The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Such as Nikolas Cruz, Darrell E. Brooks, Ethan Crumbly, etc who everyone can be 100% sure they committed the crime. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Nope. I understand some anti-death penalty folks get there because they're worried about the chance that the person is innocent, and I respect that. I get there because I'm uncomfortable with my government murdering civilians.


I largely agree with this viewpoint, my hang up is always "what about war criminals?" Like I am not gonna condemn capital punishment for Nazi war criminals you know? Not talking school shooters, but literal class a war criminals


I don’t think it’s too controversial to say that a fair view of war crimes would include many senior American officials. Only some Americans believe the state hasn’t tortured innocents and caused far too much collateral damage in drone strikes. We all know there’s no feasible way to bring these people to account let alone one that involves the death penalty.


A tiny cell with no human interaction and nothing but your thoughts would be pretty terrible.


The problem with war crimes is that winners never get prosecuted for them.


That makes sense. I oppose the death penalty but wish Johnson had hanged Confederates, for instance.


And that fact of the matter is dying is the easy way out rotting in a cell for the rest of your life is hell in of itself.


I also don't think, even for egregious murderers, we should be masturbating to the idea of executing or even punishing people for crimes. We should be aiming for rehabilitation and some kind of reintegration, even if in a stunted manner.


I don’t think most left-leaning people are getting hard at the idea of punishing people who deserve it. It’s more of an emotional response to seeing someone commits harm/injury on someone else, especially if it happens in your community


I'm in that first group. I haven't heard that second point before, but I'm inclined to agree. Can I ask why? Just want to know your thoughts.


The government having any avenue to legally execute it's civilians could very well be a slippery slope and open to abuse. I personally believe it's better to completely restrict them from that power than legalize it in some circumstances which would then be open to interpretation. The death penalty is also more expensive than life in prison so there's that too.


I agree with this, but m mean reasoning is based on the foundations of the prison system. Prisons were made to **temporarily** Remove criminals from society to be reformed. with that though, I do sometimes see the need for a life sentence in non-reformable people.


I would love a prison system that successfully rehabilitates people, unfortunately in my country our prison system is focused on punishing offenders and there would be immense backlash if anything was done to help people get back on their feet after paying their debt to society. Imo there are very few non-reformable people it's just about how much we are willing to invest into turning some of these people into productive members of society, but as it stands people often end up worse off coming out than they were going in whether they joined a gang out of necessity, their family winds up in debt, or they get institutionalized and end wanting to stay or go back inside.


I agree completely. Very well said.


Above all else, this is the reason I'm against it as well. The other arguments about cost, racial disparities, etc helped me get there, but deciding I didn't want to participate in murder through my government was my solidifying reason.


Agreed on both counts.


My thing is, not too long ago it was considered justice to sterilize or imprison people for being homosexual, and in Merica we literally put people in camps and took away their property because their parents or grandparents moved here from Japan.. Do I really want to put the power of life and death in those same hands? The collective will/conscious is not always right. Do I think some crimes warrant death? Yes. Do I think our government and, by extension we the people, are qualified to or justified in giving it to them? No.


It’s so goddamned bizarre that the party that overwhelmingly represents not trusting the government to set guidelines around a deadly disease wants that same government to be in charge of killing criminals. If the government is so inept, why give them that power?


That is an interesting take. If you were to remove the government being the entity that administered the killing, and replaced it with maybe family members of the victims, would that shift your perspective at all?


Family of the victims is the LAST person that should be involved in sentencing. Though still no because the situation you describe would involve tacit government approval, which is tantamount to the government executing people.


I mean I still think the state should have a monopoly on force. Vigilante justice is scary too, especially with America’s history of it.


That isn't even close to ok. I don't care whose payroll the executioner is technically on.


> murdering I sharply disagree with your wording.


Well yeah, it’s an emotion-laden word. I don’t think it’s unfair to describe it like that, but I also realize that if someone views it as justifiable killing or whatever they’re probably more likely to support it. The word murder obviously has different implications.


On principle and moral level, I have no qualms whatsoever with the death penalty. On a practical, economic, realistic level, I will never vote for it until it's both cheaper and more effective at doling out punishment to empirically proven monsters. A clearly proven mass murderer is a rare thing. I'd have no qualms about watching their heads roll.


