@plasmeus29 "Extremely unlikely" connotes its still a possibility. How would you feel if you were that one person that a strange quirky evidence pointed out that you committed a crime that calls for the death penalty. I realize, the odds are, it won't happen and detectives do an excellent job, but, they too, are only human.
@@iesusegoconfidoinvobis4309 well there are injustices everyday. Things are never perfect it's about deciding how perfect is acceptable to us as a society on different issues.
Interesting actually, they aren't completely out of place as they all come from shows about horrific crimes and moral choices regarding whether to kill. For example that cute bunny girl on the right? She had her best friend executed out of pity.
raging_platypus Interesting note, the guy with hand towel is from Monsters, he has a fascinating life story, and the series itself is about serial killer.
well i mean 1 on 1; but i guess team battle is fair game lol i'm half joking but it would actually solve a lot of problems with gang violence. at least then you don't have a whole neighborhood in the shoot out.
An extremely irreversible punishment can't be applied in an imperfect justice system, I'd rather imprison 1000 serial killers for life than kill an innocent. Also justice shouldn't be based on emotional impact and revenge, that's why I'm not in favor of the death penalty.
I'm against death penalty too, but it isn't about emotion. Some people may argue that it serves as revenge etc and those people are pro death penalty for all the wrong reasons. The fact is, a dead serial killer cannot kill anymore. He can escape from prison though.
@@aixide you can, with enough effort and money, make it impossible for someone to escape from prison. You can not, however, bring someone back to life if you kill someone who was wrongly convicted.
I'm not on any principle opposed to the death penalty, particularly when the convict is given a fair trial and the crime is sufficiently evil. My problem is that the state gets it wrong too often. At least 5% of those given the death penalty are exonerated by DNA evidence after their execution. This is unacceptable to me.
5%, 2%, I don’t care. The fact is, that innocent people will be executed. If you think that people who commuted terrible crimes deserve to die, sure, but having a death penalty means innocent people will die. We don’t have to kill guilty people, but we do have to make sure that we don’t kill innocent people
*THE DEATH PENALTY was part of THE OLD COVENANT (that ENDED over 2000 years ago)* *JESUS came to ESTABLISH the NEW COVENANT which REMOVED THOSE PUNISHMENTS* *Read more for the scriptures:* Romans 12:14, 17, 19 [14] Bless those who persecute you; bless and *do not curse.* [17] *Do not repay anyone evil for evil.* Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. [19] *Do not take revenge,* my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 1 Peter 3:9 *Do not repay evil with evil* or insult with insult. On the contrary, *repay evil with blessing,* because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you. Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the *merciful,* for they will be shown *mercy.* Romans 13:10 *Love does no harm* to a neighbor. Therefore *love* is the fulfillment of the law. 1 Peter 2:21, 23 [21] To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. [23] When they hurled their insults at him, *he did not retaliate;* when he suffered, *he made no threats.* Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. *Jesus declaring the NEW TESTAMENT law:* Matthew 5:38-39, 43-46 [38] “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ [39] But I tell you, *do not resist an evil person.* If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. *THIS WAS OLD TESTAMENT:* Exodus 21:12 [12] “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. [24] eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
@Živojin Limanić lol the death penalty is the ultimate sentencing of a human being on whether or not they deserve to die, and anti-whatever laws are entirely different things.
*THE DEATH PENALTY was part of THE OLD COVENANT (that ENDED over 2000 years ago)* *JESUS came to ESTABLISH the NEW COVENANT which REMOVED THOSE PUNISHMENTS* *Read more for the scriptures:* Romans 12:14, 17, 19 [14] Bless those who persecute you; bless and *do not curse.* [17] *Do not repay anyone evil for evil.* Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. [19] *Do not take revenge,* my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 1 Peter 3:9 *Do not repay evil with evil* or insult with insult. On the contrary, *repay evil with blessing,* because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you. Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the *merciful,* for they will be shown *mercy.* Romans 13:10 *Love does no harm* to a neighbor. Therefore *love* is the fulfillment of the law. 1 Peter 2:21, 23 [21] To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. [23] When they hurled their insults at him, *he did not retaliate;* when he suffered, *he made no threats.* Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. *Jesus declaring the NEW TESTAMENT law:* Matthew 5:38-39, 43-46 [38] “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ [39] But I tell you, *do not resist an evil person.* If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. *THIS WAS OLD TESTAMENT:* Exodus 21:12 [12] “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. [24] eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
@@Outmageous what about those psychos that molest and torture little children before killing them, while admitting that the only way they will stop is if they are dead? Because those people exist. Doesn't seem like there's hope for such souls
thats cause he is a true intellectual. he also read dostoevskij, nietzsche and jung pretty much entirely, and they are probably the best writers western civilization ever knew.
"I talked about [this guy who was raped and abused as a child and grew up dedicated to destroying human civilisation] in the chapter about getting your house in order" Only Dr. Peterson could say that sentence completely seriously
laertes104 Yeah but if you happen to figure out somebody was innocent 10 years after a 30 year sentence you could potentially save them 20 more years in prison.
"If you have a daughter, mother, someone you love who's raped violently and you're not homicidally enraged by that, there's something wrong with you." Try telling this to the men in Rotherham and Telford. Do they seem enraged enough to even protest, or take legal action?
This is precisely why we would need to construct a system where the evidence goes far beyond a reasonable doubt because we're deciding whether or not to take someone's life away. Cases like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Harold Shipman, etc. come to mind as examples of people, who with no question, deserve the death penalty.
@@johnnywetbrain He was a cult leader that convinced young impressionable people to commit a series of nine murders. He was originally given the death penalty but was changed to life because the state's penalty statute was invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Yeah I know but arguably insane and not the primary murderer you'd still give him the death penalty? The people who actually committed the murders get death to right? Or do they just get life. Ya know kinda the old "if someone told you to jump off a bridge" adage, you think this is really a crime warranting the DEATH PENALTY? An INSANE person tells someone to kill someone else?
@@johnnywetbrain He didn't just tell a couple of teenagers to kill people. He physically raised them, coerced them, manipulated them to do this. He showed absolutely no remorse and of not caught he would have led the massacre of 7 more victims. The question is when there is an authority complex such as this then the person ordering the acts are just as guilty as the one doing them. When Hitler ordered his soldiers to kill is Hitler at fault or his soldiers? Looking at his actions holistically and taking everything into consideration Charles Manson deserved the death penalty. He got lucky that the death penalty statue was invalidated by the Supreme Court b/c of some sort of legalities or else he would've been put to death.
@@usaherobrine Wait massacre of 7 other people? Didn't they all flee into the desert to look for an underground lake? And raise them? He lived with them on a ranch for a few years playing guitar, dropping acid and eating out of dumpsters... You're spinning this one like the prosecutor Begliosi, and you know prosecutors never ever lie to generate revenue for the state and win cases or anything like that. They're honest all the time like all lawyers!
I find it so bizarre that there is generally bipartisan opposition to the death penalty in most developed countries. I agree with Jordan 100% on this one!
To anyone here who believes that people are only evil because of external factors and that we're born inherently good: If everyone is born inherently good, then how did we ever come to live in an environment that is so evil? It's common for people to say that individuals are good, but it's "society" that causes the problem, but society is just a collection of individuals. How does putting a group of good individuals create an evil society? It seems to me that the answer is simple: Mankind is naturally bent towards doing evil. Anyone who has raised children will tell you, you have to teach them to be honest, to play nicely, to keep their hands out the cookie jar etc. The brutal truth is that deception and malevolence will come naturally to a child with time, you don't need to teach them to cheat, steal or lie for example.
wars, the good die, the bastards and cowards live also thiefs manage to become the ruling class, and when you are ruled by criminals what you expect the society will become?
But if people are inherently good there should be no wars or thieves. A group of good people should create a good society. If there are problems in a society then the problems come from the people, It's not rocket science.
limited resources you can either die or choose to kill the other take his food and survive and the good is self preservation it is also legal to kill in self defence, why because your life comes first over someone else but to make the conversation short if people are raised bad then you create criminals, and there a few cases of people just born bad
C C Animals rape and murder, what's the difference. We just have a brain that allows us to do it in creative ways. Evil is a word created by humans to control the actions of other humans. We don't control the behaviour of lions and monkeys, is what they do evil?
Slick Boy D Whats species got to do with anything. Food, sex and shelter, those are the basic needs of all animals and we are all Animals. Is that concept lost on you?
I think some of you guys miss a critical point here: - He's *not* saying that the state should take an eye for an eye *because* it's the ethical thing to do. - He's *not* arguing in favor of the death penalty as a deterrent. - He's *not* arguing in favor of the death penalty as a matter of public safety. - He *is* arguing that it's for stability of our societial structure. The only reason the legal system works is because the citizens have given their "rights for revenge" over to the state. People follow the law as long as it "rights the wrongs" for them. For example, if your loved ones were tortured, and the punishment for that was one million USD to the perpetrator, you can be damn sure that people would dole out punishment themselves. One of the most, if not the most, fundamental function of the justice system is to keep the victims from taking revenge. Having said that, I'm against the death penalty because of fear of a corrupt state.
But the issue should not be seen only through the retribution vision, because the function of punishment is not only to prevent private revenge, but also to prevent danger to happen or happen again, thus punishment must have a deterrence and incapacitation goal, the best remains to limit social exclusion, actually the infuence of the retribution theory in criminal systems can be very undesirable, and we definitely can see it in the USA where the system is tough, and quite inefficient. I understand that some people are not curable but it is a minority, actually most people in prison are not here for a violent offence. The role of the state is also to rationalize.
@@alexanderg8466 Isn’t it the left that advocates a stronger, central government? Which then leads to advocating a corrupt state, since corruption is practically everywhere?
It feels strange, but this is maybe the first major issue where I disagree with Dr. Peterson. To me, the argument that the state makes mistakes is a strong argument, but ethically I just can't justify killing someone (who is essentially another victim of their own psychological pathology) when the option to safely contain them exists. And if the state is prepared to pay $20million to kill someone, they can certainly pay a lesser amount to keep them alive until they eventually die. To kill someone who is currently presenting an immediate lethal threat to others is one thing but to kill with the motivation of revenge (even under the name of 'justice' or 'law and order') is one of the worst things a person can possibly do, and in it will affect a population collectively who are actively engaged in it.
I have a better idea, The worst offenders should be placed into a cement room 24/7 for the rest of their lives. No visitation rights, no mail, no books, NOTHING!!!!!! Just a bed, toilet and sink.
If you've caught a killer (James Bond villains withheld) you can definitely produce a more adequate punishment without risk by keeping them alive, rather then immediately relieving them of their illness just because they noticed for a second. They notice plenty. Habitual killers of men are seldom ignorant of their wrongdoing, they just choose their own release or power over the lives of others. These kinds of people, along with sexual abusers, are usually the hardest people to "cure" or rehabilitate for their crimes. Whereas most of the people taking our taxes in prison could be totally set straight in a different socioeconomic system, repeaters of truly sadistic crimes should not be allowed to sleep peacefully, let alone die early. If you want revenge, live better. "Better" doesn't mean wondering if some vengeful family member will wire C4 to your ignition, or living with even the most righteous of kills. It's hard to do, killing anyone, I assure you. Unless perhaps you're already on your way to being the psychopath, you will feel something afterwards. It's much more calming to let the whole of humanity sort it out, but they're screwing up by murdering murderers and thinking they can wash their hands of it. Go find a penitentiary executioner and tell me you don't see a troubled person. Which, to clarify, just because they're okay with what they're doing, does not mean they're not troubled. Sometimes those are exactly the people with sociopathic tendencies you need to worry about. I'm sure you're aware of people who look for jobs involving hurting others for the sake of hurting others. You get the cool calm executioner like that or the guy living with guilt, or some blend. That's career killers on the whole.
I think it's best to utilize the death penalty upon the person's consent. I think that the motivation to contain-someone-as-they-do until death is irrational if by the person's own opinion, their life has no point. And if they truly see their remaining time of life as so, then I cannot see the point in sustaining the person all the way up until they die. People get stuck on this "deserving" part, because there are various interpretations of what death is. The objective truth is that death isn't anything at all. Dead people don't care what anyone thinks, nor about what they themselves thought when they were still alive. There is no such thing as deserving death, as deserving is a concept of the living. And on the other end, life too has various interpretations as well. The guy next to you probably holds the value of life in a different regard. Does this mean that one of you is more right than the other? Objectively, no. Whether life is too meaningful to end or not meaningful enough to preserve is absolutely and entirely subjective towards each and every single one of us. We should be basing our decisions of death off of observable effects that the one person's death has in relation to us as a society, and we should also (at least somewhat) consider if the person sentenced to death believes if the remaining rest of their life is worth living or not. Of course though, the person should not be executed instantly, as this is no minor matter that should reach conclusions rashly.
