Life Sentence vs Death Sentence

[sivispacem]

 

The basic idea that Hundreds of Innocent people are in jail for a Capital Crime is not supporting of the Legal System, nor Due Process of law. Such statements are invalid.

No, the basic idea of hundreds of innocents is statistically correct. This Wikipedia article lists 142 exonerated death row inmates since 1970. I'm fully aware that it's not supportive of the legal system or due process in your eyes, but that's because you don't understand either. This isn't meant as an indictment of the criminal justice system, just a simple acceptance of the fact that there are extremely large numbers of people who are innocent of all criminal charges awaiting execution in the United States. Some of this is to do with mishandled evidence and improper practices in the police, some to do with the fact that juries are made up of people and people are generally stupid, but much to do with the fact that our understanding of criminal evidence has changed dramatically over the last 20 or so years. Which you are either voluntarily, or consequentially ignorant of to try and prove your bigoted point. Thank god very few in society think the way you do.

 

Care to explain why my argument is invalid? Just because you don't agree with it, perhaps?

 

 

This kind of thinking leads to the next logical step:

..And then you go on to list a fallacious "next step" that's anything but logical.

[Clem Fandango]

It depends on the crime. If the crime is too severe - Death sentence. Not so much - Life sentence.

 

I'll go with Life Sentence, I already stated this in another thread but - The criminals need to undergo the agony they caused to the other people. Death is just one move and your gone from the world, You won't feel anything.

Yes, the yearning for revenge is a healthy emotion and it certainly has a place in our justice system. After all, nothing moves society forward like knee jerk reactions, short sightedness and irrational emotion.

 

I'll pay for any damages to your sarcasm meter.

[sivispacem]

You're wrong though. Just because murder still exists doesn't mean the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent. Actual empirical studies show that the death penalty is indeed better than nothing. The fact that Illinois had 150 additional homicides per year after a moratorium on execution shows your assumption is completely false: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7061100406.html

Actually, there are numerous scientific studies which indicate that the death penalty has absolutely no material effect on crime rates:

 

Huffington Post

DPIC, with referenced journal articles

Bloomberg with referenced journal articles

 

The effect of the death penalty on murder rates lies somewhere between extremely questionable and zero. Most criminologists err on the side of zero.

[Zugzwang]

I feel like anyone with a life sentence, me atleast would be constantly trying to escape at all costs. You have nothing else to loose so you may aswell.

 

Some life sentences have chances of parole also, even if it might be in 25 years...

25 years is too much for anyone either. Try to put it in perspective; where were you 25 years ago? I'd try to answer that question but I wasn't even around. When people look at these numbers and say it's too lenient or just right it boggles my mind.

 

Furthermore do you know what kind of idiocy we put people away for? I have a family member who went to jail and he met this guy there who was having a fight with his wife; He wanted to leave the house and get out of the argument but she was blocking the exit so he couldn't leave- he picks her up, moves her about two feet and walks out. That man is in jail for ten years for moving someone two feet. Ten years. We CONSTANTLY send people away for huge chunks of their lives to punish them for things that lasted less than a minute. None of this sounds wrong to any of you?

They commit a crime and they get what they deserve. It's their fault in the first place. Death is nothing, just one move You won't feel anything, You have got to feel for what you have done.

 

The things that lasted less than a minute cause a lot of destruction or harm. It isn't about the time, It's the severity of the crime.

They simply don't. Look at the case of Lockyer v. Andrade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leandro_Andrade) we have put people away 25-life for stealing VHS tapes. What could possibly justify that?

That's different. That guy was unfortunate alright, But I was talking about the guys who kill people not who steal stuff.

 

Anyway, Sometimes it goes to the Court and it's the Court's decision to keep him in Prison, Which was kinda unfair for stealing video tapes. A much shorter sentence like 2 months to a year would have been acceptable.

The fact that you think sending someone to jail for a year for stealing video tapes is disturbing to me- you realize the government would have to pay more to jail him for that long than the VHS tapes actually cost correct?

[Mr.Mister]

I dont get why people always root for a sh*tty justic system. Norway focuses on rehab, not punishment. Setting personal vendetta aside, they need to be taken care of before released promptly. Could take maybe a decade for some. Most prisons are full of drug runners, robberies and assault criminals.

 

We cant fight this problem on the same conscious level that starts it. We need to get smart and do this the right way. There is a huge lack of faith in law enforcement and corrections service.