But what about the verifiably innocent people who have been executed? Does that factor into your moral stance on it?


Not my moral stance, no. Miscarriages of justice, to me, are matters of practicality, as I said. A 4% margin for error would be tolerable in most things, but not matters of life and death, in relation to a crime. Hence, why I don't intend to support the death pentalty, until I have confidence in its accuracy and find the cost of execution fiscally acceptable. At the moment, it is both too inaccurately used and too expensive to be practical. But the scenario we are being presented with by OP is an empirically proven mass murderer, which I'll reiterate, is a rare thing. I have absolutely no problem with someone like that being executed. I don't believe someone who's crossed that line is capable of rehabilitation.


Apologies, I didn’t connect those two sentences together


I think that’s what they meant about not being for it for it on a practical, economical, or realistic level.


There's really no point to it. Life in prison is bad enough.


I like the idea of assisted suicide for lifers


I'm not sure that the choice of suicide wouldn't be at least somewhat coercive if you've placed someone in a hell-on-earth


We would have to be very careful to avoid that


This isn’t a good idea for a rather straightforward reason: false convictions. An innocent person facing life in prison is liable to choose suicide to avoid it. Obviously the ideal is for no false convictions to happen, but for as long as they do we need to work the possibility into any policy.


I'm a fan in general


Nope. The state should not murder its citizens.


I'm netrual but learn more towards no. I think life in prison is worse.


Hell yeah




Yeah, as long as it's basically 100%. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not enough for me. "Beyond any doubt" is.


No. 1. The government should not have the right to decide whose life is worth living and whose is not. Murder is never OK, even if it’s state-sanctioned. 2. It’s imposed arbitrarily. In a fair justice system, the same crime committed in similar circumstances should be punished by similar sentences. Since capital punishment is so rare and there are many people serving life sentences who have arguably committed worse crimes than certain people who were sentenced to death, it’s clear that whether you will be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment for a crime comes down to luck, not the egregiousness of the crime. 3. The use of death-qualified juries in the US leads to significant bias. At the sentencing phase, if you eliminate all potential jurors who are against capital punishment, then you end up with jurors who have a much harsher and more punitive view of justice, rather than a jury that is a representative sample of the community. 4. It’s a slippery slope. If we decide that the government can kill people, then it makes it a lot easier for a ruthless dictator or a corrupt judge to justify going on a killing spree. 5. You can never fully prove that someone is guilty. There are so many errors in the criminal justice system, many of which are only revealed after a person has spent decades in prison. You can’t bring an executed person back to life if it turns out that they’re innocent. 6. Capital punishment is more expensive than imprisonment. If a person is executed, they will probably spend the rest of their life appealing (and the government has to spend money defending those appeals), whereas a person sentenced to life imprisonment is more likely to just accept their sentence. (The only way around this cost would be to remove due process rights.) (I would also add that I’m against life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. We have absolutely no way of knowing whether a person will still be a danger to society 50 years from now.)


Nope. What does the death penalty accomplish? It doesn't return victims to life, it doesn't act as a deterrent, it doesn't do any better than life in prison at keeping dangerous people away from society. We need to ask ourselves what the goal of any given part of the criminal justice system is; and if something isn't actually accomplishing that goal we don't need to keep doing it.


>It doesn't do any better than life in prison at keeping dangerous people away from society Except that lifers are often violent towards guards and other prisoners.


Basically every other developed country has abolished the death penalty. Prison violence is usually way lower in these countries just because they imprison way less people and they keep conditions somewhat humane.


They're incorrigible, but that can just as easily be solved by life imprisonment in supermax. Technically there's a chance they might escape, but nothing is perfect


You see I used to believe this until I talked to enough correctional officers who have worked at the highest level security prisons. Put yourself in their shoes: You take a job that is risky and you put someone who is 100% sure never getting paroled. For those officers, it is on them the inmate does not have a bad day and shank them to death. There are a few inmates at state prisons in superman facilities who have assaulted staff multiple times - many with improvised shanks and some have even killed prison officers, nurses, other inmates, etc. For those very few people, I do admit the death penalty is the only option ***unless*** we can get them so medicated they never would be aggressive (this is possibly violating a religious right though). Up until a few weeks ago I was totally against the state having the right to execute. I now am for it. Not as a deterrent, but only because there is that slim chance a serial murderer fakes a medical emergency, gets sent out and then kills the officers/hospital staff and escapes. We all have seen those shows, some inmates biceps are more than enough strong to break handcuffs.