He said that there are things for which the proper penalty is death. That isn't exactly the same thing as saying another human should kill them for it. There are many arguments against that. But let's say we were built in such a way that once our sub-conscious registered a sufficient level of evil on out part, it shut us down, and the level was well calibrated to be reasonable, maybe would re-zero now and again if we made progress. I wouldn't have a problem with that. But would I kill a person in cold blood, should anyone be the tool that brings an end to another person in cold blood. Should they indulge their anger. I was really impressed by the Amish who came to the woman whose husband had murdered a boatload of Amish children, and reached out to her pain, that is really the kind of Petersonian approach he would normally support. I would have no problem gunning down a gunman though.
I'm 60 seconds into the video and Peterson already gave a much deeper and reasonable answer than basically anyone else I've even listened talking about this topic. Damn I love when people use 99% logic in their arguments.
What reason did Peterson use? What rational justification is he using? He isn’t. He’s just appealing to your emotions and counting on you not thinking about anything too deeply.
Wow, for years I thought exactly the same way, there are crimes that clearly are up for death penalty and society is not prepared to do away with it, my only problem always was giving the state such power ... And here comes Jordan hitting the nail in the head
Death Penalty -costs more -is indefinite, you can't bring a dead person back to life if they are found to be innocent +makes sure no crime can never be commited again by the executed person -the criminal has no chance to regret his crimes, or think about what he has done, it's the "easy way out" Life imprisonment +costs less +is NOT indefinite, if a mistake is made (which happens a lot) the damage can be -there is a chance that the criminal comes free, although this chance is really small +the criminal has a chance to realize that what he has done is bad and better himself (although he will never come free again) Vengeance is no argument, it's irrational.
@@johnthomson2377 with a detailed penalty you'd need to pay for the persons last meal, the equipment used to kill him and where to kill him. It would be better to just lock them in a jail sell
@@Mewdo45 a nice meal and some chemicals (not that I believe in lethal injection) would not be as expensive as supporting meals, medicine and cell space for what would likely be many many more years.
Yeah, why wouldn’t you be. If you agree with it one side says you agree with murder people but if you disagree with it the other side says you support murderers.
There is that risk, though 1) he is an expert outside of Psychology, in the academic sense, since he teaches courses, and has published a book that is used in courses, in other subjects, like cultural studies, religion, and Philosophy; 2) Subjects like this one require an understanding of more than one issue. One might conclude that from a Psych perspective it would help to kill murderers, but it might still be unethical; 3) the bar to being an expert in court is incredibly low. You can write a few weekend courses and get certified, just in case anyone is confusing the legal and academic meanings of the term.
The key is not that he shouldnt be asked about his opinion on matters or that he shouldnt freely express his opinions on a variety of issues outside his specific field of expertise (of which this particular matter is closer than most). He is neither encouraged to pretend, nor do the interviewers set him up to be an expert. He of course preface the answer with "i have done reading" which is to ground the matter in at least some education, but no claim of expertise is made. People just want to know his opinion, just like if I ask you what your personal opinion on this matter you wouldn't say I am not an expert and therefore I am not at liberty to have or express said opinion. The important thing is when people listen their understanding should be mediated by the fact that he is not an expert.
I think he IS an expert in many things outside of psychology. At least comparatively to the people who are actually involved in decision making regarding policy in the US (and other countries) he knows a lot. And who else is better at offering expertise regarding the human condition than an accomplished psychologist?
Agreed. I like Peterson but I don't like him being turned into some sage celebrity that everyone just follows blindly. It's the same thing that happened with Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye, now they've become repulsive arrogant shmucks.
How do you teach society to stop killing eachother by killing? The example given in this video is a guy who was so angry due to the massive abuse he had experienced as a child that he caused mayhem and wanted to strangle the whole world in one hit - So we go right ahead and take the abuse to the ultimate extreme and kill him - Awesome logic. Then in another video this guy starts telling us to be lead by the bible - Does he fucking know that it states perfectly clearly in the 10 commandments - 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' I started watching this dude because I was told he was highly intelligent and all I've heard is contradictions and not one single solution to one damn problem.
Absolutely and exactly to the point. The observation that there are some people who would be best off eradicated from existence and the notion that the State should have the power to impose the death penalty are two separate things.
I cannot quite believe my ears when Peterson makes the emotional argument. Of course everyone closely related to a victim of murder or violent rape would want to probably kill the perpetrator, but that is exactly why they don't get to choose the fate of the perpetrator, the judge does. The state is there to reason logically and rationally as to what a person's punishment should be.
so... he's not ok with giving the state the power over life and death... but he's ok with giving the state the power to lock you up and throw away the key for life imprisonment? seems morally inconsistent to me. To me, it seems like if you are ok with throwing someone in prison for life, you should also be ok with just ending it quickly.
The death penalty is one of the few actions our bloated government should have. Under close, careful scrutiny and constant review and triple checked and audited.
I definitely agree with Jordan on this. Although, I do think with those irredeemable crimes, we might as well give the person a choice between life in prison and the death penalty - their life is basically forfeit anyway.
to be honest, I think giving them a life long sentence is a lot better since they're actually being punished rather than painlessly passing away, if that makes sense? I don't really see many people saying this but it's basically a gift for them, they commit horrific crimes and face no consequences, if I was violently raped I wouldn't sleep well knowing the offerder got away with it, where's the pain on their side? It's not equal
@@Rh-sl2kt l also kind of support your statement too the reason l also support a life sentence for these types of crimes is to put the criminal into a stable mental condition and make them repent and redeem themselves instead of leaving the world with less and giving back(i.e. community service and labor once he /she is in a stable mental condition) l'm still hard on crime but just not the death penalty part
I live in an European country and our justice system does neither of those things. Sentences are laughable at best. Most of the criminals WILL offend again, given the opportunity, so I say let's punish them so severely, that they wouldn't get the that opportunity ever again. In simple terms - death penalty and life-long or several life-long sentences, therefore no possibility of parole. That is the justice that keeps citizens from becoming vigilantes and deal out the punishment themselves. The citizens cannot be expected to stay sheep-like civilized if they see the injustice of the criminals leaving the prison just a few years after they killed/raped. This sends a horrible message - it's ok to be a criminal, you won't be punished as much as you deserve so why not break the law, right? Wrong.
Death penalty, if truly shown to be significantly effective in crime deterrence has an obvious application in society. Death penalty that chases ‘justice’ in the form of revenge makes total sense to me from an empathetic standpoint of the victim and the family. But this alone doesn’t accomplish anything at all except quenching a sadistic thirst for vengeance (unless, again and of course, it is truly proven to significantly be deter crimes). If the death penalty doesn’t deter crimes, it is in humane and exactly the same in principle as the criminal themselves.
Even following this you can go talk about the philosophy of why people make the actions that they do. Whether they have free will, this, that. Yeah if someone killed a loved one of mine I would be enraged to the point that I wish I could kill them. But I think that if I can step back from that, even killing the perpetrator can never make me feel whole again. So this leads me to believe that it’s just wrong.
I think the ultimate answer lies within yourself. Whether the perpetrator is killed or not, ultimately the victims family is going to have to find peace within themselves.
While violent rape might be deserving of the death penalty, pragmatically speaking the only crime to which it can be applied is murder. This is because if the rapist is going to die anyway, he might as well kill his victim and leave no witnesses, thus making it less likley that he would face at least some justice rather than more.
*THE DEATH PENALTY was part of THE OLD COVENANT (that ENDED over 2000 years ago)* *JESUS came to ESTABLISH the NEW COVENANT which REMOVED THOSE PUNISHMENTS* *Read more for the scriptures:* Romans 12:14, 17, 19 [14] Bless those who persecute you; bless and *do not curse.* [17] *Do not repay anyone evil for evil.* Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. [19] *Do not take revenge,* my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 1 Peter 3:9 *Do not repay evil with evil* or insult with insult. On the contrary, *repay evil with blessing,* because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you. Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the *merciful,* for they will be shown *mercy.* Romans 13:10 *Love does no harm* to a neighbor. Therefore *love* is the fulfillment of the law. 1 Peter 2:21, 23 [21] To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. [23] When they hurled their insults at him, *he did not retaliate;* when he suffered, *he made no threats.* Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. *Jesus declaring the NEW TESTAMENT law:* Matthew 5:38-39, 43-46 [38] “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ [39] But I tell you, *do not resist an evil person.* If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. *THIS WAS OLD TESTAMENT:* Exodus 21:12 [12] “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. [24] eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
I totally agree with this man. Even if there’s a criminal who deserves death, no one has the authority to bring them death penalty, including the state. People make mistakes, and the state is a form of those people. Giving them such power to decide someone’s fate is definitely something I would never want to see.
Modern day science and technology like DNA testing and CCTV allow an incredibly high level of accuracy when establishing someone's guilt. Some criminals simply should not be allowed to live. I prefer the hypothetical, potential threat that is produced by the state having the power to execute sentenced violent criminals, than the very real threat that violent criminals themselves pose to society.
Ofc you cant have the death penalty without a proper independent judiciary system, and I don't think anyone argues for death penalty should be given in any way lightly or to be commonplace. But there is undeniably cases where you are certain of guilt beyond doubt, I suppose breivik is one of the more famous relatively resent examples. And it can be argued that with an armed police force you actually have a form of death penalty, exercised by the state, without any jury or process. It is also a deterrent on a completely different level then prison, Singapore for example is one of the safest cities in the world, transformed by the death penalty that have very high support among the population. a state policy that predictably lead to the death of innocent people is parole of convicted murdered, who re-offend. I would not say I have a decided view on the issue, but I'm open to it. Historically it have of course been predominantly misused by tyrants. I think it should definitely not be an emotional argument with, and there is of course a surrounding context. I recommend Peter Hitchens for a reasoned argument for death penalty.
Nah, I disagree. Death penalty is wrong and has no place in a civilised society. I used to support it a couple of years ago but now I have completely opposed to it.
Anything the state does requires responsibility, watchdogging, and fair, consistent, predictable rules, whether it's imprisonment or execution, or for that matter taxation, spending, regulatory rules, or civil rights. Mistakes will be made; we're obligated to do our best to avoid or correct them but it's unrealistic to think we can succeed all the time. We paralyze ourselves with the notion that we can't afford to make mistakes if the issue is execution. Execution or any criminal penalty as justice is a poorly formed idea, since it doesn't really resolve the problems suffered by the victims. Nor is the threat of execution preventive. If it was, 32 states would have hardly any inmates on death row. Actual execution is preventive, of course, when the person being executed is such a seriously damaged individual that there's no chance of rehabilitation. These are typically the people sitting on death row now. A civilized society cannot afford a seriously violent criminal running amok, ruining the lives of productive, law abiding citizens. When our prison system is overcrowded and, say, a serial rapist or a pedophile is released, when crimes holding life sentences are plead down to lesser crimes, when the criminally violent inmates traumatize other, non-violent inmates, when we're slowing and clogging the court systems to the point that criminal issues drag on for years, we're essentially choosing to sacrifice the well being of society because we can't abide the idea that prevention is more important than punishment.
BS - guards have guns and the inmates are in cuffs most of the time at max sec. If an inmate dies, thats just one of the possible consequences of breaking the law
Uuuh, we have one of 'em smart college people in the comments. I have never met someone that goes to college - i will worship you as a good ol' wise one. That being said, the state should not have the right to sentence people to death... if they kill other prisoner then that is the fault and responsibilities of the people in charge of that prison - do better. But what do i know, I'm just a normal guy - not some kind of smart-ass elitist college cunt that thinks they know shit about the world. Sorry, leaving now - have real life shit to do kid, enjoy college. You need it.
"We paralyze ourselves with the notion that we can't afford to make mistakes" And that's the long and short of it. Even considering the alleged mistakes, however, there is not a single proven case of someone being wrongly executed in America in the past century. Not one. That's not to say there necessarily weren't any, but it's evidently a negligible amount if so; and it ultimately saves a lot more lives and improves quality of life all round.
@@euphoricatheist6694 Well, the last part of your statement is not clear. Compared with criminal justice systems that have thrown the death penalty out of the window, America has much more crime. There is no clear evidence that execution is a better deterrent than life-long imprisonment. Execution is expensive because you have higher requirements than for normal imprisonments and you have to wait between sentencing and execution, in case new evidence turns up. Only through these precautions, it is possible to have a negligible amount of mistakes made. Of course, there are a lot of criticisms one can bring up against the American criminal justice system, from its private prisons that do not rehabilitate people who committed minor offences, like non-violent robberies or possession of illegal substances, to the ridiculously long and overcomplicated trials, to the way judges/prosecutors are elected... The death penalty is not effective, and it bears a high risk of abuse so I would say it should be abolished as long as it is not proven useful.
I'm not a fan of the death penalty because I don't think revenge is justice, and the death penalty seems to be mostly about getting revenge. I think when someone commits a horrible act, imprisoning them in a humane way is the just (as in restoring balance) thing to do.
It's not revenge, its due punishment. If I killed an innocent person I would expect death in return. Death row inmates are not meant to become martyrs.
@@raiden031 So convicted murderers now deserve "do overs"? Just kill people but no worries..you (the offender) still get to go on living & breathing..how is that justice for the victims?
