Capital Punishment

>Police who are stupid enough to wear uniforms that clearly identify them?
You speak as though police officers chose whether or not they wore uniforms.

>Not a danger to regular citizens or to criminals.
I'm not sure how much sense this makes.

>They're easy to spot, easy to gang up on and they're usually dumb as dog turd
Why would you even think about ganging up on the police?

>It's cheaper to shoot them in the head than to feed them for a lifetime
It's also cheaper not to have a country than to have one, but that's hardly an argument. Death penalty costs more because the nature of it means more legalities, trials, and etc. You can get several lifetimes of food with the money spent on capital punishment trials. Is this the only argument people think they have?

A 9mm round to the forehead is a 30 cent expense. Get rid of the Jewish bullshit for niggers who have definitive proof of guilt and it would be far cheaper.

>In terms of legal costs, it costs way, way more to try someone for death penalty than it does to feed someone for decades
Then make sure that the process of trying ppl for death penalty isn't as expensive. A good way of achieving that would be making fix punishments for each crime rather than having negotiable penalties.

It only tells me humans are not perfect or saints. Nothing new under the sun. Idealism doesn't matter, we must work with what we have.

If the argument is to avoid death penalty because innocent people may die, I'll take that.

How come this lady was able to forbid access to evidence?

>Why would you even think about ganging up on the police?

Because I live in a state that has extremely low-quality police. I have been sexually assaulted by officers and I have witnessed at least 3 others experience the same issue. I have seen bribes of cash, alcohol, and chocolate. I have seen children stripped by the side of the road, children arrested and put in cells.

You live in a blissful palace of ignorance and you will certainly die there.

>Let's feed, cloth and house the scum of society because they clearly haven't done enough damage
No

I guess the argument is get rid of the unnecessary and expensive 20+ year appeal process before execution. There's no point in the death penalty if we're going to let them string the system for that long anyway.

>40 cents for a bullet.
The executioner won't do it for free, you cannot do it legally without spending a lot of money, and you know it.

If your argument is "We should just kill them illegally," then I must inform you that I cannot give a fuck about this kind of beta tough talk, because people who say this never act on anything.

I don't think you understand. Either way, the American system combines long incarceration with death penalty, making it the most expensive way possible to execute inmates.

Death penalty is better than Life Inprisonment in terms of dettering individuals from committing crime.

No I don't "know it" so detail me the costs.

My argument is that I can use volunteer executioners.

It is always wrong!

Attached: fashwave jesus.jpg (1024x771, 104K)

>Then make sure that the process of trying ppl for death penalty isn't as expensive.
It can't be. You need lawyers for this, and all sorts of other highly skilled individuals, and none of these will spend years studying their function to be paid cheaply.

>A good way of achieving that would be making fix punishments for each crime rather than having negotiable penalties.
Are you for real? How old are you? Serious question.

Interesting how you post Christian imagery while opposing capital punishment considering the fact that the Bible condones capital punishment (see Leviticus 20:13 as an example)

I support death penalty for white supremacists and anti semites

>You live in a blissful palace of ignorance and you will certainly die there.
You mean I live in a country where we handle our shit and organise ourselves correctly? Seems to me you guys are the ignorant ones. I almost never even see police officers.

>has shit police in shit country
>tries to make it sound like he's a badass and a tough person for it

Kek. If bad police is the most of your problems, you are the one living in blissful ignorance of life's real hardships.

The point was more justice than saving money, though. I'm against death penatly because I'm a practical person, and I don't think killing people serves any purpose of the rational kind.

The justification liberal societies use to execute some criminals is tied into their sense of legality itself. They cant bring themselves to just shoot someone because their entire order and structure is based on the idea of transcendent cosmic justice providing some foundational principals.

If they started executing people with out doing everything they could visibly do to ensure innocent people do not get executed they would have to deem it impossible to justify capital punishment because this would not let people have their fair chance to defend themselves which they depend on to maintain the status quo.