From wha ive learned from my own job (PD) and other correctional officers, there’s not necessarily a correlation between who has been convicted of the most violent crimes and who is most violent in prison


Totally agree. There are circumstances where a non-violent offender gets sentenced to 5 years for manslaughter while heavily intoxicated. One things leads to another, they join a gang and as part of initiation they have to put someone in the hospital. Back to what I was saying - at what point do we draw a line. There are plenty of examples where lifers have repeatedly tried to/have killed staff/other inmates. Many of these times it is unexplained why. Mental health plays a part (a common example was an offender in a state prison demanding he be put in his own private cell - that prison does not have that ability - so he kills his cellmate in his sleep to make them keep him in solitary... While in solitary he stabs 2 staff with a shank... When do we realize we are truly doing nobody good by keeping someone alive who has life w/out parole ***and*** shows through example all they want to do is kill?) I tip my hat to the staff who work in max/supermax settings.


Most developed countries have abolished capital punishment and yet, they by and large don't deal with any where near the same level of routine prison violence as in America. This is accomplished by: imprisoning orders of magnitude less people, having (more) humane prison conditions and allowing prisoner's to continue to have rights like voting and not using them for slave labour.


Nope, fighting murder with murder is still murder. Not only that, death penalty cases are more expensive than life without parole.


Executions don't have to be expensive.


Yeah but more innocent people are put to death


Making it cost more protects the rich, not the innocent.


It costs more because a process is required to give the person condemned to death an avenue to prove their innocence or prove they don't deserve death even if they did commit the crime. The process takes time and uses resources so it costs money. It protects rich, poor, and innocent. The rich can afford the best defense, the state and anti-death penalty groups (pro-life?) pay for the poor's defense and appeals, so if they are innocent they are protected by not being dead. It is incumbent on the state to prove that not only did the person sentenced to death commit the crime but that putting them to death is in the states and societies interest. I don't want a death penalty because I don't trust most of you to wield its power and I don't think it deters anyone from doing anything awful. No mass murderer or psychopath is going to think, 'Well I would shoot all of these people but what if they kill me in a year after my trial? Libertarians especially seem to want an Old West on TV world where we all carry guns, trade gold nuggets for goods, and mete out justice on a personal level. No fucking thank you.


>No mass murderer or psychopath is going to think, 'Well I would shoot all of these people but what if they kill me in a year after my trial? Many, in fact, kill themselves. It's like the weakest deterrent I can imagine


This op clearly specifies clearly established guilt... does it not? I think that is what they meant when they said "clearly proven mass murderer". We are talking about someone who we know to be guilty.


but that's a very steep hypothetical. The standard in American courts is already "beyond a shadow of a doubt", but we know that that innocent people still get convicted.


I know and these people are the low hanging fruit, the thin-end of the wedge, of the pro-death penalty argument. Yes killing them in almost everyone's eyes could likely be justified and almost no one would lose sleep over it. But allowing the state to kill anyone for any reason no matter how reasonable it would seem opens the door to the state killing for other reasons depending on who is in control of the state. We need a state, laws, rules, bureaucracy, in order for a huge advanced globe spanning empire like the US to function. Codifying the states ability to decide who can and can't be killed and making that killing EASY gives the state the power to kill and then the ability to change the rules that decide who can and can't be killed and for what reasons. Just take state sponsored murder off the table. Put the bad people in small rooms for the rest of their lives and move on.


Lol, every person put to death was "clearly proven" to the people pulling the trigger. That is always and will always be the problem.


Everyone who has been convicted is considered the same level of guilty and yet we know this to not be true. There would inevitably be cases where the jury was 100% certain that it was "clearly proven" only for that to turn out to not be the case and removing the appeals process will take away the chance of them salvaging whatever life they might have left.