@@raiden031 Really? If someone murders an innocent person what are you going to teach them. That they have been a naughty boy? That killing a human is wrong? Justice ISN'T Revenge.
I dont think Peterson is religious but yes. You make a good point. You cannot sit there on your high horse talking about what it good and then condemn people to death.
As many people who were sentenced to life that turned out to be innocent, I'd hate to find out how many people we've sentenced to death that were innocent.
The money you would save on a firing squad vs lethal injection is irrelevant compared to the money spent on the trial, and you HAVE to spend a lot of money on the trial.
I am against the death penalty because we should not have the right to decide that someone should die just because we dont want them around anymore. That is a sad way to look at things. Your life is valuable until people are horrified at you. I don't like it all. Maybe I'm just a complete idiot but that's just not reasonable to me.
I believe that death penalty is better than the rest of a life in prison aging inside there like a captured animal that is difficult.And many prisoners seek execution because of that
That's an argument in favor of giving prisoners a choice of euthanization rather than life in jail, it's not an argument in favor of the death penalty.
This is a beautifully balanced article. I've listened to Dennis Prager's argument, which was compelling, BUT my gut instinct, not logic, told me there was something wrong with it (Yet I agree with most of his views). I thank Jordan for the simple statement 'Should we give the state that power'. We know how corrupt any state can become. so it's a resounding NO. Jordan is right on this one.
The problem is that giving any entity, whether it be the government or something else, the power to decide life and death is inherently too much power.
Jordan Peterson says if you've had a loved one who has experienced a heinous crime and you're not "homicidally enranged" that something is wrong with you. Okay, while it may be true that these feelings exist, does that make it moral to act violently in retribution in a situation where it is possible the offender will never be a threat to people again, i.e. they're in jail for life? Not necessarily. This is the height of arguing from emotions instead of logic. He says its the state's job to take the burden of anger away from victims, but sneaks in that the punishment should be death without justifying it with a logical reason.
I doubt it's up to Man to decide Man's death. Why kill? For vengeance? Taking a life is not justice, it's an atrocious act. It's not Good to hate, no matter the circumstance. It's just not good for oneself and it's not good for humanity. It seems right but it just is not. That's what's so challenging about it. What good can come of hate?
I think he's just saying that sometimes it's right if nothing can be done to help a person too far gone and a humane end to that person's life might be the best thing for that person and the world. Perhaps, but I have hope that we will get to a point where we won't feel that the best response is to give up, on anyone. I think most people can be worked on or at least studied. I also believe having such a hope is healthy.
I think that anyone can still benefit society. We could give bad criminals intense labour that would benefit us all. Make them work in a place thats useful where they cannot hurt people. That would be very good. We need every able body helping us.
I agree with Peterson on this. In one hand, there are crimes where nothing below a death penalty would suffice. On the other hand, who is able to give such judgment? It's one thing to restrict someone's freedom for 10, 20, 30, maybe 50 years, it's another to end their life. And then you add the state to the equation, and now you need to consider the risk of allowing the state to effectively decide who should live or die.
Wtf why is that at the end of the video lol, that makes no sense ahahah "hey im gonna put up a clip of a serious discussion and then chuck some weeb shit at the end cus its cool"
Cheaper to throw them in a cage for the rest of their life, it is not a deterrent, and the state makes mistakes and in general has incompetent people in it's employ. Get rid of the death penalty.
I get excited when people who are more intelligent than me come to exactly the same conclusion. It's almost as though I'm not a complete fuckin' moron.
Ok, so who should have the right to place the penalty of death to that person that has warranted death? If not the state then who? If you don't give the state that power then who?
IMO people hold Peterson a bit on too high of a pedestal. Hes very intelligent no doubt but its kind of irritating how often he states his personal opinions or various (at first glance and on the surface sure) extrapolations as facts. Hes masterful at rationalizing because hes extremely knowledgable so he can of course quite easily corner someone and make them seem like theyre wrong even if theyre not. And claims like "if youre not homicidaly enraged if someones did this horrible thing to your mother , somethings very wrong with you", are plain stupid.
I think that the death penalty gives the state and society the ability to sweep the problem of these violent crimes under the carpet. I don’t think that a painless death deters anyone from murder, or any other violence. I agree with the idea that some people who’ve committed these crazy crimes couldn’t handle being alive, but the death penalty is often just a way for those still alive to dehumanized the convicted, and further themselves from the idea of the committed crime, so that they can live happily in believing they themselves are incapable of such things, and that the criminal is inhuman
If a government decides to have a death penalty it should only be done on hard evidence. No circumstantial stuff, credible witnesses, damning proof, the kind of stuff that takes a jury 10 seconds to deliberate. Too many people have been exonerated, and we can then assume have died or are going to because of 'good enough' evidence. That's unacceptable, a death sentence should be rock fucking solid.
I disagree with Peterson on this. Carl Panzram was not BORN evil. It seemed from environmental factors he became increasingly unhappy to the point where he WANTED to be killed so that he could be put out of his misery. I suggest that if he built up to his psychotic mania then he could be reversed out of it. However, Peterson gives up on Panzram due to what I see as an overly moralistic emotional argument. Yes it is easy to get emotional - disturbed - by what Panzram did, but that is not a good basis from which to have him murdered.
The notion that Panzram's sadistic nature and his overwhelming hatred for humanity could be reformed is a vast oversimplification. Panzram himself said that he never wishes to reform and that "the only way to reform people is to kill them." His entire being centered around a desire to exterminate humanity. I don't think that kind of mentality could ever be changed. I think you're underestimating evil.
jeff George even if what you're saying is correct he doesn't change the fact that a lot of people go through horrible s*** as kids and they don't become killers. In fact most don't. Therefore there's something about the person intrinsic inside of them that allows this to happen. You can spend a lifetime trying to reform them and nothing might ever come of it. Furthermore you not considering Justice for the family of the victim. A person who causes tremendous pain and loss for a family.... they deserve to be able to rest and sleep at night knowing that person is gone, and not someday possibly being paroled decades later
That some can handle being abandoned by their parents, raped, tortured, gang raped and beaten is also not their own doing. Obviously a child experiencing these things only have what their environment has given, maybe Panzram by genetics and nurture simply didn't have the fortitude to not carry the pain without inflicting it on others. Does Panzram deserve to be punished by death for not being a strong enough child? what kind of demand is that on a 12 year old? It's just moral (un)luck. I personally don't think anyone *deserves* either punishment nor praise, but rather that punishment and praise are usefull tools to encourage/discourage certain behaviours towards a common good. Therefore it makes no sense in my view to motivate any punishment by what the criminal "deserves". At least seriously attempting rehabilitation is the only rational solution, followed by potentially indefinite incarceration when rehabilitation is not possible(depending on the crime of course), but never death. The family of victims do not deserve the death of the criminal, that is that same logic people use for vendettas and honor killings. An adjustable and potentially changing feeling can not justify a permanent death, families should receive help moving on and managing their emotions.
The death penalty should only be allowed when there is unequivocal, irrefutable evidence that the accused is guilty, video evidence, or multiple eye witnesses and dna evidence.
Video Evidence can be tampered with extremely easily. Deep fakes can allow anyone to make a video of anyone committing a crime. Eye witness is not reliable. psychologists have proven that human memory is extremely flawed and not a valid way of “Proving” details DNA evidence is not reliable also. If a girl says she was raped when it was consensual than you can use DNA evidence to “prove” a rape which didn’t happen.
My note pertaining to the following … what then was Upper Canada, is now the province of Ontario. John Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister of Canada, and the following is from the book titled “ONE CANADA … memoirs of the right honorable John G. Diefenbaker.” ... Great-grandfather told my mother a story of life in the early 1830s which I have always found instructive. The greatest celebration of all in Upper Canada one that brought all the people together within a reasonable distance, was a public execution. He himself had been present at one. The pioneers arrived a day ahead for the festivities. With whiskey selling at less than a dollar a gallon, liquor became a source not only of exhilaration but of inspiration for the assembled, enabling them the more to enjoy the spectacle. The condemned man was a teenager whose offence had been pickpocketing. The death penalty was then imposed for some fifty or sixty offences. The law was less harsh than it had been: no longer were prisoners drawn and quartered. But the theory was that punishment must be imposed so that the criminal would understand the gravity of the sin he had committed. Also, deterrence was then the argument and still is among those who advocate capital punishment. On this occasion, the young man made a speech in the traditional style of condemned criminals in Upper Canada: he admitted his guilt and asked forgiveness. He was not restricted to a fixed length of time, since time really meant nothing. While he was making his testimony of guilt, four of the assembled pioneers found that their pockets had been picked.
so your tell me if someone kill someone you love they should go to prison ,still breathing and eat meal 3 time a day when your love one is in the ground rotting ? Your tell me your love ones life worth 15 to what ever years the murder receives
A life sentence allows a miscarriage of justice to be reversed. You can free a man from jail. You can't free a man from death. That alone is sufficient argument for never allowing the death penalty.
Those psychopaths are interesting, not things to burn. You can get so much information and wicked creativity out of them. They are a source for strange ideas that lived and not someone's fantasy.
His argument about the abused man seemed extremely flawed. He says the man did everything to deserve it but gave no real acknowledgement to the fact that society had made him both a victim and a criminal and that society should carry some of that responsibility rather than play judge and jury. He assumes an absolute morality when surely morals are all relative to how we operate and to the culture we live in.
i totally understand that a guy would rather die that year than live 50 more in a jail cell, which is why if the crime is worse enough, give the criminal the death penalty when he begs for life and give him life in prison when he begs for death. some criminals just dont deserve to get what they want
We know that around 1 of every 20 death row inmates have or would have been exonerated, according to several studies. Their deaths invalidate any idea of the death penalty being "just".
I think that death panelty is an act of mercy, Rapists and murdrers don't deserve to be treates like human beings, of course if they are regretting it and feel remorseful about it, then a long timr in prison would be appropiate, but I want you all to think How would you behave if someone you loved deeply, someone you know that was innocent, someone you deey cared about, was murdrered, and the one who did so got away with just imprisonment
I would grieve for my loved one like crazy, probably forever. Feel furious. Go for therapy or find community. Would hope that the State would provide rehabilitation for the criminal and also look into how to build more equitable and sustainable societies from a young age, a society that works for us not against us.
I disagree with that, death is a terrible waste of resources that could be used elsewhere and for what, just to appease own sense of self-righteousness that is just own front to blood lust. It would be more beneficial to force them to labor or conduct experimentation on them. Not to mention death is just easy way out.
Forced labor for life and inhumane experimentation would both be considered worse than a death sentence, and it's sincerely disgusting that you think that way. Also, the justice system is used for two things - prevention and revenge. Preventing people who have committed crimes for a certain amount of time, and exacting a sufficient punishment on behalf of all the people who were hurt. If your entire family was murdered but the killer was put in a nice jail where they spend all day baking cookies and pillow fighting you would probably feel like the system failed you.
That's the point, death is easy way out. I'm not big fan of people using word inhumane as an argument because such statement can be thrown at any sort of act they don't deem to be least harmful, it's same argument that can be made against capital punishment. I disagree about what justice system is about, at least modern justice system. With prevention I agree but revenge isn't part of justice system, hence family/friends have no bearing on sentence given to offender and it is irrelevant whether they feel punishment was sufficient or not.Assuming I would agreed with revenge being part of our justice system, then making punishment for offender worse would constitute more effective revenge. If they put people in nice jail making them comfortable then it wouldn't be very efficient way to prevent people from causing crimes in first place. I'm simply pragmatic with my solution and don't waste resources that could be used elsewhere, if you were planing to killing them anyway, it isn't like you cared about them anyway.
Ah, ladies and gentlemen... here we have the "easy way out" argumenter. The person who is no different than the people who have committed the crimes horrible enough to _deserve_ death (to deserve death by the court, not via my personal opinion). I can't see the difference between you and them. Why do you think putting them to work is any more right and just than putting them to death? (To answer that, you don't care about what's _right_ or _just_ because to be honest, those are concepts you don't really understand.) Because it's maximizing resources? If you wanna go by your logic of maximizing every potential resource, then I hope you're a saint yourself, sacrificing every blood sweat and tear of yours for the betterment of the population. Do that first, then you can pretend like you are in a position to decide what should happen. You yourself are a resource, so make sure you don't waste that resource!
I'm missing the point of your post, you didn't exactly refute "easy way out" argument. Are you implying I'm no different that the people that committed those crimes, it's not true as I didn't commit those crimes and it's on basis of those crimes they are being sentenced. Not to mention who deserves what is a matter of opinion, some may argue that death is too lenient, while others that it's too harsh depending on their views. Edit: As you edited your post I will address edited part. I explained why, it helps utilize resource instead just wasting it what is done either for sake of anger/revenge/blood-lust (I will address it next) and convenience/pragmatism by getting rid of the problem instead dealing with them as with everyone, if you are willing to kill someone out of convenience I don't see why not be more pragmatic about it.As for a punishment aspect, as I explained death is quite easy way out and if you desire criminal to pay "fate worse than death" would fill role of desire for severe punishment. You are right that I don't understand them, or at least not in a sense you do, I see those concepts nothing more than an opinion, hence no one can agree what righteousness/justice constitute and ultimately comes off as way of saying "I'm right, you wrong". Not every potential resource, just defective ones (criminals) that caused damage to society by committing criminal act.
