2 ms·

I’m a fan of the death penalty for really egregious cases, given a hypothetical perfect Justice system. Some people are not worth trying to rehabilitate. Howeve

I’m a fan of the death penalty for really egregious cases, given a hypothetical perfect Justice system. Some people are not worth trying to rehabilitate. However, the Justice system is flawed and a decent percentage of people who get the death penalty are innocent. So what do you do? I’d rather they be locked up for the rest of their natural lives, barring a change in evidence or technology that leads to a change in sentence. But I don’t want some remorseless psychopath back in society because they’ve reached the limit on how long we can hold them.

Femolo 3y ago
I'm against it as I do believe that we are not just the result of our own free will free of anything but a result of our environment, luck etc. I'm lucky that I had parents which gave me behavior patterns which do not make me kill or rape others. And even if someone believes they are right, they are actually right just no in the moral and ethical sphere of a majority. I don't like rape and in my world it's wrong. But that doesn't change their world view. And I don't kill him due to this because why would I be allowed to end the life of someone else? The best I can do is to remove this person from the society. It's easy to kill and hard not to. And in the worst case scenario I would kill someone who hurts or killed a close person (perhaps) but I would need to accept the consequences of it.
causi 3y ago
I wonder if something productive could be done by expanding the options beyond "guilty" and "not guilty" because someone can be found guilty by a jury for almost any reason. Perhaps if there was a further status of "guilty by egregious evidence" that required a higher standard of evidence such as direct recording of the commission of the crime by the perpetrator and the death penalty was only applicable in those cases. I'm not ok with a one percent chance of executing the wrong person for any crime no matter how horrific, and our justice system trends at least 4% wrongful conviction. I'm fully ok with a 0.001% chance of executing the wrong person for even second-degree murder.
- dsego 3y ago
  Isn't "beyond reasonable doubt" already a high standard? I've watched cases on youtube where it was really obvious from all the circumstances that the defendant did it. But it wasn't beyond reasonable doubt, so the jury had no choice but to declare them innocent.

Femolo 3y ago

I'm against it as I do believe that we are not just the result of our own free will free of anything but a result of our environment, luck etc. I'm lucky that I had parents which gave me behavior patterns which do not make me kill or rape others. And even if someone believes they are right, they are actually right just no in the moral and ethical sphere of a majority. I don't like rape and in my world it's wrong. But that doesn't change their world view. And I don't kill him due to this because why would I be allowed to end the life of someone else? The best I can do is to remove this person from the society. It's easy to kill and hard not to. And in the worst case scenario I would kill someone who hurts or killed a close person (perhaps) but I would need to accept the consequences of it.

causi 3y ago

I wonder if something productive could be done by expanding the options beyond "guilty" and "not guilty" because someone can be found guilty by a jury for almost any reason. Perhaps if there was a further status of "guilty by egregious evidence" that required a higher standard of evidence such as direct recording of the commission of the crime by the perpetrator and the death penalty was only applicable in those cases. I'm not ok with a one percent chance of executing the wrong person for any crime no matter how horrific, and our justice system trends at least 4% wrongful conviction. I'm fully ok with a 0.001% chance of executing the wrong person for even second-degree murder.

dsego 3y ago
Isn't "beyond reasonable doubt" already a high standard? I've watched cases on youtube where it was really obvious from all the circumstances that the defendant did it. But it wasn't beyond reasonable doubt, so the jury had no choice but to declare them innocent.