone wrongfully imprisoned for life cannot never be released if their conviction was found to be wrong?

1

[deleted] t1_iuiltd7 wrote

[removed]

1

booga_booga_partyguy t1_iuiod5b wrote

They can still live the remainder of their lives though. The only way you can think this is an equitable argument is if you think you can bring a dead person back to life. Do you actually think that?

And no, there really isn't any room for debate. The death penalty as a form of punishment was proven decades ago to be bullshit precisely because there is no way to make up for executing someone who didn't deserve it, and is a tool that can easily be abused by corrupt people.

Again, if there was room for debate, then why doesn't good ol' Shanmugum have the courage to challenge actual legal experts to a debate instead of a businessman who isn't a subject matter expert on the topic? We both know why - it's because Shanmugum knows other legal experts who aren't beholden to him would hand his ass back to him on a platter if he tries to seriously argue that the death penalty is still a good thing.

2