The Left - “The death penalty is wrong”

But executing the right person, is justice for all the people who that right person could/would kill while imprisoned.
Executing someone for a murder that hasn't yet occurred is what you are advocating? How many times have you watched Minority Report?
 
Oh, only murderers are wrongly convicted.

Hypocrite much?
Not what I said. Only people who have been executed don't have a chance to be released from their wrongly imposed sentence.
 
Executing someone for a murder that hasn't yet occurred is what you are advocating? How many times have you watched Minority Report?
No that is not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating executing someone for a murder that has occurred, while also doing the only thing possible to avoid additional murders from that person.
 
You whined about the possibility of a few wrongly convicted being executed and you
ignore the reality of 40,000 actually dying each year.

I understand why you're running away.
I'm sure there is a wide range of things you think you understand but memorizing a list of conspiracy theories is not the same as actually understanding how things work.
 
don't wrongly impose sentences.
The 200+ people who have been released from death row because new evidence proved they didn't do the crime would agree with you. We have proven we can't be sure of a person's guilt. Until we can demonstrate that no innocent people will be executed, we shouldn't execute people.
 
OK, and death penalty is a deterrent. Some might consider life in prison not a bad deal. At least they get to see their family and live their life, even if it is behind walls.

If you remove the death penalty, you remove a solution for some very bad people.

Yeah, you do. But the US has the death penalty, whereas most of Europe doesn't, and the US has a higher murder rate....

Does the death penalty work?
 
I (and most on the left) oppose the death penalty because it doesn’t work
How many times has the executed murdered again? It does work.
 
Yeah, you do. But the US has the death penalty, whereas most of Europe doesn't, and the US has a higher murder rate....

Does the death penalty work?
Saint Kitts and Nevis saw a murder rate of 65 per 100,000 inhabitants, making it the most dangerous country for this kind of crime worldwide as of 2023. Interestingly, El Salvador, who long had the highest global homicide rates, has dropped out of the top 20 after a high number of gang members have been incarcerated. Meanwhile, Celaya in Mexico was the most dangerous city for murders.

Violent conflicts worldwide​

Notably, these figures do not include deaths that resulted from war or a violent conflict. While there is a persistent number of conflicts worldwide, resulting casualties are not considered murders. Partially due to this reason, homicide rates in Latin America are higher than those in Afghanistan or Syria. A different definition of murder in these circumstances could change the rate significantly in some countries.

Causes of death​

Also noteworthy is that murders are usually not random events. In the United States, the circumstances of murders are most commonly arguments, followed by narcotics incidents and robberies. Additionally, murders are not a leading cause of death. Heart diseases, strokes and cancer pose a greater threat to life than violent crime.
 
No that is not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating executing someone for a murder that has occurred, while also doing the only thing possible to avoid additional murders from that person.

How many innocent people are you willing to kill to sate your bloodlust?

How many times has the executed murdered again? It does work.

How many innocent people are you willing to kill to sate your bloodlust?
 
At a very real risk of getting this thread back on track, let me discuss the actual topic just a bit.

I am a tiny bit conflicted about the death penalty for one major reason. If a convicted felon (say a defendant in a multiple murder case) gets the death penalty ☠️ — but new evidence subsequently proves his actual innocence — nothing can undo his death.

On the other hand, in some other case, an actual murderer gets a life-behind-bars sentence because that State has NO death penalty option. But now, as an inmate for life, how can that convict’s behavior be controlled? He could literally murder another inmate, or a correction officer or a visitor and never face anything worse than he is already facing. Life is life — no matter how many sentences of life you get.

So, sometimes we need the threat of a death penalty for society’s protection:

It’s not a “general deterrence” theory of penalty. It is, however, a very “specific deterrence.” If the convict is executed, HE can never take the life of anyone else.
 
One is too many.
Sounds right except that it does demand perfection. And since we know that, amongst us mere mortals, “perfection” is impossible, it follows that what you are saying is that there can/should NEVER be any death penalty.

Do you disagree?
 
Sounds right except that it does demand perfection. And since we know that, amongst us mere mortals, “perfection” is impossible, it follows that what you are saying is that there can/should NEVER be any death penalty.

Spot on. The courts have proven-again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again-that they are incapable of keeping innocent people from being sentenced to death.
 
Not what I said. Only people who have been executed don't have a chance to be released from their wrongly imposed sentence.
Not if they are killed in prison before their innocence is determined.

By a murderer who should have been executed.
 
Spot on. The courts have proven-again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again-that they are incapable of keeping innocent people from being sentenced to death.
I don’t think they have proved it that many times.

Nonetheless, you are saying that “because guilt (proved beyond a reasonable doubt) can’t be perfectly certain in all cases, therefore there shouldn’t be any possibility of ending the convict’s life.”
 
How many innocent people are you willing to kill to sate your bloodlust?
I don't have such a problem. How many innocent people are you willing to be killed by murderers?
 
Back
Top Bottom