I'm sure there's an argument for why certain things like that exist but I'm not qualified to answer. :< But I am sorry you all have to go through such shit.

I totally agree and my heart goes out to you and your family dealing with what sounds like a super personal tragedy. If something unfair effects me, personally, I immediately wish for some form of relief and retribution -- that's human nature. As a society we have to hold one another accountable for what's best for the community as a whole, though. There's a reason we don't let the victims sentence the offenders. So objectively speaking, when we consider all the times we've sentenced completely innocent people to death, and how often it's been abused, we have to stop and reconsider how we deal with the worst members of society.

Imagine that, a completely innocent person, with family, friends, and a future of their own, wrongly convicted and KILLED for something they didn't do. All so we can feel better and reap retribution. Can you not think of a greater injustice? Besides that, even in the most certain cases of guilt, should our objective still be revenge? As a society, do we truly wish to define ourselves with vengeance when we could defy evil with goodness instead? It's difficult to answer as an individual, but as a society I believe we are more moral for turning the other cheek and offering love and forgiveness in the face of suffering.

Thaaaank you for this. Ugh why is english so hard? T_T

tbf I don't think my example was the best. I wonder what a better analogy might be? It's such a weird concept, comparing car deaths to the death penalty. Some other users put it more eloquently already I guess.

LOL I was trying to think about how to properly write that. Should I have said that it's "190 too many" for me?

Right, so just a little heads up but saying someone has poor reading comprehension is an ad hominem and doesn't add anything to your point. Otherwise we might as well just take that final step straight to name calling and well .. while I'm always down for fucking around I don't think this subject is all that complicated so I'll give it the ole college try first.

Since you seem to think that not killing innocent people isn't a valid argument to ban the death penalty we already have an incredibly huge difference in values and morals, so I'll add more reasons. There's a lot but here's a few as to why the death penality is hot garbage.

• It's ineffective / doesn't work as a deterrent
• It's inhumane / retribution isn't justice
• It's exploitative / history of racial and economic biases
• It's costly / literally costs more than a life sentence

However, I will double back to the number one reason it's bad, which is a simple argument based on morality. And that is that it's irreversible. In other words, killing innocent people is bad mkay? Ask yourself this, assuming the parties involved are of no danger to anyone anymore, if you could kill someone evil but you had to kill an innocent person to do it, would you? It's really simple logic. Vengeance is no excuse to kill innocent people. I don't see how that's debatable but since we disagree on that then there's really nowhere to go further on that note.

That logic doesn't work. You're equating accidental deaths to the murder of innocent people and excusing murder, which is ridiculous. You might as well say, "Well, people die of old age so why not murder?" Do you not see the flawed comparison?

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence

>The death penalty carries the inherent risk of executing an innocent person. Since 1973, at least 190 people who had been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death in the U.S. have been exonerated.

That's one too many for me.