>Death penalty is better than Life Inprisonment in terms of dettering individuals from committing crime.
Provably wrong, for one, and secondly, justice isn't given to deter people. Nobody is killed as a warning to others. Grave misunderstanding of the the justice system, you have.

Death penalty deters nobody who's thinking of committing a crime that it would sanction. See the latest incels.

youtube.com/watch?v=Xad0Qyu__cE&list=WL&index=44&t=0s

You're talking about the blood-god Jahweh, I'm talking about Jesus.

>My argument is that I can use volunteer executioners.
The idea of employing people who actively want to kill people doesn't bother you at all and you actually believe this idea would fly with anyone in a position of power and responsibility where people have to vote for them?

The Old Testament is superseded by the New Testament. It's Christianity 101. Christ doesn't condone death penatly as evidenced by the fact that He opposes it Himself.

Are you trolling? What about incels?

Aha! NOW the moral arguments emerge. You are against killing people because you value human life. That's a personal feeling and you started with an outright lie, trying to justify the financial costs.

You are the enemy. Bye felicia

>It can't be
Yes it can. The process shouldn't be going on for years. One must be able to collect evidence quickly enough. If no irrefutable evidence is found, the person is let free until the unlikely case that such evidence is found years later.

>none of these will spend years studying their function
The only reason those people would need to study their functions for years is that the amount of laws in a nation is too big to be useful. A good book of law that covers 99.9% of the necessary things shouldn't have more than a few hundred pages. Currently, however, most western nations have several books filled with loads of unnecessary laws and regulations that take up thousands of pages and make life unnecessarily hard for judges, lawyers, law enforcement, and first and foremost civilians.

>Are you for real? How old are you? Serious question.
What's the matter? Elaborate on why you consider fix penalties immature and why consider two people receiving different punishments for the same offence acceptable.

If nobody should kill, than neither government employees should. But it also outlaws incarceration. And I would outlaw incarcerations too, because half of those who sit there don't deserve it, and the other half deserves revenge from victims' relatives, which they would indulge to if government didn't pretend to be solving this.

Attached: 4f7220d3e20f5.image.jpg (760x530, 75K)

As it stands now, the death penalty is bad. Simply cheaper to do life in prison.
However, a modern guillotine and creamation is the most elegant and humane solution.

>Aha! NOW the moral arguments emerge.
What do you mean "now"? The whole topic is a moral argument.

>You are against killing people because you value human life.
Yes. Also practicality. All living people can do something for everyone else. Being dead helps nobody.

>That's a personal feeling and you started with an outright lie
It's not a feeling, it's a fact. I'm a practical person. Wanting someone dead, which serves zero purpose and has no utility, seems more "feeling" than the opposite.

>you started with an outright lie, trying to justify the financial costs.
Wrong. I didn't bring the financial cost first, I merely pointed out that killing people wasn't actually cheaper than keeping them alive. Scroll back, you will see I am telling the truth.

I'm all for it.
Here in france, we've got these kebabs terrorists literally complaining about their detention conditions, when they shouldn't be breathing to begin with.

you will not gonna against it when someone shoots a bunch of your ppl like in america.
its cheaper to put a bullet in the head than lethal injection
lethal injection cost around 20-30 million dong, thats about 1500-2000usd to kill one nigger, the drug it self is more expensive than drug to treats HIV patient

>The process shouldn't be going on for years.
There's a reason why it does. All things legal take forever if you live in a country with a healthy legal system.

>The only reason those people would need to study their functions for years is that the amount of laws in a nation is too big to be useful.
You can hardly have less laws in evolved societies.

>A good book of law that covers 99.9% of the necessary things shouldn't have more than a few hundred pages.
I seriously doubt you know much about law.

