Asklemmy

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.

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

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'd be against it even if we could magically know without a doubt the person's guilty. Even if it had a negative cost. Even for raping a child.
Life is sacred, whatever "sacred" means for an atheist like me.
(And I was raped as a child, fwiw.)

Strongly against the state having the option.

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

In a just society it will always cost more to execute a person than it would cost to imprison them for life. If that's always going to be the case in a just society you may as well imprison them for life. The outcome is the same.

The reason execution should always cost more is because you have to be absolutely sure to the best of our abilities that the person is guilty. Until we come up with a fool proof way to determine guilt we will always run the risk of executing the wrong person for a crime.

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.

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.

In terms of view. Yes. I am against it. In terms of using it as a bargaining chip to pass other annoying laws quid pro quo like it, no.

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)

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.

If you truly believe that all humans are equal then you must also believe that it is impossible for one to stand in judgment of another. I believe that killing is wrong because it is one human standing in judgement of another. Society has a duty to protect its members, but judgement and the concept of "punishment" is something that should be left to God.

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.

In this reality of fallible humans, ineptness, and corruption then no.

However, if it was guaranteed that the person was definitely guilty of certain crimes (such as raping kids. Being a fascist dictator. Premeditated murder. Spraying yourself orange and shitting yourself etc etc) then yeah I'm ok with it.

Ok, life is sacred and all that but if a person is steadfastly evil then they don't deserve life.

I think the death penalty is more about vengeance than justice. If they're going to happen the execution should be swift, public and if there were credible eyewitnesses to the crime, brutal!.

I don't know. On one hand, if the crime is so bad that it otherwise warrants lifetime imprisonment...

a) maybe there is a line past which it's deserved. I do generally view life as being something sacred and not something you should be able to take from others, but it's a fuzzy moral question as to whether there are some acts that are so heinous that they would challenge that view. Maybe it has to be for a harm at a societal rather than personal level? Like maybe taking one person's life isn't a warranted punishment for them taking a single other life, but perhaps say, a Nazi has harmed not just so many people, but some essential essence of the society that keeps us happy and healthy. Maybe THAT is bad enough to merit the ultimate violation of personal rights?

b) Is the alternative THAT much better? Is condemning someone to spend the rest of their life in a tiny room with no hope of them ever getting to do something that they want much better than death? Is it really living a life? (Granted, my opinion on that point is colored by my depression. I genuinely think if things got bad enough in my life suicide would be a preferable alternative. A healthier person might have a different view.)

That said, regardless of the above considerations, there is also the issue of the permanence of the punishment not allowing for correcting mistakes. Humans aren't infallible. Plenty of people have been wrongly convicted. If they're merely put in prison then we can always free them if we later learn of our mistake. If we've already killed them... ooops...? Nothing we can do. So perhaps that issue overrides any other moral considerations.