[Dick Valor]

You're wrong though.  Just because murder still exists doesn't mean the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent.  Actual empirical studies show that the death penalty is indeed better than nothing.  The fact that Illinois had 150 additional homicides per year after a moratorium on execution shows your assumption is completely false: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7061100406.html

Actually, there are numerous scientific studies which indicate that the death penalty has absolutely no material effect on crime rates:

 

Huffington Post

DPIC, with referenced journal articles

Bloomberg with referenced journal articles

 

The effect of the death penalty on murder rates lies somewhere between extremely questionable and zero. Most criminologists err on the side of zero.

If you actually read the contents of the sites you've posted, you'd realize they're pretty unconvincing as the stats in the Huffington Post and the DPIC site are based on correlations between murder rates and the death penalty as a law... not between murder rates and actual execution rates. As such, these statistics are meaningless since, for example, Connecticut is technically a "death penalty state," but has only executed one prisoner in 50 years!

 

The Bloomberg article, while neutral, is very illuminating since it points out that many of the states that technically practice the death penalty do not have an active death penalty. In fact, only 1 in every 500 American murderers are actually executed! So the correlations between death penalty states and murder rates in the DPIC are frankly meaningless.

 

The hard data featured in the Washington Post article I provided comes from researchers against the death penalty who simply couldn't ignore the correlation between the murder rate and actual execution rates, finding that each execution deters an average of 18 murders!

 

Now, imagine what would happen to the murder rate if we executed 400 out of every 500 murderers, as opposed to 1 out of every 500! This isn't rocket science, guys. Human beings respond to incentives and punishments. It's psychology 101. To suggest harsher penalties wouldn't affect crime flies in the face of common sense and the data.

 

Yeah, I like to debate! So what? Wanna fight about it?

[sivispacem]

 

If you actually read the contents of the sites you've posted, you'd realize they're pretty unconvincing as the stats in the Huffington Post and the DPIC site are based on correlations between murder rates and the death penalty as a law... not between murder rates and actual execution rates. As such, these statistics are meaningless since, for example, Connecticut is technically a "death penalty state," but has only executed one prisoner in 50 years!

 

The Bloomberg article, while neutral, is very illuminating since it points out that many of the states that technically practice the death penalty do not have an active death penalty. In fact, only 1 in every 500 American murderers are actually executed!  So the correlations between death penalty states and murder rates in the DPIC are frankly meaningless. 

Why is it meaningless? The fundamental argument is that the threat of the death penalty in a state in and of itself acts as a deterrent. This is questionable when statistics indicate that states with the death penalty as a law have an average murder rate between 7% and 43% higher than non-death-penalty states. That indicates that this premise does not function. You made the sweeping claim that the death penalty was an effective deterrent. You never specified that you were only referring to actual cases of execution, rather than the death penalty being on the statute books. In the case of the latter, there is absolutely no evidence that it acts as a deterrent.

 

 

The hard data featured in the Washington Post article I provided comes from researchers against the death penalty who simply couldn't ignore the correlation between the murder rate and actual execution rates, finding that each execution deters an average of 18 murders! 

All arguments of this nature are made from a position of correlation rather than direct causality; it's quite a step to argue direct causality given that there are innumerate contradictory studies on the issue. In fact, this very issue was highlighted in the article you posted by Dr. Justin Wolfers, whose a noted public policy academic:

 

 

"We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were "flimsy" and appeared in "second-tier journals."

 

"This isn't left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it's too hard to tell," Wolfers said. "Within the advocacy community and legal scholars who are not as statistically adept, they will tell you it's still an open question. Among the small number of economists at leading universities whose bread and butter is statistical analysis, the argument is finished."

So questions about the accuracy and merit-worthiness of the studies included in the WP article you posted; the "hard data" claim is questionable in the context given that you are implying causality given a data correlation that statisticians and public policy experts have cast fundamental doubts on.

 

 

Now, imagine what would happen to the murder rate if we executed 400 out of every 500 murderers, as opposed to 1 out of every 500!  This isn't rocket science, guys.  Human beings respond to incentives and punishments.  It's psychology 101.