>Currently, however, most western nations have several books filled with loads of unnecessary laws
Anti-intellectualism isn't your friend. Even Romans had more law than what you think is "necessary". DK effect at work right here. Less law wouldn't make anything simpler or faster: it would mean a lot more would be subjective, there'd be even more debating, more lawyers, more time spent arguing. You don't understand the basics of law, it seems.

>What's the matter? Elaborate on why you consider fix penalties immature and why consider two people receiving different punishments for the same offence acceptable.
You speak as though you had no clue how the legal system works. Have you ever studied any of it?

I'm against it simply because there are easier/cheaper ways to deliver justice.

Attached: sp_1204_15.jpg (480x360, 30K)

Are you saying people should just kill each other for justice? What makes you think 50% of American inmates are innocent?

What's the point of your image? How does it connect to your post?

Why does nobody focus on any other aspect of this apart from the money? Are you guys scared to consider the moral repercussions of this punishment?

Why should citizens of a country be required to pay for food and shelter from someone who contributed nothing, and even worse would have commited a horrible crime?

It's absurd to keep these people alive, they lost their chance to be part of society when they became a criminal and lost their right to live when they crossed a line we all need to be aware of

You kill people, you don't deserve to live, you rape a child? You don't deserve to live anymore either

All lifes have the potential to be positive but not all are. Some people lose their right to a second chance when they do these horrible things

Do you support exile?

Attached: humiliation-exile-crowd-people-chase-260nw-648801757-1.jpg (391x255, 16K)

Killing a serious criminal is not a moral issue sorry

Killing a dog is a moral issue killing a feral dog is not

These people are human scum and there is no reason why people should keep them alive

>Here in france, we've got these kebabs terrorists literally complaining about their detention conditions, when they shouldn't be breathing to begin with.
You are aware that these people are typically sub-intelligent and have various mental illnesses, right? Do you also want to punish the handicapped for being less able than others? Of course they would complain about their conditions, especially if they are as bad as anyone can imagine them to be in France.

Do you really think stooping to their level is a good idea?

>you will not gonna against it when someone shoots a bunch of your ppl like in america.
I would still be against it. Killing someone will not bring my loved ones back. I'd rather the killer gets a chance to think about it and change their minds within some time, and then regret it. As Dostoyevski said, the only punishment that is real is regret.

>lethal injection cost around 20-30 million dong
That's a shitload of dongs.

Death penalty is necessary thing for functional state. There simply are people who are too dangerous to be kept alive and without it I cannot see how you could effectively avoid desertions during wartime.

It's the government's Duty to declare martial law when it sees it as necessary, so if that means some people die than some people die!

Wow, that's how you justify mudslime terrorism.
How old are you? 18-20?

>Killing a violent, known terrorist is stooping to their level

Nope, sorry. They crossed a line killing innocents and there is no reason why tax payers should keep them alive

Mental illness and homelessness is irellevant. Majority of mentally ill people dont hurt anyone and the same goes for the homeless.
It isn't a get out of jail free card

The way I see it, unless we the people are aloud
to dish out the same type of justice, it should be
illegal.

>Murder is illegal unless under court order

50% of them are there not for violent crimes.
Especially those who are there because of narcotics, that is whether disease or just a lifestyle, but not crime.

Attached: us_violent_crime_rate_and_incarceration_rate.jpg (576x392, 58K)

>Why should citizens of a country be required to pay for food and shelter from someone who contributed nothing, and even worse would have commited a horrible crime?
Criminals do pay taxes too. The money is used to make sure the person is guilty, for one. Nobody wants to live in a bad, corrupt system. Police exists because criminals exist, your taxes pay the police. You can't just dismiss it all.

>It's absurd to keep these people alive, they lost their chance to be part of society
You assume it's always 100% their fault, whereas, in reality, very little of it is directly their fault.

>You kill people, you don't deserve to live, you rape a child? You don't deserve to live anymore either
That's the part where you make me want to give in and accept death penalty. But it's purely emotional.

the best form of punishment, actually.