The "easy way out" argument is an easy one to understand. I can't explain it as well as the others do in the comment section - they're there though if you look at em. Essentially though, if it don't want someone to have, as you put it, "the easy way out", then you instead want them to suffer for whatever reason that you have. Well, if you want other people to suffer (without a sense of rehabilitation), then you're not really such a good person yourself. Jordan Peterson would tell you that your potential to be as harmful and wicked as certain people (like what happened in Nazi Germany or in the Soviet Union) can very much be realized. And considering how you're perceiving this situation, I think Peterson's point would be valid.
The death penalty doesn't do anyone any good. So you kill the person...so what? Is the world any better now? No. His example of Carl Panzram proves the exact opposite point he was trying to make. Panzram didn't deserve death. He deserved to be uplifted out of his misery. His intention to destroy all creation was born out of his suffering. I wouldn't expect anything different given his experience. He was redeemable. Most people are, and the group of people who aren't will shrink as neurological/psychological knowledge expands.
There is no just vengeance. It may be true that there are things so vile they must be ended/stopped, but if you feel any sort of vengeful emotion or if it satisfies you to harm or end what has hurt you, you are participating on the same plane of those whom you judge.
No I'm sorry, I have never bought, and never will buy into this argument: kill a killer and you're just as bad as he is. No, you're not. If you kill someone, who is a truly malevolent killer, a violent career criminal whose life includes multiple lesser, yet still violent crimes, you're NOT just as bad as he is because you killed him. Are you out there preying on the innocent? Do you kill people for the sheer, sadistic pleasure, or because you are such an innately violent person that you can't control your angry, destructive impulses, or because you simply don't care about anyone's life but your own, in the way a sociopath does? No? Then you are NOT just as bad. Intent matters, we recognize this in both law and morality.
Mygary I hope I am never in that circumstance, but I have thought about it thoroughly. I would hope I could be elevated enough above the situation to remain true to my ethical beliefs even in the worst circumstance. I am not saying I am a good person...but if I could strive towards something it would be to be true to what I hope is real goodness. Christ forgave his murderers in the moments of his murder. Thats the moral standard. Im sure I would fall short too...but I would not advocate for anything less. JP explains the root cause of suffering in his example of the murderer here...yet goes on to ignore the cause as if it never occured. I believe in causality and if causality is true, there is no (human) justice.
Darren O'Connor I agree that it is not the same...but JP mentioned the emotions one would feel and that is what Im talking about. Perhaps as law or perhaps as necessity the state must end people who harm others. But...there is no moral high ground in being satisfied or glad of the fact. Emotion is a relative experience and justice...if it is even possible should be completely objective.
Naomi Fehr Retribution is the cause of most human evil. Retribution assumes a moral high ground of superiority while designating the recipients of said retribution as lesser. "The enemy burned my village...I shall burn three of theirs". Its an endless cycle if violence. The cycle only ends with transcendent nonviolence. Christ. Ghandi. Etc.
I also think that no matter what the crime, if criminals seek forgiveness and actively try to change and evolve their minds, their sentences should gradually decrease and their privileges within jailgrounds should increase. There are far too many people in jail wrongly. Selling and buying drugs is not a valid reason to put someone in jail imo because they have a right to choose what to put in their body as long as they don't harm anyone else.... these males are the vast majority of prisoners and they are often unjustly abused by the system and even RAPED. They deserve compassion.
Death is the end not a penalty. Killing is an emotional reaction not a consequence of judgement. America it's 2017/8 europe is 20 years ahead on this :D
Your insistence that they must be 'judged' and suffer in prison is an emotional reaction in itself. The purpose of the death penalty is not mere 'judgement', it's for saving more lives and improving the quality of life all round. It does act as a deterrent, and solves the problem effectively, as is evident by the fact that the crime rate shot up in direct correlation with its abolition and the general liberalisation of law. Only as states have gradually reintroduced these laws - following in the footsteps of Rudy Giuliani after he successfully dropped the New York crime rate astronomically by getting hard on criminals - has the crime rate began to steadily decrease.
In America some States have the death penalty and the others don’t. The murder rate in States that have the death penalty is ‘higher’ than in States that don’t. So much for deterrence.
People who rape indiscriminately, torture and even get money for that should be put to death immediately. I know Europe is a complete nest of sexual treats
i dont understand how anyone can think putting an end to the misery of unending incarceration (by execution) could possibly be worse than the unending incarceration itself.
"A loy of the time in the USA you haven't. There were a lot of times where the state killed the wrong guy" Incorrect. In the past century, there is not one truly verifiable case of someone being wrongly executed in the US. Not one. The last time lefties claimed to have examples of executed men later "proved innocent," attorneys Stephen Markman and Paul Cassell reviewed the cases and found that "proof of innocence" included the word of the executed murderer; any confession by another murderer, no matter how preposterous the claim, and defense counsel's bald allegations in opening statements supported by no evidence at trial. If there are any truly wrongly executed, it is a very negligible amount, and well worth the trade off for the lives it saves and the better quality of life for people at large.
I disagree with the death penalty as a moral issue and as an issue of the state having too much power. The death penalty is disgusting in my opinion as a tool of control and cruelty. Fundamentally a system derived of hatred, it can be argued Justice but I find it to be hateful and I disagree with several aspects of Justice as well so probably I'm speaking from a different perspective than most people.
The DP is a cruel? Seriously? People don't get the DP for jaywalking, it's because THEY were cruel to someone else and took their life. Take serial killers- when they get the DP, they go out a whole lot easier than the way the way they took someone else's life.
We just gave the state the right to apportion gay marriage. Some people can't fathom the difference between rejecting state power and the 'rights' of preference groups
Mugen have you been living under a rock? Work quotas, affirmative action, equality, diversity, fair work practices, anti-hate speech, social media speech violations??
Mugen It simply isn’t like that at all. The govt should take a neutral stance on marriage and the public ought not to be engaged in a popularity contest over private consensual relations. That said, it is regulated by the govt and LGBTQ activists are strident communists. Gay rights, like women’s rights, is the harbinger for anti-hierarchical social dysgenics. You think it stops at gay rights?
"In what way is gay marriage ever going to be used against you?" i.magaimg.net/img/1m72.jpg pbs.twimg.com/media/DGcgHWhU0AUHmVp.jpg:large twitter.com/Lauren_Southern/status/895313443699310595 i.imgur.com/mx1aIiS.jpg
"LGBTQ activists are strident communists" As was the 'father of gay the rights movement' Harry Gay, a Communist leader who was in to weird occult stuff and openly endorsed NAMBLA, like most pioneers of the 'gay rights' movement.
If your not going to give the power to the state, who are you gonna give it to? You can't give to the victim's family, they are more likely to make a false accusation.
I don't agree with the idea of someone *deserving* death on any level. Sounds completely disgusting to me. Nobody deserves to die or suffer, and if it becomes necessary, that's nothing but a tragedy. But if we have the ability to remove someone from society without killing them or torturing them, that's always preferable.
so...what? you lock them up? people deserving of the death penalty get put into solitary confinement and to humans, that's basically psychological torture. And whats the point of locking up someone like that? they're never going to "get better" or change their ways. And the crimes some people have committed, idk how you can say they deserve anything but death
Not even the greatest psychologists, therapists and rehabilitators would be able to help the criminal described in the video. I hate to make the analogy but that man was long gone and thing you can do to a feral animal is force it behind bars or put it down.
Scariest thing about death penalty is possibility of being falsely accused of a crime you didn't commit.
True
@plasmeus29 Can you scientifically determine someones thoughts? The difference between consensual sex and rape is state of mind.
@plasmeus29 www.innocenceproject.org/how-many-innocent-people-are-in-prison/
@plasmeus29 "Extremely unlikely" connotes its still a possibility. How would you feel if you were that one person that a strange quirky evidence pointed out that you committed a crime that calls for the death penalty. I realize, the odds are, it won't happen and detectives do an excellent job, but, they too, are only human.
@@iesusegoconfidoinvobis4309 well there are injustices everyday. Things are never perfect it's about deciding how perfect is acceptable to us as a society on different issues.
I love how completely out of place the outro is LMAO anime characters after a video about death penalty
Tim Jordan who’s your favorite anime character in the pic? Mine is Jordan Peterson
Interesting actually, they aren't completely out of place as they all come from shows about horrific crimes and moral choices regarding whether to kill. For example that cute bunny girl on the right? She had her best friend executed out of pity.
Try watching some big boi stuff like Berserk
raging_platypus Interesting note, the guy with hand towel is from Monsters, he has a fascinating life story, and the series itself is about serial killer.
yah whats this weab shit
legalize dueling
fight pits n shit
well i mean 1 on 1; but i guess team battle is fair game lol
i'm half joking but it would actually solve a lot of problems with gang violence. at least then you don't have a whole neighborhood in the shoot out.
Trial by combat!
yes .. why the fuck isn't everything consensual legal ?
Or legalize dueling by delegation. Imagine a whole new job opportunity for street fighters.
An extremely irreversible punishment can't be applied in an imperfect justice system, I'd rather imprison 1000 serial killers for life than kill an innocent.
Also justice shouldn't be based on emotional impact and revenge, that's why I'm not in favor of the death penalty.
Exactly.
imprisoning 1000 serial killers will kill each other
I'm against death penalty too, but it isn't about emotion. Some people may argue that it serves as revenge etc and those people are pro death penalty for all the wrong reasons. The fact is, a dead serial killer cannot kill anymore. He can escape from prison though.
@@aixide you can, with enough effort and money, make it impossible for someone to escape from prison. You can not, however, bring someone back to life if you kill someone who was wrongly convicted.
@@JG-ib7xk That is one of the reasons I am against death penalty.
I'm not on any principle opposed to the death penalty, particularly when the convict is given a fair trial and the crime is sufficiently evil. My problem is that the state gets it wrong too often. At least 5% of those given the death penalty are exonerated by DNA evidence after their execution. This is unacceptable to me.
That was in the 80s and 90s before the advent of new technologies. These days, it's virtually impossible.
5%, 2%, I don’t care. The fact is, that innocent people will be executed. If you think that people who commuted terrible crimes deserve to die, sure, but having a death penalty means innocent people will die. We don’t have to kill guilty people, but we do have to make sure that we don’t kill innocent people
*THE DEATH PENALTY was part of THE OLD COVENANT (that ENDED over 2000 years ago)*
*JESUS came to ESTABLISH the NEW COVENANT which REMOVED THOSE PUNISHMENTS*
*Read more for the scriptures:*
Romans 12:14, 17, 19
[14] Bless those who persecute you; bless and *do not curse.*
[17] *Do not repay anyone evil for evil.* Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone.
[19] *Do not take revenge,* my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.
1 Peter 3:9
*Do not repay evil with evil* or insult with insult. On the contrary, *repay evil with blessing,* because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.
Luke 6:31
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Matthew 5:7
Blessed are the *merciful,* for they will be shown *mercy.*
Romans 13:10
*Love does no harm* to a neighbor. Therefore *love* is the fulfillment of the law.
1 Peter 2:21, 23
[21] To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
[23] When they hurled their insults at him, *he did not retaliate;* when he suffered, *he made no threats.* Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
*Jesus declaring the NEW TESTAMENT law:* Matthew 5:38-39, 43-46
[38] “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’
[39] But I tell you, *do not resist an evil person.* If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
*THIS WAS OLD TESTAMENT:* Exodus 21:12
[12] “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.
[24] eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
@Živojin Limanić lol the death penalty is the ultimate sentencing of a human being on whether or not they deserve to die, and anti-whatever laws are entirely different things.
Wow 5%??
The discussion of life and death is truly hard, because our minds keep shifting between the fairness of a true society and pure philosophy
*THE DEATH PENALTY was part of THE OLD COVENANT (that ENDED over 2000 years ago)*
*JESUS came to ESTABLISH the NEW COVENANT which REMOVED THOSE PUNISHMENTS*
*Read more for the scriptures:*
Romans 12:14, 17, 19
[14] Bless those who persecute you; bless and *do not curse.*
[17] *Do not repay anyone evil for evil.* Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone.
[19] *Do not take revenge,* my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.
1 Peter 3:9
*Do not repay evil with evil* or insult with insult. On the contrary, *repay evil with blessing,* because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.
Luke 6:31
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Matthew 5:7
Blessed are the *merciful,* for they will be shown *mercy.*
Romans 13:10
*Love does no harm* to a neighbor. Therefore *love* is the fulfillment of the law.
