Interesting. I am against the death penalty but even if the DNA comes back as not his, he is still eligible for the death penalty. Their debate is that the jury wouldn’t have given him the death penalty.
It’s Texas; they would have given him the death penalty. It’s what they do down there.
Pro-Life™
What is the upside of keeping serial killers alive pray tell? I genuinely don’t get it.
How often people are wrongly convicted is the only reason I need to not want the death penalty to be used.
What is the upside of allowing the government to kill citizens?
I’m actually shocked the “limited small govt” crowd isn’t anti death penalty given it provides a legal avenue for state sanctioned murder.
Feels like they’d be against that sort of thing.
Idk what’s the upside of killing rabid dogs? Most dogs are better than most humans, so how does the math work out there?
thats a mercy killing. rabies is fatal and the end is horrible.
Rabies and psychopathy are diseases. The prognosis is terminal in both cases, and death would be a mercy. Rabies is also far less harmful than psychopathy, because it results in less collateral damage. After all, psychopathy is responsible for almost every evil you can see in the world today from famine to poverty and war.
Again, there is an argument against the death penalty but protecting psychopaths ain’t it.
No they are not both diseases. psychopathy is not caused by infection or is it communicable. They have no basis for comparison. Also do you know anything at all about rabies progression? Its about the worst disease you can have if you have gone passed the point of no return to treat it.
After all, psychopathy is responsible for almost every evil you can see in the world today from famine to poverty and war.
I don’t know, I think presuming you know the reasons and effects of things has led to some pretty harmful outcomes over the years.
I would not say there is specifically an upside to keeping a serial killer alive, but there are many downsides to the death penalty both ethically and in practice, not the least of which is the chance that you would execute an innocent person. For those of us who are anti-death penalty, that is usually where we’re coming from.
I’m against the death penalty, and I know the best argument against it, something nobody in this thread has even approximately articulated.
Currently, as far as I know, there is only one strong argument against the death penalty, and it has to do with moral proscriptions against treating the death of a person as a spectacle, which I notice nobody mentioned.
I don’t want someone to kill me; therefore I believe it is also not okay for me to kill someone else. It’s just the golden rule. I am not a student of ethics or philosophy but it seems pretty straightforward to me.
You’re misapplying the golden rule, which is about how you would want to be treated in similar circumstances.
In the event that I were guilty of causing great harm to innocent people, then I should be killed. Not in revenge, but as a matter of mercy and justice. For in that irremediable case, my life would no longer be worth living.
This is the golden rule in action.
it isn’t a deterrent,
It is cheaper to let them rot in prison for life,
nobody wants to make the drugs involved for the ‘humane way’ so it is really difficult to obtain enough where it is used,
it is fundamentally inhumane to kill someone that knows it’s coming (mental torture),
risk of executing an innocent, and as already stated
it is hypocritical to kill someone for killing.
it is fundamentally inhumane to kill someone that knows it’s coming (mental torture)
That killing serial killers causes them harm isn’t a particularly compelling point, since we disagree over whether harming them is, in fact, good.
risk of executing an innocent
This is a good point and one I would explore further. However, it leaves open exceptions where the evidence is overwhelming.
it is hypocritical to kill someone for killing
Killing isn’t always bad. Killing innocent creatures is bad. Killing serial killers is tantamount to putting down rabid animals.
I’m against the death penalty,
So you’re dishonest. Got it.
Currently, as far as I know, there is only one strong argument against the death penalty, and it has to do with moral proscriptions against treating the death of a person as a spectacle, which I notice nobody mentioned.
Nah I think not killing innocent people is a pretty strong argument, death being a spectacle doesn’t really matter to me- someone killing someone is much worse than the part where they post it on LiveLeak
If you’re so against killing innocents, I assume you’re vegan. Or… is your morality as twisted and inconsistent as I suspect?
Because that makes the state a serial killer. In fact, the state has murdered far more people than even the most prolific serial killer.
Whether or not they are innocent is often an afterthought. A way too late afterthought.
Yet being suspicious of the state makes you a radical or a narcissist
- Why stoop to their level? We’re claiming to be better than a killer
- No take backs. One mistake is too many mistakes
- It’s actually cheaper to keep them alive
If you hate killing so much, you must be vegan, right? Or do you kill some non-human animals but not other non-human animals?
2, 3
Now that we can agree about your hypocrisy, there’s not much left to discuss.
What? I care about human lives, I don’t really care about the lives of other animals
Incredibly, even this atrocious court has the ability to hand down a reasonable ruling once in a great while.