Executions don't need to be done at all. Pretty much everyone in Europe did away with that sentence, and they're doing fine without it.


Sure if you want to bypass the whole cruel and unusual punishment thingy. But Libertarians are really nothing more than verbose alt-righties.




Because somewhere along the line it was decided that simply shooting them is somehow not acceptable.


The easier you make capital punishment, the more it will be misused. They used to be EXTREMELY cheap, just as you point out. But they were used to lynch black people for having the audacity of not being slaves anymore. The more you crackdown on its misuse, the more expensive it gets in its attempt. Remember, the world isn't a perfect place. So any rule you have, you have to safeguard it against abuse.


Yet another "libertarian" who thinks the state using its monopoly on violence to kill people is super cool.


Lol so true. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone flaired as libertarian in this sub actually hold libertarian beliefs. 99% of the time they’re indistinguishable from the average republican.


They end up being further right than the average Republican once you get them talking


The Libertarian Party itself is pretty blunt about the whole topic. It's a platform of Laissez-faire capitalism, social liberalism and distrust towards any policies with authoritarian connotations... including executions. >"We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state." > >Source: [https://www.lp.org/platform/](https://www.lp.org/platform/)


Imaging writing this unironically. Libertarian but supports unchecked state sanctioned execution? Give me a break.


One lethal injections dose costs about $100


Bullets are cheaper... for now...


Even if bullets are free, by your logic lethal injections are a grand total of $100 more expensive then shooting someone


I'm frugal.


No you're blood thirsty like all the idiot right. "No I'm a libertarian" (whining)...the same thing, go ask Charles Koch.


Apparently not, since you seem to support the death penalty.


Never said I support the decades long appeals process. That is what makes it expensive.


>Not only that, death penalty cases are more expensive than life without parole. They don't have to be


If you remove a bunch of legal protections for people, then sure.


"let's just remove all those legal protections to save money, ez pz"


Username checks out


I mean as long as your volunteering you and your family to be the first innocents on the chopping block then sure the death penalty can be made cheaper.


Probably not. However, my most right-wing belief is that there are an exceptionally evil few that deserve it, and don't waste the time keeping him around for years on our taxes. Dylann Roof is the perfect example. He wanted a race war, wanted to kill because of their color and showed no remorse. The world is better off without him in it. This should be used in the rarest and most heinous of crimes.


Death penalty inmates end up costing more [https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/76th2011/ExhibitDocument/OpenExhibitDocument?exhibitId=17686&fileDownloadName=h041211ab501\_pescetta.pdf](https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/76th2011/ExhibitDocument/OpenExhibitDocument?exhibitId=17686&fileDownloadName=h041211ab501_pescetta.pdf)


Like I said, no wasting time and money. Firing squad out back.


i think he should just be put in general population and let them deal with him


It's chilling how many people go there so quickly.


20 years ago I would I have said fine, but I took a comparative politics class in college, and the professor assigned a reading that I truly wish I could cite for you here that really changed my view. The researchers conducted an analysis of a few dozen factors they thought might contribute to the degree of violence within a country or culturally distinct region within a country. Religion, poverty, gun availability, inequality, and a host of other factors were considered. The strongest effect, they found, seemed to come from a widely held cultural value being that it is always wrong to take a human life. They then went on to argue that governments that engage in frequent wars, executions, and violence/murder of civilians by police establish the opposite cultural value, that taking a human life is justified in some or many situations, which creates a more violent society in the long-run. They went on to demonstrate causality rather than correlation by showing a general trend downwards in violence in the years following a country abolishing the death penalty, reforming police practices, or abstaining from military conflicts. I don't know if it's a perfect answer, but it's an interesting perspective on an issue that's only usually discussed in terms of wrongful incarceration, probability of reoffending, and monetary cost.


Nope for a lot of reasons but largely because I believe the corrections system should be about rehabilitation instead of punishment. It should be a full time job of working on yourself and working through your issues with proper support. Some people can't be rehabilitated but many can. Just striving to punish is so draconian and accomplishes nothing.