1 Peter 2:21, 23
[21] To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
[23] When they hurled their insults at him, *he did not retaliate;* when he suffered, *he made no threats.* Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
*Jesus declaring the NEW TESTAMENT law:* Matthew 5:38-39, 43-46
[38] “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’
[39] But I tell you, *do not resist an evil person.* If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
*THIS WAS OLD TESTAMENT:* Exodus 21:12
[12] “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.
[24] eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
@@Outmageous what about those psychos that molest and torture little children before killing them, while admitting that the only way they will stop is if they are dead? Because those people exist. Doesn't seem like there's hope for such souls
Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can *you* give it to them?
god can sort them out for all I care
Mah nigga.
Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
totally bruh
False equivalence.
His english is amazing, tough to read at times (book)
Read Nietzsche
thats cause he is a true intellectual. he also read dostoevskij, nietzsche and jung pretty much entirely, and they are probably the best writers western civilization ever knew.
@@OltrePodcast_Official labeling people as “intelectuales” is so cringe
@@ThreshyNeonz well cringe or not it's a fact
"I talked about [this guy who was raped and abused as a child and grew up dedicated to destroying human civilisation] in the chapter about getting your house in order" Only Dr. Peterson could say that sentence completely seriously
The death penalty shouldnt be allowed bevause the judicial system makes a lot of mistakes.
You can unimprison someone. You can't unkill them.
laertes104
Yeah but if you happen to figure out somebody was innocent 10 years after a 30 year sentence you could potentially save them 20 more years in prison.
mystery guest often the mistake is NOT convicting the guilty and then they reoffend.
Anna Vajda id rather not conict someone who is guilty than convict someone who is innocent.
Ye when judicial system will put innocent person for life sentance than it changes whole story.
"If you have a daughter, mother, someone you love who's raped violently and you're not homicidally enraged by that, there's something wrong with you."
Try telling this to the men in Rotherham and Telford. Do they seem enraged enough to even protest, or take legal action?
they always listen to whatever they want to hear
Best argument against the death penalty I've heard.
I think it's completely reasonable to be wary of how powerful the government may be, so I agree.
So you probably never heard any argument against that
Watch Christopher Hitchens capital punishment argument, that’s definitely the best speech I have heard against capital punishment
If the state cannot provide justice, people tend to take it into their own hands and that's probably the best option, sometimes.
@@christopherhitchens163so basically the blood of the people is not that sacred in your countries no wonder you have high crime rates
This is precisely why we would need to construct a system where the evidence goes far beyond a reasonable doubt because we're deciding whether or not to take someone's life away. Cases like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Harold Shipman, etc. come to mind as examples of people, who with no question, deserve the death penalty.
Charles Manson?
@@johnnywetbrain He was a cult leader that convinced young impressionable people to commit a series of nine murders. He was originally given the death penalty but was changed to life because the state's penalty statute was invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Yeah I know but arguably insane and not the primary murderer you'd still give him the death penalty? The people who actually committed the murders get death to right? Or do they just get life. Ya know kinda the old "if someone told you to jump off a bridge" adage, you think this is really a crime warranting the DEATH PENALTY? An INSANE person tells someone to kill someone else?
@@johnnywetbrain He didn't just tell a couple of teenagers to kill people. He physically raised them, coerced them, manipulated them to do this. He showed absolutely no remorse and of not caught he would have led the massacre of 7 more victims. The question is when there is an authority complex such as this then the person ordering the acts are just as guilty as the one doing them. When Hitler ordered his soldiers to kill is Hitler at fault or his soldiers? Looking at his actions holistically and taking everything into consideration Charles Manson deserved the death penalty. He got lucky that the death penalty statue was invalidated by the Supreme Court b/c of some sort of legalities or else he would've been put to death.
@@usaherobrine Wait massacre of 7 other people? Didn't they all flee into the desert to look for an underground lake? And raise them? He lived with them on a ranch for a few years playing guitar, dropping acid and eating out of dumpsters... You're spinning this one like the prosecutor Begliosi, and you know prosecutors never ever lie to generate revenue for the state and win cases or anything like that. They're honest all the time like all lawyers!
I find it so bizarre that there is generally bipartisan opposition to the death penalty in most developed countries. I agree with Jordan 100% on this one!
Why is that bizarre? The death penalty is completely inhumane and barbaric. It has no place in this world anywhere, for any reason.
None of your loved ones have ever been murdered, have they?
To anyone here who believes that people are only evil because of external factors and that we're born inherently good: If everyone is born inherently good, then how did we ever come to live in an environment that is so evil? It's common for people to say that individuals are good, but it's "society" that causes the problem, but society is just a collection of individuals. How does putting a group of good individuals create an evil society?
It seems to me that the answer is simple: Mankind is naturally bent towards doing evil. Anyone who has raised children will tell you, you have to teach them to be honest, to play nicely, to keep their hands out the cookie jar etc. The brutal truth is that deception and malevolence will come naturally to a child with time, you don't need to teach them to cheat, steal or lie for example.
wars, the good die, the bastards and cowards live
also thiefs manage to become the ruling class, and when you are ruled by criminals what you expect the society will become?
But if people are inherently good there should be no wars or thieves. A group of good people should create a good society. If there are problems in a society then the problems come from the people, It's not rocket science.
limited resources
you can either die or choose to kill the other take his food and survive
and the good is self preservation
it is also legal to kill in self defence, why because your life comes first over someone else
but to make the conversation short if people are raised bad then you create criminals, and there a few cases of people just born bad
C C Animals rape and murder, what's the difference. We just have a brain that allows us to do it in creative ways. Evil is a word created by humans to control the actions of other humans. We don't control the behaviour of lions and monkeys, is what they do evil?
Slick Boy D Whats species got to do with anything. Food, sex and shelter, those are the basic needs of all animals and we are all Animals. Is that concept lost on you?
I think some of you guys miss a critical point here:
- He's *not* saying that the state should take an eye for an eye *because* it's the ethical thing to do.
- He's *not* arguing in favor of the death penalty as a deterrent.
- He's *not* arguing in favor of the death penalty as a matter of public safety.
- He *is* arguing that it's for stability of our societial structure.
The only reason the legal system works is because the citizens have given their "rights for revenge" over to the state. People follow the law as long as it "rights the wrongs" for them. For example, if your loved ones were tortured, and the punishment for that was one million USD to the perpetrator, you can be damn sure that people would dole out punishment themselves.
One of the most, if not the most, fundamental function of the justice system is to keep the victims from taking revenge.
Having said that, I'm against the death penalty because of fear of a corrupt state.
But the issue should not be seen only through the retribution vision, because the function of punishment is not only to prevent private revenge, but also to prevent danger to happen or happen again, thus punishment must have a deterrence and incapacitation goal, the best remains to limit social exclusion, actually the infuence of the retribution theory in criminal systems can be very undesirable, and we definitely can see it in the USA where the system is tough, and quite inefficient. I understand that some people are not curable but it is a minority, actually most people in prison are not here for a violent offence. The role of the state is also to rationalize.
"Having said that, I'm against the death penalty because of fear of a corrupt state."
I am going to assume you are a leftist
@@alexanderg8466 Are you being sarcastic?
@@alexanderg8466 Isn’t it the left that advocates a stronger, central government? Which then leads to advocating a corrupt state, since corruption is practically everywhere?
It feels strange, but this is maybe the first major issue where I disagree with Dr. Peterson. To me, the argument that the state makes mistakes is a strong argument, but ethically I just can't justify killing someone (who is essentially another victim of their own psychological pathology) when the option to safely contain them exists. And if the state is prepared to pay $20million to kill someone, they can certainly pay a lesser amount to keep them alive until they eventually die.
To kill someone who is currently presenting an immediate lethal threat to others is one thing but to kill with the motivation of revenge (even under the name of 'justice' or 'law and order') is one of the worst things a person can possibly do, and in it will affect a population collectively who are actively engaged in it.
I have a better idea, The worst offenders should be placed into a cement room 24/7 for the rest of their lives. No visitation rights, no mail, no books, NOTHING!!!!!! Just a bed, toilet and sink.
If you've caught a killer (James Bond villains withheld) you can definitely produce a more adequate punishment without risk by keeping them alive, rather then immediately relieving them of their illness just because they noticed for a second. They notice plenty. Habitual killers of men are seldom ignorant of their wrongdoing, they just choose their own release or power over the lives of others. These kinds of people, along with sexual abusers, are usually the hardest people to "cure" or rehabilitate for their crimes.
Whereas most of the people taking our taxes in prison could be totally set straight in a different socioeconomic system, repeaters of truly sadistic crimes should not be allowed to sleep peacefully, let alone die early. If you want revenge, live better.
"Better" doesn't mean wondering if some vengeful family member will wire C4 to your ignition, or living with even the most righteous of kills. It's hard to do, killing anyone, I assure you. Unless perhaps you're already on your way to being the psychopath, you will feel something afterwards. It's much more calming to let the whole of humanity sort it out, but they're screwing up by murdering murderers and thinking they can wash their hands of it. Go find a penitentiary executioner and tell me you don't see a troubled person. Which, to clarify, just because they're okay with what they're doing, does not mean they're not troubled. Sometimes those are exactly the people with sociopathic tendencies you need to worry about. I'm sure you're aware of people who look for jobs involving hurting others for the sake of hurting others. You get the cool calm executioner like that or the guy living with guilt, or some blend. That's career killers on the whole.
I think it's best to utilize the death penalty upon the person's consent. I think that the motivation to contain-someone-as-they-do until death is irrational if by the person's own opinion, their life has no point. And if they truly see their remaining time of life as so, then I cannot see the point in sustaining the person all the way up until they die.
People get stuck on this "deserving" part, because there are various interpretations of what death is. The objective truth is that death isn't anything at all. Dead people don't care what anyone thinks, nor about what they themselves thought when they were still alive. There is no such thing as deserving death, as deserving is a concept of the living.
And on the other end, life too has various interpretations as well. The guy next to you probably holds the value of life in a different regard. Does this mean that one of you is more right than the other? Objectively, no. Whether life is too meaningful to end or not meaningful enough to preserve is absolutely and entirely subjective towards each and every single one of us.
We should be basing our decisions of death off of observable effects that the one person's death has in relation to us as a society, and we should also (at least somewhat) consider if the person sentenced to death believes if the remaining rest of their life is worth living or not. Of course though, the person should not be executed instantly, as this is no minor matter that should reach conclusions rashly.
He said that there are things for which the proper penalty is death. That isn't exactly the same thing as saying another human should kill them for it. There are many arguments against that. But let's say we were built in such a way that once our sub-conscious registered a sufficient level of evil on out part, it shut us down, and the level was well calibrated to be reasonable, maybe would re-zero now and again if we made progress. I wouldn't have a problem with that. But would I kill a person in cold blood, should anyone be the tool that brings an end to another person in cold blood. Should they indulge their anger.
I was really impressed by the Amish who came to the woman whose husband had murdered a boatload of Amish children, and reached out to her pain, that is really the kind of Petersonian approach he would normally support. I would have no problem gunning down a gunman though.
michaelq
If it me or “him”, I’ll chose me every time. Criminals make conscious decisions.
I'm 60 seconds into the video and Peterson already gave a much deeper and reasonable answer than basically anyone else I've even listened talking about this topic. Damn I love when people use 99% logic in their arguments.
I didn't know you purely spoke to toddlers
What reason did Peterson use? What rational justification is he using?
He isn’t. He’s just appealing to your emotions and counting on you not thinking about anything too deeply.
That is exactly how I feel about the death penalty, but I never really put the words together. Spot on.
Wow, for years I thought exactly the same way, there are crimes that clearly are up for death penalty and society is not prepared to do away with it, my only problem always was giving the state such power ... And here comes Jordan hitting the nail in the head
get this anime shit out of my life
NandATo p0rtis-SAn? ^^
So it's in your life?
Why-ever did you allow it in your life?
If you want it out of your life, all you have to do is to simply pay no mind to it.
get it out
+T'was an old username and I'll change it soon.
He invited it in and let it have its way with him.
hahah xD
Death Penalty
-costs more
-is indefinite, you can't bring a dead person back to life if they are found to be innocent
+makes sure no crime can never be commited again by the executed person
-the criminal has no chance to regret his crimes, or think about what he has done, it's the "easy way out"
Life imprisonment
+costs less
+is NOT indefinite, if a mistake is made (which happens a lot) the damage can be
-there is a chance that the criminal comes free, although this chance is really small
+the criminal has a chance to realize that what he has done is bad and better himself (although he will never come free again)
Vengeance is no argument, it's irrational.
Yes thank you
Costs less?
@@johnthomson2377 with a detailed penalty you'd need to pay for the persons last meal, the equipment used to kill him and where to kill him. It would be better to just lock them in a jail sell
@@Mewdo45 a nice meal and some chemicals (not that I believe in lethal injection) would not be as expensive as supporting meals, medicine and cell space for what would likely be many many more years.
how can killing someone be more expensive than having to feed them for 30+years?? What is the math behind this??