This isn't psychology, nor is it logical. You can't assume that the effects of executions on murder rates are exponential, nor even clear-cut. When the fundamental statistics surrounding the issue are so complex, it becomes impossible to draw any conclusion like this from them. An example, if you will. The US has an extremely high murder rate for a Western country, and uses the death penalty. Canada has a lower murder rate, and no death penalty. By the same logic you are using to imply that high execution rates would correlate to a decrease in crime, so would removing the death penalty. The simple fact of the matter is that specific correlations tell you pretty much nothing because of the number of external contributing factors. They certainly don't tell you enough to make a decision as to whether executions lead to a reduction in murder rate, otherwise there wouldn't be such a huge academic debate on the issue. It certainly doesn't entitle the enormous, illogical leap from "study x says that executing criminals results in a reduced murder rate" to "therefore executing more criminals will continue to reduce the murder rate". The latter is not implied by the former.

 

 

To suggest harsher penalties wouldn't affect crime flies in the face of common sense and the data.

Not really, given that the nations with amongst the least "harsh" penalties, the best prison conditions and the greatest focus on rehabilitation have the lowest crime rates. It may fly in the face of accepted US political reasoning, but it certainly doesn't fly in the fact of any statistical evidence on the issue. It has been studied numerous times, and been effectively proven without a shadow or question of doubt that the Nordic prison system results in the lowest rates of re-offending and habitual criminal activity. That's the exact antithesis of the brutalist US prison regime.

[.dre.]

I don't agree with capital punishment because rotting in prison is a much more fit punishment in my opinion. Besides, America has sent many innocent people to deathrow. That alone shows how flawed it is.

[Master of San Andreas]

 

...that all criminals are just 'bad people'.

 

 

All criminals are good guys chilling out in Prison aren't they?

 

Yes, the yearning for revenge is a healthy emotion and it certainly has a place in our justice system. After all, nothing moves society forward like knee jerk reactions, short sightedness and irrational emotion.

 

I'll pay for any damages to your sarcasm meter

 

 

I don't get your point here and no I am not being sarcastic.

[Pyrrhic]

Yes, the yearning for revenge is a healthy emotion and it certainly has a place in our justice system. After all, nothing moves society forward like knee jerk reactions, short sightedness and irrational emotion.

 

I'll pay for any damages to your sarcasm meter

 

 

I don't get your point here and no I am not being sarcastic.

He's saying that the justice system (i.e. the court of law) shouldn't be based around let alone include revenge acts.

 

I have to agree with him too, however revenge isn't my main motivation for supporting the death penalty.

[sivispacem]

I have to agree with him too, however revenge isn't my main motivation for supporting the death penalty.

So what is your motivation for supporting it, given that other systems are more effective in every other way?

[Urban Legend]

Retributive justice is utterly moronic. Emotion has absolutely no place to play in legal proceedings. I don't care what the families of victims want; they should have absolutely no say as their judgement has been clouded by their personal relationship to events. The primary aim of justice should be to prevent the perpetration of further criminal acts- for which the US justice system is utterly abysmal.

I know this isn't a game. But in life, it seems like there is always someone who needs to be satisfied before an incident can come to a conclusion.

 

But like you said. If we only could take more time to sit and educate people... Idk. Help them. Putting them in prison and then literally providing everything for the rest of their lives doesn't seem good for society.

 

Im done here

[Dick Valor]

 

Why is it meaningless? The fundamental argument is that the threat of the death penalty in a state in and of itself acts as a deterrent.

When only 1 in 500 capital crimes result in an actual execution, America's death penalty is a bit of an empty threat, wouldn't you say? What's broken isn't the penalty itself, but the appeals process that keeps premeditated, first degree murderers from true justice. Many of the death penalty states included in those aggregated statistics don't even physically put anyone to death. Execution is rare in the U.S.!

 

 

All arguments of this nature are made from a position of correlation rather than direct causality; it's quite a step to argue direct causality given that there are innumerate contradictory studies on the issue.

Great point, but even you can see how it goes both ways. America's alarming murder rate and number of states "instituting" the death penalty are also a mere correlation and may, arguably, indicate the need for harsher punishments since, apparently, there is both a murder epidemic here and a failure of the system to execute said murderers on death row. Let's actually enforce the death penalty and see what happens to these correlations.

 

 

This isn't psychology, nor is it logical. You can't assume that the effects of executions on murder rates are exponential, nor even clear-cut. When the fundamental statistics surrounding the issue are so complex, it becomes impossible to draw any conclusion like this from them. An example, if you will. The US has an extremely high murder rate for a Western country, and uses the death penalty. Canada has a lower murder rate, and no death penalty. By the same logic you are using to imply that high execution rates would correlate to a decrease in crime, so would removing the death penalty.