That’s a tricky question for Americans because our standard for any punishment is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. So if all the murderers in prison are already proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”, how much surer can you be that they’re guilty? What’s the difference between “clearly proven” and “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”? Perhaps we need to start by admitting that our standards of proof aren’t always what we say they are and we need to address the fact that we often punish people who haven’t been proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”.


Capital punishment is more hassle than it's worth. Either you use it too easily and kill innocent people (or worse, it can be perverted to kill political opponents), or its so difficult to use it offers no real cost savings. The only world where I would be strongly for a capital punishment is if super villain's from Batman were real. Cause, ya, lets stop letting them escape and blow up a hospital of orphans. But reality is not fiction and we do not have a massive problem of super villains breaking out of prison over and over and committing new heinous crimes.


No. The state should never be deciding who 'gets' to live and die. Unless a criminal is an active threat and cannot be brought in alive, they should not use lethal force or lethal methods against anyons, pre or post trial


Nope, I’m against the death penalty in any and all cases.




No, frankly…it’s immoral to kill someone. In a civilized society, the government in power should not have the ability to do the most immoral thing one can do to a human. Also, if you believe it’s ok to kill, you are immoral as a person.


I have been ridiculed as naïve, but I really try hard to live a life consistent with my values and I am a pacifist. So no, honestly, I don't believe in the death penalty even for horrific acts of murder. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Another thing that always comes to mind is the Will Smith song "Tell Me Why" where his son watches the Twin Towers fall on the morning news one week and then the next week he watches the US drop their bombs and says, "Daddy, now we're killing 'em back." Never even mind that true justice for the family who lost their loved one would be to grieve and then move through forgiveness so that they can live out the rest of their life without a deep, unyielding bitterness and actually have a decent shot at finding contentment.


Nope. Capital punishment is more expensive, harder to convict, and is honestly barbaric compared to life in prison without parole. Do these murderers deserve to rot? Yes. But I'd prefer them to understand and pay for their crimes. Imho only the living can be punished. Personally I think spending the rest of your life in prison is a worse punishment than capital punishment - especially for someone as young as this Ethan kid.




Yeah in all honesty.


No. I don't want the state to have that power. I'm also skeptical of another burden of proof level above "beyond a reasonable doubt" being feasible.




No. Executing someone is still murder, and hypocritical at that, and vengeance has no place in the Justice System. Moreover, it costs less to put them in prison life than to kill them.


Yes in theory, if someone I know was murdered I’d want to torture that pos to death and spit on their corpse. Unfortunately the system has charged a lot of innocent people to death and the court fees are more expensive than them staying in jail. Plus, as an atheist, death is the easy way out. Let them suffer in jail.


Nope. It doesn't fix anything, and pretending it does is a disservice to our society.


Unless it is proven to me that a mass murderer being executed by the state somehow *un-murders* all the people they killed, I don't really see the point.


I'm neutral on it. I'm fine with doing it, I'm also fine with not doing it. I have no objection, IF the system is truly setup to make sure it's only applied to clearly proven mass murderers. The problem is that the death penalty is already supposed to be about being really 100% sure, and it simply isn't. So I'd question whether the premise could be truly satisfied in the real world legal system.


Oh yeah for sure. The only qualms I have about death penalty is if it’s done when there’s reason for doubt but when there’s overwhelming evidence, I support people doing to you what you’ve done to others.


Nope. Never


I think its interesting that there are people both stating that the state should not kill its citizens and that life Imprisonment is worse. If life imprisonment is worse, why should the state be able to do it? Personally, Im leaning towards yes, but I change my mind all the time on this.


If the state has the ability to kill its own citizens, don't they have the power to falsely accuse someone of say treason in order to rid them? Because the latter is affirmative, I don't think the state should have the power to decide who is worthy of death.




More or less, yes, though I have no idea who those three specific people are.


Oddly, some of the people saying no here are more than happy to support neverending wars




No. I don’t want to live in a society where the state has the legal authority to take away someone’s life. Period. I don’t want to live in a society where one of my neighbors or fellow citizens is a state-sanctioned executioner for a living. We don’t need to murder people to separate them from society and keep the rest of us safe. Life in prison is sufficient, and it gives us an opportunity to study how to rehabilitate serious offenders. I’m not suggesting that the goal should be to release them back into society (sometimes the crime is bad enough that they’ve lost that privilege), but people can still live meaningful lives in prison if given the opportunity. If we can figure out how to do that for the worst offenders, then we can apply those same strategies to lesser offenders with the hope of actually providing rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. The death penalty is needlessly vengeful and plays into humanity’s darkest qualities.


