6 ms·

Am i the only one in favor of capital punishment in this thread? My mom used to work at state hospital for the criminally insane. The stories she would tell me

Am i the only one in favor of capital punishment in this thread? My mom used to work at state hospital for the criminally insane. The stories she would tell me about how these people got in there were absolutely brutal. (Canabalism, satanic sacrafices of loved ones, all manor of wierd shit.). Instead of executing these lunatics, they send them to a "State Hospital" for rehabilitation. It's not a Prison, but a hospital so the conditions are great for the guy who ate his mom. So much so that some of the gang members claim 51/51 and say craay shit to the jury to get sent to a state hospital instead of prison. The U.S. spends approximately $75 billion per year on incarcerating prisoners... You could build a city, every year for that amount. Someone who commits capital murder, admits to it, does 30 years in prison. You have robbed them off all life. They aren't rehabilitated, they are just a hardened prison inmate with no chance to make it back in the real world so their only option alot of the time is to do what you've taught them in prison on release. Steal, lie, cheat and do anything you can to try and stay alive. So, it would cost approximately $2.43 million to imprison one person in California for 30 years. (California costs around ~81k per year per prisoner). Death seems to be so feared nowadays to the point where they can justify taking away any sense of freedom, rights and soverignty and put you in a small cage for 30 years, but yet the death penalty is to far? If i ever get falsely accused of a crime that would send me to jail for life i would beg for the death penalty.