No, because you can't really be exiled anywhere nowadays. In today's society, I am not sure what would constitute a useful punishment.

>the only punishment that is real is regret.
you seriously think those who commit mass shooting really regret?
eye for an eye, yes, thats barbaric, but those who commit crime, break the rule of moral...doesnt have the right to be a human, or rather, to put it in a simple way, they arent human, and they dont deserve to live.
not gonna talk about the cost, but the point of putting ppl in jail is to fix them, and those maniac who kill a bunch of ppl cant be fix

That's great you are willing to give them a second chance, but not everyone is and here's the fact of the matter. It isn't ONLY you paying to keep him alive

Hes just as likely to repeat his actions as he is to change, the difference is he already hurt someone and we shouldn't have to risk it, nor keep a violent human alive through tax payers money

>Killing a serious criminal is not a moral issue sorry
How is it not a moral issue?

>Killing a dog is a moral issue killing a feral dog is not
It's all a moral issue. You're getting confused with "right/wrong", which isn't the same. If something is right or wrong is always a moral issue, in the sense of "moral topic", not "moral problem".

>These people are human scum and there is no reason why people should keep them alive
You are edgy as fuck, my friend.

>Death penalty is necessary thing for functional state.
Then how do you explain all the states that function without it? My country is doing great and we don't have it. Explain yourself.

>Wow, that's how you justify mudslime terrorism.
Uh? Why don't you respond to any of my points?

I'm 54.

You got no point.
You're just blaming it on them being retarded.

>Nope, sorry. They crossed a line killing innocents and there is no reason why tax payers should keep them alive
One reason would be that the nation is obligated to take care of all of its children, including the bad one. That is the contract we all make when we start paying taxes. And even before that.

>Mental illness and homelessness is irellevant. Majority of mentally ill people dont hurt anyone and the same goes for the homeless.
>It isn't a get out of jail free card
Are you saying that a person's context doesn't matter when it comes to being judged?

Wait... Do you mean retarded people will be immune to federal execution just because they're retarded?
Being retarded at all should be a crime punished with castration and commiting crimes beyond just being an idiot should be heavily punished.

Attached: mutt-1.jpg (124x109, 2K)

>50% of them are there not for violent crimes.
Are you saying that if a crime is non-violent, it isn't a crime and people are innocent?

>Especially those who are there because of narcotics,
Why? Don't people die because of drug abuse and all the other illegal things that drug money allows for, such as sex slaves, pedophile rings, and so many more?

My taxes going towards court and police related matters are fine

We are talking convicted violent criminals being executed, not buddy waiting in holding for weed charges. Try again

>Very little is their fault

Jesus Christ you are a fucking idiot

They killed the person, they ended the life
It is entirely their fault

Mental illness and even unjust living conditions don't give you the right to kill people sorry

Actually your entire argument is emotional , not mine. I'm starting objective things that people can do that voids their right to be supported by society and in extreme cases their right to live

>They can maybe change even though facts and statistics prove they are more likely to repeat, so we should be responsible for the most violent criminals

>It's not their fault!

Nope sorry, it is. You commit a murder you are responsible.

>you seriously think those who commit mass shooting really regret?
I am only saying that would be the greatest and best punishment. Some do.

You guys sure are edgi bois.

Either I have no point or I am blaming it on them being retarded, which is a point. And yes, that is my point: they are mentally ill and/or intellectually deficient.

Well your country has not been part of any major war since dawn of 21st century and thus it doesn't face same problems as more traditional nation-states with enemies. Without the threat of death you cannot effectively instill discipline during wartime nor effectively conscript the population.

>Do you mean retarded people will be immune to federal execution just because they're retarded?
They already are. If some handicapped man killed someone in the USA, he wouldn't be executed.

>Being retarded at all should be a crime punished with castration and commiting crimes beyond just being an idiot should be heavily punished.
Sorry, I thought you were serious.

