I’m opposed to the bourgeois state using the death penalty against proles.

Yes, I believe it’s nearly always immoral, and the exception is public figures directly involved in crimes against humanity.

If you have to have a trial to figure out if you got the right person, that’s too much doubt. It’s just Nuremberg, Saddam, the radio guy from Rwanda, and folks like them. Everything else regardless of how monstrous the state should only kill if they are absolutely incapable of keeping that person from taking more lives.

Also governments should be held accountable when one prisoner kills another in a situation that could have been predicted. And yes this includes pedos being stabbed in prison.

It’s fine for other people, but I wouldn’t want it for myself.

The death penalty is incredibly stupid for more than one reason.

1. If someone committed a crime that egregious, they should be punished every day, and you should help them live as long as possible.
2. So many innocent people are put to death because our system for determining guilt is far from righteous, or right.
3. You don’t talk about Fight Club.

I’m strongly against death penalty when it comes to crimes of individual against individual.

I am for death penalty when it comes to crimes of influential individual against masses though.

A murderer or rapist who ruined one life doesn’t deserve death penalty. A corrupt politician who ruined countless lives cooperating with the billionaires does.

Fully support it for murder, r*pe, human trafficking, genocide, trafficking and distribution of deadly drugs like fentanyl (which is equivalent to murder in my eyes), and accepting bribery as a government official or embezzlement of public funds over some amount. I really don’t see any other way to deal with those kinds of criminals and I can’t stand the people who get all high and mighty about “mercy” while dismissing the actual victims.

However, I do think the death penalty needs to be restricted to cases where it is absolutely certain they are guilty of the crimes charged. Beyond beyond a reasonable doubt, there needs to be zero doubt. This alone will spare the vast majority of those criminals and make actual executions extremely rare, but IMO death always needs to be on the table when everyone is absolutely sure they did it.

Additionally, I submit that having life in prison as the only option increases the chance of false convictions because people don’t see life in prison as “that serious” compared to death. People will very rightly flip their shit if they find out that an executed person was innocent, but when that same person is imprisoned for decades and is released with their spirit comprehensively broken and with only a few years of their natural life left, people are far more dismissive because they weren’t executed. “Oh well that’s sad but what can you do? The justice system is imperfect after all, just be glad we didn’t execute you.” The solution is not to keep people locked up for life on the off chance one of them is innocent, and when one of them is, claim moral superiority about only locking them up for life. The solution is to make absolutely damn sure they’re guilty before you sentence them.

Everyone gets hung up on life in prison being “reversible” and have this idealistic idea that if someone is truly innocent, the absolute truth will come out “eventually” and set them free. But look at actual court records and you’ll find that in practice it almost never gets reversed even when there is overwhelming evidence of their innocence, and when it does, the courts take their sweet time as if hoping to run out the clock and for the convicted to just die. Courts don’t like reopening cases especially for serious crimes because it reflects negatively on them, so you’re as good as condemned as soon as the hammer drops whether the sentence is life or death. People like to think of the innocent prisoner as being able to continuously fight for their innocence, but in reality you only get one chance to defend yourself and after that, no one in power will listen to you whether you’re alive to speak or not. Innocent people who get their life sentence reversed are the very very rare exception, not the rule, and usually only because their story resonated with the public in a way they cannot forsee or control, and it’s the public pressure that gets the courts to reconsider purely in order to preserve their image, not the guilt of potentially sentencing an innocent person. If you’re not noticed by the media or your story doesn’t resonate with the masses, like the vast majority of innocent convicts, you have no chance of getting out no matter how innocent you are. And the media and public has shown time and time again to be extremely race/culture selective in which convict they pay attention to, so a white person in the West is way more likely to be freed compared to an equally innocent person of colour.

Against, regardless of crime. Regardless of the system used to kill. Regardless of the system used to convict or identify the criminal. Even if they are unrepentant and said they’d do it again. Even under a perfect justice system.

Now life in prison, sure.

The death penalty should ALMOST never be used. The only use for the death penalty is for world leaders that direct their subordinates to commit atrocious acts.

Normal civilians, no matter how dangerous, should only ever be treated with dignity. There is no place for state sanctioned murder.

A) It is immoral.

B) The justice system isn’t perfect, and death is final.

C) The actual cost of going through all the trials and effort to put someone to death is typically higher than just keeping them locked up.

D) There is no humane way to put someone to death.

E) It is not effective at preventing crime. It only makes it so people have nothing to lose by being caught.

Not really, but I’m not against it. When you remember that in order to even get the death penalty, you have to be such a horrible person that you’re pretty much no longer human, I don’t see a problem with it. And then there is also the issue of the government has to pay potentially millions of dollars every years just for keeping you in prison/jail, so it also has financial benefits (not that the government needs more money, especially considering the fact that they constantly waste it on meaningless bullshit).

But I am also aware of the potential problems, like innocent people getting the death penalty. As a result, I think the death penalty should only be used in situations where there is absolutely no possibility of innocence. This means that the motive is clear and proven, and the evidence for even committing the crime(s) is/are solid.

I’m all against death penalty in any form, except perhaps for some fascist leaderships. There are those who deserve to dance the Spandau ballet.

I am personally not against the death penalty for some crimes if the culprit is indeed responsible but there are too many people in prison for crimes they didn’t commit already, so the burden of proof needs to be exceptional. Also, I’ve heard before that it’s actually more costly for states and tax payers to impose the death penalty because of all the built-in appeals, with the costs of the court system and attorney fees, than it is to house someone in prison for life. I further think that those convicted should have the option to choose the death penalty and type of execution for themselves, á la Gary Gilmore.

I think even one innocent person being executed makes it all not worth it. Though that may be clouded by the facts, it doesn’t deter crime and it costs more than life imprisonment.

In a perfect world, I think the death penalty could have a deterrence effect for white collar crime. I’d support the death penalty in that case. The line I draw where the death penalty is deserved is when someone systematically makes the world a worse place. Even serial killers don’t reach that threshold for me.

There’s no world where we can do that without ever executing an innocent person though. So I am firmly against the death penalty.

I think some crimes deserve death, but I just don’t trust the government –any government!– to make that decision.

I do not trust the justice system what so ever. Nor the nation state that gave birth to this abomination.

No to the death sentence.

Yes. No one knows what happens when you die, no one truly knows if someone is guilty, no judicial system is perfect etc etc. Too much risk for the reward of killing someone (with a 10 ish percent of being innocent)