Anonymous #3 2w

It’s expensive because we refuse to do it in a timely manner without a billion appeals beforehand. We don’t sentence people to death and then kill them, we sentence people to death and then give them 30 years of prison combined with a myriad of lawyer’s fees paid to state prosecutors just to make sure. Stupid shit.

1

Anonymous yypotion 2w

when you say pedophile do you mean all pedophiles or just ones who have offended

9

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

We do that because it’s their right to a fair trial. Taking that right away would have really nasty implications

7

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

Notably, even with that “stupid shit” holding up the process, we still execute innocent people ALL THE TIME and then have them exonerated after death. We literally aren’t even doing enough as-is.

5

Anonymous #3 2w

The fair trial is the one where they get sentenced to death in the first place by a unanimous jury verdict. I think having a couple appeals is fine, but when they’re infinite, then you really just end up spending millions swatting down doomed appeals. I’m not gonna sit here and pretend it’s wrong to put down people who have committed multiple first degree murders, or a rape-homicide, or any of the other things that are still capital crimes in the USA.

6

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

Not all cultures are equal. The he fact that humans have behaved in a savage manner before does not magically make it civilized instead.

4

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

If you got a John Wayne Gacy, who’s killed 37 boys, and we all know he’s killed 37 boys, yeah man just put one in the back of his head. Some people gotta GO.

5

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

If the appeals were infinite, they’d still be alive. Evidence can be falsified. Mistakes can be made. Imagine someone you loved was framed, wouldn’t you want them to have the chance to defend themselves? People deserve to rot for doing evil things, don’t get me wrong. But the risk involved with ending life, in my opinion, can never be justified. Let them suffer silently in prison

1

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 2w

I mean shit, all cultures have used the death penalty. Some have quit, but even those only quit within the last 60 years.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

Man I’m not okay with subjecting the guys who are in prison on charges of small time shit like theft and simple assault to a Gacy-type individual. I think leaving that type of person in prison only makes it likely that you get a Dahmer situation, where one of the other inmates does society a favor. And then what? They die more brutally, and the person who did what we all know needed to be done just gets their sentence extended.

3

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

Are we in 2026 supposed to be operating on the same moral system of civilizations thousands of years ago? Slavery has existed pretty continuously throughout human history too.

-1

Anonymous #5 2w

Slavery is one of those things where I think you just gotta kill the people doing it.

5

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

One of the biggest mistakes this country ever made was its refusal to liquidate the Southern planter class after they tried ripping it apart.

3

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

I’m pointing out that appealing to “civilizations have done this for 8000 years” doesn’t mean something is morally right.

0

Anonymous #5 2w

I don’t think that’s what makes it morally right, I think the fact of the matter being that some people are completely irredeemably evil makes it morally right. Killing serial murderers, rapist-murderers, etc. is nothing more than cutting the tumors out of society.

5

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

I believe in moral luck, I do not believe in pure evil nor concepts of retributive justice. The death penalty only makes sense in situations where it prevents that individual from causing more harm. In cases where other preventative measures can be taken, causing more suffering does not increase human flourishing. It simply appeals to human emotional desire for revenge.

3

Anonymous #5 2w

I believe that death penalty in the USA being most common in the American South is heavily tied to American evangelical ideas of retributive justice. While the death penalty is something I oppose conceptually, its implementation makes it even worse. The government gets it wrong all the time, and particularly in the South, it is disproportionately applied against black and brown people.

5

Anonymous #5 2w

I’d argue that life in a segregated cell is a lot more suffering than a quick end. Death is not suffering, death is final. Life in prison inflicts suffering, the death penalty is a foolproof method of making sure they never do that shit ever again.

3

Anonymous #5 2w

Even in a world where we have a perfect justice system, I personally wouldn’t support the death penalty. But it at least wouldn’t have us killing innocent people. But instead we live in a world where innocent people are killed by the state all the time.

3

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

I’m happy for them to die brutally in jail. I just don’t think the government should be the one to do it

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

I do not believe the purpose of prisons should be punishment. Our prison system is too retributive. Prisons should be a method to rehabilitate where possible, and to prevent further harm where it is not.