I'd have no problem paying for the children to be put into foster care

You miss my point. It isn't that we have to pay taxes to keep society running, we shouldn't have to pay taxes to keep violent criminals alive

I'm saying the context makes no difference when certain lines are crossed, such as murder and child molestation

Don't care whats going on in your life, that doesn't give you the freedom to ruin another's

>All things legal take forever if you live in a country with a healthy legal system
How can a legal system be healthy if it allows people like murderers and rapists to prolong the process needed for their punishment to the point of them ending up with years of negotiations passed and only a mediocre prison sentence?

>You can hardly have less laws in evolved societies
The US tax code alone has 74K pages. In other words, their gov't has 74K pages on how the people have to surrender their money without the right to deny their consent. If that is what constitutes a civilized society, then I don't want to live in a civilized society.

>There'd be even more debating, more lawyers, more time spent arguing
There'd be no need to debate if there would be less crimes one could commit. In a nation where forgetting about one article among thousands can get you arrested and tried, there will obviously be more work for LE, judges and lawyers than in a nation where the things that really matter are discussed and minor inconveniences are ignored.

He should be. Being handicapped doesn't give you the freedom of right to harm others

See no reason not to have it. Life sentences are a huge drain that treats killers too kindly for the crime. Punishment in the US was always about punishment befitting of the crime, until recently anyway. My question to you is what is the benefit of keeping these people alive?

>Jesus Christ you are a fucking idiot
Nice argument. In reality, I have worked with these people before.

>They killed the person, they ended the life
Are you from Quebec by any chance?

>Mental illness and even unjust living conditions don't give you the right to kill people sorry
Nobody said it gave anyone a right to kill. I only say that it explains a lot more than "he's just evil".

>Actually your entire argument is emotional , not mine.
Your argument is about getting so upset that someone died that we should just kill without thinking.

My argument is about "What is the most practical thing to do?"

You can take a horse to water but you can't force it to drink, I suppose.

>Nope sorry, it is. You commit a murder you are responsible.
So we should just ignore context... because? Now that's a very emotional thing to say.

They're not.
It's pretty easy, though.
There's this thing called majority.
After that, you're responsible for your actions.
If you'd know better, you'd know those fucks never showed any regret doing what they did.

You are asking the wrong question though. It should be: Is death penalty justified in certain circumstances. YES

Should a government have the power to kill a person? NO

But no matter what, if someone touches my family there is his or her death sentence right there. Might be in 5 years or might be in 10 years. I make sure the nigger dies slowly.

>Well your country has not been part of any major war since dawn of 21st century
Not an argument, and a not a bad thing either.

>it doesn't face same problems as more traditional nation-states with enemies
Deaht penalty is a civil issue, not a foreign affairs issue. No country executes foreigners unless you're at war. This is irrelevant.

We have serial killers, we have child-rapists and murderers. Point out what issues are necessary that we don't have to justify death penalty.

>Without the threat of death you cannot effectively instill discipline during wartime nor effectively conscript the population.
False. States where death penalty is applied doesn't have more discipline than other states. Do you fact check anything you say?

My country has less homicides than American states with the death penalty, does that not prove you wrong?

>That's the part where you make me want to give in and accept death penalty. But it's purely emotional.
What? That's not emotional that's moral.
Your moral compass is way gone if you think chold rapists and cold blooded murderers should be alive to breathe.
It's not about being practical or making them contribute, it's about punishment!
An eye for an eye.
Besides, why would it not be the criminals fault?

Attached: 1564353743779.jpg (583x851, 84K)

>you cannot effectively instill discipline during wartime nor effectively conscript the population.
Additionally, Switzerland has conscription and no problem with it. People join the army and serve for a year. No death penalty necessary to discipline anyone into it.

The idea that death penalty does anything about conscription is actually fucking stupid. The fuck, man?