Of course there are other factors (economic and cultural) affecting the murder rate in the U.S. The reason our state instituted the death penalty is because of our high murder rate; we don't have a high murder rate because we instituted the death penalty. It would be absurd to suggest that American crime rates would go down if the death penalty (or even life sentences) was abolished, as there is no conceivable logical connection. Suggesting execution for murder is a deterrent for murder, on the other hand, makes sense since even most killers don't want to die.

 

 

It has been studied numerous times, and been effectively proven without a shadow or question of doubt that the Nordic prison system results in the lowest rates of re-offending and habitual criminal activity. That's the exact antithesis of the brutalist US prison regime.

Dude, America is completely different place culturally, economically, historically, geographically, etc. For one thing, Norwegians, Swedes, and Canadians spend a good part of the year snowed in when it's too cold to go around committing murders (even in the U.S. there is a well known correlation between crime and warm weather). Of course, that is just the tip of the iceberg, as America has a much more narcissistic and materialistic culture as well (money is a more common motive for murder than mental illness, which is usually faked to get out of the death penalty anyway; revenge and jealousy are also big motives here). We have a much more dangerous sense of entitlement. It's not unreasonable to suggest we need harsher penalties because we are different in these and other respects. What works for one culture doesn't necessarily work for another, to suggest otherwise is highly ethnocentric.

 

 

Retributive justice is utterly moronic. Emotion has absolutely no place to play in legal proceedings. I don't care what the families of victims want; they should have absolutely no say as their judgement has been clouded by their personal relationship to events.

On the contrary, the families of murder victims are in a privileged position to know just what harm the murderer has done, while armchair philosophers like us are far too detached to appreciate the severity of their crime. I've watched lots of ID, studies numerous murder cases here in the U.S., and believe me, society would be better off if many of these murderers were dead. Many prisoners continue to pose a threat to society and others. Certainly you can agree it was a good thing this guy was executed:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/17/man-w...ring-expletive/

[sivispacem]

 

Why is it meaningless? The fundamental argument is that the threat of the death penalty in a state in and of itself acts as a deterrent.

When only 1 in 500 capital crimes result in an actual execution, America's death penalty is a bit of an empty threat, wouldn't you say? What's broken isn't the penalty itself, but the appeals process that keeps premeditated, first degree murderers from true justice. Many of the death penalty states included in those aggregated statistics don't even physically put anyone to death. Execution is rare in the U.S.!

Which is a fair point, but does little to dispute the fact that nations that do practice the death penalty almost universally have extremely high crime rates. The only exceptions I can think of are relatively closed societies like China, and nations like Singapore. Pretty much every other state that has the death penalty looks like a violent hell-hole compared to the Western world. If you start doing direct comparisons to nations that engage in large-scale execution, then the comparisons are less favourable. A few nations have used the death penalty as a tool to try and prevent rampant violence as the apparatus of the state effective fail. But the vast majority use it as a tool of political power. That's not the kind of thing I imagine that the US wants to be associated with.

 

 

All arguments of this nature are made from a position of correlation rather than direct causality; it's quite a step to argue direct causality given that there are innumerate contradictory studies on the issue.

Great point, but even you can see how it goes both ways. America's alarming murder rate and number of states "instituting" the death penalty are also a mere correlation and may, arguably, indicate the need for harsher punishments since, apparently, there is both a murder epidemic here and a failure of the system to execute said murderers on death row. Let's actually enforce the death penalty and see what happens to these correlations.

Yes, but this correlation doesn't work elsewhere. The broad a baseline on which a correlation can be made, the most likely it can be applied successfully in further circumstance. The correlation between death penalty and high crime rate is pretty much universal, whereas the correlation between execution rate and violent crime rate only applies to the US, and only in a single study as far as I can see. Therefore, as direct correlations go, the larger, more encompassing and more inclusive one makes more sense to apply than the narrow, questionably accurate and largely inapplicable one.

 

 

This isn't psychology, nor is it logical. You can't assume that the effects of executions on murder rates are exponential, nor even clear-cut. When the fundamental statistics surrounding the issue are so complex, it becomes impossible to draw any conclusion like this from them. An example, if you will. The US has an extremely high murder rate for a Western country, and uses the death penalty. Canada has a lower murder rate, and no death penalty. By the same logic you are using to imply that high execution rates would correlate to a decrease in crime, so would removing the death penalty.