wiether 2y ago
Doesn't the US privatized incarceration so it's basically a _free_ market, where shady deals are made to funnel more public money to private entities, and many people are incentivized to have as many people in prison as possible? In that case, the cost on citizens for incarceration of people shouldn't be taken into account in the discussion around capital punishment because it's another issue altogether?
- cxvrfr 2y ago
  > Doesn't the US privatized Isn't that less than 10% of the market (i.e. most prisons are not private)
  - t-writescode 2y ago
    But how many services in prisons, like being able to be in a call with loved ones, are private?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
UncleMeat 2y ago
The right way to reduce the cost of incarcerating people is to end mass incarceration, not to kill people. Just shooting everybody on LWOP in the head won't do nearly as much. Further, I think that we should have a high expense per prisoner. It should cost society something to imprison somebody, since crime is in many ways a product of society's systems and choices. A world with mass incarceration and a focus on reducing the cost of the prison system is a world that basically necessitates abuse.
JellyBeanThief 2y ago
> If i ever get falsely accused of a crime that would send me to jail for life i would beg for the death penalty. That's your life and your choice, which I think should be respected.
calderarrow 2y ago
I used to be, for most of the same reasons as you. What ultimately convinced me was realizing that our judicial system can never be 100% perfect, so we would always have a non-zero number of innocent people executed as long as capital punishment is on the table. To me, I think the cost of keeping people incarcerated is worth the cost of accidentally executing innocent citizens. Put a bit more personally: would you support capital punishment if you had to pull the trigger, and you would be killed if you executed an innocent inmate? Most people I speak with would be fine pulling the trigger, but no one I’ve talked with would be okay with taking responsibility for mistakes.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago
  i think you missed my last line. That should answer your question. The government can never be perfect, and killing and innocent is a tragedy. However, you cannot cripple the whole system for this vanishgly small chance or you have an equal chance of success across the system. If you keep making those compromises, putting systems in place to correct the errors of past systems; it quickly becomes a losing game. Put more simply, If you lose trust in the system, you can't rely on the system to fix it.
  - mystified5016 2y ago
    So why not just select random citizens by lottery and publicly execute one for every 50 or 100 convicts executed? You're willing to accept that if the random citizen is labeled as guilty even if they're not. If it's acceptable for innocent people to be executed, what's the difference in having a random death lottery?
    - TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago
      That's the whole point of the system is it not? We accept that there is a vanishigly small chance that a innocent person may be locked up and imprisoned. The point i was making is that we are already making that choice by the allowance of jails and prisons. So if we accept that, the sentencing does not matter. They were proven guilty in the court of law. There is a handful of studies, i'm sure someone could pull up about such cases where people on death row were found innocent after 20 years. However, those are exceptions and 99.99% of cases are not that way and are mostly because we "discovered" dna evidence as a thing. It's death by a million cuts as soon as you start second guessing the system and trying to use the same system to fix it's inherent imperfections. Proven guilty by the court of law needs to mean something.
widowlark 2y ago
"Better a thousand innocent men are locked up than one guilty man roam free." To clarify, I vehemently disagree with your post and think that the pursuit of innocence is an imperative function of the state.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago
  Funny enough, i think i agree with you. the pursuit of innocence is an imperative function of the state. And that's why we have innocent until proven guilty. But I think we disagree on our trust of the legal system. Once proven guilty under the court of law that must be upheld. If you locked the doors and burned your grandma alive because you thought she was satan you should be executed, not put in a cushy hospital to be "Rehabilitated". If you caused harm to society in such a violent way, justice is not the tax payers paying $2.7m and to forver bear the burden of one who cannot function in our society.
  - EMIRELADERO 2y ago
    I disagree, on the basis that retribution should simply not be a state penalogical goal at all. When you say someone "should be executed" you're conjuring up innate feelings of the desire for vindictiveness. A modern state should not have that in consideration at all. Either they're so dangerous that no matter what you do or say to them they will never change their ways, or they can be rehabilitated. Neither of those posibilities justifies the kind of cruel treatments that plague America's prisons today, much less the death penalty.
  - skeaker 2y ago
    What if you didn't do that but someone said you did?
dangitman 2y ago
[dead]
anonCoffee 2y ago
Executions speed up evolving bad traits out of humanity. Short term bleeding hearts hurt us long term.
moi2388 2y ago
Probably not. I am just not in favour for putting them in hospitals. You won’t “fix” a Taoist or murderer. Put them in prison for life, make them work for food and housing.
ratg13 2y ago
I am for the death penalty. Unfortunately cases like this come along where it is not applied correctly, forcing us to have to face the reality that we are not capable of using it as a proper tool.
seec 2y ago
I believe that people against it are either incredibly annoying idealists (who fail to understand that perfect is the enemy of good) or full-on barbarian who rejoices at the idea of wasting someone's life in a much worse way than just killing him. I believe long-term imprisonment is much worse than death, especially since there is no real life possible after so much time in prison. It is truly worse than death from a humanity point of view. I don't believe the nonsense about potentially innocent people, if justice isn't completely certain, then they can put them in prison awaiting more evidence. But I think it is actually pretty rare, the problem is mostly lack of evidence; you don't get trouble with justice when you are a good citizen and juste mind your own business.

wiether 2y ago

Doesn't the US privatized incarceration so it's basically a _free_ market, where shady deals are made to funnel more public money to private entities, and many people are incentivized to have as many people in prison as possible? In that case, the cost on citizens for incarceration of people shouldn't be taken into account in the discussion around capital punishment because it's another issue altogether?

cxvrfr 2y ago
> Doesn't the US privatized Isn't that less than 10% of the market (i.e. most prisons are not private)
- t-writescode 2y ago
  But how many services in prisons, like being able to be in a call with loved ones, are private?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

UncleMeat 2y ago

The right way to reduce the cost of incarcerating people is to end mass incarceration, not to kill people. Just shooting everybody on LWOP in the head won't do nearly as much. Further, I think that we should have a high expense per prisoner. It should cost society something to imprison somebody, since crime is in many ways a product of society's systems and choices. A world with mass incarceration and a focus on reducing the cost of the prison system is a world that basically necessitates abuse.

