all 11 comments

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

Yes, innocent people are convicted of crimes they didn’t commit, and a lot of the folks on death row are innocent, but that isn’t an argument against capital punishment, it’s an argument against the system that deals it.

So an admittedly imperfect system should be able to administer the death penalty? What if we apply that to other things, how about a toaster that occasionally gives a lethal shock but that mostly makes fantastic toast? Should we keep using that toaster because we're not against toasters even though that one toaster kills innocent people. It's just a badly implemented toaster but we should still use it anyways????

Btw, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings the other day, that wasn't my intention.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If the toaster is a repeat offender, and a jury of other toasters agree on multiple occasions that there is absolutely no "reasonable doubt" in any of the murder 1 cases, then that's a very bad toaster. If toasters know they'll potentially face a death penalty, perhaps they'd kill fewer people. I don't know. There is quite often, however, reasonable doubt in murder trials.

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

One solution I got from a teacher was that you only apply the death penalty when it's impossible for someone else to be guilty.

So you have to hold a second trial to rule out there being any other possible perpetrator before you can kill them.

A lot of bother but maybe less time with people hanging around on death row going through appeals.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Better than toast tits.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So an admittedly imperfect system should be able to administer the death penalty?

Ideally, no, but the solution is to just fix the system. We could temporarily suspend it until the system is fixed, but you have to fix it to do that in the first place, so it seems unnecessary.

Like I said in the post: no one in the right mind would suggest legalizing every crime just because the punishments are misused.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I'm over it.

My dude. Fantastic. So... you over wearing women's clothing?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Blocked for strawman arguments. You can't argue pedophiles should get to live at the expense of taxpayers just because some random person who things they should hang is trans.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Don't get your panties all twisted. They don't fit right as it is lol.

I wanna help dude. It bugs me you wanna be a girl when you make a terrible girl. All us dudes do. Let's leave womanhood to women. Appropriation is wrong.

[–]chadwickofwv 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The death penalty should be reserved for government. For politicians, beurocrats, and enforcers.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

but also for minor criminals robbing houses