Lol he's so passionate about that topic
Yeah, why wouldn’t you be. If you agree with it one side says you agree with murder people but if you disagree with it the other side says you support murderers.
@@abelsm6270 Ehhh, that's not that simple
@@akpade you must've never been on Reddit lol
@@abelsm6270 Wdym ?
@@akpade that's how EVERYONE reacts on Reddit. It's either you're a murderer or support murderers
Why can't people understand that rape is not anywhere near the level of murder for severity?
The danger in this cult of Peterson (of which I'm a member!) is, you encourage him to pretend he's an expert outside psychology. ; /
There is that risk, though 1) he is an expert outside of Psychology, in the academic sense, since he teaches courses, and has published a book that is used in courses, in other subjects, like cultural studies, religion, and Philosophy; 2) Subjects like this one require an understanding of more than one issue. One might conclude that from a Psych perspective it would help to kill murderers, but it might still be unethical; 3) the bar to being an expert in court is incredibly low. You can write a few weekend courses and get certified, just in case anyone is confusing the legal and academic meanings of the term.
The key is not that he shouldnt be asked about his opinion on matters or that he shouldnt freely express his opinions on a variety of issues outside his specific field of expertise (of which this particular matter is closer than most). He is neither encouraged to pretend, nor do the interviewers set him up to be an expert. He of course preface the answer with "i have done reading" which is to ground the matter in at least some education, but no claim of expertise is made. People just want to know his opinion, just like if I ask you what your personal opinion on this matter you wouldn't say I am not an expert and therefore I am not at liberty to have or express said opinion. The important thing is when people listen their understanding should be mediated by the fact that he is not an expert.
I think he IS an expert in many things outside of psychology. At least comparatively to the people who are actually involved in decision making regarding policy in the US (and other countries) he knows a lot. And who else is better at offering expertise regarding the human condition than an accomplished psychologist?
What makes an expert? I reckon that would be my first question.
Agreed. I like Peterson but I don't like him being turned into some sage celebrity that everyone just follows blindly. It's the same thing that happened with Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye, now they've become repulsive arrogant shmucks.
How do you teach society to stop killing eachother by killing? The example given in this video is a guy who was so angry due to the massive abuse he had experienced as a child that he caused mayhem and wanted to strangle the whole world in one hit - So we go right ahead and take the abuse to the ultimate extreme and kill him - Awesome logic. Then in another video this guy starts telling us to be lead by the bible - Does he fucking know that it states perfectly clearly in the 10 commandments - 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' I started watching this dude because I was told he was highly intelligent and all I've heard is contradictions and not one single solution to one damn problem.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Absolutely and exactly to the point.
The observation that there are some people who would be best off eradicated from existence and the notion that the State should have the power to impose the death penalty are two separate things.
Where my wife comes from, people do Eye for eye themselves. Contacting the authorities just brings attention and gets you in trouble.
I cannot quite believe my ears when Peterson makes the emotional argument. Of course everyone closely related to a victim of murder or violent rape would want to probably kill the perpetrator, but that is exactly why they don't get to choose the fate of the perpetrator, the judge does.
The state is there to reason logically and rationally as to what a person's punishment should be.
My problem is that "reason and logic" is based on an emotional response to the crime. God, I hate the death penalty.
@@avivastudios2311 me too
Dude I like Anime and all but that outro really doesn't fit with this type of a video.
@John Snowman mine is pre time-skip one piece
so... he's not ok with giving the state the power over life and death... but he's ok with giving the state the power to lock you up and throw away the key for life imprisonment? seems morally inconsistent to me. To me, it seems like if you are ok with throwing someone in prison for life, you should also be ok with just ending it quickly.
The death penalty is one of the few actions our bloated government should have. Under close, careful scrutiny and constant review and triple checked and audited.
Still room for error. After death, there’s no going back from making mistakes
Did the question get answered or avoided? Who should administer the punishment if not the state?
I definitely agree with Jordan on this.
Although, I do think with those irredeemable crimes, we might as well give the person a choice between life in prison and the death penalty - their life is basically forfeit anyway.
to be honest, I think giving them a life long sentence is a lot better since they're actually being punished rather than painlessly passing away, if that makes sense? I don't really see many people saying this but it's basically a gift for them, they commit horrific crimes and face no consequences, if I was violently raped I wouldn't sleep well knowing the offerder got away with it, where's the pain on their side? It's not equal
@@Rh-sl2kt l also kind of support your statement too
the reason l also support a life sentence for these types of crimes is to put the criminal into a stable mental condition and make them repent and redeem themselves instead of leaving the world with less and giving back(i.e. community service and labor once he /she is in a stable mental condition)
l'm still hard on crime but just not the death penalty part
If they choose death.. they're escaping
I have no objection to death penalty, but prison scares me. It's the most cruel way of completely, slowly and systematically destroying a person.
well it depends on why we punish people, is it justice or to prevent further criminality?
Both
@@quentinhoward99 today's criminal system doesn't do both, it doesn't prevent further criminality
@@marcof.5492 Im sure you would know.
I live in an European country and our justice system does neither of those things. Sentences are laughable at best. Most of the criminals WILL offend again, given the opportunity, so I say let's punish them so severely, that they wouldn't get the that opportunity ever again. In simple terms - death penalty and life-long or several life-long sentences, therefore no possibility of parole. That is the justice that keeps citizens from becoming vigilantes and deal out the punishment themselves. The citizens cannot be expected to stay sheep-like civilized if they see the injustice of the criminals leaving the prison just a few years after they killed/raped. This sends a horrible message - it's ok to be a criminal, you won't be punished as much as you deserve so why not break the law, right? Wrong.
I think you mean prevention vs revenge. Because if its revenge we shouldn't do i.
That's why I dont like the death penalty cause I see it as revenge.
Death penalty, if truly shown to be significantly effective in crime deterrence has an obvious application in society.
Death penalty that chases ‘justice’ in the form of revenge makes total sense to me from an empathetic standpoint of the victim and the family. But this alone doesn’t accomplish anything at all except quenching a sadistic thirst for vengeance (unless, again and of course, it is truly proven to significantly be deter crimes).
If the death penalty doesn’t deter crimes, it is in humane and exactly the same in principle as the criminal themselves.
If there’s crimes that warrant death, there’s crimes that warrant torture with the end goal of death. Honestly simple as that.
Even following this you can go talk about the philosophy of why people make the actions that they do. Whether they have free will, this, that.
Yeah if someone killed a loved one of mine I would be enraged to the point that I wish I could kill them. But I think that if I can step back from that, even killing the perpetrator can never make me feel whole again. So this leads me to believe that it’s just wrong.
I think the ultimate answer lies within yourself. Whether the perpetrator is killed or not, ultimately the victims family is going to have to find peace within themselves.
While violent rape might be deserving of the death penalty, pragmatically speaking the only crime to which it can be applied is murder. This is because if the rapist is going to die anyway, he might as well kill his victim and leave no witnesses, thus making it less likley that he would face at least some justice rather than more.
*THE DEATH PENALTY was part of THE OLD COVENANT (that ENDED over 2000 years ago)*
*JESUS came to ESTABLISH the NEW COVENANT which REMOVED THOSE PUNISHMENTS*
*Read more for the scriptures:*
Romans 12:14, 17, 19
[14] Bless those who persecute you; bless and *do not curse.*
[17] *Do not repay anyone evil for evil.* Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone.
[19] *Do not take revenge,* my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.
1 Peter 3:9
*Do not repay evil with evil* or insult with insult. On the contrary, *repay evil with blessing,* because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.
Luke 6:31
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Matthew 5:7
Blessed are the *merciful,* for they will be shown *mercy.*
Romans 13:10
*Love does no harm* to a neighbor. Therefore *love* is the fulfillment of the law.
1 Peter 2:21, 23
[21] To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
[23] When they hurled their insults at him, *he did not retaliate;* when he suffered, *he made no threats.* Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
*Jesus declaring the NEW TESTAMENT law:* Matthew 5:38-39, 43-46
[38] “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’
[39] But I tell you, *do not resist an evil person.* If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
*THIS WAS OLD TESTAMENT:* Exodus 21:12
[12] “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.
[24] eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
I totally agree with this man. Even if there’s a criminal who deserves death, no one has the authority to bring them death penalty, including the state. People make mistakes, and the state is a form of those people. Giving them such power to decide someone’s fate is definitely something I would never want to see.
Do you think they should’ve let Ted Bundy live?
@@jobthanxx Me personally, yes.
Modern day science and technology like DNA testing and CCTV allow an incredibly high level of accuracy when establishing someone's guilt. Some criminals simply should not be allowed to live. I prefer the hypothetical, potential threat that is produced by the state having the power to execute sentenced violent criminals, than the very real threat that violent criminals themselves pose to society.
Murder is murder, state or otherwise
Ofc you cant have the death penalty without a proper independent judiciary system, and I don't think anyone argues for death penalty should be given in any way lightly or to be commonplace.
But there is undeniably cases where you are certain of guilt beyond doubt, I suppose breivik is one of the more famous relatively resent examples.
And it can be argued that with an armed police force you actually have a form of death penalty, exercised by the state, without any jury or process.
It is also a deterrent on a completely different level then prison, Singapore for example is one of the safest cities in the world, transformed by the death penalty that have very high support among the population.
a state policy that predictably lead to the death of innocent people is parole of convicted murdered, who re-offend.
I would not say I have a decided view on the issue, but I'm open to it.
Historically it have of course been predominantly misused by tyrants.
I think it should definitely not be an emotional argument with, and there is of course a surrounding context.
I recommend Peter Hitchens for a reasoned argument for death penalty.
A great counter argument would be that the state should not have the that kind of power.
Nah, I disagree. Death penalty is wrong and has no place in a civilised society. I used to support it a couple of years ago but now I have completely opposed to it.
Anything the state does requires responsibility, watchdogging, and fair, consistent, predictable rules, whether it's imprisonment or execution, or for that matter taxation, spending, regulatory rules, or civil rights. Mistakes will be made; we're obligated to do our best to avoid or correct them but it's unrealistic to think we can succeed all the time. We paralyze ourselves with the notion that we can't afford to make mistakes if the issue is execution.
Execution or any criminal penalty as justice is a poorly formed idea, since it doesn't really resolve the problems suffered by the victims. Nor is the threat of execution preventive. If it was, 32 states would have hardly any inmates on death row. Actual execution is preventive, of course, when the person being executed is such a seriously damaged individual that there's no chance of rehabilitation. These are typically the people sitting on death row now.
A civilized society cannot afford a seriously violent criminal running amok, ruining the lives of productive, law abiding citizens. When our prison system is overcrowded and, say, a serial rapist or a pedophile is released, when crimes holding life sentences are plead down to lesser crimes, when the criminally violent inmates traumatize other, non-violent inmates, when we're slowing and clogging the court systems to the point that criminal issues drag on for years, we're essentially choosing to sacrifice the well being of society because we can't abide the idea that prevention is more important than punishment.
You could just keep that criminal locked up till death - that would be a much harsher punishment than death. Death is easy.
BS - guards have guns and the inmates are in cuffs most of the time at max sec. If an inmate dies, thats just one of the possible consequences of breaking the law
Uuuh, we have one of 'em smart college people in the comments. I have never met someone that goes to college - i will worship you as a good ol' wise one.
That being said, the state should not have the right to sentence people to death... if they kill other prisoner then that is the fault and responsibilities of the people in charge of that prison - do better.
But what do i know, I'm just a normal guy - not some kind of smart-ass elitist college cunt that thinks they know shit about the world.
Sorry, leaving now - have real life shit to do kid, enjoy college. You need it.
"We paralyze ourselves with the notion that we can't afford to make mistakes"
And that's the long and short of it.
Even considering the alleged mistakes, however, there is not a single proven case of someone being wrongly executed in America in the past century. Not one. That's not to say there necessarily weren't any, but it's evidently a negligible amount if so; and it ultimately saves a lot more lives and improves quality of life all round.
@@euphoricatheist6694 Well, the last part of your statement is not clear. Compared with criminal justice systems that have thrown the death penalty out of the window, America has much more crime. There is no clear evidence that execution is a better deterrent than life-long imprisonment. Execution is expensive because you have higher requirements than for normal imprisonments and you have to wait between sentencing and execution, in case new evidence turns up. Only through these precautions, it is possible to have a negligible amount of mistakes made. Of course, there are a lot of criticisms one can bring up against the American criminal justice system, from its private prisons that do not rehabilitate people who committed minor offences, like non-violent robberies or possession of illegal substances, to the ridiculously long and overcomplicated trials, to the way judges/prosecutors are elected... The death penalty is not effective, and it bears a high risk of abuse so I would say it should be abolished as long as it is not proven useful.
I'm not a fan of the death penalty because I don't think revenge is justice, and the death penalty seems to be mostly about getting revenge. I think when someone commits a horrible act, imprisoning them in a humane way is the just (as in restoring balance) thing to do.
It's not revenge, its due punishment. If I killed an innocent person I would expect death in return. Death row inmates are not meant to become martyrs.