5

Anonymous #3 2w

That’s patently absurd, and frankly a lot crueler than my position. I’d see these people painlessly put down, you’d see them beaten to death. How is my position somehow the immoral one here?

6

Anonymous #5 2w

Sorry, I don’t wanna fund John Wayne Gacy’s luxury cell with a PS5 in it to keep him from killing more people. There’s a much easier, much more effective way to prevent further harm from someone who clearly revels in murder.

5

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

We actually used that method on John Wayne Gacy. And it’s a good thing that we did.

5

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

Bringing the conversation of the death penalty back only to the worst offenders ignores that innocent people receive the death penalty frequently. The primary opposition to the death penalty is not a defense of Gacy, it is out of concern for the innocent people it has killed.

5

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

How many murders did John Wayne Gacy commit after the State of Illinois put him in Hell, where he belongs?

3

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

I never argued about morality. I argued about what I want my tax dollars going towards.

1

Anonymous #5 2w

So in the cases of these worst offenders, the people with insurmountable evidence against them, 37 bodies in their basement, you would agree that yes, they should be put down?

5

Anonymous #3 2w

Well it seems we’re at an impasse, because I’m fine with my tax dollars killing rapist-murderers and people who’ve committed multiple murders. Better than feeding them.

5

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

I guess so. Anyways, I hope you have a great rest of your day and a lovely weekend :)

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

Are you okay with your tax dollars being used to kill innocent civilians?

6

Anonymous #6 2w

No, I think use of the death penalty should be reserved for the absolute worst cases with the most evidence. I think it’s fucked up that in the South you can get executed for 2nd Degree Murder. Or for an armed robbery gone wrong. I also think there has to be a threshold where society says “yeah man, that’s enough of you”

6

Anonymous #6 2w

If someone commits rape-murder, if someone gets caught in the act of a mass shooting, especially one at a school where their targets were CHILDREN, if someone gets convicted of more than 4 first degree murders, if someone commits high treason, these are things no functional society can allow to go without the harshest of consequences. I’m sorry, but those people have to go.

6

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

I’m pretty sure South Carolina either already did, or is gonna kill Dylann Roof. The Charleston Church shooter. Good. That racist murdering piece of shit has to die. You will never be able to get me on the side of “no we actually shouldn’t be putting that racist murdering piece of shit down”

5

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

Our justice system already operates on the basis that any conviction is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt. The system is already *supposed* to only do it under insurmountable evidence. But that’s not what happens. You can’t just say “but super beyond reasonable doubt” when that’s already the system that kills innocents.

3

Anonymous #5 2w

alright well I’m still gonna be okay with putting war criminals and serial killers in the blender regardless of your condemnation of that take

5

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

By seeking to maintain the death penalty system, you are deciding that it’s okay for innocent people to die when wrongfully convicted if it means killing serial killers. You have decided that wrongfully convicted people (primarily black men) are a worthwhile sacrifice if it means you can feel vengeance.

-1

Anonymous #5 2w

We hanged people at Nuremburg. Was that wrong?

3

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

“We shouldn’t maintain a system that kills innocent people” “Wowwww so you love X famous monstrous war criminal”

0

Anonymous #5 2w

Continuing to bring out the worst people to ever live to justify the death penalty is only diverting from the reality that it kills innocents. The system that kills dozens of innocent people is maintained on the justification that “well we get the not innocent ones too”

0

Anonymous #5 2w

I mean shit, what if one of those guys didn’t really deserve it? We hanged a guy at Nuremburg just for printing newspapers.

3

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

Responding to the critique of a system that famously kills numerous innocent black men with “oh yeah well what about THE NAZIS” is ridiculous and shameful.

-1

Anonymous #5 2w

So you admit there’s times where some folks gotta go in the blender?

4

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

I think the death of one person is worthwhile if it can prevent the death of others. That is however preventative, and does not need to be prolonged to cause excessive suffering. However in most situations, other preventative measures can be taken. But a system killing bad people does not justify the collateral of killing innocent people. If it only killed bad people I would still think it’s immoral on a personal level, but I would not prioritize fighting against it as much.

0