JellyBeanThief 2y ago

> If i ever get falsely accused of a crime that would send me to jail for life i would beg for the death penalty. That's your life and your choice, which I think should be respected.

calderarrow 2y ago

I used to be, for most of the same reasons as you. What ultimately convinced me was realizing that our judicial system can never be 100% perfect, so we would always have a non-zero number of innocent people executed as long as capital punishment is on the table. To me, I think the cost of keeping people incarcerated is worth the cost of accidentally executing innocent citizens. Put a bit more personally: would you support capital punishment if you had to pull the trigger, and you would be killed if you executed an innocent inmate? Most people I speak with would be fine pulling the trigger, but no one I’ve talked with would be okay with taking responsibility for mistakes.

TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago
i think you missed my last line. That should answer your question. The government can never be perfect, and killing and innocent is a tragedy. However, you cannot cripple the whole system for this vanishgly small chance or you have an equal chance of success across the system. If you keep making those compromises, putting systems in place to correct the errors of past systems; it quickly becomes a losing game. Put more simply, If you lose trust in the system, you can't rely on the system to fix it.
- mystified5016 2y ago
  So why not just select random citizens by lottery and publicly execute one for every 50 or 100 convicts executed? You're willing to accept that if the random citizen is labeled as guilty even if they're not. If it's acceptable for innocent people to be executed, what's the difference in having a random death lottery?
  - TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago
    That's the whole point of the system is it not? We accept that there is a vanishigly small chance that a innocent person may be locked up and imprisoned. The point i was making is that we are already making that choice by the allowance of jails and prisons. So if we accept that, the sentencing does not matter. They were proven guilty in the court of law. There is a handful of studies, i'm sure someone could pull up about such cases where people on death row were found innocent after 20 years. However, those are exceptions and 99.99% of cases are not that way and are mostly because we "discovered" dna evidence as a thing. It's death by a million cuts as soon as you start second guessing the system and trying to use the same system to fix it's inherent imperfections. Proven guilty by the court of law needs to mean something.

widowlark 2y ago

"Better a thousand innocent men are locked up than one guilty man roam free." To clarify, I vehemently disagree with your post and think that the pursuit of innocence is an imperative function of the state.

TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago
Funny enough, i think i agree with you. the pursuit of innocence is an imperative function of the state. And that's why we have innocent until proven guilty. But I think we disagree on our trust of the legal system. Once proven guilty under the court of law that must be upheld. If you locked the doors and burned your grandma alive because you thought she was satan you should be executed, not put in a cushy hospital to be "Rehabilitated". If you caused harm to society in such a violent way, justice is not the tax payers paying $2.7m and to forver bear the burden of one who cannot function in our society.
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago
  I disagree, on the basis that retribution should simply not be a state penalogical goal at all. When you say someone "should be executed" you're conjuring up innate feelings of the desire for vindictiveness. A modern state should not have that in consideration at all. Either they're so dangerous that no matter what you do or say to them they will never change their ways, or they can be rehabilitated. Neither of those posibilities justifies the kind of cruel treatments that plague America's prisons today, much less the death penalty.
- skeaker 2y ago
  What if you didn't do that but someone said you did?

dangitman 2y ago

[dead]

anonCoffee 2y ago

Executions speed up evolving bad traits out of humanity. Short term bleeding hearts hurt us long term.

moi2388 2y ago

Probably not. I am just not in favour for putting them in hospitals. You won’t “fix” a Taoist or murderer. Put them in prison for life, make them work for food and housing.

ratg13 2y ago

I am for the death penalty. Unfortunately cases like this come along where it is not applied correctly, forcing us to have to face the reality that we are not capable of using it as a proper tool.

seec 2y ago

I believe that people against it are either incredibly annoying idealists (who fail to understand that perfect is the enemy of good) or full-on barbarian who rejoices at the idea of wasting someone's life in a much worse way than just killing him. I believe long-term imprisonment is much worse than death, especially since there is no real life possible after so much time in prison. It is truly worse than death from a humanity point of view. I don't believe the nonsense about potentially innocent people, if justice isn't completely certain, then they can put them in prison awaiting more evidence. But I think it is actually pretty rare, the problem is mostly lack of evidence; you don't get trouble with justice when you are a good citizen and juste mind your own business.