@@gmize78 it's revenge because punishment is supposed to condition someone to behave better. Killing them doesn't serve that purpose.
@@raiden031 So convicted murderers now deserve "do overs"? Just kill people but no worries..you (the offender) still get to go on living & breathing..how is that justice for the victims?
@@raiden031 Really? If someone murders an innocent person what are you going to teach them. That they have been a naughty boy? That killing a human is wrong? Justice ISN'T Revenge.
I love the guys who follow the bible and are up their asses on forgiveness are also so delighted to justify the death penalty.
Most of them haven't actually read a word of the book
@@samuelsanchez4020 And the ones who do need to cherry pick
I dont think Peterson is religious but yes. You make a good point. You cannot sit there on your high horse talking about what it good and then condemn people to death.
As many people who were sentenced to life that turned out to be innocent, I'd hate to find out how many people we've sentenced to death that were innocent.
I really don’t understand why we can’t just keep firing squads, bullets don’t cost too much.
Random Crusader yep. If you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, bullet time.
The money you would save on a firing squad vs lethal injection is irrelevant compared to the money spent on the trial, and you HAVE to spend a lot of money on the trial.
the means to execute isn't even remotely the source of the cost of execution
or just toss ‘em into a gator-infested swamp.
Gabriel Fraser So you’re saying we should have no trial? and just shoot the criminals even When the case havent been thoroughly investigated?
I am against the death penalty because we should not have the right to decide that someone should die just because we dont want them around anymore. That is a sad way to look at things.
Your life is valuable until people are horrified at you. I don't like it all.
Maybe I'm just a complete idiot but that's just not reasonable to me.
3. th-cam.com/video/TDLMUvIkKPQ4/w-d-xo.html
I believe that death penalty is better than the rest of a life in prison aging inside there like a captured animal that is difficult.And many prisoners seek execution because of that
Chris Kokolios it is worst, but there is a tiny possibility of reformation
I agree to this. Another form of mercy killing. It is baffling how some do not see this ?
That's an argument in favor of giving prisoners a choice of euthanization rather than life in jail, it's not an argument in favor of the death penalty.
I think prison is better
one things for sure, the death penalty isn't working and prison does not work either. this all needs to be revisited
What’s the difference between giving the state power to lock you down in a small square dark room for all your life vs death?
This is a beautifully balanced article. I've listened to Dennis Prager's argument, which was compelling, BUT my gut instinct, not logic, told me there was something wrong with it (Yet I agree with most of his views). I thank Jordan for the simple statement 'Should we give the state that power'. We know how corrupt any state can become. so it's a resounding NO. Jordan is right on this one.
He's right, but I can't fathom for someone so driven by morals that he does not make the case against it on a moral basis.
The problem is that giving any entity, whether it be the government or something else, the power to decide life and death is inherently too much power.
I wonder where Petersons philosophy fits in with things like redemption
The state has the power to protect society from criminals. It shouldn't have the power to judge their souls or take their souls.
Jordan Peterson says if you've had a loved one who has experienced a heinous crime and you're not "homicidally enranged" that something is wrong with you. Okay, while it may be true that these feelings exist, does that make it moral to act violently in retribution in a situation where it is possible the offender will never be a threat to people again, i.e. they're in jail for life? Not necessarily. This is the height of arguing from emotions instead of logic. He says its the state's job to take the burden of anger away from victims, but sneaks in that the punishment should be death without justifying it with a logical reason.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Thank you. He's basically saying that its the states job to kill people that we are angry at. I just cant stand that "logic."
I doubt it's up to Man to decide Man's death. Why kill? For vengeance? Taking a life is not justice, it's an atrocious act. It's not Good to hate, no matter the circumstance. It's just not good for oneself and it's not good for humanity. It seems right but it just is not. That's what's so challenging about it. What good can come of hate?
I think he's just saying that sometimes it's right if nothing can be done to help a person too far gone and a humane end to that person's life might be the best thing for that person and the world.
Perhaps, but I have hope that we will get to a point where we won't feel that the best response is to give up, on anyone. I think most people can be worked on or at least studied. I also believe having such a hope is healthy.
I think that anyone can still benefit society. We could give bad criminals intense labour that would benefit us all. Make them work in a place thats useful where they cannot hurt people. That would be very good. We need every able body helping us.
I agree with Peterson on this. In one hand, there are crimes where nothing below a death penalty would suffice. On the other hand, who is able to give such judgment? It's one thing to restrict someone's freedom for 10, 20, 30, maybe 50 years, it's another to end their life. And then you add the state to the equation, and now you need to consider the risk of allowing the state to effectively decide who should live or die.
Whats the song at the end?
7 Flechas e o Roi Lagarto by Bike
"If someone close to you is raped or murdered and you aren't homicidally enraged by that there is something wrong with you"
The emotion is natural, the act of going through with it is a separate matter altogether. Justice and revenge aren't the same thing.
I disagree. What if I'm just sad?
Wtf why is that at the end of the video lol, that makes no sense ahahah "hey im gonna put up a clip of a serious discussion and then chuck some weeb shit at the end cus its cool"
Cheaper to throw them in a cage for the rest of their life, it is not a deterrent, and the state makes mistakes and in general has incompetent people in it's employ. Get rid of the death penalty.
I get excited when people who are more intelligent than me come to exactly the same conclusion. It's almost as though I'm not a complete fuckin' moron.
Ok, so who should have the right to place the penalty of death to that person that has warranted death? If not the state then who? If you don't give the state that power then who?
NO ONE!!
And if you say otherwise you clearly haven't watched death note.
IMO people hold Peterson a bit on too high of a pedestal. Hes very intelligent no doubt but its kind of irritating how often he states his personal opinions or various (at first glance and on the surface sure) extrapolations as facts. Hes masterful at rationalizing because hes extremely knowledgable so he can of course quite easily corner someone and make them seem like theyre wrong even if theyre not. And claims like "if youre not homicidaly enraged if someones did this horrible thing to your mother , somethings very wrong with you", are plain stupid.
Exactly! He edges away from logic and into dogmatic and morally absolute, which seems very unlike what you would expect from a clinical psychologist.
@Ch2149
Or maybe you are not brainwashed by society the same way that everyone else is, feed with guilt and anger as main triggers since birth.
I think that the death penalty gives the state and society the ability to sweep the problem of these violent crimes under the carpet. I don’t think that a painless death deters anyone from murder, or any other violence. I agree with the idea that some people who’ve committed these crazy crimes couldn’t handle being alive, but the death penalty is often just a way for those still alive to dehumanized the convicted, and further themselves from the idea of the committed crime, so that they can live happily in believing they themselves are incapable of such things, and that the criminal is inhuman
He is human to his family
I AM 100% AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY...
Me too.
Me too
If a government decides to have a death penalty it should only be done on hard evidence. No circumstantial stuff, credible witnesses, damning proof, the kind of stuff that takes a jury 10 seconds to deliberate. Too many people have been exonerated, and we can then assume have died or are going to because of 'good enough' evidence. That's unacceptable, a death sentence should be rock fucking solid.
I disagree with Peterson on this. Carl Panzram was not BORN evil. It seemed from environmental factors he became increasingly unhappy to the point where he WANTED to be killed so that he could be put out of his misery. I suggest that if he built up to his psychotic mania then he could be reversed out of it. However, Peterson gives up on Panzram due to what I see as an overly moralistic emotional argument.
Yes it is easy to get emotional - disturbed - by what Panzram did, but that is not a good basis from which to have him murdered.
The notion that Panzram's sadistic nature and his overwhelming hatred for humanity could be reformed is a vast oversimplification. Panzram himself said that he never wishes to reform and that "the only way to reform people is to kill them." His entire being centered around a desire to exterminate humanity. I don't think that kind of mentality could ever be changed. I think you're underestimating evil.
jeff George even if what you're saying is correct he doesn't change the fact that a lot of people go through horrible s*** as kids and they don't become killers. In fact most don't. Therefore there's something about the person intrinsic inside of them that allows this to happen. You can spend a lifetime trying to reform them and nothing might ever come of it. Furthermore you not considering Justice for the family of the victim. A person who causes tremendous pain and loss for a family.... they deserve to be able to rest and sleep at night knowing that person is gone, and not someday possibly being paroled decades later
That some can handle being abandoned by their parents, raped, tortured, gang raped and beaten is also not their own doing. Obviously a child experiencing these things only have what their environment has given, maybe Panzram by genetics and nurture simply didn't have the fortitude to not carry the pain without inflicting it on others. Does Panzram deserve to be punished by death for not being a strong enough child? what kind of demand is that on a 12 year old? It's just moral (un)luck. I personally don't think anyone *deserves* either punishment nor praise, but rather that punishment and praise are usefull tools to encourage/discourage certain behaviours towards a common good. Therefore it makes no sense in my view to motivate any punishment by what the criminal "deserves". At least seriously attempting rehabilitation is the only rational solution, followed by potentially indefinite incarceration when rehabilitation is not possible(depending on the crime of course), but never death.
The family of victims do not deserve the death of the criminal, that is that same logic people use for vendettas and honor killings. An adjustable and potentially changing feeling can not justify a permanent death, families should receive help moving on and managing their emotions.
The motives behind his argument are no less moralistic and emotional than your desire to preserve the continued existence of an inhuman predator.
Let's reframe the question. Why shouldn't he be murdered?
The death penalty should only be allowed when there is unequivocal, irrefutable evidence that the accused is guilty, video evidence, or multiple eye witnesses and dna evidence.
Video Evidence can be tampered with extremely easily. Deep fakes can allow anyone to make a video of anyone committing a crime.
Eye witness is not reliable. psychologists have proven that human memory is extremely flawed and not a valid way of “Proving” details
DNA evidence is not reliable also. If a girl says she was raped when it was consensual than you can use DNA evidence to “prove” a rape which didn’t happen.
Outro song name?
My note pertaining to the following … what then was Upper Canada, is now the province of Ontario.
John Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister of Canada, and the following is from the book titled “ONE CANADA … memoirs of the right honorable John G. Diefenbaker.” ... Great-grandfather told my mother a story of life in the early 1830s which I have always found instructive. The greatest celebration of all in Upper Canada one that brought all the people together within a reasonable distance, was a public execution. He himself had been present at one. The pioneers arrived a day ahead for the festivities. With whiskey selling at less than a dollar a gallon, liquor became a source not only of exhilaration but of inspiration for the assembled, enabling them the more to enjoy the spectacle. The condemned man was a teenager whose offence had been pickpocketing. The death penalty was then imposed for some fifty or sixty offences. The law was less harsh than it had been: no longer were prisoners drawn and quartered. But the theory was that punishment must be imposed so that the criminal would understand the gravity of the sin he had committed. Also, deterrence was then the argument and still is among those who advocate capital punishment. On this occasion, the young man made a speech in the traditional style of condemned criminals in Upper Canada: he admitted his guilt and asked forgiveness. He was not restricted to a fixed length of time, since time really meant nothing. While he was making his testimony of guilt, four of the assembled pioneers found that their pockets had been picked.
14. th-cam.com/video/TDLMUvIkKPQ/w-d-xo.html
Life is unique & from God. No person or government should be able to take that from anyone. I'm pro-life & anti death penalty.
so your tell me if someone kill someone you love they should go to prison ,still breathing and eat meal 3 time a day when your love one is in the ground rotting ? Your tell me your love ones life worth 15 to what ever years the murder receives
@@paynenation8871
10. th-cam.com/video/TDLMUvIkKPQ7/w-d-xo.html5
A life sentence allows a miscarriage of justice to be reversed. You can free a man from jail. You can't free a man from death. That alone is sufficient argument for never allowing the death penalty.
Yes! Taking away something that you cannot return is so cruel.
But again, you can't compensate for the time they spent in prison
The death penalty should be reserved for POLITCiANS AND THE CORRUPT
HANG THEM IN PUBLIC
Which character is pictured bottom left at 2:04?
Those psychopaths are interesting, not things to burn. You can get so much information and wicked creativity out of them. They are a source for strange ideas that lived and not someone's fantasy.
Well... that's another angle I guess. Not a bad idea. 😁😁
His argument about the abused man seemed extremely flawed. He says the man did everything to deserve it but gave no real acknowledgement to the fact that society had made him both a victim and a criminal and that society should carry some of that responsibility rather than play judge and jury. He assumes an absolute morality when surely morals are all relative to how we operate and to the culture we live in.
i totally understand that a guy would rather die that year than live 50 more in a jail cell, which is why if the crime is worse enough, give the criminal the death penalty when he begs for life and give him life in prison when he begs for death. some criminals just dont deserve to get what they want
That doesn’t always hold up, someone can use reverse psychology
@@nadewaslagter1058 then don't publish what happens to the guy afterwards and no one will figure it out
We know that around 1 of every 20 death row inmates have or would have been exonerated, according to several studies. Their deaths invalidate any idea of the death penalty being "just".