>You miss my point. It isn't that we have to pay taxes to keep society running, we shouldn't have to pay taxes to keep violent criminals alive
I would, because that would be the justice system that suits my ideals, which don't include killing people, but focus more on protecting people.

Also, if someone becomes a murderer, it is never solely their own doing, so society has a responsibility in it too, so it's only fair it manages the damage as best as it can.

>police exist because criminals exist
Fucking what? Police have existed as enforcers of the law, criminals don’t exist until they are convicted of a crime

>How can a legal system be healthy if it allows people like murderers and rapists to prolong the process needed for their punishment to the point of them ending up with years of negotiations passed and only a mediocre prison sentence?
Very healthy, since that is how you make sure some approximation of justice can be achieved.

>The US tax code alone has 74K pages. In other words, their gov't has 74K pages on how the people have to surrender their money without the right to deny their consent. If that is what constitutes a civilized society, then I don't want to live in a civilized society.
You don't have to.

>There'd be no need to debate if there would be less crimes one could commit.
You think crimes depend on whether they exist in text. I have no words. I have been clear, and I'm sorry you don't care.

less law = more debating, more interpreting, more time spent in court, more costs

>Why? Don't people die because of drug abuse
They die more often from fda-approved shit.
youtube.com/watch?v=Xj5R5o-yhcc

You are mistaking rights with mitigating circumstances.

If you kill someone because you thought that person was about to kill another, and you wanted to protect the innocent, but your retarded ass didn't realise the "attacker" was mentally handicapped and had a toy gun, should you really be tried as a straight murderer?

You are completely delusional and I feel bad ive wasted this much time actually debating you

>Blaming society for someone becoming a murderer

Nope. Sorry. You end the life,you are solely responsible

Being bullied and opressed doesn't give you the right to harm innocents

You literally believe people should be put at risk of repeat offenses because of your feelings

You make me sick, stop defending criminals and making excuses for them

>Are you saying that if a crime is non-violent, it isn't a crime and people are innocent?
No, but that crime is only worth reparations and a punch in the face.

>You are asking the wrong question though. It should be: Is death penalty justified in certain circumstances. YES
>Should a government have the power to kill a person? NO
So what on earth are you saying?

Circumstances are irellevant. Sorry

If you shoot someone who is unarmed and posed no threat to anyone in the vicinity yes you should be tried as a murderer you commited a murder
Good intentions don't free you from the law just like mental health and "societies causing the problems" don't free you from it

Corporal punishment is cheaper than sending people to jail for a lot of minor stuff. Most of the people in jails are petty criminals and louts. Like Singapore.

Attached: 1360892017586.png (428x579, 386K)

Well you're wrong, so there's that.

Attached: sdgs.png (400x320, 142K)

>What? That's not emotional that's moral.
It's not moral, it's 100% emotional, since that is what I would want to do right away if someone killed my child. How is this not an emotional reaction?

You wouldn't so easily kill someone who murdered another person's child as your own, and that should prove to you how emotional this decision is.

All you edgi bois should study Kohlberg's morality development to realise you are pretty immature when it comes to it; ranging in the toddlers' section of justice.

Attached: Kohlberg-and-the-Stages-of-Moral-Development.jpg (587x365, 70K)

The government doesn’t hold the exclusive right for this though if you know our judicial system at all. They are sentenced to death by a jury of their peers, the government carries out their will; the government did not decide to kill these people, they’re just the vehicle in carrying it out. There is no debate to that, it’s fact

>Besides, why would it not be the criminals fault?
Because, if you study any specific case for any criminal, you will always find explanations for why this person behaved this way. It never comes out of nowhere and they are never 100% responsible for how they ended up.

The idea that people have total free will is a sweet fantasy you hold on to so you can feel moral while wanting bloody murder.

We get your point OP.
You're a faggot.
I've never seen someone so apologetic on this board.
I bet some nigger could kill your familly in front of you, and you'd still suck his cock because he must have had a tough life.