Of course there are other factors (economic and cultural) affecting the murder rate in the U.S. The reason our state instituted the death penalty is because of our high murder rate; we don't have a high murder rate because we instituted the death penalty. It would be absurd to suggest that American crime rates would go down if the death penalty (or even life sentences) was abolished, as there is no conceivable logical connection. Suggesting execution for murder is a deterrent for murder, on the other hand, makes sense since even most killers don't want to die.

 

 

It has been studied numerous times, and been effectively proven without a shadow or question of doubt that the Nordic prison system results in the lowest rates of re-offending and habitual criminal activity. That's the exact antithesis of the brutalist US prison regime.

Dude, America is completely different place culturally, economically, historically, geographically, etc. For one thing, Norwegians, Swedes, and Canadians spend a good part of the year snowed in when it's too cold to go around committing murders (even in the U.S. there is a well known correlation between crime and warm weather). Of course, that is just the tip of the iceberg, as America has a much more narcissistic and materialistic culture as well (money is a more common motive for murder than mental illness, which is usually faked to get out of the death penalty anyway; revenge and jealousy are also big motives here). We have a much more dangerous sense of entitlement. It's not unreasonable to suggest we need harsher penalties because we are different in these and other respects. What works for one culture doesn't necessarily work for another, to suggest otherwise is highly ethnocentric.

Most killers don't care if they live or die in the moment in which they commit the crime, because only a minute percentage of murders and non-negligent manslaughters are premeditated. Therefore the statement that most murderers are afraid of death is largely inconsequential, because people generally don't murder when they're in a position to consider any other emotion than the one that's cause them to kill. I've not made the argument that the murder rate would decrease if the death penalty was abolished; it probably wouldn't- but equally there's no real evidence to suggest that the presence of the death penalty decreases it either. I'm fully aware of the other socio-economic, political and cultural factors at play in the US and in other nations, but it's kind of hard to do a proper comparative debate about the values or otherwise of the death penalty because the US is basically the only Western, developed nation in the world that uses it to any degree. I do accept that you can't ignore other factors that are unique to the US, but you must also accept that the only real logical comparison in terms of the basic rights, privileges and economic and social status of citizens comes with Western Europe, which universally abolished the death penalty and universally has less violent crime, and markedly less murder (to the tune of something like 75%) than the US.

 

 

Retributive justice is utterly moronic. Emotion has absolutely no place to play in legal proceedings. I don't care what the families of victims want; they should have absolutely no say as their judgement has been clouded by their personal relationship to events.

On the contrary, the families of murder victims are in a privileged position to know just what harm the murderer has done, while armchair philosophers like us are far too detached to appreciate the severity of their crime. I've watched lots of ID, studies numerous murder cases here in the U.S., and believe me, society would be better off if many of these murderers were dead. Many prisoners continue to pose a threat to society and others. Certainly you can agree it was a good thing this guy was executed:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/17/man-w...ring-expletive/

Why, though? Everything done purely on the back of emotion is generally fundamentally flawed. I see no real reason as to why justice is any different. I don't feel that it is right for families of victims to have any say in the eventual fate of a violent act's perpetrator because retributive justice is primal and deeply unhelpful. All it effectively does is lower those that call for it to the same moral destitution as the original perpetrator. It's a knee-jerk reaction that does more harm than good in the long run. All of those of us who've studied international relations, politics or modern history know just how harmful knee-jerk reactions in the political and strategic sphere can be, and the same basic rules apply in justice. I can't say one way or another whether one person deserves to live or die, because I don't feel that I have the right to make decisions like that unless it's in the protection of another life, and only if circumstances come to that. Would society be better of without some people in it? Almost certainly. But is society better off for arbitrarily encouraging the malevolent execution of people regardless of their actions? No. That's just as morally reprehensible as the actions in the first place.

 

I have to say I'm very much enjoying this discussion.

[GTASAddict]

I support the death penalty in theory, but not in practice due to the flaws. If it were possible to truly weed out the innocents and only convict the guilty scum, I would support it wholeheartedly.

 

 

[Typhus]

I hear it said often that the death penalty is not a deterrent, but perhaps that is only so due to the sterilised nature of executions. If executions were in public and designed not for the sake of 'justice' but to instill fear in the populace - crucifying drug addicts for example - then isn't it possible that such barbarity would deter criminals?