I think that death panelty is an act of mercy,
Rapists and murdrers don't deserve to be treates like human beings, of course if they are regretting it and feel remorseful about it, then a long timr in prison would be appropiate, but I want you all to think
How would you behave if someone you loved deeply, someone you know that was innocent, someone you deey cared about, was murdrered, and the one who did so got away with just imprisonment
I would grieve for my loved one like crazy, probably forever. Feel furious. Go for therapy or find community. Would hope that the State would provide rehabilitation for the criminal and also look into how to build more equitable and sustainable societies from a young age, a society that works for us not against us.
I disagree with that, death is a terrible waste of resources that could be used elsewhere and for what, just to appease own sense of self-righteousness that is just own front to blood lust. It would be more beneficial to force them to labor or conduct experimentation on them. Not to mention death is just easy way out.
Forced labor for life and inhumane experimentation would both be considered worse than a death sentence, and it's sincerely disgusting that you think that way. Also, the justice system is used for two things - prevention and revenge. Preventing people who have committed crimes for a certain amount of time, and exacting a sufficient punishment on behalf of all the people who were hurt. If your entire family was murdered but the killer was put in a nice jail where they spend all day baking cookies and pillow fighting you would probably feel like the system failed you.
That's the point, death is easy way out. I'm not big fan of people using word inhumane as an argument because such statement can be thrown at any sort of act they don't deem to be least harmful, it's same argument that can be made against capital punishment. I disagree about what justice system is about, at least modern justice system. With prevention I agree but revenge isn't part of justice system, hence family/friends have no bearing on sentence given to offender and it is irrelevant whether they feel punishment was sufficient or not.Assuming I would agreed with revenge being part of our justice system, then making punishment for offender worse would constitute more effective revenge. If they put people in nice jail making them comfortable then it wouldn't be very efficient way to prevent people from causing crimes in first place.
I'm simply pragmatic with my solution and don't waste resources that could be used elsewhere, if you were planing to killing them anyway, it isn't like you cared about them anyway.
Ah, ladies and gentlemen... here we have the "easy way out" argumenter. The person who is no different than the people who have committed the crimes horrible enough to _deserve_ death (to deserve death by the court, not via my personal opinion).
I can't see the difference between you and them. Why do you think putting them to work is any more right and just than putting them to death? (To answer that, you don't care about what's _right_ or _just_ because to be honest, those are concepts you don't really understand.) Because it's maximizing resources?
If you wanna go by your logic of maximizing every potential resource, then I hope you're a saint yourself, sacrificing every blood sweat and tear of yours for the betterment of the population. Do that first, then you can pretend like you are in a position to decide what should happen. You yourself are a resource, so make sure you don't waste that resource!
I'm missing the point of your post, you didn't exactly refute "easy way out" argument. Are you implying I'm no different that the people that committed those crimes, it's not true as I didn't commit those crimes and it's on basis of those crimes they are being sentenced. Not to mention who deserves what is a matter of opinion, some may argue that death is too lenient, while others that it's too harsh depending on their views.
Edit: As you edited your post I will address edited part. I explained why, it helps utilize resource instead just wasting it what is done either for sake of anger/revenge/blood-lust (I will address it next) and convenience/pragmatism by getting rid of the problem instead dealing with them as with everyone, if you are willing to kill someone out of convenience I don't see why not be more pragmatic about it.As for a punishment aspect, as I explained death is quite easy way out and if you desire criminal to pay "fate worse than death" would fill role of desire for severe punishment. You are right that I don't understand them, or at least not in a sense you do, I see those concepts nothing more than an opinion, hence no one can agree what righteousness/justice constitute and ultimately comes off as way of saying "I'm right, you wrong".
Not every potential resource, just defective ones (criminals) that caused damage to society by committing criminal act.
The "easy way out" argument is an easy one to understand. I can't explain it as well as the others do in the comment section - they're there though if you look at em. Essentially though, if it don't want someone to have, as you put it, "the easy way out", then you instead want them to suffer for whatever reason that you have. Well, if you want other people to suffer (without a sense of rehabilitation), then you're not really such a good person yourself. Jordan Peterson would tell you that your potential to be as harmful and wicked as certain people (like what happened in Nazi Germany or in the Soviet Union) can very much be realized. And considering how you're perceiving this situation, I think Peterson's point would be valid.
The death penalty doesn't do anyone any good. So you kill the person...so what? Is the world any better now? No. His example of Carl Panzram proves the exact opposite point he was trying to make. Panzram didn't deserve death. He deserved to be uplifted out of his misery. His intention to destroy all creation was born out of his suffering. I wouldn't expect anything different given his experience. He was redeemable. Most people are, and the group of people who aren't will shrink as neurological/psychological knowledge expands.
The man whom you're speaking of being redeemable even disagreed with you on that one, he wanted to die.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Well said.
There is no just vengeance. It may be true that there are things so vile they must be ended/stopped, but if you feel any sort of vengeful emotion or if it satisfies you to harm or end what has hurt you, you are participating on the same plane of those whom you judge.
Gabriel Priddy not really; killers prey on the innocent. Wanted to kill someone who has done so is a natural, normal yet unpleasant feeling.
No I'm sorry, I have never bought, and never will buy into this argument: kill a killer and you're just as bad as he is. No, you're not. If you kill someone, who is a truly malevolent killer, a violent career criminal whose life includes multiple lesser, yet still violent crimes, you're NOT just as bad as he is because you killed him. Are you out there preying on the innocent? Do you kill people for the sheer, sadistic pleasure, or because you are such an innately violent person that you can't control your angry, destructive impulses, or because you simply don't care about anyone's life but your own, in the way a sociopath does? No? Then you are NOT just as bad. Intent matters, we recognize this in both law and morality.
Mygary I hope I am never in that circumstance, but I have thought about it thoroughly. I would hope I could be elevated enough above the situation to remain true to my ethical beliefs even in the worst circumstance. I am not saying I am a good person...but if I could strive towards something it would be to be true to what I hope is real goodness. Christ forgave his murderers in the moments of his murder. Thats the moral standard. Im sure I would fall short too...but I would not advocate for anything less. JP explains the root cause of suffering in his example of the murderer here...yet goes on to ignore the cause as if it never occured. I believe in causality and if causality is true, there is no (human) justice.
Darren O'Connor I agree that it is not the same...but JP mentioned the emotions one would feel and that is what Im talking about. Perhaps as law or perhaps as necessity the state must end people who harm others. But...there is no moral high ground in being satisfied or glad of the fact. Emotion is a relative experience and justice...if it is even possible should be completely objective.
Naomi Fehr Retribution is the cause of most human evil. Retribution assumes a moral high ground of superiority while designating the recipients of said retribution as lesser. "The enemy burned my village...I shall burn three of theirs". Its an endless cycle if violence. The cycle only ends with transcendent nonviolence. Christ. Ghandi. Etc.
I also think that no matter what the crime, if criminals seek forgiveness and actively try to change and evolve their minds, their sentences should gradually decrease and their privileges within jailgrounds should increase.
There are far too many people in jail wrongly. Selling and buying drugs is not a valid reason to put someone in jail imo because they have a right to choose what to put in their body as long as they don't harm anyone else.... these males are the vast majority of prisoners and they are often unjustly abused by the system and even RAPED. They deserve compassion.
Death is the end not a penalty. Killing is an emotional reaction not a consequence of judgement. America it's 2017/8 europe is 20 years ahead on this :D
I don't see how that's true. Some would rather spend the rest of their life in jail if that meant avoiding death.
Your insistence that they must be 'judged' and suffer in prison is an emotional reaction in itself.
The purpose of the death penalty is not mere 'judgement', it's for saving more lives and improving the quality of life all round. It does act as a deterrent, and solves the problem effectively, as is evident by the fact that the crime rate shot up in direct correlation with its abolition and the general liberalisation of law.
Only as states have gradually reintroduced these laws - following in the footsteps of Rudy Giuliani after he successfully dropped the New York crime rate astronomically by getting hard on criminals - has the crime rate began to steadily decrease.
So basically, we see where Peterson comes down on the issue of "is it worse to let the guilty go free or to punish the innocent".
Punish the innocent, no doubt in my mind.
were actually reversing to barbarism
The word you're looking for is reverting
Then what's that beeping sound?
Funnily enough, reversing is still apt.
In America some States have the death penalty and the others don’t. The murder rate in States that have the death penalty is ‘higher’ than in States that don’t. So much for deterrence.
Before watching I bet for.
aww I was wrong.
He just argued that a rapist should be put to death to satisfy the victims longing for revenge? Wtf.
What? U completly missed his point. And i have no problem with explaining it to you but i think u will get it by simply listening to it again.
WTF is right. Our emotions should not decide punishments.
One of our fundamental European rights is the following: "Human dignity is inviolable."
IS INVIOLABLE. No death penalty. Period.
Inviolable, unless your the criminal, in which you get to violate other people. Very flawed logic you have.
People who rape indiscriminately, torture and even get money for that should be put to death immediately. I know Europe is a complete nest of sexual treats
As a European, I'm ashamed of that kind of "logic". Criminals should be put down.
i dont understand how anyone can think putting an end to the misery of unending incarceration (by execution) could possibly be worse than the unending incarceration itself.
Hey I finally disagree with Dr Peterson about something
Spanish Moustache totally agree with you . But it sounds like Dr Peterson is in support of capital punishment no?
"A loy of the time in the USA you haven't. There were a lot of times where the state killed the wrong guy"
Incorrect. In the past century, there is not one truly verifiable case of someone being wrongly executed in the US. Not one.
The last time lefties claimed to have examples of executed men later "proved innocent," attorneys Stephen Markman and Paul Cassell reviewed the cases and found that "proof of innocence" included the word of the executed murderer; any confession by another murderer, no matter how preposterous the claim, and defense counsel's bald allegations in opening statements supported by no evidence at trial.
If there are any truly wrongly executed, it is a very negligible amount, and well worth the trade off for the lives it saves and the better quality of life for people at large.
Me too. I dont think its the states responsibility to take the life of someone that you are angry at.
Dosent want to give the state that much power but the state/government has the power to drop bombs and air strikes for oil 😑
I disagree with the death penalty as a moral issue and as an issue of the state having too much power. The death penalty is disgusting in my opinion as a tool of control and cruelty. Fundamentally a system derived of hatred, it can be argued Justice but I find it to be hateful and I disagree with several aspects of Justice as well so probably I'm speaking from a different perspective than most people.
The DP is a cruel? Seriously? People don't get the DP for jaywalking, it's because THEY were cruel to someone else and took their life. Take serial killers- when they get the DP, they go out a whole lot easier than the way the way they took someone else's life.
Thou Shall NOT kill !
12. th-cam.com/video/TDLMUvIkKPQ4/w-d-xo.html5
We just gave the state the right to apportion gay marriage. Some people can't fathom the difference between rejecting state power and the 'rights' of preference groups
Mugen have you been living under a rock? Work quotas, affirmative action, equality, diversity, fair work practices, anti-hate speech, social media speech violations??
Mugen It simply isn’t like that at all. The govt should take a neutral stance on marriage and the public ought not to be engaged in a popularity contest over private consensual relations. That said, it is regulated by the govt and LGBTQ activists are strident communists. Gay rights, like women’s rights, is the harbinger for anti-hierarchical social dysgenics. You think it stops at gay rights?
Mugen Not abolish, revoke marriage act
"In what way is gay marriage ever going to be used against you?"
i.magaimg.net/img/1m72.jpg
pbs.twimg.com/media/DGcgHWhU0AUHmVp.jpg:large
twitter.com/Lauren_Southern/status/895313443699310595
i.imgur.com/mx1aIiS.jpg
"LGBTQ activists are strident communists"
As was the 'father of gay the rights movement' Harry Gay, a Communist leader who was in to weird occult stuff and openly endorsed NAMBLA, like most pioneers of the 'gay rights' movement.
If your not going to give the power to the state, who are you gonna give it to? You can't give to the victim's family, they are more likely to make a false accusation.
I don’t think it should be given to anyone in the first place.
I don't agree with the idea of someone *deserving* death on any level. Sounds completely disgusting to me. Nobody deserves to die or suffer, and if it becomes necessary, that's nothing but a tragedy. But if we have the ability to remove someone from society without killing them or torturing them, that's always preferable.
so...what? you lock them up? people deserving of the death penalty get put into solitary confinement and to humans, that's basically psychological torture. And whats the point of locking up someone like that? they're never going to "get better" or change their ways. And the crimes some people have committed, idk how you can say they deserve anything but death
Not even the greatest psychologists, therapists and rehabilitators would be able to help the criminal described in the video. I hate to make the analogy but that man was long gone and thing you can do to a feral animal is force it behind bars or put it down.
So if i killed your family, friends and showed no remorse while laughing afterwards i shouldn't get the death penalty?
I think the death penalty should definetely be legal if we are talking about serial killers, mass murderers and terrorists
you seem like a very sensitive and emotional person that doesn't look at things from a very perspective way, only get on the personal sight of things