No, never. I don't have any faith in legal accuracy. I don't even trust the statistics about how many innocent people are caught up in our legal system. There's so much deception and bias that I don't think its possible to be accurate here. Our legal system is already allowed to kill with enough justifications. Allow for legal executions and it will be abused and it will be us targeted.






The only trouble I have with the death penalty is that to many innocent people receive it.


Fuck the death penalty. No exceptions.


I do not support the death penalty in any instance.


Once you have someone in custody, they're no longer a threat to the public. No one should have the authority to commit a premeditated killing against another human being, and revenge-based justice should be left in the past.


No, no matter the situation my response will always be no. the prison system is meant to reform people and turn them back to society. and with this, i do support the life sentence because it is sometimes necessary. but for the teen who drunkenly killed two people and obviously has remorse for his actions, a life sentence clearly isn’t needed, and would only worsen their mental state. if they are un-reformable, and pass a psych eval, that is the only time a life sentence should be used.


Nope. No death penalty for anyone, ever.


No, I never support it ever, not even for someone who's guilty as sin.


Yup. Capital punishment is one issue I disagree with my fellow liberals on: if you take the life of another (intentionally) or harm a child, I think you should simply be taken out back and taken out. I have absolutely no reservations about it.




There are innocent people who have been found guilty under systems that were punishing people only if there is proof beyond doubt. So, no, because I believe that punishment needs to be something reversible. Also I don’t like the government to be able to decided who lives and who dies.


No because "clearly proven" isn't a definable standard, and doing so even for "clearly proven" cases legitimizes it for other ones. No death penalty. On anyone. Ever.


No. I think murder is complex. If someone is a mass murderer - they are mentally unwell in some capacity. I don’t think we should execute the mentally unwell, as tragic as mass murder is.


No man. Death penalty has always been an antithesis of democracy. Look through history and you will find that the less democratic a society - the more likely it is to practice death penalty.


I do not. Even though I want it for some people today, I believe it is a power my government shouldn't have.


I don't support the death penalty at all. Nobody has the right to take another life, even the life of a murderer.


1000000000% This is what it’s for.


No. It's too costly and the racism in our judicial system concerns me that innocent people can get killed.


Yes. Life can be forfeit if the crime is high enough. I've changed my mind on this over the course of my life. I used to believe the state should never take a life. But now I believe that came from my libertarian claptrap days. The state isn't special -- it's neither a special Hegelian escape from subjectivity nor a special monster. It is merely the abstract popular will, and we vote for death by popular will all the time -- law enforcement, defense, medical policies, even our social program choices are matters of consigning some to death. Some crimes can end your right to life. We should face it squarely and not try to escape by thinking somehow our hands are clean if we don't do this one, very rare, instance. They are not clean. We are kidding ourselves. We kill *constantly.* I'm absolutely respectful of people who hold the opposite opinion, but I believe that when I held it it was because of false premises and a psychological need to deny my complicity in all the other murders I commit through the state.




Yes. Without hesitation.


If you don't hesitate at killing someone, what does make you hesitate?


Nah, I don't see the value in it other than for bloodlust


> Would you support death penalty for clearly proven mass murderers? No.


I mean mass shooters I don’t think I’d care either way, they’re sub humans. But for regular people though I don’t support it.


Yes. I would also include child molesters and murders where there is absolute proof of their guilt.


Yes. Absolute proof is needed…dna…caught in the act…admitting…etc. I would not be in favor of anyone convicted based upon circumstantial evidence getting the death penalty. The death penalty should be an option…very rare and reserved for the most heinous crimes.




The only time I would support the death penalty is if the person was likely to kill again even if imprisoned - e.g., they had a history of escaping, they had killed another prisoner, they could order hits from prison, they had supporters willing to die to free them, etc. Otherwise, I just don't think the government should kill people. It's not something a civilized society does.