I remember stories of Vlad The Impaler, whose laws were so efficient that a gold cup was left in a town square without fear of being stolen - because he was doing things such as skinning adulterers alive.

 

I think we can eradicate most crime, but the moral sacrifices necessary to do so would be too much for most humans to entertain.

[Dick Valor]

 

I have to say I'm very much enjoying this discussion.

Haha. Same, man. Your medal is well deserved!

 

Still, I'm getting a little burned out on this topic and the weekend is upon us so we'll have to debate soon about something else!

 

Wrapping up, you make lots of great points and I do understand where you're coming from. And most of the programs/cases I've studied are about instances of premeditated murder, which has admittedly made me a bit of a cynic since those people are ice cold sociopaths. I know not every murderer fits this profile, and that precautions can be taken to keep the worst of the worst from ever doing harm again. But I wonder, how does keeping these sociopaths alive really benefit society in any concrete way, besides saving the public the court costs related to appeals? Would we really lose our humanity if we decided to avail ourselves of the right to non-arbitrarily eliminate said individuals?

 

By the way, not sure if you're a fan of Star Trek, but you almost sound like a Vulcan when you say "Everything done purely on the back of emotion is generally fundamentally flawed." You're absolutely right about knee-jerk reactions, but the romantic in me wants to resist dismissing emotional responses to crime and wrongdoing as invalid or inconsequential. I think the emotional impact caused by a particular wrongdoing, while "primal," should still be factored in to an otherwise impartial judgment/response.

[Dingleman]

I wouldn't have a problem with it, other than the fact that I believe life would be an even harsher punishment than death. Why put them at peace? I'd rather them live out every single day of their miserable, torturous lives until death would seem to be a reward.

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

It's their fault in the first place.

Oh, that explains why criminals almost always come from a similar socioeconomic background... oh wait, no it doesn't, on the contrary you ignore that fact and perpetuate the absurd delusion that all criminals are equipped to function in society but are just "bad people."

I disagreed with you on this before, but at the same time, I agree now. People need help, shoving them in a prison cell obviously does nothing at all but separate them from society, and then breed even more destructive people when they get out, hence why you all (Not Melchoir, I mean others) suggest the death penalty which I will never agree with.

 

It would be far better if these people could be rehabilitated like in Norway and then come back to society with some life prospects and make a little something of themselves, because as Melchoir said, they needed help right from the start, rather than eye-for-an-eye barbarianism. Killing people for killing people doesn't make much sense.

[El Dildo]

 

If it were possible to truly weed out the innocents and only convict the guilty scum, I would support it wholeheartedly.

you're absolutely right. but that shouldn't even be the point.

the point should be whether or not the death penalty works.

 

I mean it's right there in the phrase: "death PENALTY."

 

a penalty is a punishment.

a punishment is a deterrent.

a deterrent tries to prevent people from committing a criminal action because they're supposed to be afraid of the punishment.

 

the death penalty does not work because it does not deter anyone from committing murder/rape/etc.

people don't stop to think about murder because they're afraid of the death penalty. they only stop long enough to think about covering their tracks in hopes of avoiding capture.

 

they're afraid of being found guilty. they're not afraid of death.

death is the easy/cowards way out. death is a release. death = no more worry, no more pain. it's not like murder rates have drastically declined since we started executing people. if anything, murder rates have only gone up over time as more people + more guns flood the world.

 

this makes the argument pretty simple.

since capital punishment doesn't work and you cannot be 100% sure that the person is guilty, we shouldn't be executing people.

[Secura]

 

It's their fault in the first place.

Oh, that explains why criminals almost always come from a similar socioeconomic background... oh wait, no it doesn't, on the contrary you ignore that fact and perpetuate the absurd delusion that all criminals are equipped to function in society but are just "bad people."

I disagreed with you on this before, but at the same time, I agree now. People need help, shoving them in a prison cell obviously does nothing at all but separate them from society, and then breed even more destructive people when they get out, hence why you all (Not Melchoir, I mean others) suggest the death penalty which I will never agree with.

 

It would be far better if these people could be rehabilitated like in Norway and then come back to society with some life prospects and make a little something of themselves, because as Melchoir said, they needed help right from the start, rather than eye-for-an-eye barbarianism. Killing people for killing people doesn't make much sense.

Exactly, to me at least it seems like one of the most hypocritical things imaginable and yet so many countries use it as a form of punishment.