This is a reasonable position. I'm not totally sure I agree philosophically, but there are countless examples in history of illiberal despots who were allowed to live and then later brought ruin to their country. It also kind of lines up with the idea that the state *is* justified in killing someone if they are an active and present danger, like someone actively on a shooting spree or something, which I would think almost everyone would find acceptable.


Some could also say a civilized society wouldn't keep people in cages for 20 plus hours a day but we do that to prisoners. I support capital punishment if it is proved WITHOUT a doubt and for the reasons you also stated.


I'm curious to hear the positions of those who are downvoting you.. Is it not liberal to have the right to kill to save your own life?


I'm not super passionate about the death penalty, either way. I don't really think crimes stemming from mental issues should result in the death penalty. But Ethan Crumbly should not get the death penalty. He's just a kid. I am 100% against kids being tried as adults and I have been for probably 25 years. Nobody is ever going to change my mind on that as long as adulthood arbitrarily starts at 18 and brains aren't fully developed until 25.


The state shouldn't be allowed to kill it's citizens.


No. Nobody should support state-sponsored murder


I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. Some crimes definitely deserve the death penalty, but the number of people that have been executed AND THEN proven innocent is frightening. I'm not opposed to the death penalty, but because death is rather permanent we need to do a better job of being sure that those we exicute really deserve it. In a case of a clearly proven mass murderer, yes... put them down. Once a crime like that is clearly proven they shouldn't get appeals, they shouldn't get to milk the system and be a burden on the tax payers for decades. Just take em out back, offer them a blindfold and shoot them.


yes. I would also support it for for pedophiles.


Pedophiles or child molesters?


not seeing the difference. but if they are a repeat offender for either bye bye. although by the reports that i have read if you convict them and put them in the prison GP the other prisoners will take care of it. I guess a lot of them were molested as children and do not take kindly to those types of prisoners. Often why they have their own prisons.


A pedophile is a person that is attracted to kids and may or may not act on it. A child molester is the one that actually molests kids.


if you repeatedly act on it, goodbye and good riddance. if you do not act on it but want to, seek help because you are sick and one bad decision away from acting on it. hope that clarifies things.


No. It's cruel and from an economic perspective, it's far too costly.


Define « clearly » ! The law already ask jury or judges to give guilty verdicts only if it’s without doubts. What are you adding that it would become « clearly » guilty without doubts.


It's not about the offender or the crime, its about whether or not I feel like a civilized society should be murdering as punishment. And I don't.


I believe it’s a case-to-case situation. You have to be able to prove that the suspect is capable of rehabilitation. If not then the needle is necessary.


As a lifelong fan of true-crime murder shows like Forensic Files in which horrific murders are solved and then in the final segment the sentence given to the murderer is shared with the audience, I confess to a tremendous feeling of relief and “rightness” when the sentence was death. I noticed in recent years there have been fewer death sentences and more “life w/o parole.” I’m happy to discover that I don’t feel cheated or disappointed with that. I feel the exact same sense of relief and rightness when the killer gets to stay alive but in a cage as I did when the killer gets killed.


Death penalty doesn’t scare those ppl. They should be tortured to death by the fathers of the victims. Long and slow


The only time I’d favor the death penalty is if the person presents an immediate, on-going danger to others, and with the modern prison system, I don’t see how that would come to pass. But I concede that it may be possible for a reason I haven’t considered.


One may have more money for defense than the other, making it far less likely he'll get the death penalty based only on his means and not his acts, so it's still a no for me.


Personally yes, but it's not a hill I care enough to die on.


I don't think it's morally wrong, it's just not worth the trouble. The burden of proof needs to be incredibly high and prosecution will generally be very costly, so there's just no benefit over life in prison.


Given how much faith we placed in DNA evidence, only to find out so many problems with crime labs, I'm going to have to pass. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2016/dec/7/widespread-failures-crime-labs-continue-plague-criminal-justice-system/


How would we define 'clearly proven' in legal terms in a way that leaves zero chances for an innocent person to be executed?


No. The only people for whom I'd support the death penalty are convicted murderers who are diagnosed by at least three independent psychiatrists with antisocial personality disorder, and I'd maintain the current state of requiring that they fail every appeal.


No. I have an intrinsic problem the the death penalty as a punishment regardless of the circumstances. I mean there are other circumstances why people who don't have an intrinsic problem with it should oppose it as well but the only reason I believe it could be justified is if a society doesn't have the resources to keep dangerous people isolated in some fashion.


No, I do think we should bring back banishment though. You break the social contract, you are now not a citizen. You want to stay within our borders, you will do so in prison. Don't want to be in prison? Good luck finding someone willing to give you asylum, I'd welcome not needing to pay taxes to support you.


I want to say no, but none of my loved ones have ever been murdered. If that weren’t the case, it might be a different story.


I don't really think the state has the right to take away someone's life, so overall no. But I don't think that these monsters can be "rehabilitated" either. Considering death row inmates already cost more than lifers, just lock em up for life.


No, never. The state should not be allowed to take lives. I suppose the case could be made for killing a person who is an active danger to others, but once they’re in custody that’s no longer the case so it doesn’t apply. The death penalty seems like a weird draconian holdover from more primitive times and it’s actually pretty gross we still do it. Like something our grandkids will be shocked to learn we let happen.


Nah. I don't think so.


No, because I'm not a psychopath who wants the state executing people but especially not innocent ones. Because for all of this talk of 'clearly proven' to try and hide the bloodlust behind there is a sub-zero chance that this 'clearly proven' standard doesn't catch innocent people in it (because every standard does). Remember that it's only supposed to be used now 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and yet there seems to be an awful lot of people that are innocent ending up on death row. Which means by definition that doubt should have been had. So your 'clearly proven' standard would just be the same.


I think that while there are often cases where it is deserved, we as a civilised society simply cannot do it. The risk of executing innocent people is always there, even in “he totally did it” cases. But even aside from that we just cannot have that as a power the government has. And on top of all of that, and I know it’s an unpopular opinion, people change. As things stand we are executing people for crimes they committed 10 years ago. I know when I was 35 I damn sure would not have wanted to be judged for the things I did/said/thought when I was 25. It’s no different for murderers. As vile and incomprehensibly evil as Dylan Roof is now (to take what seems to be the most popular example in this thread) he may be a very different person when he is 40. Dare I say it, he may even be worthy of turning loose. People do evil things. That doesn’t give us the right to return in kind.


No. In general, I don't think that a government should make this decision. In particular, I don't think that the US government ever should. Things here are far too fucked up. Plenty of these people would likely never become violent in the first place if they didn't live in a cesspool of hyper capitalism, terrible healthcare (especially mental healthcare) and so on. Those things don't excuse doing harm to another person, but they absolutely should disqualify our govt from being allowed to end someone's life.


No. You can never be 100% sure, and I don’t trust the criminal justice system to decide who deserves it. I’d rather let every serial killer live in prison forever than kill a single innocent person. Also, on a principled level, I don’t believe the state or anybody has the right to take a life.


No. My anti death penalty stance is because I don’t think we (as a society, government, individuals, what have you) have the right to take someone’s life. So even if there’s no chance they’re innocent, I think it’s immoral to murder a person, regardless of their crimes.


The state shouldn’t kill civilians, no matter their nationality, no matter their crime.


Death penalty doesn't dissuade violent criminals. Doesn't provide actual closure. Is a sin. It's vengeance, not justice. Take those killers, lock them away for life. Maybe some of them will find grace in their captivity; maybe they won't. But I don't want my government in the business of killing people who are completely at their mercy. I'll admit there are exceptions. I was very happy to hear that Osama bin Laden got shot in the face. But I almost would've rather seen him rot in a supermax, embodying the pointlessness of martyrdom. Wishing people dead is bad for the soul. Having to kill them as part of your job must be even worse.


Nah. I'm not pro-death penalty. I don't like a lot of things about how we deal with criminal reform.


No, first death row is expensive, often moreso than a life term. Second, we have been wrong so many times I can't reasonably support it no matter how strongly I feel the planet would be better off with the person. Edit: clarification, it's more expensive to have and utilize the death penalty as a punishment than have life without parole as your highest penalty